Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 130-2 Filed 03/02/22 Page 1 of 5
`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 130-2 Filed 03/02/22 Pagei1of5
`
`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 130-2 Filed 03/02/22 Page 2 of 5
`
` PAGES 1 - 25
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE NATHANAEL COUSINS
`APPLIED MATERIALS, INC., )
` )
` PLAINTIFF, )
` )
` VS. ) NO. 5:20-CV-09341 EJD
` )
`DEMARAY LLC, )
` ) VIA ZOOM VIDEO CONFERENCE
` DEFENDANT. ) WEDNESDAY
` ) DECEMBER 15, 2021
`___________________________________)
`
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE OFFICIAL ELECTRONIC SOUND
`RECORDING 1:04 P.M. - 1:36 P.M.
`
`APPEARANCES:
` FOR PLAINTIFF
`PAUL HASTINGS
`1117 S. CALIFORNIA AVENUE
`PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94304
` BY: PHILIP OU, ESQUIRE
`YAR R. CHAIKOVSKY, ESQUIRE
`MATTHIAS KIMBER, ESQUIRE
`
`
`
` FOR DEFENDANT
`IRELL MANELLA, LLP
`1800 AVENUE OF THE STARTS, SUITE 900
`LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067
` BY: C. MACLAIN WELLS, ESQUIRE
`
`
`
`TRANSCRIBED BY: JOAN MARIE COLUMBINI, CSR #5435, RPR
` RETIRED OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, USDC
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 130-2 Filed 03/02/22 Page 3 of 5
`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 130-2 Filed 03/02/22 Page 3of5
`
` 7
`7
`
`
`SOURCES.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AND WE'VE GONE BACK TO THE COURT REPE
`iDLY ON THIS
`
`
`ISSUE TO TRY TO GET THIS INFORMATION.
`
`INFORMATION FROM APPLIEI
`
`SO, IN THIS CASE, WE, OBVIOUSLY, HAVE SOME OF THAT
`WE KNOW THAT THEIR REACTORS HAVE ALL
`INFORMATION FROM APPLIED. WE KNOW THAT THEIR REACTORS HAVE ALL
`OF THESE OTHER LIMITATIONS, BUT WE HAVE THIS PROBLEM WITH THE
`OF THESE OTHER LIMITATIONS, BUT WE HAVE THIS PROBLEM WITH THE
`FILTER THAT IS PRESENT. AND THEY STATED IN TEXAS, HEY, THIS IS
`FILTER THAT IS PRESENT. AND THEY STATED IN TEXAS, HEY, THIS IS
`A LOW-PASS FILTER, NOT A NARROW-BAND REJECTION FILTER. BUT WE
`A LOW-PASS FILTER, NOT A NARROW-BAND REJECTION FILTER. BUT WE
`HAVEN'T GOTTEN THE DOCUMENTS TO TEST THAT. THIS IS
`HAVEN'T GOTTEN THE DOCUMENTS TO TEST THAT. THIS IS
`CONFIDENTIAL. IT'S A BLACK BOX. UNTIL THEY GIVE IT TO US, WE
`CONFIDENTIAL. IT'S A BLACK BOX. UNTIL THEY GIVE IT TO US, WE
`CAN'T EVALUATE IT.
`CAN'T EVALUATE IT.
`AND SO WE'RE BEING VERY COGNIZANT OF OUR RULE 11
`AND SO WE'RE BEING VERY COGNIZANT OF OUR RULE 11
`OBLIGATIONS HERE. AND THEY HAVE RAISED ISSUES IN THE TEXAS
`OBLIGATIONS HERE. AND THEY HAVE RAISED ISSUES IN THE TEXAS
`CASES WHERE THEY SAID, HEY, WE QUESTION YOUR RULE 11. AND, IN
`CASES WHERE THEY SAID, HEY, WE QUESTION YOUR RULE 11. AND, IN
`FACT, IN THEIR BRIEFING TO YOU, THEY STATED THE EXACT SAME
`FACT, IN THEIR BRIEFING TO YOU, THEY STATED THE EXACT SAME
`THING. WE'RE BEING COGNIZANT, RESPECTFUL OF IT, AND ONCE WE
`THING. WE'RE BEING COGNIZANT, RESPECTFUL OF IT, AND ONCE WE
`GET FILTER DETAILS, WE CAN MAKE AN AFFIRMATIVE DETERMINATION,
`GET FILTER DETAILS, WE CAN MAKE AN AFFIRMATIVE DETERMINATION,
`ARE THERE ARE GOING TO BE AFFIRMATIVE INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS
`ARE THERE ARE GOING TO BE AFFIRMATIVE INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS
`
` 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
`
`SOURCES. AND WE'VE GONE BACK TO THE COURT REPEATEDLY ON THIS
`
`ISSUE TO TRY TO GET THIS INFORMATION.
