Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 238-4 Filed 12/12/19 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 16104
`
`Exhibit D
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 238-4 Filed 12/12/19 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 16105
`
`Citroen, Phillip W. <phillipcitroen@paulhastings.com>
`Thursday, January 24, 2019 8:05 PM
`Matthew Ford
`Kappos, John; Ford, Katie; Cragg, Tyler E.; Oh, Hana; Zhou, Vincent; Ewing, Alexandra M.;
`farnan@farnanlaw.com; bfarnan@farnanlaw.com; MFarnan@farnanlaw.com; Adam Mortara; John
`Hughes; OPPOSING COUNSEL; Cottrell, Fred; Hunter, Travis S.; Silver, Daniel; Smyth, Benjamin; Poff,
`Adam; Pilar Kraman; ServicePH Samsung-ELM 3DS; howard.chen@klgates.com;
`harold.davis@klgates.com; Soobert, Allan M.; Modi, Naveen; Skhynix-Elm; OPPOSING COUNSEL;
`Mailing List - Leedy
`RE: Elm v. Defendants: Indefiniteness Position
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`
`Subject:
`
`Matt, 
`
`I believe that is correct, but note that Defendants’ position has appeared in all iterations of Defendants’ invalidity 
`contentions. 
`
`Regards, 
`Phillip 
`
`From: Matthew Ford [mailto:matthew.ford@bartlitbeck.com]
`Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2019 8:08 PM
`To: Citroen, Phillip W.
`Cc: Matthew Ford; Kappos, John; Ford, Katie; Cragg, Tyler E.; Oh, Hana; Zhou, Vincent; Ewing, Alexandra M.;
`farnan@farnanlaw.com; bfarnan@farnanlaw.com; MFarnan@farnanlaw.com; Adam Mortara; John Hughes; OPPOSING
`COUNSEL; Cottrell, Fred; Hunter, Travis S.; Silver, Daniel; Smyth, Benjamin; Poff, Adam; Pilar Kraman; ServicePH
`Samsung-ELM 3DS; howard.chen@klgates.com; harold.davis@klgates.com; Soobert, Allan M.; Modi, Naveen; Skhynix-
`Elm; OPPOSING COUNSEL; Mailing List - Leedy
`Subject: [EXT] Re: Elm v. Defendants: Indefiniteness Position
`
`Thanks Phillip.
`
`Sorry for the confusion, but please confirm that the below excerpt is what you’re referencing in the January 9th
`invalidity contentions as the basis for your indefiniteness argument. If I’m missing something, please let me
`know what else you are referencing.
`
`---
`
`Claim limitations including relative terms or terms of degree such as “substantially planar,” “majority of the
`surface area,” “other than at the edges,” “monolithic substrates,” “thin,” “major portion,” and “low stress” and
`related or dependent terms are indefinite, not enabled, and lack an adequate written description because the
`Asserted Patents do not disclose and a person of ordinary skill in the art could not determine the bounds of these
`terms with reasonable certainty. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the alleged inventor
`to be in possession of the purported invention and would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of
`the invention.
`
`On Jan 24, 2019, at 5:26 PM, Citroen, Phillip W. <phillipcitroen@paulhastings.com> wrote:
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 238-4 Filed 12/12/19 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 16106
`Matt,
`
` 
`Defendants are still planning to address indefiniteness of the “thin” term in their initial brief. The basis 
`for Defendants’ contentions can be found in Defendants’ invalidity contentions.
`
` 
`Regards,
`Phillip
`
` 
`From: Matthew Ford [mailto:matthew.ford@bartlitbeck.com]
`Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 1:44 PM
`To: Kappos, John; Matthew Ford; Ford, Katie; Cragg, Tyler E.; Citroen, Phillip W.; Oh, Hana; Zhou,
`Vincent; Ewing, Alexandra M.; farnan@farnanlaw.com; bfarnan@farnanlaw.com;
`MFarnan@farnanlaw.com; Adam Mortara; John Hughes; OPPOSING COUNSEL; Cottrell, Fred; Hunter,
`Travis S.; Silver, Daniel; Smyth, Benjamin; Poff, Adam; Pilar Kraman; ServicePH Samsung-ELM 3DS;
`howard.chen@klgates.com; harold.davis@klgates.com; Soobert, Allan M.; Modi, Naveen; Skhynix-Elm;
`OPPOSING COUNSEL; Mailing List - Leedy
`Subject: [EXT] Elm v. Defendants: Indefiniteness Position
`
`
`Counsel,
`
`
`Neither expert report addresses the Defendants’ position that the term “thin” is indefinite.
`
`
`There is also no description of the argument in the Defendants’ invalidity contentions.
`
`
`Are the Defendants still arguing that the term is indefinite? If so, please let us know the basis for
`your contentions as soon as possible so that Elm can meaningfully address the dispute in its
`opening brief.
`
`
`Thanks,
`
`
`Matt
`
`
`Matt Ford
`BartlitBeck LLP
`Courthouse Place
`54 West Hubbard Street
`Chicago, IL 60654
`p: 312.494.4449 | c: 773.640.2452
`Matthew.Ford@BartlitBeck.com
`
`This message may contain confidential and privileged information. If it has been sent to you in error, please reply to advise
`the sender of the error, and then immediately delete this message.
`
`
`
`<image001.jpg>
`
`******************************************************************************************
`This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received
`this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
`If you reply to this message, Paul Hastings may collect personal information including your name, business name
`and other contact details, and IP address. For more information about Paul Hastings’ information collection, privacy
`and security principles please click HERE. If you have any questions, please contact Privacy@paulhastings.com.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 238-4 Filed 12/12/19 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 16107
`
`
`
`******************************************************************************************
`This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received
`this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
`If you reply to this message, Paul Hastings may collect personal information including your name, business name
`and other contact details, and IP address. For more information about Paul Hastings’ information collection, privacy
`and security principles please click HERE. If you have any questions, please contact Privacy@paulhastings.com.
`
`3
`
`