Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 142-9 Filed 03/23/22 Page 1 of 3
`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 142-9 Filed 03/23/22 Page 1of3
`
`EXHIBIT H
`EXHIBIT H
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 142-9 Filed 03/23/22 Page 2 of 3
`
`I R E L L & M A N E L L A L L P
`
`A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP
`INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
`
`1 8 0 0 A V E N U E O F T H E S T A R S , S U I T E 9 0 0
`
`L O S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 6 7 - 4 2 76
`
`T E L E P H O N E ( 3 1 0 ) 2 7 7 - 1 0 1 0
`F A C S I M I L E ( 3 1 0 ) 2 0 3 - 7 1 9 9
`W E B S I T E : w w w . i r e l l . c o m
`
`W R I T E R ' S D I R E C T
`
`T E L E P H O N E ( 3 1 0 ) 2 0 3 - 7 6 3 5
`F A C S I M I L E ( 3 1 0 ) 2 0 3 - 7 1 9 9
`M W e l l s @ i r e l l . c o m
`
`8 4 0 N E W P O R T C E N T E R D R I V E , S U I T E 4 0 0
`N E W P O R T B E A C H , C A 9 2 6 6 0 - 6 3 2 4
`T E L E P H O N E ( 9 4 9 ) 7 6 0 - 0 9 9 1
`F A C S I M I L E ( 9 4 9 ) 7 6 0 - 5 2 0 0
`
`
`
`
`
`August 30, 2021
`
`
`
`VIA E-MAIL
`
`Philip Ou, Esq.
`Paul Hastings LLP
`1117 S. California Avenue
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`philipou@paulhastings.com
`
`
`
`Re: Demaray LLC v. Intel Corporation, Case 6:20-cv-00634
`
`Dear Counsel:
`
`I write in response to your most recent letter dated August 9, 2021 regarding
`Demaray’s infringement allegations in the above-captioned matter (regarding claims 4-5 of
`the ’276 patent). As discussed at the recent meet and confers and consistent with Demaray’s
`preliminary infringement contentions, “[d]iscovery from Intel, including on the
`configuration of Intel PVD Reactors used in the production of Intel semiconductor products
`and the layers deposited therewith is currently believed to be required to determine whether
`Intel practices” these claims. While Intel has provided discovery for a subset of its reactors
`indicating the use a rotating magnet assembly, Intel has failed to provide discovery detailing
`the magnet assemblies for each of its reactors at issue. Indeed, despite your commitment to
`supplement Intel’s responses to Interrogatory 1 to include all Intel PVD reactors with DC
`power to the target and an RF bias on the substrate by August 27, 2021, no supplement was
`provided.
`
`Your demand that Demaray forego potential assertion of claims 4-5 of the ’276
`patent in this matter while Intel withholds identification and basic discovery on the reactors
`at issue is improper. See, e.g., Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. Broadcom Ltd., No. 2:16-CV-
`134-JRG-RSP, 2017 WL 2869331, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 27, 2017) (highlighting that delay
`in receiving discovery from defendant precluded plaintiff from fully articulating its
`infringement theories). As stated in Demaray’s Third Amended Infringement Contentions,
`“[t]o the extent that additional discovery confirms that the Intel PVD Reactors do not have a
`magnet” with the claimed configurations, Demaray will not pursue the claims against Intel.
`
`While Demaray cannot address in a response of reasonable length all of the
`untenable arguments, factual inaccuracies, and legal errors made in your most recent letter, I
`will briefly address some of the core issues below. The decision not to address one or more
`
`11004876.1
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-09341-EJD Document 142-9 Filed 03/23/22 Page 3 of 3
`I R E L L & M A N E L L A L L P
`
`A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP
`INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
`
`
`Counsel for Intel
`August 30, 2021
`Page 2
`
`
`
`of the mischaracterizations in Intel’s correspondence should not be taken to indicate any
`acquiescence or agreement therewith.
`
`Your assertion that Demaray lacks a good faith basis to prosecute its claims against
`Intel is baseless. The record in this case overwhelmingly indicates that Intel has used, and
`continues to use, the claimed reactor configurations without Demaray’s permission to churn
`out semiconductor products from which Intel has obtained billions of dollars in revenue.
`Despite two Court orders, Intel still has not provided basic discovery regarding the accused
`reactors and PVD processes. For example, at the beginning of this matter, Demaray
`requested that Intel provide limited core technical documents so that Demaray could
`thoroughly address them in its preliminary infringement contentions. Intel refused that
`request. Demaray has continued for the last year to seek basic discovery to substantiate
`Intel’s claim that its reactors do not satisfy certain claim elements. It has been met with
`Intel’s resistance at every turn.
`
`It is wholly unproductive for Intel to continue sending letters of this kind, especially
`while Intel continues to withhold highly relevant information central to the claims at issue
`and which the Court has repeatedly ordered and Intel has agreed to produce. Indeed, Intel
`appears more committed to its meritless letter-writing campaign than it does to meeting its
`basic discovery obligations and moving this matter towards resolution.
`
`If you would like resolution of this issue, please provide the complete list of reactors
`at issue and the details of their magnet assemblies forthwith. We reiterate our request that
`Intel stop these sideshow antics and that the parties instead focus on resolving the case on
`the merits. To the extent further amendment of Demaray’s infringement contentions is
`warranted based upon produced discovery, we will update our responses in a timely manner.
`
`Sincerely,
`
`/s/ C. Maclain Wells
`
`C. Maclain Wells
`
`11004876.1
`
`
`
`
`