throbber
Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 104 Filed 05/09/21 Page 1 of 29
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
` WACO DIVISION
`DEMARAY, LLC
`) Docket No. WA 20-CA-634 ADA
` )
`vs.
` ) Waco, Texas
` )
`INTEL CORPORATION
`) April 23, 2021
`__________________________________________________________
` UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
` WACO DIVISION
`) Docket No. WA 20-CA-636 ADA
`DEMARAY, LLC
` )
` ) Waco, Texas
`vs.
` )
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., )
`LTD. (A KOREAN COMPANY), )
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`)
`AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG
`)
`SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,
`)
`SAMSUNG AUSTIN
`)
`SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC
`) April 23, 2021
`
` TRANSCRIPT OF VIDEOCONFERENCE DISCOVERY HEARING
` BEFORE THE HONORABLE ALAN D. ALBRIGHT
`
`APPEARANCES:
`For the Plaintiff:
`
`Mr. Crawford Maclain Wells
`Irell & Manella, LLP
`1800 Avenue Of The Starts,
`Suite 900
`Los Angeles, California 90067
`Mr. Richard D. Milvenan
`McGinnis, Lochridge
`& Kilgore, LLP
`600 Congress Avenue, Suite 2100
`Austin, Texas 78701
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 104 Filed 05/09/21 Page 2 of 29
`
`2
`
`(Appearances Continued:)
`For Intel Corporation:
`
`Mr. J. Stephen Ravel
`Kelly, Hart & Hallman, LLP
`303 Colorado Street, Suite 2000
`Austin, Texas 78701
`Mr. Philip Ou
`Paul Hastings, LLP
`1117 South California Avenue
`Palo Alto, California 94304
`For Samsung Electronics: Mr. Brian C. Nash
`Pillsbury, Winthrop,
`Shaw, Pittman, LLP
`401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700
`Austin, Texas 78701
`Ms. Lily Iva Reznik, CRR, RMR
`501 West 5th Street, Suite 4153
`Austin, Texas 78701
`(512)391-8792
`
`Court Reporter:
`
`
`Proceedings reported by computerized stenography,
`transcript produced by computer-aided transcription.
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 104 Filed 05/09/21 Page 3 of 29
`
`3
`
`THE COURT: Hello. It's Alan Albright.
`MR. RAVEL: Hello, Judge.
`THE COURT: Mr. Ravel? Who else do I have on --
`Suzanne, would you call the case, please?
`THE CLERK: Sure.
`Discovery hearing in Civil Action 6:20-CV-634,
`styled, Demaray, LLC vs. Intel Corporation, and; Case No.
`6:20-CV-636, styled, Demaray, LLC vs. Samsung Electronics
`Company, Limited.
`THE COURT: Could I have announcements from
`counsel, please?
`MR. MILVENAN: Yes, your Honor.
`For the Plaintiff Demaray, LLC, this is Rick
`Milvenan from McGinnis Lochridge, and I'm joined by
`Maclain Wells from Irell and Manella.
`MR. RAVEL: Your Honor, Steve Ravel for Intel.
`And Phil Ou from Paul Hastings will be our primary speaker
`today.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. And I've read -- I'm sorry.
`Go ahead.
`MR. NASH: Judge, this is Brian Nash of Pillsbury
`here on behalf of the Samsung Defendants. And Phil will
`also be speaking on our behalf today, as well.
`THE COURT: Okay. Jun, my law clerk, forwarded
`me what the issues are, so I'm pretty up to speed. That
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`15:46:43
`
`15:46:46
`
`15:46:47
`
`15:46:52
`
`15:46:54
`
`15:46:55
`
`15:46:59
`
`15:47:04
`
`15:47:10
`
`15:47:12
`
`15:47:14
`
`15:47:16
`
`15:47:17
`
`15:47:20
`
`15:47:24
`
`15:47:28
`
`15:47:30
`
`15:47:36
`
`15:47:36
`
`15:47:39
`
`15:47:40
`
`15:47:42
`
`15:47:45
`
`15:47:49
`
`15:47:53
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 104 Filed 05/09/21 Page 4 of 29
`
`4
`
`doesn't mean I know necessarily who wants to go first
`arguing. So I'll hear from whoever it is who has the
`laboring oar to persuade me.