`
`
`NOW, THE DEFENDANTS IN TEXAS HAVE STATED, OH, WE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NOW, THE DEFENDANTS IN TEXAS HAVE STATED, OH, WE
`
`
`DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT'S IN THERE, YOU HAVE TO GO TO APPLIED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` AND APPLIED HAS STATED, WELL, THOSE AREN'T THE TYPES OF FILTE
`DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT'S IN THERE, YOU HAVE TO GO TO APPLIED.
`
`AND APPLIED HAS STATED, WELL, THOSE AREN'T THE TYPES OF FILTERS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THAT ARE COVERED BY THE CLAIMS, BUT THEY HAVEN'T -- THEY'VE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THAT ARE COVERED BY THE CLAIMS, BUT THEY HAVEN'T -- THEY'VE
`
`
`
`BEEN ASKING US TO TAKE THEIR WORD FOR THAT. WE'VE BEEN ASKING
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`‘EN ASKING US TO TAKE THEIR WORD FOR THAT. WE'VE BEEN ASKING
`
`
`THEM FOR THE DOCUMENTS OR AN INSPECTION TO CORROBORATE THAT AND
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THEM FOR THE DOCUMENTS OR AN INSPECTION TO CORROBORATE THAT AND
`TEST THE VALIDITY OF THAT ASSERTION, AND WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN THAT
`
` RT.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EST THE VALIDITY OF THAT ASSERTION, AND WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN THAT
`YET.
`
`SO,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THIS CASE
`BVIOUSLY, HAVE
`EF OF THAT
`
`
`
`
`JOAN MARIE COLUMBINI, CSR, RPR
`
`JOAN MARIE COLUMBINI, CSR, RPR
`RETIRED OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, USDC
`
`RETIRED OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, USDC
`510-367-3043
`510-367-3043
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 130-2 Filed 03/02/22 Page 4 of 5
`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 130-2 Filed 03/02/22 Page 4of5
`
` 8
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WE ASKED THEM FOR THIS TARGETED DISCOVERY IN THIS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THEY REFUSED TO PROVIDE IT AND SAID, NO, YOU HAVE
`
`
`TO GI!
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INSTEAD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COURSE, THEY BROUGHT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THAT ALL OF THEIR REACTORS DO NOT INFRINGE THESE PATENTS AND
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THAT THEY DON'T USE THESE METHODS ANYWHERE.
`
`SO THIS IS NOT
`
`AGAINST APPLIED, STANDING ALONE, ITS REACTORS THAT IT'S
`AGAINST APPLIED, STANDING ALONE, ITS REACTORS THAT IT'S
`SUPPLYING OR NOT.
`SUPPLYING OR NOT.
`WE ASKED THEM FOR THIS TARGETED DISCOVERY IN THIS
`
`CASE. THEY REFUSED TO PROVIDE IT AND SAID, NO, YOU HAVE TO GET
`
`
` CASE.
`IT IN NORMAL DISCOVERY.
`
`IT IN NORMAL DISCOVERY.
`
`SO WE SERVED DISCOVERY SHORTLY AFTER THE COURT OPENED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SO WE SERVED DISCOVERY SHORTLY AFTER THE CO
`
`DISCOVERY IN THIS CASE, AND, IN THEIR RESPONSES, INSTEAD OF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DISCOVERY IN THIS CASE, AND,
`IN THEIR RESPONSES,
`
`
`ADDRESSING ALL OF THE APPLIED REACTORS, THEY LIMITED THEIR
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ADDRESSING ALL OF THE APPLIED REACTORS, THEY LIMITED THEIR
`
`
`RESPONSES TO, OH, THE INFORMATION THAT'S BEEN SUPPLIED IN TEXAS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ESPONSES TO, OH, THE INFORMATION THAT'S
`iN SUPPLIED IN TI
`
`
`AND THE REACTORS THAT HAVE BEEN SUPPLIED IN TEXAS AND SAID,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AND THE REACTORS THAT HAVE BEEN SUPPLIED IN TEXAS AND SAID,
`THAT'S SUFFICIENT UNTIL YOU COME BACK AND MEET AND CONFER WITH
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THAT'S SUFFICIENT UNTIL YOU COME BACK AND MEET AND CONFER WITH
`
`US AND TRY TO ARTICULATE SOME OTHER REACTOR THAT MIGHT BE AT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`US AND TRY TO ARTICULATE SOME OTHER REACTOR THAT MIGHT
`BE AT
`4GPi
`ISSUE.
