Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 23-18 Filed 09/25/20 Page 1 of 18
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00634-ADA Document 19 Filed 09/21/20 Page 1 of 17Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 23-18 Filed 09/25/20 Page 2 of 18
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`DEMARAY LLC,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:20-CV-00634-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`DEFENDANT INTEL CORPORATION’S
`ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`Defendant Intel Corporation (“Intel”) herein answers the Complaint filed by Plaintiff
`
`Demaray LLC (“Demaray”) and states its affirmative defenses. Intel denies all allegations of the
`
`Complaint not explicitly admitted below.1
`
`ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Intel admits that Richard E. Demaray is listed as a named inventor on the face of
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,544,276 (“the ’276 patent”) and 7,381,657 (“the ’657 patent”) (collectively,
`
`the “Patents-in-Suit”). Intel is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
`
`the truth of the allegations of this paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
`2.
`
`Intel is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations of this paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
`
`Any statements and admissions included herein reflect Intel’s present understanding of
`1
`the scope of the corresponding allegations and of terms used therein and/or in U.S. Patent Nos.
`7,544,276 and 7,381,657 as those terms may be understood generally and presently understood
`by Intel.
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00634-ADA Document 19 Filed 09/21/20 Page 2 of 17Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 23-18 Filed 09/25/20 Page 3 of 18
`
`3.
`
`Intel denies that it uses Demaray’s patented technology. Intel is without
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations
`
`of this paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
`4.
`
`Intel is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations of this paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
`5.
`
`Intel admits that Demaray’s Complaint purports to attach uncertified copies of the
`
`’276 patent and ’657 patent as Exhibits 1 and 2, respectively. Intel is without knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of this
`
`paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
`6.
`
`Intel admits that it is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of
`
`the State of Delaware, and has a place of business at 1300 South Mopac Expressway, Austin,
`
`Texas 78746. To the extent this paragraph recites a legal conclusion, no response is necessary.
`
`If a response is required, Intel denies this conclusion.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`7.
`
`Intel admits that Demaray’s Complaint purports to set forth an action arising
`
`under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. Intel denies that there are
`
`factual or legal bases for the claims listed in the Complaint. Intel admits that this Court has
`
`subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`8.
`
`For the limited purpose of this action only, Intel admits that it is subject to
`
`personal jurisdiction in the Western District of Texas.
`
`9.
`
`For the limited purpose of this action only, Intel admits that it is subject to
`
`personal jurisdiction in the Western District of Texas, but denies the other allegations recited in
`
`this paragraph.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00634-ADA Document 19 Filed 09/21/20 Page 3 of 17Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 23-18 Filed 09/25/20 Page 4 of 18
`
`10.
`
`To the extent this paragraph recites a legal conclusion, no answer is required. To
`
`the extent that an answer is required, Intel denies that it makes, uses, sells, and/or offers to sell
`
`products or processes infringing the Patents-in-Suit and denies that the Western District of Texas
`
`is the most convenient venue to litigate this action. Intel admits that it has transacted and is
`
`continuing to transact business in the United States, including in the Western District of Texas.
`
`TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND
`
`11.
`
`Intel admits that semiconductor devices are generally manufactured using a series
`
`of process steps applied to a substrate, but denies the other allegations in this paragraph.
`
`12.
`
`Intel admits that magnetron sputtering is one of many physical vapor deposition
`
`(“PVD”) techniques and admits that magnetron sputtering can be carried out in a reactor with
`
`power being applied to a target. Intel is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of this paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
`13.
`
`Intel admits that the ’276 patent states:
`
`Other approaches to providing a uniform condition of sputter erosion rely
`on creating a large uniform magnetic field or a scanning magnetic field that
`produces a time-averaged, uniform magnetic field. For example, rotating magnets
`or electromagnets can be utilized to provide wide areas of substantially uniform
`target erosion. For magnetically enhanced sputter deposition, a scanning magnet
`magnetron source can be used to provide a uniform, wide area condition of target
`erosion.
`
`
`As illustrated in FIG. 1A, apparatus 10 can include a scanning magnet
`magnetron source 20 positioned above target 12. An embodiment of a scanning
`magnetron source used for dc sputtering of metallic films is described in U.S. Pat.
