Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 236 Filed 11/13/19 Page 1 of 96 PageID #: 15637
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`ELM 3DS INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et
`al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`ELM 3DS INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., et al.,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`ELM 3DS INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`SK HYNIX INC., et al.,
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 14-cv-1430-LPS-CJB
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 14-cv-1431-LPS-CJB
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 14-cv-1432-LPS-CJB
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`Adam K. Mortara
`Matthew R. Ford
`BARTLIT BECK LLP
`54 West Hubbard Street, Suite 300
`Chicago, IL 60654
`Tel: (312) 494-4400
`adam.mortara@bartlitbeck.com
`matthew.ford@bartlitbeck.com
`
`John M. Hughes
`Nosson D. Knobloch
`Katherine L.I. Hacker
`BARTLIT BECK LLP
`1801 Wewatta Street, Suite 1200
`Denver, CO 80202
`Tel: (303) 592-3100
`
`
`Brian E. Farnan (#4089)
`Michael J. Farnan (#5165)
`FARNAN LLP
`919 North Market Street
`12th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Tel: (302) 777-0300
`bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`mfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff ELM 3DS
`INNOVATIONS, LLC
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 236 Filed 11/13/19 Page 2 of 96 PageID #: 15638
`
`
`
`
`john.hughes@bartlitbeck.com
`nosson.knobloch@bartlitbeck.com
`kat.hacker@bartlitbeck.com
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`
`L. Howard Chen
`
`Harold H. Davis
`
`Nicholas A. Brown
`
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 3000
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`
`(415) 655-1300
`
`chenh@gtlaw.com
`
`davish@gtlaw.com
`
`
`
`Vishesh Narayen
`
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`101 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1900
`Tampa, FL 33602
`(813) 318.5700
`narayenv@gtlaw.com
`
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`
`Allan M. Soobert
`Naveen Modi
`
`Phillip W. Citroën
`
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`875 15th Street, N.W. Telephone:
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`
`(202) 551-1700
`
`allansoobert@paulhastings.com
`naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`phillipcitroen@paulhastings.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Benjamin J. Schladweiler (#4601)
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`The Nemours Building
`1007 North Orange Street, Suite 1200
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 661-7352
`schladweilerb@gtlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants SK hynix Inc., SK
`hynix America Inc., hynix Semiconductor
`Manufacturing America Inc., and SK Hynix
`Memory Solution Inc.
`
`
`
`Adam W. Poff (#3990)
`Pilar G. Kraman (#5199)
`YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT &
`TAYLOR, LLP
`Rodney Square
`1000 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 571-6600
`apoff@ycst.com
`pkraman@ycst.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Samsung
`Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung
`Semiconductor, Inc., Samsung Electronics
`America, Inc., and Samsung Austin
`Semiconductor, LLC
`Frederick L. Cottrell, III (#2555)
`Travis S. Hunter (#5350)
`Tyler E. Cragg (#6398)
`RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, PA
`920 North King Street
`One Rodney Square
`
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`
`John Kappos
`Hana Oh Chen
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`610 Newport Center Drive
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 236 Filed 11/13/19 Page 3 of 96 PageID #: 15639
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Telephone: (302) 651-7700
`cottrell@rlf.com
`
`hunter@rlf.com
`cragg@rlf.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants Micron Technology,
`Inc.; Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc.;
`and Micron Consumer Products Group, Inc.
`
`Newport Beach, California 92660-3823
`(949) 823-6900
`
`jkappos@omm.com
`
`hoh@omm.com
`
`
`
`Brian Cook
`
`Xin-Yi Zhou
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`400 South Hope Street
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2899
`(213) 430-6000
`bcook@omm.com
`vzhou@omm.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 236 Filed 11/13/19 Page 4 of 96 PageID #: 15640
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`III. 
`
`IV. 
`
`B. 
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTIONS ........................................................................................................... 1 
`A. 
`Introduction from Plaintiff’s Opening Brief .......................................................... 1 
`B. 
`Introduction from Defendant’s Responsive Brief .................................................. 2 
`C. 
`Introduction from Defendants’ Opening Brief ...................................................... 3 
`D. 
`Introduction from Plaintiff’s Responsive Brief ..................................................... 4 
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 4 
`A. 
`Statement of Facts from Plaintiff’s Opening Brief ................................................ 4 
`B. 
