Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 295-1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 1 of 84 PageID #: 20106
`
`
`Exhibit A
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 295-1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 2 of 84 PageID #: 20107
`
`
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`
`Citroen, Phillip W.
`Thursday, May 21, 2020 12:32 AM
`Nosson Knobloch; Soobert, Allan M.; Patel, Anand; ServicePH Samsung-ELM 3DS
`Mailing List - Leedy; mfarnan@farnanlaw.com; Poff, Adam; Kraman, Pilar
`RE: Representative Products Plan
`
`Nosson, 
`
`  
`Thanks for your email and the phone call on Wednesday regarding the spreadsheet attached as Ex. 30 to Elm’s letter 
`brief. 
`  
`I’ve memorialized our call below. Please let us know if you believe anything I have stated is inaccurate. 
`  
`
`1. Product Type: I explained that “product type” has not been part of our recent representative products 
`discussion, and that Samsung was therefore surprised to see it included in Elm’s spreadsheet. I also explained 
`that this information is not necessary for reaching a representative products agreement, and you agreed, so 
`Samsung will not collect this information. 
` 
`2. Downstream Product Inventory: I explained that Elm has never asked about downstream product inventory, and 
`you initially agreed during our call. But you later stated that Elm thought it was appropriate to include 
`downstream product inventory in its letter to the Court anyway. I explained that Elm must at least attempt to 
`purchase downstream products in the open market before demanding samples from Samsung. You disagreed, 
`stating that Samsung needs to provide samples at this point in the case without any explanation for why off‐the‐
`shelf products are insufficient to meet Elm’s needs. These types of issues should have been discussed between 
`the parties before involving the Court. 
`
` 
`
`3.
`
`Image Sensor Products: Elm’s spreadsheet lists image sensor products, which I explained is a completely 
`different category of products compared to the memory products. I also explained that the parties have not 
`discussed an appropriate way to select representative image sensor products, and that Samsung believes we 
`must meet and confer to discuss these issues before involving the Court. Your response was that these products 
`have been generally discussed “a lot” and so it was appropriate to include them in Elm’s letter, notwithstanding 
`that the image sensor products are technically different than the memory products and therefore may require 
`different treatment. 
`
`  
`
`Regarding the other issues raised in your email, we produced the documents received from Samsung, which is the 
`additional information Anand was referring to in his email to Kat. 
`
`  
`Your request for a standing meet and confer was first raised before Elm filed its letter and before we agreed on the 
`proposed process for grouping the accused memory products. A standing meet and confer seems unnecessary at this 
`point. If, after reviewing our letter on Friday, this is something you still believe would be helpful, we will discuss 
`internally and get back to you with our response. 
`
`  
`Thanks, 
`Phillip 
` 
`From: Nosson Knobloch <nosson.knobloch@bartlitbeck.com>  
`Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 12:02 PM 
`To: Citroen, Phillip W. <phillipcitroen@paulhastings.com>; Soobert, Allan M. <allansoobert@paulhastings.com>; Patel, 
`Anand <anandpatel@paulhastings.com>; ServicePH Samsung‐ELM 3DS <ServicePHSamsung‐
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 295-1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 3 of 84 PageID #: 20108
`
`ELM3DS@paulhastings.com> 
`Cc: Mailing List ‐ Leedy <leedy@bartlit‐beck.com>; mfarnan@farnanlaw.com; Poff, Adam <APOFF@ycst.com>; Kraman, 
`Pilar <PKraman@ycst.com> 
`Subject: [EXT] RE: Representative Products Plan 
` 
`Phillip,
`
`Thanks much for sending the updated stress data correlation chart.
`
`As you may already have seen, we attached a chart to our motion that provides a substantial
`start towards the parties’ compilation of the data necessary to negotiate a representative
`products agreement. We hope that Samsung will complete this chart quickly so that the parties
`can move on to finalize a representative products agreement. Please don’t hesitate to reach out
`with any questions about the chart.
`
`Anand stated in his email to Kat last week that you expected to have more information from
`Samsung early this week. Are there additional issues on which you have updates? If so, please
`let me know what issues you’re prepared to update us about and when would be a good time to
`talk.
`
`Finally, your team hasn’t responded to my proposal that we institute a standing weekly meet
`and confer to ensure that we are communicating regularly and efficiently. Please let me know
`whether Samsung will agree to this and, if so, what days/times work best for you.
