Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 170 Filed 02/18/22 Page 1 of 34
`
`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
`) January 7, 2022
`__________________________________________________________
` 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
`) January 7, 2022
`
` 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. Ian M. Davis
`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
`
`
`
`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
`) January 7, 2022
`__________________________________________________________
` 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
`) January 7, 2022
`
` 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. Ian M. Davis
`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 170 Filed 02/18/22 Page 2 of 34
`
`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
`Ms. Claire M. Specht
`Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering,
`Hale & Dorr, LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, Massachusetts 02109
`For Samsung Electronics: Mr. Brian C. Nash
`Mr. Austin M. Schnell
`Pillsbury, Winthrop,
`Shaw, Pittman, LLP
`401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1700
`Austin, Texas 78701
`Mr. Cosmin Maier
`Desmarais, LLP
`230 Park Avenue
`New York, New York 10169
`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 170 Filed 02/18/22 Page 3 of 34
`
`3
`
`THE COURT: Good morning, everyone.
`If Suzanne could call the case, please.
`THE CLERK: Civil Action W-21-CV-634, styled,
`Demaray, LLC vs. Intel Corporation, and Case No.
`W-20-CV-636, styled, Demaray, LLC vs. Samsung Electronics
`Company, Limited, A Korean Company, and others.
`THE COURT: I can have announcements from
`counsel, please.
`MR. MILVENAN: Your Honor, for the Plaintiff
`Demaray, Rick Milvenan and Ian Davis from McGinnis
`Lochridge. We're joined by Maclain Wells from Irell &
`Manella.
`
`MR. RAVEL: Your Honor, Steve Ravel for Defendant
`Intel. Our client representative here today is Jared
`Edgar, first and foremost. Claire Specht from Wilmer Hale
`will be our primary speaker today. And from Paul
`Hastings, Phil Ou is with us.
`And as a matter of housekeeping, we have a client
`rep on and perhaps we should -- there's going to be CBI
`flying back and forth, I think, in both the Intel and the
`Samsung hearing. Perhaps we should take up the Intel one
`first since there's an Intel client rep on the line.
`THE COURT: I'm happy to do that.
`MR. NASH: Your Honor, Brian Nash of Pillsbury
`Winthrop on behalf of the Samsung defendants. I'm also
`
`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
`
`09:21:31
`
`09:21:32
`
`09:21:34
`
`09:21:42
`
`09:21:46
`
`09:21:50
`
`09:21:54
`
`09:21:55
`
`09:21:58
`
`09:22:00
`
`09:22:05
`
`09:22:10
`
`09:22:10
`
`09:22:12
`
`09:22:16
`
`09:22:21
`
`09:22:24
`
`09:22:27
`
`09:22:31
`
`09:22:36
`
`09:22:38
`
`09:22:42
`
`09:22:47
`
`09:22:52
`
`09:22:55
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 170 Filed 02/18/22 Page 4 of 34
`
`4
`
`joined by Austin Schnell of Pillsbury and Cosmin Maier of
`the Desmarais firm. Phil Ou also represents Samsung and,
`I believe, might be speaking on Samsung's behalf with
`respect to these issues later today.
`THE COURT: Okay. And thank you all for being
`here. Thank you for your clients taking the time to
`attend.
`
`And I'm happy to take up the Intel issue first.
`MR. WELLS: Thank you, your Honor. Maclain Wells
`of Irell & Manella on behalf of Demaray. I'll be
`addressing this issue.
