Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 477 Filed 02/18/22 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 27709
`
`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
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`DEFENDANTS’ LETTER IN RESPONSE TO ELM’S LETTER REGARDING
`SAMSUNG’S RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORY NOS. 6-8
`
`Dated February 11, 2022
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Allan M. Soobert
`Naveen Modi
`Phillip W. Citroen
`Koichiro Kidokoro
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`875 15th Street, N.W.
`Washington, D.C. 20005
`(202) 551-1700
`allansoobert@paulhastings.com
`naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`phillipcitroen@paulhastings.com
`koichirokidokoro@paulhastings.com
`
`Yar R. Chaikovsky
`Philip Ou
`Joseph J. Rumpler, II
`
`YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT &
`TAYLOR, LLP
`Adam W. Poff (No. 3990)
`Pilar G. Kraman (No. 5199)
`Rodney Square
`1000 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(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 477 Filed 02/18/22 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 27710
`
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`1117 California Avenue
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`(650) 320-1800
`yarchaikovsky@paulhastings.com
`philipou@paulhastings.com
`josephrumpler@paulhastings.com
`
`Elizabeth L. Brann
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`4747 Executive Drive, 12th Floor
`San Diego, CA 92121
`(858) 458-3000
`elizabethbrann@paulhastings.com
`
`Soyoung Jung
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`515 S. Flower Street, 25th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`(213) 683-6000
`soyoungjung@paulhastings.com
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 477 Filed 02/18/22 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 27711
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 477 Filed 02/18/22 Page 3 of 6 PagelD #: 27711
`
`Dear Magistrate Judge Hall:
`
`Elm incorrectly alleges that Samsung failed to “substantively respond[]” to Elm’s
`interrogatories. Samsung properly relied on Rule 33(d) by identifying responsive documents that
`it produced to Elm. Manyissues raised by Elm can be resolved by its own diligence, while others
`require information not in Samsung’s possession, custody or control. Altogether, none of the issues
`warrant placing an undue burden on Samsungfor narrative interrogatory responses.
`
`L.
`
`Samsung’s Reliance on Rule 33(d) to Respond to Elm’s Interrogatories Is Proper
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d) providesthat “[i]f the answer to an interrogatory may be determined
`by examining, auditing, compiling, abstracting, or summarizing a party’s business records,” and
`“afthe burden of deriving or ascertaining the answerwill be substantially the samefor either party,”
`the respondent may answerby “specifying the records that must be reviewed, in sufficient detail
`to enable the interrogating party to locate and identify them as readily as the responding party,”
`and “giving the interrogating party a reasonable opportunity to examine and audit the records and
`to make copies, compilations, abstracts, or summaries.” Rule 33(d) is met.
`
`First, Elm’s interrogatories seek detailed technical data, specifically, the following for each
`die in the accused products: identifiers (No. 6); dimensions (No. 6); type (No. 6); process node
`(No. 6); quantity (No. 6); identifiers for dielectrics (No. 7); composition of each dielectric (No. 7):
`material properties of each dielectric (No. 7); process parameters and equipment (No. 7); and
`dielectric stress data (No. 8). The answers to these questions, where available, can be ascertained
`in “business records” that Samsung produced to Elm after a reasonable search.
`
`Second, given the numerousdata sought and Samsung’s highly technical documents, the
`burden ofderiving the answersto interrogatories 6-8 will be substantially the same for both parties.
`To illustrate, Samsung compiled a few examples showing how Elm could readily glean the
`requested data from documents Samsung identified for Elm. Ex. A (exemplar image sensor
`product), and Ex. B (exemplar memory products). These disclosures respond to Elm’s
`interrogatories seeking the “quantity of each type of die” (No. 6.e); “material composition” (No.
`7.b); “process parameters and equipment” (No. 7.d); and “Stress Measurements” (No.8.b).
`
`Third, as Elm agrees, Samsung identified documents responsive to each part of Elm’s
`interrogatories 6-8. D.I. 471, Ex. 6. Samsung thus provided Elm guidance to derive the requested
`information on its own. R.W. Thomas Const. MangemenCo., Inc. v. Corrugated Servs., Inc., 1995
`WL 592539, *2 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 2, 1995) (on information “ascertainable from the files” produced,
`Rule 33(d) “permits a shift of the burdento dig it out once the respondents have specified the
`records from where the answer can be derived or ascertained”) (emphasis added).
