Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 472-2 Filed 02/10/22 Page 1 of 31 PageID #: 27358
`
`Exhibit 1
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 472-2 Filed 02/10/22 Page 2 of 31 PageID #: 27359
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`ELM 3DS INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.., et al.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 14-cv-1430-LPS-CJB
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF ELM 3DS’S FIFTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO SAMSUNG
`
`Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 33, Plaintiff Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC (“Elm
`
`3DS”) requests that Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.,
`
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC (collectively
`
`“Samsung”), answer the following interrogatories in writing, under oath, and serve a copy of the
`
`answers upon Bartlit Beck LLP, 1801 Wewatta Street, Suite 1200, Denver, CO 80202 within 30 days
`
`of service of these interrogatories. These interrogatories are continuing in nature and must be
`
`supplemented or corrected, or both, in a timely manner.
`
`DEFINITIONS
`
`1.
`
`The term “Elm 3DS” refers to the Plaintiff in these actions and all parents,
`
`subsidiaries, affiliates, assignees, predecessors, employees, and agents thereof.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The term “Elm 3DS Patents” refers to the asserted patents in these actions.
`
`The terms “You” and “Your” mean the Samsung Defendants in these actions and their
`
`parents, subsidiaries, divisions, affiliates, predecessors, assignees, successors, and acquired assets of
`
`business units, and any of their present or former officers, directors, trustees, employees, agents,
`
`representatives, attorneys, patent agents, and all other persons acting on their behalf.
`
`4.
`
`The term “Product(s)” means any stacked semiconductor product that is sold by you,
`
`or incorporated into a product that is sold by you, that contains a semiconductor layer with a thickness
`
`of 50 microns or less. For the avoidance of doubt, “Product(s)” include all types of semiconductor
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 472-2 Filed 02/10/22 Page 3 of 31 PageID #: 27360
`
`products that meet the above definition, regardless of their function (e.g., memory, image sensor,
`
`control, etc.). In addition, although Elm expects that there may be Products that are not included in
`
`the following documents, the term Product(s) specifically includes each Product listed in, or included
`
`in other products listed in, the following documents: Samsung-Elm-000062357 – Samsung-Elm-
`
`000062374.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`The term “Physical Dimensions” includes height, width, and thickness.
`
`The term “Relevant Die” means any die with a thickness of 50 microns or less. For
`
`the avoidance of doubt, this thickness measurement refers only to the semiconductor die itself, and
`
`not to the dielectric, metal, or other material that may be deposited on the die.
`
`7.
`
`The term “Material Properties” means every known, estimated, or measured property
`
`of the material, including each of the following:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`Young’s modulus
`
`Shear modulus
`
`Poisson’s ratio
`
`Coefficient of thermal expansion
`
`Density
`
`Heat capacity
`
`Thermal conductivity.
`
`8.
`
`The term “Stress Target” means a desired level or range of stress for a given entity,
`
`such as a die or a dielectric layer within a die.
`
`9.
`
`The term “Stress Measurement” means any determination or estimation of stress that
`
`involves the use of physical measurements.
`
`10.
`
`The term “Stress Simulation” means any determination or estimation of stress that
`
`involves the use of modeling or simulation techniques.
`
`
`
`
` 2
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 472-2 Filed 02/10/22 Page 4 of 31 PageID #: 27361
`
`11.
`
`The term “Rigid Carrier” means a carrier that is used to facilitate processing of a die
`
`or wafer through one or more manufacturing process steps, but that ultimately does not become part
`
`of the product or remain with the die.
`
`1.
`
`Lost or Destroyed Documents: If any document or tangible thing for which identification
`
`INSTRUCTIONS
`
`is requested was formerly in existence or in your possession but no longer exists, or no longer is within
`
`your possession, custody or control, your response should state, for each such document or thing: (a)
`
`an identification of the document or thing and, if a document, its author and addressee; (b) the date
`
`and circumstances of such loss or destruction; and (c) the reason or justification for such loss or
`
`destruction.
`
`2.