`Technology Background from Defendant’s Opening Brief ................................... 5 
`LEGAL STANDARDS ..................................................................................................... 7 
`A. 
`Legal Standards for Claim Construction from Plaintiff’s Opening Brief .............. 7 
`B. 
`Legal Standards for Indefiniteness from Plaintiff’s Opening Brief ....................... 9 
`DISPUTED CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS ........................................................................ 9 
`A. 
`The “Substantially Flexible Terms” ....................................................................... 9 
`Plaintiff’s Opening Position: “Substantially Flexible” Terms—
`1. 
`Terms 1, 2, and 3........................................................................................ 9 
`Defendant’s Responsive Position: The “Substantially Flexible”
`Terms (D.I. 166, Disputed Terms 1-3) .................................................... 11 
`The Federal Circuit’s Construction Did Not Resolve
`a. 
`Indefiniteness ............................................................................... 11 
`Elm’s Argument Against “Low Tensile Stress” Should Be
`Rejected........................................................................................ 12 
`Defendant’s Opening Position: The “Substantially Flexible” Terms
`(D.I. 166, Disputed Terms 1-3) ................................................................ 13 
`The Federal Circuit Construed The “Substantially Flexible”
`a. 
`Terms ........................................................................................... 13 
`The “Largely Able To Bend Without Breaking”
`Requirement Renders All “Substantially Flexible” Terms
`Indefinite ...................................................................................... 14 
`The Federal Circuit Did Not Address Indefiniteness Under
`§ 112............................................................................................. 18 
`Plaintiff’s Responsive Position: The Federal Circuit’s construction
`of “substantially flexible” is not indefinite .............................................. 19 
`The “Stress Terms” .............................................................................................. 23 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`b. 
`
`b. 
`
`c. 
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 236 Filed 11/13/19 Page 5 of 96 PageID #: 15641
`
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`Plaintiff’s Opening Position: “Low Stress” and “Stress of 5 x 108
`dynes/cm2” Terms—4 and 5 .................................................................... 23 
`A person of skill in the art would have understood how and
`a. 
`when to measure stress................................................................. 24 
`Meaning of “low stress”............................................................... 27 
`b. 
`Alternative constructions of “low stress” .................................... 29 
`c. 
`Defendants’ Responsive Position: The “Stress” Terms (D.I. 166,
`Disputed Terms 4-5) ................................................................................ 32 
`a. 
`The “Stress” Terms Are Indefinite (Disputed Terms 4-5) ........... 32 
`b. 
`The “Low Stress” Terms Without A Numeric Restriction
`Are Further Indefinite (Disputed Term 5) ................................... 35 
`To The Extent Not Indefinite, All “Stress” Terms (Disputed
`Terms 4-5) Should Be Construed According to
`Micron/Samsung’s Alternative Construction (This Section
`Is Not Joined By Hynix) .............................................................. 37 
`Defendants’ Opening Position: The “Stress” Terms (D.I. 166,
`Disputed Terms 4-5) ................................................................................ 39 
`a. 
`The “Stress” Terms Are Indefinite (Disputed Terms 4-5) ........... 39 
`b. 
`The “Low Stress” Terms Without A Numeric Restriction
`Are Further Indefinite (Disputed Term 5) ................................... 42 
`The Intrinsic Evidence Disclaims Compressive Stress and
`Stress Balancing ........................................................................... 44 
`To The Extent Not Indefinite, All “Stress” Terms (Disputed
`Terms 4-5) Should Be Construed According to
`Micron/Samsung’s Alternative Construction (This Section
`Is Not Joined By Hynix) .............................................................. 47 
`Plaintiff’s Responsive Position: Understanding dielectric stress is
`central to semiconductor manufacturing .................................................. 48 
`The Defendants ignore the patent, industry practice, and
`a. 
`their own PTAB experts in arguing that “stress” is an
`unknown concept in semiconductor manufacturing .................... 48 
`The Defendants ignore the specification in arguing that
`“low stress” is an unknowable term of degree ............................. 52 
`There was no disclaimer of either compressive stress or
`stress balancing ............................................................................ 53 
`The “Interconnection,” “Bonding,” and “Conductive Path” Terms .................... 54 
`1. 
`Plaintiff’s Opening Position ..................................................................... 54 
`a. 
