Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 153 Filed 12/30/21 Page 1 of 7
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`DEMARAY LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`v.
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`DEMARAY LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`v.
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD (A
`KOREAN COMPANY), SAMSUNG
`ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., and
`SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR,
`LLC,
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:20-cv-00634-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:20-cv-00636-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF DEMARAY LLC’S
`SUR-REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`11049705
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 153 Filed 12/30/21 Page 2 of 7
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`“A method of depositing an insulating film on a substrate, comprising:”
`(preamble) .............................................................................................................................. 1
`
`“Insulating film” (’657 patent, cl. 2) ..................................................................................... 1
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`11049705
`
`
`- i -
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 153 Filed 12/30/21 Page 3 of 7
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Bio-Rad Labs., Inc. v. 10X Genomics Inc.,
`967 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2020)..................................................................................................1
`
`GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc.,
`830 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................2
`
`TomTom, Inc. v. Adolph,
`790 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..................................................................................................1
`
`
`---------------------------
`
` *
`
` Unless otherwise noted, internal citations and subsequent history are omitted, and emphasis is
`added.
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,381,657 is referred to as the “’657 patent.”
`
`
`11049705
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 153 Filed 12/30/21 Page 4 of 7
`
`
`
`I.
`
`“A method of depositing an insulating film on a substrate, comprising:” (preamble)
`
`Defendants’ argument that this Court is incorrect, and the entire preamble to Claim 2 must
`
`be limiting, is contrary to law. The Federal Circuit has endorsed the Court’s reasoning regarding
`
`the preamble of Claim 1 that only necessary portions of the preamble are limiting. In TomTom,
`
`Inc. v. Adolph, 790 F.3d 1315, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2015), the Federal Circuit held that the preamble
`
`language “[a] method for generating and updating data” was not limiting, while later preamble
`
`language was, because this introductory language did not provide an antecedent basis for any
`
`claim terms or recite essential structure or steps. Id., 1323-24. That reasoning is equally applicable
`
`here; the added words are unnecessary given the description in the claim body. See Dkt. 134, 1-2.
`
`Bio-Rad Labs., Inc. v. 10X Genomics Inc., 967 F.3d 1353, 1371-72 (Fed. Cir. 2020), does
`
`not lead to a different conclusion. The Bio-Rad court differentiated TomTom on the basis that “it is
`
`clear the claim drafters intended to limit the claimed methods to on-chip reactions, using both the
`
`preamble and the body of the claim to define the claimed invention.” Id. Here, there is no such
`
`clear indication. Defendants’ argument for the inclusion of the additional language is that the verb
`
`“depositing” found in the preamble is also used in the claim body: “oxide material is deposited.”
`
`Reply, 1. Defendants ignore the preamble is plainly talking about “depositing an insulating film”
`
`and does not address the “oxide material.”
`
`II.
`
`“Insulating film” (’657 patent, cl. 2)
`
`Defendants’ attempt to rewrite Claim 2 to require the claimed “insulating film” to also
`
`“compris[e] the oxide material” should be rejected—even Defendants concede that is not what the
`
`claim says. Defendants argue (1) disclaimer of using a separate process to deposit the oxide
`
`material and (2) that the patentee acted as its own lexicographer and required the oxide material to
`
`be part of the insulating film. On disclaimer, Defendants do not point to any clear and
`
`unmistakable disavowal of using a separate process for depositing the oxide material. Defendants
`
`11049705
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 153 Filed 12/30/21 Page 5 of 7
`
`
`
`instead argue that the Court should discount the express disclosure of depositing an oxide material
`
`by “a chemical vapor deposition process or by a thermal oxidation process.” See Resp., 5 (citing
`
`’657 patent, 7:62-65). That argument is contrary to law. Defendants also argue that any oxide
`
`material deposited using a separate process would be part of the claimed “substrate,” not
`
`“deposited on the substrate.” Reply, 2. Defendants ignore that oxide materials deposited after the
`
`insulating film would not be part of the substrate for that insulating film.
`
`Defendants’ reliance on purported lexicography fares no better. Defendants argue that
`
`“poison mode” requires deposition of an oxide material. Reply, 2. But, “poison mode” is not the
`
`term in dispute, “insulating layer” is. The Court already ruled that “poison mode” should have its
`
`plain and ordinary meaning in addressing the term as part of Claim 1 and did not limit the term to
`
`oxidation processes. Intel Dkt. 106, 2. Defendants continue to point to discussions of certain tested
`
`embodiments involving oxide films, but ignore the introductory language stating that the
`
`discussion applied only to “some embodiments”—“Sputtered oxide films according to some
`
`embodiments of the present invention….” ’657 patent, 10:41-44. And Defendants again ask the
`
`Court to improperly ignore the patent’s teaching that the claimed processes are applicable to
`
`various “[o]ptically useful materials,” including “fluorides, sulfides, nitrides, phosphates, sulfates,
`
`and carbonates” (id., 7:47-50), including when the wafer is already “coated with a layer of silicon
`
`oxide” (id., 7:62-65). Defendants’ own case acknowledges that is not the law. GPNE Corp. v.
`
`Apple Inc., 830 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“consistent disclosure” required for
`
`lexicography). Finally, Defendants offer no meaningful response to the file history, which shows
`
`the patentee (1) intentionally changing “an oxide” to “the insulating film” to encompass materials
`
`beyond oxides and (2) used language such as “an oxide film is formed by reactive sputtering” to
`
`address the embodiments to which Defendants’ point.
`
`11049705
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 153 Filed 12/30/21 Page 6 of 7
`
`Dated: December 30, 2021
`
`/s/ C. Maclain Wells
` By: C. Maclain Wells
`
`Richard D. Milvenan
`State Bar No. 14171800
`Travis C. Barton
`State Bar No. 00790276
`MCGINNIS LOCHRIDGE LLP
`600 Congress Ave., Suite 2100
`Austin, Texas 78701
`Telephone: (512) 495-6005
`Facsimile: (512) 505-6305
`rmilvenan@mcginnislaw.com
`tcbarton@mcginnislaw.com
`
`Morgan Chu (pro hac vice)
`Benjamin W. Hattenbach (pro hac vice)
`Annita Zhong (pro hac vice)
`C. Maclain Wells (pro hac vice)
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, California 90067
`Telephone: (310) 277-1010
`Facsimile: (310) 203-7199
`mchu@irell.com
`bhattenbach@irell.com
`azhong@irell.com
`mwells@irell.com
`
`Darish Huynh (pro hac vice)
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 400
`Newport Beach, CA 92660
`Telephone: (949) 760-0991
`Facsimile: (949) 760-5200
`dhuynh@irell.com
`Attorneys for Demaray LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11049705
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 153 Filed 12/30/21 Page 7 of 7
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that on December 30, 2021 all counsel of record who are
`
`deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via
`
`the Court’s CM/ECF system.
`
`By: /s/ Darish Huynh
`Darish Huynh
`
`
`
`
`
`11049705
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`