`
`Documents for Which a Privilege Is Claimed: To the extent of any claim that any information
`
`or document is privileged or in any other way free from discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure, you are requested, in lieu of producing said information or document, to produce a
`
`description of the information or document sufficient to allow Elm 3DS a specific understanding of
`
`the nature of the objection; and if a document, the identification of the author, the date of the
`
`document, the addressee(s), the person(s) who received copies of the document, and the general
`
`subject matter of the document.
`
`3.
`
`Ongoing Duty to Supplement: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e), you are
`
`required to supplement your response to include further information that may become available after
`
`the date of your response to these interrogatories.
`
`INTERROGATORIES
`6. Separately for each stacked semiconductor product that constitutes, or is included in, a
`
`Product, identify the die included in the Product, including the following data:
`
`a. Identifier(s) of each die in the stack (e.g. part number);
`
`
`
`
` 3
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 472-2 Filed 02/10/22 Page 5 of 31 PageID #: 27362
`
`b. The Physical Dimensions of each die in the stack;
`
`c. The type of die (e.g., DRAM, NAND, controller, etc.);
`
`d. The process node used to make the die; and
`
`e. The quantity of each type of die in the packaged product.
`
`7. Separately for each Relevant Die in each stacked semiconductor product that constitutes, or is
`
`included in, a Product, identify each dielectric, including without limitation each pre-metal dielectric,
`
`inter-layer dielectric, inter-metal dielectric, and passivation layer(s) that is deposited on the die,
`
`including the following information about each dielectric:
`
`a. Any identifiers You use to describe or identify the dielectric;
`
`b. Material composition of the dielectric;
`
`c. Material Properties of the dielectric; and
`
`d. All process parameters and equipment used for deposition of the dielectric.
`
`8. For each dielectric identified in response to Interrogatory Number 7, identify all stress data,
`
`whether from ongoing process monitoring, quality control, simulation, or process qualification,
`
`including the following:
`
`a. All Stress Targets for the dielectric;
`
`b. All Stress Measurements of the dielectric; and
`
`c. All Stress Simulations of the dielectric.
`
`9. Separately for each Relevant Die in each stacked semiconductor product that constitutes, or is
`
`included in, a Product, identify when in the manufacturing process the die is thinned to 50 microns
`
`(or less), including the following:
`
`a. Whether it is thinned to 50 microns (or less) before or after it is stacked with another
`
`die; and
`
`
`
`
` 4
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 472-2 Filed 02/10/22 Page 6 of 31 PageID #: 27363
`
`b. Whether at any point in time after the die is thinned to 50 microns (or less) and before
`
`the die is stacked with another die, the die is detached from any Rigid Carrier.
`
`10. Identify every agreement in which you received a license to intellectual property that relates to
`
`any Product, including without limitation the following types of licenses:
`
`a. Licenses to intellectual property that is used or incorporated in any Product;
`
`b. Licenses to intellectual property that is used or incorporated in the manufacture of
`
`any Product; and
`
`c. Licenses to intellectual property that is used by Your customers when they use any
`
`Product.
`
`
`
`
` 5
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 472-2 Filed 02/10/22 Page 7 of 31 PageID #: 27364
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/s/Michael J. Farnan
`Brian E. Farnan (#4089)
`Michael J. Farnan (#5165)
`FARNAN LAW LLP
`919 North Market Street
`12th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Tel: (302) 777-0300
`Fax: (302) 777-0301
`bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`mfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`
`Adam K. Mortara (pro hac vice)
`adam.mortara@bartlitbeck.com
`Matthew R. Ford (pro hac vice)
`matthew.ford@bartlitbeck.com
`BARTLIT BECK LLP
`54 W. Hubbard Street, Suite 300
`Chicago, IL 60654
`Tel: (312) 494-4400
`Fax: (312) 494-4440
`
`John M. Hughes (pro hac vice)
`john.hughes@bartlitbeck.com
`Nosson D. Knobloch (pro hac vice)
`nosson.knobloch@bartlitbeck.com
`Katherine L.I. Hacker (pro hac vice)
`kat.hacker@bartlitbeck.com
`Daniel C. Taylor (pro hac vice)
`dan.taylor@bartlitbeck.com
`BARTLIT BECK LLP
`1801 Wewatta Street, Suite 1200
`Denver, CO 80202
`Tel: (303) 592-3100
`Fax: (303) 592-3140
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff
`ELM 3DS INNOVATIONS, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 6
`
`
`April 24, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 472-2 Filed 02/10/22 Page 8 of 31 PageID #: 27365
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on December April 24, 2020, a copy of Elm’s Fifth Set of Interrogatories
`
`to Samsung was served on the following as indicated:
`
`Via E-Mail
`Adam W. Poff
`Pilar G Kraman
`Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP
`Rodney Square
`1000 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`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
`
`Via E-Mail
`Allan M. Soobert
`Naveen Modi
`Phillip W. Citroën
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`ServicePHSamsung-
`ELM3DS@paulhastings.com
`Attorneys for Defendants Samsung Electronics Co.,
`Ltd., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Samsung
`Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Austin
`Semiconductor, LLC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/Michael J. Farnan .