`MR. WELLS: Your Honor, I believe that we are
`requesting the discovery. This is Maclain Wells of Irell
`Manella on behalf of Demaray. So I think we should
`probably go first.
`THE COURT: Fine by me.
`MR. WELLS: So, your Honor, the OGP calls for
`technical documents sufficient to show the operation of
`the accused products, and this is separate from transfer
`discovery and we're not here about transfer discovery
`today. We're talking about documents called for under the
`order governing proceedings regarding the functioning of
`the products that are in dispute. Here, those products
`are reactors used in the production of semiconductors.
`Now, Plaintiff Demaray has two patents that are
`at issue. Both are related to sputtering from a target
`associated with physical vapor deposition during the
`production of semiconductor devices. And all of the
`claims in both patents require the reactors at issue to
`have a DC power source to the target, an RF bias power
`source to the substrate, and a narrow band rejection
`filter, in addition to other elements.
`Now, defendants' reactor configurations are
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`15:47:56
`
`15:47:59
`
`15:48:02
`
`15:48:05
`
`15:48:08
`
`15:48:12
`
`15:48:13
`
`15:48:14
`
`15:48:16
`
`15:48:19
`
`15:48:21
`
`15:48:23
`
`15:48:26
`
`15:48:29
`
`15:48:35
`
`15:48:38
`
`15:48:43
`
`15:48:45
`
`15:48:49
`
`15:48:53
`
`15:48:56
`
`15:49:00
`
`15:49:05
`
`15:49:09
`
`15:49:12
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 104 Filed 05/09/21 Page 5 of 29
`
`5
`
`proprietary. They're maintained inhouse; these are not
`publicly available. So in Demaray's preliminary
`infringement contentions, it charted example products for
`which reverse-engineering information was available for it
`to help determine what it believes is the configurations
`at issue.
`But Demaray needs the electrical schematics
`regarding these PVD chambers in order to show the relevant
`functioning of the reactors and the interconnection of the
`different components that are at issue in all of the
`claims, including schematics sufficient to show the
`interconnections and any filters used.
`Now, this information's necessary at this point
`in time for several reasons. One is, it's necessary to
`fully address disputes at the upcoming claim construction
`hearing. For example, why are they seeking to import
`limitations regarding certain claim terms? Two, they've
`complained about Demaray's infringement contentions, and
`this will allow us to provide more robust infringement
`contentions. And we're happy to supplement once we get --
`in a reasonable amount of time, after we get this
`information.
`And three, it's going to focus the issues for
`upcoming merits discovery. We need to know what reactors
`are actually in dispute as we go into merits discovery.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`15:49:16
`
`15:49:19
`
`15:49:22
`
`15:49:27
`
`15:49:30
`
`15:49:33
`
`15:49:35
`
`15:49:39
`
`15:49:44
`
`15:49:46
`
`15:49:50
`
`15:49:53
`
`15:49:56
`
`15:49:59
`
`15:50:04
`
`15:50:07
`
`15:50:10
`
`15:50:14
`
`15:50:16
`
`15:50:20
`
`15:50:23
`
`15:50:25
`
`15:50:25
`
`15:50:27
`
`15:50:31
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 104 Filed 05/09/21 Page 6 of 29
`
`6
`
`The alternative is that we have to serve discovery demands
`at the beginning of merits discovery, wait for a response,
`wait for production of the documents, meet and confer, and
`if there's a dispute, come back to the Court a month or
`two months into merits discovery, without even knowing, at
`that point, the full range of the reactors that are at
`issue.
