UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20436 Before the Honorable Theodore R.

Essex Administrative Law Judge In the Matter of CERTAIN SEMICONDUCTOR CHIPS AND PRODUCTS CONTAINING SAME Investigation No. 337-TA-753

RESPONDENTS OPPOSITION TO RAMBUSS MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO RESPONDENTS MOTION TO TERMINATE WITH RESPECT TO DALLY PATENT CLAIMS BECAUSE RAMBUS DOES NOT POSSESS ANY RIGHTS IN THOSE PATENTS (Motion 753-046)

03990.51797/4254471.4

Respondents filed their motion to terminate the Investigation as to the asserted Dally patents 1 due to Rambuss lack of standing on July 12. To limit any further prejudice from defending against claims Rambus has no right to assert, Respondents requested an expedited briefing schedule, with any response due on July 18. Rather than respond to the merits of Respondents motion on that date, however, Rambus sought to extend the response time to the motion from 10 to 17 days. Rambuss motion should be denied. Extending Rambuss time to respond is inappropriate given the nature of the determination that Respondents have asked the ALJ to make namely, that as a threshold matter Rambus lacks legal standing to assert the Dally patents. Absent standing, Rambus cannot maintain its claims as to those patents and they must be terminated. Any delay in resolving this matter prejudices Respondents by forcing continued defense against assertions that Rambus has no legal right to make. Moreover, Rambuss arguments for extending its time to respond which are primarily predicated on Respondents failure to disregard the protective order by sharing the confidential information of third parties do not justify the requested extension. To expedite resolution of Respondents motion, Respondents respectfully request that Rambus be made to respond on the original response date, July 22, and that shortly thereafter a hearing be held in which Respondents are given the opportunity to present oral argument. ARGUMENT I. Respondents Motion to Terminate Should Be Ruled On Immediately to Prevent Further Prejudice to Respondents

Respondents motion challenging Rambuss standing should be resolved at the earliest opportunity. Indeed, standing is a threshold jurisdictional issue that must be satisfied before proceeding to the merits of the case. Fieldturf Inc. v. Sw. Rec. Indus., Inc., 357 F.3d 1266, 1268
U.S. Patent Nos. 7,602,857, 7,715,494 and 7,602,858. Just this week, Rambus announced that it would be moving to terminate the Investigation as to the 858 patent.
03990.51797/4254471.4
1

(Fed. Cir. 2004). Any extension to the briefing schedule will serve only to delay resolution of this critical matter, and cause the Investigation to proceed further into the merits of Rambuss assertions of the Dally patents. There can be no denying that a delayed resolution of the standing dispute operates to prejudice Respondents. Until the motion is resolved, Respondents are left with no alternative but to continue developing their defenses against the Dally patents as if they were properly asserted (which they are not). Defending against improper allegations substantially disadvantages

Respondents by, among other things, diverting resources that could be used to develop defenses against other asserted patents. The prejudice to Respondents is substantial because the Investigation is in the midst of the expert report and discovery phase. Just yesterday, the parties exchanged their opening expert reports. Notwithstanding Rambuss lack of standing, Respondents served two expert reports regarding invalidity of the Dally patents which together addressed more than 20 prior art references in depth over 200-plus pages2, two reports regarding the delay in prosecution of the Dally patents 3 , and a report regarding the public availability of certain prior art references asserted against the Dally patents4. Rambus served a 130-page infringement report for the Dally patents in which it asserted more than 40 claims against Respondents.5 Unless the motion to terminate is resolved soon, Respondents will have to prepare and serve a non-infringement rebuttal report for the Dally patents on August 2, less than two weeks from now. Respondents will then have to take and defend depositions of each expert who opined
Expert Reports of Marwan Hasoun, Ph.D.; Expert report of Dr. Ali Hajimiri regarding invalidity of Dally patents. 3 Expert Report of James T. Carmichael; Expert Report Concerning the Delay in the Prosecution of the Patents-at-Issue in the In Re Certain Semiconducor Chips and Products Containing Same Litigation (R. Polk Wagner). 4 Expert Report of Dr. Robert Ellett Regarding Public Availability of Certain References. 5 Expert Report of Andrew C. Singer, Ph.D.
03990.51797/4254471.4
2