`No. 5,855,744 to Halsey, et. al., (hereafter ’744), which is incorporated herein by
`reference in its entirety. The ’744 patent demonstrates the improvement in
`thickness uniformity that is achieved by reducing local target erosion due to
`magnetic effects in the sputtering of a wide area rectangular target. As described
`in the ’744 patent, by reducing the magnetic field intensity at these positions, the
`local target erosion was decreased and the resulting film thickness nonuniformity
`was improved from 8%, to 4%, over a rectangular substrate of 400x500 mm.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00634-ADA Document 19 Filed 09/21/20 Page 4 of 17Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 23-18 Filed 09/25/20 Page 5 of 18
`
`’276 patent, 8:38-60. Intel admits that the ’276 patent also states: “Target 12 functions as a
`
`cathode when power is applied to it and is equivalently termed a cathode. Application of power
`
`to target 12 creates a plasma 53. Substrate 16 is capacitively coupled to an electrode 17 through
`
`an insulator 54.” ’276 patent, 5:24-27. Intel is without knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of this paragraph, and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`14.
`
`Intel admits that the ’276 patent states:
`
`In accordance with the present invention, a sputtering reactor apparatus for
`depositing oxide and oxynitride films is presented. Further, methods for
`depositing oxide and oxynitride films for optical waveguide devices are also
`presented. A sputtering reactor according to the present invention includes a
`pulsed DC power supply coupled through a filter to a target and a substrate
`electrode coupled to an RF power supply. A substrate mounted on the substrate
`electrode is therefore supplied with a bias from the RF power supply.
`
`
`The target can be a metallic target made of a material to be deposited on
`the substrate. In some embodiments, the metallic target is formed from Al, Si and
`various rare-earth ions. A target with an erbium concentration, for example, can
`be utilized to deposit a film that can be formed into a waveguide optical amplifier.
`
`
`A substrate can be any material and, in some embodiments, is a silicon
`wafer. In some embodiments, RF power can be supplied to the wafer. In some
`embodiments, the wafer and the electrode can be separated by an insulating glass.
`
`
`In some embodiments, up to about 10 kW of pulsed DC power at a
`frequency of between about 40 kHz and 350 kHz and a reverse pulse time of up to
`about 5µs is supplied to the target. The wafer can be biased with up to about
`several hundred watts of RF power. The temperature of the substrate can be
`controlled to within about 10° C. and can vary from about -50° C. to several
`hundred degrees C. Process gasses can be fed into the reaction chamber of the
`reactor apparatus. In some embodiments, the process gasses can include
`combinations of Ar, N2, O2, C2F6, CO2, CO and other process gasses.
`
`
`’276 patent, 2:45-3:7. Intel admits that the ’276 patent also states: “However, both RF and
`
`pulsed DC deposited films are not fully dense and most likely have columnar structures. These
`
`columnar structures are detrimental for optical wave guide applications due to the scattering loss
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00634-ADA Document 19 Filed 09/21/20 Page 5 of 17Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 23-18 Filed 09/25/20 Page 6 of 18
`
`caused by the structure. By applying a RF bias on wafer 16 during deposition, the deposited film
`
`can be dandified by energetic ion bombardment and the columnar structure can be substantially
`
`eliminated.” ’276 patent, 5:60-67. Intel is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of this paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
`15.
`
`Intel admits that the ’276 patent states: “The process gas utilized in reactor 10
`
`includes an inert gas, typically argon, used as the background sputtering gas. Additionally, with
`
`some embodiments of target 12, reactive components such as, for example, oxygen may be
`
`added to the sputtering gas. Other gasses such as N2, NH3, CO, NO, CO2, halide containing
`
`gasses other gas-phase reactants can also be utilized.” ’276 patent, 8:61-67. Intel is without
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations
`
`of this paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
`FIRST CLAIM
`
`16.
`
`Paragraph 16 does not contain an allegation of fact, and, therefore, no answer is
`
`required. Intel incorporates by reference its answers to the allegations in Paragraphs 1-15 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`17.
