1007-00003 · Whitfield & Gaines PLLC · Closing

privilege-log-document-retention-memo.docx DOCUMENT Litigation

6 / 12 ← → ✕

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP

MEMORANDUM

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT

This memorandum is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine and is intended solely for internal Calderwood & Harkness LLP use in connection with the above-referenced engagement. This memorandum should not be disclosed to any person or entity outside the firm without the express written authorization of the Responsible Partner.

TO: Marcus Delgado, Responsible Partner, intellectual Property Practice Group Omar Siddiqui, Lead Associate, intellectual Property Practice Group

FROM: Christy Bauer, Working Associate, intellectual Property Practice Group

DATE: June 20, 2025

RE: Privilege Log Status and Document Retention/Destruction Protocol — Matter No. 1007-00003; Pinnacle Innovations LLC v. Vantage Mobility Systems Corp., No. 2:24-cv-00187-JRG (E.D. Tex.)

I. Purpose and Summary

This memorandum serves two distinct purposes in connection with the now-closed representation of Vantage Mobility Systems Corp. ("VMS") in the above-referenced patent infringement action. First, it documents the final status of the privilege log maintained throughout the course of the litigation, including a summary of the categories, scope, and completeness of the entries contained therein. Second, it establishes the document retention and destruction protocol that will govern all matter files — electronic and physical — going forward, now that the matter has been formally closed.

As the engagement team is aware, the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release between Pinnacle Innovations LLC ("Pinnacle") and VMS was fully executed on June 4, 2025. The aggregate settlement payment of Three Hundred Eighty-Five Thousand Dollars ($385,000) has been remitted in full. Of that amount, Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000) was funded directly by VMS as the self-insured retention ("SIR") under its commercial general liability policy, and Three Hundred Ten Thousand Dollars ($310,000) was funded by Northbridge Specialty Insurance Company ("Northbridge") as the indemnity payment under Commercial General Liability Policy No. NSI-CGL-2024-08821. All settlement funds have been confirmed as received by Pinnacle's counsel, Whitfield & Gaines PLLC, and no outstanding payment obligations remain.

On June 10, 2025, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice, dismissing all claims and counterclaims in the action with prejudice and with each party bearing its own costs and attorneys' fees. The Honorable J. Rodney Gilstrap entered the order of dismissal on June 12, 2025. Accordingly, the originally scheduled trial date of October 6, 2025, has been vacated, and no further proceedings are anticipated in this matter.

In light of the entry of the dismissal order, no litigation hold remains in effect with respect to this matter. The release of the litigation hold is discussed in greater detail in Section III below.

For reference, Rachel Nguyen, VP & Associate General Counsel of Vantage Mobility Systems Corp., was formally advised of the matter closure and VMS's own post-litigation document-retention obligations in the matter closing letter dated June 18, 2025, which was transmitted via email and certified mail to Ms. Nguyen's attention at VMS's principal offices in Auburn Hills, Michigan. That letter addressed, among other things, VMS's independent obligation to manage its own records in accordance with its internal records-retention policies and applicable law, as the firm cannot guarantee access to client files after the expiration of the firm's retention period.

This memorandum should be reviewed by the Responsible Partner and Lead Associate and, upon approval, placed in the matter file as the governing document for all retention and destruction decisions related to Matter No. 1007-00003.

II. Privilege Log Status

A. Scope and Coverage

The privilege log prepared and maintained in connection with this matter encompasses a total of 247 entries. These entries represent the universe of documents withheld from production during fact discovery on the basis of the attorney-client privilege and/or the work-product doctrine, as well as documents identified during the engagement that warranted logging for completeness and defensibility purposes.

The privilege log covers attorney-client privileged and work-product-protected documents generated during both periods of representation in this matter, which are described in turn below.

Hargrove Dunn LLP Period (February 28, 2024 – January 15, 2025). Hargrove Dunn LLP served as original defense counsel for VMS from the date of the filing of the Pinnacle complaint on February 28, 2024, through the transition of the defense to Calderwood & Harkness LLP on January 15, 2025. During its period of representation, Hargrove Dunn handled the initial case assessment, the filing of VMS's answer and counterclaims (asserting invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, non-infringement, and inequitable conduct), initial discovery, and claim construction proceedings. Total fees billed by Hargrove Dunn during this period were approximately $624,000, which are not included in Calderwood & Harkness's engagement totals. Upon the assumption of VMS's defense by Calderwood & Harkness on January 15, 2025, Hargrove Dunn's complete litigation files were transferred to our firm, including all privileged and work-product documents that Hargrove Dunn had generated or received during its representation. The privilege log entries corresponding to these Hargrove Dunn-era documents were inherited from Hargrove Dunn's files and incorporated into the consolidated privilege log maintained by our engagement team. Each inherited entry was reviewed by this firm to confirm the accuracy of the privilege designations and descriptions and to ensure compliance with the applicable logging requirements.

Calderwood & Harkness LLP Period (January 15, 2025 – June 20, 2025). Calderwood & Harkness's representation of VMS commenced on January 15, 2025, and continued through the present matter closing date. During this period, the engagement team conducted extensive factual investigation, prepared invalidity and non-infringement analyses, retained and worked with a technical expert (Dr. Franklin Yeoh of Greystone Technical Consulting LLC), engaged in settlement negotiations with Pinnacle's counsel and coordinated with Northbridge regarding insurance coverage and indemnification, and ultimately achieved a favorable settlement that resolved all claims and counterclaims without the need for trial or formal expert report submissions. All privileged and work-product documents generated during the Calderwood & Harkness period were logged contemporaneously as they were created or received.

Throughout both representation periods, the engagement team maintained the privilege log in accordance with the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and the scheduling order entered by Judge Gilstrap. The log was updated on a rolling basis as new privileged documents were generated and was finalized following the execution of the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release on June 4, 2025.

B. Categories of Privileged Documents

The 247 entries on the privilege log may be broken down into the following six principal categories:

Attorney-Client Communications. This category comprises emails, memoranda, letters, and other forms of correspondence exchanged between defense counsel — including both Hargrove Dunn LLP attorneys and Calderwood & Harkness LLP attorneys — and VMS personnel in their capacity as representatives of the client. The primary VMS point of contact for privileged communications was Rachel Nguyen, VP & Associate General Counsel. Additional VMS personnel who participated in privileged communications include members of the VMS engineering and product-development teams who were consulted in connection with the technical aspects of the accused DriveLink™ 4.0 telematics control unit and FleetPulse™ cloud platform. This category also includes communications with David Mercer at Ridgeline Capital Management, LLC, VMS's majority equity holder, regarding settlement approval. Mr. Mercer's involvement was required under Section 7.04(c) of the VMS Operating Agreement, which mandates equity-holder approval for settlement expenditures exceeding a specified threshold. Communications with Mr. Mercer were conducted under the common-interest doctrine and were logged accordingly.