on issues pertaining to the Dally patents Singer, Hasoun, Hajimiri, Carmichael, Wagner, and Ellett while also preparing, among other things, witness statements and exhibit lists for the hearing in October. Until Rambuss defective standing is addressed, Respondents will continue to be severely prejudiced by continuing to defend against improperly asserted patents. This not only wastes Respondents time and money, but also burdens the ALJ with adjudicating issues that should not be before it. This is sufficient grounds to deny Rambuss motion and to rule on Respondents motion to terminate at the earliest opportunity. II. Rambuss Motion for Extension Should be Denied Because Rambus Has Not Shown Good Cause 1. Respondents Could Not Share Third Party Confidential Information and Rambus and MIT are Not Entitled to View Such Information

Rambuss main argument for an extension is that additional time is needed to respond because Rambus and MIT have been unable to review confidential information of third parties. (See Motion to Extend, at 1.) In other words, because Respondents provided unredated copies of the motion and exhibits to outside counsel but not complainant Rambus and non-party MIT Rambus should be allowed more time to oppose Respondents motion. This argument, which would penalize Respondents for not sharing information they had no right to share, must fail. The notion that Respondents designated their motion and exhibits strategically to prevent[] Rambuss counsel from showing these documents to both Rambus and MIT is disingenuous at best. (Motion to Extend, at 1.) Respondents were legally obligated under the protective order to designate the motion in this manner. 6 Most of the exhibits cited in the supporting memorandum (10 of 20) are designated as containing confidential information by

Under the protective under in this Investigation, documents designated as containing CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION(CBI) may be disclosed only to outside counsel.
03990.51797/4254471.4

Rambus or MIT; the remainder either contain third party confidential business information (4 of 20) 7 , or are not confidential and thus not designated (6 of 20). The motion too had to be designated because it cites to, and quotes, these exhibits. Respondents surely cannot be faulted for merely complying with the protective order. Well aware that the motion and exhibits contain confidential information of third parties UNC and Professor William Dally 8 , Rambuss counsel nevertheless demanded Respondents authorization to share the motion and all exhibits in fully unredacted form. (See,e.g., Motion to Extend, Exhibit 1.) This request, however, ignored that Respondents are not at liberty to share confidential information of third parties. Indeed, because CBI can only be disclosed to outside counsel, Rambuss request was tantamount to asking Respondents to violate the protective order. In its haste to blame Respondents, Rambus completely disregards its failure to seek permission to share the third party confidential information from those third parties. Apart from two emails to Respondents, Rambuss counsel apparently made no other efforts to facilitate the disclosure of the third party confidential information to Rambus and MIT.9 (See id., Exhibits 1 and 2.) At any time, Rambuss counsel could have reached out to UNC (or any other third party) for permission. However, it chose not to. Rambuss failure to seek permission from the proper

For example, Exhibit 1, the MIT-UNC Subcontract, includes the confidential information of both MIT and UNC. Although MIT may be willing to share its confidential information with Rambus, the same may not be true of UNC. Similarly, Exhibits 15 and 16 (excerpts from the June 23 and 24 depositions of Professor Dally) contain Professor Dallys confidential information. To protect against the disclosure, all three exhibits are designated as containing CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION and thus under the protective order can only be shared with outside counsel in unredacted form. 8 Professor Dally is the named inventor on each of the Dally patents. Although he is a former MIT professor and Rambus employee, he has been represented by his own counsel in this Investigation. Exhibit 17 to Respondents motion to terminate is a letter produced by Dally bearing the bates number DALLY003834-35 containing his CBI. 9 Respondents prepared two redacted versions of the brief for Rambuss counsel one redacted of all third party confidential information for sharing with Rambus, the other redacted of all third party information but that of MIT for sharing with MIT. (Opposition Exhibit A.) Both versions were sent to Rambuss counsel on July 18. (Id.)
03990.51797/4254471.4

source should not now be used as justification for additional time to respond to the merits of Respondents motion. That Rambus and non-party MIT may have an interest in responding to the motion does nothing to negate Respondents obligation to maintain the confidentiality of documents produced in the litigation. (Motion to Extend, at 3.) A party opposing a motion virtually always has an interest in responding. That interest, however, should not and indeed cannot trump the operative protective order. Litigants, as well as third parties, are entitled to rely on the

protections to their confidential information afforded by protective orders. These protections should not become illusory whenever an opposing party, or non-party like MIT, may have its own interest in viewing protected information. 2. Redactions to the License Agreement Between Respondents and UNC are Not Relevant to the Standing Dispute and Do Not Justify an Extension