`Michael Farnan
`
`
`
`
` 7
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 472-2 Filed 02/10/22 Page 9 of 31 PageID #: 27366
`
`Exhibit 2
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 472-2 Filed 02/10/22 Page 10 of 31 PageID #: 27367
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 14-cv-1430-LPS
`
`
`
`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.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO ELM’S FIFTH SET OF
`INTERROGATORIES TO SAMSUNG
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendants Samsung
`
`Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and
`
`Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC (collectively “Samsung”) hereby object and respond to
`
`Plaintiff ELM 3DS Innovations, LLC’s (“Elm”) Fifth Set of Interrogatories, dated April 22,
`
`2020.
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`
`
`
`Samsung makes the following general responses and objections (“General Objections”)
`
`to each “Definition,” “Instruction,” and “Interrogatory” propounded in Elm’s Fifth Set of
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 472-2 Filed 02/10/22 Page 11 of 31 PageID #: 27368
`
`
`Interrogatories to Samsung. These General Objections are hereby incorporated into each specific
`
`response. The assertion of the same, similar or additional objections or partial responses to
`
`individual interrogatories does not waive any of Samsung’s General Objections.
`
`1.
`
`Samsung objects to Elm’s definition of “Elm” and “Elm 3DS” as vague,
`
`ambiguous, overbroad, and unduly burdensome to the extent that they include “all parents,
`
`subsidiaries, affiliates, assignees, predecessors, employees, and agents thereof.” Samsung
`
`further objects to the definition as not reasonably tied to Elm’s infringement allegations and
`
`potentially seeking information not relevant to any party’s claim or defense and not proportional
`
`to the needs of this case. Samsung further objects to the extent that these terms may include
`
`persons or entities that are not parties to this action.
`
`2.
`
`Samsung objects to Elm’s definitions of “you” and “your” as overbroad, unduly
`
`burdensome, and oppressive to the extent that they include Samsung “and their parents,
`
`subsidiaries, divisions, affiliates, predecessors, assigns, successors, and acquired assets of
`
`business units, and any of their present or former officers, directors, trustees, employees, agents,
`
`representatives, attorneys, patent agents, and all other persons acting on their behalf.” Samsung
`
`will respond, subject to and without waiving all other objections, only as to the named Samsung
`
`Defendants: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Samsung Electronics
`
`America, Inc., and Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC.
`
`3.
`
`Samsung objects to Elm’s Instruction No. 1 because it purports to impose
`
`requirements and obligations on Samsung other than as set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure.
`
`4.
`
`Samsung provides these objections and responses to the best of its current
`
`knowledge. Discovery or further investigation may reveal additional or different information
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 472-2 Filed 02/10/22 Page 12 of 31 PageID #: 27369
`
`
`warranting amendment of these objections and responses. Samsung reserves the right to produce
`
`at trial and make reference to any evidence, facts, documents, or information not discovered at
`
`this time, omitted through good-faith error, mistake, or oversight, or the relevance of which
`
`Samsung has not presently identified.
`
`5.
