Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-8 Filed 02/23/21 Page 1 of 29
`Case 6:20-cv-00636—ADA Document 51-8 Filed 02/23/21 Page 1 of 29
`
`EXHIBIT 7
`
`EXHIBIT 7
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636—ADA Document 51-8 Filed 02/23/21 Page 1 of 29
`
`EXHIBIT 7
`
`EXHIBIT 7
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-8 Filed 02/23/21 Page 2 of 29
`
`1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`* October 20 & 21, 2020
`DEMARAY LLC
` *
`* CIVIL ACTION NOS.
`*
`*
`*
`
`VS.
`
`
`INTEL CORPORATION
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS, ET AL
`
`W-20-CV-634
`W-20-CV-636
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE ALAN D ALBRIGHT
`TELEPHONIC DISCOVERY HEARING
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`For the Plaintiff:
`
`Crawford Maclain Wells, Esq.
`Benjamin W. Hattenbach, 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
`
`J. Stephen Ravel, Esq.
`Kelly Hart & Hallman LLP
`303 Colorado Street, Suite 2000
`Austin, TX 78701
`
`Brian Christopher Nash, 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
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`03:52
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`15
`
`For Defendant Intel:
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`For Samsung Defendants:
`
`20
`
`Court Reporter:
`
`Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography, transcript
`
`24
`
`produced by computer-aided transcription.
`
`04:01
`
`25
`
`
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-8 Filed 02/23/21 Page 3 of 29
`
`2
`
`(October 20, 2020, 4:01 p.m.)
`
`MS. MILES: Telephonic discovery hearing in Civil Action
`
`W-20-CV-634 and W-20-CV-636, styled Demaray LLC versus Intel
`
`Corporation and Demaray LLC versus Samsung Electronics Company,
`
`Limited and others.
`
`THE COURT: If I could have announcements from counsel,
`
`please.
`
`MR. MILVENAN: Judge, Rick Milvenan from McGinnis for
`
`plaintiff Demaray, joined by Ben Hattenbach and Maclain Wells
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`04:01
`
`04:01
`
`04:01
`
`04:01
`
`04:01
`
`04:01
`
`04:01
`
`04:01
`
`04:01
`
`04:01
`
`10
`
`from Irell & Manella.
`
`04:01
`
`11
`
`MR. RAVEL: Your Honor, Steve Ravel for defendant Intel,
`
`04:02
`
`12
`
`along with my client representative John Edwards.
`
`04:02
`
`13
`
`THE COURT: Very good. And what do we have to talk about?
`
`04:02
`
`04:02
`
`04:02
`
`04:02
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`MR. NASH: Good afternoon, Your Honor.
`
`MR. WELLS: So, Your Honor, this is --
`
`MR. NASH: Excuse me, Maclain. I'd like to say hello.
`
`Judge, this is Brian Nash on behalf of Samsung or the
`
`04:02
`
`18
`
`Samsung defendants.
`
`04:02
`
`04:02
`
`19
`
`20
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
`
`MR. NASH: I'm happy to -- we were the ones that requested
`
`04:02
`
`21
`
`the conference, Your Honor. So I'm happy to kind of jump in
`
`04:02
`
`22
`
`and let you know the issue that we're dealing with if that
`
`04:02
`
`23
`
`would be helpful.
`
`04:02
`
`04:02
`
`24
`
`25
`
`THE COURT: Please.
`
`MR. WELLS: Your Honor, it's our confidential information.
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-8 Filed 02/23/21 Page 4 of 29
`
`3
`
`So we certainly think that it's appropriate for us to go first.
`
`THE COURT: Who just said that? Was it Mr. Milvenan?
`
`MR. WELLS: That was Mclain Wells of Irell & Manella.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. I don't care who goes first. So...
`
`MR. WELLS: Well, Your Honor, this is Maclain Wells of
`
`Irell & Manella and I wanted to just give you a breakdown of
`
`where we are.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`MR. WELLS: So the dispute revolves around the party's
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`04:02
`
`04:02
`
`04:02
`
`04:02
`
`04:02
`
`04:02
`
`04:03
`
`04:03
`
`04:03
`
`04:03
`
`10
`
`Demaray's preliminary infringement contentions. We prepared
`
`04:03
`
`11
`
`preliminary infringement contentions based upon internal
`
`04:03
`
`12
`
`Demaray documents that are marked attorneys' eyes only under
`
`04:03
`
`13
`
`the interim protective order as well as third party reverse
`
`04:03
`
`14
`
`engineering reports of Intel and Samsung products and the other
`
`04:03
`
`15
`
`contractual obligation to maintain the confidentiality of those
`
`04:03
`
`16
`
`materials. So we designated our preliminary infringement
`
`04:03
`
`17
`
`contentions attorneys' eyes only, as we thought proper.
