Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 152 Filed 12/23/21 Page 1 of 6
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`DEMARAY LLC,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Defendant.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`INTEL CORPORATION
`
`
`
`
`DEMARAY LLC,
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:20-CV-00634-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Case No. 6:20-CV-00636-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`v.
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., and
`SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF REGARDING
`ADDITIONAL TERMS FOR CLAIM 2 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,381,657
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 152 Filed 12/23/21 Page 2 of 6
`
`
`I.
`
`“A METHOD OF DEPOSITING AN INSULATING FILM ON A SUBSTRATE,
`COMPRISING:” (’657 PATENT, CL. 2 PREAMBLE) ................................................... 1
`“WHEREIN AN OXIDE MATERIAL…” (’657 PATENT, CL. 2) ................................. 1
`
`II.
`
`*All emphasis added unless otherwise stated.
`*Docket citations are to Case No. 6:20-cv-00634
`
`Claim 2 of the ’657 patent is reproduced below. The disputed terms are highlighted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 152 Filed 12/23/21 Page 3 of 6
`
`
`
`I.
`
`“A method of depositing an insulating film on a substrate, comprising:”
`Demaray has no response to the parallel between claim 2’s preamble and Bio-Rad’s
`preamble (Dkt. 134 at 1-2), where the Federal Circuit rejected the same arguments Demaray makes
`here. Bio-Rad Labs., Inc. v. 10X Genomics Inc., 967 F.3d 1353, 1371-72 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Just as
`the Bio-Rad court determined the action verb phrase “conducting . . . in” could not be divorced
`from the object of that action, claim 2’s full preamble requires the same result: the action verb
`“depositing” cannot be excised from the object, an “insulating film.”
`Bio-Rad Preamble*
`’657 Patent Claim 2 Preamble*
`A method of conducting a reaction in plugs in
`A method of depositing an insulating film on
`a microfluidic system
`a substrate
`* Agreed constructions italicized and disputed action verbs held to be limiting bolded.
`Demaray’s suggestion that the Court’s construction of claim 1’s preamble is determinative
`of claim 2’s preamble is incorrect as it ignores relevant differences in claim language. In claim 1,
`the Court found “film” not to be limiting, and “depositing” appears only in the preamble, not in
`the remainder of the claim. By contrast, “insulating film” in claim 2 is limiting (as Demaray
`concedes) and “depositing” in the preamble links the “insulating film” to the “oxide material”
`(“wherein an oxide material is deposited on the substrate”).
`II.
`“wherein an oxide material…”
`Plaintiff’s Proposal
`Plain and ordinary
`meaning
`
`Defendants’ Proposal
`“wherein an oxide material is deposited on the substrate, and the
`insulating film comprising the oxide material is formed by reactive
`sputtering in a mode between a metallic mode and a poison mode”
`The claim recites “wherein an oxide material is deposited,” and Demaray does not dispute
`that “whereby” and “wherein” clauses “state the result of the patented process.” See Dkt. 128 at
`1, 3 (citing Hoffer and Allergan). Demaray’s improper attempt to disembody “insulating film”
`from the full “wherein” clause sought to be construed should be rejected. The intrinsic evidence
`shows that the plain meaning of the full “wherein” clause, not just isolated snippets, confirms the
`recited relationship between the “oxide material” and the “insulating film” that results from the
`claimed process. Moreover, Demaray does not dispute the patentee’s lexicography of “a mode
`between a metallic mode and a poison mode” as requiring deposition of “oxide material.” Dkt.
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 152 Filed 12/23/21 Page 4 of 6
`
`
`128-3 at 10:46-48, 11:28-35, 12:5-9; Dkt. 128-4 at 23-25. This alone establishes that the
`“insulating film” must comprise the “oxide material.”
`Demaray’s construction ignores the lexicographical and “present invention” statements,
`relying instead on a single sentence (Dkt. 134 at 3 (citing Dkt. 128-3, 7:62-65)) in an attempt to
`override the specification’s repeated and consistent characterization of the alleged invention—and
`even the title of the patent as “Biased Pulsed DC Sputtering of Oxide Films.” See Dkt. 128 at 4-
`5. Such a construction is clear legal error. See GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc., 830 F.3d 1365, 1371
`(Fed. Cir. 2016). Further, that sentence describes a wafer coated with an insulator by CVD, which
`is the claimed “substrate” under the Court’s construction of the term, not “oxide material”
`deposited on said substrate. Dkt. 106 at 2. Indeed, Demaray itself previously argued that the
`sentence describes an example of “substrates that include layers of insulating materials that have
`been deposited on top of other materials . . . that are also part of the ‘substrate.’” Dkt. 46 at 6;
`see also Dkt. 46 at 2, 4; Dkt. 66 at 2-3; Ex. G at 10.
