Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 340 Filed 10/07/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 21460
`WILMINGTON
`RODNEY SQUARE
`
`NEW YORK
`ROCKEFELLER CENTER
`
`Adam W. Poff
`P 302.571.6642
`F 302.576.3326
`apoff@ycst.com
`
`
`
`October 7, 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:
`
`Samsung respectfully submits this response to Elm’s letter regarding the parties’
`stipulation to amend the schedule (D.I. 339).
`
`There is no dispute for the Court to resolve, and indeed, Elm and Samsung jointly
`submitted the agreed-upon stipulation to amend the schedule. Nevertheless, Elm decided to file
`its own letter purporting to summarize the circumstances requiring the amendment. Samsung
`would ordinarily not burden the Court with a responsive letter where there is no dispute before
`Your Honor except that Elm’s letter omits important facts and mischaracterizes the record,
`requiring correction.
`
`First, Elm accuses Samsung of ignoring deadlines and disregarding the Court’s order
`requiring completion of the chart on accused products for selecting representative products. That
`is not true. Samsung complied with the Court-ordered June 19 deadline, as evidenced by three
`joint status reports informing the Court of the parties’ progress in addressing the requested
`information.1 (See D.I. 310, 314, and 318.) And, in the final joint status report, the parties
`agreed that there were no outstanding issues to resolve.2 (See D.I. 318.)
`
`
`1 Elm incorrectly states that the Court “largely granted” its motion to compel; Samsung agreed to
`complete the chart after Elm presented it for the first time with its May 19 letter (D.I. 286), and
`the Court entered an order memorializing that agreement (D.I. 293).
`
` Elm misleadingly states that Samsung has “refused” to produce documents until the parties
`have selected representative products, but that has been the agreed-upon plan all along and one
`of the very reasons for a representative products agreement. Elm has even informed the Court
`
` 2
`
`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 340 Filed 10/07/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 21461
`Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP
`The Honorable Leonard P. Stark
`October 7, 2020
`Page 2
`
`
`Samsung diligently provided the information it had after an exhaustive, good-faith
`investigation. There are over a thousand accused products at issue in this case, many of which
`were discontinued years ago and require tedious manual searches for the data required for
`selecting representative products. It is not surprising that some data cannot be found, as Elm
`acknowledges, and that there were inadvertent errors in the large volume of complex data that
`was ultimately compiled. In any event, Elm concedes that Samsung has corrected any errors as
`they have been identified.3
`
`Second, Elm’s accusation of Samsung not meeting the substantial completion deadline is
`misleading and one-sided, taken out of the appropriate context. Samsung informed Elm before
`August 28 deadline that Samsung had inadvertently misidentified a custodian (who shares the
`same name with another employee), and needed additional time to collect documents from the
`correct custodian. Elm did not object. Samsung also informed Elm that it expected to produce
`documents shortly past the August 28 deadline as a result of unforeseen delays in processing
`large volumes of documents at home networks, pursuant to work-from-home practices and in
`light of the COVID-19 pandemic. Elm again did not object. And, Elm omits the critical fact that
`it itself failed to meet the August 28 deadline, having not yet produced inventor notebooks that it
`had agreed to provide.
`
`In light of these issues, and before the substantial completion deadline, Samsung (with
`Defendants Micron and SK hynix in related cases) approached Elm to amend the schedule, since
`it was apparent that all parties—including Elm—would benefit from additional extensions of
`time. Given the circumstances, Defendants reasonably expected to reach the agreement
`ultimately reflected in the instant stipulation to amend the schedule. But Elm simply refused at
`the time and threatened to seek relief, giving no explanation for why after weeks of consenting to
`Samsung’s production of certain documents after August 28, it suddenly objected to an amended
`schedule that would align with the parties’ existing expectations. It is evident from the joint
`stipulation that Elm agrees with an amended schedule that addresses supplemental document
`productions and corresponding discovery allowances for both sides. Elm clearly has no basis to
`object, as a contributor to the circumstances requiring the amendment. It is, therefore,
`disingenuous for Elm to now burden the Court with its erroneous accusation that Samsung has
`unilaterally disregarded the schedule.
`
`that such an agreement is intended to benefit both parties in streamlining the case (see D.I. 288),
`which includes alleviating Samsung’s burden in discovery. And, it is likewise inappropriate to
`attribute any delay to Samsung alone; for example, Samsung served an updated chart on July 17
`and Elm did not raise any concerns about it until August 21.
`
` Elm’s accusation that Samsung omitted “billions of dollars in relevant sales information”
`exaggerates the significance of this data. This data was for downstream product sales, i.e.,
`consumer products that incorporate the accused memory and image sensor components, which
`themselves sell for only a fraction of the downstream product sales. It is the quantity of
`downstream products sold that is relevant to show the total number of allegedly infringing units
`contained therein, not the entire market value of the downstream products. In any event,
`Samsung updated the chart with this data promptly after discovering its inadvertent omission.
`
` 3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 340 Filed 10/07/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 21462
`Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP
`The Honorable Leonard P. Stark
`October 7, 2020
`Page 3
`
`
`Should Your Honor have any questions regarding these matters, counsel for Samsung are
`available at the Court’s convenience.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Adam W. Poff
`
`Adam W. Poff (No. 3990)
`
`Counsel of Record (via E-Filing and E-Mail)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`cc:
`
`
`
`
`
`