throbber
Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 112 Filed 06/27/21 Page 1 of 37
`
`1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`*
`June 22, 2021
`DEMARAY LLC
` *
`VS.
`* CIVIL ACTION NOS.
`
`*
`
`INTEL CORPORATION
`*
`W-20-CV-634
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS, ET AL
`*
`W-20-CV-636
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE ALAN D ALBRIGHT
`DISCOVERY HEARING (via Zoom)
`
`
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`For the Plaintiff:
`
`For Defendant Intel:
`
`Crawford Maclain Wells, Esq.
`Irell & Manella LLP
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Richard D. Milvenan, Esq.
`McGinnis Lochridge and Kilgore
`600 Congress Avenue, Suite 2100
`Austin, TX 78701
`Philip Ou, Esq.
`Yar R. Chaikovsky, Esq.
`Paul Hastings LLP
`1117 South California Avenue
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Bita Michelle Assad, Esq.
`Irell & Manella LLP
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Claire M. Specht, Esq.
`WilmerHale
`60 State Street
`Boston, Massachusetts 02109
`J. Stephen Ravel, Esq.
`Kelly Hart & Hallman LLP
`303 Colorado Street, Suite 2000
`Austin, TX 78701
`
`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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 112 Filed 06/27/21 Page 2 of 37
`
`2
`
`For Samsung Defendants:
`
`
`Court Reporter:
`
`Brian Christopher Nash, Esq.
`Austin Michael Schnell, Esq.
`Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
`401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700
`Austin, TX 78701-3797
`Kristie M. Davis, CRR, RMR
`PO Box 20994
`Waco, Texas 76702-0994
`(254) 340-6114
`
`Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography, transcript
`produced by computer-aided transcription.
`
`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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 112 Filed 06/27/21 Page 3 of 37
`
`3
`
`(June 22, 2021, 2:01 p.m.)
`DEPUTY CLERK: Discovery hearing in Civil Actions
`W:20-CV-634, styled Demaray LLC versus Intel Corporation and
`Case No. W:20-CV-636, styled Demaray LLC versus Samsung
`Electronics Co., Limited and others.
`THE COURT: If I could have announcements from counsel,
`please.
`MR. MILVENAN: Your Honor, Rick Milvenan from McGinnis
`Lochridge on behalf of Demaray LLC, joined by Maclain Wells and
`Bita Assad from Irell & Manella.
`THE COURT: Welcome all.
`MR. RAVEL: Your Honor, Steve Ravel for defendant Intel.
`Our client representative today is Jared Edgar. Co-counsel
`from Paul Hastings are Yar Chaikovsky and Phil Ou; from
`WilmerHale, Claire Specht. And Mr. Ou and I will be the
`primary speakers today.
`THE COURT: Okay.
`MR. NASH: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Brian Nash of
`Pillsbury here on behalf of the Samsung defendants. I'm also
`joined by Austin Schnell also of Pillsbury, as well as Cosmin
`Maier of the Desmarais firm.
`THE COURT: Very good. I'm happy to hear from whoever
`wants to speak.
`MR. WELLS: Your Honor, this is Maclain Wells of Irell &
`Manella on behalf of Demaray. Considering that it's our
`
`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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 112 Filed 06/27/21 Page 4 of 37
`
`4
`
`request for documents, it probably makes sense for us to go
`first.
`THE COURT: Okie dokie.
`MR. WELLS: So to reorient the Court, back on May 3rd, the
`Court issued an order addressing our motion to compel
`information on defendants' reactors that are at issue in this
`case.
`And as the Court may recall, there's two patents being
`asserted in this case, and both relate to a specific
`configuration of reactors used to lay down thin films for
`semiconductor products among other products.
`And the patents require, among other limitations, a DC
`power source to the target, an RF bias to the substrate and a
`narrow band-rejection filter, and that's used to protect the DC
`power source from damaging the feedback.
`Now, defendants' chambers that are actually installed in
`their fabs and used in research and development or product
`development or manufacturing of their semiconductor products
`are what are accused, and we know that these are highly
`configurable. Intel and Samsung work with Applied Materials
`among other reactors' suppliers to determine the best
`configuration of the reactors to use for a given manufacturing
`process.
