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-09341-EJD Document 109 Filed 12/28/21 Page 1 of 3
`
`
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`Morgan Chu (70446)
`MChu@irell.com
`Benjamin W. Hattenbach (186455)
`BHattenbach@irell.com
`C. Maclain Wells (221609)
`MWells@irell.com
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, California 90067-4276
`Telephone: (310) 277-1010
`Facsimile:
`(310) 203-7199
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`DEMARAY LLC
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`DEMARAY LLC,
`
`
`vs.
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11035394
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-09341-EJD
`
`DEMARAY LLC’S OPPOSITION-IN-
`PART TO APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.’S
`MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME
`FOR AN EARLIER HEARING OR
`DETERMINATION ON THE PAPERS ON
`DEMARAY LLC’S MOTION FOR A
`SUBSEQUENT CASE MANAGEMENT
`CONFERENCE (DKT. 108)
`
`
`
`
`DEMARAY’S OPPOSITION-IN-PART TO APPLIED’S
`MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME
`(Case No. 5:20-cv-09341-EJD)
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 109 Filed 12/28/21 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`Demaray opposes-in-part Applied’s motion for an expedited hearing or a determination on
`
`the papers (“Motion”) (Dkt. 108) on Demaray’s Motion for a Subsequent Case Management
`
`Conference (Dkt. 92). Applied misstates Demaray’s stated position during the meet and confer
`
`process in its motion and supporting attorney declaration. During the meet and confer, Demaray
`
`told counsel for Applied in writing via e-mail on December 27, 2021:
`
`Demaray does not oppose Applied filing a motion to shorten time
`for a CMC. Demaray’s motion is set for hearing in April 2022. As
`we have stated before, we think that a CMC as soon as the Court’s
`schedule permits would be appropriate.
`
`Demaray believes that a CMC is necessary and does not agree that
`ruling on the papers is appropriate.
`
`Counsel for Applied’s sworn statement that “Demaray did not oppose Applied’s request that the
`
`Court decide Demaray’s motion on the papers and without oral argument” (Dkt. 108) directly
`
`contradicts Demaray’s stated position regarding the appropriateness of resolution on the papers
`
`13
`
`and is not accurate.1 For avoidance of doubt, Demaray opposes-in-part Applied’s Motion because,
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`given the complexity of the issues, Demaray believes that hearing from the parties would benefit
`
`the Court and the Court should not enter a schedule on the papers.
`
`Demaray agrees that the Court should hold a further CMC as soon as its schedule permits.
`
`Last week, the parties submitted a fourth updated Joint CMC Statement (Dkt. 106) setting forth
`
`their positions on a number of issues and competing proposed case schedules. The case
`
`management issues before the Court are complex, involving not only this matter, but potential
`
`coordination of co-pending cases in Texas and four IPRs (two now instituted) that Applied chose
`
`to file in the Patent Office, all of which potentially impact an appropriate schedule here. In
`
`addition, in the updated Joint CMC Statement, Demaray pointed out that “[i]t is still unclear …
`
`whether affirmative infringement claims against Applied or affirmative invalidity claims by
`
`
`1 Counsel for Applied emailed after receiving Demaray’s written position purporting to
`
`restate and change Demaray’s position. Applied relies on their restatement in the Motion as
`
`opposed to what Demaray actually said. Demaray’s position remains what it said, not Applied’s
`
`28
`
`self-serving restatement.
`
`11035394
`
`
`DEMARAY’S OPPOSITION-IN-PART TO APPLIED’S
`MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME
`(Case No. 5:20-cv-09341-EJD)
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 109 Filed 12/28/21 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`Applied will be at issue in this case.” Id. at 4. As Demaray has consistently told this Court, it
`
`needs targeted discovery on Applied’s reactors to make infringement determinations. See Dkt. 27
`
`at 6-8 (Prior CMC Statement requesting targeted discovery); Dkt. 69 at 3-4 (Updated CMC
`
`requesting the same), Dkt. 82 at 4-6 (Updated CMC requesting the same). Applied’s reactor
`
`configurations are not publicly available, rendering Demaray presently unable to ascertain specific
`
`details regarding filters or other protective mechanisms central to its determination of whether
`
`
`Applied infringes. To that end, Demaray proposed that Applied “provide targeted product
`
`disclosures … detailing its use of the claimed reactor configurations by December 31 … [and]
`
`[o]nce Applied provides the required details on its products and processes … Demaray will timely
`
`make infringement determinations.” Dkt. 106 at 5-6. Demaray also addressed the need to modify
`
`the default schedule in the Patent Local Rules stating: “it unclear how Applied proposes the parties
`
`conduct claim construction disclosures before disclosures are made regarding affirmative claims
`
`for infringement and invalidity—the order of disclosures under the Patent Local Rules.” Id. at 19.
`
`Given the complexity of these issues, Demaray respectfully requests that the Court, at its
`
`earliest convenience, either (1) hold a hearing on Demaray’s motion for a subsequent CMC or (2)
`
`16
`
`simply hold a subsequent CMC.
`
`
`
`Dated: December 28, 2021
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`
`By: /s/ C. Maclain Wells
`C. Maclain Wells
`Attorneys for Defendant DEMARAY LLC
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`11035394
`
`
`DEMARAY’S OPPOSITION-IN-PART TO APPLIED’S
`MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME
`(Case No. 5:20-cv-09341-EJD)
`
`- 2 -
`
`