`
`By responding to these interrogatories, Samsung does not concede the relevance
`
`or materiality of any of the interrogatories or of the subjects to which it refers. Samsung’s
`
`responses are made subject to, and without waiving any objections as to the competency,
`
`relevancy, materiality, privilege, or admissibility of any of the responses, or of the subject matter
`
`to which they concern, in any proceeding in this action or in any other proceeding.
`
`6.
`
`Samsung objects to any interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information that is
`
`protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, the
`
`joint defense or common interest privilege, or any other applicable privilege, doctrine, or
`
`discovery immunity. The inadvertent production by Samsung of information protected from
`
`disclosure by any such privilege, doctrine, or immunity shall not be deemed a waiver by
`
`Samsung of such privileges or protections.
`
`7.
`
`Samsung objects generally to the interrogatories to the extent they seek
`
`confidential, proprietary, or trade secret information of third parties. Samsung will endeavor to
`
`work with third parties in order to obtain their consent, if necessary, before providing such
`
`information. To the extent an interrogatory seeks information of a confidential or proprietary
`
`nature to Samsung, or to others to whom Samsung is under an obligation of confidentiality,
`
`Samsung will respond pursuant to the terms of the protective order entered in this case and
`
`subject to notice to third parties, as necessary.
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 472-2 Filed 02/10/22 Page 13 of 31 PageID #: 27370
`
`
`8.
`
`Samsung objects to each interrogatory and to Elm’s “Definitions” and
`
`“Instructions” to the extent they are vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, are not
`
`proportional to the needs of this case, or purport to impose upon Samsung any duty or obligation
`
`that is inconsistent with or in excess of those obligations that are imposed by the Federal Rules
`
`of Civil Procedure, the Civil Local Rules and/or the Patent Local Rules of this Court, or any
`
`other applicable rule.
`
`9.
`
`Samsung objects to any interrogatory to the extent it seeks irrelevant information
`
`about Samsung’s products or business operations, or is not otherwise proportional to the needs of
`
`this case. Such requests are overbroad and unduly burdensome. Samsung will only produce
`
`information that is relevant to the patents-in-suit, or that is otherwise related to the claims or
`
`defenses asserted by the parties in this litigation.
`
`10.
`
`Samsung objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it would impose a duty on
`
`Samsung to undertake a search for or an evaluation of information, documents, or things for
`
`which Elm is equally able to search for and evaluate and/or is not proportional to the needs of
`
`this case. In particular, Samsung objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it seeks
`
`information or documents that are publicly available.
`
`11.
`
`Samsung objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information that
`
`can be derived or ascertained from documents that will be produced in discovery, is not
`
`otherwise proportional to the needs of this case, or that is uniquely in Elm’s possession, custody,
`
`and control.
`
`12.
`
`Samsung objects to each interrogatory to the extent it would require Samsung to
`
`draw a legal conclusion or contention to make a proper response.
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 472-2 Filed 02/10/22 Page 14 of 31 PageID #: 27371
`
`
`13.
`
`Samsung objects to each interrogatory to the extent that it purports to define
`
`words or phrases to have a meaning different from their commonly understood meaning, or to
`
`include more than their commonly understood definitions.
`
`14.
`
`In Samsung’s objections, the terms “and” and “or” are intended to be construed
`
`conjunctively or disjunctively as necessary to make the objections inclusive rather than
`
`exclusive.
`
`15.
`
`Samsung objects to each interrogatory to the extent it purports to require Samsung
`
`to identify or describe or identify “every,” “each,” “any,” or other similarly expansive, infinite,
`
`or all-inclusive terms as overbroad and unduly burdensome.
`
`16.
`
`Samsung objects to Elm’s “Instructions” and the interrogatories to the extent they
`
`seek information that is not in the possession, custody, or control of Samsung, purport to require
`
`Samsung to speculate about the identity of persons who might have responsive documents,
`
`and/or purport to call for any description of documents that Samsung no longer possesses and/or
`
`was under no obligation to maintain.
`
`17.
`
`Samsung objects to each interrogatory to the extent it is not limited in time and
`
`seeks information for periods of time that is not relevant to any claim or defense and is not
`
`otherwise proportional to the needs of this case.