`Just a quick reorientation regarding the Intel
`reactors that we're here about today. So Intel has
`identified two reactor suppliers that it has that have an
`RF bias and a DC power source to the target. The first is
`Applied, which we addressed before the holidays and that's
`ongoing. The second is
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Whether or
`not those are available or not, we haven't heard back from
`them. And then, has a number of
` reactors,
`
`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
`
`09:22:58
`
`09:23:02
`
`09:23:06
`
`09:23:09
`
`09:23:11
`
`09:23:13
`
`09:23:16
`
`09:23:16
`
`09:23:20
`
`09:23:23
`
`09:23:25
`
`09:23:25
`
`09:23:28
`
`09:23:31
`
`09:23:34
`
`09:23:39
`
`09:23:42
`
`09:23:47
`
`09:23:50
`
`09:23:52
`
`09:23:54
`
`09:23:58
`
`09:24:01
`
`09:24:03
`
`09:24:05
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 170 Filed 02/18/22 Page 5 of 34
`
`5
`
` that have been rolled out already and
`it's rolling out more.
`So we had this deposition back in November at the
`Court's instruction, and we determined that
`
`
`
`
`
`they do, indeed, have a DC power source and an RF power
`
`source bias in the substrate. They claim
`, but there are apparatus claims at
`issue here; and so, these reactors are at issue,
`regardless.
`So we've asked them for discovery on the
`reactors. We've gotten discovery from Intel on the
`reactors that they have in their possession. They've also
`recently provided some additional information on their
` reactors, but are still working on
`supplementing their interrogatories with regard to the
` reactors, I understand.
`But the information that we've received to date
`doesn't provide us the level of detail, much like the
`Applied reactors, regarding the filters at issue. The
`schematics, and whatnot, don't have that level of detail
`where they're detailing the actual individual electrical
`components and where they might be.
`And so, we've said we need to inspect 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
`
`09:24:08
`
`09:24:10
`
`09:24:11
`
`09:24:15
`
`09:24:22
`
`09:24:24
`
`09:24:27
`
`09:24:30
`
`09:24:34
`
`09:24:37
`
`09:24:40
`
`09:24:40
`
`09:24:44
`
`09:24:47
`
`09:24:50
`
`09:24:52
`
`09:24:55
`
`09:24:57
`
`09:24:59
`
`09:25:01
`
`09:25:04
`
`09:25:07
`
`09:25:10
`
`09:25:13
`
`09:25:14
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 170 Filed 02/18/22 Page 6 of 34
`
`6
`
` reactors.
` and
`reactors for the
`Specifically, you know, we want to look at is there a
`filter mechanism in place. We also want to see the
`cathode assembly. That's where the target's connected.
`And then, we want to see the combiner box, if there is
`one, as well as looking at the cables and the power
`supplies to determine whether or not a filter's present,
`very similar to the Applied reactors where they claim
`there is no filter or alternative protective mechanism.
`Now, Intel stated they can't take these reactors
`offline, the
` reactors. And they're looking into
`decommission reactors and getting us access to those for
`the
`. And then, we've asked for the
`
`reactors to either look at a demonstration model, one of
`the startup ones or one that's not in process yet. Any of
`the above.
`,
`Now, unlike Applied, Intel refuses to ask
`its reactor supplier, for documents to potentially obviate
`the need for an inspection. They tell us, oh, you have to
`go to
` yourself. We have: we've subpoenaed them.
`We're pursuing that. But given the fact that Intel has
`the reactors at issue and they're the ones that we've
`gotta look at, just like Applied, we think Intel has an
`obligation to either provide those or at least facilitate
`an alternative to such an inspection.
`
`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
`
`09:25:17
`
`09:25:20
`
`09:25:23
`
`09:25:26
`
`09:25:30
`
`09:25:32
`
`09:25:36
`
`09:25:39
`
`09:25:42
`
`09:25:46
`
`09:25:50
`
`09:25:54
`
`09:25:57
`
`09:25:59
`
`09:26:04
`
`09:26:07
`
`09:26:08
`
`09:26:14
`
`09:26:17
`
`09:26:20
`
`09:26:23
`
`09:26:26
`
`09:26:28
`
`09:26:31
`
`09:26:34
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 170 Filed 02/18/22 Page 7 of 34
`
`7
`
`
`
`With regard to the power supplies, Intel has
` power supplies, we understand,
`, but
`because they're older power supplies and hard to get, they
`don't want to provide one of those to us for inspection.