`
`Thanks,
`
`-Nosson
`
`
`BartlitBeck LLP
` 
`Nosson D. Knobloch | p: 303.592.3122 | c: 773.301.2851 | Nosson.Knobloch@BartlitBeck.com | 1801 Wewatta Street, 12th Floor, Denver, CO
`80202
`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. 
`
`From: Citroen, Phillip W. <phillipcitroen@paulhastings.com>  
`Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 3:47 PM 
`To: Nosson Knobloch <nosson.knobloch@bartlitbeck.com>; Soobert, Allan M. <allansoobert@paulhastings.com>; Patel, 
`Anand <anandpatel@paulhastings.com>; ServicePH Samsung‐ELM 3DS <ServicePHSamsung‐
`ELM3DS@paulhastings.com> 
`Cc: Mailing List ‐ Leedy <leedy@bartlit‐beck.com>; mfarnan@farnanlaw.com; Poff, Adam <APOFF@ycst.com>; Kraman, 
`Pilar <PKraman@ycst.com> 
`Subject: RE: Representative Products Plan 
` 
`Nosson, 
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 295-1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 4 of 84 PageID #: 20109
`
`As promised, we have attached an updated spreadsheet correlating documents containing information on dielectric 
`stress to nodes. 
` 
`Thanks, 
`Phillip 
` 
`From: Citroen, Phillip W. <phillipcitroen@paulhastings.com>  
`Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 6:35 PM 
`To: Nosson Knobloch <nosson.knobloch@bartlitbeck.com>; Soobert, Allan M. <allansoobert@paulhastings.com>; Patel, 
`Anand <anandpatel@paulhastings.com>; ServicePH Samsung‐ELM 3DS <ServicePHSamsung‐
`ELM3DS@paulhastings.com> 
`Cc: Mailing List ‐ Leedy <leedy@bartlit‐beck.com>; mfarnan@farnanlaw.com; Poff, Adam <APOFF@ycst.com>; Kraman, 
`Pilar <PKraman@ycst.com> 
`Subject: RE: Representative Products Plan 
` 
`Nosson, 
` 
`Samsung agrees with Elm’s proposal for grouping the accused memory products, modified as noted below to give 
`Samsung a week to complete tasks (i) and (ii). We believe the parties are in a position to appropriately group the 
`accused memory products, especially with Samsung’s recent productions of April 11, 24, and 30; and May 5, 15, and 16.  
` 
`The products for which Samsung does not have or was not able to find after a reasonable search node information and / 
`or documents needed for grouping will be handled separately, as you suggested in your email on May 11.  
` 
`Regards, 
`Phillip 
` 
`From: Citroen, Phillip W. <phillipcitroen@paulhastings.com>  
`Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 11:13 PM 
`To: Nosson Knobloch <nosson.knobloch@bartlitbeck.com>; Soobert, Allan M. <allansoobert@paulhastings.com>; Patel, 
`Anand <anandpatel@paulhastings.com>; ServicePH Samsung‐ELM 3DS <ServicePHSamsung‐
`ELM3DS@paulhastings.com> 
`Cc: Mailing List ‐ Leedy <leedy@bartlit‐beck.com>; mfarnan@farnanlaw.com; Poff, Adam <APOFF@ycst.com>; Kraman, 
`Pilar <PKraman@ycst.com> 
`Subject: RE: Representative Products Plan 
` 
`Nosson, 
` 
`Our responses are below in red. 
` 
`Thanks, 
`Phillip 
` 
`From: Nosson Knobloch <nosson.knobloch@bartlitbeck.com>  
`Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 12:08 AM 
`To: Citroen, Phillip W. <phillipcitroen@paulhastings.com>; Soobert, Allan M. <allansoobert@paulhastings.com>; Patel, 
`Anand <anandpatel@paulhastings.com>; ServicePH Samsung‐ELM 3DS <ServicePHSamsung‐
`ELM3DS@paulhastings.com> 
`Cc: Mailing List ‐ Leedy <leedy@bartlit‐beck.com>; mfarnan@farnanlaw.com; Poff, Adam <APOFF@ycst.com>; Kraman, 
`Pilar <PKraman@ycst.com> 
`Subject: [EXT] RE: Representative Products Plan 
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 295-1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 5 of 84 PageID #: 20110
`
` 
`Phillip,
`
`Your recriminations cannot undo the unambiguous record of delays in Samsung’s discovery in
`this case. It is simply false for you to assert that Samsung met the April 30 deadline it had
`committed to. Indeed, your earlier emails admitted the opposite. We are working diligently to
`review what you have produced, and I am confident we will find numerous gaps in your
`productions, in addition to the ones you’ve already admitted to.