`
`18.
`
`Samsung objects to the interrogatories as a whole, and to each interrogatory
`
`contained therein, to the extent they are overbroad, unreasonably burdensome, and/or not
`
`proportional to the needs of this case. In particular, Samsung objects to the interrogatories as a
`
`whole, and to each interrogatory contained therein, to the extent they seek irrelevant information
`
`about accused products. By answering, objecting, and otherwise responding to the
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 472-2 Filed 02/10/22 Page 15 of 31 PageID #: 27372
`
`
`interrogatories, Samsung does not concede relevance or admissibility, both of which Samsung
`
`reserves the right to challenge.
`
`19.
`
`Samsung objects to the interrogatories as a whole, and to each interrogatory
`
`contained therein, to the extent they are premature and/or to the extent they: (a) conflict with any
`
`schedule entered by the Court; (b) seek information that is the subject of expert testimony; (c)
`
`seek information and/or responses that are dependent on the Court’s construction of the asserted
`
`claims of the patents-in-suit; or (d) are dependent on depositions and documents that have not
`
`been taken or produced.
`
`20.
`
`Samsung’s objections as set forth herein are made without prejudice to Samsung’s
`
`right to assert any additional or supplemental objections pursuant to Rule 26(e).
`
`21.
`
`Samsung will make, and has made, reasonable efforts to respond to Elm’s Fifth
`
`Set of Interrogatories to Samsung, to the extent that no objection is made, as Samsung
`
`reasonably understands and interprets each Interrogatory. If Elm subsequently asserts any
`
`interpretation of any interrogatory that differs from the interpretation of Samsung, then Samsung
`
`reserves the right to supplement and amend its objections and responses.
`
`OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES
`
`Subject to the foregoing qualifications and General Objections and the specific objections
`made below, Samsung objects and responds to Elm’s Fifth Set of Interrogatories to Samsung as
`follows:
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 472-2 Filed 02/10/22 Page 16 of 31 PageID #: 27373
`
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
`Separately for each stacked semiconductor product that constitutes, or is included in, a
`Product, identify the die included in the Product, including the following data:
`a.
`Identifier(s) of each die in the stack (e.g. part number);
`b.
`The Physical Dimensions of each die in the stack;
`c.
`The type of die (e.g., DRAM, NAND, controller, etc.);
`d.
`The process node used to make the die; and
`e.
`The quantity of each type of die in the packaged product.
`OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
`Samsung incorporates by reference the General Objections as if fully set forth herein. In
`addition, Samsung objects to this interrogatory to the extent it calls for information protected
`from discovery under the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, and other
`applicable privileges or restrictions on discovery. Samsung further objects to this interrogatory
`to the extent that it seeks private, privileged, and confidential commercial, financial, and/or
`proprietary business information. Samsung further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds
`that it is improperly compound. Elm’s reference to this as a singular interrogatory is an
`impermissible attempt to circumvent the number of interrogatories permitted to be served by Elm
`pursuant to ¶ 7(e) of the Court’s Scheduling Order. (D.I. 111). Samsung further objects to this
`interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad as to “semiconductor
`product,” “identifier,” “part number” and “type.” These terms are undefined and capable of
`different interpretations. It therefore requires Samsung to guess as to what Elm meant by the
`identified terms, and therefore, what information is actually being requested. Samsung further
`objects to this interrogatory as ambiguous and overbroad to the extent that it is unlimited with
`respect to time and seeks information for periods of time that are not relevant to any claim or
`defense and is not otherwise proportional to the needs of this case. In particular, because the
`patents-in-suit have expired, Samsung objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 472-2 Filed 02/10/22 Page 17 of 31 PageID #: 27374
`
`
`production of post-patent expiration data or information. Samsung further objects to this
`interrogatory to the extent it would require Samsung to draw a legal conclusion or contention to
`make a proper response. Samsung further objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it is
`duplicative and seeks information that can be derived or ascertained from documents and things
`that were produced in discovery and that are in Elm’s possession, custody, and control. Samsung
`further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information not in Samsung’s
`possession, custody, or control. For example, a “Product . . . that contains a semiconductor layer
`that is 50 microns or less,” under Elm’s definition of “Product,” may encompass a product of a
`third party whose information is not in Samsung’s possession, custody, or control. Samsung
`further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information that Samsung is not
`permitted to disclose pursuant to confidentiality obligations to, or nondisclosure agreements
`with, third parties, or pursuant to a privacy right of a third party. Samsung further objects to this
`interrogatory to the extent it is not reasonably tied to Elm’s infringement allegations and
`potentially seeking information not relevant to any party’s claim or defense and not proportional
`to the needs of this case. Samsung further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks
`information unrelated to the products or components that are properly accused in this case or are
`in the proper scope of this case. Samsung further objects to this interrogatory as overbroad and
`unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks information that Samsung does not maintain in its
`ordinary course of business.