`Obviously if they're older and harder to get, that's going
`to make us -- harder for us to get from some alternative
`source. So we're kind of at an impasse with regard to the
`power supplies.
`On the cables, they've said they'll look into
`whether or not they can get cables or representative
`cables from their supplier, and we're waiting to hear back
`on that. But we wanted to bring all of these issues to
`the Court's attention. As with Applied, this is ongoing.
`We've been asking for this for years -- over a year now
`and we wanted to make sure that the Court was aware that
`we're running into the similar roadblocks that we ran into
`with Applied, and it's going to cause similar problems
`with regard to timing.
`THE COURT: Response.
`MS. SPECHT: Good morning, your Honor. Claire
`Specht from Wilmer Hale on behalf of Intel Corporation.
`I'm going to be addressing the issues related to
`Demaray's unduly burdensome onsite inspection request for
`the
` and
` systems, as well as
`this request for certain components related to a system.
`
`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
`
`09:26:37
`
`09:26:44
`
`09:26:48
`
`09:26:51
`
`09:26:54
`
`09:26:57
`
`09:26:59
`
`09:27:03
`
`09:27:04
`
`09:27:07
`
`09:27:09
`
`09:27:11
`
`09:27:13
`
`09:27:19
`
`09:27:23
`
`09:27:25
`
`09:27:28
`
`09:27:30
`
`09:27:31
`
`09:27:38
`
`09:27:40
`
`09:27:43
`
`09:27:46
`
`09:27:49
`
`09:27:53
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 170 Filed 02/18/22 Page 8 of 34
`
`8
`
`Your Honor, Demaray wants an unwarranted adverse inference
`that the
` and
` systems have
`the claimed narrow band-rejection filter
`
`
` and
`
`Demaray's attempting to use its burdensome inspection
`request to obtain that outcome.
`I will first address the system inspection
`request which are unnecessary, given the information
`Demaray already has and that are unduly burdensome, and
`then, I will address Demaray's request related to the
`components.
`Your Honor, Demaray's requested inspection for
` and
` systems is
`the
`unnecessary in view of information Demaray already has.
`Demaray has told -- Intel has told Demaray for over a year
`that the PVD chamber at issue
`
`
`
`
`. And electrical
`schematics that Intel produced for the
` and
` systems months ago, likewise, confirm
`that the chambers at issue in those systems
`.
`As your Honor may recall, you ordered a limited
`30(b)(6) deposition on the
` and
`
` systems so that Demaray can probe the configurations
`
`
`
`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
`
`09:27:58
`
`09:28:02
`
`09:28:05
`
`09:28:09
`
`09:28:12
`
`09:28:15
`
`09:28:16
`
`09:28:19
`
`09:28:22
`
`09:28:25
`
`09:28:29
`
`09:28:29
`
`09:28:32
`
`09:28:35
`
`09:28:40
`
`09:28:43
`
`09:28:46
`
`09:28:49
`
`09:28:52
`
`09:28:55
`
`09:29:00
`
`09:29:03
`
`09:29:05
`
`09:29:09
`
`09:29:12
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 170 Filed 02/18/22 Page 9 of 34
`
`9
`
`of those systems under oath and determine whether those
`systems were in or out. Demaray specifically requested
`that the 30(b)(6) deposition include questions about any
`RF filters, protective DC power source to the target, and
`alternative protection mechanisms for the DC power source
`to the target. Your Honor granted Demaray that request
`and the deposition included those issues.
