Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 428 Filed 07/19/21 Page 1 of 28 PageID #: 26155
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`ELM 3DS INNOVATIONS, LLC, a
`Delaware limited liability company,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
`Korean business entity,
`SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., a
`California corporation,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC., a New York corporation, and
`SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR,
`LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`C.A. No. 14-1430-LPS
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`LETTER TO THE HONORABLE JENNIFER L. HALL FROM
`PILAR G. KRAMAN REGARDING SAMSUNG DEFENDANTS’ DISCOVERY LETTER
`IN ADVANCE OF JULY 21, 2021, DISCOVERY HEARING (D.I. 422)
`
`Dated: July 12, 2021
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 428 Filed 07/19/21 Page 2 of 28 PageID #: 26156
`
`
`
`Dear Magistrate Judge Hall:
`
`Elm has withheld a number of documents related to critical issues in this litigation,
`including its settlement agreement with SK Hynix, documents relating to its standing to maintain
`this litigation, documents for which Elm has provided insufficient privilege claims, and
`relevance-based redactions to Elm’s engagement agreement with Epicenter Law, P.C. Elm also
`refuses to extend the deposition of its lone corporate designee on more than 100 topics to any
`more than two days, despite taking many days of depositions of Samsung’s corporate designees.
`Elm must provide the requested discovery.
`I.
`Elm Must Produce Its Settlement Agreement with SK Hynix Because of Its
`Relevance to Damages
`
`Elm refuses to produce its recent settlement agreement with SK Hynix, which was
`previously a defendant in a parallel patent infringement case brought by Elm. The Federal
`Circuit and district courts “have routinely recognized that license agreements relating to the
`patents-in-suit, and entered into in connection with settlement, are discoverable.” See, e.g.,
`Wyeth v. Orgenus Pharma Inc., C.A. No. 09-3235 FLW, 2010 WL 4117157, at *4 (D.N.J. Oct.
`19, 2010) (collecting cases). That is because “prior settlements can be relevant to determining
`damages,” so long as such settlements are “sufficiently comparable.” Elbit Sys. Land & C4I Ltd.
`v. Hughes Network Sys., LLC, 927 F.3d 1292, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2019); see also Intellectual
`Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., C.A. No. 10-1067-LPS, 2016 WL 937220, at *4 (D. Del.
`Mar. 10, 2016) (allowing reliance on settlement agreements to prove damages). The patent
`infringement case Elm filed against SK Hynix involved the same patents at issue here. See C.A.
`No. 14-1432-LPS, D.I. No. 288 at 1–2. Moreover, the full extent of the settlement agreement’s
`comparability cannot be determined without its production. The settlement agreement is
`responsive to at least Defendants’ Request for Production Nos. 24, 26, 50, 53, 54, 56, and 57. See
`Exhibit A. Because Elm’s settlement agreement with SK Hynix is responsive and relevant, Elm
`must produce it.
`II.
`Elm Must Produce Documents Relevant to Its Standing to Maintain This Litigation
`
` Ron Epstein, Elm’s
`purported manager, acknowledged the legitimacy of the issues Samsung raised with Elm’s
`standing to pursue this litigation. See Exhibit B. Yet Elm has refused to produce documents
`related to those standing issues, including documents related to the transfer of ownership
`interests in Elm from the Glenn Leedy Administrative Trust (“the Trust”) to the individual trusts
`set up for Glenn Leedy’s children (“Child Trusts”). Those documents implicate a threshold issue
`in this litigation and must be produced.
`
`Two separate transactions undermine Elm’s standing to maintain this lawsuit. First,
`Glenn Leedy, the sole owner and member of Elm, “transferred all of his ownership interests in
`. . . [Elm] into the Glenn Leedy Revocable Trust” on July 1, 2016. Exhibit C at 25. Second,
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 428 Filed 07/19/21 Page 3 of 28 PageID #: 26157
`
`
`
`In both transactions, based on the information Elm has provided to date, it appears that
`the Elm ownership interests may have been transferred without a corresponding action to make
`the transferee(s) members of Elm. Under applicable Delaware law, that would have left Elm
`without any members. 6 Del. C. § 18-702(b)(1), (3). It would also have automatically triggered
`Elm’s dissolution. § 18-801(a)(4) (effective Aug. 1, 2015 to July 31, 2016); see also Perry v.