` 
`[PH] While there have been occasional but excusable delays, the record clearly shows that Samsung has complied and 
`will continue to comply with its discovery obligations. Samsung’s productions to date have been substantial and directly 
`relevant to our representative products discussions. And we have repeatedly expressed Samsung’s commitment to 
`producing any remaining documents this week.  
` 
`The representative products discussions may not be progressing at Elm’s (or Samsung’s) desired pace, but Elm is at least 
`partially at fault. Elm’s serial demands (often raised for the first time during meet and confers) essentially asking 
`Samsung to do all the work necessary to arrive at what is supposed to be a jointly agreed‐upon representative products 
`list has on more than one occasion delayed progress. Elm’s proposal below is the first concrete proposal by Elm to move 
`things forward since it proposed grouping products only by node size—ignoring all other relevant technical features of 
`the accused products—many months ago. We hope this truly is a sign that Elm is going to work with Samsung going 
`forward, as you claim. 
`
`In order for us to further assess whether to seek the Court’s assistance, please respond to each of
`the following items before 5pmET tomorrow:
`
`
`1. Representative products: More than two months ago, I proposed that we group
`representative products by process node. You rejected that approach—for reasons that
`Samsung still hasn’t explained—and insisted that the representative product groups be
`further broken-down based on the interconnect type, packaging type, and number of chips
`in the stack. Given that Samsung is insisting on these additional categories, and
`Samsung is the party with greater access to the relevant data, I propose that Samsung
`take the lead on grouping the relevant products into those additional sub-
`categories. Accordingly, please let me know if you agree to proceed as follows:
`
` 
`
`[PH] You have once again mischaracterized our prior communications, presumably in an attempt to paint 
`Samsung in a bad light. Samsung has repeatedly explained in emails and during the meet and confer process 
`why the representative product groups must be further broken down based on the listed criteria—i.e., they are 
`relevant to Samsung’s non‐infringement positions with respect to the “substantially flexible” and “stress” terms. 
` 
`Samsung has offered multiple times to take the lead on grouping the relevant products, so we believe Elm’s 
`proposal is generally acceptable (but we are waiting for final approval), as discussed below.  
`
`
`a. Elm provide to Samsung a list of the accused products it is aware of, grouped by
`process node, to the extent we know the process node. Of course, as we’ve already
`indicated to you, there are products for which we’ve been unable to identify the
`process node to date. Those will all be grouped into one category. I need to check
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 295-1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 6 of 84 PageID #: 20111
`with my team, but I believe we can provide this to you by Wednesday, at least for
`the products you identified to us before your most recent productions.
`
`b. Within 2 business days after receiving Elm’s list as indicated in item (a), above,
`Samsung will provide the following:
`
`i. An identification of the process nodes for each product for which Elm has
`not been able to locate the process node.
`
`ii. A chart further sub-dividing the accused products into the various categories
`that Samsung is proposing for purposes of selecting representative products.
`
`c. Samsung will work expeditiously with Elm to update the products groups as
`additional sales data is produced (including the sales data produced just last week,
`which we are still working to analyze).
`
`
`
`
`
`[PH] Subject to final confirmation from Samsung (which we anticipate receiving later tonight), this approach 
`is likely acceptable with one exception: Samsung will need a week to complete tasks (i) and (ii). As you know, 
`our client is in Korea so it is impossible to complete these tasks in two business days. 
`
`
`2. I understand that you now contend that Samsung has produced all available dielectric
`stress data for the relevant process nodes. As I’m sure you will recall, Samsung
`previously provided a correlation chart to enable Elm to identify which stress data related
`to which node. I’d expected to receive—no later than April 30—an update of that chart
`or something similar to enable us to correlate stress data to the relevant process
`nodes. Indeed, I specifically identified the missing stress data in my March 13 email, and
`you responded, on March 26, that you expected to produce it “in the coming weeks.” I
`understood that to mean you would provide at least the same specificity as you’d
`previously provided and cannot imagine why you’d have a different understanding. In
`any case, when will you provide an updated correlation chart so we can match the stress
`data to the relevant nodes?