`In preparation for that 30(b)(6) deposition,
`Intel's deponent, who is a tool owner for those tools and
`familiar with both of them, he inspected each of those
`systems. The inspection included looking at the
`connections from the target power supply to the target
`itself. And Intel's deponent testified extensively under
`oath about what those connections looked like for the
`chambers at issue; and this includes testimony under
`cross-examination from counsel for Demaray. That
`testimony confirms that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Despite requesting that 30(b)(6) deposition and
`sworn testimony under oath as to configurations of these
`chambers, Demaray now claims that this sworn testimony
`provided in the 30(b)(6) deposition this court ordered is
`insufficient. But Demaray has not explained why it needs
`the inspection in view of that detailed, under-oath
`
`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
`
`09:29:17
`
`09:29:20
`
`09:29:24
`
`09:29:28
`
`09:29:32
`
`09:29:36
`
`09:29:38
`
`09:29:40
`
`09:29:43
`
`09:29:47
`
`09:29:51
`
`09:29:54
`
`09:29:58
`
`09:30:02
`
`09:30:04
`
`09:30:07
`
`09:30:10
`
`09:30:13
`
`09:30:16
`
`09:30:20
`
`09:30:23
`
`09:30:27
`
`09:30:30
`
`09:30:33
`
`09:30:38
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 170 Filed 02/18/22 Page 10 of 34
`
`10
`
`testimony Intel's 30(b)(6) deponent already provided
`subject to cross-examination, and any such inspection
`would be unnecessarily duplicative of that testimony.
`Moreover, your Honor, this testimony is in
`addition to numerous documents Intel has produced on these
`systems, including electrical schematics. Intel has
`produced thousands of documents related to these systems,
`yet, during the meet-and-confer, Mr. Wells stated that he
`is not familiar with Intel's document production for these
`systems. Demaray --
`THE COURT: I think I've got it.
`Mr. Wells, let me ask you this. You have the
`schematics. You have a 30(b)(6) under oath of someone
`who's operated the machine and he says, you know, it
`doesn't have it. Why should I allow this inspection?
`MR. WELLS: Yes, your Honor.
`So first, regarding the schematics, we already
`know that the schematics that the reactor suppliers are
`producing don't have the level of detail here. So, for
`example, a schematic might have a black box and say
`component and then, the question is, what's in the
`component? And then, they say, oh, well, we don't have
`that level. So the schematics just don't drive down to
`the level of detail that we need.
`And then, regarding the inspection that was done
`
`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
`
`09:30:42
`
`09:30:46
`
`09:30:47
`
`09:30:51
`
`09:30:53
`
`09:30:56
`
`09:30:59
`
`09:31:02
`
`09:31:05
`
`09:31:08
`
`09:31:10
`
`09:31:12
`
`09:31:15
`
`09:31:20
`
`09:31:25
`
`09:31:31
`
`09:31:32
`
`09:31:34
`
`09:31:38
`
`09:31:41
`
`09:31:44
`
`09:31:46
`
`09:31:49
`
`09:31:51
`
`09:31:52
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 170 Filed 02/18/22 Page 11 of 34
`
`11
`
`by their 30(b)(6) witness, their 30(b)(6) witness is the
`owner and operator of this at Intel. Intel throughout
`this process has said, oh, we don't know the real details
`of these reactors. You've gotta go to the suppliers.
`They've said it for Applied. They've said it for all of
`the other ones. So their react -- the guy that runs this
`equipment actually went and looked at the reactors. But,
`for example, for the
` reactor,
`
`
` We know
`these reactors have very powerful power sources that could
`kill somebody.
`
` He looked at
`the outside of a car and we're asking: Is there an
`alternator? And he says, oh, I don't see one. There's
`not one on the outside, there's not one underneath, and
`I've looked in the windows.
`We need detailed inspection of these reactors.
`We believe these filters are required. There are reactors
`at issue
` indicating that this is
`not a baseless theory. And the idea that there's no
`protective mechanism in place we don't think holds water.
`THE COURT: Okay. Now, having heard that
`explanation, let me hear again from Intel.
`MS. SPECHT: Yes, your Honor.