`Subject to and without in any way waiving the foregoing objections, and to the extent it
`understands this interrogatory, Samsung responds as follows:
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), Samsung refers Elm to the documents
`bearing bates numbers SAMSUNG-ELM-000058542; SAMSUNG-ELM-000062356;
`SAMSUNG-ELM-000127642 – SAMSUNG-ELM-000127658; SAMSUNG-ELM-000127928 –
`SAMSUNG-ELM-000127950; SAMSUNG-ELM-000128100 – SAMSUNG-ELM-000128122;
`SAMSUNG-ELM-000128198 – SAMSUNG-ELM-000128208; SAMSUNG-ELM-000128451 –
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 472-2 Filed 02/10/22 Page 18 of 31 PageID #: 27375
`
`
`SAMSUNG-ELM-000128463; SAMSUNG-ELM-000128539 – SAMSUNG-ELM-000128560;
`SAMSUNG-ELM-000129037 – SAMSUNG-ELM-000129050; SAMSUNG-ELM-000129088 –
`SAMSUNG-ELM-000129100; SAMSUNG-ELM-000129190 – SAMSUNG-ELM-000129204;
`SAMSUNG-ELM-000129254 – SAMSUNG-ELM-000129274, wherein additional information
`responsive to this interrogatory may be found.
`Samsung expressly reserves the right to supplement this response following further
`investigation and/or discovery.
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
`Separately for each Relevant Die in each stacked semiconductor product that constitutes,
`or is included in, a Product, identify each dielectric, including without limitation each pre-metal
`dielectric, inter-layer dielectric, inter-metal dielectric, and passivation layer(s) that is deposited
`on the die, including the following information about each dielectric:
`a.
`Any identifiers You use to describe or identify the dielectric;
`b.
`Material composition of the dielectric;
`c.
`Material Properties of the dielectric; and
`d.
`All process parameters and equipment used for deposition of the dielectric.
`OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 7:
`Samsung incorporates by reference the General Objections as if fully set forth herein. In
`addition, Samsung objects to this interrogatory to the extent it calls for information protected
`from discovery under the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, and other
`applicable privileges or restrictions on discovery. Samsung further objects to this interrogatory
`to the extent that it seeks private, privileged, and confidential commercial, financial, and/or
`proprietary business information. Samsung further objects to this interrogatory on the grounds
`that it is improperly compound. Elm’s reference to this as a singular interrogatory is an
`impermissible attempt to circumvent the number of interrogatories permitted to be served by Elm
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 472-2 Filed 02/10/22 Page 19 of 31 PageID #: 27376
`
`
`pursuant to ¶ 7(e) of the Court’s Scheduling Order. (D.I. 111). Samsung further objects to this
`interrogatory on the grounds that it is vague, ambiguous, and overbroad as to “semiconductor
`product,” “dielectric,” “passivation,” “identifiers,” “process,” “parameters” and “equipment.”
`These terms are undefined and capable of different interpretations. It therefore requires Samsung
`to guess as to what Elm meant by the identified terms, and therefore, what information is actually
`being requested. Samsung further objects to this interrogatory as ambiguous and overbroad to
`the extent that it is unlimited with respect to time and seeks information for periods of time that
`are not relevant to any claim or defense and is not otherwise proportional to the needs of this
`case. In particular, because the patents-in-suit have expired, Samsung further objects to this
`interrogatory to the extent it seeks production of post-patent expiration data or information.