`
`Now, these documents, they're not overly
`burdensome. There's a limited number of reactor
`configurations that Samsung uses and that Intel uses, and
`they're undisputedly available. The primary supplier of
`reactors to both Samsung and Intel is a company named
`Applied Materials. And Applied Materials has appeared in
`this case, is represented by Mr. Ou and has voluntarily
`produced documents in this case. And the 30(b)(6) for
`Applied said that these documents are maintained in a
`database that Applied has readily available at its
`offices.
`
`Now, defendants argue that they don't have any
`control over these schematics, or at least some of these
`schematics. So they acknowledged that they do have some
`of these schematics, and there's no basis to withhold
`those. Now, in addition, Applied Materials has been
`producing documents that are favorable to defendants
`voluntarily in this litigation since back in December.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`15:50:35
`
`15:50:38
`
`15:50:42
`
`15:50:48
`
`15:50:50
`
`15:50:54
`
`15:50:56
`
`15:50:57
`
`15:51:01
`
`15:51:03
`
`15:51:08
`
`15:51:12
`
`15:51:15
`
`15:51:18
`
`15:51:24
`
`15:51:27
`
`15:51:30
`
`15:51:33
`
`15:51:33
`
`15:51:37
`
`15:51:40
`
`15:51:42
`
`15:51:45
`
`15:51:50
`
`15:51:55
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 104 Filed 05/09/21 Page 7 of 29
`
`7
`
`Now, plaintiff did subpoena Applied for documents and got
`some documents in response to the subpoena and took a
`deposition of Applied, but that doesn't change the fact
`that even before the subpoena, Applied was appearing and
`producing documents with Applied Bates numbers in this
`limitation voluntarily.
`And so, we believe Applied has an obligation to
`provide the full scope of the documents relevant to the
`basic functioning and operation of the accused products,
`not a one-sided presentation. In addition, there is a
`subpoena on Applied, relating to transfer discovery
`granted, but there is an open subpoena to Applied, as
`well.
`
`The second issue that defendants argue is that
`this case is limited to just what are ti nitride and
`tantalum nitride layers. Those are two examples of a thin
`film that you could put down on these semiconductor
`devices, because those are the examples that were
`specifically identified in Demaray's preliminary
`infringement contentions.
`Again, those are the examples from the available
`reverse-engineering. Demaray stated consistently
`throughout this case that its assertions regarding
`infringement are not limited to just those two examples.
`We've stated that there's other types of layers that might
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`15:51:57
`
`15:52:01
`
`15:52:04
`
`15:52:06
`
`15:52:10
`
`15:52:14
`
`15:52:15
`
`15:52:20
`
`15:52:24
`
`15:52:28
`
`15:52:33
`
`15:52:39
`
`15:52:42
`
`15:52:42
`
`15:52:45
`
`15:52:51
`
`15:52:53
`
`15:52:56
`
`15:52:58
`
`15:53:01
`
`15:53:02
`
`15:53:05
`
`15:53:10
`
`15:53:14
`
`15:53:17
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 104 Filed 05/09/21 Page 8 of 29
`
`8
`
`be at issue, including other types of oxides, for example,
`as well as just plain metal layers for titanium, copper or
`cobalt that could be deposited using the reactors in
`question.
`And Demaray's position is that defendants can't
`meet their burden under the OGP by providing one-sided
`disclosures, providing an incomplete picture of their
`reactor configurations with information that's beneficial
`to them but not provide basic schematics that are readily
`available that provides the actual configuration of the
`reactors that are at issue in this case.
`And an example of this is at the last -- after
`the last hearing on these issues regarding transfer
`discovery, Applied was deposed in this matter, and the
`Applied witness admitted that certain chambers for certain
`types of metal layers have a DC power source, an RF bias,
`and a filter. But Samsung and Intel have refused to
`identify whether any of the specific chambers that they
`use have those types of metal layers and haven't provided
`schematics, and whatnot, regarding those.