`“Vertical Interconnection” Terms—6, 7, 8, and 9 ....................... 54 
`
`c. 
`
`c. 
`
`d. 
`
`b. 
`
`c. 
`
`C. 
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 236 Filed 11/13/19 Page 6 of 96 PageID #: 15642
`
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`b. 
`
`b. 
`
`“Bond” Terms—10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 ................................. 60 
`b. 
`Defendants’ Responsive Position: The “Interconnection,”
`“Bonding,” And “Conductive Path” Terms (D.I. 166, Disputed
`Terms 6-15) .............................................................................................. 63 
`a. 
`“Interconnection” Terms (Disputed Terms 6-9) .......................... 63 
`b. 
`“Bonding” And “Conductive Path” Terms (Disputed Terms
`10-15) ........................................................................................... 66 
`Defendants’ Opening Position: The “Interconnection,” “Bonding,”
`And “Conductive Path” Terms (D.I. 166, Disputed Terms 6-15) ........... 68 
`The Specification Compels Defendants’ Proposed
`a. 
`Constructions ............................................................................... 68 
`The Specification’s Description Of The Alleged Invention
`And Its Objectives Confirms Defendants’ Constructions ............ 69 
`Plaintiff’s Responsive Position ................................................................ 73 
`The Asserted Patents cover all form of vertical
`a. 
`interconnections, not just those that pass through the
`substrate ....................................................................................... 73 
`The Asserted Patents did not disavow forms of bonding
`substrates ...................................................................................... 78 
`“Thin” .................................................................................................................. 78 
`1. 
`Plaintiff’s Opening Position: “Thin” Terms—16 .................................... 78 
`2. 
`Defendants’ Responsive Position: “Thin” (D.I. 166, Disputed Term
`16) ............................................................................................................ 81 
`Defendants’ Opening Position: “Thin” (D.I. 166, Disputed Term
`16) ............................................................................................................ 82 
`Plaintiff’s Responsive Position: The Defendants’ barebones
`arguments that “thin” is indefinite fall well short of their burden to
`prove indefiniteness by clear and convincing evidence ........................... 82 
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 83 
`A. 
`Conclusion from Plaintiff’s Opening Brief .......................................................... 83 
`B. 
`Conclusion from Defendants’ Responsive Brief ................................................. 83 
`C. 
`Conclusion from Defendants’ Opening Brief ...................................................... 83 
`D. 
`Conclusion from Plaintiff’s Responsive Brief ..................................................... 83 
`
`D. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`V. 
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 236 Filed 11/13/19 Page 7 of 96 PageID #: 15643
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases 
`
`Am. Calcar, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co.,
`651 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2011)............................................................................................... 70
`
`Am. Tech. Ceramics Corp. v. Presidio Components, Inc.,
`No. 14-CV-6544(KAM)(GRB), 2018 WL 1525686 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2018) .................... 10
`
`Asyst Techs., Inc. v. Emtrak, Inc.,
`402 F.3d 1188 (Fed. Cir. 2005)......................................................................................... 71, 73
`
`Avanir Pharms., Inc. v. Actavis S. Atl. LLC,
`No. CA 11-704-LPS, 2012 WL 6019095 (D. Del. Dec. 3, 2012)........................................... 75
`
`Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`856 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2017)............................................................................................... 46
`
`Bayer Intellectual Prop. GmbH v. Warner Chilcott Co.,
`No. 12-1032-GMS, 2015 WL 1849015 (D. Del. Apr. 21, 2015)..................................... passim
`
`Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Texas Sys. v. BENQ Am. Corp.,
`533 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................... 17, 37, 45
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)......................................................................................... 15, 39
`
`Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc.,
`No. 10-cv-7722, 2011 WL 11745378 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2011) .......................................... 20
`
`Biosig Instruments, Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc.,
`No. 10-cv-7722, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158269 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2011) ........................ 19
`
`C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.,
`388 F.3d 858 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................. 70
`
`Cayenne Med., Inc. v. Medshape, Inc.,
`No. 2:14-cv-0451-HRH, 2016 WL 2606983 (D. Ariz. May 6, 2016) .................................... 15
`
`Chicago Bd. Options Exch., Inc. v. Int’l Sec. Exch., LLC,
`677 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012)............................................................................................... 55
`
`Cont'l Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`915 F.3d 788 (Fed. Cir. 2019).......................................................................................... passim
`
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 15-cv-05008-PSG, 2016 WL 3124614 (N.D. Cal. June 3, 2016) .................................... 15
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 236 Filed 11/13/19 Page 8 of 96 PageID #: 15644
`
`
`Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Lee,
`136 S.Ct. 2131 (2016) ............................................................................................................. 18
`
`Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, LLC,
`703 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012)............................................................................................... 21
`
`Dow Chem. Co. v. Nova Chems. Corp.(Canada),
`803 F. 3d 620 (Fed. Cir. 2015).................................................................................... 39, 42, 51
`
`Ecolab Inc. v. Paraclipse, Inc.,
`285 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2002)............................................................................................... 55