`
`[PH] As we have explained many times now, Samsung will be producing additional documents this week. We 
`understand these documents will include additional reference sheets. We can provide a correlation chart next 
`week, after this production. 
`
`3. You’ve said that you plan to produce technical documents for the image sensor products
`by May 15. Are those documents organized/identified in a way that will enable us to
`correlate product numbers to specific documents? If not, will you also produce, on May
`15, a chart or other decoder to enable us to correlate your documents to your products?
`
`[PH] The documents themselves may allow Elm to correlate the documents to accused products, but we have 
`not received the documents yet ourselves to know for sure. Samsung is not obligated to correlate these 
`documents for you, but we are happy to revisit this issue later after the documents are produced.  
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 295-1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 7 of 84 PageID #: 20112
`4. Your emails regrading sales data have been frustratingly vague. You’ve indicated that
`you’re still tracking down some relevant sales data, but you haven’t explained what that
`is. Can you please clearly explain what data you believe is still missing and when it will
`be produced?
` 
`[PH] We have tried to be as clear and transparent as possible about our financial collections. As you can imagine, 
`collecting financial information for several hundred products across multiple entities—particularly when access 
`to the financial servers are limited—is difficult. That being said, we believe the only outstanding financial items 
`remaining are updated worldwide image sensor sales and worldwide memory product sales (although we 
`generally will update our financial information as necessary). If Elm believes it is missing any additional financial 
`information, we are happy to consider its requests. 
`
`5. Your email productions appear to be missing communications with dielectric
`suppliers. We’ve been asking for those communications for more than a year. Your
`February 19 letter said that such communications would be included in custodial
`productions “in the upcoming weeks.” Why haven’t those communications been
`produced to date, and when will they be produced?
`
`[PH] Samsung has produced a substantial amount of communications with dielectric suppliers, including 
`agreements (e.g., SAMSUNG‐ELM‐000054970), presentations (e.g., SAMSUNG‐ELM‐000062048), etc., which are 
`the types of communications Samsung has with its suppliers. Additionally, as you know, Samsung has begun 
`rolling out its custodial productions, and more are forthcoming. Any email communications with suppliers found 
`after a reasonable investigation will be included.  
`
`6. Have you now produced process flow documents (or something equivalent) for every
`relevant process node? This is another category I specifically called-out in my March 13
`email, and you responded, on March 26, that you expected to produce it “in the coming
`weeks.” You later said that meant no later than the end of April and have never indicated
`that those were among the documents you were still working to collect. While we
`haven’t finished reviewing your productions yet, we’ve searched and have not found all
`the missing process flow documents. Please explain.
`
`[PH] Again, Samsung will be producing additional documents this week. These documents will include additional 
`process flow documents.
`
`
`The above list is by no means an exhaustive account of the deficiencies in Samsung’s
`productions. But your last email exhorted us to try to work with you, and not against you, on
`these discovery matters. We’ve been trying to work with you all along and would view timely,
`comprehensive, and cooperative answers to the above questions as an indication that you
`actually intend to reciprocate.
`
`Regards,
`
`-Nosson
`
`BartlitBeck LLP
`  
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 295-1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 8 of 84 PageID #: 20113
`
`
`
`Nosson D. Knobloch | p: 303.592.3122 | c: 773.301.2851 | Nosson.Knobloch@BartlitBeck.com | 1801 Wewatta Street, 12th Floor, Denver, CO
`80202
`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. 
`
`From: Citroen, Phillip W. <phillipcitroen@paulhastings.com>  
`Sent: Friday, May 8, 2020 9:05 PM 
`To: Nosson Knobloch <nosson.knobloch@bartlitbeck.com>; Soobert, Allan M. <allansoobert@paulhastings.com>; Patel, 
`Anand <anandpatel@paulhastings.com>; ServicePH Samsung‐ELM 3DS <ServicePHSamsung‐
`ELM3DS@paulhastings.com> 
`Cc: Mailing List ‐ Leedy <leedy@bartlit‐beck.com>; mfarnan@farnanlaw.com 
`Subject: RE: Representative Products Plan 
` 
`Nosson, 
` 
`We write to follow up on our May 6th meet and confer and to respond to your May 7th email.  During our call, you 
`requested that—to avoid a motion to compel on the representative products issue—Samsung must (i) provide a date by 
`when it promises to complete its productions of documents relating to representative products, (ii) provide a 
`“consequence” should it fail to meet that date, (iii) explain its recently produced sales spreadsheets, (iv) identify where 
`in each document in its productions information relevant to the parties’ representative productions discussion might be 
`located, and (v) provide an inventory of all physical samples of accused products, including image sensor products.  I will 
`address each of those items below. 