`They test it. They provide feedback, and then they send
`these reactors in pieces to the fabs for assembly 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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 112 Filed 06/27/21 Page 5 of 37
`
`5
`
`configuration on site at Intel and Samsung. And it's Intel and
`Samsung's reactors on site at their fabs that they're using
`that are being accused -- or that are at issue in this case.
`Now, these are maintained as confidential. Intel and
`Samsung don't publish this information. It's not publicly
`available.
`And so we came to the Court seven weeks ago asking the
`Court to help us narrow the issues in dispute for the purposes
`of discovery in this case, and the purpose was to find out the
`reactors that potentially have infringing configurations.
`And so we asked the Court to order Samsung and -- the
`defendants, and Applied Materials, to the extent necessary, to
`produce information detailing the power sources going to the
`target and the RF bias, how they're connected, and then the
`details of any filters associated with these power sources,
`meaning any filters that impact either the signals going to or
`from the power sources, so that we can make a preliminary
`evaluation.
`A certain subset of these reactors might not have any of
`these things, and we could eliminate those, hopefully, and
`narrow the issues in dispute, and we can focus discovery as
`merits discovery was getting ready to open.
`Now, in the seven weeks since the Court's order came out,
`defendants have produced -- have identified reactors that have
`DC power sources and RF bias to the substrate, a couple of
`
`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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 112 Filed 06/27/21 Page 6 of 37
`
`6
`
`dozen different reactor configurations, and they produced six
`pages, a total of six pages, from a reference document from
`Applied Materials and a declaration from one of their --
`Applied's employees and said, hey, that satisfies our
`production. We don't have to do anything else.
`But there's a couple of problems with their production and
`the information that they provided. Most evidently, it doesn't
`allow us to actually evaluate the as-configured configurations
`of these reactors to identify the filters associated with these
`power sources in order to narrow the issues and try to figure
`out the subset of reactors that are actually at issue in this
`case.
`So, for example, the six pages of schematics that they
`have produced to date are taken from an 81-page reference
`document. They've refused to produce the whole document. And
`this reference document, their own employee witness says, these
`aren't technical specifications. This is a reference document
`used by their engineers that shows the unconfigured -- some of
`the unconfigured reaction -- reactor options and hardware
`options.
`For example, it -- they show that you could have one, two
`or three power supplies; but, obviously, in the as-configured
`reactors, there's one, two or three power supplies. There's
`not options.
`As another example, their employee declaration says, oh,
`
`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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 112 Filed 06/27/21 Page 7 of 37
`
`7
`
`there could be an RF bias here or not, depending on how the
`customer wants to configure their reactor. So what we have is
`just some preliminary, high-level schematic, six pages.
`And then we have this self-serving declaration from an
`Applied employee that says, well, you can see from these six
`pages that there's no filter, and, therefore, there must not be
`a filter, and we're done. And we don't infringe.
`We respectfully submit that we need actual evidence on
`which to base that determination and can't just take an Applied
`employee's word for it.
`Now, they haven't produced the whole doc, as I said. In
`addition, they haven't produced reference pages from the
`document. So the document references that they have produced,
`the six pages, they reference printed circuit boards, they
`reference map circuits, they reference power filters, they
`reference back plans. All of these things could have a filter
`that is associated with the power sources.
`The filters don't need to be in a separate box. They can
`be implemented on a PCB board, they could be implemented in a
`junction, they could be implemented in the output of one of the
`power sources, for example.
`And so one of the things that the Court specifically
`ordered seven weeks ago was details on any -- or information
`sufficient to detail any filters used with the power supplies.
`Now, after the six pages were produced and the employee
`
`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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 112 Filed 06/27/21 Page 8 of 37
`
`8
`
`declaration was provided, we asked them, are these all of
`the -- does this show all of the filters that are associated
`with these power supplies and detail how those filter -- the
`circuitry associated with those filters?
`And they refused to answer. They've refused to provide
`the 81-page document. They've refused to provide the
`supplemental information that's necessary to understand the
`context of the six pages they have produced.
`And so we're left in a situation where, after months of
`requesting them to provide details regarding the as-configured
`reactor chambers, they've failed to produce it.
