Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 31-4 Filed 10/23/20 Page 1 of 8
`Case 5:20-cv-05676—EJD Document 31-4 Filed 10/23/20 Page 1 of 8
`
`EXHIBIT C
`
`EXHIBIT C
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 31-4 Filed 10/23/20 Page 2 of 8
`
`From:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`Date:
`
`Wells, Maclain
`Ou, Philip; Faasisila, Nikole; Chu, Morgan; Hattenbach, Ben; Mueller, Mariandrea
`Demaray - AMAT; LeGolvan, Andy; Trevino, C. Daniel; Lubarsky, Boris; Faasisila, Nikole; #Demaray Service [Int]
`[EXT] RE: Applied Materials v. Demaray LLC - PI motion sur-reply / customer contentions
`Thursday, October 22, 2020 5:08:19 PM
`
`Phil,
`
`Article III standing is evaluated at the time of the filing of the complaint. As we have made clear, Applied
`lacked standing when it initiated this action. We do not see how Demaray’s later-filed preliminary
`infringement contentions in a case in which Applied is not a party and Applied’s reactors standing alone are
`not accused of infringement are relevant.
`
`Please let us know whether Applied will provide a list of the models/model numbers of PVD reactors that
`Applied provided to Intel or Samsung prior to the filing of the complaint in this matter, including the date
`of purchase and date and location of installation. Please also let us know whether Applied will provide the
`full specifications for all such PVD reactors as supplied. We believe that this information is relevant to
`Applied’s standing allegations at the time it filed suit.
`
`If necessary, I am free to discuss tomorrow between 11-1. Let me know if a time in that time window
`works for you.
`
`Regards,
`Maclain
` 
`From: Ou, Philip <philipou@paulhastings.com> 
`Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2020 12:43 PM
`To: Wells, Maclain <MWells@irell.com>; Faasisila, Nikole <nikolefaasisila@paulhastings.com>; Chu, Morgan
`<MChu@irell.com>; Hattenbach, Ben <BHattenbach@irell.com>; Mueller, Mariandrea <MMueller@irell.com>
`Cc: Demaray - AMAT <Demaray-AMAT@paulhastings.com>; LeGolvan, Andy <andylegolvan@paulhastings.com>;
`Trevino, C. Daniel <cdanieltrevino@paulhastings.com>; Lubarsky, Boris <borislubarsky@paulhastings.com>;
`Faasisila, Nikole <nikolefaasisila@paulhastings.com>; #Demaray Service [Int] <Demaray-Service@irell.com>
`Subject: RE: Applied Materials v. Demaray LLC - PI motion sur-reply / customer contentions
`
`Maclain,
` 
`Following up on our request from last Wednesday that you provide Demaray’s infringement contentions in
`the customer cases in WDTX against Samsung and Intel.  As we explained, the contentions are relevant to
`the Article III issue that you raised in your opposition brief to our injunction motion.  We asked that you
`provide them by COB Tuesday or explain the basis for refusing to provide them to Applied and the Court,
`but received neither.
` 
`Please get back to us before COB today.
` 
`We are generally available to meet and confer this afternoon if needed.
` 
`Thanks,
`Phil
` 
`From: Ou, Philip 
`Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 4:33 PM
`To: 'Wells, Maclain' <MWells@irell.com>; Faasisila, Nikole <nikolefaasisila@paulhastings.com>; Chu, Morgan
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 31-4 Filed 10/23/20 Page 3 of 8
`
`<MChu@irell.com>; Hattenbach, Ben <BHattenbach@irell.com>; Mueller, Mariandrea <MMueller@irell.com>
`Cc: Demaray - AMAT <Demaray-AMAT@paulhastings.com>; LeGolvan, Andy <andylegolvan@paulhastings.com>;
`Trevino, C. Daniel <cdanieltrevino@paulhastings.com>; Lubarsky, Boris <borislubarsky@paulhastings.com>;
`Faasisila, Nikole <nikolefaasisila@paulhastings.com>; #Demaray Service [Int] <Demaray-Service@irell.com>
`Subject: RE: Applied Materials v. Demaray LLC - PI motion sur-reply / customer contentions
`
`Maclain,
` 
`Regarding Demaray’s infringement contentions in the customer cases, they are relevant to the Article III
`issue Demaray raised in its opposition brief and whether this Court has subject matter jurisdiction. See
`Amazon.com, Inc. v. Straight Path IP Grp., Inc., No. 5:14-cv-04561-EJD, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69281, at *17
`(N.D. Cal. May 28, 2015) (infringement contentions in customer suits relevant to whether declaratory
`judgment jurisdiction exists in manufacturer’s suit).  Please provide them by COB tomorrow or explain the
`basis for refusing to provide them in response to our request and provide your availability to meet and
`confer.  To the extent there are concerns regarding confidentiality, you may designate them in accordance
`with the N.D. Cal. Protective Order.  See PLR 2-2.
