Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 34 Filed 11/10/20 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`YAR R. CHAIKOVSKY (SB# 175421)
`yarchaikovsky@paulhastings.com
`PHILIP OU (SB# 259896)
`philipou@paulhastings.com
`ANDY LEGOLVAN (SB# 292520)
`andylegolvan@paulhastings.com
`JOSEPH J. RUMPLER, II (SB# 296941)
`josephrumpler@paulhastings.com
`BERKELEY FIFE (SB# 325293)
`berkeleyfife@paulhastings.com
`BORIS LUBARSKY (SB# 324896)
`borislubarsky@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`1117 S. California Avenue
`Palo Alto, California 94304-1106
`Telephone: 1(650) 320-1800
`Facsimile: 1(650) 320-1900
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`DEMARAY LLC,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 5:20-cv-05676-EJD
`APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.’S
`RESPONSE TO DEMARAY LLC’S
`STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION
`
`Hearing Date: November 12, 2020
`Hearing Time: 9:00 a.m.
`
`
`
`
`APPLIED’S RESPONSE TO DEMARAY’S
`STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 34 Filed 11/10/20 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`Applied Materials, Inc. (“Applied”) submits this Response to Demaray LLC’s
`(“Demaray”) Statement of Recent Decision Regarding Applied’s Motion for Preliminary
`Injunction, Dkt. No. 32 (“Statement of Recent Decision”).
`Demaray has improperly invoked Local Rule 7-3(d)(2) to bring to the Court’s attention a
`status report and scheduling order recently filed in the actions in which Demaray is pursuing
`infringement claims against Applied’s customers, Intel and Samsung. See Dkt. No. 32.
`As an initial matter, Local Rule 7-3(d)(2) does not permit the filing of any post-briefing
`judicial paper—e.g., a status report or scheduling order—but rather only permits filing of “a
`relevant judicial opinion.” (emphasis added). The purpose of the rule is to inform the Court of
`new relevant legal authorities bearing on the issues before it—not to submit additional evidence
`that may take the form of court filings. See Bhandari v. Mehta, No. C 02-2813 SI, 2003 U.S. Dist.
`LEXIS 21386, at *4 n.1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2003) (noting that plaintiff’s supplemental evidence
`did not “conform to Rule 7-3(d) because the new material,” consisting of motions and orders
`from another court, “is not submitted for its value as new case law but rather as evidence of this
`Court’s personal jurisdiction over [defendant].”).1
`Regardless, Demaray mischaracterizes the underlying proceedings. The scheduling order
`issued by the WDTX court is just that—a scheduling order. The court did not consider—nor did
`Samsung or Intel request—a stay of the underlying proceedings. Demaray’s quotation to the joint
`status report describing it as a “stay” is from Demaray’s portion of the joint status report. See
`Dkt. No. 32; Dkt. No. 32-1 at 4. Intel and Samsung did not request a stay, but rather they asked
`
`
`1 In Bhandari, the court ultimately took leniency with respect to the pro se plaintiff’s
`supplemental evidence because he was not represented by counsel. See Bhandari, 2003 U.S. Dist.
`LEXIS 21386, at *4 n.1 (“However, because plaintiff is not represented by counsel in this matter,
`this Court will liberally construe Rule 7-3(d) and consider plaintiff’s supplemental pleading.”).
`Demaray, however, is represented by counsel here, and thus there is no reason to condone
`violation of this Court’s rules.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`APPLIED’S RESPONSE TO DEMARAY’S
`STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 34 Filed 11/10/20 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`the WDTX court to defer issuing a scheduling order in light of the upcoming preliminary
`injunction hearing in this Court. Id. The court ultimately entered a scheduling order pursuant to
`the court’s ordinary practice—and, importantly, made no findings or ruling on the question of
`whether Applied’s action in this Court or the customer suits in WDTX should take precedence
`under the “customer suit” rule.
`
`DATED: November 10, 2020
`
`
`YAR R. CHAIKOVSKY
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`
`By: /s/ Yar R. Chaikovsky
`YAR R. CHAIKOVSKY
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`APPLIED MATERIALS
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`APPLIED’S RESPONSE TO DEMARAY’S
`STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`