Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 42-1 Filed 12/07/20 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`DEMARAY LLC,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 5:20-cv-05676-EJD
`DECLARATION OF JOHN FORSTER
`IN SUPPORT OF APPLIED
`MATERIALS, INC.’S RESPONSE TO
`DEMARAY LLC’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FORSTER DECL. IN SUPPORT OF
`APPLIED’S RESPONSE TO DEMARAY
`LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 42-1 Filed 12/07/20 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`I, John Forster, hereby declare as follows:
`1. I am a Senior Director, Process Engineer for Metal Deposition Products at Applied
`Materials, Inc. (“Applied”) where I have been employed since October 1993. I have been in this
`role for approximately 8 years and am a distinguished member of technical staff in Applied’s
`metal deposition business unit. Prior to this role, I was a senior member of technical staff in the
`same business unit. I either have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this declaration or
`they are based on research conducted under my supervision and direction. If called upon to do so,
`I could and would testify competently to the matters set forth herein.
`2. I submit this declaration in support of Applied’s Response to Demaray LLC’s Motion to
`Dismiss.
`3. I understand that on July 14, 2020, Demaray LLC (“Demaray”) filed patent infringement
`suits against Applied’s customers, Intel Corporation (“Intel”) and multiple Samsung entities
`(collectively, “Samsung”) in the Western District of Texas, and has identified Applied’s Endura
`product line (specifically “reactors that can be configured for deposition of TaN layers (e.g.,
`CuBS RFX PVD [sic] with the Encore II Ta(N) barrier chamber) and TiN (e.g., Cirrus ionized
`PVD chamber)”) in its complaints against Intel and Samsung (“Customer Complaints”).
`4. I further understand that the Customer Complaints allege that Intel and Samsung infringe
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,544,276 and 7,381,657 (“Asserted Patents”) based on their purported use of
`reactive magnetron sputtering (“RMS”) reactors, including the above mentioned Applied reactors
`in Applied’s Endura product line, purportedly using pulsed DC power for physical vapor
`deposition (“PVD”) of metal layers, identifying titanium nitride and tantalum nitride, in Intel’s
`and Samsung’s semiconductor products. I further understand that the Customer Complaints
`allege that Intel and Samsung each “configures, or causes to be configured the [Intel/Samsung]
`RMS reactors such that they compromise 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”
`and that this filter is used to “protect the pulsed DC power supply from feedback from the RF bias
`power supply.”
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`FORSTER DECL. IN SUPPORT OF
`APPLIED’S RESPONSE TO DEMARAY
`LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 42-1 Filed 12/07/20 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`5. Prior to July 24, 2020, I reviewed the Asserted Patents and the allegations against Intel
`and Samsung in the Customer Complaints. Based on my review of the Customer Complaints, I
`understood that Demaray was making an implied assertion of infringement of the Asserted
`Patents against Applied. The Customer Complaints rely exclusively on Applied’s products,
`materials, literature and website. In my review of the Customer Complaints, I did not find any
`reference to RMS reactors other than the reactors from Applied’s Endura product line. Nor did I
`find any evidence or specific allegations in the Customer Complaints that Intel or Samsung
`modify the RMS reactors that Applied designs, manufactures and configures for its customers
`after the RMS reactors are installed at the customers’ respective fabrication facilities.
`6. To the extent that Demaray alleges that Intel or Samsung perform post-installation
`modifications to the Endura reactors from Applied by, for example, adding its own filter between
`the DC power supply and the target, this would be inconsistent with my understanding of the
`ordinary process by which Applied supplies RMS reactors to its customers. Customers like Intel
`and Samsung typically provide Applied with a set of specifications for a type of film they would
`like to deposit, and based on those specifications, Applied manufactures and configures the RMS
`reactors to deposit films according to the customers’ specifications. Post-installation
`modifications, such as modifying the power supply or adding an additional component, such as a
`filter, to the system as installed by Applied, could, for example, cause the RMS reactor to no
`longer meet the customers’ required specifications or impact the warranty of the reactor.
`7. I understand that Demaray has stated in its Motion to Dismiss at page 5 that it “relied on
`reverse engineering of Intel and Samsung products suggesting Intel’s and Samsung’s use of the
`infringing reactor configurations” which include “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”. In my review of the Customer Complaints, I did not find any reference to reverse
`engineering reports or any explanation as to how reverse engineering of Intel and Samsung
`products would evidence that Samsung and Intel “configure” the Applied reactors after they have
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`FORSTER DECL. IN SUPPORT OF
`APPLIED’S RESPONSE TO DEMARAY
`LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`

`

`\DOONONUIADJN—
`
`NNNNNNNNN_.___.__..—_._..—00\l.0LIIAWN—'ONO00\lO\U'IAL»N—‘0
`
`Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 42-1 Filed 12/07/20 Page 4 of 4
`Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 42-1 Filed 12/07/20 Page 4 of 4
`
`been manufactured, configured, and installed by Applied to purportedly include this narrow band-
`
`rejection filter.
`
`8.
`
`I understand that Demaray’s purported reverse engineering reports have not been provided
`
`to Applied or the Court in this Case, and thus, I have not had an opportunity to review them.
`
`However, based on my over thirty years of experience working in the field of semiconductor
`
`process engineering, I am unaware of how the information I would expect to be found in a reverse
`
`engineering report of a semiconductor product, such as cross-section images of the different
`
`layers of the product and its material characteristics, would inform a person knowledgeable in this
`
`industry, such as myself or Dr. Demaray, that Intel and Samsung added its own narrow-band
`
`rejection filter between the DC pulsed power supply and target area.
`
`9. For these reasons, afler Applied reviewed the allegations in the Customer Complaints
`
`against Intel and Samsung, Applied interpreted those allegations as directed at Samsung and
`
`Intel’s use of the reactors as manufactured, configured and installed by Applied.
`
`[0. Applied does not believe the RMS reactors identified in the Customer Complaints for
`
`depositing titanium nitride and tantalum infringe the Asserted Patents, because, for example,
`
`those reactors do not include a pulsed DC power supply coupled to the target area or provide
`
`pulsed DC power to the target area. However, based on Applied’s belief that the allegations in
`
`the Customer Complaints were an implied assertion of infringement against Applied, I understand
`
`that Applied filed a declaratoryjudgment action of non-infringement of the Asserted Patents on
`
`August 13, 2020.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on
`
`December 7, 2020.
`
`By:
`
`John F0
`
`er
`
`- 3 -
`
`FORSTER DECL. IN SUPPORT OF
`APPLIED‘S RESPONSE TO DEMARAY
`LLC’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`