Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 269-1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 16891
`Case 1:14-cv-01432—LPS Document 269-1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 16891
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 269-1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 16892
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`ELM 3DS INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., et al.,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`C.A. No. 14-cv-1431-LPS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`ELM’S RESPONSES TO MICRON’S FIRST SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES
`
`Under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Civil Rule 26.1, Plaintiff
`
`Elm Technology Innovations, LLC, (“Elm”), through its counsel Bartlit Beck LLP responds to
`
`Defendant Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. and Micron Consumer
`
`Products Group, Inc.’s (Case No. 14-cv-01431-LPS-CJB) (“Micron”) First Set of Interrogatories.
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`
`Elm makes the following General Objections to each Interrogatory, as applicable, in addition
`
`to any objections that are made to particular Interrogatories:
`
`1.
`
`Elm bases its responses to these Definitions, Instructions, and Interrogatories
`
`upon information known at this time. Elm’s investigation is ongoing and Elm reserves the right to
`
`rely upon any facts, documents, or other evidence that it may develop or that may come to its
`
`attention at a later time. Elm sets forth these responses without prejudice to its right to supplement
`
`these responses or assert additional objections should it discover additional information or
`
`additional grounds for objections.
`
`2.
`
`Elm objects to each Definition, Instruction, and Interrogatory to the extent that it
`
`purports to impose any requirement or discovery obligation upon Elm beyond those set forth by the
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Scheduling Order, the applicable rules of the United States
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 269-1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 16893
`
`District Court for the District of Delaware, or any stipulation or agreement of the parties. Elm will
`
`comply with its obligations under those rules, as well as its obligations under the Scheduling Order.
`
`3.
`
`Elm objects to each Definition, Instruction, and Interrogatory to the extent that
`
`Elm would have to draw a legal conclusion in order to provide a proper response, including, but not
`
`limited to, a legal conclusion related to whether a reference constitutes prior art as used in the Patent
`
`Act, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.
`
`4.
`
`Elm objects to each Definition, Instruction, and Interrogatory to the extent that it
`
`purports to define words or phrases in a manner that is different from their commonly understood
`
`meaning.
`
`5.
`
`Elm objects to Micron’s definition of the terms “Elm,” “Plaintiff,” “you,” “Your,”
`
`“YOU,” and “YOUR,” set forth in Definition 2, and its inclusion of “all of its subsidiaries, parent
`
`companies, holding companies, divisions, subdivisions, components, unit, partnerships, limited
`
`partnerships, joint ventures, associations, and affiliates; all predecessors, successors, and assigns of
`
`each of the foregoing; all past and present officers, employees, directors, agents, consultants,
`
`representatives, and attorneys of each of the foregoing; and all other Persons acting or purporting to
`
`act for, on behalf of, or in the interest of Elm” on the grounds that the definition is vague,
`
`indefinite, ambiguous, unduly broad, overly burdensome, and attempts to place a burden upon Elm
`
`that is inconsistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court. Elm
`
`further objects to Micron’s definition of these terms the extent such definition purports to impose
`
`discovery obligations on entities not parties to this lawsuit and over which Elm does not exercise
`
`control.
`
`6.
`
`Elm objects to Micron’s definition of “Prior art” as set forth in Definition 9, and
`
`will understand the term according to applicable legal standards under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 269-1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 16894
`
`7.
`
`Elm objects to Micron’s definition of “Related Patent” in Definition 10 as vague
`
`and overbroad, to the extent that it purports to impose any requirement or discovery obligation
`
`upon Elm beyond those set forth by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the applicable rules of
`
`the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Elm further objects to the definition to
`
`the extent that it imposes burdens on Elm that are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
`
`of admissible evidence.
`
`8.
`
`Elm objects to Micron’s definition of “Related Patent Application” in Definition
`
`11 as vague and overbroad, to the extent that it purports to impose any requirement or discovery
`
`obligation upon Elm beyond those set forth by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the
`
`applicable rules of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Elm further objects
`
`to the definition to the extent that it imposes burdens on Elm that are not reasonably calculated to
`
`lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
`
`9.
`
`Elm objects to Micron’s definition of “Document” in Definition 14 as overbroad
`
`and unduly burdensome to the extent that it purports to impose obligations beyond those of the
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`10.