Rambus claims that it needs more time to respond to the merits of Respondents motion because the Supplier Respondents license with UNC is redacted. (Motion to Extend, at 2.) This is a non sequitur. Like Rambuss substantial redactions of the Freescale license agreement, there is nothing improper about Respondents redactions. (Opposition Exhibit B.) Respondents redacted confidential information such as payment provisions that is not relevant to the parties dispute, protected from disclosure by common interest privilege, or both. (Id.; Motion to Extend, Exhibit 4.) comparison. In any event, the terms of a license executed in 2011 as well as any documents reflecting negotiations leading to that license do nothing to alter Rambuss lack of standing when it initiated this Investigation in 2010. The UNC-MIT subcontract, not the license between Respondents and UNC, deprives Rambus of standing.
03990.51797/4254471.4

In fact, if anything, Respondents redactions are more measured by

(See Motion to Terminate.)

That

subcontract, executed almost 15 years ago, has been produced to both Respondents and Rambus by UNC, and has been provided in fully unredacted form as an exhibit to Respondents motion to terminate. (Id., Exhibit 1.) CONCLUSION For all the reasons provided above, Respondents respectfully request that Rambuss motion for extension of time be denied in its entirety, that Rambus be ordered to respond by July 25, and that a hearing be held on Respondents motion to terminate.

03990.51797/4254471.4

July 21, 2011

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Thomas D. Pease Marcia H. Sundeen KENYON & KENYON, LLP 1500 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20005-1257 Telephone: (202) 220-4292 Charles K. Verhoeven Sean Pak Gillian Thackray QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP 50 California St., 22nd Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 875-6600 Thomas D. Pease QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP 51 Madison Ave., 22nd Floor New York, New York 10010 Telephone: (212) 849-7000 Robert J. Becher QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 Counsel for Respondents Broadcom Corporation; Cisco Systems, Inc.; NVidia Corporation; STMicroelectronics N.V.; ST Microelectronics, Inc.

/s/ Evette D. Pennypacker Evette D. Pennypacker QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
03990.51797/4254471.4

Redwood Shores, California 94065 Telephone: (650) 801-5000 Charles K. Verhoeven Sean Pak Gillian Thackray QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP 50 California St., 22nd Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 875-6600 Thomas D. Pease QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP 51 Madison Ave., 22nd Floor New York, New York 10010 Telephone: (212) 849-7000 Counsel for Respondent Motorola Mobility, Inc.

/s/ Jonathan D. Link Jonathan D. Link KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP Suite 900 607 14th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005-2018 Telephone: (202) 481-9990 Counsel for Respondent LSI Corporation

03990.51797/4254471.4

Certain Semiconductor Chips and Products Containing Same

337-TA-753

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing RESPONDENTS OPPOSITION TO RAMBUSS MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO RESPONDENTS MOTION TO TERMINATE WITH RESPECT TO DALLY PATENT CLAIMS BECAUSE RAMBUS DOES NOT POSSESS ANY RIGHTS IN THOSE PATENTS (MOTION 753-046) were served upon the following parties as indicated on this 21st day of July, 2011.
James R. Holbein, Secretary U.S. International Trade Commission 500 E Street, S.W., Room 112 Washington, D.C. 20436 Via Hand Delivery Via Overnight Federal Express Delivery Via First Class Mail Via Facsimile Via Electronic Service

Honorable Theodore R. Essex (2 copies) U.S. International Trade Commission 500 E Street, S.W., Room 317 Washington, D.C. 20436 Email: gregory.moldafsky@usitc.gov

Via Hand Delivery Via Overnight Federal Express Delivery Via First Class Mail Via Facsimile Via Electronic Mail

Daniel L. Girdwood Office of Unfair Import Investigations U.S. International Trade Commission 500 E Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20436 Email: daniel.girdwood@usitc.gov

Via Hand Delivery Via Overnight Federal Express Delivery Via First Class Mail Via Facsimile Via Electronic Mail

Counsel for Complainant Rambus Inc.

