Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 130-3 Filed 03/02/22 Page 1 of 5
`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 130-3 Filed 03/02/22 Page1of5
`
`EXHIBIT B
`EXHIBIT B
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 130-3 Filed 03/02/22 Page1of5
`
`EXHIBIT B
`EXHIBIT B
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 130-3 Filed 03/02/22 Page 2 of 5
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Before The Honorable Nathanael M. Cousins, Magistrate Judge
`
`APPLIED MATERIALS, INC., )
`)
`
`) )
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`
`DEMARAY, LLC.,
`
`) No. C 20-09341-EJD
`)
`)
`)
`)
`Defendant.
`______________________________)
`
`
`San Jose, California
`Wednesday, January 12, 2022
`
`TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE OFFICIAL ELECTRONIC SOUND
`RECORDING 1:19 - 1:47 = 28 MINUTES
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`For Plaintiff:
`
` BY:
`
`Paul Hastings, LLP
`1117 South California Avenue
`Palo Alto, California 94304
`PHILIP OU, ESQ.
`YAR R. CHAIKOVSKY, ESQ.
`
`Paul Hastings, LLP
`101 California Street
`Forty-Eighth Floor
`San Francisco, California
` 94111
` BY: MATTHIAS ANDREAS KAMBER, ESQ.
`
`(APPEARANCES CONTINUED ON THE NEXT PAGE.)
`
` Echo Reporting, Inc.
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 130-3 Filed 03/02/22 Page 3 of 5
`
`18
`
`as to our overall structure?
`
`MR. WELLS: Yes, your Honor. So I’ll take the
`
`issues in order.
`
`So first, with regard to the infringement contentions.
`
`We have provided robust infringement contentions in Texas
`
`and those were based upon a variety of information,
`
`including reverse engineering reports and the like, that
`
`aren’t available for Applied. In those infringement
`
`contentions for certain of the limitations in each of the
`
`patents, we noted on information and belief, we think
`
`there’s a narrow-band rejection filter here, but we don’t
`
`have the details. And we’ve gone back to the Texas court
`
`again and again and again and he’s ordered them to produce
`
`the information again and again and again and we’re still
`
`trying to get that information. And so that’s an issue in
`
`Texas, we admit it.
`
`Now, they’ve raised the issue in Texas repeatedly.
`
`They say, “Oh, there’s no Rule 11 basis for you to continue
`
`prosecuting these claims because we’ve told you it’s not a
`
`narrow-band rejection filter, even though we haven’t
`
`provided you with the documents that show that.” And so
`And so
`
`we’re trying to be really really cognizant of Rule 11 and
`we’re trying to be really really cognizant of Rule 11 and
`
`respect the obligations here, and that’s all we’re doing.
`respect the obligations here, and that’s all we’re doing.
`
`If the Plaintiffs want to admit that our contentions in
`If the Plaintiffs want to admit that our contentions in
`
`Texas are sufficient to cover a Rule 11 basis for them, we
`Texas are sufficient to cover a Rule 11 basis for them, we
`
`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
`
` Echo Reporting, Inc.
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 130-3 Filed 03/02/22 Page 4 of 5
`
`19
`
`
`
`will submit those to your Court -- to your Honor tomorrow,will submit those to your Court -- to your Honor tomorrow,
`
`but we don’t have the information from Applied Materials on
`
`the details of its filter and they have it. It’s not
`
`publicly available. And as soon as we get it, we can
`
`evaluate it. That’s where we are on that issue.
`
`With regard to the claim construction, the Plaintiffs
`
`have identified an expert. We haven’t received an expert
`
`report, of course, because that isn’t called for until later
`
`in the process. We don’t know what he’s going to say. Both
`
`parties have decided, to the extent of additional extrinsic
`
`evidence and intrinsic evidence that wasn’t present in the
`
`Texas cases, so there is going to be different evidence put
`
`forward. There’s going to be expert depositions. There’s
`
`going to be a deposition of at least Doctor Demaray and we
`
`see no reason why the default time lines, under the Patent
`
`Local Rules, wouldn’t apply in the interim. So that’s what
`
`we’re following, your Honor, until -- unless you direct us
`
`differently.
`
`Now, they’re proposing a very drastic cut in how much
`
`time people have to prepare for a claim construction. We
`
`don’t think that’s appropriate and we haven’t heard any
`
`reason why that’s necessary in this case.
`
`And then in addition, they were talking about filing an
`
`opening brief. Under the Patent Local Rules, if there is a
`
`claim of infringement, the patent owner files an opening
`
`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
`
` Echo Reporting, Inc.
`
`
`
`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 130-3 Filed 03/02/22 Page 5 of 5
`
`CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER
`
`27
`
`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
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`Echo Reporting, Inc., Transcriber
`
`Monday, January 17, 2022
`
`13
`
`action.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
` Echo Reporting, Inc.
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