`
`Intel admits that the ’276 patent is titled “Biased pulse DC reactive sputtering of
`
`oxide films” and that it issued on June 9, 2009. Intel admits that the Complaint attaches an
`
`uncertified copy of the ’276 patent as Exhibit 1. Intel denies the remaining allegations of this
`
`paragraph.
`
`18.
`
`Intel admits that the face of the ’276 patent lists Hongmei Zhang, Mukundan
`
`Narasimhan, Ravi B. Mullapudi, and Richard E. Demaray as co-inventors.
`
`19.
`
`The allegations in this paragraph regarding the force and effect of the ’276 patent
`
`are legal conclusions and therefore require no response. To the extent a response is required,
`
`Intel is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00634-ADA Document 19 Filed 09/21/20 Page 6 of 17Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 23-18 Filed 09/25/20 Page 7 of 18
`
`allegations, and therefore denies them. Intel is without knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of this paragraph, and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`20.
`
`Intel admits that the ’276 patent states: “The present invention relates to
`
`deposition of oxide and oxynitride films and, in particular, to deposition of oxide and oxynitride
`
`films by pulsed DC reactive sputtering.” ’276 patent, 1:12-14. Intel denies the remaining
`
`allegations in this paragraph.
`
`21.
`
`Intel admits that the ’276 patent states: “a substrate electrode coupled to an RF
`
`power supply. A substrate mounted on the substrate electrode is therefore supplied with a bias
`
`from the RF power supply.” ’276 patent, 2:51-53. Intel denies the remaining allegations in this
`
`paragraph.
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`Intel denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`Intel denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`[“1. A reactor according to the present invention, comprising:”]2
`
`24.
`
`25.
`
`Intel denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`Intel admits that it uses RMS reactors for deposition of layers in its semiconductor
`
`products. Intel admits that it has identified Applied Materials, Inc. as a Preferred Quality
`
`Supplier. Intel is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the remaining allegations of this paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
`26.
`
`Intel denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`[“a target area for receiving a target;”]
`
`27.
`
`Intel denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`
`Intel denies all allegations in Demaray’s headings or subheadings.
`
`2
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00634-ADA Document 19 Filed 09/21/20 Page 7 of 17Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 23-18 Filed 09/25/20 Page 8 of 18
`
`28.
`
`Intel
`
`admits
`
`that
`
`the
`
`document
`
`available
`
`at
`
`the
`
`link
`
`https://www.appliedmaterials.com/resources/glossary states: “[i]n PVD, the target is the source
`
`of the material to be deposited. Atoms are ejected from the target as a result of the
`
`bombardment of energetic particles.” Intel denies the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`29.
`
`Intel is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations of this paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
`[“a substrate area opposite the target area for receiving a substrate;”]
`
`30.
`
`31.
`
`Intel denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`Intel
`
`admits
`
`that
`
`the
`
`document
`
`available
`
`at
`
`the
`
`link
`
`https://www.appliedmaterials.com/resources/glossary states: “[t]he material upon which thin
`
`films are manipulated. Silicon is most commonly used for semiconductors . . . .” Intel denies
`
`the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`32.
`
`Intel is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations of this paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
`[“a pulsed DC power supply coupled to the target area, the pulsed DC power supply
`
`providing alternating negative and positive voltages to the target;”]
`
`33.
`
`34.
`
`35.
`
`Intel denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`Intel denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`Intel is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations of this paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
` [“an RF bias power supply coupled to the substrate;”]
`
`36.
`
`Intel denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00634-ADA Document 19 Filed 09/21/20 Page 8 of 17Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 23-18 Filed 09/25/20 Page 9 of 18
`
`37.
`
`Intel is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations of this paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
`38.
`
`Intel is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations of this paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
` [“and a narrow band-rejection filter that rejects at a frequency of the RF bias power
`
`supply coupled between the pulsed DC power supply and the target area.”]
`
`39.
`
`40.
`
`Intel denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`Intel denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`SECOND CLAIM
`
`41.
`
`Paragraph 41 does not contain an allegation of fact, and, therefore, no answer is
`
`required. Intel incorporates by reference its answers to the allegations in Paragraphs 1-40 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`42.