`
`04:03
`
`18
`
`Now, the Court received the parties' positions regarding
`
`04:03
`
`19
`
`this in the CMC update last week and ruled on this matter on
`
`04:03
`
`20
`
`Friday, and the Court determined that the attorneys' eyes only
`
`04:03
`
`21
`
`confidentiality restriction was too narrow and that the
`
`04:03
`
`22
`
`materials should be treated as confidential, which the Court
`
`04:03
`
`23
`
`said would be sufficient to protect the information while
`
`04:03
`
`24
`
`allowing defendants to confer with their clients.
`
`04:04
`
`25
`
`Now, the Court's interim protective order is clear that
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-8 Filed 02/23/21 Page 5 of 29
`
`4
`
`confidential information can be disclosed to in-house counsel
`
`on an as needed basis, other persons in house at defendants
`
`once they're identified and it can be used only for the
`
`purposes of litigating this case. Now, we understand the
`
`Court's order. We're ready to treat the materials exactly as
`
`the Court has suggested.
`
`Now, the other side has come and said they want clarity
`
`regarding the Court's ruling, regarding what restrictions apply
`
`to confidential information. So the dispute is what proper use
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`04:04
`
`04:04
`
`04:04
`
`04:04
`
`04:04
`
`04:04
`
`04:04
`
`04:04
`
`04:04
`
`04:04
`
`10
`
`defendants can make of Demaray's confidential information.
`
`04:04
`
`11
`
`At the meet and confer on Friday between counsel after the
`
`04:04
`
`12
`
`Court's ruling, defendants took the position that they could
`
`04:04
`
`13
`
`still show this information to third parties such as their
`
`04:04
`
`14
`
`suppliers -- one example of a supplier is Applied Materials --
`
`04:04
`
`15
`
`and use it for any related disputes. It's our position that
`
`04:05
`
`16
`
`that really doesn't provide any protection at all. Applied
`
`04:05
`
`17
`
`Materials has filed a second or a third filed litigation in
`
`04:05
`
`18
`
`California and requested the California court enjoin this Court
`
`04:05
`
`19
`
`from proceeding with this case. And Applied Materials has
`
`04:05
`
`20
`
`indicated that it intends to seek IPRs on the patents and more
`
`04:05
`
`21
`
`than likely will seek to stay the California action. So we
`
`04:05
`
`22
`
`think that it's clear that defendants are trying to leverage
`
`04:05
`
`23
`
`this information to delay the -- to delay the case.
`
`04:05
`
`24
`
`Now, the defendants claim that they are suffering
`
`04:05
`
`25
`
`prejudice because they are unable to prepare a transfer motion,
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-8 Filed 02/23/21 Page 6 of 29
`
`5
`
`are unable to prepare invalidity contentions and do a document
`
`collection associated therewith, but they haven't articulated
`
`any reason why the Court's confidentiality designation -- it
`
`impedes their progress on those topics. They can certainly ask
`
`questions and obtain materials on these subjects from their own
`
`personnel as well as third parties without disclosing Demaray's
`
`confidential information. There's nothing exceptional of that
`
`process.
`
`They've already started to claim that they're going to
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`04:05
`
`04:05
`
`04:05
`
`04:05
`
`04:06
`
`04:06
`
`04:06
`
`04:06
`
`04:06
`
`04:06
`
`10
`
`need schedule extensions for a potential motion to transfer as
`
`04:06
`
`11
`
`well as the invalidity disclosures and document collection
`
`04:06
`
`12
`
`associated therewith. We respectfully submit that the Court
`
`04:06
`
`13
`
`has a proposed schedule using the Court's trial dates of
`
`04:06
`
`14
`
`December 27th, 2001 [sic] and has had it for five days.
`
`04:06
`
`15
`
`Defendants haven't raised any reasonable issues with that trial
`
`04:06
`
`16
`
`date, and the Court should enter the proposed schedule and this
`
`04:06
`
`17
`
`case should proceed.
`
`04:06
`
`04:06
`
`04:06
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`MR. NASH: Your Honor, this is Brian Nash for the Samsung
`
`04:06
`
`21
`
`defendants. May I sort of address the reason why we asked for
`
`04:07
`
`22
`
`this conference?
`
`04:07
`
`04:07
`
`23
`
`24
`
`THE COURT: Sure.