`Mr. Wells' statements that the schematics do not
`
`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
`
`09:31:54
`
`09:31:58
`
`09:32:00
`
`09:32:04
`
`09:32:06
`
`09:32:09
`
`09:32:12
`
`09:32:15
`
`09:32:17
`
`09:32:19
`
`09:32:23
`
`09:32:27
`
`09:32:30
`
`09:32:32
`
`09:32:35
`
`09:32:37
`
`09:32:38
`
`09:32:42
`
`09:32:45
`
`09:32:48
`
`09:32:51
`
`09:32:54
`
`09:32:57
`
`09:33:00
`
`09:33:01
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 170 Filed 02/18/22 Page 12 of 34
`
`go to the level of detail, I think, is incorrect. We
`produced documents that specifically say
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` So he has not pointed to any black box that
`he wants additional information from as to those
`schematics or not. What's confirmed is in their
`
`infringement contentions, they know that
` because they haven't charted them.
`As to the power supplies, Intel doesn't
`in the ordinary course of its business.
`This is -- these are powerful, you know, components and
`that's not something they ordinarily do. Intel is not
`going to do things in the ordinary course that it doesn't
`do. But there's a significant burden associated with the
`inspection that Mr. Wells is asking for.
`As your Honor is aware, inspection is extremely
`burdensome. It involves a whole host of issues, including
`interrupting Intel's business during a global chip
`shortage, protecting the fab's environment, safety, COVID,
`and third-party intellectual property. In addition, your
`Honor, Intel has a very limited number of these.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`09:33:05
`
`09:33:09
`
`09:33:12
`
`09:33:15
`
`09:33:21
`
`09:33:24
`
`09:33:30
`
`09:33:33
`
`09:33:38
`
`09:33:40
`
`09:33:42
`
`09:33:44
`
`09:33:48
`
`09:33:57
`
`09:33:59
`
`09:34:01
`
`09:34:05
`
`09:34:10
`
`09:34:13
`
`09:34:18
`
`09:34:20
`
`09:34:23
`
`09:34:27
`
`09:34:29
`
`09:34:32
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 170 Filed 02/18/22 Page 13 of 34
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
` And both of these systems are complex, highly
`sensitive tools that Intel uses to deposit thin films at a
`microscopic level.
`Demaray has not articulated with specificity and
`particularity what exactly it wants to do with part of the
`inspections, but allowing Demaray to take apart the tools,
`open up certain components, and even testing as part of an
`inspection could affect the system and the integrity of
`the films being deposited.
`We're looking for alternatives to get them the
`power sources and the cables, but we only have a limited
`set of these. As Mr. Wells said, for the
`system,
`we only have
` target power supplies at issue.
`These serve Intel's ongoing needs for these systems.
`
` Parts for these are very
`difficult to come by. So if Intel provides one of these
`to Demaray, there's no guarantee it can get another one
`that it needs for its ongoing business needs.
`We're investigating on multiple fronts whether we
`can find one and source one, and we're diligently working
`to do that, including whether there is potentially any --
`with any decommissioned machines, the issue is Intel has
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`09:34:35
`
`09:34:39
`
`09:34:43
`
`09:34:46
`
`09:34:51
`
`09:34:52
`
`09:34:55
`
`09:34:58
`
`09:35:02
`
`09:35:06
`
`09:35:08
`
`09:35:10
`
`09:35:13
`
`09:35:17
`
`09:35:21
`
`09:35:26
`
`09:35:31
`
`09:35:36
`
`09:35:39
`
`09:35:42
`
`09:35:46
`
`09:35:49
`
`09:35:53
`
`09:35:57
`
`09:36:00
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 170 Filed 02/18/22 Page 14 of 34
`
`14
`
`been
`
`
` because it is difficult to get
`replacement parts for these systems.
`
`For the
` system, there are
`power supplies in Intel's stockroom. Intel is working on
`multiple fronts to try to see if they can source one. But
`your Honor, there are alternatives that are less
`burdensome that Mr. Wells can explore. My understanding
`is, as of December 8th, Demaray has not pursued discovery
`on the power supplies at issue with
` who
`is the power source supplier itself. They've subpoenaed
`them and they have information that Intel produced on what
`models of power supplies are at issue in the
`
`systems and the
` systems. They should be
`pursuing technical information on the power supply,
`including the components in there, from
`pursuant to that subpoena themselves.