` 
`As I stated in my May 6th email and on our meet and confer, your entire argument is premised on a fallacy that Samsung 
`somehow has not complied with its discovery obligations, nor in a timely fashion.  Samsung has complied, and will 
`continue to comply, with its discovery obligations, in good faith.  We have been addressing Elm’s serial requests as best 
`we can.  It is simply incorrect to say that Samsung has repeatedly missed deadlines, in light of our recent productions 
`that specifically address many of the points you raise (“document dumps,” as you referred to them). 
` 
`The following table summarizes Samsung’s recent productions through the month of April and into early May. 
` 
`
`Date 
`April 11th 
`April 24th 
`
`# Docs 
`2104 
`3529 
`
`# Pages 
`64900 
`71671 
`
`Description 
`Email discovery and technical documents 
`Email discovery and technical documents with information 
`relating to process nodes, interconnect types, packaging 
`types, and number of stacked chips 
`Technical documents with information relating to 
`packaging and number of stacked chips 
`Technical documents with information relating to 
`packaging and number of stacked chips; updated sales 
`spreadsheets 
`
`April 30th 
`
`May 5th 
`
`32 
`
`57 
`
`4577 
`
`2506 
`
` 
`As you can see, and contrary to your incorrect allegations, Samsung has made substantial productions of responsive 
`documents, and in particular, documents necessary to categorize the hundreds of accused products.  As noted in my 
`prior email and on our meet and confer, Samsung intends to produce the remaining documents necessary for the parties 
`to continue their representative products discussions by May 15th.  We want to continue working with Elm to reach a 
`representative products agreement, as we believe such an agreement would benefit the parties and lessen the burden 
`on the Court. 
` 
`In any event, you admitted on the call that you did not fully understand or appreciate the contents of these 
`productions.  We are happy to provide answers to discrete questions regarding Samsung’s productions, as I said.  But, it 
`is not our burden to provide page and line citations for each piece of technical information related to our representative 
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 295-1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 9 of 84 PageID #: 20114
`
`products discussion for all of the accused products, as Elm demanded for the first time on our meet and confer.  We are 
`willing to work jointly toward preparing a categorization of accused products based on the relevant technical 
`factors.  But it is neither fair nor efficient for Elm to push all the work onto Samsung. 
` 
`To demonstrate our good faith and cooperation, I tried to explain on our call the answer to item iii above, i.e., to 
`describe the recently produced spreadsheets.  While you were unwilling to accept our brief explanation, I will repeat 
`that response here: All of the sales spreadsheets we produced on May 5th update prior spreadsheets.  For five of the six, 
`the old and new spreadsheets utilize identical formats and listings of accused products, and substantially overlap in their 
`sales figures.  We did not realize that that information would not be sufficient for someone familiar with our productions 
`to “decode” the sales spreadsheets. 
` 
`To provide further clarity, please see the below correlation: 
` 
`
`Description 
`SEA sales of downstream products containing image 
`sensor products 
`SEA sales of downstream products containing memory 
`products 
`SEA sales of downstream products containing memory 
`products 
`SEC transfer prices for accused products 
`
`SELA‐Miami sales of downstream products containing 
`image sensor products 
`SSI sales of accused products 
`
`Replacement Bates  Original Bates 
`SAMSUNG‐ELM‐
`SAMSUNG‐ELM‐
`000206023 
`000062362 
`SAMSUNG‐ELM‐
`SAMSUNG‐ELM‐
`000206024 
`000062361 
`SAMSUNG‐ELM‐
`SAMSUNG‐ELM‐
`000206025 
`000062360 
`SAMSUNG‐ELM‐
`SAMSUNG‐ELM‐
`000206026 
`000062368 
`SAMSUNG‐ELM‐
`SAMSUNG‐ELM‐
`000206027 
`000062364 
`SAMSUNG‐ELM‐
`SAMSUNG‐ELM‐
`000206028 
`000062357 
`
` 
`Regarding product samples, I provided a list of the accused memory products Samsung has in inventory in my May 6th 
`email.  During our meet and confer, you for the first time demanded an inventory of product samples for the accused 
`image sensor products as well, even though our prior correspondence relating to product samples has been in the 
`context of determining representative products for the accused memory products—not image sensor 
`products.  Nevertheless, we agreed to try to provide an inventory of the accused image sensor products by May 15th as 
`well. 