`
`Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp.,
`599 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2010)......................................................................................... 20, 22
`
`Epistar Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`566 F.3d 1321, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2009)............................................................................... 57, 77
`
`ERBE Elektromedizin GmbH v. Canady Tech. LLC,
`629 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2010)............................................................................................... 64
`
`Exmark Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Prods. Grp., LLC,
`879 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................... 9, 21, 22
`
`Forest Labs., Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc.,
`Nos. 14-121-LPS et al., 2016 WL 54910 (D. Del. Jan. 5, 2016) ...................................... 39, 52
`
`Gaus v. Conair Corp.,
`363 F.3d 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2004)............................................................................................... 71
`
`Geodynamics, Inc. v. Dynaenergetics US, Inc.,
`No. 2:15-CV-1546-RSP, 2016 WL 6217181 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 25, 2016) ................................ 14
`
`Graphics Properties Holdings, Inc. v. ASUS Computer Int'l, Inc.,
`No. 12-CV-1394-LPS, 2014 WL 4929340 (D. Del. Sept. 29, 2014) ................................ 39, 75
`
`Halliburton Energy Servs. v. M-I LLC
`514 F.3d 1244 (Fed. Cir. 2008)............................................................................................... 15
`
`Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp.,
`755 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2014)........................................................................................... 7, 74
`
`Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Polar Electro Oy,
`656 F. App’x 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ....................................................................................... 16
`
`In Re Mobile Telecomms. Techs., LLC,
`265 F. Supp. 3d 454 (D. Del. 2017) ........................................................................................ 39
`
`
`
`viii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 236 Filed 11/13/19 Page 9 of 96 PageID #: 15645
`
`
`Infinity Comput. Prods., Inc. v. Oki Data Am., Inc.,
`No. 1:18-CV-00463-LPS, 2019 WL 2422597 (D. Del. June 10, 2019) .......................... passim
`
`Info-Hold, Inc. v. Applied Media Techs. Corp.,
`783 F.3d 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2015)............................................................................................... 76
`
`Inpro II Licensing, S.A.R.L. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`450 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2006)............................................................................................... 38
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`No. 1-12-cv-00193, ECF No. 812 (D. Del. June 3, 2016) ................................................ 19, 21
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`Nos. 13-1668-LPS et al., 2016 WL 4363485 (D. Del. Aug. 12, 2016) .................................. 39
`
`Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.,
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................... 11, 39, 81
`
`Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp.,
`383 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2004)............................................................................................... 71
`
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc.,
`481 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007)......................................................................................... 18, 20
`
`Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
`52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996) .................................................... 2, 8
`
`Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc.,
`851 F.3d 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2017)............................................................................................... 82
`
`Micro Chem., Inc. v. Great Plains Chem. Co.,
`194 F.3d 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1999)............................................................................................... 57
`
`Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc.,
`No. Civ. A. 18-217-JFB-SRF, 2019 WL 1352808 (D. Del. Mar. 26, 2019) .......................... 22
`
`Mosel Vitelic Corp. v. Micron Tech., Inc.,
`No. Civ. A. 98-449-GMS, 2000 WL 35747615 (D. Del. Mar. 9, 2000) ................................ 75
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) .......................................................................................... 14, 18, 41, 44
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898 (2014) .................................................................................................................. 9
`
`Nystrom v. TREX Co., Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2005)............................................................................................... 64
`
`
`
`ix
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 236 Filed 11/13/19 Page 10 of 96 PageID #: 15646
`
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)........................................................................................ passim
`
`Presidio Components, Inc. v. Am. Tech. Ceramics Corp.,
`875 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2017 .......................................................................................... 50, 51
`
`Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni,
`158 F.3d 1243 (Fed. Cir. 1998)................................................................................................. 9
`
`Saffran v. Johnson & Johnson,
`712 F.3d 549 (Fed. Cir. 2013)........................................................................................... 69, 71
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC,
`925 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019)........................................................................................ passim
`
`Schindler Elevator Corp. v. Otis Elevator Co.,
`593 F.3d 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2010)............................................................................................... 45
`
`Seattle Box Co., Inc. v. Indus. Crating & Packing, Inc.,
`731 F.2d 818 (Fed. Cir. 1984)................................................................................................. 14
`
`Siemens Indus., Inc. v. Westinghouse Air Brake Techs. Corp.,