`Neupert, C.A. No. 2017-0290-JTL, 2019 WL 719000, at *32 (Del. Ch. Feb. 15, 2019) (“The
`transfer of a sole member’s interest in a single-member LLC with an LLC agreement that lacked
`an automatic admission clause thus would result in the dissolution of the LLC.”).
`
`With respect to the first transaction, Elm contends that the instrument that created the
`Trust constitutes the necessary “written consent” for the Trust for become the lone member of
`Elm following Leedy’s transfer of his ownership interests. See § 18-704(a) (effective Aug. 2,
`2010 to July 31, 2016); Exhibit D. But that instrument
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` As for the second transaction,
`Elm has refused to provide any similar documentation that would allow Samsung to evaluate its
`position.
`
`
`
`Only certain categories of persons may prosecute a lawsuit on behalf of a dissolved
`Delaware LLC. § 18-803(b). Epstein does not fall within any of those categories. See § 18-803(a)
`(applicable to LLCs whose certificate of formation was filed and effective prior to July 31,
`2015). Therefore, Elm under the purported control of Epstein cannot prosecute this lawsuit
`because it lacks standing under Delaware law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(b); see also Paradise
`Creations, Inc. v. UV Sales, Inc., 315 F.3d 1304, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (evaluating a dissolved
`corporation’s standing under the law of the state in which it was formed). Without knowing who
`has the authority to act on Elm’s behalf with respect to this lawsuit, Samsung cannot be sure that
`any resolution reached in this matter would be binding on Elm.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Samsung disputes Epstein’s ability to retroactively cure deficiencies with Leedy’s transfer to the
`Trust. Elm must produce any further documents in its possession, custody, or control regarding
`Leedy’s intentions with respect to the Trust and his transfer of ownership interests in Elm
`thereto. Such documents at least include any communications between Leedy, Epstein, and any
`other persons involved with creating the Trust.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 428 Filed 07/19/21 Page 4 of 28 PageID #: 26158
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The transfer of Elm ownership interests from the Trust to the Child Trusts raises many of
`the same potential issues as Leedy’s previous transfer of such interests to the Trust. If Epstein in
`his purported role as trustee of the Trust did not affirmatively admit the Child Trusts as members
`at the time of the transfer from the Trust, Elm could have been have been left without any
`members and become dissolved (to the extent it was not already dissolved from Leedy’s transfer
`to the Trust). Elm’s concern that this occurred appears to have inspired
`
`
`
`
`Despite the implications for Elm’s standing to maintain this litigation, Elm has refused to
`produce any discovery related to the Child Trusts. Elm should be required to produce any
`documents related to the Child Trusts that could affect Elm’s standing, including documents
`regarding the following matters:
`
` The formation of the Child Trusts, including any certification, declaration,
`instrument, or agreement for each of the Child Trusts;
` The transfer of interests in Elm to the Child Trusts;
` The admission of the Child Trusts as members of Elm;
` Any other terms, conditions, requirements, or intentions for the Child Trusts;
` Epstein’s authorization to act on behalf of the Child Trusts and/or on behalf of Glenn
`Leedy’s estate (including any applicable portions of Leedy’s will);
` Epstein’s authorization from the Child Trusts’ to act on Elm’s behalf.
`
`III. Elm Has Asserted Improper and Unsubstantiated Claims of Privilege
`
`Elm has refused to produce a large number of documents based on deficient privilege
`claims. First, many of the entries in Elm’s privilege log contain insufficient information to assess
`Elm’s claim of privilege. See Exhibit E; Exhibit F at 1–2. Elm has the burden of providing such
`information. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(A). Exhibit F identifies the privilege log entries lacking
`sufficient information. Id. at 1–2. The deficiencies with those entries include failing to identify
`the sender/recipient of particular communications, failing to identify the author of particular
`documents, and failing to provide a sufficient privilege description.
`
`Second, Elm has claimed privilege over many documents either partially or entirely
`directed at business or other non-legal matters. See Exhibit E; Exhibit F at 3–4. Even for
`documents and communications involving an attorney, “[w]here a lawyer provides non-legal
`business advice, the communication is not privileged.” Wachtel v. Health Net, Inc., 482 F.3d
`225, 231 (3d Cir. 2007).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 428 Filed 07/19/21 Page 5 of 28 PageID #: 26159
`
`
`
`
`
`Elm contends that
`
`
`established an attorney-client
`relationship that protects communications on or after that date. However, even if Elm’s position
`were correct, it does not align with Elm’s treatment of its privilege log entries. Elm’s position
`means that
` would not be privileged. Yet Elm refuses to produce documents corresponding to
`certain such entries on its privilege log, including at least
`
` Elm should be required to produce those
` communications.