`
`Elm objects to Micron’s definition of the term “Communication” in Definition 15
`
`set forth in Definition 12 on the grounds that the definition is vague, indefinite, ambiguous, unduly
`
`broad, burdensome, and attempts to place a burden upon Elm that is inconsistent with the Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules of this Court.
`
`11.
`
`Elm objects to Micron’s definition of the term “People” and “Person” in
`
`Definition 8 on the grounds that the definition is vague, indefinite, ambiguous, unduly broad,
`
`burdensome, and attempts to place a burden upon Elm that is inconsistent with the Federal Rules of
`
`Civil Procedure and/or the Local Rules of this Court.
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 269-1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 16895
`
`12.
`
`Elm objects to Micron’s definition of the terms “and” and “or” in Definition 17
`
`on the grounds that the definition is vague, indefinite, ambiguous, unduly broad, burdensome, and
`
`attempts to place a burden upon Elm that is inconsistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
`
`and the Local Rules of this Court.
`
`13.
`
`Elm objects to Micron’s definition of the terms “Identify,” “identifying,”
`
`“identity” or “identification” in Definition 23 on the grounds that the definition is vague, indefinite,
`
`ambiguous, unduly broad, burdensome, and attempts to place a burden upon Elm that is
`
`inconsistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules of this Court. Elm further
`
`objects to Micron’s definition of the terms “Identify,” “identifying,” “identity” or “identification”
`
`when used in reference to a document or thing to the extent that it calls for information that Elm
`
`does not maintain in the ordinary course of business in a reasonably accessible manner.
`
`14.
`
`Elm objects to each Definition, Instruction, and Interrogatory to the extent that it
`
`seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of these actions, is not relevant to the
`
`claim or defense of any party, or is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
`
`evidence.
`
`15.
`
`Elm objects to each Definition, Instruction, and Interrogatory to the extent that it
`
`is unduly burdensome, harassing, or oppressive and to the extent that the Definition, Instruction, and
`
`Interrogatory would require a search for documents or information that would be of little or no benefit
`
`with respect to the issues or controversies in this action.
`
`16.
`
`Elm objects to each Definition, Instruction, and Interrogatory to the extent that it
`
`calls for any information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product
`
`doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or immunity. Disclosure of any such information shall not
`
`be deemed a waiver of any privilege or immunity. With respect to such information, Elm objects to
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 269-1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 16896
`
`listing on a privilege log or otherwise identifying documents and communications that were created
`
`or occurred subsequent to the commencement of this litigation.
`
`17.
`
`Elm objects to each Definition, Instruction, and Interrogatory to the extent that it
`
`requests information that Elm is unable to locate following a reasonable search within the time
`
`frame for service of Elm’s responses to these Interrogatories. Elm further objects to each
`
`Definition, Instruction, and Interrogatory to the extent that it requires any information beyond what
`
`is presently available to Elm based upon a reasonable search of its own files and a reasonable inquiry
`
`of its current employees. Elm further objects to each Definition, Instruction, and Interrogatory to
`
`the extent that it requires analysis of information that is not in the possession, custody or control of
`
`Elm.
`
`18.
`
`Elm objects to each Definition, Instruction, and Interrogatory to the extent that it
`
`is duplicative or cumulative or seeks information that may be obtained from other sources or
`
`through other means of discovery that are more convenient, more efficient, more practical, less
`
`burdensome, and/or less expensive.
`
`19.
`
`Elm objects to each Definition, Instruction, and Interrogatory to the extent it is
`
`unlimited in time.
`
`20.
`
`In answering any of these Interrogatories, Elm does not concede the admissibility,
`
`materiality, or relevance of any of the information provided.
`
`21.
`
`Elm reserves the right to modify, supplement, or amend these responses to the
`
`extent permitted or required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`22.
`
`Each response set forth below is given subject to each objection set forth in these
`
`General Objections to Micron’s Definitions and Instructions. To the extent that Elm raises a
`
`specific objection in response to any individual Interrogatory, the objection shall not be deemed or
`
`construed as a waiver of any other objection set forth herein.
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 269-1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 16897
`
`23.