`
`Intel admits that the ’657 patent is titled “Biased pulse DC reactive sputtering of
`
`oxide films” and that it issued on June 3, 2008. Intel admits that the Complaint attaches an
`
`uncertified copy of the ’657 patent as Exhibit 2. Intel denies the remaining allegations in this
`
`paragraph.
`
`43.
`
`Intel admits that the face of the ’657 patent lists Hongmei Zhang, Mukundan
`
`Narasimhan, Ravi B. Mullapudi, and Richard E. Demaray as co-inventors.
`
`44.
`
`The allegations in this paragraph regarding the force and effect of the ’657 patent
`
`are legal conclusions and therefore require no response. To the extent a response is required,
`
`Intel is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these
`
`allegations, and therefore denies them. Intel is without knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of this paragraph, and therefore denies
`
`them.
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00634-ADA Document 19 Filed 09/21/20 Page 9 of 17Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 23-18 Filed 09/25/20 Page 10 of 18
`
`45.
`
`Intel admits that the ’657 patent states: “The present invention relates to
`
`deposition of oxide and oxynitride films and, in particular, to deposition of oxide and oxynitride
`
`films by pulsed DC reactive sputtering.” ’657 patent, 1:11-13. Intel denies the remaining
`
`allegations in this paragraph.
`
`46.
`
`Intel admits that the ’657 patent states: “A sputtering reactor according to the
`
`present invention includes a pulsed DC power supply coupled through a filter to a target and a
`
`substrate electrode coupled to an RF power supply. A substrate mounted on the substrate
`
`electrode is therefore supplied with a bias from the RF power supply.” ’657 patent, 2:49-54.
`
`Intel denies the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`47.
`
`48.
`
`Intel denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`Intel denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
` [“A method of depositing film on an insulating substrate, comprising:”]
`
`49.
`
`50.
`
`Intel denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`Intel admits that it deposits certain TaN and/or TiN layers for certain of its
`
`Broadwell Processors, which are fabricated using silicon wafers. Intel denies the remaining
`
`allegations in this paragraph.
`
`[“providing a process gas between a conductive target and the substrate;”]
`
`51.
`
`Intel admits that it fabricates semiconductor products in part by using a process
`
`gas, a target, and a substrate. Intel denies the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`52.
`
`Intel admits that it uses an RMS reactor in the fabrication of TaN layers for at
`
`least some of its Core M 5Y70/5Y10 14 nm Gen 2 Broadwell Processors. Intel admits that in
`
`some processes it uses nitrogen gas. Intel denies the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00634-ADA Document 19 Filed 09/21/20 Page 10 of 17Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 23-18 Filed 09/25/20 Page 11 of 18
`
`53.
`
`Intel admits that it uses a process gas including nitrogen, a tantalum target, and a
`
`silicon substrate in certain of its processes. Intel denies the remaining allegations in this
`
`paragraph.
`
`[“providing pulsed DC power to the target through a narrow band rejection filter such that
`
`the target alternates between positive and negative voltages;”]
`
`54.
`
`Intel admits that it fabricates semiconductor products. Intel does not know what
`
`meaning Demaray is ascribing to “providing pulsed DC power to the target through a narrow
`
`band rejection filter such that the target alternates between positive and negative voltages,” and
`
`therefore denies the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`55.
`
`Intel admits that it uses an RMS reactor in the fabrication of TaN layers for at
`
`least some of its Core M 5Y70/5Y10 14 nm Gen 2 Broadwell Processors. Intel is without
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations
`
`of this paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
`56.
`
`Intel is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations of this paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
`57.
`
`Intel denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
` [“providing an RF bias at a frequency that corresponds to the narrow band rejection filter
`
`to the substrate;”]
`
`58.
`
`Intel admits that it fabricates semiconductor products. Intel does not know what
`
`meaning Demaray is ascribing to “providing an RF bias at a frequency that corresponds to the
`
`narrow band rejection filter to the substrate,” and therefore denies the remaining allegations in
`
`this paragraph.
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00634-ADA Document 19 Filed 09/21/20 Page 11 of 17Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 23-18 Filed 09/25/20 Page 12 of 18
`
`59.
