`
`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 136 Filed 03/12/22 Page 1 of 3
`
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`Morgan Chu (70446)
`MChu@irell.com
`Benjamin W. Hattenbach (186455)
`BHattenbach@irell.com
`Samuel K. Lu (171969)
`SLu@irell.com
`Olivia L. Weber (319918)
`OWeber@irell.com
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, California 90067-4276
`Telephone: (310) 277-1010
`Facsimile:
`(310) 203-7199
`
`FOLIO LAW GROUP PLLC
`C. Maclain Wells (221609)
`Maclain@foliolaw.com
`2376 Pacific Ave.
`San Francisco, CA 94115
`(415) 562-8632
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`DEMARAY LLC
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`DEMARAY LLC,
`
`
`vs.
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`11075361
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-09341-EJD
`
`DEMARAY LLC'S UNOPPOSED
`MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME FOR AN
`EARLIER HEARING
`
`
`
`DEMARAY'S UNOPPOSED MOTION
`TO SHORTEN TIME
`(Case No. 5:20-cv-09341-EJD)
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 136 Filed 03/12/22 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Local Rules 6-1 and 6-3, Defendant Demaray LLC ("Demaray") hereby moves
`
`to shorten time for the hearing on Demaray's Motion to Amend Its Answer to Add Affirmative
`
`Counterclaims for Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,544,276 and 7,381,657. Dkt. 133 ("Motion
`
`to Amend"). Prior to filing the Motion to Amend, Demaray reserved the earliest possible hearing
`
`date of September 29, 2022. Because the hearing is more than six months from now, Demaray
`
`respectfully requests that the Court reschedule the hearing on the Motion to Amend to a date of the
`
`Court's earliest convenience.1
`
`Plaintiff Applied Materials, Inc. ("Applied") has indicated that it will not oppose the
`
`request for an earlier hearing.
`
`The reason for Demaray's request is that Judge Cousins is presently deciding a case
`
`schedule in this matter. See Dkt. 116. The parties have submitted competing schedules. Id.
`
`However, the schedule requested by Applied would eliminate the requisite disclosure of
`
`infringement and invalidity contentions required under Patent L.R. 3-3 and 3-4 because, as
`
`Applied argues, no infringement claims have been asserted by Demaray against Applied, at least
`
`until Demaray's Motion for Leave is granted. Id. at 1-2. The schedule submitted by Demaray
`
`requests that Judge Cousins reset certain deadlines if affirmative infringement claims are allowed.
`
`Id. at 1 n. 1, 1-2. In accordance with this approach and contemporaneously with this filing,
`
`Demaray has requested that Judge Cousins either (a) hold in abeyance the Patent Local Rule
`
`deadlines pending a ruling on the Motion to Amend from this Court, or (b) in the alternative, adopt
`
`
`1 Demaray had previously requested that Judge Cousins address whether Demaray should
`
`be allowed to amend its answer to assert counterclaims. Dkt. 127. Even though Applied had
`
`previously stated that it "does not oppose Magistrate Judge Cousins addressing whether Demaray
`
`should be allowed to amend its answer and make compulsory counterclaims of infringement"
`
`(Dkt. 116 at 2 n.1), Applied opposed Demaray's request on substantive and procedural grounds
`
`(Dkt. 128) and moved to strike Demaray's Motion (Dkt. 130). While Demaray believes that its
`
`letter brief was procedurally proper, to avoid burdening the Court with deciding Applied's motion
`
`to strike and the accompanying delay from that motion, Demaray withdrew its letter brief in favor
`
`of the Motion to Amend. See Dkt. 134.
`
`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
`
`11075361
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`DEMARAY'S UNOPPOSED MOTION
`TO SHORTEN TIME
`(Case No. 5:20-cv-009341-EJD)
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 136 Filed 03/12/22 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`a schedule based upon Demaray's proposed schedule setting for deadlines that account for
`
`affirmative infringement claims.
`
`It is Demaray's position that such early disclosure of infringement and invalidity
`
`contentions is intended to enable the parties to surface and identify claim construction issues prior
`
`to the claim construction process. Otherwise, the parties would be shooting at moving targets,
`
`briefing claim constructions without full disclosure of the infringement and invalidity issues that
`
`are at play in this particular case, particularly those issues involving these two specific parties.2
`
`Moreover, in the absence of such disclosures, it would be difficult for key aspects of the claim
`
`construction disclosure process to play out (e.g., identifying which claim terms require
`
`construction, much less identifying the "most significant" claim terms). Patent L.R. 4-3.
`
`Thus, resolution of the Motion to Amend will impact the scope of discovery, the case schedule in
`
`this matter, and, most importantly, the scope and content of the briefing and argument during
`
`13
`
`claim construction before this Court.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`Therefore, in consideration of judicial economy and conservation of the parties' resources,
`
`and in order to promote the entry of a case schedule with deadlines that fully account for all claims
`
`at issue in this case, Demaray respectfully requests the Court grant this unopposed request for an
`
`earlier hearing and set a hearing date as soon as the Court is available.
`
`18
`
`
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Dated: March 12, 2022
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`
`By: /s/ Olivia L. Weber
`Olivia L. Weber
`Attorneys for Defendant DEMARAY LLC
`
`
`2 Although Demaray has also sued Applied's customers in the Western District of Texas,
`
`there is no indication, much a less a guarantee from Applied, that Applied will proffer the same
`
`invalidity and/or claim construction positions as its customers. This is because Applied's
`
`customers use and are therefore liable for their use of tools made by other manufacturers. Thus,
`
`the invalidity and claim construction positions of Applied's customers likely diverge from those of
`
`Applied.
`
`11075361
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`DEMARAY'S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME
`(Case No. 5:20-cv-09341-EJD)
`
`