Attorney Work Product — Opinion. This category includes internal legal analyses, strategy memoranda, and draft filings prepared by counsel in anticipation of litigation and reflecting the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, and legal theories of the attorneys involved. Notable documents in this category include the Invalidity and Non-Infringement Assessment Memorandum dated March 15, 2025, which set forth counsel's detailed analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of VMS's invalidity and non-infringement defenses with respect to Claims 1, 7, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 9,847,312 B2 (the "'312 Patent"), and the Settlement Recommendation Memorandum dated April 28, 2025, which recommended a negotiated resolution of the matter and analyzed the range of likely outcomes at trial, the anticipated remaining defense costs through trial, and the terms of the proposed settlement in light of VMS's insurance coverage and SIR obligations.

Attorney Work Product — Factual. This category encompasses factual investigation materials compiled by counsel in anticipation of litigation, including interview notes from meetings with VMS personnel, technical research summaries regarding the accused products and the prior art landscape, draft claim charts mapping the limitations of Claims 1, 7, and 14 of the '312 Patent against the DriveLink™ 4.0 and FleetPulse™ products, and compilations of documents and data gathered during the investigation phase. While these materials are primarily factual in nature, they were prepared by or at the direction of counsel in anticipation of litigation and qualify for work-product protection.

Expert-Related Communications. This category includes all communications with and materials prepared by or for Dr. Franklin Yeoh of Greystone Technical Consulting LLC, who was retained as VMS's technical expert in connection with the invalidity and non-infringement defenses. Logged materials include claim charts prepared by Dr. Yeoh, invalidity contentions and supporting prior-art analyses, draft expert reports on invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, and correspondence between counsel and Dr. Yeoh reflecting counsel's mental impressions and litigation strategy. It should be noted that Dr. Yeoh's formal expert reports were never filed with the Court, as the settlement mooted the expert report deadline of May 30, 2025, which had been established under the Court's scheduling order. Accordingly, these materials retain their protected status as non-testifying expert materials under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(D), in addition to their protection as attorney work product.

Insurance-Related Privileged Communications. This category consists of correspondence between defense counsel and Northbridge Specialty Insurance Company in connection with coverage under CGL Policy No. NSI-CGL-2024-08821. The primary Northbridge contact was Tanya Whitcomb, Claims Adjuster. Logged communications include the initial tender of defense, the February 12, 2025 coverage confirmation letter from Northbridge, correspondence regarding the reservation of rights asserted by Northbridge, ongoing settlement-related communications in which Northbridge evaluated and ultimately approved the proposed settlement terms, and documentation of the indemnity payment of $310,000 funded by Northbridge. These communications are protected by the attorney-client privilege as communications made in confidence for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice in connection with the coverage and defense of the underlying patent infringement claims.

Local Counsel Communications. This final category includes privileged communications between Calderwood & Harkness attorneys and Sandra Caldwell of Caldwell Barrow LLP, who served as local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas. These communications addressed local-rule compliance, the preparation and delivery of courtesy copies to the Court, scheduling matters, and coordination with respect to in-court appearances. All such communications were made in furtherance of the attorney-client relationship and the joint representation of VMS and are protected by the attorney-client privilege and, where applicable, the work-product doctrine.

C. Log Format and Location

The privilege log has been maintained in a spreadsheet format throughout the litigation. Each entry in the log contains the following fields:

• Entry Number — A unique sequential identifier assigned to each logged document.

• Date — The date of the document or communication.

• Author/Sender — The author or sender of the document or communication.

• Recipient(s) — The recipient(s) of the document or communication.

• Document Type — A description of the type of document (e.g., email, memorandum, letter, draft filing, claim chart, interview notes).

• Description — A brief, non-privileged description of the subject matter of the document sufficient to enable opposing counsel and, if necessary, the Court to assess the privilege claim.

• Privilege(s) Asserted — The specific privilege or protection asserted with respect to the document, designated as one or more of the following: attorney-client privilege; work product — opinion; work product — factual; or joint defense/common interest.

The current and final version of the privilege log is stored in the firm's Document Management System ("DMS") under Matter No. 1007-00003, in the subfolder designated "Privilege Log." The file name is "1007-00003PrivilegeLogFINAL2025-06-20.xlsx."

During fact discovery, a PDF copy of the privilege log was served on Pinnacle's counsel, Nolan Whitfield and Priya Madan of Whitfield & Gaines PLLC, in connection with VMS's discovery responses, consistent with the requirements of the Court's scheduling order and the Eastern District of Texas Local Patent Rules. The served version of the privilege log accurately reflects the entries contained in the final version on file with the firm.

D. Completeness Confirmation

The engagement team has conducted a review of the privilege log for completeness as of the matter closing date of June 20, 2025. Based on this review, I confirm that the privilege log is complete at 247 entries and that no additional entries are required to be added. All documents withheld from production on the basis of privilege or work-product protection during the course of the litigation have been identified and logged.

It is further noted that no privilege challenges or motions to compel relating to any documents on the privilege log were pending at the time of settlement. At no point during the litigation did the Court conduct an in camera review of any logged documents, nor did Pinnacle's counsel file any motion seeking such review. Accordingly, the privilege log as maintained stands as the final and complete record of all privilege claims asserted by VMS in this litigation.

III. Litigation Hold — Release

A. Litigation Hold History

A litigation hold was initially implemented upon the filing of the Pinnacle complaint on February 28, 2024, by VMS's then-counsel, Hargrove Dunn LLP. The litigation hold was directed to VMS and its personnel and required the preservation of all documents and electronically stored information ("ESI") potentially relevant to the claims and defenses in the action. Specifically, the hold encompassed:

• All documents and ESI related to the patents-in-suit, including U.S. Patent No. 9,847,312 B2, and in particular Claims 1, 7, and 14 thereof, which were the claims asserted by Pinnacle against VMS;

• All documents and ESI related to the accused products, namely the DriveLink™ 4.0 telematics control unit and the FleetPulse™ cloud platform, including design documents, specifications, source code, technical documentation, testing records, marketing materials, and customer communications;

• All documents and ESI related to the prior art identified in connection with VMS's invalidity defenses;

• All documents and ESI related to the prosecution history of the '312 Patent, including any materials relevant to VMS's inequitable conduct counterclaim; and

• All documents and ESI related to VMS's business operations, finances, and communications with third parties to the extent such documents bore on damages, willfulness, or any other issue in the litigation.

Upon assuming VMS's defense on January 15, 2025, Calderwood & Harkness reaffirmed the existing litigation hold in a written communication to Rachel Nguyen and other relevant VMS personnel. Ms. Nguyen confirmed VMS's continued compliance with the litigation hold at that time. The hold was maintained without interruption from its initial implementation date through the resolution of the matter.

The litigation hold also covered documents related to the counterclaims filed by VMS on April 15, 2024, which asserted invalidity of the '312 Patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, non-infringement, and inequitable conduct during prosecution of the '312 Patent before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

B. Release of Hold

In light of the entry of the Court's order dismissing all claims and counterclaims with prejudice on June 12, 2025, and the full execution and performance of the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release, the litigation hold is hereby released effective as of the date of this memorandum, June 20, 2025. There is no further obligation on the part of VMS or the firm to preserve documents under the litigation hold implemented in connection with this matter.

