Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 262 Filed 04/29/20 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 16534
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`ELM 3DS INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al.,
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 14-cv-1430-LPS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`ELM 3DS INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`C.A. No. 14-cv-1431-LPS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`ELM 3DS INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`C.A. No. 14-cv-1432-LPS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`SK HYNIX INC., et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION UNDER L.R. 7.1.5
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 262 Filed 04/29/20 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 16535
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1.5, Defendants move to clarify the construction of the
`
`terms “dice is substantially flexible” and “die is substantially flexible” (collectively, “the dice/die
`
`terms”).
`
`In its April 13, 2020, Markman Order, the Court declared it “now adopts” the
`
`constructions for the “substantially flexible” terms previously articulated by the U.S. Court of
`
`Appeals for the Federal Circuit. See No. 1:14-cv-01430, D.I. 266 at 6-8 (“In [affirming the
`
`PTAB], the Federal Circuit construed the ‘substantially flexible’ terms, constructions which this
`
`Court now adopts as well.”); Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC, 925 F.3d 1373
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2019).
`
`Defendants, therefore, understand that the Court intended for its construction of the
`
`dice/die subset of the “substantially flexible” terms to accord with the construction set forth by
`
`the Federal Circuit—i.e., to be a dice/die that is largely able to bend without breaking and
`
`contains a substantially flexible semiconductor substrate, that is thinned to 50 μm or less and
`
`subsequently polished or smoothed such that it is largely able to bend without breaking, and a
`
`sufficiently low tensile stress dielectric material. See 925 F.3d at 1377 n.5, 1380. However, the
`
`Markman Order does not include either the “substantially flexible substrate” or “sufficiently low
`
`stress dielectric material” components of the Federal Circuit’s construction of these terms, which
`
`appear to have been inadvertent omissions. See D.I. 266 at 6-7. Thus, Defendants respectfully
`
`seek to clarify that the Court’s construction of the dice/die terms is the same as those stated by
`
`the Federal Circuit, as the Court appears to have intended.
`
`
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Defendants sought construction of 16 claim terms, many of which require that
`
`components recited in the claims are “substantially flexible.” The Markman Order groups the
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 262 Filed 04/29/20 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 16536
`
`
`“substantially flexible” terms into three categories for construction: (i) terms involving a
`
`substrate/semiconductor layer, (ii) terms involving dice/die, and (iii) terms involving an
`
`integrated circuit/integrated circuit layer/circuit layer/circuit structure/circuit/structure (“the
`
`integrated circuit terms”).
`
`For all of the “substantially flexible” terms, the Court made clear that it “now adopts” the
`
`same construction previously articulated by the Federal Circuit. See D.I. 266 at 6-8 (“[T]he
`
`Federal Circuit construed the ‘substantially flexible’ terms, constructions which this Court now
`
`adopts as well.”). As stated in the Order,
`
`[T]he Federal Circuit’s construction sets out three requirements,
`relating to (1) the substrate’s thickness; (2) the substrate’s
`processing; and (3) the substrate’s flexibility. Specifically, the
`proper construction requires that the substrate “is thinned to 50 μm
`[or less] and subsequently polished or smoothed such that it is
`largely able to bend without breaking.” Likewise, for the “circuit
`layer” and “integrated circuit”
`terms,
`the Federal Circuit
`“interpret[ed] a substantially flexible circuit layer as a circuit layer
`that is largely able to bend without breaking and contains a
`substantially flexible semiconductor substrate and a sufficiently
`low tensile stress dielectric material.”
`
`Id. at 9 (emphasis omitted). The Order then construed the substrate/semiconductor layer terms to
`
`include the Federal Circuit’s three requirements. Id. at 6. The Order also applied the Federal
`
`Circuit’s construction to the integrated circuit terms. Id. at 7. Nonetheless, the Order’s
`
`construction of the dice/die terms does not track the Federal Circuit’s construction of those
`
`terms. See D.I. 266 at 6-7. The Order did not, however, state an intention to depart from the
`
`Federal Circuit’s construction nor any explanation for doing so, leading Defendants to believe
`
`that the departure may have been inadvertent.