`Now, this is important because they keep complaining about
`our infringement contentions and saying, hey, we need more
`detail. We're happy to provide more detail, but we need to
`have the information on the as-configured reactors used by the
`defendants in this lawsuit, including any filters associated
`with the power sources, in order to provide that additional
`information.
`And so we'd like the Court to ask -- to tell defendants
`and Applied Materials to produce the information that was
`ordered seven weeks ago forthwith so that we can get this case
`moving in an efficient manner.
`In addition, Your Honor, we have an issue regarding the
`protective order, and my colleague Bita Assad will address that
`issue.
`
`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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 112 Filed 06/27/21 Page 9 of 37
`
`9
`
`Would you like to take that up now, or would you like to
`do that discretely as a second issue?
`THE COURT: Let's do it second. Let's take this up and
`get it done.
`MS. ASSAD: Good afternoon, Your Honor. May it please the
`Court. Bita Assad from Irell & Manella here today for
`plaintiff Demaray.
`I do hope to keep this piece about the protective order
`short and sweet. As my colleague Mr. Wells just recapped,
`defendants and Applied Materials produced just six pages of
`electrical schematics pursuant to court order that was intended
`to allow the parties to identify the reactors in dispute.
`To make things worse, defendants and Applied Materials
`have improperly designated the six pages of schematics and
`schematics from other reactor suppliers under a heightened
`source code designation and produced them only on source code
`computers.
`Paragraph 5 of the protective order provides that a party
`may designate material as source code only if it has a good
`faith belief that such information isn't generally known to
`others, has significant competitive value such that
`unrestricted disclosure to others would create a substantial
`risk of serious injury, and which the designating party would
`not normally reveal to third parties except in confidence or
`has undertaken with others to maintain in confidence, or
`
`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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 112 Filed 06/27/21 Page 10 of 37
`
`10
`
`believes in good faith is significantly sensitive and protected
`by a right to privacy under federal or state law or any other
`applicable privilege or right related to confidentiality or
`privacy.
`And that's clearly spelled out in Paragraph 5 of the
`protective order.
`So we respectfully submit that defendants' and Applied's
`designations don't meet the standards set out in the protective
`order.
`As a general matter, we of course agree that the
`protective order contemplates that, in certain limited
`circumstances where good faith determinations are made, certain
`commercially sensitive schematics with significant competitive
`value can be designated as source code. That, we're not
`disputing, and I think that's clear on the face of the language
`of the protective order.
`But we certainly don't agree, and we disagree with the
`position Applied and defendants in this case have taken, that a
`blanket designation covering decades old reactor configurations
`fit the bill.
`And in Applied's representations to the Court yesterday
`and its joint submission on discovery disputes, it again
`reiterated that the reactor configurations at issue, that are
`the subject of the schematics, have been -- that -- are two
`decades old, so these aren't new products.
`
`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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 112 Filed 06/27/21 Page 11 of 37
`
`11
`
`The situation and considerations would obviously be
`different here today if we were dealing with, for example, new
`semiconductor products that haven't yet been publicly
`announced, but that's obviously not the case.
`And we asked opposing counsel at a meet-and-confer about
`the basis for their heightened designation, they essentially
`said that the schematics qualified as source code just because
`there were numbers involved.
`We don't think they're -- a heightened source code
`designation here is justified, it doesn't make a lot of sense,
`and is inconsistent with how these determinations are normally
`made. Schematics and reactor configurations are routinely
`produced in litigation of this kind with an AEO designation,
`attorneys' eyes only.
`And more fundamentally, what we're taking issue with here
`today is defendants and Applied proceeding in this case as if
`the default designation for reactor configuration schematics is
`source code. And that's really important because this whole
`case is about reactor configurations. There's just going to be
`a whole slew and a ton of schematics exchanged on this issue.
`It's hugely burdensome for the schematics to only be
`accessible on source code computers. It takes a significant
`amount of attorney time to get the source code computers up and
`running and coordinating with the vendors to do so. And most
`importantly, it prevents the free flow and exchange of
`
`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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 112 Filed 06/27/21 Page 12 of 37
`
`12
`
`information between lawyers on our team when certain materials
`unjustifiably received this heightened designation.