`
`
`
`
`
`, Elm has waived
`As for
`attorney-client privilege with respect to at least some of those documents by choosing to produce
`a cherry-picked set of such communications in response to Samsung’s complaints about Elm’s
`privilege log. In particular,
`
`
`
` Even if such communications
`were originally privileged, Elm cannot produce a self-serving subset of such documents while
`withholding the remainder. That results in waiver of privilege over all other such documents
`involving the same subject matter. See Fed. R. Evid. 502(a); GTECH Corp. v. Scientific Games
`Int’l, Inc., C.A. No. 04-138-JJF, 2005 WL 8170737, at * 2 (D. Del. Nov. 22, 2005) (“[I]f a
`partial waiver would be unfair to the party’s adversary, the privilege will be waived as to all
`communications or materials on the same subject.”). Elm should be required to produce
`
`that
`
`relate to the same subject matter as what Elm has already produced.
`
`
`
`Even if Elm had not waived privilege over
`, many of those and other entries on Elm’s privilege log
`constitute non-privileged business or other non-legal documents and communications. See
`Exhibit F at 3–4. To the extent that Elm contends that certain of those documents contain both
`business and legal advice, those documents must be produced if their “primary purpose” is to
`“solicit or render advice on non-legal matters.” Hercules, Inc. v. Exxon Corp., 434 F. Supp. 136,
`147 (D. Del. 1977). Because Elm’s business is patent licensing, it appears that the documents
`identified in Exhibit F primarily relate to business concerns. Immersion Corp. v. HTC Corp.,
`C.A. No. 12-259-RGA, 2014 WL 3948021, at *2 (D. Del. Aug. 7, 2014) (citing Wachtel v.
`Health Net, Inc., 482 F.3d 225, 231 (3d Cir. 2007)) (ordering plaintiff to produce several
`documents related to patent licensing because “[plaintiff’s] business is the licensing of patents”).
`Elm should produce those documents.
`IV.
`Elm Cannot Make Relevance-Based Redactions to
`
`
`
`
`Elm has produced its
` in redacted form. See Exhibit K.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 428 Filed 07/19/21 Page 6 of 28 PageID #: 26160
`
`
`
` Elm produced the
` cannot be privileged. See
`redacted version after Samsung explained that
`Montgomery County v. Microvote Corp., 175 F.3d 296, 304 (3rd Cir. 1999) (“The attorney-client
`privilege does not shield fee arrangements.”). Elm contends that its redactions to
`
` are based on relevance, but relevance-based redactions are impermissible. Delaware
`Display Grp. LLC v. Lenovo Grp. Ltd., Lenovo Holding Co., C.A. No. 13-2108-RGA, 2016 WL
`720977, at *6 (D. Del. Feb. 23, 2016) (“[A] party may not redact information that it unilaterally
`deems sensitive, embarrassing, or irrelevant.”). Elm must produce an unredacted version of
`
`
`Elm Cannot Limit to Two Days the Deposition of Its Sole Corporate Designee
`Covering More Than 100 Topics
`
`V.
`
`Elm has designated Ron Epstein as its sole Rule 30(b)(6) designee yet refuses to make
`him available unless Samsung agrees to limit his deposition to two days. Federal Rule of Civil
`Procedure 30(d)(1) provides that “[t]he court must allow additional time [for deposition]
`consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2) if needed to fairly examine the deponent.” See, e.g., In re
`Intel Corp. Microprocessor Antitrust Litig., C.A. No. 05-441-JJF, 2008 WL 5377979, at *2 (D.
`Del. Dec. 18, 2008) (allowing “2 or 3 days of deposition time for each of the involved witnesses”
`in a case involving “eight years of particularized knowledge by” those witnesses).
`
` Before Leedy (initially Elm’s sole party witness) passed away, the parties agreed that the
`defendants could depose him for 30 hours. Epstein now stands in Leedy’s shoes (albeit
`imperfectly) as Elm’s sole party witness. Indeed, Elm has designated him to cover more than 100
`deposition topics. See D.I. Nos. 209, 336. Given the breadth of patents, issues, and facts at issue
`in this litigation, Samsung cannot cover those deposition topics in only two days of deposition.
