Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 238-5 Filed 12/12/19 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 16108
`
`Exhibit E
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 238-5 Filed 12/12/19 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 16109
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`ELM 3DS INNOVATIONS LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC., SAMSUNG
`TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
`LLC, and SAMSUNG AUSTIN
`SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC
`Defendants.
`
`
`ELM 3DS INNOVATIONS LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.; MICRON
`SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS, INC.; and
`MICRON CONSUMER PRODUCTS
`GROUP, INC.
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`ELM 3DS INNOVATIONS LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`SK HYNIX INC., SK HYNIX AMERICA
`INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR
`MANUFACTURING AMERICA INC., and
`SK HYNIX MEMORY SOLUTIONS INC.
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`) Civ. No. 14-cv-01430-LPS-CJB
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`) Civ. No. 14-cv-01431-LPS-CJB
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`) Civ. No. 14-cv-01432-LPS-CJB )
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`
`
`)
`
`RLF1 20724971v.1
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 238-5 Filed 12/12/19 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 16110
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ FOURTH AMENDED INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to the agreed upon schedule, Defendants SK hynix Inc., SK hynix America Inc.,
`
`Hynix Semiconductor Manufacturing America Inc., and SK hynix Memory Solutions, Inc.
`
`(collectively, “SK hynix Defendants”), Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Semiconductor
`
`Products, Inc., and Micron Consumer Products Group, Inc. (collectively, “Micron Defendants”),
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Samsung Electronics America,
`
`Inc., , and Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC (collectively, “Samsung Defendants”)
`
`(together, “Defendants”) hereby provide their Fourth Amended Invalidity Contentions with
`
`respect to the asserted claims identified by Plaintiff Elm 3DS Innovations LLC ( “Elm”) in the
`
`Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions dated November 2, 17 and 20,
`
`2015 and May 23, 2018. The asserted claims are as follows, with brackets indicating a claim
`
`asserted only against Samsung Defendants and parentheses indicating claims asserted only
`
`against SK hynix Defendants and Micron Defendants:
`
`Asserted Patent
`
`Asserted Claims
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,193,239
`
`10, 11, 12, 18, 19, 20, 60, 61, 62, 63, 67, 70, 71, 72, 73, 77
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,474,004
`
`20, 21, 22, 23
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 7,504,732
`
`10, [11], 13, 14
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,410,617
`
`51
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,629,542
`
`1, 2, 3, 30, 31, 33, 40, 41, 44
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,653,672
`
`17, 22, 95, 129, [130], 131, 132, 145, 146, 152
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,796,862
`
`34, 36, 135, 136, 137, 138, 147
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,841,778
`
`32, 44, 46, 54
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,907,499
`
`12, 13, 24, [36], [37], 38, (49), 53, 83, 86, 87, 132
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,928,119
`
`18, (33)
`
`U.S. Pat. No. 8,933,570
`
`58, 60, [61], 67
`
`RLF1 20724971v.1
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 238-5 Filed 12/12/19 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 16111
`
`
`
`standard for measuring stress. Stress also can be uniform or non-uniform throughout a thin film.
`
`If the stress is uniform, its measurement will give an average stress. If the stress is non-uniform,
`
`a difference of stress or stress gradient exists between the top and the bottom of the thin film, as
`
`well as different stress at different locations from the center of the film outward to the edges.
`
`There is a vertical and lateral variation of stress. Consequently, just indicating that a film is “low
`
`stress” or “low tensile stress” does not provide enough context to one of skill in the art because
`
`the phrase alone does not indicate whether extrinsic or intrinsic stress, average stress
`
`measurement, or the measurement point along the film is indicated.
`
`Thus, one of skill in the art could not determine the meaning of such “stress” 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.
`
`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.
`
`Claim limitations involving circuitry including “active circuitry,” “passive circuitry,”
`
`“polycrystalline active circuitry, and “reconfiguration circuitry” and related or dependent terms
`
`are indefinite, not enabled, and lack an adequate written description because the Asserted Patents
`
`RLF1 20724971v.1
`
`88
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 238-5 Filed 12/12/19 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 16112
`
`
`
` Ludwig describes a controller chip that performs various functions such as error
`
`correction and refreshing on DRAM chips. See e.g., Ludwig, 10:4-14.
