Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 283 Filed 05/20/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 19464
`WILMINGTON
`RODNEY SQUARE
`
`NEW YORK
`ROCKEFELLER CENTER
`
`Adam W. Poff
`P 302.571.6642
`F 302.576.3326
`apoff@ycst.com
`
`
`
`May 20, 2020
`
`
`
`
`BY E-FILING
`
`The Honorable Leonard P. Stark
`United States District Court
` for the District of Delaware
`844 N. King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`
`Re:
`
`ELM 3DS Innovations, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al.,
`C.A. No. 14-cv-1430-LPS
`
`Dear Chief Judge Stark:
`
`The Samsung Defendants (“Samsung”) respectfully respond to the Plaintiff Elm’s May 13, 2020
`letter seeking leave to amend its complaint. To avoid duplication, Samsung incorporates all but
`section II.A of co-Defendant Micron’s letter. See D.I. 282.
`
`Aside from the deficiencies identified in Micron’s letter, Elm’s allegations of pre-suit notice
`critically miss the mark by failing to allege that Samsung acted willfully or egregiously to
`infringe its patents. Instead, the amended complaint merely states that Samsung had notice of
`the patents—and even then, only as of the filing of the complaints, see D.I. 276-1 ¶ 47—which is
`an insufficient basis to justify a finding of willfulness. See Halo Electronics v. Pulse Electronics,
`136 S. Ct. 1923, at 1936 (2016) (Breyer, J., concurring) (“‘willful misconduct’ [does] not mean
`that a court may award enhanced damages simply because the evidence shows that the infringer
`knew about the patent and nothing more”). Indeed, Elm cites no evidence to support a finding of
`willful conduct that would “transform simple knowledge into such egregious behavior.” Id.
`
`Nor has Elm cited any evidence demonstrating that there was a meeting between Samsung and
`Elm in the early 2000s. Elm refers to no facts, let alone any learned through discovery, that
`supports its claim that such a meeting occurred, despite producing over 125,000 pages of
`materials. Instead, Elm affirmatively represents that the parties “have known about the factual
`underpinnings of Elm 3DS’s willful infringement allegations for five years now.” See D.I. 276
`at 2. Yet, despite such knowledge, Elm deliberately delayed seeking leave to amend its
`complaint regarding alleged willfulness. Elm’s proposed amendments are insufficient to support
`its willfulness allegations, and are based on conduct known to Elm decades ago, making them
`futile.
`
`
`
`Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP
`Rodney Square | 1000 North King Street | Wilmington, DE 19801
`P 302.571.6600 F 302.571.1253 YoungConaway.com
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 283 Filed 05/20/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 19465
`Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP
`The Honorable Leonard P. Stark
`May 20, 2020
`Page 2
`
`Moreover, even if Elm’s allegations are credited (i.e., Elm shared the ’167 patent with Samsung
`in the early 2000s), the ’167 patent is not asserted in this case; and none of the asserted patents
`were filed, much less issued, at the time of that alleged meeting. Samsung cannot have willfully
`infringed patents that did not exist at the time of the alleged meeting, further demonstrating the
`futility of Elm’s proposed amendments.
`
`For the reasons set forth above and in Micron’s letter, Samsung respectfully submits that the
`Court should deny Elm’s motion for leave to amend its complaint.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Adam W. Poff
`
`Adam W. Poff (No. 3990)
`
`Counsel of Record (via E-Filing and E-Mail)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`cc:
`
`
`
`
`
`