`So we request that defendant produce electrical
`schematics for the reactors, for PVD processes that have a
`DC power source and an RF bias on the substrate, and then,
`we can determine whether or not as the additional elements
`required by the claims and update our infringement
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`15:53:20
`
`15:53:23
`
`15:53:28
`
`15:53:31
`
`15:53:31
`
`15:53:35
`
`15:53:38
`
`15:53:41
`
`15:53:44
`
`15:53:48
`
`15:53:51
`
`15:53:54
`
`15:53:57
`
`15:54:01
`
`15:54:05
`
`15:54:07
`
`15:54:12
`
`15:54:16
`
`15:54:20
`
`15:54:23
`
`15:54:25
`
`15:54:29
`
`15:54:34
`
`15:54:37
`
`15:54:40
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 104 Filed 05/09/21 Page 9 of 29
`
`9
`
`contentions and go into merits discovery, knowing what the
`actual reactors at issue in this case are. Thank you,
`your Honor.
`THE COURT: Were you done?
`MR. WELLS: Yes, your Honor.
`THE COURT: I think what should frighten everyone
`on this call is that I actually understood every single
`thing that you talked about with regard to how this
`technology works. So I don't know if that's a good thing
`or a bad thing for you all, but I actually understand this
`technology.
`So, Mr. Ravel, whoever's going to speak, I'm not
`sure which defendants are going to speak, and I don't
`really remember exactly who's going to speak on their
`behalf, but I'm happy to hear from the defendants.
`MR. OU: Yes, your Honor. Good afternoon.
`It's Philip Ou from Paul Hastings on behalf of
`both Intel and Samsung. Your Honor, can you hear me okay?
`THE COURT: Yes, sir. I can.
`MR. OU: Okay. Thank you, your Honor.
`Your Honor, to begin, I think the most important
`point in this dispute is, I believe counsel for Demaray
`recognizes that Intel and Samsung, who are the named
`defendants in this case, they complied with OGP. They
`produced the technical documents in their possession back
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`15:54:43
`
`15:54:46
`
`15:54:50
`
`15:54:56
`
`15:54:58
`
`15:54:59
`
`15:55:02
`
`15:55:06
`
`15:55:08
`
`15:55:11
`
`15:55:14
`
`15:55:15
`
`15:55:20
`
`15:55:22
`
`15:55:25
`
`15:55:30
`
`15:55:32
`
`15:55:35
`
`15:55:37
`
`15:55:39
`
`15:55:40
`
`15:55:44
`
`15:55:48
`
`15:55:52
`
`15:55:55
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 104 Filed 05/09/21 Page 10 of 29
`
`10
`
`in December. And the type of electrical schematics that
`they're seeking, those aren't in the possession of Intel
`and Samsung. And so, Intel and Samsung, they complied
`with their obligations. Back in December, they produced
`manuals, power supply manuals, chamber manuals, documents
`that were in their possession.
`Mr. Wells makes reference to Applied Materials
`voluntarily providing some documents at that point in
`time. That's true. Intel and Samsung went to Applied
`because there are documents that Intel and Samsung would
`normally have access to in the ordinary course of
`business, such as the BKMs, which are the best known
`methods. And, your Honor, those are the kind of the
`crown-jewel process recipe information that would actually
`come on the actual manufacturing equipment that is at
`Intel and Samsung's fabrication facilities.
`Now, that information is in Intel and Samsung's
`possession, but it's on the reactor itself. And so, they
`had asked Applied, well, can you provide this actually in
`a readily ascertainable format? Because Applied has that
`information in PDF form and Applied did that. They
`voluntarily provided that information to help the case
`move forward and because that was information that Intel
`and Samsung do have access to.
`And the case proceeded and, your Honor, if you
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`15:55:58
`
`15:56:02
`
`15:56:04
`
`15:56:07
`
`15:56:11
`
`15:56:15
`
`15:56:16
`
`15:56:19
`
`15:56:21
`
`15:56:25
`
`15:56:28
`
`15:56:31
`
`15:56:35
`
`15:56:37
`
`15:56:39
`
`15:56:43
`
`15:56:46
`
`15:56:49
`
`15:56:52
`
`15:56:55
`
`15:56:58
`
`15:57:02
`
`15:57:05
`
`15:57:08
`
`15:57:10
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 104 Filed 05/09/21 Page 11 of 29
`
`11
`
`remember back in January, we had several disputes at issue
`about the scope of the case, and what discovery should be
`provided, and what was not. And, your Honor, if you'll
`recall, you denied the request for Applied Materials, who
`is a nonparty, to produce schematics. There were numerous
`other categories of information that Applied did provide.
