Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 42-6 Filed 12/07/20 Page 1 of 28
`Case 5:20-cv-05676—EJD Document 42-6 Filed 12/07/20 Page 1 of 28
`
`EXHIBIT D
`
`EXHIBIT D
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 29 Filed 10/20/20 Page 1 of 27Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 42-6 Filed 12/07/20 Page 2 of 28
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`DEMARAY LLC,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Case No. 6:20-CV-00636-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., and
`SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`SAMSUNG DEFENDANTS’
`FIRST AMENDED ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“SEC”), Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`(“SEA”), Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. (“SSI”), and Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC
`
`(“SAS”) (collectively “Samsung”) responds to the Complaint filed by Plaintiff Demaray LLC
`
`(“Plaintiff”) and submits its Affirmative Defenses. To the extent not specifically admitted
`
`below, Samsung denies the allegations of the Complaint.
`
`ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
`I.
`
`Parties
`
`1.
`
`Samsung admits that the face of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,544,276 (“the ’276 patent”)
`
`and 7,381,657 (“the ’657 patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”) list Richard E. Demaray
`
`as an inventor. Samsung lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
`
`truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the
`
`same.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 29 Filed 10/20/20 Page 2 of 27Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 42-6 Filed 12/07/20 Page 3 of 28
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Samsung lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
`
`3.
`
`Samsung denies that it uses any of Plaintiff’s patented technology. Samsung
`
`lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining
`
`allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
`
`4.
`
`Samsung lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
`
`5.
`
`Samsung admits that the Complaint purports to attach uncertified copies of the
`
`’276 patent and the ’657 patent, as Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 respectively. Samsung lacks
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations
`
`in Paragraph 5 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
`
`6.
`
`Samsung admits that Samsung Electronics America (“SEA”) is a corporation duly
`
`organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York. Samsung further admits that
`
`SEA may be served with process through its registered agent CT Corporation System, 1999
`
`Bryan St., Ste. 900, Dallas, TX 75201-3136. The remainder of this paragraph sets out a legal
`
`conclusion to which no response is necessary. To the extent a response is required as to the
`
`remaining allegations in Paragraph 6 of the Complaint, Samsung denies the same.
`
`7.
`
`Samsung admits that Samsung Electronics is a company duly organized and
`
`existing under the laws of the Republic of Korea with its principal offices at 129 Samsung-ro,
`
`Yeongtong-gu, Suwon-si, Gyeonggi-do, Republic of Korea. The remainder of this paragraph
`
`sets out a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. To the extent a response is
`
`required as to the remaining allegations in Paragraph 7 of the Complaint, Samsung denies the
`
`same.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 29 Filed 10/20/20 Page 3 of 27Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 42-6 Filed 12/07/20 Page 4 of 28
`
`
`
`8.
`
`Samsung admits that Samsung Semiconductor is a corporation organized and
`
`existing under the laws of the State of California, and is located at 3655 North First Street, San
`
`Jose, California 95134. Samsung admits that Samsung Semiconductor is a wholly-owned
`
`subsidiary of SEA. Samsung admits that Samsung Semiconductor may be served with process
`
`through its registered agent National Registered Agents, Inc., 1999 Bryan St., St. 900, Dallas, TX
`
`75201-3136.
`
`9.
`
`Samsung admits that Samsung Austin Semiconductor is a limited liability
`
`company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, and is located at 12100
`
`Samsung Boulevard, Austin, Texas 75754.
`
` Samsung admits
`
`that Samsung Austin
`
`Semiconductor is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Samsung Semiconductor. Samsung admits that
`
`Samsung Austin Semiconductor operates a semiconductor fabrication plant known as the “S2-
`
`Line” in Austin, Texas. Samsung admits that Samsung Austin Semiconductor may be served
`
`with process through its registered agent CT Corporation System, 1999 Bryan St., Ste. 900,
`
`Dallas, TX 75201-3136. Samsung denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 9 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`II.
`
`Jurisdiction and Venue
`
`10.