`THE COURT: I think they are so -- but I take
`your point. I'll be back in just a second.
`If we can go back on the record. I'm going to
`deny the request for inspection of reactors at this point
`without prejudice to the plaintiff raising it again if
`they can't get the information from the manufacturers
`themselves that they're working with.
`What is the next 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
`
`09:36:04
`
`09:36:06
`
`09:36:10
`
`09:36:12
`
`09:36:15
`
`09:36:20
`
`09:36:23
`
`09:36:27
`
`09:36:29
`
`09:36:34
`
`09:36:38
`
`09:36:40
`
`09:36:44
`
`09:36:48
`
`09:36:51
`
`09:36:54
`
`09:37:00
`
`09:37:03
`
`09:37:05
`
`09:41:40
`
`09:41:45
`
`09:41:48
`
`09:41:50
`
`09:41:54
`
`09:41:56
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 170 Filed 02/18/22 Page 15 of 34
`
`15
`
`MR. WELLS: The next issue is the Samsung -- and
`just for clarity, your Honor, that was the reactor
`configurations. Are we still allowed to pursue through
`Intel access to the power sources and cables that they're
`working towards?
`THE COURT: Yes. Of course.
`MR. WELLS: In addition, your Honor, one further
`question. They had been looking at getting us access to
`the decommissioned
` reactors that aren't in
`process. Is that off the table?
`THE COURT: No, no. I think that's what -- I
`think I suggested that, in fact.
`MR. WELLS: Oh, okay.
`THE COURT: I mean, I think at another hearing,
`we talked about, you know, were there -- maybe it was in
`the context of Applied Materials, but, you know, I think,
`yes, if you can find some -- my main -- my major -- well,
`I have two major concerns here. One is that how difficult
`it is to do these and I get that. And then, the other is
`not wanting to interfere with any of the businesses that
`are -- to do the inspection.
`So to me, the perfect -- a great solution would
`be a decommissioned -- something that's decommissioned
`that you're not interfering with any of the defendants by
`inspecting it.
`
`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
`
`09:42:00
`
`09:42:04
`
`09:42:06
`
`09:42:09
`
`09:42:12
`
`09:42:14
`
`09:42:15
`
`09:42:17
`
`09:42:20
`
`09:42:22
`
`09:42:24
`
`09:42:26
`
`09:42:29
`
`09:42:30
`
`09:42:31
`
`09:42:35
`
`09:42:38
`
`09:42:42
`
`09:42:47
`
`09:42:51
`
`09:42:54
`
`09:42:57
`
`09:43:01
`
`09:43:04
`
`09:43:08
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 170 Filed 02/18/22 Page 16 of 34
`
`16
`
`MR. WELLS: So to make sure I understand, your
`Honor, Intel will continue to look into whether it has
` decommissioned reactors available.
`THE COURT: Yes.
`MR. WELLS: If they are, they'll make them
`available.
`THE COURT: Right.
`MR. WELLS: And we will do this information from
`, as well, but they'll also look into the cables and
`the power sources as we've discussed.
`THE COURT: Yes, sir.
`MR. WELLS: Thank you, your Honor. Sorry. I
`just wanted that clarity.
`THE COURT: No, no. More clarity is -- less
`clarity means another hearing. So it's all good.
`MR. WELLS: Thank you, your Honor.
`MS. SPECHT: And, your Honor, just briefly to
`respond, we're going to look into the decommissioned
`systems and whether -- if we have them, what can
`reasonably be done with respect to them with what we have.
`THE COURT: I understand, as well.
`MS. SPECHT: Thank you, your Honor.
`MR. WELLS: So the next issue, your Honor, moves
`on to Samsung, so I don't know if Intel's representative
`wants to remain present or not.