Christine Lehman Finnegan Henderson 901 New York Ave., NW Washington, DC 20001 Email: ITC753-Service@finnegan.com Via Hand Delivery Via Overnight Federal Express Delivery Via First Class Mail Via Facsimile Via Electronic Mail

Counsel for Respondent Garmin International Inc.

Louis S. Mastriani Adduci, Mastriani & Schaumberg, LLP 1200 Seventeenth St, NW 5th Floor Washington, DC 20036 Email: mastriani@adduci.com Via Hand Delivery Via Overnight Federal Express Delivery Via First Class Mail Via Facsimile Via Electronic Mail

Certain Semiconductor Chips and Products Containing Same

Counsel for Respondent LSI Corporation, and Seagate Technology
Jonathan D. Link Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Suite 900 607 14th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005-2018 Email: lsirambusitc@kilpatricktownsend.com Email: fm-lsi@fostermurphy.com

337-TA-753

Via Hand Delivery Via Overnight Federal Express Delivery Via First Class Mail Via Facsimile Via Electronic Mail

Counsel for Respondents STMicroelectronics N.V. and STMicroelectronics, Inc.

Eric Rusnak K&L Gates LLP 1601 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1600 Email: STMicro_ITC753@klgates.com Via Hand Delivery Via Overnight Federal Express Delivery Via First Class Mail Via Facsimile Via Electronic Mail

Counsel for Respondents NVIDIA Corporation; ASUSTek Computer, Inc.; Asus Computer International, Inc.; Biostar Microtech (U.S.A.) Corporation; Biostar Microtech International Corporation; EliteGroup Computer Systems Co., Ltd.; EVGA Corporation; Galaxy Microsystems, Ltd.; GigaByte Technology Co., Ltd; G.B.T., Inc.; Hewlett-Packard Company; Jaton Corporation; Jaton Technology TPE; MicroStar International Co., Ltd.; MSI Computer Corporation; Gracom Technologies LLC; Palit Microsystems, Ltd.; Pine Technology Holdings, Ltd.; Sparkle Computer Co., Ltd.; Zotac USA, Inc.; Zotac International (MCO), Ltd.
Andrew R. Kopsidas Fish & Richardson P.C. 1425 K Street NW, 11th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Email: 337-753Fish@fr.com Via Hand Delivery Via Overnight Federal Express Delivery Via First Class Mail Via Facsimile Via Electronic Mail

Counsel for Respondent Nvidia Corporation

I. Neel Chatterjee Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP 1000 Marsh Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 Email: orrick753-service@orrick.com Via Hand Delivery Via Overnight Federal Express Delivery Via First Class Mail Via Facsimile Via Electronic Mail

Counsel for Respondent Hitachi Global Storage Technologies

Alexander J. Hadjis Morrison & Foerster LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20006 Email: mofo753-service@mofo.com Via Hand Delivery Via Overnight Federal Express Delivery Via First Class Mail Via Facsimile Via Electronic Mail

Certain Semiconductor Chips and Products Containing Same

Counsel for Respondent Garmin International Inc.
Louis S. Mastriani Adduci, Mastriani & Schaumberg, LLP 1200 Seventeenth St, NW 5th Floor Washington, DC 20036 Email: GAR-3@adduci.com

337-TA-753

Via Hand Delivery Via Overnight Federal Express Delivery Via First Class Mail Via Facsimile Via Electronic Mail