`For reference, Elm has deposed 14 corporate designees from Samsung over a total of 30 hours,
`after adjusting for translation. Elm cannot reasonably demand that Samsung cover a similar
`breadth of topics with Epstein in less than half of the time. Therefore, Samsung requests that Elm
`make Epstein available for four days of deposition.
`VI. Conclusion
`
`For the above reasons, Samsung respectfully requests that the Court order Elm to: (1)
`produce its settlement agreement with SK Hynix; (2) produce all documents related to its
`standing to maintain this litigation, including documents regarding the Child Trusts; (3) produce
`all documents on its privilege log with insufficient and/or improper claims of privilege; (4)
`
`produce an unredacted version of
`; and (5) make Ron Epstein, Elm’s sole corporate designee, available for four days of
`deposition.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 428 Filed 07/19/21 Page 7 of 28 PageID #: 26161
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Pilar G. Kraman (No. 5199)
`
`cc:
`
`Counsel of Record (via E-Filing and E-Mail)
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 428 Filed 07/19/21 Page 8 of 28 PageID #: 26162
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`ELM 3DS INNOVATIONS, LLC, a
`Delaware limited liability company,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
`Korean business entity,
`SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., a
`California corporation,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC., a New York corporation, and
`SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR,
`LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`C.A. No. 14-1430-LPS
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER
`
`WHEREAS, the Court held a conference regarding certain discovery disputes raised by
`
`Defendants on July 21, 2021;
`
`NOW THEREFORE, the Court having considered Defendants letter brief, and any
`
`response thereto, as well as arguments made during the July 21, 2021 conference, it is hereby
`
`ORDERED as follows:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff shall produce its settlement agreement with SK Hynix.
`
`Plaintiff shall produce all documents related to its standing to maintain this
`
`litigation, including at least:
`
`a. All documents regarding Glenn Leedy’s intentions with respect to the
`
`Glenn Leedy Administrative Trust and his transfer of ownership interests
`
`in the Plaintiff thereto.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 428 Filed 07/19/21 Page 9 of 28 PageID #: 26163
`
`
`
`
`
`b. All documents regarding the formation of the individual trusts set up for
`
`Glenn Leedy’s children (“the Child Trusts”);
`
`c. All documents regarding the transfer of interests in the Plaintiff to the
`
`Child Trusts;
`
`d. All documents regarding the admission of the Child Trusts as members of
`
`the Plaintiff;
`
`e. All documents regarding terms, conditions, requirements, or intentions for
`
`the Child Trusts;
`
`f. All documents regarding Ron Epstein’s authorization to act on behalf of
`
`the Child Trusts and/or on behalf of Glenn Leedy’s estate (including any
`
`applicable portions of Glenn Leedy’s will);
`
`g. All documents regarding Ron Epstein’s authorization from the Child
`
`Trusts’ to act on the Plaintiff’s behalf.
`
`3. Plaintiff shall produce all documents Defendants identified on Plaintiff’s privilege
`
`log as having insufficient claims of privilege.
`
`4. Plaintiff shall produce an unredacted version of
`
`
`
`5. Plaintiff shall make Ron Epstein available for four days of deposition.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: July ___, 2021
`
`__________________________________
`The Honorable Jennifer L. Hall
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 428 Filed 07/19/21 Page 10 of 28 PageID #: 26164
`
`Exhibit A
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 428 Filed 07/19/21 Page 11 of 28 PageID #: 26165
`
`
`THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 14-1431-LPS-CJB
`
`C.A. No. 14-1430-LPS-CJB
`
`C.A. No. 14-1432-LPS-CJB
`
`ELM 3DS INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., MICRON
`SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS, INC., and
`MICRON CONSUMER PRODUCTS
`GROUP, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`ELM 3DS INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC., and SAMSUNG AUSTIN
`SEMICONDUCTOR,
`LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`ELM 3DS INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SK HYNIX INC., SK HYNIX AMERICA
`INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR
`MANUFACTURING AMERICA INC., and
`SK HYNIX MEMORY SOLUTIONS
`INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`RLF1 12901628v.1
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 428 Filed 07/19/21 Page 12 of 28 PageID #: 26166
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
`AND THINGS TO PLAINTIFF ELM 3DS INNOVATIONS, LLC (Nos. 1 -76)
`
`Pursuant to Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Defendants Samsung
`
`Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Semiconductor Inc., Samsung Austin Semiconductor LLC, and
`
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (Case No. 14-cv-1430-LPS), SK hynix Inc., SK hynix
`
`America, Inc., Hynix Semiconductor Manufacturing America, Inc., and SK hynix Memory
`
`Solutions Inc. (Case No. 14-cv-01432-LPS-CJB), and Micron Technology, Inc., Micron
`
`Semiconductor Products, Inc. and Micron Consumer Products Group, Inc. (Case No. 14-cv-
`
`01431-LPS-CJB) (“Defendants”) hereby request that Plaintiff Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC
`
`(“Elm”) produce the Documents and Things described below for inspection and copying at the
`
`offices of Paul Hastings LLP, 875 15th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005; O’Melveny &
`
`Myers LLP, 610 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660; and K&L Gates, Four
`
`Embarcadero Center Suite 1200, San Francisco, CA 94111.