`
`Dice and die are technically similar to circuit layers and integrated circuits—therefore,
`
`the Federal Circuit grouped them together for construction. The Federal Circuit stated that “‘a
`
`substantially flexible circuit layer, and similar terms, must contain a substantially flexible
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 262 Filed 04/29/20 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 16537
`
`
`semiconductor substrate and a sufficiently low tensile stress dielectric material.’” D.I. 266 at 12
`
`(quoting 925 F.3d at 1379) (emphasis added); see id. at 1377 (“‘Substantially flexible’ is also
`
`used to modify ‘circuit layers,’ and other similar terms.”). To explain what constituted “similar
`
`terms” for construction, the Federal Circuit cited exemplary claims that reference a “die,” an
`
`“integrated circuit layer,” and “integrated circuits.” See 925 F.3d at 1377 n.5. The Federal
`
`Circuit further stated:
`
`All claims except claims 60, 67, 70, and 77 of the ’239 patent;
`claims 1 and 44 of the ’542 patent; claim 1 of the ’119 patent; and
`claim 58 of the ’570 patent explicitly require a low tensile stress
`dielectric. These claims recite either a substantially flexible die or
`integrated circuit, meaning they too require a low tensile stress
`dielectric under the proper claim construction.
`
`Id. at 1383 (emphasis added). Thus, the Federal Circuit’s “construction of ‘substantially
`
`flexible’ applies across all its uses”—i.e., to die, dice, integrated circuit layers, and integrated
`
`circuits. Id. In essence, the Federal Circuit explained that the relevant claims (i.e., those that do
`
`not explicitly require a low tensile stress dielectric) “recite either a substantially flexible die or
`
`integrated circuit, meaning they too require a low tensile stress dielectric under the proper claim
`
`construction.” Id. (emphasis added).
`
`The parties also understood that the construction of the “dice/die” terms should mimic the
`
`construction of the integrated circuit terms, and crafted their arguments accordingly. For
`
`example, Elm’s opening claim construction brief states that the “dice/die” terms should include
`
`limitations regarding stress, thinning, and polishing: “The patent teaches that to make flexible
`
`semiconductor die that can be stacked, these dielectric materials should be ‘low stress’ and the
`
`substrate is thinned, polished, and substantially flexible.” D.I. 236 at 5. Elm’s expert likewise
`
`opined that “[s]imilar arguments are made for ‘substantially flexible integrated circuit’ and
`
`related phrasings, and for ‘dice that are substantially flexible’ and related phrasings. Since these
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 262 Filed 04/29/20 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 16538
`
`
`all clearly refer to the same thing in the patents . . . I treat these together.” See D.I. 240 Ex. A
`
`(Baker Decl.) at 34.
`
`Defendants likewise proposed that the terms “dice is substantially flexible” and “die is
`
`substantially flexible,” if not indefinite, should be construed consistent with the Federal Circuit’s
`
`construction to mean “diced substantially flexible integrated circuit,” where “substantially
`
`flexible integrated circuit” means an integrated circuit that contains a “substantially flexible
`
`substrate” and a low stress dielectric. D.I. 194 at 3.
`
`Throughout the course of the litigation, the parties have agreed that an integrated circuit
`
`is equivalent to a die. See, e.g., D.I. 1 ¶ 2 (“[T]he Elm 3DS patents disclose technologies that
`
`enable semiconductor manufacturers to stack multiple integrated circuits (‘die’) on top of one
`
`another within one integrated circuit package.”); D.I. 18 ¶ 2 (same); D.I. 109 ¶ 2 (same).
`
`The Federal Circuit also understood that the parties were grouping the dice/die terms and
`
`integrated circuit terms: “The parties do not treat this difference in terminology as affecting the
`
`construction of ‘substantially flexible.’ Accordingly, our construction of ‘substantially flexible’
`
`applies across all its uses”—i.e., to dies, integrated circuit layers, and integrated circuits alike.
`
`925 F.3d at 1377 n.5.
`
`Thus, given (i) that the parties and the Federal Circuit all understood that dice and die
`
`were technically similar to circuit layers and integrated circuits for purposes of construction and
`
`(ii) the Court’s apparent intent to “now adopt” the Federal Circuit’s constructions of these terms,
`
`Defendants seek to clarify that the Court’s construction of the “dice/die” terms is in accord with
`
`the Federal Circuit’s instruction—i.e., dice/die “that is largely able to bend without breaking and
`
`contains a substantially flexible semiconductor substrate, that is thinned to 50 μm or less and
`
`subsequently polished or smoothed such that it is largely able to bend without breaking, and a
`
`sufficiently low tensile stress dielectric material.”