`
`MR. NASH: Okay. I apologize, Your Honor, but that -- I
`
`04:07
`
`25
`
`don't know -- Mr. Wells seems to have sort of gotten ahead of
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-8 Filed 02/23/21 Page 7 of 29
`
`6
`
`things because as sort of the fundamental request that the
`
`defendants had on this issue was whether this designation is
`
`proper at all, and I heard him say that this is based off of
`
`confidential RE reports and confidential internal Demaray
`
`documents, and, Your Honor, I don't see that at all, and, in
`
`fact, we submitted these infringement contentions for in camera
`
`inspection, because I've been doing this a long time and I have
`
`never had initial infringement contentions designated
`
`confidential. Now, I could understand if this was somehow
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`04:07
`
`04:07
`
`04:07
`
`04:07
`
`04:07
`
`04:07
`
`04:07
`
`04:07
`
`04:07
`
`04:07
`
`10
`
`reproducing maybe a confidential RE report or something to that
`
`04:07
`
`11
`
`effect, but I asked opposing counsel in multiple meet and
`
`04:07
`
`12
`
`confers, what is it about this that's confidential? Because I
`
`04:08
`
`13
`
`read the entire document and I honestly couldn't identify a
`
`04:08
`
`14
`
`single thing in my review. And he refused to identify to me
`
`04:08
`
`15
`
`what was confidential in the document. He said the entire
`
`04:08
`
`16
`
`thing's confidential. Its reflects our thinking on it. And I
`
`04:08
`
`17
`
`said, well, I don't understand how that can be possible. These
`
`04:08
`
`18
`
`are what you're accusing us, public language of the patent
`
`04:08
`
`19
`
`versus public documents that you've produced to us, and so I
`
`04:08
`
`20
`
`don't see where that is. He wouldn't do it.
`
`04:08
`
`21
`
`So then I had to go through line by line and grab every
`
`04:08
`
`22
`
`single document that was cited. I did this with Cody Gartman,
`
`04:08
`
`23
`
`and the only document that I could identify that was
`
`04:08
`
`24
`
`confidential appears one time on two different pages. It's at
`
`04:08
`
`25
`
`Pages 10 and 11 of Exhibit B of the infringement contentions.
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-8 Filed 02/23/21 Page 8 of 29
`
`7
`
`So two pages out of 61 where I could identify anything that
`
`came from a confidential document. Otherwise there's nothing
`
`in here that reflects any kind of confidential report or RE
`
`report or other internal documentation to Demaray, and,
`
`frankly, for what's been identified and designated as
`
`confidential, I'm not entirely uncertain -- certain why that's
`
`in here anyway because -- and I don't want to get into the
`
`confidentiality of that issue, but it's a 2002 document that
`
`seems to have no bearing at all on Samsung. So I'm not
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`04:08
`
`04:08
`
`04:08
`
`04:09
`
`04:09
`
`04:09
`
`04:09
`
`04:09
`
`04:09
`
`04:09
`
`10
`
`entirely certain why that's even in this infringement
`
`04:09
`
`11
`
`contention at all.
`
`04:09
`
`12
`
`But leaving that issue aside, I asked them, can you do a
`
`04:09
`
`13
`
`redacted version of this? Can we submit this to our clients
`
`04:09
`
`14
`
`without this purported confidential aspect to it? And they
`
`04:09
`
`15
`
`refused to do that. They said the entire thing's confidential.
`
`04:09
`
`16
`
`And I honestly just can't understand how that is possible, Your
`
`04:09
`
`17
`
`Honor, because a simple read of this document doesn't reflect
`
`04:09
`
`18
`
`anything that's confidential internal to Demaray or otherwise.
`
`04:09
`
`19
`
`It's not confidential business information. It's an accusation
`
`04:09
`
`20
`
`as to why we infringe public claims.
`
`04:09
`
`04:10
`
`21
`
`22
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`MR. WELLS: Your Honor, this is Maclain Wells. May I
`
`04:10
`
`23
`
`respond?
`
`04:10
`
`24
`
`MR. RAVEL: I think -- Maclain, I think it's my turn to
`
`04:10
`
`25
`
`talk before you go again if that's all right on behalf of
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-8 Filed 02/23/21 Page 9 of 29
`
`8
`
`Intel.
`
`THE COURT: Mr. Ravel?
`
`MR. RAVEL: Your Honor, on behalf of Intel, I'm going to
`
`drop back, and you've heard the detail, and let me drop back
`
`and provide a little higher level background. This is a case
`
`that has some similarities to DynaEnergetics and to Voip-Pal
`
`versus the world. We don't have just a standard stay or
`
`transfer situation on the elements. We have a competing case.
`
`THE COURT: Mr. Ravel.
`
`MR. RAVEL: Yes.