`No. CV 16-284-LPS-CJB, 2017 WL 5125760 (D. Del. Nov. 6, 2017) .................................. 46
`
`Silicon Graphics, Inc. v. ATI Techs., Inc.,
`607 F.3d 784 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................. 67
`
`Standard Oil Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co.,
`774 F.2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 1985)................................................................................................. 46
`
`Stumbo v. Eastman Outdoors, Inc.,
`508 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2007)............................................................................................... 55
`
`Taskett v. Dentlinger,
`344 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2003)............................................................................................... 74
`
`TecSec, Inc. v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp.,
`731 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013)............................................................................................... 64
`
`Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) ............................................................................................................ 14
`
`Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`135 S. Ct. 831 (2015) ................................................................................................................ 8
`
`Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
`789 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015)........................................................................................ passim
`
`
`
`x
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 236 Filed 11/13/19 Page 11 of 96 PageID #: 15647
`
`
`Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm’t Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)........................................................................................... 8, 32
`
`Tinnus Enterprises, LLC v. Telebrands Corp.,
`733 F. App’x 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ....................................................................................... 20
`
`Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus.,
`199 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 1999)......................................................................................... 37, 64
`
`Trustees of Columbia v. Symantec Corp.,
`811 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016)............................................................................................... 64
`
`UltimatePointer, LLC v. Nintendo Co.,
`816 F.3d 816 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................. 71
`
`Unwired Planet, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`829 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016)............................................................................................... 75
`
`Välinge Innovation AB v. Halstead New England Corp.,
`No. 16-1082-LPS-CJB, 2018 WL 2108199 (D. Del. May 7, 2018) ................................. 39, 52
`
`Verve, LLC v. Crane Cams, Inc.,
`311 F.3d 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2002)............................................................................................... 21
`
`V-Formation, Inc. v. Benetton Group SpA,
`401 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2005)............................................................................................... 71
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)................................................................................................... 7
`
`W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. C.R. Bard, Inc.,
`No. CV 11-515-LPS-CJB, 2014 WL 3950663 (D. Del. Aug. 8, 2014) .................................. 75
`
`X2Y Attenuators, LLC v. ITC,
`757 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014)............................................................................................... 37
`
`Statutes 
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ................................................................................................................... 9, 18, 19
`
`35 U.S.C. § 311(b) ........................................................................................................................ 18
`
`
`
`xi
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 236 Filed 11/13/19 Page 12 of 96 PageID #: 15648
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTIONS
`
`A.
`
`Introduction from Plaintiff’s Opening Brief
`
`In the mid-1990s, Glenn Leedy saw what others in the semiconductor industry did not.
`
`The market demands for more memory in each device, thinner devices, and the approaching
`
`limits of Moore’s law would require thinner, three-dimensionally stacked semiconductor chips
`
`that manufacturers could actually build. The twelve patents at issue in this lawsuit contain
`
`Leedy’s solution for meeting these needs. Leedy’s central insight was that a flexible
`
`semiconductor die could be used to create such three-dimensional stacked semiconductors and
`
`that one could build such a device by combining a substrate that had been thinned and polished
`
`to be substantially flexible with low-stress dielectrics. Together, this combination of thinned,
`
`substantially flexible substrates and low-stress dielectrics have become a proven architecture to
`
`achieve Leedy’s vision of 3D memory. Both the PTAB and the Federal Circuit have confirmed
`
`the novelty of Leedy’s vision. See Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC, 925 F.3d
`
`1373, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
`
`There are both claim-construction and indefiniteness issues before the Court. For claim
`
`construction, Elm offers the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms at issue based on the
`
`claims, the specification, and the prosecution history. One term is no longer at issue for claim
`
`construction, as the Federal Circuit has construed it in affirming the PTAB’s conclusion that the
`
`Patents-In-Suit are not obvious. Id. The remaining terms are common features of integrated
`
`circuits for which Leedy did not give a specialized meaning in either the patents or their
`
`prosecution. In contrast, all of the Defendants’ proposed constructions import limitations from
`
`the preferred embodiment into the claims. This is the cardinal sin of claim construction, as
`
`shown by governing law and the damage these imported limitations do to the language of the
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 236 Filed 11/13/19 Page 13 of 96 PageID #: 15649
`
`
`claims and the specification. Cont’l Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp., 915 F.3d 788, 797 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2019).