`
`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
`
`09:43:09
`
`09:43:11
`
`09:43:14
`
`09:43:15
`
`09:43:16
`
`09:43:18
`
`09:43:18
`
`09:43:18
`
`09:43:21
`
`09:43:24
`
`09:43:26
`
`09:43:27
`
`09:43:28
`
`09:43:29
`
`09:43:31
`
`09:43:35
`
`09:43:38
`
`09:43:39
`
`09:43:42
`
`09:43:44
`
`09:43:47
`
`09:43:50
`
`09:43:51
`
`09:43:53
`
`09:43:55
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 170 Filed 02/18/22 Page 17 of 34
`
`17
`
`MR. RAVEL: We're going to kick that over to
`Samsung. He'd like to remain unless someone wants him to
`drop.
`
`MR. OU: I think he's actually dropped off.
`MR. WELLS: In that case, we'll move on to
`Samsung and I believe that Mr. Milvenan is going to start
`with the Lam reactors, and then, we also have the old
`reactors. And again, these are the non-Applied reactors
`that are at issue in this case.
`MR. MILVENAN: Your Honor, you know, we have
`talked about this issue over and over for PVD reactors,
`the DC power to the target, and RF bias to the substrate,
`the RF signal will damage the DC power supply unless there
`is a protective mechanism. In this case, Demaray's
`patents call for a narrow band-rejection filter to protect
`the DC power supply. But we also have been interested if
`there is not a filter, is there an alternative protective
`mechanism that might be an equivalent under the doctrine
`of equivalents.
`With respect to Lam, in discovery, Samsung has
`identified
`Lam reactors that have DC power to the
`
`target and RF bias to the substrate.
`. And it has been the same story that you have
`heard repeatedly in these prior hearings, Samsung says,
`well, we really don't have any information on these Lam
`
`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
`
`09:44:03
`
`09:44:05
`
`09:44:08
`
`09:44:13
`
`09:44:16
`
`09:44:18
`
`09:44:20
`
`09:44:22
`
`09:44:24
`
`09:44:27
`
`09:44:29
`
`09:44:33
`
`09:44:37
`
`09:44:41
`
`09:44:45
`
`09:44:49
`
`09:44:55
`
`09:44:58
`
`09:45:01
`
`09:45:03
`
`09:45:06
`
`09:45:10
`
`09:45:15
`
`09:45:21
`
`09:45:26
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 170 Filed 02/18/22 Page 18 of 34
`
`18
`
`reactors. And you have heard the refrain in numerous
`hearings of, well, they should have -- Demaray should have
`to chase all of our suppliers if they are interested in
`that information.
`Well, here, with respect to Lam, we actually
`tried that. On July 13th of last year, we served a
`subpoena on Lam. We then conferred with their inhouse
`counsel, and on July 26th, we submitted a -- or served a
`replacement supplemental subpoena that was much narrower.
`On August 14th, they filed objections and gave us no
`documents. We then started a process, my colleague, Ian
`Davis, of meeting with outside counsel for Lam, Scott
`Hastings from Locke Lord, in a series of meet-and-confers
`where we gave Lam whatever information about their
`reactors that we had received from Samsung. Mr. Hastings
`indicated they had responsive documents. The only
`document that was produced was one three-page document
`that was a scholarly article written by a Demaray
`scientist. I think that was a bit of a tweak, your Honor.
`Nothing about the reactors has been produced.
`So after Mr. Hastings told us they had responsive
`documents, we received an e-mail from Lam's inhouse
`counsel telling us that we should not speak with Mr.
`Hastings anymore and that we should speak with him, and
`since that time, they have produced no documents.
