Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv—00876-G|\/IS Document 330-2 Filed 04/12/2007 Page 1 of 3
Barr, Robexf CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY May 27, 2006
Redwood Shores, CA
Faqe 1
im THE UNITED STATES Ezseaicw cooai Q
Eoa THE oieTE1c@ OF DELAWARE E
-oOo— i
TELCORDIA TECHNOLOGIES, imc.,} g
>
Plaintiff, ) §
3 é
ve. ) Caee No. 04-876-GMS i
>
cfsco ayswams, J E
Defendant. ) E
cowezoemwiar aTToRNEEs· EYES O¥LY i
Deposition of ROBERT BARR, taken on behalf Q
of Plaintiff, at the 201 Redwood Shores Parkway, i
Redwood Shores, California, commencing at §
10:04 a.m., Saturday, May 27, 2006, before Richard §
M. Raker, CSR No. 3445. g
Henderson Legal Servicee
(202) 220~4l58
3T9ab504-ac1a-4c54-b99c-1484088e8b01

Case 1 :04-cv—OO876-GIVIS Document 330-2 Filed O4/12/2007 Page 2 0f 3
Barr , Robert CONFI DENTIAL ·— ATTORNEYS ' EYES ONLY May .2 7 , 2 O O 6
Redwood Shores, CA
Qage l26§ Page 128
3 representation, y0u'c% bcttcr check it ou;. 01:58PM g 1 in due course. 02:0lPM
2 TI-EE WITNESS: Tnafs whai it says cm 01:58PEx/{ 2 Q. What, éfemylhing, did y0u de when you 02:0lPM
3 page 5. Yes. 0}:5SPM ( 3 received a copy ofthis éccumcnt? (}2:O1PM
Q MR. REINES: Onc at 2. (ima, please. OE :581%/E g 51 A. I <%Gn't1‘cca§l spcciiicaliy. I read O2:GlPM
5 BY MR. PRICE: 01:58PM 5 it. Lct’s see. I may have -- somciimc alle? this, 02:0iPM
6 Q. Eighteen months from Octobc? Of 1998 O} :58?I\/1; 6 I believe wc engaged outside counsci. I d0n't lmcw 02:02Pzi
7 would be sometime in early 2000; is that correct? 0}:591-’I\/{ 7 exactly when. 02:02PM
8 A. Thafs correct'? Ol :59PM 8 Q. Why {iid you de that'? 02:02PM
9 Q. Exhibit Barr OE9, which is the -— what 01:59PM 9 A. Oh, this was -- Hrst time thcrc was 02:02PM
EO y0u've characterized as the mistake letter from 01 :59PM 10 a —— there is marc patents involved and El Specific 02:02PM
12 Mr. Kuvaiick, says that Tclceréiu imcnds to 01:59PM l l allegation cf infringement, so I probably engagcé {)2:G2P1
12 enforce iis patent portfolio agaiml any and ai] OE :59PM 1 Z2 outside counsel. 02:02PM
13 infringcrs now cr upon the conclusion of {hc above Oi :59PE)§#I13 Q. And who was that'? 02:02PNi
14 Eiiigatiun, closed quote. Rcicrring to litigation 01:59PM 14 A. Baker Betts. 02:02PM
15 that was commenced in Octobczc 1998. Gl :59PM 15 Q. And did Baker Botts prepare 21 written (}2:O2PM
l 6 En your experience, how img does Ei Ol :59`PÂ¥\/E 1 6 opinion 0f infringement, vaiidity, andfcr 02:92PM
17 patent case typically take to get 10 triai and 01:59i*M E7 enforceability rciating ¥.0 any 0f these patents? ()2:G2PM
1 B through appeal? 01:59PM ( ZL 8 MR. REINES: Give me that question 02:03PM
1. 9 MR. REINES; You mcan si€ting here now 01:59PNg 19 back. €>2:U3P)\/{
2G as the head ofthe Bcrkcicy Ccntcr for Law & Ol ;59Pl\/E; 20 ('1`hc rcccrd was read back as fcilcwsz 02:03PM
2 E Technology cr at that time or -- Ol :59?M 2 1 "Q. And did Baker Botis prcpayc 2 02:02PM
22 BY MR. PRICE: 01:59PM 22 wriuen opinion 0f infringement, 02:02E*M
Rage I2'? Page 129
1 Q. At that Lime. 01:59PM i 1 validity, and/cr cnibrccabiliiy 02:02PM
2 A. Anything from a year tc ten years. 01:59PM 2 relating tc any cfthcsc patents?") 02:03PM