`
`As for indefiniteness, the challenged limitations each had a reasonably certain meaning to
`
`a person of ordinary skill. The Defendants still have not disclosed their theory of why “thin” is
`
`indefinite, but regardless the standard thicknesses of substrates were known to the person of
`
`ordinary skill at the time of patenting. In addition, the challenged “stress” limitations hinge on
`
`their experts’ newfound confusion over how dielectric stresses are understood in semiconductor
`
`manufacturing, which departs from the understanding of the Defendants’ expert before the
`
`PTAB as well as the Federal Circuit’s decision regarding these patents. See Samsung Elecs. Co.
`
`v. Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC, 925 F.3d at 1375. Likewise, the Defendants’ challenge to the
`
`Federal Circuit’s construction of “substantially flexible” ignores the context of the invention.
`
`For both claim construction and indefiniteness, the Court should reject the Defendants’
`
`challenges and adopt the terms’ plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`B.
`
`Introduction from Defendant’s Responsive Brief
`
`Elm advocates for broad claim constructions as if it never made statements to the PTO
`
`narrowing the scope of its alleged invention. Elm, however, represented to the PTO that the
`
`“substantially flexible” terms include a “largely able to bend without breaking” requirement. It
`
`now must live with that and explain what this requirement includes and excludes. Elm apparently
`
`cannot—it now presents circular arguments and endeavors to abdicate the task of interpreting
`
`claim scope to the jury, in clear violation of Markman v. Westview, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). Elm’s
`
`inability to define the scope of the very limitations it relied on to distinguish prior art renders the
`
`claim terms indefinite. Similarly, Elm cannot reconcile the intrinsic record for the “stress,” “low
`
`stress,” and “thin” terms. Having for years relied on inconsistent interpretations of these terms to
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 236 Filed 11/13/19 Page 14 of 96 PageID #: 15650
`
`
`distinguish prior art, Elm now advances new and inconsistent statements from its expert in an
`
`attempt to reclaim scope disavowed during prosecution. Elm’s inability to define the boundaries
`
`of these terms renders them indefinite. As for the “interconnection” terms, the Court should
`
`reject Elm’s broad construction because it ignores the specification’s definition of the terms and
`
`the underlying goal of the claimed “invention.”
`
`C.
`
`Introduction from Defendants’ Opening Brief
`
`Many of the claim construction disputes arise from statements Elm made to distinguish
`
`prior art during over a decade of prosecution and later inter partes review (“IPR”) of the
`
`Asserted Patents. As the Federal Circuit found, these statements “clearly and unambiguously
`
`disclaimed claim scope” by narrowing claim scope in ways that are otherwise not apparent from
`
`a plain reading of the claim language. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC,
`
`925 F.3d 1373, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Elm now asks this Court to hit “reset” and erase years
`
`of proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”).
`
`In its decision, the Federal Circuit construed the term “substantially flexible” to include a
`
`relative requirement mandated by the prosecution history—“largely able to bend without
`
`breaking.” This requirement lacks any objectively definable bounds and thus renders the term
`
`indefinite. Although it was Elm who, during IPR, proposed construing “substantially flexible” to
`
`require the “largely able to bend without breaking” limitation accepted by the Federal Circuit,
`
`Elm’s expert, Dr. Baker, now ignores this requirement and instead offers an opinion that
`
`“substantially flexible” requires only “flexible enough to facilitate die stacking.” But Dr. Baker’s
`
`definition directly contradicts Elm’s argument—accepted by the Federal Circuit—that not all
`
`stacked substrates that are 50 microns or less in thickness are “substantially flexible.” It also
`
`ignores the prior art stacked products distinguished in the background of Asserted Patents, each
`