`
`THE COURT: I'm going to have to put y'all on hold for a
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`04:10
`
`04:10
`
`04:10
`
`04:10
`
`04:10
`
`04:10
`
`04:10
`
`04:10
`
`04:10
`
`04:10
`
`04:10
`
`04:10
`
`12
`
`couple of minutes. I just got a note from the jury. They've
`
`04:10
`
`13
`
`reached a verdict in a case I just tried.
`
`04:10
`
`14
`
`Why don't we do this? Why don't we break off for now and
`
`04:11
`
`15
`
`resume this phone call at 4:30 and I'll take you up right where
`
`04:11
`
`16
`
`you're at right now?
`
`04:11
`
`04:11
`
`04:11
`
`04:12
`
`09:01
`
`09:01
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`MR. RAVEL: Thank you, Judge.
`
`MR. NASH: Very good, Your Honor.
`
`MR. WELLS: Yes, Your Honor.
`
`(Hearing adjourned at 4:12 p.m.)
`
`(October 21, 2020, 9:01 a.m.)
`
`MS. MILES: Telephonic discovery hearing in Civil Action
`
`09:01
`
`23
`
`W-20-CV-634, styled Demaray LLC versus Intel Corporation, and
`
`09:02
`
`24
`
`Civil Action W-20-CV-636, styled Demaray LLC versus Samsung
`
`09:02
`
`25
`
`Electronics Company, Limited, and others.
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-8 Filed 02/23/21 Page 10 of 29
`
`9
`
`THE COURT: Good morning. If I could hear -- if I could
`
`have folks announce on the record, please, starting with
`
`plaintiff.
`
`MR. MILVENAN: Your Honor, Rick Milvenan from McGinnis
`
`Lochridge on behalf of Demaray, joined by Ben Hattenbach and
`
`Maclain Wells from the Irell & Manella firm.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`MR. RAVEL: Your Honor, Steve Ravel for Intel. One riot,
`
`one ranger, one lawyer only, joined by my client John Edwards.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`MR. NASH: Good morning, Your Honor. Brian Nash here on
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`09:02
`
`09:02
`
`09:02
`
`09:02
`
`09:02
`
`09:02
`
`09:02
`
`09:02
`
`09:02
`
`09:02
`
`09:02
`
`09:02
`
`12
`
`behalf of the Samsung defendants. Also one riot, one ranger.
`
`09:02
`
`13
`
`THE COURT: Well, all good. Let me just reboot here for a
`
`09:03
`
`14
`
`second and make sure I understand what's going on. The
`
`09:03
`
`15
`
`position that the plaintiff wants to take here is that its
`
`09:03
`
`16
`
`infringement contentions are confidential and should be
`
`09:03
`
`17
`
`restricted in who can review them; is that correct?
`
`09:03
`
`18
`
`MR. WELLS: That is correct, Your Honor. This is Maclain
`
`09:03
`
`19
`
`Wells.
`
`09:03
`
`09:03
`
`20
`
`21
`
`THE COURT: Yes, sir.
`
`I thought a lot about this last night and I'm not sure I
`
`09:03
`
`22
`
`understand why I would restrict or make those confidential. I
`
`09:03
`
`23
`
`know we talked about this in the past. But, you know, I've
`
`09:03
`
`24
`
`spent a lot of time thinking about this. I have talked to some
`
`09:03
`
`25
`
`of the other judges who handle a lot of patent cases to make
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-8 Filed 02/23/21 Page 11 of 29
`
`10
`
`sure I wasn't missing something. But tell me why it is that I
`
`would -- other than I fully understand, for example, if there
`
`is something, let's say, that is Samsung source code or
`
`something in the infringement contentions that itself needs to
`
`be restricted, I get that, but tell me why your infringement
`
`contentions should not be made public, because I'm having a
`
`hard time with that.
`
`MR. WELLS: Yes, Your Honor. So, again, this is Maclain
`
`Wells. So let's start with the basic premise of whether
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`09:03
`
`09:03
`
`09:04
`
`09:04
`
`09:04
`
`09:04
`
`09:04
`
`09:04
`
`09:04
`
`09:04
`
`10
`
`preliminary infringement contentions can be designated by a
`
`09:04
`
`11
`
`plaintiff to be confidential, and other courts in the circuit
`
`09:04
`
`12
`
`have already answered that question. And the ExitExchange
`
`09:04
`
`13
`
`Corp. v. Casale Media Incorporated, No. 2:10-CV-297 before
`
`09:04
`
`14
`
`Judge Gilstrap answered this question. And Judge Gilstrap said
`
`09:04
`
`15
`
`very clearly that, yes. Preliminary infringement contentions
`
`09:05
`
`16
`
`as a general matter may be confidential and designated
`
`09:05
`
`17
`
`according to the protective order by the plaintiff. And the
`
`09:05
`
`18
`
`Lexis number for that, if it's useful, is 2012 US District
`
`09:05
`
`19
`
`Lexis 40000.