`
`One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the controller
`
`circuit(s) and memory circuits using known circuit design and programming methods to perform
`
`refreshing, read/write, error correction and other functions/logic as taught by IBM RS 6000 or
`
`Ludwig.
`
`There are further motivations to combine prior art products such as products by Irvine
`
`Sensors Corporation, Texas Instruments Corporation, and General Electric Corporation. These
`
`products were all competitors in the same market of high density integrated circuits and were
`
`even compared in the prior art by references such as Crowley to show which products achieved
`
`the highest integrated circuit density, which can be achieved through thin, substantially flexible
`
`layers. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Irvine Sensors’
`
`products with the improvements to the technology taught in patents invented by Irvine Sensors
`
`and IBM as the Memory Short Stack technology was developed by Irvine Sensors and then
`
`licensed to and improved by IBM.
`
`Dated January 28, 2019
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`Howard L. Chen
`Harold H. Davis
`K&L GATES LLP
`Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1200
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`(415) 882-8200
`howard.chen@klgates.com
`harold.davis@klgates.com
`
`
`
`MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
`
`/s/ Daniel M. Silver
`Daniel M. Silver (#4758)
`Benjamin A. Smyth (#5528)
`Renaissance Center
`405 N. King Street, 8th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 984-6300
`dsilver@mccarter.com
`bsmyth@mccarter.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants SK hynix Inc., SK
`hynix America Inc., hynix Semiconductor
`Manufacturing America Inc., and SK hynix
`
`RLF1 20724971v.1
`
`115
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 238-5 Filed 12/12/19 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 16113
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`Allan M. Soobert
`Naveen Modi
`Phillip W. Citroën
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`875 15th Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`(202) 551-1700
`(202) 551-1705 (fax)
`
`
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`515 S. Flower Street, 25th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`
`
`
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`John Kappos
`
`Hana Oh Chen
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`610 Newport Center Drive
`Newport Beach, California 92660-3823
`(949) 823-6900
`jkappos@omm.com
`hchen@omm.com
`
`
`Brian Cook
`Xin-Yi Zhou
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`400 South Hope Street
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2899
`(213) 430-6000
`
`Memory Solutions Inc.
`
`
`YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT &
`TAYLOR, LLP
`
`/s/Adam W. Poff
`Adam W. Poff (#3990)
`Pilar G. Kraman (#5199)
`Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP
`Rodney Square
`1000 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Telephone: (302) 571-6600
`apoff@ycst.com
`pkraman@ycst.com
`/s/ Adam W. Poff
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Samsung
`Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung
`Semiconductor, Inc., Samsung Electronics
`America, Inc., and Samsung Austin
`Semiconductor, LLC
`
`RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, PA
`
`/s/ Tyler E. Cragg
`Frederick L. Cottrell, III (#2555)
`Travis S. Hunter (#5350)
`Tyler E. Cragg (#6398)
`Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.
`920 North King Street
`One Rodney Square
`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.
`
`
`
`
`RLF1 20724971v.1
`
`116
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 238-5 Filed 12/12/19 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 16114
`
`
`
`bcook@omm.com
`vzhou@omm.com
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Tyler E. Cragg, hereby certify that, on the 28th day of January 2019, true and correct
`
`copies of the foregoing document were served on the following in the manner indicated:
`
`BY ELECTRONIC MAIL
`Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.
`Brian E. Farnan
`Michael J. Farnan
`Farnan LLP
`919 North Market Street, 12th Floor
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`Telephone: (302) 777–0300
`Facsimile: (302) 777–0301
`farnan@farnanlaw.com
`bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`mfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BY ELECTRONIC MAIL
`Adam K. Mortara
`Matthew R. Ford
`BARTLIT BECK HERMAN
`PALENCHAR & SCOTT LLP
`54 W. Hubbard Street, Suite 300
`Chicago, IL 60654
`(312) 494-4400
`adam.mortara@bartlit-beck.com
`matthew.ford@bartlit-beck.com
`
`John M. Hughes
`Katherine L.I. Hacker
`BARTLIT BECK HERMAN
`PALENCHAR & SCOTT LLP
`1801 Wewatta Street, Suite 1200
`Denver, CO 80202
`(303) 592-3100
`john.hughes@bartlit-beck.com
`kat.hacker@bartlit-beck.com
`
`
`
`/s/ Tyler E. Cragg
`Tyler E. Cragg (#6398)
`cragg@rlf.com
`
`RLF1 20724971v.1
`
`117
`
`