`
`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
`
`09:45:30
`
`09:45:36
`
`09:45:40
`
`09:45:43
`
`09:45:46
`
`09:45:49
`
`09:45:53
`
`09:45:56
`
`09:46:01
`
`09:46:07
`
`09:46:10
`
`09:46:18
`
`09:46:24
`
`09:46:26
`
`09:46:31
`
`09:46:36
`
`09:46:39
`
`09:46:42
`
`09:46:49
`
`09:46:54
`
`09:46:57
`
`09:47:00
`
`09:47:03
`
`09:47:05
`
`09:47:09
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 170 Filed 02/18/22 Page 19 of 34
`
`19
`
`However, they have made numerous demands for us to pay
`them for their efforts in resisting our subpoena.
`On December 23rd of last year, Demaray filed a
`motion to compel responses to this subpoena. On January
`5th, Mr. Ou and I met with Lam's new counsel about that
`motion to compel. Steve Ellingson is his name. He
`demanded money if they were going to search for any
`documents. And the parties are still negotiating about
`whether or not a compromise can be reached.
`Now, what this six months of haggling over trying
`to get documents from Lam represents is the fact that I
`believe that even if they are ordered by the Northern
`District of California to produce documents, we're not
`going to get it. And so, what we have asked for today is
`three different possibilities of how to proceed. This
`court could order Samsung to go to Lam and get the
`documents that are recited in our motion to compel, and I
`believe because Lam has emphasized that Samsung is their
`biggest client, in their conversations with us, I believe
`that Samsung might get some pretty quick results in
`getting us the documents that we're asking for.
`The other alternatives are that we've asked the
`Court for an adverse inference regarding Samsung's use of
`an RF filter in the Lam reactors. And then,
`alternatively, if the Court does not want to order 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
`
`09:47:12
`
`09:47:16
`
`09:47:20
`
`09:47:24
`
`09:47:29
`
`09:47:35
`
`09:47:40
`
`09:47:42
`
`09:47:46
`
`09:47:49
`
`09:47:54
`
`09:47:58
`
`09:48:02
`
`09:48:04
`
`09:48:09
`
`09:48:15
`
`09:48:18
`
`09:48:22
`
`09:48:26
`
`09:48:29
`
`09:48:32
`
`09:48:35
`
`09:48:38
`
`09:48:42
`
`09:48:47
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 170 Filed 02/18/22 Page 20 of 34
`
`20
`
`adverse inference, to allow us to have a videotaped
`inspection of these
` sometime before
`the end of this month.
`So, you know, your Honor, the long and short of
`this is, we are very, very frustrated. We have tried to
`get the information from the defendants. The defendants
`say, you should have to chase all of the component
`suppliers. We go to the component suppliers, they say
`well, you know, you should go to the defendants for this.
`We're not a litigant in this case. And, you know, we're
`getting stonewalled.
`We know that there has to be some sort of
`protective mechanism in place to protect these DC power
`supplies. And the question is, what is it? And getting
`schematics that don't show what it is or just being told
`there's no filter does not answer the question of whether
`there's an equivalent. So this has really slowed down
`this case and that's where we are.
`
`And Mr. Wells is going to talk about the
` and it's, you know, of similar story there. I'll
`turn it over to him.
`MR. WELLS: And, your Honor, I just want to
`emphasize that for these two classes of Samsung reactors,
`it's a slightly different situation in the fact that Lam
`has said no, we're not giving you documents. So we've
`
`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
`
`09:48:49
`
`09:48:55
`
`09:49:00
`
`09:49:02
`
`09:49:05
`
`09:49:08
`
`09:49:11
`
`09:49:14
`
`09:49:18
`
`09:49:21
`
`09:49:24
`
`09:49:25
`
`09:49:30
`
`09:49:35
`
`09:49:40
`
`09:49:43
`
`09:49:47
`
`09:49:51
`
`09:49:54
`
`09:49:57
`
`09:50:00
`
`09:50:02
`
`09:50:04
`
`09:50:07
`
`09:50:10
`
`LILY I. REZNIK, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (AUSTIN)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 170 Filed 02/18/22 Page 21 of 34
`
`21
`
`
`
`kind of exhausted that other
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