`You ordered Applied to provide that. Applied then made
`its 30(b)(6) witness available for deposition.
`And Mr. Wells asked Applied's witness under venue
`discovery, hours at length, about every single Applied
`reactor, configuration, the power supplies, the filters.
`Your Honor, that's part of the record. The deposition's
`transcript is at Intel's case 73-1. And in our submission
`that we submitted to the Court, we cited to about 50 pages
`of Mr. Wells ever -- asking every detail possible about
`the configurations of Applied's reactors, whether or not
`they were identified in the infringement contentions,
`whether or not they were accused, or otherwise.
`And so, Demaray has the information about all of
`these reactors. And if the case proceeds into Markman and
`past that, when we actually get into merits discovery, you
`know, Applied has been subpoenaed. They are a nonparty,
`and it intends to comply with the subpoena at the
`appropriate time.
`But, your Honor, it's important that right now,
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`15:57:12
`
`15:57:17
`
`15:57:20
`
`15:57:23
`
`15:57:28
`
`15:57:32
`
`15:57:35
`
`15:57:38
`
`15:57:41
`
`15:57:44
`
`15:57:49
`
`15:57:54
`
`15:57:58
`
`15:58:02
`
`15:58:06
`
`15:58:09
`
`15:58:12
`
`15:58:15
`
`15:58:18
`
`15:58:22
`
`15:58:27
`
`15:58:30
`
`15:58:32
`
`15:58:35
`
`15:58:36
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 104 Filed 05/09/21 Page 12 of 29
`
`12
`
`we're still in pre-Markman. Merits discovery is supposed
`to be stayed, and Samsung and Intel believe they complied
`with their obligations. What Mr. Wells appears to be
`asking for is for a party to the case, before merits
`discovery even opens, to have to go to third parties who
`are not in the case. Demaray intentionally chose not to
`sue them, not to accuse them of infringement in this case,
`but to go get that information that otherwise is not in
`Intel and Samsung's possession.
`Your Honor, and so, for that reason, we think
`that their request for schematics from nonparties at this
`point is both premature and improper. Your Honor, I do
`note that in our submission, we did say, if Intel and
`Samsung do have such schematics, we know that they don't
`have those schematics from Applied Materials, but if they
`have schematics, there are a very de minimis number of
`non-Applied reactors that have been recently accused in
`the case. And the defendants are going back to see if
`they have those -- any information, and if they do,
`they'll provide it.
`But to ask the defendants to go and get
`information voluntarily from nonparties in this case, at
`this point, is both improper and premature. If Demaray
`wants that information, they should seek it once merits
`discovery opens.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`15:58:39
`
`15:58:42
`
`15:58:45
`
`15:58:49
`
`15:58:52
`
`15:58:56
`
`15:58:59
`
`15:59:02
`
`15:59:06
`
`15:59:08
`
`15:59:10
`
`15:59:14
`
`15:59:17
`
`15:59:21
`
`15:59:24
`
`15:59:27
`
`15:59:31
`
`15:59:35
`
`15:59:36
`
`15:59:39
`
`15:59:39
`
`15:59:42
`
`15:59:45
`
`15:59:51
`
`15:59:53
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 104 Filed 05/09/21 Page 13 of 29
`
`13
`
`The last point, your Honor, I wanted to address
`is just about scope. I think Mr. Wells alluded to the
`fact that in this case, they are seeking discovery about a
`broad range of reactors. Your Honor, that issue was
`addressed during the January 26th hearing. It was dispute
`number two. And, your Honor, if I could share my -- if I
`have the ability to share my screen, I would show you the
`dispute, but it's dispute number two, submitted December
`29th, 2020 to your Honor.