`
`Samsung admits that the Complaint purports to set forth an action arising under
`
`the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., but denies that there are any factual or
`
`legal bases for Plaintiff’s claims. Samsung admits that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction
`
`over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`11.
`
`Solely for the limited purpose of this action only, Samsung admits that it is
`
`subject to personal jurisdiction in this District.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 29 Filed 10/20/20 Page 4 of 27Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 42-6 Filed 12/07/20 Page 5 of 28
`
`
`
`12.
`
`Solely for the limited purpose of this action only, Samsung admits that it is
`
`subject to personal jurisdiction in this District, but denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph
`
`12 of the Complaint.
`
`13.
`
`No answer is required as to the allegations in Paragraph 13 of the Complaint
`
`asserting that “[v]enue in this District is proper,” which are merely conclusions of law. To the
`
`extent that any answer is required, Samsung denies infringement of any of the Asserted Patents
`
`and denies that the Western District of Texas is the most convenient venue to resolve this action.
`
`Samsung admits that it has and is continuing to do business in the United States, including in the
`
`Western District of Texas.
`
`III. Technology Background
`
`14.
`
`Samsung admits that semiconductor devices are generally manufactured using a
`
`series of process steps applied to a substrate, but denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph
`
`14 of the Complaint.
`
`15.
`
`Samsung admits that magnetron sputtering is one of many physical vapor
`
`deposition (“PVD”) techniques. As to the remaining allegations of Paragraph 15, Samsung
`
`admits that certain terms set forth in these allegations are used in the semiconductor industry, but
`
`these allegations are otherwise too general, therefore Samsung denies the same.
`
`16.
`
`Samsung admits that the ’276 patent states at Column 8, lines 38-60:
`
`Other approaches to providing a uniform condition of sputtering 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.,
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 29 Filed 10/20/20 Page 5 of 27Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 42-6 Filed 12/07/20 Page 6 of 28
`
`
`
`(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 400×500
`mm.
`
`Samsung admits that the ’276 patent states at Column 5, lines 24-27, “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.” Samsung lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
`
`to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 16 of the Complaint, and therefore denies
`
`the same.
`
`17.
`
`Samsung admits that the ’276 patent states at Column 2, line 45 to Column 3, line
`
`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.
`
` 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 5 μs 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
`5
`
` A
`
`
`
`37:
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 29 Filed 10/20/20 Page 6 of 27Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 42-6 Filed 12/07/20 Page 7 of 28
`
`
`
`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.
`
`Samsung also admits that the ’276 patent states at Column 5, lines 60-67 that “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 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.” Samsung lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a
`
`belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 17 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies the same.
`
`18.
`
`Samsung admits that the ’276 patent states at Column 8, lines 61-67, “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.” Samsung lacks
`
`knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations
`
`in paragraph 18 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
`
`IV.
`
`First Claim
`
`19.
`
`Samsung incorporates by reference its responses to the allegations in Paragraphs 1
`
`through 18 of the Complaint as set forth above.
`
`20.
`
`Samsung admits that the ’276 patent is titled “Biased pulse DC reactive sputtering
`
`of oxide films,” issued on June 9, 2009, and that an uncertified copy of the ’276 patent is
`
`attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 1. Samsung denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph
`
`20 of the Complaint.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 29 Filed 10/20/20 Page 7 of 27Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 42-6 Filed 12/07/20 Page 8 of 28
`
`
`
`21.
`
`Samsung admits that Hongmei Zhang, Mukundan Narasimhan, Ravi B.
`
`Mullapudi, and Richard E. Demaray are listed as co-inventors on the face of the ’276 patent.
`
`22.
`
`The allegations in Paragraph 22 of the Complaint regarding the force and effect of
`
`the ’276 patent are legal conclusions that require no response. To the extent a response is
`
`required, Samsung lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations, and therefore denies the same. Samsung lacks knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 22 of the
`
`Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
`
`23.
`
`Samsung admits that the ’276 patent states at Column 1, lines 12-14, “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.” Samsung denies the remaining
`
`allegations in Paragraph 23 of the Complaint.