`
`Intel admits that it uses an RMS reactor in the fabrication of TaN layers for at
`
`least some of its Core M 5Y70/5Y10 14 nm Gen 2 Broadwell Processors. Intel denies the
`
`remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`60.
`
`Intel is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations of this paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
`[“providing a magnetic field to the target;”]
`
`61.
`
`Intel admits that it fabricates semiconductor products. Intel admits that a
`
`magnetic field is provided at certain times during fabrication of certain products. Intel denies the
`
`remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`62.
`
`Intel admits that it uses an RMS reactor in the fabrication of TaN layers for at
`
`least some of its Core M 5Y70/5Y10 14 nm Gen 2 Broadwell Processors. Intel denies the
`
`remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`63.
`
`Intel admits that page 9 of Exhibit 5 to the Complaint contains an image with a
`
`red box and the word “Magnetron” next to it. Intel is without knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of this paragraph, and
`
`therefore denies them.
`
`[“and reconditioning the target;”]
`
`64.
`
`Intel admits that it fabricates semiconductor products. Intel denies the remaining
`
`allegations in this paragraph.
`
`65.
`
`Intel admits that it uses an RMS reactor in the fabrication of TaN layers for at
`
`least some of its Core M 5Y70/5Y10 14 nm Gen 2 Broadwell Processors. Intel denies the
`
`remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00634-ADA Document 19 Filed 09/21/20 Page 12 of 17Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 23-18 Filed 09/25/20 Page 13 of 18
`
`[“wherein reconditioning the target includes reactive sputtering in the metallic mode and
`
`then reactive sputtering in the poison mode.”]
`
`66.
`
`Intel admits that it fabricates semiconductor products. Intel denies the remaining
`
`allegations in this paragraph.
`
`67.
`
`Intel admits that it uses an RMS reactor in the fabrication of TaN layers for at
`
`least some of its Core M 5Y70/5Y10 14 nm Gen 2 Broadwell Processors. Intel denies the
`
`remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`68.
`
`Intel admits that, as of the filing of the Complaint, it has knowledge of the
`
`Patents-in-Suit. Intel denies the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`69.
`
`70.
`
`71.
`
`Intel denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`Intel denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`Intel denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`ANSWER TO PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`72.
`
`Intel denies that is it liable for any relief requested in the Prayer for Relief,
`
`including that requested in subparagraphs A though H. Intel has not directly, indirectly, literally
`
`and/or by the doctrine of equivalents infringed the Patents-in-Suit. Demaray is not entitled to
`
`any relief in this action, either as requested in its Complaint or otherwise.
`
`73.
`
`Intel further denies all allegations in Demaray’s Complaint to which it has not
`
`specifically responded.
`
`INTEL’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`Intel asserts the following affirmative defenses as a response to the allegations in
`
`Demaray’s Complaint. To the extent any of these defenses, in whole or in part, relates to or
`
`negates an element of Demaray’s claims, Intel in no way seeks to relieve Demaray of its burden
`
`of proof or persuasion on that element.
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00634-ADA Document 19 Filed 09/21/20 Page 13 of 17Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 23-18 Filed 09/25/20 Page 14 of 18
`
`First Affirmative Defense
`(Failure to State a Claim)
`
`74.
`
`Demaray’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
`
`Second Affirmative Defense
`(Noninfringement)
`
`75.
`
`Intel has not infringed and does not infringe (not directly, contributorily, or by
`
`inducement), either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, any claim of the Patents-in-
`
`Suit.
`
`Third Affirmative Defense
`(Patent Invalidity)
`
`76.
`
`The claims of the Patents-in-Suit are invalid because they do not satisfy the
`
`requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 100, et seq., including but not limited to: 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102,
`
`103, 112 and/or 116.
`
`Fourth Affirmative Defense
`(Prosecution History Estoppel / Prosecution Disclaimer)
`
`77.
`
`Demaray’s claims are barred by the doctrines of prosecution history estoppel
`
`and/or prosecution disclaimer.
`
`Fifth Affirmative Defense
`(Ensnarement)
`
`78.