`And, your Honor, during the hearing that we had,
`you denied their request. They had requested that Intel
`provide discovery about accused reactor configurations
`that go beyond titanium nitride and tantalum nitride,
`which are the ones that they allege that they have
`reverse-engineering reports to show that they have a
`good-faith basis to allege infringement. Now, it seems
`like they're seeking much more broader discovery and
`contrary to your Honor's prior ruling on this very
`dispute.
`Your Honor, I'll stop there unless you have any
`specific questions for me.
`THE COURT: No. I'm good.
`Anyone else, any other defendant want to speak?
`MR. OU: No, your Honor. I think I covered it
`for all the defendants -- all of the defendants, your
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`15:59:55
`
`15:59:56
`
`16:00:00
`
`16:00:05
`
`16:00:08
`
`16:00:13
`
`16:00:15
`
`16:00:17
`
`16:00:21
`
`16:00:22
`
`16:00:24
`
`16:00:28
`
`16:00:31
`
`16:00:35
`
`16:00:37
`
`16:00:40
`
`16:00:43
`
`16:00:46
`
`16:00:50
`
`16:00:50
`
`16:00:52
`
`16:00:55
`
`16:00:56
`
`16:01:04
`
`16:01:06
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 104 Filed 05/09/21 Page 14 of 29
`
`14
`
`Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. OU: Thank you.
`THE COURT: A response from Demaray?
`MR. WELLS: Yes, your Honor. Thank you.
`So I'll start with the last point regarding the
`arguments regarding limiting the discovery to tantalum
`nitride and titanium nitride. Your Honor did deny that
`with regard to transfer discovery, but that was a transfer
`issue and that's what your Honor was addressing.
`These are proprietary configurations. The idea
`that Demaray's case would be limited to the reactor layers
`on which a confined reverse-engineering while the other
`ones would be -- stay out of the case because defendants
`hide the information or fail to produce it, doesn't make
`any sense whatsoever. We need to know what reactors are
`at issue going to into merits discovery or we're going to
`spend months determining that before we could determine
`what discovery is actually necessary.
`And regarding the second point that Mr. Ou raised
`regarding the prior hearing, in the prior hearing, we did
`address Applied Materials' documents. And this was with
`regard to transfer discovery, and the Court noted that
`Applied Materials had to produce certain materials. Now,
`the Court did deny the request for schematics and with
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`16:01:08
`
`16:01:08
`
`16:01:09
`
`16:01:10
`
`16:01:12
`
`16:01:13
`
`16:01:17
`
`16:01:22
`
`16:01:25
`
`16:01:28
`
`16:01:31
`
`16:01:34
`
`16:01:42
`
`16:01:45
`
`16:01:50
`
`16:01:52
`
`16:01:57
`
`16:01:59
`
`16:02:03
`
`16:02:06
`
`16:02:10
`
`16:02:14
`
`16:02:17
`
`16:02:20
`
`16:02:23
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 104 Filed 05/09/21 Page 15 of 29
`
`15
`
`regard to transfer discovery and specifically stated.
`That's not going to be required for transfer discovery.
`So we're not seeking this information under
`transfer discovery. We're seeking this information
`because it turns out, the electrical schematics are what
`are necessary here to show the basic functioning of these
`products with regard to the technology addressed in the
`patents at issue.
`And the BKMs or product recipe information, that
`doesn't tell you how the power sources are connected and
`whether there's a filter and what -- how that filter is
`laid out. That information would be in electrical
`schematics. There are -- an Applied witness confirmed
`that, and the witness confirmed that these electrical
`schematics are readily available to Applied. And
`Applied's demonstrated in this case that it will produce
`documents and has produced documents voluntarily, separate
`and apart from any subpoena for defendants to produce when
`they're beneficial to defendants.
`We respectfully submit that Applied should have
`to produce documents fully describing the operation of the
`reactors that are at issue. Thank you.