`
`24.
`
`Samsung admits that the ’276 patent states at Column 2, lines 51-53, “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.” Samsung denies the remaining
`
`allegations in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint.
`
`25.
`
`26.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 25 of the Complaint.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 26 of the Complaint.
`
`[“1. A reactor according to the present invention, comprising:”]1
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 27 of the Complaint.
`
`SEC and SAS admit that they deposit layers in semiconductor products. Samsung
`
`admits
`
`that
`
`the
`
`document
`
`available
`
`at
`
`the
`
`link
`
`
`1 Samsung does not admit any allegations contained in Plaintiff’s headings or subheadings.
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 29 Filed 10/20/20 Page 8 of 27Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 42-6 Filed 12/07/20 Page 9 of 28
`
`
`
`https://www.samsung.com/us/aboutsamsung/sustainability/supply-chain/supplier-list/
`
`(last
`
`visited September 29, 2020) lists Applied Materials Inc. as one of Samsung Electronics’
`
`suppliers. Samsung lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the remaining allegations in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
`
`29.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 29 of the Complaint.
`
`[“a target area for receiving a target;”]
`
`30.
`
`31.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 30 of the Complaint.
`
`Samsung
`
`admits
`
`that
`
`the
`
`document
`
`available
`
`at
`
`the
`
`link
`
`https://www.appliedmaterials.com/resources/glossary (last visited September 29, 2020), states
`
`that “[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.” SEC and SAS admit that they
`
`use RMS reactors for depositing TaN, where tantalum is the target material. Samsung denies the
`
`remaining allegations in Paragraph 31 of the Complaint.
`
`32.
`
`Samsung lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations in Paragraph 32 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
`
`[“a substrate area opposite the target area for receiving a substrate;”]
`
`33.
`
`34.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 33 of the Complaint.
`
`Samsung
`
`admits
`
`that
`
`the
`
`document
`
`available
`
`at
`
`the
`
`link
`
`https://www.appliedmaterials.com/resources/glossary (last visited September 29, 2020), states
`
`that “[t]he material upon which thin films are manipulated. Silicon is most commonly used for
`
`semiconductors . . . .” Samsung denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 34 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 29 Filed 10/20/20 Page 9 of 27Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 42-6 Filed 12/07/20 Page 10 of 28
`
`
`
`35.
`
`Samsung lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations in Paragraph 35 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
`
`[“a pulsed DC power supply coupled to the target area, the pulsed DC power supply
`
`providing alternating negative and positive voltages to the target;”]
`
`36.
`
`37.
`
`38.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 36 of the Complaint.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 37 of the Complaint.
`
`Samsung lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations in Paragraph 38 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
`
`[“an RF bias power supply coupled to the substrate;”]
`
`39.
`
`40.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 39 of the Complaint.
`
`Samsung lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations in Paragraph 40 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
`
`41.
`
`Samsung lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations in Paragraph 41 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
`
`[“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.”]
`
`42.
`
`43.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 42 of the Complaint.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 43 of the Complaint.
`
`V.
`
`Second Claim
`
`44.
`
`Samsung incorporates by reference its responses to the allegations in Paragraphs 1
`
`through 43 of the Complaint as set forth above.
`
`45.
`
`Samsung admits that the ’657 patent is titled “Biased pulse DC reactive sputtering
`
`of oxide films,” issued on June 3, 2008, and that an uncertified copy of the ’657 patent is
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 29 Filed 10/20/20 Page 10 of 27Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 42-6 Filed 12/07/20 Page 11 of 28
`
`
`
`attached to the Complaint as Exhibit 2. Samsung denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph
`
`45 of the Complaint.
`
`46.
`
`Samsung admits that Hongmei Zhang, Mukundan Narasimhan, Ravi B.
`
`Mullapudi, and Richard E. Demaray are listed as co-inventors on the face of the ’657 patent.
`
`47.