` 
`You also requested that Samsung provide a “consequence” for what would happen if it fails to meet its May 15th 
`expected production date.  That, again, is based on a false premise, and it is entirely inappropriate to suggest that 
`Samsung should somehow be punished for diligently working through these discovery issues and its continued efforts in 
`identifying, collecting, reviewing, and producing documents, all in response to your serial requests.   
` 
`Samsung has gone to great lengths to not only comply with its discovery obligations, but also attempt to respond to your 
`every demand, even during a global pandemic.  Occasional hiccups will happen, but there is no need to regularly 
`threaten unnecessary motion practice. 
` 
`Based on prior experience in this case, we do not think it is advisable to raise issues with the Court prematurely.  While 
`we cannot stop you from doing that and unnecessarily burdening the Court, we would ask again that you work with us, 
`not against us, on these issues, as the Court expects.  Otherwise, we will be left without an agreement on representative 
`products as a consequence. 
` 
`To the extent Elm decides to involve the Court anyway, we are currently available on May 20th, 21st, and 28th. 
` 
`Thanks, 
`Phillip 
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 295-1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 10 of 84 PageID #: 20115
`
`
`
` 
`From: Nosson Knobloch <nosson.knobloch@bartlitbeck.com>  
`Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2020 6:33 PM 
`To: Soobert, Allan M. <allansoobert@paulhastings.com>; Citroen, Phillip W. <phillipcitroen@paulhastings.com>; Patel, 
`Anand <anandpatel@paulhastings.com>; ServicePH Samsung‐ELM 3DS <ServicePHSamsung‐
`ELM3DS@paulhastings.com> 
`Cc: Mailing List ‐ Leedy <leedy@bartlit‐beck.com>; mfarnan@farnanlaw.com 
`Subject: [EXT] RE: Representative Products Plan 
` 
`Phillip, Anand, and Allan,
`
`As a reminder, please also let us know what days you’re available for a teleconference with
`Judge Hall on May 15 and the week of May 18.
`
`Thanks,
`
`-Nosson
`
`BartlitBeck LLP
` 
`Nosson D. Knobloch | p: 303.592.3122 | c: 773.301.2851 | Nosson.Knobloch@BartlitBeck.com | 1801 Wewatta Street, 12th Floor, Denver, CO
`80202
`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. 
`
`From: Nosson Knobloch  
`Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2020 1:19 PM 
`To: Soobert, Allan M. <allansoobert@paulhastings.com>; Citroen, Phillip W. <phillipcitroen@paulhastings.com>; 
`anandpatel@paulhastings.com; Samsung Paul Hastings <ServicePHSamsung‐ELM3DS@paulhastings.com> 
`Cc: Mailing List ‐ Leedy <leedy@bartlit‐beck.com>; mfarnan@farnanlaw.com 
`Subject: Representative Products Plan 
` 
`Phillip, Anand, and Allan, 
`
` 
`As discussed yesterday, Elm is deeply disappointed by the slow progress towards finalizing a
`representative products agreement. Samsung has delayed discovery on numerous issues
`pending that agreement, but is simultaneously holding up the progress of the case by failing to
`provide the data needed to even begin negotiations over the representative products. As I
`reiterated yesterday, and as you undoubtedly already understood, the data needed to finalize a
`representative products agreement includes, at a minimum, the following: 
`  
`
`
`
`1. Sales data for all the relevant products, including guidance sufficient for Elm to decode
`that data. For example, earlier this week Samsung produced a number of spreadsheets
`containing sales data, but has not provided an explanation for what those spreadsheets
`contain. Without that explanation, it is simply impossible for Elm to decode these
`documents.  
