Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 42-4 Filed 12/07/20 Page 1 of 3
`Case 5:20-cv-05676—EJD Document 42-4 Filed 12/07/20 Page 1 of 3
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`EXHIBIT B
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 42-4 Filed 12/07/20 Page 2 of 3
`
`8 4 0 N E W P O R T C E N T E R D R I V E , S U I T E 4 0 0
`N E W P O R T B E A C H , C A 9 2 6 6 0 - 6 3 2 4
`T E L E P H O N E ( 9 4 9 ) 7 6 0 - 0 9 9 1
`F A C S I M I L E ( 9 4 9 ) 7 6 0 - 5 2 0 0
`
`
`I R E L L & M A N E L L A L L P
`
`A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP
`INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
`
`1 8 0 0 A V E N U E O F T H E S T A R S , S U I T E 9 0 0
`
`L O S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 6 7 - 4 2 76
`
`
`
`
`October 2, 2020
`
`T E L E P H O N E ( 3 1 0 ) 2 7 7 - 1 0 1 0
`F A C S I M I L E ( 3 1 0 ) 2 0 3 - 7 1 9 9
`W E B S I T E : www. i r e l l .c o m
`
`W R I T E R ' S D I R E C T
`
`T E L E P H O N E ( 3 1 0 ) 2 0 3 - 7 6 3 5
`F A C S I M I L E ( 3 1 0 ) 2 0 3 - 7 1 9 9
`M W e l l s @ i r e l l . c o m
`
`VIA E-MAIL
`
`Brian Nash, Esq.
`brian.nash@pillsburylaw.com
`Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
`401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700
`Austin, TX 78701-3797
`
`
`
`
`
`Re: Demaray v. Samsung, Case 6:20-cv-00636
`
`Dear Brian:
`
`I write regarding Samsung’s failure to provide adequate factual support for its
`affirmative defenses in its Answer to Demaray’s Complaint.
`
`Samsung’s approach of simply listing of equitable defenses falls well short of the
`minimum particulars needed to identify the affirmative defenses in question. This includes
`both Samsung’s Fourth Affirmative Defense (Prosecution History Estoppel And Disclaimer)
`and Tenth Affirmative Defense (Unenforceability).
`
`In addition, Samsung’s Thirteenth Affirmative Defense (No Double Compensation)
`lacks any supporting factual allegations in Samsung’s Answer. Is there a basis for asserting
`this defense?
`
`Finally, Samsung’s Sixth Affirmative Defense (License and/or Exhaustion) and
`Seventh Affirmative Defense (Lack of Standing/Failure to Join Co-Owner) appear to be
`based upon assignment obligations in employee agreements between Applied Materials, Inc.
`and/or Applied Komatsu Technology and the inventors on the Demaray patents that Applied
`Materials has raised in a declaratory judgment action against Demaray in the Northern
`District of California. As detailed in Demaray’s opposition to Applied Materials’ motion for
`preliminary injunction in that case, Judge Ware already ruled that the assignment provisions
`underlying the each of Applied Materials’ licensing/ownership claims are “unlawful non-
`compete provisions” and void as a matter of public policy. See Applied Materials, Inc. v.
`Advanced Micro-Fabrication Equip., Inc., 630 F. Supp. 2d 1084, 1090 (N.D. Cal. May 20,
`2009). Provisions already adjudicated against Applied Materials to be unlawful do not
`support Samsung’s affirmative defenses. If Samsung has other support for these defenses,
`please provide it.
`
`
`10881179.1
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 42-4 Filed 12/07/20 Page 3 of 3
`I R E L L & M A N E L L A L L P
`
`A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP
`INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
`
`
`Brian Nash, Esq.
`October 2, 202020
`Page 2
`
`
`
`
`Please confirm that Samsung with withdraw the above-listed defenses or provide
`additional details supporting such defenses in an amended pleading forthwith. If Samsung
`will not do so, please be prepared to meet and confer regarding a motion to strike when we
`discuss the case schedule and CMC issues.
`
`
`Sincerely,
`
`/s/ C. Maclain Wells
`
`C. Maclain Wells
`
`10881179.1
`
`
`
`
`