`
`Fourth, many of the identified documents were first produced three years ago, and Elm
`
`had the opportunity to review them. While certain sensitive information (Ll was
`
`produced on a standalone computer and Elm was prohibited from copying
`from it, Elm was
`allowedto take notes during its review. D.I. 72 at 2. Indeed, Elm
`
`
`Elm’sassertions about the prohibitions
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 477 Filed 02/18/22 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 27712
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 477 Filed 02/18/22 Page 4 of 6 PagelD #: 27712
`
`on this data are exaggerated,as is its unsupported claim that Samsung “‘cannot rely on documents
`sequestered on this standalone computer to respond to interrogatories.” D.I. 471 at 2. Moreover,
`Elm has already deposed Samsung’s engineers familiar with these documents, and has indicated
`its intent to depose additional witnesses. Thus, Elm has had and will have opportunities to ask
`Samsung’s witnesses any outstanding questions it may have. Ex. P (Elmasking Samsung’s witness
`about the term “NPW”); Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst. v. Apple Inc., 2014 WL 1871866, at *5
`(N.D.N.Y. May 8, 2014) (finding reliance on Rule 33(d) to cite source code and a deposition to
`explain anything that remained unclearas the most“efficient and effective means of obtaining the
`information sought’).
`
`As a result, Samsung’s reliance on Rule 33(d) for interrogatories seeking technical and
`data-intensive information is proper, as courts have consistently found. Novanta Corp. v. Iradion
`Laser, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126042, at *24-25 (D. Del. Sep. 16, 2016) (permitting Rule
`33(d) response to interrogatory seeking data on research, design, manufacture, development, and
`testing of accused products); Gillette Co. v. Dollar Shave Club, Inc., 2018 WL 3528720, at *2 (D.
`Del. July 23, 2018) (finding reliance on Rule 33(d) proper based, in part, on the breadth of the
`information sought); ParkerVision, Inc. v. QualcommInc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2753, at *8-9
`(M.D. Fla. Jan. 8, 2013) (“production of business records” proper for interrogatory asking to
`“lildentify and describe all differences between” products); Caliper Techs. Corp. v. Molecular
`Devices Corp., 213 F.R.D. 555, 557 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (denying request for narrative response to
`interrogatory seeking identification of the components of accused systems).
`
`Il.
`
`Elm Lacks Diligence and Seeks Information Unavailable to Samsung
`
`Any failure by Elm to comprehend the data in Samsung’s documentsis largely dueto its
`ownlack of diligence, as most of its complaints can be addressed by a reasonably thorough review
`of Samsung’s documents. For the few remaining items, Samsung has no information to provide
`after a reasonable search, and thus no ability to even provide narrative interrogatory responses.
`These issues are explained below,in the general order presented in Elm’s letter brief.
`
`e
`
`[
`
`e 2
`e U e
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 477 Filed 02/18/22 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 27713
`
`and a few frequently used words canbe readilytranslated(see n.1). e
`
`e Korean content: Elm ignores directly responsive data that can be derived withouttranslation,
`, and focuses on less relevant content.
`Most relevant terms in Samsung’s documents are in English
`
`his is not an issue of Samsungfailing to meet
`its discoveryobligations. Instead, Elm should meet and confer with Samsung about anyissues
`that could arise with such differences, and seek resolution of those issues as needed.
`
`e
`
`e
`
`Elm’s belief that Samsung maybe better positioned to analyze its documents does not
`changethe propriety of Rule 33(d). The effort to derive the answerdoes not need to be exactlythe
`same, and Elm’s claims of burdenare inflated. Further, Rule 33(d) is proper where the requested
`information is related to infringement allegations, which are plaintiff's burden to prove.
`MasterObjects, Inc. v.Amazon.com, Inc., No. 20-cv-08103, D.I. 190 at 5 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 03, 2021)
`(Ex. S) (“Despite appreciating the reasons whyplaintiffs make these requests [for narrative
`responses on how the accused system works], courts have been consistently unwilling to grant
`them. Plaintiffs who initiate litigation must prove their allegation; defendants cannot be compelled
`to do the work for them.”); Caliper Techs., 213 F.R.D. at 557 (“MDCis obliged onlyto give the
`information to Caliper, not to explainit”). Likewise, Samsung shouldnot be forcedto do all the
`work in mining, interpreting andtranslating data into narrative form for Elm’s convenience.
`Instead, Elm should be required to perform a reasonable review of Samsung’s documents, and
`otherwise meet and confer with Samsung in good faith.? Elm does not dispute that Samsung has
`been cooperative in addressing Elm’s questions without the Court’s involvement (D.I. 471 at 2),
`and Samsunghas not refused any request from Elmto provide further informationorclarity. Elm’s
`motion should, therefore, be denied.
`
`2 3
`
`Despite Elm’s meet and conferobligations, and Samsung’s repeated requests to Elmto specify
`the issues that may warrantits request for narrative responses, most of the issues addressed herein
`were communicated to Samsung forthe first tume in Elm’s openingletter brief. See Ex. T.
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 477 Filed 02/18/22 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 27714
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Adam W. Poff
`
`Adam W. Poff (No. 3990)
`
`
`
`cc: All Counsel of Record (via Email)
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`