Rachel Nguyen was advised of the release of the litigation hold and VMS's own document-retention obligations in the matter closing letter dated June 18, 2025. That letter also recommended that VMS retain its own copies of key documents relating to the litigation — including the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release, the Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice, and any internal records regarding the accused products and the '312 Patent — in accordance with VMS's internal records-retention policies and applicable regulatory requirements. As counsel, we can no longer guarantee VMS access to client files maintained in the firm's possession after the expiration of the firm's standard retention period, and accordingly it is important that VMS independently preserve any documents it may need for future reference.

It should be emphasized that the release of the litigation hold pertains solely to the preservation obligations arising from this specific litigation. If VMS is or becomes subject to other litigation holds, regulatory preservation obligations, or other legal requirements mandating the preservation of documents that overlap with the subject matter of this action, those independent preservation obligations remain in full force and effect and are unaffected by this release.

IV. Document Retention and Destruction Protocol

A. Firm Standard Retention Period

In accordance with Calderwood & Harkness LLP's firm-wide Records Retention and Destruction Policy, the standard retention period for closed litigation matter files is seven (7) years from the date of matter closing. Because this matter is being closed effective June 20, 2025, the retention period will extend through approximately June 2032.

This seven-year retention period applies uniformly to all materials contained in the matter file, including but not limited to: pleadings and court filings, correspondence (with the client, opposing counsel, the Court, third parties, and internally), discovery materials produced by both parties, expert-related materials, billing records and invoices, internal memoranda and work-product documents, the privilege log, settlement documentation, and all other documents generated or received in connection with the engagement.

The seven-year retention period is consistent with the applicable statutes of limitations for malpractice and other professional liability claims, the requirements of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct (which govern the firm's obligations with respect to the Detroit office), and the firm's assessment of the period during which archived matter files may need to be accessed for purposes of conflicts checks, successor-matter reference, or related inquiries.

B. Electronic Files

All electronic files associated with Matter No. 1007-00003 are to be archived in the firm's Document Management System. The electronic archive will be organized within the existing DMS folder structure for the matter and will include the following categories of materials:

• Email Correspondence. All email correspondence generated during the Calderwood & Harkness engagement period, including communications with the client (Rachel Nguyen and other VMS personnel), opposing counsel (Nolan Whitfield and Priya Madan of Whitfield & Gaines PLLC), local counsel (Sandra Caldwell of Caldwell Barrow LLP), the technical expert (Dr. Franklin Yeoh of Greystone Technical Consulting LLC), the insurer (Tanya Whitcomb of Northbridge Specialty Insurance Company), the e-discovery vendor (Meridian Document Solutions LLC), and all internal firm communications among the engagement team.

• Court Filings and Docket Entries. All pleadings, motions, briefs, orders, and other filings from the Eastern District of Texas docket in Case No. 2:24-cv-00187-JRG, together with a complete download of the docket sheet as of the date of dismissal.

• discovery Materials. All documents produced by VMS during fact discovery, all documents produced by Pinnacle during fact discovery, all discovery correspondence (including meet-and-confer letters and discovery dispute correspondence), deposition transcripts (if any were taken — for the record, no depositions were completed prior to settlement), and all discovery-related work product including document review notes and coding sheets.

• Internal Memoranda, Research Files, and Work-Product Documents. All internal legal research memoranda, case strategy documents, draft filings, claim charts, prior art analyses, damages analyses, and all other work-product materials generated by the engagement team during the representation.

• Privilege Log. The final privilege log consisting of 247 entries, in both native spreadsheet format (.xlsx) and PDF format.

• Settlement Documentation. The fully executed Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release dated June 4, 2025, the Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice filed on June 10, 2025 and entered by the Court on June 12, 2025, all settlement-related correspondence with Pinnacle's counsel and with Northbridge, and the documentation of the settlement payment (including wire transfer confirmations and allocation between VMS's SIR payment and Northbridge's indemnity payment).

• Billing Records and Invoices. All billing records and invoices for the Calderwood & Harkness engagement period (January 15, 2025 through June 2025), including records reflecting total defense costs of $512,800 (encompassing legal fees, expert fees, e-discovery vendor costs, local counsel fees, and other disbursements) and the $50,000 retainer deposited by VMS and credited against the final invoice.

E-discovery Data (Meridian Document Solutions LLC). During the course of the litigation, the engagement team utilized Meridian Document Solutions LLC, located at 7600 Leesburg Pike, Suite 410, Falls Church, VA 22043, as the e-discovery vendor for the processing, hosting, and review of ESI. Meridian has been instructed to preserve a final export of all processed data associated with this matter and to make such data available for download by the firm. Upon confirmation that the final data export has been successfully received and archived in the firm's DMS, Meridian's hosted data for this matter may be taken down and the hosting platform decommissioned for Matter No. 1007-00003, in accordance with the terms of the vendor services agreement between the firm and Meridian. Total costs incurred with Meridian for this engagement were $31,400.

C. Physical Files

All physical files associated with this matter — including hard-copy documents, binders, courtesy copies of filings, and any original documents — are to be boxed, indexed, and transferred to the firm's approved off-site records-management facility for storage during the retention period. Each box is to be labeled with the following identifying information:

• Matter No. 1007-00003

• Client Name: Vantage Mobility Systems Corp.

• Matter Description: Patent Infringement Defense — Pinnacle Innovations LLC v. Vantage Mobility Systems Corp., No. 2:24-cv-00187-JRG (E.D. Tex.)

• Scheduled Destruction Date: On or after June 20, 2032

It is anticipated that the physical file for this matter will be minimal, given the predominantly electronic nature of the litigation and the fact that the engagement team conducted the vast majority of its work through the firm's DMS and email systems. To the extent that physical copies of filings, courtesy copies, or other hard-copy materials exist, they should be consolidated and transferred as described above within thirty (30) days of the date of this memorandum.

D. Destruction After Retention Period

At the expiration of the seven-year retention period (i.e., on or after June 20, 2032), all matter files associated with Matter No. 1007-00003 — both electronic and physical — will be destroyed in accordance with the firm's Records Retention and Destruction Policy, unless any of the following circumstances exist at that time:

1. A new litigation hold or preservation obligation has arisen involving VMS, the '312 Patent, or the same or related subject matter, which would require continued preservation of any portion of the matter files;

2. The client has requested in writing that the matter files (or any portion thereof) be returned to the client or that the retention period be extended beyond the standard seven-year term; or

3. Applicable law, regulation, or professional responsibility rule requires the firm to retain the matter files for a period longer than seven years from the date of matter closing.

In the event that none of the foregoing circumstances exist, destruction of electronic files will be carried out through the firm's secure deletion protocols, which include the permanent erasure of all archived data from the DMS and backup systems. Destruction of physical files will be carried out through the firm's certified shredding service, with a certificate of destruction to be retained as a permanent record in the firm's records-management system.

E. Return of Client Materials

In the matter closing letter dated June 18, 2025, VMS was advised that original client documents and materials in the firm's possession will be returned to VMS upon request. VMS was further advised that if no request for return of original client documents is received within sixty (60) days of the date of the closing letter (i.e., by August 17, 2025), the firm will retain any such original client documents in its files and treat them in accordance with the document retention and destruction protocol described in this memorandum.

