Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 317 Filed 07/17/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 21305
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 14-cv-1430-LPS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`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: July 10, 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 317 Filed 07/17/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 21306
`
` 
`
`Dear Judge Hall:
`
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Order, D.I. 312, Elm and Samsung submit this joint status letter.
`As described below, the parties have continued to work through the issues identified in the prior
`joint status letter, D.I. 310. Those efforts have included three telephonic meet and confers,
`totaling nearly an hour and a half. Those calls were attended by the following counsel:
`
` Elm’s Counsel: Nosson Knobloch and Michael Farnan (Delaware counsel)
`
` Samsung’s Counsel: Soyoung Jung, Allan Soobert, Phillip Citroen, and Adam Poff
`(Delaware counsel)
`
`While the parties’ issues have not all been resolved, they would like to continue working towards
`resolution and request the opportunity to further update the Court in two weeks.
`
`ISSUE 1: Sales Data Errors in the Court-Ordered Chart
`Elm’s Position: Samsung’s disclosures of relevant sales revenue have fluctuated wildly
`
`over the course of this case. See generally D.I. 280. That trend has unfortunately continued. The
`Court’s May 27 Order instructed Samsung to identify summary sales data for each relevant
`product by June 19. On June 19, Samsung produced a chart identifying approximately
`
` in revenue from US sales of relevant memory components. On July 6, Samsung produced
`an updated chart that reported nearly
` in such revenue. On July 7, Samsung
`explained that the sales numbers were reduced solely because the updated chart
`from after April 2017. The following day, Elm informed Samsung that
`its explanation could not account for such a
` in revenue. Samsung has since
`acknowledged that its updated chart included inadvertent errors and has committed to correct
`them.
`
`
`
`Every fluctuation in Samsung’s disclosures imposes costs on Elm. Elm’s experts have
`spent many hours analyzing Samsung’s disclosures and identifying errors. More importantly,
`Samsung’s fluctuating disclosures have prevented the parties from moving forward with other
`important discovery. Samsung asserts that such fluctuations should be expected in a case of this
`scope and complexity. But this case was filed nearly six years ago. At this late stage of the case,
`Samsung should be able to provide accurate information in discovery. Elm hopes that Samsung
`will correct these errors quickly.
`Samsung’s Position: The sales data in the charts served on June 19 and July 6 is merely
`a summary of Samsung’s sales data previously produced in this case. While there have been
`occasional variations in this data, these variations are due, in part, to the change in scope of the
`accused products over time, the large number of products accused, the different Samsung entities
`involved, and the long damages window. Some variations are unsurprising given these
`complexities. The update to the chart noted by Elm above was only to adjust for the expiration of
`many patents covering wirebonded products on April 2017. In any event, Samsung has been and
`will continue to address any reasonable concerns raised by Elm concerning this data, and is
`actively addressing these variations, as the parties agreed during this week’s meet and confers.
`ISSUE 2: Technical Data Gaps in the Court-Ordered Chart
`
` 
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 317 Filed 07/17/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 21307
`
` 
`
`Joint Statement: Samsung remains unable to identify package type information, die
`thickness, and number of chips for many relevant products, at least in part due to the age of
`certain products. The parties are working together to devise a solution for addressing these data
`gaps. Among other things, the parties are contemplating narrowing the factors that need to be
`considered in grouping the relevant products. The parties are also negotiating how Samsung will
`provide certain highly confidential product packaging data to Elm’s experts for review.
`ISSUE 3: Image Sensor Grouping
`Joint Statement: 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 has
`proposed two additional criteria. Samsung intends to update its chart to include data for the
`additional criteria it has proposed, and to produce documents related to those criteria. Samsung is
`aiming to produce this data today, and the parties will then meet and confer to finalize a
`representative products plan for the image sensor products.
`ISSUE 4: Downstream Product Inventory
`Joint Statement: Samsung has committed to produce 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. Samsung is aiming to produce that chart next
`week. Samsung has also committed to investigate its downstream products inventory, to the
`extent Elm is unable to purchase any such products in the market. The parties will continue to
`work together on these issues.
`
`Dated: July 10, 2020
`
`FARNAN LLP
`
`/s/ Michael J. 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`