`
`DEFINITIONS
`
`1.
`
`If Elm requires clarification of a Definition of any term to comply with any
`
`request for production, contact undersigned counsel and request such clarification of Definition.
`
`2.
`
`“Elm,” “Plaintiff,” “You,” or “Your” means Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC (and/or
`
`Glenn Leedy) and all of its subsidiaries, parent companies, holding companies, divisions,
`
`subdivisions, components, units, partnerships, limited partnerships, joint ventures, associations,
`
`and affiliates; all predecessors, successors, and assigns of each of the foregoing; all past and
`
`present officers, employees, directors, agents, consultants, representatives, and attorneys of each
`
`of the foregoing; and all other Persons acting or purporting to act for, on behalf of, or in the
`
`interest of Elm.
`
`RLF1 12901628v.1
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 428 Filed 07/19/21 Page 13 of 28 PageID #: 26167
`
`
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 21:
`
`Documents and Things sufficient to show Mr. Leedy’s obligations, including with respect
`
`to the assignment of patents, inventions, and intellectual property, with any affiliated entity,
`
`including Elm, or any prior employer.
`
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 22:
`
`Documents and Things sufficient to show any policy, instruction or set of instructions,
`
`directive, policy statement, study, or other Communication by You relating to the destruction,
`
`management, or retention of documents or records.
`
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 23:
`
`All Documents and Things identified in Your responses to Defendants’ interrogatories to
`
`You or relied upon by You in preparing Your response to those interrogatories.
`
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 24:
`
`All licenses, assignments, settlement agreements, covenants not to sue, employment
`
`agreements, consulting agreements, or other Documents reflecting the transfer of rights or
`
`contingent rights to the Patents-in-Suit or any Related Patent or Related Patent Application.
`
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 25:
`
`All contracts or invoices between You and any third party regarding the sale or use of any
`
`product, system, or method that You offer or have offered for sale and claim is covered by any
`
`claim of the Patents-in-Suit or any Related Patent or Related Patent Application.
`
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 26:
`
`Documents and Things sufficient to show the consideration given to You by third parties
`
`related to any product, system, or method that You offer or have offered for sale and claim is
`
`covered by any claim of the Patents-in-Suit or any Related Patent or Related Patent Applications,
`
`RLF1 12901628v.1
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 428 Filed 07/19/21 Page 14 of 28 PageID #: 26168
`
`
`including but not limited to payments made for any licenses granted or product, system, or
`
`service purchased.
`
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 27:
`
`Documents and Things sufficient to show all internal or external tests, analyses, studies,
`
`comparisons, reports, surveys, forecasts, and/or examinations of Defendants’ accused products
`
`performed by Elm or on behalf of Elm, including but not limited to the full data or results of such
`
`tests, and processes used to conduct such tests or analyses.
`
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 28:
`
`All Documents and Things relating to Your contention that this is an exceptional case.
`
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 29:
`
`All Documents and Things relating to Your contention that any Defendants cited and/or
`
`discussed a Patent-in-suit, Related Patent or Related Patent Application in any Defendants’
`
`patent or patent application.
`
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 30:
`
`All Documents and Things related to the value to consumers of any alleged invention
`
`described in any Patent-in-Suit.
`
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 31:
`
`All Documents and Things concerning press releases, advertisements, literature,
`
`brochures, price lists, announcements, or other promotional materials concerning any Patent-in-
`
`Suit.
`
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 32:
`
`All Documents and Things relating to any interest (financial or otherwise) of any
`
`inventor of the Patents-in-Suit may have as a result of the outcome of one of the Cases.