` 
`Regarding Demaray’s request for a sur-reply, first, we disagree that any of the evidence submitted in our
`reply brief was improper.   Applied’s evidence is not “new” because it “addressed the same set of facts
`supplied in [the] opposition to the motion,” Rayon-Terrell v. Contra Costa Cty., 232 F. App'x 626, 629 n.2
`(9th Cir. 2007), and/or it was “submitted in direct response to evidence raised in the opposition,” Advanced
`Media Networks LLC v. Row 44 Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156649, 2014 WL 5760545, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 4,
`2014) (such evidence is “not new”).
` 
`As an example, Demaray submitted a declaration and argued it never offered a license to Applied in
`support of Demaray’s argument that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.  Subject matter
`jurisdiction was first raised by Demaray in its opposition.  Applied’s argument and evidence (i.e.,
`correspondence from Demaray to the contrary) was in response to the same set of facts and in direct
`response to the evidence submitted in Demaray’s opposition. See Laub v. Horbaczewski, No. CV 17-6210-
`JAK (KSx), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158171, at *3-5 (C.D. Cal. June 24, 2020) (no sur-reply warranted where
`declaration submitted with reply brief “respond[ed] to arguments [movants] raised in their Opposition”).  A
`similar analysis applies to the other evidence identified in the objections you filed on Friday.
` 
`To that end, please let us know if you oppose a motion for leave for Applied to respond to your objections.
` We have included our response that we will attach to the motion for leave for your review.  We plan on
`filing them by noon tomorrow, so please let us know your position on the motion for leave before then.  
` 
`We are still considering your request for a sur-reply, but your prior e-mail suggests that you intend to
`address arguments beyond the limited evidence that you have lodged objections to (which, if that is the
`intended scope of your planned sur-reply, we cannot agree to it).  For example, your e-mail says “Applied
`raises new arguments on each of these issues as well as the issues of comity and the applicable legal
`standard for a preliminary injunction.”  We disagree – we responded to Demaray’s arguments made in its
`opposition brief for which no sur-reply is warranted.  
` 
`Will you agree that the sur-reply will be limited to (i) responding to the evidence that Demaray identified in
`its objections and (ii) no more than five pages?  And will you allow us an opportunity to review the
`proposed sur-reply before you file it, as we are doing so now with our proposed response to your
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 31-4 Filed 10/23/20 Page 4 of 8
`
`objections?   
` 
`For avoidance of doubt, general arguments relating to comity, subject matter jurisdiction, Katz/eBay
`standard, and the customer suits addressed in Demaray’s opposition and responded to in Applied’s reply
`are inappropriate for this conditional sur-reply, unless they are directly relate to the evidence from
`Applied’s reply identified in Demaray’s objections.
`
`  I
`
` am generally available the rest of today or tomorrow to confer if needed.  It may be easier to walk
`through these moving parts by phone. 