`Samsung objects to this interrogatory to the extent it would require Samsung to draw a legal
`conclusion or contention to make a proper response. Samsung further objects to this
`interrogatory to the extent that it is duplicative and seeks information that can be derived or
`ascertained from documents and things that were produced in discovery and that are in Elm’s
`possession, custody, and control. Samsung further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it
`seeks information not in Samsung’s possession, custody, or control. For example, a “Product . . .
`that contains a semiconductor layer that is 50 microns or less,” under Elm’s definition of
`“Product,” may encompass a product of a third party whose information is not in Samsung’s
`possession, custody, or control. Samsung further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it
`seeks information that Samsung is not permitted to disclose pursuant to confidentiality
`obligations to, or nondisclosure agreements with, third parties, or pursuant to a privacy right of a
`third party. Samsung further objects to this interrogatory to the extent it is not reasonably tied to
`Elm’s infringement allegations and potentially seeking information not relevant to any party’s
`claim or defense and not proportional to the needs of this case. Samsung further objects to this
`interrogatory to the extent it seeks information unrelated to the products or components that are
`properly accused in this case or are in the proper scope of this case. Samsung further objects to
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 472-2 Filed 02/10/22 Page 20 of 31 PageID #: 27377
`
`
`this interrogatory as overbroad and unduly burdensome to the extent it seeks information that
`Samsung does not maintain in its ordinary course of business.
`Subject to and without in any way waiving the foregoing objections, and to the extent it
`understands this interrogatory, Samsung responds as follows: pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
`Procedure 33(d), Samsung refers Elm to the documents bearing bates numbers SAMSUNG-
`ELM-000000022 – SAMSUNG-ELM-000000249; SAMSUNG-ELM-000000291 –
`SAMSUNG-ELM-000000301; SAMSUNG-ELM-000000388 – SAMSUNG-ELM-000000722;
`SAMSUNG-ELM-000000916 – SAMSUNG-ELM-000001249; SAMSUNG-ELM-000044571 –
`SAMSUNG-ELM-000045238; SAMSUNG-ELM-000054900 – SAMSUNG-ELM-000054961;
`SAMSUNG-ELM-000055208 – SAMSUNG-ELM-000056061; SAMSUNG-ELM-000056211 –
`SAMSUNG-ELM-000056782; SAMSUNG-ELM-000056797 – SAMSUNG-ELM-000057122;
`SAMSUNG-ELM-000057184 – SAMSUNG-ELM-000057212; SAMSUNG-ELM-000057217 –
`SAMSUNG-ELM-000057277; SAMSUNG-ELM-000057280 – SAMSUNG-ELM-000057284;
`SAMSUNG-ELM-000057287; SAMSUNG-ELM-000058255 – SAMSUNG-ELM-000058275;
`SAMSUNG-ELM-000220168 – SAMSUNG-ELM-000220170; SAMSUNG-ELM-000220226;
`SAMSUNG-ELM-000220236 – SAMSUNG-ELM-000220239; SAMSUNG-ELM-000220262;
`SAMSUNG-ELM-000220263 – SAMSUNG-ELM-000220266; SAMSUNG-ELM-000220273 –
`SAMSUNG-ELM-000220353; SAMSUNG-ELM-000220354 – SAMSUNG-ELM-000220356,
`wherein information responsive to this interrogatory may be found.
`Documents responsive to this interrogatory are also available for inspection on a stand-
`alone computer according to the parties’ December 17, 2015, joint letter to the Court and the
`Protective Order entered by the Court.
`Samsung expressly reserves the right to supplement this response following further
`investigation and/or discovery.
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 472-2 Filed 02/10/22 Page 21 of 31 PageID #: 27378
`
`
`INTERROGATORY NO. 8:
`For each dielectric identified in response to Interrogatory Number 7, identify all stress
`data, whether from ongoing process monitoring, quality control, simulation, o