`
`RLF1 12901628v.1
`
`- 16 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 428 Filed 07/19/21 Page 15 of 28 PageID #: 26169
`
`
`Semiconductor Corporation or any corporate parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors or
`
`successors thereof, on the other hand.
`
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 49:
`
`Documents sufficient to identify every licensee that You contend uses any alleged
`
`invention described in the Patents-in-Suit or Related Patents.
`
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 50:
`
`All Documents that identify by manufacturer and model number any product, system,
`
`technology or service that is or has been subject to a license or other grant of rights under the
`
`Patents-in-Suit or Related Patents.
`
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 51:
`
`All licensee reports for any product, system, technology or service that is or has been
`
`subject to a license or other grant of rights under the Patents-in-Suit or Related Patents.
`
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 52:
`
`All non-disclosure or confidentiality agreements between You and any Person referring
`
`or relating to any product, system or technology, which when used, incorporates, uses or
`
`performs any alleged invention described in the Patents-in-Suit or Related Patents.
`
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 53:
`
`All Documents referring or relating to any royalty for, or the value of, any license under
`
`the Patents-in-Suit or Related Patents.
`
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 54:
`
`All Documents that describe, discuss, reflect, analyze or refer to actual, potential, or
`
`appropriate royalty rates or licensing fees for the Patents-in-Suit or Related Patents.
`
`RLF1 12901628v.1
`
`- 20 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 428 Filed 07/19/21 Page 16 of 28 PageID #: 26170
`
`
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 55:
`
`All Documents and Things that refer to, relate to or reflect what You consider to be, or
`
`have been, an established or usual royalty in the industry to which the Patents-in-Suit relate.
`
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 56:
`
`All Documents referring or relating to any license payments, royalties, or any other
`
`consideration You have received or expect to receive for any license or other grant of rights
`
`under the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 57:
`
`All Documents referring or relating to the dollar amount of payments, royalties, and other
`
`consideration paid or to be paid under each license or other grant of rights under the Patents-in-
`
`Suit.
`
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 58:
`
`All Documents that analyze, describe, discuss or refer to the market, projected market or
`
`demand for products You contend are covered by the Patents-in-Suit, including without
`
`limitation, documents concerning competitors, market analyses, marketing plans, market
`
`research, market segments and market shares in the market or projected market for such
`
`products.
`
`REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 59:
`
`All Documents that constitute, discuss, describe, reflect, or refer to any analysis of the
`
`value, importance, or benefits of the Patents-in-Suit, including without limitation, documents that
`
`assess the value, importance, or benefits of any of the alleged inventions claimed or described in
`
`the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`RLF1 12901628v.1
`
`- 21 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 428 Filed 07/19/21 Page 17 of 28 PageID #: 26171
`
`
`Dated: August 28, 2015
`
`RICHARDS LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.
`
`
`
`/s/ Fredrick L. Cottrell, III
`Frederick L. Cottrell, III (#2555)
`Travis S. Hunter (#5350)
`920 North King Street
`One Rodney Square
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 651-7700
`cottrell@rlf.com
`hunter@rlf.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Micron Technology,
`Inc., Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc.,
`and Micron Consumer Products Group, Inc.,
`
`
`
`Counsel for Micron:
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`George Riley
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`Two Embarcadero Center
`28th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111-3823
`Telephone: (415) 984-8700
`griley@omm.com
`
`John Kappos
`Hana Oh Chen
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`610 Newport Center Drive
`Newport Beach, CA 92660-3823
`Telephone: (949) 823-6900
`jkappos@omm.com
`hchen@omm.com
`Brian Cook
`Xin-Yi Zhou
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`400 South Hope Street
`Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899
`Telephone: (213) 430-6000
`bcook@omm.com
`vzhou@omm.com
`
`RLF1 12901628v.1
`
`- 26 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 428 Filed 07/19/21 Page 18 of 28 PageID #: 26172
`
`
`Counsel for Samsung:
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`Allan M. Soobert
`Naveen Modi
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`875 15th Street N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: (202) 551-1700