`
`The allegations in paragraph 47 of the Complaint regarding the force and effect of
`
`the ’657 patent are legal conclusions that require no response. To the extent a response is
`
`required, Samsung lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
`
`the allegations, and therefore denies the same. Samsung lacks knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 47 of the
`
`Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
`
`48.
`
`Samsung admits that the ’657 patent states at Column 1, lines 11-13, “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.” Samsung denies the remaining
`
`allegations in paragraph 48 of the Complaint.
`
`49.
`
`Samsung admits that the ’657 patent states at Column 2, lines 49-54, “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.”
`
`Samsung denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 49 of the Complaint.
`
`50.
`
`51.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 50 of the Complaint.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 51 of the Complaint.
`
`[“A method of depositing film on an insulating substrate, comprising:”]
`
`52.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 52 of the Complaint.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 29 Filed 10/20/20 Page 11 of 27Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 42-6 Filed 12/07/20 Page 12 of 28
`
`
`
`53.
`
`SEC admits that it deposits certain metal nitride layers for certain of its memory
`
`products, including certain of its DDR4 SDRAM products. Samsung denies the remaining
`
`allegations in Paragraph 53 of the Complaint.
`
`[“providing a process gas between a conductive target and the substrate;”]
`
`54.
`
`SEC and SAS admit that in some processes for fabricating semiconductor
`
`products, they use a nitrogen gas, a target, and a substrate. SEC admits that it uses a RMS
`
`reactor in the fabrication of TaN layers in certain of its DDR4 SDRAM products. Samsung
`
`denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 54 of the Complaint.
`
`55.
`
`SEC and SAS admit that they use a process gas including nitrogen, a tantalum
`
`target, and a silicon wafer in certain of their processes. Samsung denies the remaining
`
`allegations in Paragraph 55 of the Complaint.
`
`[“providing pulsed DC power to the target through a narrow band rejection filter such that
`
`the target alternates between positive and negative voltages;”]
`
`56.
`
`SEC and SAS admit that they fabricate semiconductor products. Samsung denies
`
`the remaining allegations in Paragraph 56 of the Complaint.
`
`57.
`
`SEC and SAS admit that they use RMS reactors in the fabrication of TaN layers
`
`in semiconductor products. SEC admits that it uses a RMS reactor in the fabrication of TaN
`
`layers in certain of its DDR4 SDRAM products. Samsung denies the remaining allegations in
`
`Paragraph 57 of the Complaint.
`
`58.
`
`Samsung lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations in Paragraph 58 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
`
`59.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in Paragraph 59 of the Complaint.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 29 Filed 10/20/20 Page 12 of 27Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 42-6 Filed 12/07/20 Page 13 of 28
`
`
`
`[“providing an RF bias at a frequency that corresponds to the narrow band rejection filter
`
`to the substrate;”]
`
`60.
`
`SEC and SAS admit that they fabricate semiconductor products. Samsung denies
`
`the remaining allegations in Paragraph 60 of the Complaint.
`
`61.
`
`SEC and SAS admit that they use RMS reactors in the fabrication of TaN layers
`
`in semiconductor products. SEC admits that it uses a RMS reactor in the fabrication of TaN
`
`layers in certain of its DDR4 SDRAM products. Samsung denies the remaining allegations in
`
`Paragraph 61 of the Complaint.
`
`62.
`
`Samsung lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations in Paragraph 62 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same.
`
` [“providing a magnetic field to the target;”]
`
`63.
`
`SEC and SAS admit that they fabricate semiconductor products. SEC and SAS
`
`admit that, for certain products, a magnetic field is provided during certain steps of fabrication.
`
`Samsung denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 63 of the Complaint.
`
`64.
`
`SEC and SAS admit that they use RMS reactors in the fabrication of TaN layers
`
`in semiconductor products. SEC and SAS admit that certain of the RMS reactors use a magnetic
`
`field. SEC admits that it uses a RMS reactor in the fabrication of TaN layers in certain of its
`
`DDR4 SDRAM products. Samsung denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 64 of the
`
`Complaint.