`THE COURT: Help me out here. This is for the
`plaintiff. This is Alan Albright. This is for the
`plaintiff.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`16:02:26
`
`16:02:30
`
`16:02:34
`
`16:02:37
`
`16:02:38
`
`16:02:42
`
`16:02:45
`
`16:02:48
`
`16:02:49
`
`16:02:53
`
`16:02:57
`
`16:03:00
`
`16:03:06
`
`16:03:07
`
`16:03:10
`
`16:03:12
`
`16:03:15
`
`16:03:17
`
`16:03:22
`
`16:03:23
`
`16:03:26
`
`16:03:31
`
`16:03:35
`
`16:03:38
`
`16:03:40
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 104 Filed 05/09/21 Page 16 of 29
`
`16
`
`So Applied Materials is not a party to the case,
`correct.
`MR. WELLS: Your Honor, Applied Materials is not
`a party to the case. They're coordinating the defenses
`with Samsung and Intel, including, for example, filing
`IPRs in another case in the Northern District of
`California. They're a third party here that has
`voluntarily produced documents on defendants' behalf.
`THE COURT: Well, let's assume all that's true.
`What power do I have to force Applied Material to do
`anything if they're not a party to the case?
`MR. WELLS: It would be twofold, your Honor. So
`the first issue is that there is case law stating that
`when a third party voluntarily produces documents for a
`defendant, for example, regarding some issues, it can't
`later say -- the defendant can't later say, oh, we don't
`have access and control of those documents that are not
`beneficial to our position.
`And so, cited in the submission to the Court --
`I'm sorry. I'm getting some feedback there. Citing in
`the submission to the Court, we noted case law that has
`held in similar circumstances that the defendant does have
`control, or is assumed to have control, over these
`documents.
`The second thing is, there is an outstanding
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`16:03:44
`
`16:03:48
`
`16:03:51
`
`16:03:53
`
`16:03:55
`
`16:03:58
`
`16:04:00
`
`16:04:02
`
`16:04:05
`
`16:04:10
`
`16:04:15
`
`16:04:17
`
`16:04:19
`
`16:04:23
`
`16:04:28
`
`16:04:32
`
`16:04:35
`
`16:04:40
`
`16:04:41
`
`16:04:49
`
`16:04:51
`
`16:04:54
`
`16:05:00
`
`16:05:02
`
`16:05:04
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 104 Filed 05/09/21 Page 17 of 29
`
`17
`
`subpoena on Applied that encompasses these documents. And
`so, that outstanding subpoena is certainly enforceable by
`the Court, and the Court certainly has the power to rule
`that Applied needs to produce these materials.
`THE COURT: Okay. And I may have cut you off.
`Or maybe, actually, I think someone from the defendants
`were about to make an argument, and I welcome that at this
`time.
`
`MR. OU: Yes, your Honor. Philip Ou for the
`defendants.
`Your Honor, a couple of points. The first one is
`with regard to that subpoena that Mr. Wells noted. That's
`correct. There is a subpoena that was issued, but it was
`only issued under the guise of this is venue discovery.
`Your Honor, we think your rules are clear in that, you
`know, merits discovery is stayed until we've gotten past a
`Markman.
`
`Now, Mr. Wells previously made arguments they
`were able to obtain numerous amounts of information from
`Applied Materials. They deposed an Applied witness for
`several hours, asked them merits-based questions all under
`venue discovery, and we let it go and we let it happen.
`You know, maybe we shouldn't have, but, frankly, we let it
`go because we were willing to provide the information at
`that time because we thought and hoped it would help
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`16:05:06
`
`16:05:09
`
`16:05:12
`
`16:05:17
`
`16:05:21
`
`16:05:28
`
`16:05:31
`
`16:05:33
`
`16:05:34
`
`16:05:36
`
`16:05:37
`
`16:05:41
`
`16:05:45
`
`16:05:47
`
`16:05:51
`
`16:05:54
`
`16:05:59
`
`16:06:00
`
`16:06:02
`
`16:06:05
`
`16:06:09
`
`16:06:13
`
`16:06:17
`
`16:06:19
`
`16:06:23
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 104 Filed 05/09/21 Page 18 of 29
`
`18
`
`narrow the case.