`Facsimile: (202) 551-1705
`allansoobert@paulhastings.com
`naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`
`Andrew B. Grossman
`Jenifer Q. Doan
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`515 South Flower Street
`25th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: (213) 683-6000
`Facsimile: (213) 627-0705
`andrewgrossman@paulhastings.com
`jeniferdoan@paulhastings.com
`
`YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT &
`TAYLOR, LLP
`
`
`
`/s/ Monté T. Squire
`Adam W. Poff (No. 3990)
`Monté T. Squire (No. 4764)
`Gregory J. Brodzik (No. 5722)
`Rodney Square
`1000 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Telephone: (302) 571-6600
`apoff@ycst.com
`msquire@ycst.com
`gbrodzik@ycsst.com
`
`Attorneys For Defendants Samsung
`Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Semiconductor,
`Inc.,Samsung Electronics America,
`Inc., and Samsung Austin Semiconductor,
`LLC
`
`
`
`RLF1 12901628v.1
`
`- 27 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 428 Filed 07/19/21 Page 19 of 28 PageID #: 26173
`
`
`Counsel for SK hynix:
`
`K&L GATES LLP
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`Michael J. Bettinger
`Howard L. Chen
`Harold H. Davis
`K&L GATES LLP
`Four Embarcadero Center
`Suite 1200
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: (415) 882-8200
`Facsimile: (415) 882-8220
`mike.bettinger@klgates.com
`howard.chen@klgates.com
`harold.davis@klgates.com
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Lauren Garraux
`Lauren Garraux (No. 5490)
`405 North King Street
`Suite 700
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Telephone: (302) 416-7000
`Facsimile: (302) 416-7020
`lauren.garraux@klgates.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants sk Hynix inc., sk
`Hynix America Inc., Hynix Semiconductor
`Manufacturing America Inc., and sk Hynix
`Memory Solutions Inc,
`
`RLF1 12901628v.1
`
`- 28 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 428 Filed 07/19/21 Page 20 of 28 PageID #: 26174
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I, Travis S. Hunter, hereby certify that on 28th day of August 2015 true and correct copies
`
`of the foregoing document were served on the following in the manner indicated:
`
`BY ELECTRONIC MAIL
`Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.
`Brian E. Farnan
`Michael J. Farnan
`Farnan LLP
`919 North Market Street, 12th Floor
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`Telephone: (302) 777–0300
`Facsimile: (302) 777–0301
`farnan@farnanlaw.com
`bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`mfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`
`
`
`BY ELECTRONIC MAIL
`William H. Manning
`Samuel L. Walling
`Aaron R. Fahrenkrog
`Christine S. Yun Sauer
`Matthew J.M. Pelikan
`ROBINS KAPLAN LLP.
`2800 LaSalle Plaza
`800 LaSalle Avenue
`Minneapolis, MN 55402–2015
`Telephone: (612) 349–8500
`Facsimile: (612) 339–4181
`wmanning@robinskaplan.com
`swalling@robinskaplan.com
`afahrenkrog@robinskaplan.com
`cyunsauer@robinskaplan.com
`mpelikan@robinskaplan.com
`
`
`/s/ Travis S. Hunter
`Travis S. Hunter (#5350)
`
`RLF1 12901628v.1
`
`- 29 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 428 Filed 07/19/21 Page 21 of 28 PageID #: 26175
`
` Exhibit B
`Redacted in Its Entirety
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 428 Filed 07/19/21 Page 22 of 28 PageID #: 26176
`
`Exhibit C
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 428 Filed 07/19/21 Page 23 of 28 PageID #: 26177
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`ELM 3DS INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.., et al.,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 14-cv-1430-LPS
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`ELM’S RESPONSES TO SAMSUNG’S FIRST SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES
`
`Under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Civil Rule 26.1, Plaintiff
`
`Elm Technology Innovations, LLC, (“Elm”), through its counsel Bartlit Beck LLP responds to
`
`Defendant Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Samsung Electronics
`
`America, Inc. and Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC’s (Case No. 14-cv-01430-LPS) (“Samsung”)
`
`First Set of Interrogatories.
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`
`Elm makes the following General Objections to each Interrogatory, as applicable, in addition
`
`to any objections that are made to particular Interrogatories:
`
`1.
`
`Elm bases its responses to these Definitions, Instructions, and Interrogatories
`
`upon information known at this time. Elm’s investigation is ongoing and Elm reserves the right to
`
`rely upon any facts, documents, or other evidence that it may develop or that may come to its
`
`attention at a later time. Elm sets forth these responses without prejudice to its right to supplement
`
`these responses or assert additional objections should it discover additional information or
`
`additional grounds for objections.
`
`2.
`
`Elm objects to each Definition, Instruction, and Interrogatory to the extent that it
`
`purports to impose any requirement or discovery obligation upon Elm beyond those set forth by the
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 428 Fi