3 MR. PRICE: Lefs mark the ncxt 02:0OPM § 3 MR. `REENES: Tm going tc 0b§cc-t cn O2:<}3PM
4 dccumcm as Exhibit Barr G2! for idcmiticatéem. 02:0OPM ( 4 vagucncss and things. Ifthc qucsticxfs whether -— 02:(}3PM
5 (Exhibiz Ban- 02E was marked for U2:GOPM { 5 Fil gcrmit a question 0n whether they received 02:03 PM
6 idemiiiczzticn by thc reporter.) O2:O0PM 6 lcgai advice, related to those questions, in 02:03PM
7 MR. PRICE: This is a document with 02:0OPM g 7 written form. 02:63PM
8 production numbcm 'FELCG256231 through —233.0l, 02:00PM i B I don't know what you mean by 02:03PM
9 inclusive ~· I'm sorry ·- point 001, inclusive. 02:0QPM i 9 "0pini0n," and { d0n't think ifs a lcadcé term. 02:03PM
1 0 Q. Can you identify shis dccumcm? 02:0UPM g 1 O And I think it invaécs thc psiviicgc. S0 I think 02:93PM
ll A. The Hm page is a tene: tc 02:01PM 1 1 you can gct what you wantjust by using {hc term 02:03PM
12 Mr. Schcinman 0:1 September 7, 200k, from 02:0lPM 1 2 "legal advicc." 02:03PM
13 Mr. Giordano. Ami thcm Léwrc are -- there is an G2:01?M 2 1 3 BY MR. PRICE: 02:03PM
14 attachment cfscverai pages. 02:0lPM Q 14 Q. Did Baker Betts provide legal advice, 02:03PM
1 5 Q. Have you seen zhis dccumcai bcfcrc? (}2:Oli°M 2 15 in Mr. Rcincs's term, when you ·— when Cisco 02:03PM
16 A. Yes, i have. (}2:G1?M ; l 6 engaged them afzcr receiving this letter? O2:U4?M
17 Q. Did you receive a copy ofit on or 02:01PM 17 A. Yes. 02:04PM
18 about thc time that ii was received by 02:01PM E 1 8 Q. Was thai advice in written {erm? G2:O4PM
19 Mr. Schcinman an Cisco? 02:0lPM _ 1 9 MR. REINES: {Us {inc. I1 is again 02:04PM
ZG A. Once again, Fm sure I scccivcd it. I G2;G1?M g 2 O vagucjust because! know thcrc were P0wcr§’0ints 02:04P
2 3. bciicvc I rcccivcd it cvcmually from 02:9EPM E 2 1 that were presented at meetings with thc oihcr 02:04PM
22 Nir. Schcinman. Pm sure 1 received it from somccnc 92:0EPM Q 22 side. S0 ii`)/Ou ccmsiécr it an electrcnic 02:(}4PM
33 (Pages 126 to 129)
Henderson Legal Services
(202) 220-4].58
3?9ab504·ac1a~4c54-b99c-1484088e8b0$

Case 1 :04-cv—OO876-GIVIS Document 330-2 Filed O4/12/2007 Page 3 of 3
Betty , Rcbbextt CONFI DENTIAL —— AT'I‘ORNEYS' EYES ONLY May 27 , 2 O O 6
Redwood Shores, CA
*2age 13G Page 132
E PowerPoint, you know, that kind of issue -— G2:O·¢i-PM g 1 anyone acting on Cisco's behalf respond to {}2;07PM
2 MR. PRICE: Sure. Fm not talking 02:04PM 2 Mr. Giordands September 7, 'Ul, letter between 02:07PM
3 about the other side now. l'm just taiking about O2:G4PM § 3 September 19th of 2601 and November 20th of Z002? 02:07PM §
4 advice to Cisco. @2:04PM i 4 A. Et says so -- it says here that "over 02:07PM
5 THE WITNESS: I'm Sure some of it was O2:()4Pl\/Ig 5 the next Few months, I had a number of G2:07PM
6 in written form. 02:04PM 6 conversations with your attorney when, in 02;0?l’M
7 MR. PRICE: Lets mark the next 02:04PM i 7 January 2002, he cailed ine to indicate that Cisco i}2:(}7§’lV(
8 document as Exhibit Barr 022 for identification. 02:04PM 8 and Telcordia were working on other business 02:07PM
9 (Exhibit Barr 022 was marked for 02:04PM 9 matters that may address the matter and he was not 02:07PM
1 0 identification by the reporter.) O2:()5PM 1 G permitted to pursue further discussions. 02:07PM