` 
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 295-1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 11 of 84 PageID #: 20116
`2. Core technical data for all the relevant products. As discussed yesterday, Samsung must
`also provide guidance sufficient for Elm to understand where to locate—for each relevant
`product—all of the information that Samsung has indicated it believes is necessary for
`establishing the various representative product groups. 
`
`3. A complete list of all relevant products for which Samsung has samples available.  
`  
`You committed on our call yesterday to let us know, no later than tomorrow, when you will
`provide this information. I look forward to receiving that information from you.  
`  
`In addition, as we discussed yesterday, we expect Samsung to explain what the consequence
`would be for Samsung’s failure to meet the deadline you propose for providing the information
`needed to begin our negotiations over representative products. I have never in my career
`worked opposite a party who has so often missed the deadlines by which it had committed to
`produce data. Your latest missed deadline of April 30 is only the most recent example in what
`has been, in my experience, an unprecedented string of missed deadlines that stretches way
`before the start of the coronavirus pandemic. Accordingly, we cannot take your word for it that
`data will be forthcoming in the timeline you agree to. We need firm commitments, with clear
`consequences.
`
`Regards,
`
`-Nosson  
`
`BartlitBeck LLP
` 
`Nosson D. Knobloch | p: 303.592.3122 | c: 773.301.2851 | Nosson.Knobloch@BartlitBeck.com | 1801 Wewatta Street, 12th Floor, Denver, CO
`80202
`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. 
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 295-1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 12 of 84 PageID #: 20117
`
`Exhibit B
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 295-1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 13 of 84 PageID #: 20118
`
`
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`
`Nosson Knobloch <nosson.knobloch@bartlitbeck.com>
`Wednesday, March 4, 2020 1:38 AM
`Citroen, Phillip W.
`ServicePH Samsung-ELM 3DS; apoff@ycst.com; Brian Farnan; Mailing List - Leedy
`[EXT] Summary of March 2 Samsung/Elm Meet and Confer
`
`Phillip,
`
`Please confirm that the below accurately summarizes our discussion on Monday.
`
`Thanks,
`
`-Nosson
`
`Representative Products: Samsung rejected Elm’s proposal that Samsung’s products be
`grouped by process node, and representative products chosen based on the highest-volume
`sellers within each such group for which Samsung has a sufficient number of physical samples.
`Instead, Samsung proposed as follows:
`
` Samsung’s products be grouped by the following criteria:
`o Process Node
`o Interconnect type (TSV or wirebond)
`o Packaging type
`o Number of chips in the stack
` Samsung is not opposed to choosing representative products within the groups described
`above based on the highest-volume sellers within each such group for which Samsung
`has a sufficient number of physical samples.
`
` Important Caveat: Samsung will not agree that any product is representative of any other
`product or group of products with regards to the “substantially flexible” limitations. With
`regards to those limitations, Samsung believes that infringement should be proven on a
`product-by-product basis.
`Elm’s response to Samsung’s proposal:
`
` Elm explained that, for it to evaluate Samsung’s proposal about product grouping, it
`would need data on the above-listed criteria as soon as possible. Samsung agreed to
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 295-1 Filed 06/01/20 Page 14 of 84 PageID #: 20119
`collect and produce data showing the process node, interconnect type, packaging type,
`and number of chips in the stack for each of the relevant products.
`
` Elm expressed concern about Samsung’s caveat regarding the “substantially flexible”
`limitation. Among other things, Elm explained that this caveat would likely necessitate
`the production of physical samples and extensive documentation for every accused
`product.
`Plan: The parties agreed to work quickly to identify alternative solutions to the “substantially
`flexible” issue and, if they are unable to identify such alternatives, to raise the representative
`products issue with the Court.
`Sales Data Issues
`
` Samsung confirmed that it has produced all non-US sales of accused memory and image
`sensor components, including all intra-company transfers of those component.
`
` Samsung confirmed that its non-US sales data is comprehensive. The data it produced is
`not limited to the relevant products that happened to have US sales.
`
` Samsung confirmed that SAMSUNG-ELM-000062371 identifies all of Samsung’s US
`sales of downstream products that include relevant component made by a third party.
`SAMSUNG-ELM-000062372—which identifies the relevant third-party component—
`only lists components made by
` because those are the only
`companies that supply Samsung with stacked semiconductor components that include a
`die of 50 microns or less that are incorporated into dow