`So at the core of this issue is that we're respectfully
`requesting the six pages of schematic materials that defendants
`and Applied already produced be declassified and be classified
`only as "Outside Counsel Eyes Only" under the protective order,
`which again is how materials of this kind are routinely
`produced in litigation of this sort.
`And we're asking more generally that the Court provide
`more overarching guidance on when it's appropriate for these
`schematics to receive a heightened source code designation so
`we can streamline things going forward.
`So unless Your Honor has any questions, that should, from
`our perspective, cover the core issue about the protective
`order designations.
`THE COURT: Okay. A response?
`MR. RAVEL: Your Honor, Steve Ravel for Intel. I'm going
`to be covering a couple of issues, and then Mr. Ou is going to
`take it from there.
`My primary two issues are, if you listen to Mr. Wells'
`argument, he used that pronoun "they." But I didn't hear any
`specific references to anything that Intel has care, custody or
`control over that he says he's entitled to. So that's a very
`important definitional point.
`Intel has produced everything that it has on this subject,
`
`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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 112 Filed 06/27/21 Page 13 of 37
`
`13
`
`including third-party information. It has gone to third
`parties under this protective order language.
`If we can go to Slide 2, please, Mr. Ou.
`Back to 2.
`There we go.
`All right. I'll skip ahead to 3.
`Let me just -- before I get into that, Judge, let me just
`say that when I use the term "third party" in my argument
`today, there are two sorts of third parties that I'll be
`speaking of. They'll be Intel, the nonparty/third party who
`has the primary role in producing documents because they're
`theirs, and there will be the --
`MR. MILVENAN: Steve, I hate to interrupt you, but I --
`Mr. Chaikovsky's communications to the defense team are showing
`up on my screen since we've gone into screen sharing mode, and
`I just wanted to make sure that we're not getting to see things
`in this hearing that we shouldn't be. And I apologize for the
`interruption.
`MR. RAVEL: No. Thank you. Very gracious. It was too
`small for me to see, so thank you very much for taking care of
`that. I'm sure Mr. Chaikovsky is going to do it a different
`way.
`With that out of the way, it is our basic position that
`Intel and Samsung have complied, that when Mr. Wells says
`"they," he is speaking only of obligations of Applied.
`
`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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 112 Filed 06/27/21 Page 14 of 37
`
`14
`
`And now we can move to Slide 3, which reveals our very
`different view of Paragraph 5 of the protective order.
`And I think it would be very helpful for the Court to see
`the actual language in context. It doesn't seem we have a
`dispute that this is outside counsel eyes only material. I
`heard them argue that it is outside counsel eyes only, but it
`doesn't qualify as enough crown jewels to be -- to qualify as
`source code.
`So I think we begin definitionally with the definition of
`source code to which Demaray agreed, which expressly includes
`schematics, representations of any silicon mass, circuit
`design, diagram, blueprint.
`Judge, I think I'd like to revert to sort of a commonsense
`approach here. This is an unusual definition of source code
`for a PO in that it does expressly include schematics. I don't
`think there's any question that these are the sort of crown
`jewels, super-confidential things that are typically given
`source code protection absent language like this, but with the
`language, it just seems beyond peradventure that we did this
`the right way.
`In putting aside third-party Applied, let's focus on the
`third parties who are in no way parties to this lawsuit that
`Intel has produced information from. That implicates the last
`language that is highlighted on the screen, "Or has undertaken
`with others to maintain in confidence."
`
`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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 112 Filed 06/27/21 Page 15 of 37
`
`15
`
`We have produced third-party information, not Applied,
`other third parties, after having provided to those third
`parties this protective order.
`And so this is the way in which third parties have relied,
`not only has Intel relied, but third parties have relied to
`make sure that their crown jewels will be adequately protected.
`So it's just no time to go back on a PO agreement about what
`the definition of source code is.
`Just to gild the lily a little bit, I don't know that
`Mr. Wells intended to say that Intel has any right or ability
`to compel Applied to do anything here.
`But let's go to Slide 4, which is cited in our papers -- I
`call them papers, even if they're e-mails.
`But this is an El Paso case that is directly on point. We
`have a city who's not a party, we have a city employee who is a
`party, same lawyer. And it could not have been more clear that
`the general rule applies in the Western District of Texas. And
`that is, the mere contractual relationship between Intel and
`Applied does not make discovery from us of Applied's stuff
`proper. You know, that's just outside the definition of care,
`custody and control.