`
`65.
`
`Samsung admits that the image on page 9 of Exhibit 5 to the Complaint contains a
`
`red box with the word “Magnetron” next to it. Samsung denies the remaining allegations in
`
`Paragraph 65 of the Complaint
`
`[“and reconditioning the target;”]
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 29 Filed 10/20/20 Page 13 of 27Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 42-6 Filed 12/07/20 Page 14 of 28
`
`
`
`66.
`
`SEC and SAS admit that they fabricate semiconductor products. Samsung denies
`
`the remaining allegations in Paragraph 66 of the Complaint.
`
`67.
`
`SEC and SAS admit that they use RMS reactors in the fabrication of TaN layers
`
`in semiconductor products. SEC admits that it uses a RMS reactor in the fabrication of TaN
`
`layers in certain of its DDR4 SDRAM products. Samsung denies the remaining allegations in
`
`Paragraph 67 of the Complaint.
`
`[“wherein reconditioning the target includes reactive sputtering in the metallic mode and
`
`then reactive sputtering in the poison mode.”]
`
`68.
`
`SEC and SAS admit that they fabricate semiconductor products. Samsung denies
`
`the remaining allegations in Paragraph 68 of the Complaint.
`
`69.
`
`SEC and SAS admit that they use RMS reactors for fabricating TaN layers in
`
`semiconductor products. SEC admits that it uses a RMS reactor in the fabrication of TaN layers
`
`in certain of its DDR4 SDRAM products. Samsung denies the remaining allegations in
`
`Paragraph 69 of the Complaint.
`
`70.
`
`Samsung admits that it has knowledge of the Asserted Patents as of the filing of
`
`the Complaint. Samsung denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 70 of the Complaint.
`
`71.
`
`Samsung admits that on or about March 7, 2017, Ernest Demaray met with at
`
`least Mark Lefebvre from Samsung SDI America Inc., at the Samsung Strategy and Innovation
`
`Center in San Jose, CA. Subsequent to that meeting, presentations titled “Hybrid– High Capacity
`
`Lithium Metal Thin Film Battery Cell” and “LARGE-SCALE THIN FILM BATTERY” were
`
`provided to at least one Samsung employee. The “Hybrid– High Capacity Lithium Metal Thin
`
`Film Battery Cell” presentation includes the date “March 7, 2017” and identifies the Asserted
`
`Patents. The “LARGE-SCALE THIN FILM BATTERY” includes the text “NCCAVS Annual
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 29 Filed 10/20/20 Page 14 of 27Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 42-6 Filed 12/07/20 Page 15 of 28
`
`
`
`Symposium February 23, 2017” and identifies the Asserted Patents. On April 19, 2017, Ernest
`
`Demaray met with at least Dongmin Im of Samsung Advanced Institute of Technology and Dr.
`
`Debasis Bera at Samsung Research America in Mountain View, CA. Samsung denies the
`
`remaining allegations in Paragraph 71 of the Complaint.
`
`72.
`
`Samsung admits that U.S. Patent Nos. 9,761,441; 9,380,692; 7,563,672;
`
`7,352,022; and 6,723,215 are assigned to SEC and cite to at least one patent or application on
`
`which one or more of the named inventors on the Asserted Patents is also named as an inventor.
`
`Samsung denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 72 of the Complaint.
`
`73.
`
`74.
`
`75.
`
`76.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in paragraph 73 of the Complaint.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in paragraph 74 of the Complaint.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in paragraph 75 of the Complaint.
`
`Samsung denies the allegations in paragraph 76 of the Complaint.
`
`VI. Answer to Prayer for Relief
`
`77.
`
`Samsung denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief whatsoever in this action,
`
`either as requested in the Complaint or otherwise.
`
`78.
`
`Samsung further denies each and every allegation in the Complaint to which it has
`
`not specifically responded.