/s/ Peter Benson

Peter Benson Legal Assistant

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT B

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Gillian Thackray Tuesday, July 19, 2011 12:25 AM 'Hulse, Tina'; 'FSL753@jonesday.com'; '337-753Kenyon@Kenyon.com'; Quinn-ITC-753; 's&Jmotorola753@steptoe.com'; 'perkins-753-dist@perkinscoie.com'; 'LSIRambusITC@kilpatricktownsend.com'; 'fm-lsi@fostermurphy.com'; '337-753fish@fr.com'; 'orrick753-service@orrick.com'; 'STMicro_ITC753@klgates.com'; 'mofo753-service@mofo.com'; 'GAR-3@adduci.com' 'Daniel.Girdwood@usitc.gov'; 'ITC753-Service' RE: Inv. No. 337-TA-753: Motion to Terminate

Tina, AttheDCM,westatedthatrespondentshadproducedallrelevant,nonprivilegeddocumentsregardingUNC.Thereare portionsofthelicenseagreementthatareprivileged,andthereareportionsthataresimplynotrelevanttoanyissuein thisinvestigation.ThebasisforassertionofprivilegeisacommoninterestprivilegebetweenUNCandthesupplierswho arepartytothelicense. Leavingasidethatyouremailpresumescertaintypesofdocumentsexist,wedonotbelieveanysuchcorrespondenceor recentlycreateddocumentsarerelevanttotheissuesinthisinvestigation,namelythevalidityandinfringementofthe patents,norrelevanttoRambus'lackofstandingtoeveninitiatethelitigation.Itsimplyisnotpossibleforanything thatoccurredafterDecember1,2010tochangewhetherRambushadstandingtoinitiateaComplaintasofDecember1,2010. Finally,andalongsimilarlines,wedonotunderstandhowRambushasbeen"prejudiced."EitherRambushasavalidlicense tothepatentsoritdoesnot.Nothingrespondentshavedonehasalteredoraffectedthefactswithregardtothat,and respondentsarenotwithholdinganydocumentsrelevanttothatdetermination. IfyouhavesomearticulationoftherelevancethatIhavemissed,pleaseletmeknow. Regards,Gillian GillianThackray Partner, QuinnEmanuelUrquhart&Sullivan,LLP 50CaliforniaStreet,22ndFloor SanFrancisco,CA94111 4158756338Direct 415.875.6600MainOfficeNumber 415.875.6700FAX gillianthackray@quinnemanuel.com www.quinnemanuel.com
1

 OriginalMessage From:Hulse,Tina[mailto:Tina.Hulse@finnegan.com] Sent:Monday,July18,20116:31PM To:GillianThackray;'FSL753@jonesday.com';'337753Kenyon@Kenyon.com';QuinnITC753;'s&Jmotorola753@steptoe.com'; 'perkins753dist@perkinscoie.com';'LSIRambusITC@kilpatricktownsend.com';'fmlsi@fostermurphy.com';'337753fish@fr.com'; 'orrick753service@orrick.com';'STMicro_ITC753@klgates.com';'mofo753service@mofo.com';'GAR3@adduci.com' Cc:'Daniel.Girdwood@usitc.gov';ITC753Service Subject:RE:Inv.No.337TA753:MotiontoTerminate Gillian: DuringtheDCM,werequestedthatRespondentsexplaininwritingthebasisfortheirassertionofprivilegeoverthe extensiveredactionsintheUNCagreementandwithholdingtheassociatedcorrespondenceanddrafts.Respondentsdelayin respondinghasprejudicedRambussabilitytorespondtothemotiontoterminate.PleaseletusknowRespondentsposition. Ifwedonotgetasatisfactoryresponse,wewillseekjudicialintervention. Regards, Tina ________________________________________ From:GillianThackray[gillianthackray@quinnemanuel.com] Sent:Thursday,July14,201111:33AM To:Hulse,Tina;'FSL753@jonesday.com';'337753Kenyon@Kenyon.com';QuinnITC753;'s&Jmotorola753@steptoe.com';'perkins 753dist@perkinscoie.com';'LSIRambusITC@kilpatricktownsend.com';'fmlsi@fostermurphy.com';'337753fish@fr.com'; 'orrick753service@orrick.com';'STMicro_ITC753@klgates.com';'mofo753service@mofo.com';'GAR3@adduci.com' Cc:'Daniel.Girdwood@usitc.gov';ITC753Service Subject:RE:Inv.No.337TA753:MotiontoTerminate HiTina RespondentsBroadcom,NVIDIA,ST,CiscoandMotoopposetheextension.Iamstillcheckingonyourotherrequest. Regards,Gillian GillianThackray Partner, QuinnEmanuelUrquhart&Sullivan,LLP 50CaliforniaStreet,22ndFloor SanFrancisco,CA94111 4158756338Direct 415.875.6600MainOfficeNumber 415.875.6700FAX
2