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 262 Filed 04/29/20 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 16539
`
`
` CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court clarify that a
`
`“dice is substantially flexible” and “die is substantially flexible” under the Court’s Markman
`
`Order is a dice/die “that is largely able to bend without breaking and contains a substantially
`
`flexible semiconductor substrate, that is thinned to 50 μm or less and subsequently polished or
`
`smoothed such that it is largely able to bend without breaking, and a sufficiently low tensile
`
`stress dielectric material.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 262 Filed 04/29/20 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 16540
`
`
`Dated: April 29, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
` Respectfully Submitted,
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`
`Allan M. Soobert
`Naveen Modi
`Phillip W. Citroen
`Koichiro Kidokoro
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`875 15th Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`(202) 551-1700
`allansoobert@paulhastings.com
`naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`phillipcitroen@paulhastings.com
`koichirokidokoro@paulhastings.com
`
`Joseph J. Rumpler, II
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`1117 California Avenue
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`(650) 320-1800
`josephrumpler@paulhastings.com
`
`Soyoung Jung
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`515 S. Flower Street, 25th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`(213) 683-6000
`soyoungjung@paulhastings.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/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
`(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
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 262 Filed 04/29/20 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 16541
`
`
`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
`bcook@omm.com
`vzhou@omm.com
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`
`Harold H. Davis (admitted pro hac vice)
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 3000
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: (415) 655-1300
`davish@gtlaw.com
`
`Rose C. Prey (admitted pro hac vice)
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`200 Park Ave
`New York, NY 10166
`Telephone: (212) 801-9200
`preyr@gtlaw.com
`
`Vishesh Narayen
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
`101 E. Kennedy Blvd.
`Suite 1900
`Tampa, FL 33602
`Tel: (813) 318-5700
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Tyler E. Cragg
`Frederick L. Cottrell, III (#2555)
`Travis S. Hunter (#5350)
`Tyler E. Cragg (#6398)
`RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.
`One Rodney Square
`920 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 651-7700
`cottrell@rlf.com
`hunter@rlf.com
`cragg@rlf.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Micron Technology,
`Inc., Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc.
`and Micron Consumer Products Group, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Benjamin J. Schladweiler
`Benjamin J. Schladweiler (#4601)
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`The Nemours Building
`1007 North Orange Street, Suite 1200
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Telephone: (302) 661-7000
`Fax: (302) 661-7360
`schladweilerb@gtlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants SK Hynix Inc., SK
`Hynix America Inc., Hynix Semiconductor
`Manufacturing America Inc., and SK Hynix
`Memory Solutions Inc.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 262 Filed 04/29/20 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 16542
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`I, Adam W. Poff, hereby certify that on April 29, 2020, I caused to be
`
`electronically filed a true and correct copy of the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court
`
`using CM/ECF, which will send notification that such filing is available for viewing and
`
`downloading to the following counsel of record:
`
`Joseph J. Farnan, Jr. Esquire
`Brian E. Farnan, Esquire
`Michael J. Farnan, Esquire
`Farnan, LLP
`919 North Market Street, 12th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`farnan@farnanlaw.com
`bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`mfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`I further certify that on April 29, 2020, I caused a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing document to be served by e-mail on the above-listed counsel of record, and on the
`
`following:
`
`Adam K. Mortara, Esquire
`Matthew R. Ford, Esquire
`Bartlit Beck LLP
`54 West Hubbard Street, Suite 300
`Chicago, IL 60654
`adam.mortara@bartlit-beck.com
`matthew.ford@bartlit-beck.com
`
`
`
`
`16577858.1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 262 Filed 04/29/20 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 16543
`
`
`John M. Hughes, Esquire
`Katherine L.I. Hacker, Esquire
`Nosson D. Knobloch, Esquire
`Daniel C. Taylor, Esquire
`Bartlit Beck LLP
`1801 Wewatta, Suite 1200
`Denver, CO 80202
`john.hughes@bartlit-beck.com
`kat.hacker@bartlit-beck.com
`nosson.knobloch@bartlit-beck.com
`dan.taylor@bartlit-beck.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
` YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT
` & TAYLOR, LLP
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Adam W. Poff
`Adam W. Poff (No. 3990)
`Pilar G. Kraman (No. 5199)
`Rodney Square
`1000 North King Street
`Wilmington, Delaware 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
`On Behalf of All Defendants
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16577858.1
`
`2
`
`