`
`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