Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 225 Filed 09/22/22 Page 1 of 4
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 225 Filed 09/22/22 Page 1 of 4
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`WACO DIVISION
`
`NO. 6:20-cv-636-ADA
`JUDGE ALBRIGHT
`
`§ §
`
`§ §
`
`DEMARAYLLC,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`v.
`
`§
`§
`_§
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,LTD (A
`§
`KOREAN COMPANY), SAMSUNG
`§
`ELECTRONICS AMERICA,INC.,
`SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR,INC., and §
`SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR-
`§
`LLC,
`§
`
`Defendants.
`
`PUBLIC VERSION OF
`PUBLIC VERSION OF
`SEALED ORDER
`
`Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Samsung to provide certain informationrelating to its
`
`use of the Applied Materials BEchambers for depositingee.
`
`Samsung opposes Plaintiff's request. On September 2, 2022, the parties submitted a discovery
`
`dispute chart with their respective positions and requested relief, which is reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Motion to Samsung improperly seeks to withhold|Demaray’s request for discovery
`
`concerning Samsung’s use of
`Compel
`information regarding its use of
`
`
`
`Samsung To
`
`should be
`Produce
`
`denied. Demaray untimely seeks
`Discovery
`On All of
`discovery after Final Infringement
`
`the
`Contentions on productsit
`
`represented multiple times, including
`to the Court, were notat issue.
`Moreover, Demaray has no good
`cause for requesting discovery on
`products disclosed 15 months ago,
`which would be highly prejudicial to
`Samsung.
`
`have beencentral to
`this case since February 2022, when
`Demaray confirmed throug
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 225 Filed 09/22/22 Page 2 of 4
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 225 Filed 09/22/22 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
` and thus chambersfor all such
`
`irrelevant and burdensome:
`
`layers are at issue.
` Samsung, however, asserted in
`interrogatory
`
`First, the requested discovery is
`
`Samsung therefore
`
`limited its identified use of Rather, Demaray repeatedly
`responsesthat the
`
`
`
`
`In the last few weeks, Samsun
`
`roduced
`|
`
`
`
`ose materials reveale
`that, contrary to Samsung’s
`representations,
`
`disclosures regarding Samsung’s use of
`
`Samsung
`refuses to even identify such uses,let
`alone provide discovery about them.
`
`
`
`
`9/27/2021 Tr.
` Demaray promptly requeste
`
`36:14-19, 34:23-35:1. Demaray puts
`
`the cart before the horse by seeking
`discovery on unaccused products
`without seeking leave to add them
`
`
`(whichit could not obtain).
`
` Second, Demarayhas not been
`creanTETOSTERIET are
`indisputably accused, and Demaray’s
`Final Infringement Contentions
` Farfrom “hiding” its use of|
`
`specifically identi
`, Samsung disclosed them in
`
`its December 2020 interrogatory
`
`Demaray also explained that Samsun
`responses. See Samsung’s Resp.
`
`to Transfer Interrogatory No. 1
`
`& Ex. B.
`
`
`
`
`
` discovery.
`
`
`confirmed the accused products
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Demaray represented to the Court
`
`diligent:
`
`In February—May 2021, Samsung
`and Applied Materials produced
`
`technical information
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FICs (°657) at
`
`
`
`
`the same
`
`
`information that Demaray now—
`over 15 months later—basesits
`
`
`requests to expand the scope of
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 225 Filed 09/22/22 Page 3 of 4
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 225 Filed 09/22/22 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`. But, Samsung has
`neverarticulated the details of this
`argument, let alone revealed that
`Samsung wasusing it to withhold
`discovery. Demaray disagrees with
`Samsung’s unsupported argument,
`which ignores
`
`In February 2021, Applied
`Materials’ Director of
`
`In May 2021, Mr. Miller’s
`
`Engineering Keith Miller
`declaration confirmed
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`|
`Some
`claims merely require “coupling” in this
`regard, and the patents explicitly teach
`capacitive coupling through plasma
`(‘276 col. 5:26-27).
`
`
`
`1es that it disclosed details
`
`not disclose details of the
`
`Samsung ar . But Samsung did
`
`just came to li
`
`This information
`
`By hiding its use o
`
`l
`
`blocking
`and
`related disclosures based on a contested
`apparent non-infringementposition,
`Samsungis effectively pushing for
`summary judgment of non-infringement
`by meansof a discovery blockade. The
`Court just recently denied a motion to
`strike infringement contentions because
`it would effectively grant summary
`judgmentof non-infringement while
`fact discovery remained ongoing. The
`same reasoning applies here.
`
`Requested Relief:
`
`Respectfully, the Court should order
`Samsungto:
`
`
`
`Fact discovery opened in June 2021,
`after these disclosures. Yet in the 15
`months since, Demaray has neither
`accused norsought discovery on
`. It is too late for
`Demaray to seek such discovery,let
`alone amendits contentions to
`includeall-new products based on an
`infringementtheory it sworeoff.
`
`Although Demaray claims
`Samsung’s recent production of
`matters here, it does
`not: that production did notrelate to
`
`CT andDemaraydoesnot
`
`explain how it provided any
`pertinent new information.
`Demaray’s reference to Samsung’s
`alleged “configuration”is
`misleading: as Demaray knows,
`Samsun
`
`
`
`
`
`. See Case 5:20-cv-9341,
`ECF38, at 1. Regardless, that is no
`
`excuse for Demaray’s failure to seek
`timely discovery on
`
`(1) Supplementits response to
`Interrogatory No. 1
`
`
`
`Third, allowing this discovery would
`severely prejudice Samsung. While
`Samsung reservesall rights to
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 225 Filed 09/22/22 Page 4 of 4
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 225 Filed 09/22/22 Page 4 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`oppose any attempt by Demarayat
`this late stage to amendits
`contentions to include
`this new discovery wouldonly serve
`theories that would raise new
`invalidity grounds and claim
`constructions.
`
`Requested Relief:
`
`Anorder that Demaray’s discovery
`requests are denied.
`
`(2) Provide disclosures on
`
`(3) Provide otherrelevant technical
`discover
`
`development documents, and the
`like.
`
`The Court, after having reviewedthe parties’ respective submissions and heard the parties’
`
`positions on September 14, 2022, DENIES Plaintiff's requestedrelief.
`
`In addition, as discussedat the hearing, the parties shall submit a proposed Joint Motion to
`
`Modify the Scheduling Orderthat includes a September11, 2023 trial date.
`
`IT ISSO ORDERED.
`
`SIGNEDthis 22nd day of September, 2022.
`
`5
`
`(DonsO\ona
`
`HON. ALAN D. ALBRIGHT
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`E
`
`