` 
`Thanks,
`Phil
` 
` 
`From: Wells, Maclain <MWells@irell.com> 
`Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 2:12 PM
`To: Ou, Philip <philipou@paulhastings.com>; Faasisila, Nikole <nikolefaasisila@paulhastings.com>; Chu, Morgan
`<MChu@irell.com>; Hattenbach, Ben <BHattenbach@irell.com>; Mueller, Mariandrea <MMueller@irell.com>
`Cc: Demaray - AMAT <Demaray-AMAT@paulhastings.com>; LeGolvan, Andy <andylegolvan@paulhastings.com>;
`Trevino, C. Daniel <cdanieltrevino@paulhastings.com>; Lubarsky, Boris <borislubarsky@paulhastings.com>;
`Faasisila, Nikole <nikolefaasisila@paulhastings.com>; #Demaray Service [Int] <Demaray-Service@irell.com>
`Subject: [EXT] RE: Applied Materials v. Demaray LLC - PI motion sur-reply / customer contentions
`
`Phil,
` 
`Please let us know by the close of business if Applied will stipulate to our request for a 10-page sur-reply.
` 
`Thanks,
`Maclain
` 
` 
`From: Wells, Maclain 
`Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2020 2:47 PM
`To: 'Ou, Philip' <philipou@paulhastings.com>; Faasisila, Nikole <nikolefaasisila@paulhastings.com>; Chu, Morgan
`<MChu@irell.com>; Hattenbach, Ben <BHattenbach@irell.com>; Mueller, Mariandrea <MMueller@irell.com>
`Cc: Demaray - AMAT <Demaray-AMAT@paulhastings.com>; LeGolvan, Andy <andylegolvan@paulhastings.com>;
`Trevino, C. Daniel <cdanieltrevino@paulhastings.com>; Lubarsky, Boris <borislubarsky@paulhastings.com>;
`Faasisila, Nikole <nikolefaasisila@paulhastings.com>; #Demaray Service [Int] <Demaray-Service@irell.com>
`Subject: RE: Applied Materials v. Demaray LLC - PI motion sur-reply / customer contentions
`
`Phil,
` 
`The seven fact declarations and the new evidence should have been included in Applied’s opening filing to allow
`Demaray to respond.  The declarations and evidence appear to relate to the issues of subject matter jurisdiction,
`Applied’s license/ownership defenses, Applied’s arguments regarding the customer suit exception, and issues of
`comparative convenience.  Applied raises new arguments on each of these issues as well as the issues of comity
`and the applicable legal standard for a preliminary injunction.
` 
`Please let us know if Applied opposes our request for a sur-reply.
` 
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 31-4 Filed 10/23/20 Page 5 of 8
`
`Regarding Demaray’s infringement contentions in the Texas matters, please explain why Applied needs
`confidential materials from those cases.
` 
`Thanks,
`Maclain
` 
`From: Ou, Philip <philipou@paulhastings.com> 
`Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 5:11 PM
`To: Wells, Maclain <MWells@irell.com>; Faasisila, Nikole <nikolefaasisila@paulhastings.com>; Chu, Morgan
`<MChu@irell.com>; Hattenbach, Ben <BHattenbach@irell.com>; Mueller, Mariandrea <MMueller@irell.com>
`Cc: Demaray - AMAT <Demaray-AMAT@paulhastings.com>; LeGolvan, Andy <andylegolvan@paulhastings.com>;
`Trevino, C. Daniel <cdanieltrevino@paulhastings.com>; Lubarsky, Boris <borislubarsky@paulhastings.com>;
`Faasisila, Nikole <nikolefaasisila@paulhastings.com>; #Demaray Service [Int] <Demaray-Service@irell.com>
`Subject: RE: Applied Materials v. Demaray LLC - PI motion sur-reply / customer contentions
`
`Maclain,
` 
`Thanks for your e-mail.  We disagree that Applied submitted new arguments in its reply brief.  The
`arguments and supporting evidence (e.g., the declarations) were submitted in direct response to
`arguments made by Demaray in its opposition brief.
` 
`That said, as a matter of equity, we are willing to consider not opposing a limited sur-reply.  Can you please
`identify what you specifically contend are “new arguments and supporting evidence” that you believe
`warrant a sur-reply?  Is it limited to the declarations and exhibits, and the arguments they support?