`
`Demaray’s claims are barred or limited by the doctrine of ensnarement.
`
`Sixth Affirmative Defense
`(Plaintiff’s License and/or Exhaustion of Rights)
`
`79.
`
`To the extent any products accused by way of the Complaint are subject to a
`
`license for any of the Patents-in-Suit, or to the extent Demaray has otherwise exhausted its rights
`
`in the Patents-in-Suit, Demaray’s claims are barred, in whole or in part.
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00634-ADA Document 19 Filed 09/21/20 Page 14 of 17Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 23-18 Filed 09/25/20 Page 15 of 18
`
`80.
`
`On information and belief, Demaray’s predecessor (Symmorphix, Inc.) and
`
`Applied Materials, Inc.’s affiliate (Applied Komatsu Technology) previously entered into an
`
`agreement licensing the technology recited in the Patents-in-Suit, under which Intel has the right
`
`to use the licensed technology.
`
`Seventh Affirmative Defense
`(Limitation on Damages)
`
`81.
`
`Demaray’s claims for damages, if any, against Intel for alleged infringement of
`
`the Patents-in-Suit are limited by 35 U.S.C. §§ 286, 287, and/or 288.
`
`Eighth Affirmative Defense
`(Lack of Standing and Failure to Join Co-Owner)
`
`82.
`
`83.
`
`Demaray cannot proceed in an infringement action without joining all co-owners.
`
`On information and belief, certain named inventors of the Patents-in-Suit assigned
`
`their rights to Applied Materials, Inc. and/or Applied Komatsu Technology, making these
`
`entities co-owners that are not joined in Demaray’s action against Intel.
`
`84.
`
`Thus, Demaray lacks standing to bring this action.
`
`Ninth Affirmative Defense
`(Inconvenient Venue)
`
`85.
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404, venue in the Western District of Texas is
`
`inconvenient for Intel.
`
`Tenth Affirmative Defense
`(Unenforceability)
`
`86.
`
`Demaray’s claims are barred by the doctrines of waiver, acquiescence, estoppel,
`
`implied license, unclean hands, and/or patent misuse.
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00634-ADA Document 19 Filed 09/21/20 Page 15 of 17Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 23-18 Filed 09/25/20 Page 16 of 18
`
`Eleventh Affirmative Defense
`(Statute of Limitations)
`
`87.
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 286, Demaray may not recover damages for any alleged
`
`infringement that occurred more than six years prior to the commencement of this action.
`
`Twelfth Affirmative Defense
`(Government Sale)
`
`88.
`
`Under 28 U.S.C. § 1498, Demaray’s claims are barred to the extent that they
`
`relate to use or manufacture of the technology described in the Patents-in-Suit by or for the
`
`United States.
`
`Thirteenth Affirmative Defense
`(No Double Compensation)
`
`89.
`
`The relief sought by Demaray is limited, in whole or in part, by any compensation
`
`received or sought by Demaray for its alleged patent rights from entities whose products
`
`incorporate any accused Intel products.
`
`RESERVATION OF DEFENSES
`
`Intel reserves all affirmative defenses under Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure, the Patent Laws of the United States, and any other defenses, at law or in equity, that
`
`may now exist or in the future be available based on discovery and future factual investigation.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Intel demands a jury trial on all triable issues.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00634-ADA Document 19 Filed 09/21/20 Page 16 of 17Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 23-18 Filed 09/25/20 Page 17 of 18
`
`Dated: September 21, 2020
`
`By:
`
` /s/ J. Stephen Ravel
`J. Stephen Ravel
`Texas State Bar No. 16584975
`KELLY HART & HALLMAN LLP 303
`Colorado, Suite 2000
`Austin, Texas 78701
`Tel: (512) 495-6429
`Email: steve.ravel@kellyhart.com
`
`Attorney for Intel Corporation
`
`
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00634-ADA Document 19 Filed 09/21/20 Page 17 of 17Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 23-18 Filed 09/25/20 Page 18 of 18
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that on September 21, 2020 all counsel of record who are
`
`deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via
`
`the Court’s CM/ECF system.
`
` /s/ J. Stephen Ravel
`J. Stephen Ravel
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`