`Mr. Wells apparently was not satisfied with that
`testimony. He has it. He spent several hours asking the
`witness about every single configuration, apparently, I
`think if he believes the witness was not telling the truth
`under oath. But that all goes to merits discovery, your
`Honor, and they'll have the opportunity to seek that
`information through a subpoena when the time is right
`during this case, your Honor. But right now, under the
`current scheduling order, it's not. Merits discovery is
`supposed to be stayed.
`And, your Honor, I just wanted to note, also,
`that in this case, there are also non-Applied equipment
`for which there is no subpoena, for which there actually
`were no disclosures in the original infringement
`contentions. Samsung and Intel voluntarily produced
`information about those non-Applied reactors on the
`December 11th OGP deadline. And Demaray supplemented its
`contentions in February, after your Honor ordered them to
`do that. But those are equipment suppliers that have not
`subpoenaed, they've barely been in the case.
`And, you know, the relief that the plaintiff is
`seeking is also now to go have Samsung and Intel go to
`those suppliers, voluntarily ask for information that, you
`know, is not in the possession of the defendants and
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`16:06:26
`
`16:06:26
`
`16:06:30
`
`16:06:33
`
`16:06:37
`
`16:06:40
`
`16:06:42
`
`16:06:45
`
`16:06:48
`
`16:06:51
`
`16:06:54
`
`16:06:55
`
`16:06:57
`
`16:07:00
`
`16:07:04
`
`16:07:07
`
`16:07:10
`
`16:07:14
`
`16:07:19
`
`16:07:21
`
`16:07:25
`
`16:07:29
`
`16:07:31
`
`16:07:34
`
`16:07:39
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 104 Filed 05/09/21 Page 19 of 29
`
`19
`
`produce them, again, prior to any merits discovery open --
`being open.
`THE COURT: Anything else from the plaintiff?
`MR. WELLS: Yes, your Honor. Just to briefly
`address the last point there that was raised.
`With regard to these third-party suppliers that
`haven't voluntarily produced documents in this case
`already, we request that defendants go to them and ask if
`they will voluntarily provide those schematics. If they
`refuse, then we'll serve a subpoena on them at the
`appropriate time.
`But the primary reactor supplier at issue here is
`Applied Materials. Both defendants have stated that.
`Applied Materials has produced documents voluntarily in
`this case, and there is an outstanding subpoena.
`And the case that I cited to you earlier, your
`Honor, was CGTech Dev v. 888 Holdings, 2007 Westlaw
`3908673. And there, the Court held if a party in a case
`can get access to the documents held by a third party by
`requesting it and the third party did not have an issue in
`producing the documents in the past, the documents are
`under the control of the party in the case.
`That's exactly what's going on here. And so,
`your Honor, we think that the Court has the control -- or
`the power to order both defendants to produce this
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`16:07:42
`
`16:07:46
`
`16:07:48
`
`16:07:51
`
`16:07:53
`
`16:07:56
`
`16:08:00
`
`16:08:02
`
`16:08:05
`
`16:08:08
`
`16:08:11
`
`16:08:12
`
`16:08:17
`
`16:08:19
`
`16:08:22
`
`16:08:24
`
`16:08:26
`
`16:08:36
`
`16:08:39
`
`16:08:43
`
`16:08:47
`
`16:08:49
`
`16:08:52
`
`16:08:54
`
`16:08:58
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 104 Filed 05/09/21 Page 20 of 29
`
`20
`
`information and Applied under the subpoena. Thank you.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. OU: Your Honor, Mr. Ou --
`THE COURT: Yes, sir.
`MR. OU: May I briefly just address that very
`last point in Mr. Wells' case?
`THE COURT: You have -- yeah. I'm sitting in
`traffic that will take me another three hours to get about
`a quarter mile. So you have all the time that you care to
`chat about.

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket