Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 310 Filed 06/26/20 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 21255
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 14-cv-1430-LPS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`ELM 3DS INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et
`al.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`JOINT STATUS LETTER TO THE HONORABLE JENNIFER L. HALL
`REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTES
`
`
`Dated: June 26, 2020
`
`Brian E. Farnan (#4089)
`Michael J. Farnan (#5165)
`FARNAN LLP
`919 North Market Street
`12th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 777-0300
`bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`mfarnan@farnalaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Elm 3DS
`Innovations, LLC
`
`
`
`Adam W. Poff (#3990)
`Pilar G. Kraman (#5199)
`Rodney Square
`Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP
`1000 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Telephone: (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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 310 Filed 06/26/20 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 21256
`
`Dear Judge Hall:
`
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Order, D.I. 293, Elm and Samsung submit this joint status letter.
`The Court’s May 27 Order required that Samsung “complete the chart set forth in Exhibit
`30 to D.I. [281] with the modifications proposed in Samsung’s letter.” Samsung sent Elm an
`updated chart on June 19. Elm contends there are a number of deficiencies with that chart.
`ISSUE 1: Package Type Information
`Elm’s Position: The updated chart is missing package type information for at least a
`third of the products.1 Where Samsung provided package type information, it is in the form of
`internal process codes which are incomprehensible to Elm. Samsung says its package codes are
`explained in certain highly sensitive documents that Elm must review on a standalone computer
`at Samsung’s counsel’s office. In addition, Samsung has identified multiple package codes for
`many of the accused products, but did not indicate which of those codes relate to the relevant die.
`Elm contends that, for the above reasons, Samsung has failed to comply with the Court’s May 27
`Order and requests that the Court order Samsung to immediately remedy these deficiencies.
`Samsung’s Position: Samsung complied with the Court’s Order. It completed the chart
`by inserting all of the information Samsung was able to locate after thoroughly investigating
`every accused product. For package type, Samsung explained to Elm that it could not locate all
`of the information for certain products, e.g., due to age. Samsung, not Elm, initially proposed
`including package type as a criteria, and explained that if adequate information cannot be
`located, Samsung would be amenable to an alternative approach or dropping package type all
`together, which Samsung is currently considering. Samsung is also amenable to correlating the
`package type codes to dies, but this issue was only recently raised by Elm and it is unclear why
`such a correlation is needed. Nevertheless, Samsung has been and continues to be available to
`confer with Elm to resolve these types of issues before prematurely involving the Court.
`ISSUE 2: Identifying the Relevant Process Nodes
`Elm’s Position: Exhibit 30 included the following instruction: “Where more than one
`process node is used to make the die in the product, each relevant process node should be listed.
`In that case, the process node(s) on which the die with a thickness of 50 microns or less are made
`should be bolded.” See D.I. 281, Ex. 30 at 7. The Court ordered Samsung to “complete the chart
`set forth in Exhibit 30 to D.I. [281] with the modifications proposed in Samsung’s letter.”
`Samsung’s letter to the Court did not take issue with providing this information. See D.I. 286.
`Nonetheless, the chart Samsung provided did not indicate which process node related to the
`relevant die. Samsung has agreed to update the chart to include that information by July 3.
`Samsung’s Position: Elm’s demand that Samsung bold certain nodes was not specified
`in its letter to the Court or required by the Court’s Order. It was instead noted in Elm’s nearly
`500-page declaration in support. In any event, after Elm raised this issue on June 23, Samsung
`agreed it would endeavor to provide the information by the end of next week, July 3.
`
`                                                            
`1 Samsung also failed to identify die thickness and/or number of chips for hundreds of products.
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 310 Filed 06/26/20 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 21257
`
`ISSUE 3: Substantial Production of Information
`Elm’s Position: The Court’s May 27 Order required that Samsung “complete substantial
`production of the information for the newly identified products.” Samsung states that it complied
`with the “substantial production” portion of the Order by completing the chart for the newly
`identified products. Elm disagrees. Samsung’s inclusion of those products in the chart was
`already mandated by the first part of the Court’s order, requiring that Samsung complete the
`chart. Indeed, Elm’s letter brief explained that completing the chart entailed “updating the chart
`to add all relevant products not already listed” and providing all the relevant information for
`those products. See D.I. 280 at 3. Samsung thus violated the Court’s Order by failing to
`substantially complete, at a minimum, its production of core technical data for the newly
`identified products.
`Samsung’s Position: Samsung understood this portion of the Order to require Samsung
`to include the newly identified products in the updated chart and to substantially complete the
`chart for those new products, which is exactly what Samsung did. Elm’s reading of the Court’s
`Order would result in the illogical situation where the document production deadline for products
`identified in the past months is earlier than the deadline for products identified years ago. That
`does not make sense, and Samsung’s discovery letter (which the Court largely adopted) did not
`suggest otherwise. Samsung fully intends to substantially complete production of documents
`underlying the information in the chart within the timeframe that the Defendants have proposed
`as part of an extension to the schedule.
`ISSUE 4: Image Sensors Grouping
`Joint Statement: The Court’s Order instructed the parties to meet and confer regarding
`the image sensor products. Elm has proposed that the image sensors be grouped using essentially
`the same criteria that the parties intend to use for grouping the memory products. Samsung does
`not believe such a grouping would work because it believes that these products are completely
`different, and the same criteria are not sufficient to distinguish purportedly representative image
`products from one another. Samsung is still investigating a potential solution and will provide
`Elm a concrete proposal by July 3.
`ISSUE 5: Downstream Product Inventory
`Joint Statement: The Court’s Order instructed the parties to meet and confer about
`downstream product inventory. The parties have agreed that, instead of providing downstream
`product inventory data for each of the relevant products, Samsung will provide a chart that will
`identify the downstream Samsung products that contain accused components (whether made by
`Samsung or others) which Samsung does not have in inventory. To collect this information,
`Samsung will need to investigate each of the more than 1,500 downstream products, which will
`take time. Nevertheless, Samsung will endeavor to provide this information by July 10. Samsung
`will also investigate downstream products in inventory, to the extent Elm is unable to purchase
`any such products in the market.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 310 Filed 06/26/20 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 21258
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: June 26, 2020
`
`FARNAN LLP
`
`
`/s/ Brian E. Farnan
`Brian E. Farnan (#4089)
`Michael J. Farnan (#5165)
`919 North Market Street
`12th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 777-0300
`bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`mfarnan@farnalaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Elm 3DS
`Innovations, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP
`
`
`/s/ Adam W. Poff
`Adam W. Poff (#3990)
`Pilar G. Kraman (#5199)
`Rodney Square
`1000 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Telephone: (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
`
`
`3
`
`