11 BY MR. PRICE: 02:05PM 3.1 "Since that time, we have not made any 02:07PM
12 Q. Does this reilect Ciseo's retention of (}2:O5PM 12 progress toward bringing our licensing discussions 02:07PM
13 Baker Bolts for the purpose that yon mentioned? O2:O5Ph;§ 13 to resolution." 02:07PM
14 A. Yes. O2:G5PM i E4 BY MR. PPJCE: 92:07PM
15 Q, And was Mr, Showalter the atzgmey at O2;{)5}'·’M i 15 Q. Do you kznow what the other business 02:07PM
1 6 Baker Botts who was principally responsible? 02:05PMi 1 6 matters reterred to in that paragraph were? {)2:07`}r‘M
17 A. The lead —~ yeah, the lead attorney 02:05PM g U A. {was aware that OSMENE was still @2:08PM
1 8 for us. U2:O5PM 18 ongoing, I believe, and discussions about 02:08PM
1 9 Q. The letter from Mr. Giordano to 02:05PM Q 19 partnering and testing and —— §et's see. Were in 02:03PM
20 Mr. Scheinmen was dated May 27'th ~~ I'rn sorry. I 02:05P O period 2002. There could have been other 02:08PM
21 misread -— Septemher 7, 2001; is that correct? 02105PM Til discussions of other business arrangements with 02:0SPM Zi
22 That's Exhibit Barr 021. 02:05PM 2 2 Teleordia. 02:08PM
Page 131 ?age 133
1 A. Thafs what it says. Yes. 02:05PM § 1 Q. By November 20th of`21)02, the 02:{}8.?M
2 Q. The letter from Mr. Showalter to ()2:{}5PM 2 memorandum of understanding had expired, had it 02:08PM
3 M:. Giordano is dated September E9, 200E, 02:05PM 3 not'? {12:08PM
4 twelve days later; is that correct? 02:06PM 4 A. Welt, thats correct. 02:08PM
5 A. 'i`hat's what it says. Yes. 02:06PM g 5 Q. And, in fact, on September 7, 2001, 02:09i*M
6 MR. PRICE: Let's mark the next 02:06PM 6 when Mr. Giordano wrote to Scheinman, the (}2:09PM
7 document as Exhibit Barr O23. 02:86PM E 7 memorandum of understanding had expired; is that l}2:O9PM
8 (Exhibit Barr 023 was marked for 02:06PM 8 correct. 02:09PM
9 identification by the reporter.) 02:96PM 5 9 A. When was that? ()2:09?M
10 BY MR. PRICE: 02:06PM lt) Q. September 12th ot"2(){)Â¥. {)2:(}9PM
11 Q. Have yon ever se-en this document 02:06PM 1 1 A. As we said earlier, it was clue to 02:09PM
12 before? O2:G6PM g 3.2 expire in 2000. Right? Yeah, sometime in ZGGO. 02:(39Pl\/E
13 A. Yes, l have. 02:06PM 13 MR. PRECE: The next document should 02:09PM
1 4 Q. Do you recognize this as a letter from 02:06PM 14 be marked as Exhibit Barr 024 for identification. (}2;09PM
15 Mr. Giordano to Mr. Scheinman dated November 20, {}2:06Pl\/i 15 (Exhibit Barr 024 was marked for 02:09PM
16 20022 ()2:G6PM g 16 identification by the reporter.) (}2:lOPM
17 A. Yes. 02:06PM g E7 BY MR, PRICE: {}2:l{)PM
18 Q. More than a year after Mr. Showalter 02:06PM i 18 Q. Can you identify this document? 02:H)?M
1 9 wrote to Mr. Giordano in response to Mr. Giordands U2:G6PM g 1 9 A. This is a printout of an e-mail which 02:10PM
2U letter of September 12, 2{}(}l? ()2:G6¥’M 2G states it is from Dave Sincoskie to Dan Scheinman {)2:l0PM
2 1 A. The calendar speaks for itself, sir. 02:07PM i 2 1 with severl persons copied. It has some 02:10PM
22 Q. And to your knowledge, did Cisco or 02:07PM 2 2 attachments. 02:10PM
% ‘EZ
Zia (Pages R30 to 233)
Hendexson Legal Services
(202) 220-4158
3?9ab5{J4-acta-4c54-b99c-1484{J88eBb¤i