`
`Elm objects to each Interrogatory, and to each Definition and Instruction, to the
`
`extent that it calls for the disclosure of information that contains the confidential information of a
`
`third party, or the joint confidential information of Elm and a third party, until Elm has requested
`
`and received the consent of the affected third party to disclose such information, the matter has
`
`been resolved by a court of competent jurisdiction, or Elm has otherwise exhausted all applicable
`
`procedures under the Protective Order.
`
`ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
`
`Identify and describe all evidence—including but not limited to documents,
`
`communications, and expected witness testimony—of a meeting between Glenn Leedy and Micron
`
`as alleged in paragraph 50 of the First Amended Complaint.
`
`ANSWER TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
`
`Elm incorporates by reference each of its General Objections. In addition, Elm specifically
`
`objects to this Interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information that is protected by the attorney-
`
`client privilege, attorney-work-product doctrine, common-interest privilege, or any other privilege or
`
`immunity.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, Elm responds
`
`as follows:
`
`Elm has already produced documents related to this Interrogatory in the course of discovery,
`
`and those are hereby incorporated in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d). See, e.g.,
`
`ELM3DS00041225; ELM3DS00041228. Elm further states that discovery is ongoing and that it will
`
`supplement its response to this Interrogatory consistent with its obligations under Federal Rule of
`
`Civil Procedure 26(e).
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 269-1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 16898
`
`In addition to documents, Elm expects Ron Epstein to testify that as early as 1996,
`
`approximately two Micron employees met with Glenn Leedy to discuss thinning wafers. After Mr.
`
`Leedy had received the first Elm 3DS Patent, the ’167 patent, Mr. Leedy reached back out and met
`
`with Micron about the technology in the Elm 3DS Patents. By the end of 2001, Micron pledged to
`
`invest in Elm 3DS’s technology.
`
`Further, evidence of the meeting between Glenn Leedy and Micron could be contained in
`
`documents Micron has produced or will produce, and such evidence could also be adduced during
`
`deposition and trial testimony of Micron’s witnesses. Elm is not able to identify the evidence in
`
`Micron’s possession, custody, or control at this time because discovery is ongoing, Micron has not
`
`completed its document production, and no depositions have taken place.
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 269-1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 16899
`
`Dated: April 24, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`FARNAN LLP
`
`
`/s/Michael J. Farnan
`Brian E. Farnan (#4089)
`Michael J. Farnan (#5165)
`919 North Market Street
`12th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Tel: (302) 777-0300
`Fax: (302) 777-0301
`bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`mfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`
`Adam K. Mortara (pro hac vice)
`Matthew R. Ford (pro hac vice)
`BARTLIT BECK LLP
`54 W. Hubbard Street, Suite 300
`Chicago, IL 60654
`Tel: (312) 494-4400
`Fax: (312) 494-4440
`adam.mortara@bartlit-beck.com
`matthew.ford@bartlit-beck.com
`
`John M. Hughes (pro hac vice)
`Katherine L.I. Hacker (pro hac vice)
`Nosson Knobloch (pro hac vice)
`BARTLIT BECK LLP
`1801 Wewatta Street, Suite 1200
`Denver, CO 80202
`Tel: (303) 592-3100
`Fax: (303) 592-3140
`john.hughes@bartlit-beck.com
`kat.hacker@bartlit-beck.com
`nosson.knobloch@bartlit-beck.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff
`ELM 3DS INNOVATIONS, LLC
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 269-1 Filed 05/20/20 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 16900
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Michael J. Farnan, hereby certify that on April 24, 2020, a copy of Elm’s Responses to
`
`Micron’s First Set of Interrogatories was served on the following as indicated:
`
`Via E-Mail
`Frederick L. Cottrell, III
`Travis S. Hunter
`Selena E. Molina
`Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. 920 North King
`Street
`One Rodney Square Wilmington, DE 19801
`ElmMicron-RLF@rlf.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Micron Technology, Inc., Micron
`Semiconductor Products, Inc., and Micron Consumer
`Products Group, Inc.
`
`
`Via E-Mail
`George Riley
`John Kappos
`Hana Oh Chen
`Brian Cook
`Xin-Yi Zhou
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP ELM3DS-
`MICRON-OMM@omm.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Micron Technology, Inc.,
`Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc., and Micron
`Consumer Products Group, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Michael J. Farnan
`Michael J. Farnan (Bar No. 5165)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`