`I don't know that's an issue, but since I can't rule it
`out, that's where we are.
`So to summarize this part, I have not heard a claim today
`that Intel has care, custody or control in a legal sense over
`
`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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 112 Filed 06/27/21 Page 16 of 37
`
`16
`
`anything that is in issue. So this constant repetition of
`"they" is confusing to me.
`Under the PO, I've never seen one more clear, that the
`subject in issue is covered contractually by the parties and
`signed off on by this Court.
`And I will turn it over to Mr. Ou for the more technical
`explanation of what we've produced and why it is fully
`compliant.
`MR. OU: Thank you, Mr. Ravel. Good afternoon, Your
`Honor. Philip Ou for the defendants, as well as nonparty
`Applied Materials, Your Honor, we represent as well.
`Your Honor, just to finish the point by Mr. Ravel,
`nonparty Applied, we didn't negotiate this protective order.
`The protective order was entered into these cases by the
`parties. We read it on its face. We designated Applied's
`schematics that it collected and produced, made them available
`for inspection for which Demaray, its counsel, its expert had
`access to.
`Your Honor, if you recall, back in January, we actually
`had a dispute about remote access during COVID, and we agreed
`and Your Honor ordered us to split the cost to allow them to
`actually review this information remotely. They were able to
`do that. They requested hard-copy printouts, we complied.
`They have hard copy printouts as well.
`And, Your Honor, I believe they were also arranged for
`
`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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 112 Filed 06/27/21 Page 17 of 37
`
`17
`
`copies to be submitted to chambers, Your Honor. And so I
`believe you have or should have copies of those schematics.
`At the end of the day, these are no different to Applied
`Materials than source code of a software company. These are
`the blueprints of our proprietary equipment with a lot of
`different proprietary information in those schematics. They
`should be treated with the highest designation of
`confidentiality.
`And to Mr. Ravel's point, I don't think we've heard, you
`know, a justification for why there should be any type of
`de-designation of those schematics or any undue burden that the
`plaintiff has faced in response to compliance with the
`protective order that the parties in these cases agreed to.
`Your Honor, that's all that I had to add on the protective
`order issue.
`I did want to address the first issue that Mr. Wells
`raised regarding the electrical schematics, but I would pause
`just to see if you had any questions about the protective
`order.
`THE COURT: No. I'd like you to get to the one about the
`schematics. That'd be good.
`MR. OU: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor.
`Your Honor, going to the slides, I have on Slide 5 -- and
`I don't think there's any dispute about this from plaintiff
`because I heard Mr. Wells say -- and he's said it in all of the
`
`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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 112 Filed 06/27/21 Page 18 of 37
`
`18
`
`hearings that we've had -- this case is about specific reactor
`configurations.
`And he alluded to -- and we have shown here, the claims
`are on the left. This is Figure 1A, from the right. You have
`the first limitation requires a pulsed (audio distortion) power
`supply.
`I know that there is a dispute -- and we're not going to
`get into the technical merits of this, but there's a dispute as
`to whether or not this is pulsed DC versus DC. Mr. Wells was
`very careful to call it a DC power supply. The claims are
`clear, it recalls a pulse DC power supply.
`But in terms of the discovery that we've provided, we've
`removed that pulse distinction from our collection of
`information. Because, frankly, if it actually required pulsed
`DC, there wouldn't actually be any discovery to provide.
`But setting that aside, there's no dispute that this is
`one of the requirements of each of the claims.
`The second requirement is, there's an RF bias power
`supplies coupled to the substrate.
`So we see down here, in Figure 1A, at the bottom in
`purple, this is the RF bias. And it's connected to the
`substrate at the bottom, and then you have the pulse DC power
`supply connected to the top.
`And the last limitation, Your Honor, is the narrow
`band-rejection filter.
`
`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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 112 Filed 06/27/21 Page 19 of 37
`
`19
`
`In Figure 1A, it's labeled a "filter," but we see it's
`between the pulsed DC power supply and the target. That's made
`clear in the reactor claim. It says, "Coupled between the
`pulsed DC power supply and the target."