`
`
`
` 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
`
`OF COURSE, THEY BROUGHT A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACT
`
`
`THAT ALL OF THEIR REACTORS DO NOT INFRINGE THESE PATENTS AND
`
`
`
`THAT THEY DON'T USE THESE METHODS ANYWHERE. SO THIS IS NOT
`
`
`LIMITED TO THE TEXAS CASES, AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT THEIR
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LIMITED TO THE
`TEXAS CASES, AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT THEIR
`
`
`
`DECLARATION SEEKS, SOMETHING MUCH, MUCH BROADER.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATION SEEKS, SOMETHING MUCH, MUCH BROADER.
`
`
`
`SO WE PROPOSE GIVE US THE TARGETED DISCOVERY ON THESE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SO WE PROPOSE GIVE US THE TARGETED DISCOVERY ON THE
`
`FILTERS OR ALTERNATIVE PROTECTED MECHANISMS. THERE'S ONLY A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FILTERS OR ALTERNATIVE PROTECTED MECHANISMS.
`THERE'S ONLY A
`
`COUPLE OF FILTERS THAT THEY IDENTIFIED IN THE TEXAS CASES THAT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COUPLE OF FILTERS THAT THEY IDENTIFIED IN THE
`TEXAS CASES THAT
`THEY SAY WOULD LIKELY BE AT ISSUE HERE. WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THEY SAY WOULD LIKELY BE AT ISSUE HERE. WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT
`
`IT, AND WITHIN 30 DAYS WE'LL MAKE AN AFFIRMATIVE INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IT, AND WITHIN 30 DAYS WE'LL MAKE AN AFFIRMATIVE INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`DETERMINATION OR SAY THAT WE ARE AREN'T GOING TO BE ASSERTING
`
`
`
`
`
` DETERMINATION OR SAY THAT WE ARE AREN'T GOING TO BE ASSERTING
`
`
`
`
`THOSE INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS. AT THAT POINT, WE KNOW WHICH OF THE
`
`
`
`THOSE INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AT THAT POINT, WE KNOW WHICH OF THI
`
`JOAN MARIE COLUMBINI, CSR, RPR
`
`JOAN MARIE COLUMBINI, CSR, RPR
`RETIRED OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, USDC
`
`RETIRED OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, USDC
`510-367-3043
`510-367-3043
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 130-2 Filed 03/02/22 Page 5 of 5
`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 130-2 Filed 03/02/22 Page 5of5
`
` 26
`26
`
`CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER
`
`CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING IS A TRUE AND CORR
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TRANSCRIPT, TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY, OF THE ABOVE PAGES OF
`
`
`
` THE OFFICIAL ELECTRONIC SOUND RECORDING PROVIDED TO ME BY THE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, OF THE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DINGS TAKEN ON THE DATE AND TIME PREVIOUSLY STATED IN THI
`
`
`
`
`FE MATTER.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT I AM NEITHER COUNSEL FOR,
`
`
` I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING IS A TRUE AND CORRECT
`
`
`
`
`TRANSCRIPT, TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY, OF THE ABOVE PAGES OF
`
`
`
`THE OFFICIAL ELECTRONIC SOUND RECORDING PROVIDED TO ME BY THE
`
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, OF THE
`
`PROCEEDINGS TAKEN ON THE DATE AND TIME PREVIOUSLY STATED IN THE
`
`
`ABOVE MATTER.
`
`I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT I AM NEITHER COUNSEL FOR,
`
`RELATED TO, NOR EMPLOYED BY ANY OF THE PARTIES TO THE ACTION IN
`
`
`WHICH THIS HEARING WAS TAKEN; AND, FURTHER, THAT I AM NOT
`
`FINANCIALLY NOR OTHERWISE INTERESTED IN THE OUTCOME OF THE
`ACTION.
`
`
`DECEMBER 19, 2021
`
` 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RELATED TO, NOR EMPLOYED BY ANY OF THE PARTIES TO THE ACTION IN
`
`
`
`
`
`
`WHICH THIS HEARING WAS TAKEN; AND, FURTHER, THAT I AM NOT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FINANCIALLY NOR OTHERWISE INTERESTED IN THE OUTCOME OF THE
`
`ACTION.
`
`epbe
`ml,
`
`JOAN MARIE COLUMBINI
`DECEMBER 19, 2021
`
`
`
`JOAN MARTE COLUMBINI
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOAN MARIE COLUMBINI, CSR, RPR
`
`JOAN MARIE COLUMBINI, CSR, RPR
`RETIRED OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, USDC
`
`RETIRED OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER, USDC
`510-367-3043
`510-367-3043
`
`