Case 2:21-cv-00460-JRG Document 19-3 Filed 01/24/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 189

EXHIBIT 2
 Case 2:21-cv-00460-JRG Document 19-3 Filed 01/24/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 190
Harry L. “Gil” Gillam, Jr. Melissa Richards Smith
gil@gillamsmithlaw.com melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com

Tom Gorham Travis Underwood

tom@gillamsmithlaw.com travis@gillamsmithlaw.com

303 South Washington Avenue, Marshall, Texas 75670 P 903.934.8450 | F 903.934.9257

102 North College, Suite 800, Tyler, Texas 75702 www.gillamsmithlaw.com

January 24, 2022

Ted Stevenson
Ted.Stevenson@alston.com

Re: Apple Inc. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al., No. 2:21-cv-460-JRG, Apple’s Request for Early Case
Management Conference

Dear Ted:

I’m glad that Ericsson recognizes its mistake in taking the parties’ dispute to the Western District of Texas.

I have a hard time understanding your explanation, though. Ericsson had already sued Apple in the Eastern District of Texas
on October 4, 2021 as part of this dispute, and it alleged that “[v]enue is proper in this judicial district.” ECF 1 at ¶¶ 23, 25,
Ericsson Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 2:21-cv-376 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 4, 2021). And, even more important, after Ericsson had
previously told Chief Judge Gilstrap that his court was the right one to resolve cross-licensing disputes like this, Apple sued
Ericsson there on December 17, 2021, seeking declaratory judgments of non-infringement on Ericsson patents and a
decision on FRAND terms for Ericsson’s portfolio of declared-essential patents.

Given that Apple has a pending case before Chief Judge Gilstrap against Ericsson relating to Ericsson’s patent portfolio, it
seems pretty clear that Ericsson filed in the Western District of Texas because you perceived some advantage there. The
“stores were closed” explanation just doesn’t make any sense, given Apple’s ongoing case against Ericsson in the Eastern
District. And, it’s very strange that Ericsson went to the Western District after having told Chief Judge Gilstrap that his
court was the right court to decide precisely the type of dispute that the parties now have.

Apple will respond to Ericsson’s cases in due course in accordance with federal and applicable local rules. As to your
insinuation that I failed to properly confer with Ericsson before Apple filed, that is incorrect: I spoke to your co-counsel
before filing.

Sincerely,

/s/ Melissa R. Smith

Melissa R. Smith