`That the specification and dependent claims (e.g. claim 4) show that additional material
`can be deposited is inapposite where the claim explicitly recites depositing “oxide material.” The
`patent’s definitional “present invention” statements and disparagement of prior art methods for
`depositing oxides (such as CVD mentioned above) make clear that the “oxide material” is
`deposited as a result of the recited “providing” steps, and are not just mere exemplary embodiments
`as Demaray suggests. Dkt. 128 at 3-5; Dkt. 128-3 at 2:17-19, 2:39-41 (disparaging prior art CVD
`processes). Defendants’ construction is consistent with this evidence, while encompassing
`embodiments where additional material is deposited to form the “insulating film” alongside the
`“oxide material” (“comprising the oxide material”).
`Demaray’s reliance on the file history is misguided. Original claim 86 supports
`Defendants’ construction. Claim 2 (original claim 85) recites the method of using the claim 86
`apparatus. Dkt. 128-4 at 8-9. And that original claim 85 recited depositing an “oxide film” only
`makes clear the patentee’s intent in amending “material” to “oxide material”—to clarify that the
`“insulating film” comprises “oxide material,” not to broaden the claim. Id. at 41; Dkt. 128 at 5.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 152 Filed 12/23/21 Page 5 of 6
`
`
`Dated: December 23, 2021
`
`
`By: /s/ Yar R. Chaikovsky
`
`Brian C. Nash
`Texas Bar No. 24051103
`Brian.nash@pillsburylaw.com
`PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW
`PITTMAN LLP
`401 Congress Ave., Suite 1700
`Austin, Texas 78701-3797
`Phone: (512) 580-9629
`Fax: (512) 580-9601
`
`Yar R. Chaikovsky
`yarchaikovsky@paulhastings.com
`Philip Ou
`philipou@paulhastings.com
`Allan M. Soobert
`allansoobert@paulhastings.com
`Joseph J. Rumpler, II
`josephrumpler@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`1117 S. California Avenue
`Palo Alto, California 94304-1106
`Telephone: 1(650) 320-1800
`Facsimile:
`1(650) 320-1900
`
`John M. Desmarais (pro hac vice)
`jdesmarais@desmaraisllp.com
`Yung-Hoon Ha (pro hac vice)
`yha@desmaraisllp.com
`Cosmin Maier (pro hac vice)
`cmaier@desmaraisllp.com
`Christian Dorman (pro hac vice)
`cdorman@desmaraisllp.com
`DESMARAIS LLP
`230 Park Avenue, 26th Floor
`New York, NY 10169
`Tel: (212) 351-3400
`Fax: (212) 351-3401
`
`Attorney for Samsung Defendants
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Yar R. Chaikovsky
`
`J. Stephen Ravel
`Texas State Bar No. 16584975
`steve.ravel@kellyhart.com
`KELLY HART & HALLMAN LLP
`303 Colorado, Suite 2000
`Austin, Texas 78701
`Tel: (512) 495-6429
`
`Yar R. Chaikovsky
`yarchaikovsky@paulhastings.com
`Philip Ou
`philipou@paulhastings.com
`Allan M. Soobert
`allansoobert@paulhastings.com
`Joseph J. Rumpler, II
`josephrumpler@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`1117 S. California Avenue
`Palo Alto, California 94304-1106
`Telephone: 1(650) 320-1800
`Facsimile:
`1(650) 320-1900
`
`Sonal N. Mehta (pro hac vice)
`Sonal.Mehta@wilmerhale.com
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND
`DORR LLP
`2600 El Camino Real, Suite 400
`Palo Alto, CA 94306
`Tel.: (650) 858-6000
`Fax: (650) 858-6100
`
`Claire M. Specht (pro hac vice)
`Claire.Specht@wilmerhale.com
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND
`DORR LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`Tel.: (617) 526-6000
`Fax: (617) 526-5000
`
`Attorneys for Intel Corporation
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 152 Filed 12/23/21 Page 6 of 6
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on December 23, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing document with
`
`the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing via
`
`electronic mail to all counsel of record.
`
`/s/ Yar R. Chaikovsky
`Yar R. Chaikovsky
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`