Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 519 Filed 05/31/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 28592
`
`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-CJB
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`PARTIES’ JOINT STATUS UPDATE REGARDING
`COMPENSATION INFORMATION
`
`Dated: May 23, 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-CJB Document 519 Filed 05/31/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 28593
`
`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-CJB Document 519 Filed 05/31/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 28594
`
`Dear Judge Burke:
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s May 9 order, the parties met and conferred regarding their dispute
`about compensation information for Ms. Leedy and Mr. Leedy’s children. The parties were unable
`to resolve the dispute and submit this joint status update. If the Court would like additional
`argument, the parties propose adding this issue to the currently scheduled June 8 teleconference.
`
`Samsung’s Position. Elm unequivocally told Samsung prior to the last hearing that Elm
`was going to mention Mr. Leedy’s ex-wife and children at trial. As a result, that was Samsung’s
`sole focus during prior briefing and argument. Only after Elm’s about face (after realizing it was
`losing the discovery dispute) and the further consideration permitted by the Court post-hearing,
`Samsung identified that any stipulation along the lines identified by the Court would not work
`because the Leedy family was already part of the case. The hypothetical discussed at the last
`hearing, that Elm asserts infringement against Samsung with no mention of Mr. Leedy’s family,
`is inconsistent with the current state of discovery and the case.
`
`For example, Elm has long been aware that Ms. Leedy and Mr. Leedy’s children are already
`part of the case via documents produced from the divorce between Mr. Leedy and Ms. Leedy, as
`well as on standing and ownership issues—as Samsung noted at the end of the hearing. Ex. 1 at
`34:4-15; D.I. 423 at 1-3; Ex. 2. After the hearing, Elm proposed a stipulation premised on Elm
`not mentioning Mr. Leedy’s family unless Samsung opens the door. But neither that stipulation
`nor any other is workable because the door is already open and cannot be closed.
`
`Samsung is already aware of a document from the Leedy divorce that, for example, shows
`the apparent value that Mr. Leedy placed on the patent portfolio—including the patents at issue
`here. See, e.g., Ex. 3 (
`). That document—which Samsung intends to
`rely on—necessarily introduces Ms. Leedy and also includes issues related to Mr. Leedy’s
`children. If it were possible to avoid mention of Mr. Leedy’s family in these contexts, Samsung
`would. But neither Samsung nor Elm has been able to come up with a workable solution.
`
`In addition to valuation documents from the divorce, Mr. Leedy’s children are already at
`issue in this case because Mr. Leedy’s interest in Elm is currently assigned to two trusts for the
`benefit of Mr. Leedy’s children—for which Ron Epstein is the trustee. To the extent there are
`factual issues related to standing or ownership for the jury to decide, Mr. Leedy’s children (and
`his ex-wife by implication) will be introduced. Furthermore, discovery remains ongoing. For
`example, documents from the divorce were recently produced and are still being produced, and
`depositions remain outstanding—including of Ron Epstein. There may be additional reasons that
`Ms. Leedy and Mr. Leedy’s children are implicated in this case, including at trial.
`
`During the post-hearing meet and confer and correspondence, Elm did not substantively
`address Samsung’s arguments and, instead, focused on an isolated statement from the hearing
`where Samsung stated that if Elm were to avoid mention of Mr. Leedy’s children, that would
`obviate the dispute. Ex. 4 at 2 (citing Ex. 1 at 9:8-16). But Elm ignored Samsung’s subsequent
`clarifications identifying potential issues. Ex. 1 at 26:6-28:5, 34:4-15.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 519 Filed 05/31/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 28595
`
`Thus, as the parties have been unable to reach a workable stipulation, Samsung respectfully
`requests that the Court order Elm to produce compensation information as the Leedy family is
`necessarily implicated in the case.
`
`Elm’s Position. Elm asks the Court to deny Samsung’s requested discovery as moot. Elm
`will not introduce evidence or argument regarding Mr. Leedy’s children or his ex-wife. That was
`Samsung’s stated justification for this discovery, and Elm’s offer moots the dispute. If Samsung
`wants to introduce evidence of the Leedy heirs at trial for some reason, it is free to do so. But
`Samsung’s plan to introduce irrelevant evidence does not entitle it to irrelevant discovery.
`
`Samsung’s statement of its position perfectly illustrates the games that Elm has had to deal
`with in trying to move past this dispute. Samsung first said that it wanted information on the Leedy
`heirs’ inheritance because it does not want Elm arguing at trial that any recovery will go to the
`heirs. So Elm proposed a stipulation that it would not make this argument, which Samsung
`summarily rejected. D.I. 507, Ex. B. Then, Samsung told Elm and the Court that it still needed this
`discovery because the jury may infer that the children stand to gain from any award. D.I. 501 at 2-
`3. So Elm agreed not to mention Mr. Leedy’s children or ex-wife at trial. Ex. 4 at 3. Samsung had
`agreed with the Court that such a stipulation would “obviate[] the dispute.” Ex. 1 at 9:8-16. But it
`again summarily rejected Elm’s proposal. Ex. 4 at 2.
`
`Now, after the hearing and briefing, Samsung pivots to a new theory for why it should get
`discovery into the Leedy heirs’ inheritance. For the first time, Samsung says that it intends to
`introduce evidence of Mr. Leedy’s heirs at trial. Samsung’s latest theory is based on a single
`document that shows divorce-attorney squabbling over Mr. Leedy’s opinion t
`
`. It contains a passing reference to his children (though not by name, and the
`reference would be easy to redact). It is not credible that Samsung would ever choose to show the
`jury a
`. Regardless, why would the jury have any questions
`about what Mr. Leedy’s children stand to inherit based on a passing reference to their existence in
`divorce proceedings? Samsung just wants the discovery to harass Elm and jockey for settlement
`leverage through the Leedy heirs’ finances, as shown by its shifting rationales. Elm should not
`have to produce this deeply personal (and utterly irrelevant) information.
`
`Samsung now introduces other theories that it has known of for months but left out of the
`briefing. For example, Samsung has long known that the children’s trusts own Elm, but now says
`that this fact may need to be shared with the jury so it can address Elm’s “standing or ownership.”
`But Elm owns the patents, not the trusts. That is indisputable. And any role that Mr. Epstein plays
`as a trustee for Mr. Leedy’s heirs has no bearing on infringement or damages. It’s a non sequitur
`for Samsung to say it needs irrelevant discovery because it may raise irrelevant matters about Mr.
`Epstein at trial.
`
`The Leedy heirs’ inheritance has never been relevant. It is even less relevant now given
`Elm’s agreement to a stipulation which Samsung’s counsel admitted would “obviate the dispute.”
`Elm asks the Court to deny Samsung’s motion.
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 519 Filed 05/31/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 28596
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`/s/ Adam W. Poff
`Adam W. Poff (No. 3990)
`
`cc: All Counsel of Record (via Email)
`
`
`
`
`29380809.1
`
`3
`
`