` 
`Separately, we understand that Demaray has served infringement contentions on Intel and Samsung in the
`customer cases in WDTX.  Applied believes that the scope of your infringement allegations in those cases is
`relevant to the pending injunction motion.  Will you provide those contentions to us if we treat them as
`confidential?  If not, can you explain why?    
` 
`Happy to confer about both issues tomorrow or Friday at your convenience.
` 
`Thanks,
`Phil
` 
`From: Wells, Maclain <MWells@irell.com> 
`Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 1:03 PM
`To: Ou, Philip <philipou@paulhastings.com>; Faasisila, Nikole <nikolefaasisila@paulhastings.com>; Chu, Morgan
`<MChu@irell.com>; Hattenbach, Ben <BHattenbach@irell.com>; Mueller, Mariandrea <MMueller@irell.com>
`Cc: Demaray - AMAT <Demaray-AMAT@paulhastings.com>; LeGolvan, Andy <andylegolvan@paulhastings.com>;
`Trevino, C. Daniel <cdanieltrevino@paulhastings.com>; Lubarsky, Boris <borislubarsky@paulhastings.com>;
`Faasisila, Nikole <nikolefaasisila@paulhastings.com>; #Demaray Service [Int] <Demaray-Service@irell.com>
`Subject: [EXT] RE: Applied Materials v. Demaray LLC - inadvertently omitted declarations to reply brief
`
`Phil,
`
`We do not believe that it is appropriate for Applied to submit new arguments and supporting evidence in a
`reply brief. Doing so is manifestly unfair as Demaray has no opportunity for a written response. Given the
`seven declarations and additional exhibits attached to Applied’s reply, we intend to request permission from
`the Court to file a 10-page sur-reply. Please let us know if Applied will oppose this request.
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 31-4 Filed 10/23/20 Page 6 of 8
`
`
`In addition, we will file objections to submitted evidence as appropriate according to the local rules.
`
`Thank you,
`Maclain
` 
`From: Ou, Philip <philipou@paulhastings.com> 
`Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 11:57 AM
`To: Faasisila, Nikole <nikolefaasisila@paulhastings.com>; Chu, Morgan <MChu@irell.com>; Hattenbach, Ben
`<BHattenbach@irell.com>; Wells, Maclain <MWells@irell.com>; Mueller, Mariandrea <MMueller@irell.com>
`Cc: Demaray - AMAT <Demaray-AMAT@paulhastings.com>; LeGolvan, Andy <andylegolvan@paulhastings.com>;
`Trevino, C. Daniel <cdanieltrevino@paulhastings.com>; Lubarsky, Boris <borislubarsky@paulhastings.com>;
`Faasisila, Nikole <nikolefaasisila@paulhastings.com>; #Demaray Service [Int] <Demaray-Service@irell.com>
`Subject: RE: Applied Materials v. Demaray LLC - inadvertently omitted declarations to reply brief
`
`Maclain,
` 
`An inadvertent clerical omission from Friday’s filing of our reply brief has come to our attention.  In
`preparing and filing our administrative motion to seal certain declarations and exhibits, we inadvertently
`did not file the declarations that did not require redactions.  Those are the Thomson, Dietz and Cross
`declarations (from certain Samsung entities) that are cited in the reply, e.g., at page 9, which I’ve attached. 
`As you’ll see, they were executed either last Thursday or Friday.
` 
`We intend to submit these omitted items to the Court today.  If you have any objections, please let us know
`before COB today.
` 
`I’m also available to discuss if needed.
` 
`Thanks,
`Phil
` 
` 
`From: Faasisila, Nikole <nikolefaasisila@paulhastings.com> 
`Sent: Friday, October 9, 2020 7:56 PM
`To: mchu@irell.com; bhattenbach@irell.com; mwells@irell.com; mmueller@irell.com
`Cc: Demaray - AMAT <Demaray-AMAT@paulhastings.com>; LeGolvan, Andy <andylegolvan@paulhastings.com>;
`Trevino, C. Daniel <cdanieltrevino@paulhastings.com>; Lubarsky, Boris <borislubarsky@paulhastings.com>;
`Faasisila, Nikole <nikolefaasisila@paulhastings.com>
`Subject: Applied Materials v. Demaray LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-5676-EJD
`
`
`Counsel,
`
`Attached please find the documents filed under seal tonight with Docket No. 26.