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`Samsung alleges and asserts the following defenses in response to the allegations of the
`
`Complaint, undertaking the burden of proof only as to those defenses deemed affirmative
`
`defenses by law, regardless of how such defenses are denominated herein. Samsung further
`
`reserves the right to amend this Answer to add Affirmative Defenses and/or any other defenses
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 29 Filed 10/20/20 Page 15 of 27Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 42-6 Filed 12/07/20 Page 16 of 28
`
`
`
`currently unknown to Samsung, as they become known throughout the course of discovery in
`
`this action.
`
`FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Failure to State a Claim)
`
`79.
`
`The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
`
`SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(No Infringement)
`
`80.
`
`Samsung does not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the Asserted
`
`Patents in any manner under 35 U.S.C. § 271 either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,
`
`directly or indirectly, willfully or otherwise. Samsung has not performed any act and is not
`
`proposing to perform any act in violation of any rights validly belonging to Plaintiff.
`
`THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Invalidity)
`
`81.
`
`The asserted claims of the Asserted Patents are invalid for failure to satisfy the
`
`requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 100, et seq., including, but not limited to, one or more of the
`
`following: 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, 112, and/or 116.
`
`FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Prosecution History Estoppel and Disclaimer)
`
`82.
`
`Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrines of prosecution
`
`history estoppel and/or prosecution disclaimer.
`
`83.
`
`During the prosecution of the Asserted Patents, the patent application to which the
`
`Asserted Patents claim priority (U.S. Patent Application No. 10/101,863 (“the ’863
`
`Application”)), and the other patent applications related to the Asserted Patents, the United
`
`States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) Examiners made multiple rejections in view of
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 29 Filed 10/20/20 Page 16 of 27Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 42-6 Filed 12/07/20 Page 17 of 28
`
`
`
`the prior art. The Patentees made arguments, amendments, admissions, representations, and
`
`statements during those prosecutions to overcome those rejections and/or gain allowance of the
`
`claims.
`
`84.
`
`For example, during prosecution of the ’863 Application, the Patentees in their
`
`July 23, 2004 response, responded to a February 24, 2004 Non-Final Rejection, and made
`
`arguments regarding the “pulsed DC power supply.”
`
`85.
`
`Plaintiff is estopped from construing the claims of the Asserted Patents to cover
`
`or include, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, products or methods that were
`
`surrendered because of arguments, amendments, admissions, representations, and/or statements
`
`made during prosecution before the USPTO.
`
`FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Ensnarement)
`
`86.
`
`Plaintiff’s claims are barred or limited in whole or in part by the doctrine of
`
`ensnarement.
`
`SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(License and/or Exhaustion)
`
`87.
`
`To the extent that Plaintiff has licensed or otherwise exhausted its rights and
`
`remedies as to products or services that are accused by way of the Complaint, Samsung is not
`
`liable to Plaintiff for any alleged acts of infringement related to such products or services.
`
`88.
`
`On information and belief, Dr. Demaray was a general manager of Applied
`
`Komatsu Technology, Inc., developing sputtered silicon deposition technology for flat panel
`
`displays. On information and belief, Dr. Demaray, and other employees working with Dr.
`
`Demaray, were working in Northern California and were employed by either Applied Komatsu
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 29 Filed 10/20/20 Page 17 of 27Case 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Document 42-6 Filed 12/07/20 Page 18 of 28
`
`
`
`Technology, Inc.’s (“AKT”) subsidiary, Applied Komatsu Technology America Inc. (“AKTA”)
`
`(AKT and AKTA collectively, “Applied Komatsu”), or by Applied Materials, Inc.
`
`89.
`
`On information and belief, Dr. Demaray, along with several other colleagues from
`
`Applied Materials, Inc. and/or Applied Komatsu left in late 1998 to start a new company,
`
`Symmorphix. On information and belief, Dr. Demaray was a founder and the CTO of
`
`Symmorphix.
`
`90.
`
`On information and belief, at Symmorphix, Dr. Demaray and his team of former
`
`Applied Materials, Inc. and/or Applied Komatsu employees continued to develop the technology
`
`they worked on at Applied Materials, Inc. and/or Applied Komatsu related to sputtered silico