gillianthackray@quinnemanuel.com www.quinnemanuel.com<http://www.quinnemanuel.com> From:Hulse,Tina[mailto:Tina.Hulse@finnegan.com] Sent:Thursday,July14,20119:23AM To:'FSL753@jonesday.com';'337753Kenyon@Kenyon.com';QuinnITC753;'s&Jmotorola753@steptoe.com';'perkins753 dist@perkinscoie.com';'LSIRambusITC@kilpatricktownsend.com';'fmlsi@fostermurphy.com';'337753fish@fr.com';'orrick753 service@orrick.com';'STMicro_ITC753@klgates.com';'mofo753service@mofo.com';'GAR3@adduci.com' Cc:'Daniel.Girdwood@usitc.gov';ITC753Service Subject:RE:Inv.No.337TA753:MotiontoTerminate Counsel: IwritetofollowuponmyemailbelowregardingwhetherwecanshowRambusandMITRespondentsMotiontoTerminate, includingtheaccompanyingexhibits,andtheagreementandlicensewithUNC.Ialsowritetofollowuponmyprioremail (attached)askingforanunredactedversionofthatagreementandlicense.Pleaseletusknowimmediately. Further,RambusintendstofileamotionforaoneweekextensionoftimetorespondtoRespondentsMotiontoTerminate. PursuanttoGroundRule3.2,pleaseletusknowwhetherRespondentswillopposeRambussmotion. Regards, Tina From:Hulse,Tina Sent:Tuesday,July12,20115:48PM To:'FSL753@jonesday.com';'337753Kenyon@Kenyon.com';'QuinnITC753@quinnemanuel.com';'s&Jmotorola753@steptoe.com'; 'perkins753dist@perkinscoie.com';'LSIRambusITC@kilpatricktownsend.com';'fmlsi@fostermurphy.com';'337753fish@fr.com'; 'orrick753service@orrick.com';'STMicro_ITC753@klgates.com';'mofo753service@mofo.com';'GAR3@adduci.com' Cc:'Daniel.Girdwood@usitc.gov';ITC753Service Subject:Inv.No.337TA753:MotiontoTerminate Counsel: PleaseconfirmthatwemayshowRambusandMITRespondentsmotiontoterminatefiledtoday,includingalloftheexhibits. PleasealsoconfirmthatwemayshowRambusandMITtheattachedAgreementandLicense(JNT0030908923). Regards, Tina TinaE.Hulse,M.D. AttorneyatLaw Finnegan,Henderson,Farabow,Garrett&Dunner,LLP3300HillviewAvenue,PaloAlto,CA943041203
3

650.849.6665|fax650.849.6666|tina.hulse@finnegan.com<mailto:Tina.Hulse@finnegan.com>| www.finnegan.com<http://www.finnegan.com/> Thisemailmessageisintendedonlyforindividual(s)towhomitisaddressedandmaycontaininformationthatis privileged,confidential,proprietary,orotherwiseexemptfromdisclosureunderapplicablelaw.Ifyoubelieveyouhave receivedthismessageinerror,pleaseadvisethesenderbyreturnemailanddeleteitfromyourmailbox.Thankyou. Thisemailmessageisintendedonlyforindividual(s)towhomitisaddressedandmaycontaininformationthatis privileged,confidential,proprietary,orotherwiseexemptfromdisclosureunderapplicablelaw.Ifyoubelieveyouhave receivedthismessageinerror,pleaseadvisethesenderbyreturnemailanddeleteitfromyourmailbox.Thankyou.