`
`Regards,
`Nikole
`
`____________________________________________________________________________
` Nikole Faasisila | Client Service Specialist
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 31-4 Filed 10/23/20 Page 7 of 8
`
`Paul Hastings LLP | 1117 S. California Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94304 | Direct: +1.650.320.1806 | Main:
`+1.650.320.1800 | Fax: +1.650.320.1906 | nikolefaasisila@paulhastings.com | www.paulhastings.com
`
`
`
`Files attached to this message
`Filename
`Size
`
`Checksum (SHA1)
`
`2020-10-
`09_26_10
`Declaration
`of Herrgott
`SEALED.pdf
`
`2020-10-
`09_26_12
`Declaration
`of Kim
`SEALED.pdf
`
`2020-10-
`09_26_14
`Declaration
`of Miller
`SEALED.pdf
`
`2020-10-
`09_26_4
`Reply ISO
`Motion for
`Preliminary
`Injunction
`SEALED.pdf
`
`2020-10-
`09_26_6 Ex
`N -
`Mukundan
`Agreement
`SEALED.pdf
`
`2020-10-
`09_26_8
`Declaration
`of Greuter
`SEALED.pdf
`
`755
`KB 11f68941668ea22f5e34cc701c064bfc2ec8d8d5bc62cd7aa67d490ef299fcfa
`
`699
`KB 002844bb76b93049527cff111a2390e6a7c70ff90b0112c47527d9cf71b57713
`
`363
`KB 39527f8fa9cce6b3f58c80aed11f8e40249157728ecada746c23d3510b75e48f
`
`239
`KB 4227857b27f81cc24023b2c9b8b49724cb5dfb8be682db2a0fb36c08f7debdfb
`
`997
`KB dbeaa87766d138a575a28ae4caeeb7cc183f19a693fca71b4fbb81592c63f635
`
`2.13
`MB 1d748a6dc99e0082c1542ece3537e6f09afe3c13ba43f1207d6b4feff2fc369b
`
`Click on the following link to download the attachments:
`https://phftpus.phextranet.com/message/K79ClFaRH7fT6SuTGnMRhP
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 31-4 Filed 10/23/20 Page 8 of 8
`
`This message or download link can only be forwarded to internal users of PH Secure File Transfer Service.
`phftpus.phextranet.com.
`
`The attachments are available until: Friday, 16 October.
`
`Message ID: K79ClFaRH7fT6SuTGnMRhP
`
`******************************************************************************************
`This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received
`this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
`If you reply to this message, Paul Hastings may collect personal information including your name, business name
`and other contact details, and IP address. For more information about Paul Hastings’ information collection, privacy
`and security principles please refer to our Global Privacy Statement (available at
`
`******************************************************************************************
`This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received
`this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
`If you reply to this message, Paul Hastings may collect personal information including your name, business name
`and other contact details, and IP address. For more information about Paul Hastings’ information collection, privacy
`and security principles please click HERE. If you have any questions, please contact Privacy@paulhastings.com.
`
`PLEASE NOTE: This message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or
`inside information. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended
`recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify
`the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Thank you.
`
`******************************************************************************************
`This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received
`this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
`If you reply to this message, Paul Hastings may collect personal information including your name, business name
`and other contact details, and IP address. For more information about Paul Hastings’ information collection, privacy
`and security principles please click HERE. If you have any questions, please contact Privacy@paulhastings.com.
`
`******************************************************************************************
`This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received
`this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
`If you reply to this message, Paul Hastings may collect personal information including your name, business name
`and other contact details, and IP address. For more information about Paul Hastings’ information collection, privacy
`and security principles please click HERE. If you have any questions, please contact Privacy@paulhastings.com.
`
`