`
`THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`ELM 3DS INNOVATIONS, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`ELM 3DS INNOVATIONS, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., et al.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`ELM 3DS INNOVATIONS, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`C.A. No. 14-1430-LPS-CJB
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 14-1431-LPS-CJB
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 14-1432-LPS-CJB
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SK HYNIX INC., et al.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM ORDER
`IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motions for Clarification (C.A. No. 14-1430 D.I.
`
`
`
`270; C.A. No. 1431 D.I. 248; C.A. No. 1432 D.I. 262) are GRANTED.1
`
`
`1 The motions have been filed by all defendants: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung
`Semiconductor, Inc., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Austin Semiconductor,
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 279 Filed 06/10/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 17009
`
`
`
`The Court clarifies that the claim terms “dice is substantially flexible” and “die is
`
`substantially flexible” mean 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.”
`
`
`
`The foregoing is the construction the Court intended by its earlier claim construction
`
`opinion and order to adopt. (See D.I. 266, 267)2 It is the claim construction the Court
`
`understands the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to have applied. (See D.I. 266 at 8-9)
`
`(“[T]he Federal Circuit construed the ‘substantially flexible’ terms, constructions which this
`
`Court now adopts as well.”) (citing Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC, 925 F.3d
`
`1373, 1377 n.5, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2019))
`
`The Court disagrees with Plaintiff’s suggestion that Defendants have failed to meet their
`
`burden to obtain the relief they seek. (See D.I. 274 at 3) The Court inadvertently failed to
`
`correctly state its construction of the “dice/die” terms in its previous order. The Court can (and
`
`should) correct its error when it becomes aware of it, as it has now become aware thanks to
`
`
`LLC (collectively, “Samsung”); Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc.,
`and Micron Consumer Products Group, Inc. (collectively, “Micron”); and SK Hynix Inc., SK
`Hynix America Inc., Hynix Semiconductor Manufacturing America Inc., and SK Hynix Memory
`Solutions Inc. (collectively, “SK Hynix” and, together with Samsung and Micron,
`“Defendants”).
`
`Unless otherwise noted, all further references in this Order to the docket index are to
`
`Civil Action Number 14-1430.
`
` 2
`
` In its April 13, 2020 claim construction order, the Court construed the dice/die terms as “Not
`indefinite. A dice/die that is thinned to 50 μm or less and subsequently polished or smoothed
`such that it is largely able to bend without breaking.”
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-01432-LPS Document 279 Filed 06/10/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 17010
`
`Defendants’ motion. Defendants are not required under these circumstances to demonstrate that
`
`the Court’s prior construction was clearly erroneous.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`June 10, 2020
`Wilmington, Delaware
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_______________________________
`HONORABLE LEONARD P. STARK
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`
`
`3
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