`And then in the method claim, it says you "provide pulsed
`DC power to the target through a narrow band-rejection filter."
`And so, Your Honor, I don't think that there's any dispute
`that these are three key claim limitations. We're all on the
`same page as that.
`We go to the next slide, which is Demaray's own
`explanation of the accused technology that they submitted back
`on April 16th, when the electrical schematics dispute was
`before Your Honor.
`And they describe it here in the same way. They say,
`"Defendants' use of a specific reactor configuration, including
`the use of...," and you have these three elements.
`You see here, they say "pulses of DC power supply" instead
`of a pulsed DC power supply.
`But there's no dispute, we're looking for these three
`things. As Mr. Wells said, if you have a chamber or reactor
`that doesn't provide pulsed DC power or if it doesn't have a
`narrow band-rejection filter, there is no basis for those
`claims -- for those chambers to be accused of infringement in
`this case.
`And Mr. Wells is correct. They -- dating back to
`
`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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 112 Filed 06/27/21 Page 20 of 37
`
`20
`
`February, they were seeking information from Applied --
`actually, all throughout venue discovery, they sought merits
`discovery but framed it as, we need to know which reactors are
`accused so we can understand where the accused reactors and
`where's the related evidence.
`And so we complied with that request, Your Honor. We
`allowed them, for example, to take depositions of Intel and
`Samsung, of Applied Materials, a corporate representative, on
`numerous technical topics to help them narrow the case. And
`that's what we did.
`And, Your Honor, in response to this latest dispute,
`again, we see here on the next slide, this is what they argued
`at the hearing back in April. And Mr. Wells, during that
`hearing, made a reference to testimony that the Applied witness
`provided back in February.
`Mr. Wells said: Applied was deposed in this matter, and
`the Applied witness admitted that certain chambers for certain
`types of metal layers have, one, DC power source, two, an RF
`bias and, three, a filter.
`And then they asked Your Honor to order Applied to produce
`the electrical schematics for all of its chambers so it could
`figure out which of those chambers had these three components
`and which ones do not.
`Down the road, we'll have a dispute about DC power source
`and whether or not that means pulsed DC power and whether or
`
`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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 112 Filed 06/27/21 Page 21 of 37
`
`21
`
`not any filter is the narrow band-rejection filter. But in
`terms of these three basic components (audio distortion) --
`(Clarification by the reporter.)
`MR. OU: -- now the defendants are telling Applied,
`telling the Court that you think these are the ones that
`should -- we should move forward on.
`They're reactors that do not have a filter, that do not
`have RF bias as a substrate. Those should be out, and we
`should move forward and narrow the case for merits discovery.
`And so, Your Honor, we complied.
`And sorry, Your Honor. The next slide just shows this --
`that was their specific request -- it's shown here on this
`slide -- and the Court granted that request as they
`specifically outlined in their April 23rd e-mail.
`And so, Your Honor, we did comply. Applied produced
`schematics on May 15th, Demaray and their counsel inspected --
`it's on May 18th, 19th and 27th. We hand-delivered the
`printouts of those schematics on May 19th. We provided a
`declaration, a lengthy declaration -- Your Honor, I understand
`that was also submitted to chambers for inspection -- from
`Applied's director of engineering.
`He is the most knowledgeable person about these accused
`reactors at Applied Materials. He was our corporate
`representative deposed at length by Mr. Wells back in February
`about each PVD chamber, whether or not they have DC power to
`
`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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 112 Filed 06/27/21 Page 22 of 37
`
`22
`
`the target, RF bias as a substrate, any of these filters.
`And so, Your Honor, the declaration and the schematics
`that we produced, this wasn't new news to Demaray. They had
`this information back from venue discovery.
`Intel and Samsung provided interrogatory responses where
`they asked these same questions, tell us what the power
`supplies are, tell us if you use any filters, tell us the
`processes used. We then gave a witness from Intel and Samsung
`on those questions.
`Now, much of this information is in the knowledge of
`Applied, and that's why they sought discovery from Applied.
`But Applied's witness also answered those same questions
`consistently.
`And we've heard Mr. Wells say that these are self-serving
`declarations, self-serving statements. Your Honor, these are
`the business records, and this is sworn corporate testimony.
`And so we've told them over and ove

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