As of the date of this memorandum, no original client documents in physical form have been identified in the firm's possession. All client-produced materials were received by the firm in electronic format, either through the DMS or through the Meridian e-discovery platform. Accordingly, the return-of-documents provision is not expected to require any action, but the engagement team should remain prepared to accommodate a request from VMS during the sixty-day window should one be made.

V. Third-Party Vendor and Expert File Considerations

A. Greystone Technical Consulting LLC

Dr. Franklin Yeoh of Greystone Technical Consulting LLC, located at 900 Research Park Drive, Suite 210, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, was retained as the technical expert for VMS in this matter. Dr. Yeoh prepared detailed claim charts, invalidity analysis materials, and draft expert opinions addressing the invalidity of Claims 1, 7, and 14 of the '312 Patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, based on identified prior art references. As noted above, Dr. Yeoh's formal expert report was never filed with the Court, as the settlement mooted the expert report deadline of May 30, 2025 established under the Court's scheduling order.

Dr. Yeoh and Greystone have been notified of the closure of the matter and have been instructed to preserve all work files generated in connection with the engagement — including claim charts, invalidity analysis materials, draft expert opinions, correspondence with counsel, and all supporting documentation — for the same seven-year retention period applicable to the firm's matter files (i.e., through approximately June 2032). This instruction is consistent with the terms of the file-preservation provisions contained in the retention agreement between the firm and Greystone executed at the outset of the engagement.

Greystone's total fees billed for the engagement were $47,750, reflecting Dr. Yeoh's billing rate of $650 per hour. All Greystone invoices have been paid in full, and no outstanding balance remains.

B. Caldwell Barrow LLP (Local Counsel)

Sandra Caldwell of Caldwell Barrow LLP, located at 420 N. Broadway Avenue, Suite 300, Tyler, TX 75702, served as local counsel for VMS in the Eastern District of Texas. Ms. Caldwell's responsibilities included ensuring compliance with the local rules of the Eastern District, coordinating the filing and delivery of courtesy copies to the Court, and making in-court appearances on behalf of VMS as needed.

Ms. Caldwell and Caldwell Barrow have been notified of the closure of the matter and have been requested to forward any remaining files in their possession to Calderwood & Harkness for consolidation into the master matter file maintained in the firm's DMS. Upon receipt of any such files, they will be incorporated into the archived electronic file for Matter No. 1007-00003.

Caldwell Barrow's total fees billed for the engagement were $18,200, reflecting Ms. Caldwell's billing rate of $475 per hour. All Caldwell Barrow invoices have been paid in full, and no outstanding balance remains.

C. Meridian Document Solutions LLC (E-discovery Vendor)

As discussed in Section IV.B above, Meridian Document Solutions LLC served as the e-discovery vendor for this matter, providing document processing, hosting, and review-platform services. Meridian has been instructed to provide a final export of all processed data associated with the matter. Upon confirmation that the final data export has been successfully received and archived in the firm's DMS, the hosted environment maintained by Meridian for this matter may be decommissioned in accordance with the terms of the vendor services agreement.

Total costs incurred with Meridian for this engagement were $31,400. All Meridian invoices have been paid in full, and no outstanding balance remains.

VI. Summary of Key Financial and Matter Data for Archival Records

The following summary table is provided for inclusion on the archived file cover sheet and for reference by the firm's records-management and conflicts departments:

VII. Action Items and Recommendations

The following action items should be completed to finalize the matter closing process:

1. Meridian Data Export. Confirm receipt of the final data export from Meridian Document Solutions LLC and, upon successful archive to the firm's DMS, authorize the decommissioning of the Meridian hosted platform for this matter.

2. Caldwell Barrow File Transfer. Confirm receipt of any remaining files from Caldwell Barrow LLP and incorporate such files into the master matter file in the firm's DMS.

3. Greystone File Preservation. Confirm receipt of written acknowledgment from Greystone Technical Consulting LLC of its obligation to preserve its work files for the seven-year retention period, consistent with the terms of the retention agreement.

4. Physical File Storage. Complete the boxing and indexing of any physical files associated with this matter and arrange for transfer to the firm's approved off-site records-management facility within thirty (30) days.

5. Electronic Archive. Complete the archival of all electronic files in the firm's DMS under Matter No. 1007-00003, ensuring that appropriate access controls and retention tags are applied to the archived files.

6. Destruction Date Calendar Entry. Calendar the seven-year destruction date (on or after June 20, 2032) in the firm's records-management system, with appropriate reminders and pre-destruction review protocols.

7. Client Document Return. If VMS requests the return of any original documents within sixty (60) days of the June 18, 2025 matter closing letter (i.e., by August 17, 2025), coordinate the return of such documents promptly and document the return in the matter file.

VIII. Conclusion

In summary, the privilege log maintained in connection with Matter No. 1007-00003 is complete at 247 entries, encompassing all documents withheld from production on the basis of the attorney-client privilege and/or the work-product doctrine during both the Hargrove Dunn LLP and Calderwood & Harkness LLP periods of representation. No privilege challenges or motions to compel were pending at the time of settlement, and no in camera review of logged documents was conducted by the Court.

The litigation hold implemented at the outset of this matter has been released effective as of the date of this memorandum, June 20, 2025, following entry of the Court's order dismissing all claims and counterclaims with prejudice. VMS has been advised of the release and of its own independent document-retention obligations.

The document retention and destruction protocol set forth in this memorandum is now in effect for Matter No. 1007-00003. All matter files — electronic and physical — will be retained for a period of seven (7) years from the date of matter closing (through approximately June 2032) and will be destroyed thereafter in accordance with the firm's Records Retention and Destruction Policy, subject to the exceptions described in Section IV.D above.

Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions regarding the contents of this memorandum or if any modifications to the privilege log, the retention protocol, or the action items described herein are required.

Respectfully submitted,

CHRISTY BAUER Associate, intellectual Property Practice Group Calderwood & Harkness LLP One Fountain Square, 11th Floor Detroit, MI 48226

Distribution: Marcus Delgado, Responsible Partner (internal only); Omar Siddiqui, Lead Associate (internal only)

Field	Data
Matter Number	1007-00003
Case Caption	Pinnacle Innovations LLC v. Vantage Mobility Systems Corp., No. 2:24-cv-00187-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
Client	Vantage Mobility Systems Corp., 4200 Innovation Drive, Auburn Hills, MI 48326
Engagement Period	January 15, 2025 – June 20, 2025
Responsible Partner	Marcus Delgado
Billing Partner	Catherine Bloom
Disposition	Settled; Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice entered June 12, 2025
Settlement Amount	$385,000 (VMS SIR: $75,000; Northbridge indemnity: $310,000)
Total C&H Legal Fees	$412,600
Total Defense Costs (all vendors)	$512,800
Grand Total Litigation Spend (C&H period)	$897,800
VMS Total Out-of-Pocket	$587,800
Retainer Deposited / Credited	$50,000
Privilege Log Entries	247
Retention Period	Seven (7) years (through approximately June 2032)
Scheduled Destruction Date	On or after June 20, 2032

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP
MEMORANDUM
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
This memorandum is protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine and is intended solely for internal Calderwood & Harkness LLP use in connection with the above-referenced engagement. This memorandum should not be disclosed to any person or entity outside the firm without the express written authorization of the Responsible Partner.
TO: Marcus Delgado, Responsible Partner, intellectual Property Practice Group Omar Siddiqui, Lead Associate, intellectual Property Practice Group
FROM: Christy Bauer, Working Associate, intellectual Property Practice Group
DATE: June 20, 2025
RE: Privilege Log Status and Document Retention/Destruction Protocol — Matter No. 1007-00003; Pinnacle Innovations LLC v. Vantage Mobility Systems Corp., No. 2:24-cv-00187-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
I. Purpose and Summary
This memorandum serves two distinct purposes in connection with the now-closed representation of Vantage Mobility Systems Corp. ("VMS") in the above-referenced patent infringement action. First, it documents the final status of the privilege log maintained throughout the course of the litigation, including a summary of the categories, scope, and completeness of the entries contained therein. Second, it establishes the document retention and destruction protocol that will govern all matter files — electronic and physical — going forward, now that the matter has been formally closed.
As the engagement team is aware, the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release between Pinnacle Innovations LLC ("Pinnacle") and VMS was fully executed on June 4, 2025. The aggregate settlement payment of Three Hundred Eighty-Five Thousand Dollars ($385,000) has been remitted in full. Of that amount, Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000) was funded directly by VMS as the self-insured retention ("SIR") under its commercial general liability policy, and Three Hundred Ten Thousand Dollars ($310,000) was funded by Northbridge Specialty Insurance Company ("Northbridge") as the indemnity payment under Commercial General Liability Policy No. NSI-CGL-2024-08821. All settlement funds have been confirmed as received by Pinnacle's counsel, Whitfield & Gaines PLLC, and no outstanding payment obligations remain.
On June 10, 2025, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice, dismissing all claims and counterclaims in the action with prejudice and with each party bearing its own costs and attorneys' fees. The Honorable J. Rodney Gilstrap entered the order of dismissal on June 12, 2025. Accordingly, the originally scheduled trial date of October 6, 2025, has been vacated, and no further proceedings are anticipated in this matter.
In light of the entry of the dismissal order, no litigation hold remains in effect with respect to this matter. The release of the litigation hold is discussed in greater detail in Section III below.
For reference, Rachel Nguyen, VP & Associate General Counsel of Vantage Mobility Systems Corp., was formally advised of the matter closure and VMS's own post-litigation document-retention obligations in the matter closing letter dated June 18, 2025, which was transmitted via email and certified mail to Ms. Nguyen's attention at VMS's principal offices in Auburn Hills, Michigan. That letter addressed, among other things, VMS's independent obligation to manage its own records in accordance with its internal records-retention policies and applicable law, as the firm cannot guarantee access to client files after the expiration of the firm's retention period.
This memorandum should be reviewed by the Responsible Partner and Lead Associate and, upon approval, placed in the matter file as the governing document for all retention and destruction decisions related to Matter No. 1007-00003.
II. Privilege Log Status
A. Scope and Coverage
The privilege log prepared and maintained in connection with this matter encompasses a total of 247 entries. These entries represent the universe of documents withheld from production during fact discovery on the basis of the attorney-client privilege and/or the work-product doctrine, as well as documents identified during the engagement that warranted logging for completeness and defensibility purposes.
The privilege log covers attorney-client privileged and work-product-protected documents generated during both periods of representation in this matter, which are described in turn below.
Hargrove Dunn LLP Period (February 28, 2024 – January 15, 2025). Hargrove Dunn LLP served as original defense counsel for VMS from the date of the filing of the Pinnacle complaint on February 28, 2024, through the transition of the defense to Calderwood & Harkness LLP on January 15, 2025. During its period of representation, Hargrove Dunn handled the initial case assessment, the filing of VMS's answer and counterclaims (asserting invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, non-infringement, and inequitable conduct), initial discovery, and claim construction proceedings. Total fees billed by Hargrove Dunn during this period were approximately $624,000, which are not included in Calderwood & Harkness's engagement totals. Upon the assumption of VMS's defense by Calderwood & Harkness on January 15, 2025, Hargrove Dunn's complete litigation files were transferred to our firm, including all privileged and work-product documents that Hargrove Dunn had generated or received during its representation. The privilege log entries corresponding to these Hargrove Dunn-era documents were inherited from Hargrove Dunn's files and incorporated into the consolidated privilege log maintained by our engagement team. Each inherited entry was reviewed by this firm to confirm the accuracy of the privilege designations and descriptions and to ensure compliance with the applicable logging requirements.
Calderwood & Harkness LLP Period (January 15, 2025 – June 20, 2025). Calderwood & Harkness's representation of VMS commenced on January 15, 2025, and continued through the present matter closing date. During this period, the engagement team conducted extensive factual investigation, prepared invalidity and non-infringement analyses, retained and worked with a technical expert (Dr. Franklin Yeoh of Greystone Technical Consulting LLC), engaged in settlement negotiations with Pinnacle's counsel and coordinated with Northbridge regarding insurance coverage and indemnification, and ultimately achieved a favorable settlement that resolved all claims and counterclaims without the need for trial or formal expert report submissions. All privileged and work-product documents generated during the Calderwood & Harkness period were logged contemporaneously as they were created or received.
Throughout both representation periods, the engagement team maintained the privilege log in accordance with the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and the scheduling order entered by Judge Gilstrap. The log was updated on a rolling basis as new privileged documents were generated and was finalized following the execution of the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release on June 4, 2025.
B. Categories of Privileged Documents
The 247 entries on the privilege log may be broken down into the following six principal categories:
Attorney-Client Communications. This category comprises emails, memoranda, letters, and other forms of correspondence exchanged between defense counsel — including both Hargrove Dunn LLP attorneys and Calderwood & Harkness LLP attorneys — and VMS personnel in their capacity as representatives of the client. The primary VMS point of contact for privileged communications was Rachel Nguyen, VP & Associate General Counsel. Additional VMS personnel who participated in privileged communications include members of the VMS engineering and product-development teams who were consulted in connection with the technical aspects of the accused DriveLink™ 4.0 telematics control unit and FleetPulse™ cloud platform. This category also includes communications with David Mercer at Ridgeline Capital Management, LLC, VMS's majority equity holder, regarding settlement approval. Mr. Mercer's involvement was required under Section 7.04(c) of the VMS Operating Agreement, which mandates equity-holder approval for settlement expenditures exceeding a specified threshold. Communications with Mr. Mercer were conducted under the common-interest doctrine and were logged accordingly.
Attorney Work Product — Opinion. This category includes internal legal analyses, strategy memoranda, and draft filings prepared by counsel in anticipation of litigation and reflecting the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, and legal theories of the attorneys involved. Notable documents in this category include the Invalidity and Non-Infringement Assessment Memorandum dated March 15, 2025, which set forth counsel's detailed analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of VMS's invalidity and non-infringement defenses with respect to Claims 1, 7, and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 9,847,312 B2 (the "'312 Patent"), and the Settlement Recommendation Memorandum dated April 28, 2025, which recommended a negotiated resolution of the matter and analyzed the range of likely outcomes at trial, the anticipated remaining defense costs through trial, and the terms of the proposed settlement in light of VMS's insurance coverage and SIR obligations.
Attorney Work Product — Factual. This category encompasses factual investigation materials compiled by counsel in anticipation of litigation, including interview notes from meetings with VMS personnel, technical research summaries regarding the accused products and the prior art landscape, draft claim charts mapping the limitations of Claims 1, 7, and 14 of the '312 Patent against the DriveLink™ 4.0 and FleetPulse™ products, and compilations of documents and data gathered during the investigation phase. While these materials are primarily factual in nature, they were prepared by or at the direction of counsel in anticipation of litigation and qualify for work-product protection.
Expert-Related Communications. This category includes all communications with and materials prepared by or for Dr. Franklin Yeoh of Greystone Technical Consulting LLC, who was retained as VMS's technical expert in connection with the invalidity and non-infringement defenses. Logged materials include claim charts prepared by Dr. Yeoh, invalidity contentions and supporting prior-art analyses, draft expert reports on invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, and correspondence between counsel and Dr. Yeoh reflecting counsel's mental impressions and litigation strategy. It should be noted that Dr. Yeoh's formal expert reports were never filed with the Court, as the settlement mooted the expert report deadline of May 30, 2025, which had been established under the Court's scheduling order. Accordingly, these materials retain their protected status as non-testifying expert materials under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(D), in addition to their protection as attorney work product.
Insurance-Related Privileged Communications. This category consists of correspondence between defense counsel and Northbridge Specialty Insurance Company in connection with coverage under CGL Policy No. NSI-CGL-2024-08821. The primary Northbridge contact was Tanya Whitcomb, Claims Adjuster. Logged communications include the initial tender of defense, the February 12, 2025 coverage confirmation letter from Northbridge, correspondence regarding the reservation of rights asserted by Northbridge, ongoing settlement-related communications in which Northbridge evaluated and ultimately approved the proposed settlement terms, and documentation of the indemnity payment of $310,000 funded by Northbridge. These communications are protected by the attorney-client privilege as communications made in confidence for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal advice in connection with the coverage and defense of the underlying patent infringement claims.
Local Counsel Communications. This final category includes privileged communications between Calderwood & Harkness attorneys and Sandra Caldwell of Caldwell Barrow LLP, who served as local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas. These communications addressed local-rule compliance, the preparation and delivery of courtesy copies to the Court, scheduling matters, and coordination with respect to in-court appearances. All such communications were made in furtherance of the attorney-client relationship and the joint representation of VMS and are protected by the attorney-client privilege and, where applicable, the work-product doctrine.
C. Log Format and Location
The privilege log has been maintained in a spreadsheet format throughout the litigation. Each entry in the log contains the following fields:
• Entry Number — A unique sequential identifier assigned to each logged document.
• Date — The date of the document or communication.
• Author/Sender — The author or sender of the document or communication.
• Recipient(s) — The recipient(s) of the document or communication.
• Document Type — A description of the type of document (e.g., email, memorandum, letter, draft filing, claim chart, interview notes).
• Description — A brief, non-privileged description of the subject matter of the document sufficient to enable opposing counsel and, if necessary, the Court to assess the privilege claim.
• Privilege(s) Asserted — The specific privilege or protection asserted with respect to the document, designated as one or more of the following: attorney-client privilege; work product — opinion; work product — factual; or joint defense/common interest.
The current and final version of the privilege log is stored in the firm's Document Management System ("DMS") under Matter No. 1007-00003, in the subfolder designated "Privilege Log." The file name is "1007-00003PrivilegeLogFINAL2025-06-20.xlsx."
During fact discovery, a PDF copy of the privilege log was served on Pinnacle's counsel, Nolan Whitfield and Priya Madan of Whitfield & Gaines PLLC, in connection with VMS's discovery responses, consistent with the requirements of the Court's scheduling order and the Eastern District of Texas Local Patent Rules. The served version of the privilege log accurately reflects the entries contained in the final version on file with the firm.
D. Completeness Confirmation
The engagement team has conducted a review of the privilege log for completeness as of the matter closing date of June 20, 2025. Based on this review, I confirm that the privilege log is complete at 247 entries and that no additional entries are required to be added. All documents withheld from production on the basis of privilege or work-product protection during the course of the litigation have been identified and logged.
It is further noted that no privilege challenges or motions to compel relating to any documents on the privilege log were pending at the time of settlement. At no point during the litigation did the Court conduct an in camera review of any logged documents, nor did Pinnacle's counsel file any motion seeking such review. Accordingly, the privilege log as maintained stands as the final and complete record of all privilege claims asserted by VMS in this litigation.
III. Litigation Hold — Release
A. Litigation Hold History
A litigation hold was initially implemented upon the filing of the Pinnacle complaint on February 28, 2024, by VMS's then-counsel, Hargrove Dunn LLP. The litigation hold was directed to VMS and its personnel and required the preservation of all documents and electronically stored information ("ESI") potentially relevant to the claims and defenses in the action. Specifically, the hold encompassed:
• All documents and ESI related to the patents-in-suit, including U.S. Patent No. 9,847,312 B2, and in particular Claims 1, 7, and 14 thereof, which were the claims asserted by Pinnacle against VMS;
• All documents and ESI related to the accused products, namely the DriveLink™ 4.0 telematics control unit and the FleetPulse™ cloud platform, including design documents, specifications, source code, technical documentation, testing records, marketing materials, and customer communications;
• All documents and ESI related to the prior art identified in connection with VMS's invalidity defenses;
• All documents and ESI related to the prosecution history of the '312 Patent, including any materials relevant to VMS's inequitable conduct counterclaim; and
• All documents and ESI related to VMS's business operations, finances, and communications with third parties to the extent such documents bore on damages, willfulness, or any other issue in the litigation.
Upon assuming VMS's defense on January 15, 2025, Calderwood & Harkness reaffirmed the existing litigation hold in a written communication to Rachel Nguyen and other relevant VMS personnel. Ms. Nguyen confirmed VMS's continued compliance with the litigation hold at that time. The hold was maintained without interruption from its initial implementation date through the resolution of the matter.
The litigation hold also covered documents related to the counterclaims filed by VMS on April 15, 2024, which asserted invalidity of the '312 Patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, non-infringement, and inequitable conduct during prosecution of the '312 Patent before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
B. Release of Hold
In light of the entry of the Court's order dismissing all claims and counterclaims with prejudice on June 12, 2025, and the full execution and performance of the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release, the litigation hold is hereby released effective as of the date of this memorandum, June 20, 2025. There is no further obligation on the part of VMS or the firm to preserve documents under the litigation hold implemented in connection with this matter.
Rachel Nguyen was advised of the release of the litigation hold and VMS's own document-retention obligations in the matter closing letter dated June 18, 2025. That letter also recommended that VMS retain its own copies of key documents relating to the litigation — including the Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release, the Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice, and any internal records regarding the accused products and the '312 Patent — in accordance with VMS's internal records-retention policies and applicable regulatory requirements. As counsel, we can no longer guarantee VMS access to client files maintained in the firm's possession after the expiration of the firm's standard retention period, and accordingly it is important that VMS independently preserve any documents it may need for future reference.
It should be emphasized that the release of the litigation hold pertains solely to the preservation obligations arising from this specific litigation. If VMS is or becomes subject to other litigation holds, regulatory preservation obligations, or other legal requirements mandating the preservation of documents that overlap with the subject matter of this action, those independent preservation obligations remain in full force and effect and are unaffected by this release.
IV. Document Retention and Destruction Protocol
A. Firm Standard Retention Period
In accordance with Calderwood & Harkness LLP's firm-wide Records Retention and Destruction Policy, the standard retention period for closed litigation matter files is seven (7) years from the date of matter closing. Because this matter is being closed effective June 20, 2025, the retention period will extend through approximately June 2032.
This seven-year retention period applies uniformly to all materials contained in the matter file, including but not limited to: pleadings and court filings, correspondence (with the client, opposing counsel, the Court, third parties, and internally), discovery materials produced by both parties, expert-related materials, billing records and invoices, internal memoranda and work-product documents, the privilege log, settlement documentation, and all other documents generated or received in connection with the engagement.
The seven-year retention period is consistent with the applicable statutes of limitations for malpractice and other professional liability claims, the requirements of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct (which govern the firm's obligations with respect to the Detroit office), and the firm's assessment of the period during which archived matter files may need to be accessed for purposes of conflicts checks, successor-matter reference, or related inquiries.
B. Electronic Files
All electronic files associated with Matter No. 1007-00003 are to be archived in the firm's Document Management System. The electronic archive will be organized within the existing DMS folder structure for the matter and will include the following categories of materials:
• Email Correspondence. All email correspondence generated during the Calderwood & Harkness engagement period, including communications with the client (Rachel Nguyen and other VMS personnel), opposing counsel (Nolan Whitfield and Priya Madan of Whitfield & Gaines PLLC), local counsel (Sandra Caldwell of Caldwell Barrow LLP), the technical expert (Dr. Franklin Yeoh of Greystone Technical Consulting LLC), the insurer (Tanya Whitcomb of Northbridge Specialty Insurance Company), the e-discovery vendor (Meridian Document Solutions LLC), and all internal firm communications among the engagement team.
• Court Filings and Docket Entries. All pleadings, motions, briefs, orders, and other filings from the Eastern District of Texas docket in Case No. 2:24-cv-00187-JRG, together with a complete download of the docket sheet as of the date of dismissal.
• discovery Materials. All documents produced by VMS during fact discovery, all documents produced by Pinnacle during fact discovery, all discovery correspondence (including meet-and-confer letters and discovery dispute correspondence), deposition transcripts (if any were taken — for the record, no depositions were completed prior to settlement), and all discovery-related work product including document review notes and coding sheets.
• Internal Memoranda, Research Files, and Work-Product Documents. All internal legal research memoranda, case strategy documents, draft filings, claim charts, prior art analyses, damages analyses, and all other work-product materials generated by the engagement team during the representation.
• Privilege Log. The final privilege log consisting of 247 entries, in both native spreadsheet format (.xlsx) and PDF format.
• Settlement Documentation. The fully executed Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release dated June 4, 2025, the Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice filed on June 10, 2025 and entered by the Court on June 12, 2025, all settlement-related correspondence with Pinnacle's counsel and with Northbridge, and the documentation of the settlement payment (including wire transfer confirmations and allocation between VMS's SIR payment and Northbridge's indemnity payment).
• Billing Records and Invoices. All billing records and invoices for the Calderwood & Harkness engagement period (January 15, 2025 through June 2025), including records reflecting total defense costs of $512,800 (encompassing legal fees, expert fees, e-discovery vendor costs, local counsel fees, and other disbursements) and the $50,000 retainer deposited by VMS and credited against the final invoice.
E-discovery Data (Meridian Document Solutions LLC). During the course of the litigation, the engagement team utilized Meridian Document Solutions LLC, located at 7600 Leesburg Pike, Suite 410, Falls Church, VA 22043, as the e-discovery vendor for the processing, hosting, and review of ESI. Meridian has been instructed to preserve a final export of all processed data associated with this matter and to make such data available for download by the firm. Upon confirmation that the final data export has been successfully received and archived in the firm's DMS, Meridian's hosted data for this matter may be taken down and the hosting platform decommissioned for Matter No. 1007-00003, in accordance with the terms of the vendor services agreement between the firm and Meridian. Total costs incurred with Meridian for this engagement were $31,400.
C. Physical Files
All physical files associated with this matter — including hard-copy documents, binders, courtesy copies of filings, and any original documents — are to be boxed, indexed, and transferred to the firm's approved off-site records-management facility for storage during the retention period. Each box is to be labeled with the following identifying information:
• Matter No. 1007-00003
• Client Name: Vantage Mobility Systems Corp.
• Matter Description: Patent Infringement Defense — Pinnacle Innovations LLC v. Vantage Mobility Systems Corp., No. 2:24-cv-00187-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
• Scheduled Destruction Date: On or after June 20, 2032
It is anticipated that the physical file for this matter will be minimal, given the predominantly electronic nature of the litigation and the fact that the engagement team conducted the vast majority of its work through the firm's DMS and email systems. To the extent that physical copies of filings, courtesy copies, or other hard-copy materials exist, they should be consolidated and transferred as described above within thirty (30) days of the date of this memorandum.
D. Destruction After Retention Period
At the expiration of the seven-year retention period (i.e., on or after June 20, 2032), all matter files associated with Matter No. 1007-00003 — both electronic and physical — will be destroyed in accordance with the firm's Records Retention and Destruction Policy, unless any of the following circumstances exist at that time:
1. A new litigation hold or preservation obligation has arisen involving VMS, the '312 Patent, or the same or related subject matter, which would require continued preservation of any portion of the matter files;
2. The client has requested in writing that the matter files (or any portion thereof) be returned to the client or that the retention period be extended beyond the standard seven-year term; or
3. Applicable law, regulation, or professional responsibility rule requires the firm to retain the matter files for a period longer than seven years from the date of matter closing.
In the event that none of the foregoing circumstances exist, destruction of electronic files will be carried out through the firm's secure deletion protocols, which include the permanent erasure of all archived data from the DMS and backup systems. Destruction of physical files will be carried out through the firm's certified shredding service, with a certificate of destruction to be retained as a permanent record in the firm's records-management system.
E. Return of Client Materials
In the matter closing letter dated June 18, 2025, VMS was advised that original client documents and materials in the firm's possession will be returned to VMS upon request. VMS was further advised that if no request for return of original client documents is received within sixty (60) days of the date of the closing letter (i.e., by August 17, 2025), the firm will retain any such original client documents in its files and treat them in accordance with the document retention and destruction protocol described in this memorandum.
As of the date of this memorandum, no original client documents in physical form have been identified in the firm's possession. All client-produced materials were received by the firm in electronic format, either through the DMS or through the Meridian e-discovery platform. Accordingly, the return-of-documents provision is not expected to require any action, but the engagement team should remain prepared to accommodate a request from VMS during the sixty-day window should one be made.
V. Third-Party Vendor and Expert File Considerations
A. Greystone Technical Consulting LLC
Dr. Franklin Yeoh of Greystone Technical Consulting LLC, located at 900 Research Park Drive, Suite 210, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, was retained as the technical expert for VMS in this matter. Dr. Yeoh prepared detailed claim charts, invalidity analysis materials, and draft expert opinions addressing the invalidity of Claims 1, 7, and 14 of the '312 Patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, based on identified prior art references. As noted above, Dr. Yeoh's formal expert report was never filed with the Court, as the settlement mooted the expert report deadline of May 30, 2025 established under the Court's scheduling order.
Dr. Yeoh and Greystone have been notified of the closure of the matter and have been instructed to preserve all work files generated in connection with the engagement — including claim charts, invalidity analysis materials, draft expert opinions, correspondence with counsel, and all supporting documentation — for the same seven-year retention period applicable to the firm's matter files (i.e., through approximately June 2032). This instruction is consistent with the terms of the file-preservation provisions contained in the retention agreement between the firm and Greystone executed at the outset of the engagement.
Greystone's total fees billed for the engagement were $47,750, reflecting Dr. Yeoh's billing rate of $650 per hour. All Greystone invoices have been paid in full, and no outstanding balance remains.
B. Caldwell Barrow LLP (Local Counsel)
Sandra Caldwell of Caldwell Barrow LLP, located at 420 N. Broadway Avenue, Suite 300, Tyler, TX 75702, served as local counsel for VMS in the Eastern District of Texas. Ms. Caldwell's responsibilities included ensuring compliance with the local rules of the Eastern District, coordinating the filing and delivery of courtesy copies to the Court, and making in-court appearances on behalf of VMS as needed.
Ms. Caldwell and Caldwell Barrow have been notified of the closure of the matter and have been requested to forward any remaining files in their possession to Calderwood & Harkness for consolidation into the master matter file maintained in the firm's DMS. Upon receipt of any such files, they will be incorporated into the archived electronic file for Matter No. 1007-00003.
Caldwell Barrow's total fees billed for the engagement were $18,200, reflecting Ms. Caldwell's billing rate of $475 per hour. All Caldwell Barrow invoices have been paid in full, and no outstanding balance remains.
C. Meridian Document Solutions LLC (E-discovery Vendor)
As discussed in Section IV.B above, Meridian Document Solutions LLC served as the e-discovery vendor for this matter, providing document processing, hosting, and review-platform services. Meridian has been instructed to provide a final export of all processed data associated with the matter. Upon confirmation that the final data export has been successfully received and archived in the firm's DMS, the hosted environment maintained by Meridian for this matter may be decommissioned in accordance with the terms of the vendor services agreement.
Total costs incurred with Meridian for this engagement were $31,400. All Meridian invoices have been paid in full, and no outstanding balance remains.
VI. Summary of Key Financial and Matter Data for Archival Records
The following summary table is provided for inclusion on the archived file cover sheet and for reference by the firm's records-management and conflicts departments:
VII. Action Items and Recommendations
The following action items should be completed to finalize the matter closing process:
1. Meridian Data Export. Confirm receipt of the final data export from Meridian Document Solutions LLC and, upon successful archive to the firm's DMS, authorize the decommissioning of the Meridian hosted platform for this matter.
2. Caldwell Barrow File Transfer. Confirm receipt of any remaining files from Caldwell Barrow LLP and incorporate such files into the master matter file in the firm's DMS.
3. Greystone File Preservation. Confirm receipt of written acknowledgment from Greystone Technical Consulting LLC of its obligation to preserve its work files for the seven-year retention period, consistent with the terms of the retention agreement.
4. Physical File Storage. Complete the boxing and indexing of any physical files associated with this matter and arrange for transfer to the firm's approved off-site records-management facility within thirty (30) days.
5. Electronic Archive. Complete the archival of all electronic files in the firm's DMS under Matter No. 1007-00003, ensuring that appropriate access controls and retention tags are applied to the archived files.
6. Destruction Date Calendar Entry. Calendar the seven-year destruction date (on or after June 20, 2032) in the firm's records-management system, with appropriate reminders and pre-destruction review protocols.
7. Client Document Return. If VMS requests the return of any original documents within sixty (60) days of the June 18, 2025 matter closing letter (i.e., by August 17, 2025), coordinate the return of such documents promptly and document the return in the matter file.
VIII. Conclusion
In summary, the privilege log maintained in connection with Matter No. 1007-00003 is complete at 247 entries, encompassing all documents withheld from production on the basis of the attorney-client privilege and/or the work-product doctrine during both the Hargrove Dunn LLP and Calderwood & Harkness LLP periods of representation. No privilege challenges or motions to compel were pending at the time of settlement, and no in camera review of logged documents was conducted by the Court.
The litigation hold implemented at the outset of this matter has been released effective as of the date of this memorandum, June 20, 2025, following entry of the Court's order dismissing all claims and counterclaims with prejudice. VMS has been advised of the release and of its own independent document-retention obligations.
The document retention and destruction protocol set forth in this memorandum is now in effect for Matter No. 1007-00003. All matter files — electronic and physical — will be retained for a period of seven (7) years from the date of matter closing (through approximately June 2032) and will be destroyed thereafter in accordance with the firm's Records Retention and Destruction Policy, subject to the exceptions described in Section IV.D above.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions regarding the contents of this memorandum or if any modifications to the privilege log, the retention protocol, or the action items described herein are required.
Respectfully submitted,
CHRISTY BAUER Associate, intellectual Property Practice Group Calderwood & Harkness LLP One Fountain Square, 11th Floor Detroit, MI 48226
Distribution: Marcus Delgado, Responsible Partner (internal only); Omar Siddiqui, Lead Associate (internal only)
Field | Data
Matter Number | 1007-00003
Case Caption | Pinnacle Innovations LLC v. Vantage Mobility Systems Corp., No. 2:24-cv-00187-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
Client | Vantage Mobility Systems Corp., 4200 Innovation Drive, Auburn Hills, MI 48326
Engagement Period | January 15, 2025 – June 20, 2025
Responsible Partner | Marcus Delgado
Billing Partner | Catherine Bloom
Disposition | Settled; Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice entered June 12, 2025
Settlement Amount | $385,000 (VMS SIR: $75,000; Northbridge indemnity: $310,000)
Total C&H Legal Fees | $412,600
Total Defense Costs (all vendors) | $512,800
Grand Total Litigation Spend (C&H period) | $897,800
VMS Total Out-of-Pocket | $587,800
Retainer Deposited / Credited | $50,000
Privilege Log Entries | 247
Retention Period | Seven (7) years (through approximately June 2032)
Scheduled Destruction Date | On or after June 20, 2032

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP

MEMORANDUM

Record

Parties

Dates

Amounts