`
`09:05
`
`20
`
`Another example is the Uniloc case that was cited in our
`
`09:05
`
`21
`
`CMC update.
`
`09:05
`
`22
`
`So as a general matter, plaintiffs can designate
`
`09:05
`
`23
`
`preliminary infringement contentions confidential if they
`
`09:05
`
`24
`
`contain confidential information.
`
`09:05
`
`25
`
`Now, in this matter here defendants developed contentions
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-8 Filed 02/23/21 Page 12 of 29
`
`11
`
`based upon, one, internal Demaray documents that are marked
`
`attorneys' eyes only under the interim protective order, and
`
`nobody's challenging designation of those internal Demaray
`
`documents. And, again, Demaray's an active company conducting
`
`research and development in the field of thin films, and those
`
`materials helped inform Demaray's contentions that the
`
`defendants' products practiced the patents.
`
`A second basis --
`
`THE COURT: So, Mr. Wells, let me just make sure I'm
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`09:05
`
`09:05
`
`09:05
`
`09:05
`
`09:05
`
`09:06
`
`09:06
`
`09:06
`
`09:06
`
`09:06
`
`10
`
`following you. And I'm sorry to sound so obtuse. Is it your
`
`09:06
`
`11
`
`position that -- let me start over. My general feeling is that
`
`09:06
`
`12
`
`infringement contentions are not going to be confidential. And
`
`09:06
`
`13
`
`I know you got -- Judge Gilstrap has a case that I'm -- I'm
`
`09:06
`
`14
`
`pretty comfortable that several judges agree with me that --
`
`09:06
`
`15
`
`that as a general matter infringement contentions are not going
`
`09:06
`
`16
`
`to be kept confidential. Is it your position that there is
`
`09:06
`
`17
`
`information specific to these infringement contentions that
`
`09:07
`
`18
`
`within it that itself needs to be maintained and be kept
`
`09:07
`
`19
`
`confidential?
`
`09:07
`
`20
`
`MR. WELLS: Yes, Your Honor. And I would just like to
`
`09:07
`
`21
`
`mention that Judge Gilstrap's not the only judge that has
`
`09:07
`
`22
`
`addressed this. Other judges have addressed this as well in
`
`09:07
`
`23
`
`other districts. I can give you additional citations if you
`
`09:07
`
`24
`
`would like them, but just to be clear, that -- Judge Gilstrap
`
`09:07
`
`25
`
`isn't the only judge that's found that infringement contentions
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-8 Filed 02/23/21 Page 13 of 29
`
`12
`
`can be confidential to the plaintiff.
`
`Now, regarding your second question -- or your question as
`
`to whether there are materials in here. Yes. There are
`
`materials. So Demaray developed these contentions based upon
`
`its internal analysis and third party reverse engineering
`
`reports. And, again, the third party reverse engineering
`
`reports are also subject to a contractual obligation to
`
`maintain their confidentiality. And what Demaray did was they
`
`used these materials to figure out basically a fingerprint for
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`09:07
`
`09:07
`
`09:07
`
`09:07
`
`09:07
`
`09:07
`
`09:07
`
`09:07
`
`09:07
`
`09:08
`
`10
`
`the technology that it could identify and help inform as to
`
`09:08
`
`11
`
`whether or not these patented processes are being used. And so
`
`09:08
`
`12
`
`it -- all of Demaray's contentions are -- that analysis
`
`09:08
`
`13
`
`underlies all of Demaray's contentions in this case. There's
`
`09:08
`
`14
`
`readily available public contentions from Demaray in the
`
`09:08
`
`15
`
`complaint that put forth Demaray -- a public version of
`
`09:08
`
`16
`
`Demaray's infringement allegations. To the extent these
`
`09:08
`
`17
`
`infringement contentions in the -- submitted to the other side
`
`09:08
`
`18
`
`go beyond that, they're confidential in Demaray's opinion.
`
`09:08
`
`19
`
`Now, the interim protective order puts forth the standard
`
`09:08
`
`20
`
`for what's protectable and it says if a party deems that
`
`09:08
`
`21
`
`information to be confidential, it should be protected, and
`
`09:08
`
`22
`
`Demaray certainly believes that both its internal AEO materials
`
`09:08
`
`23
`
`that have been designated and are referenced in the preliminary
`
`09:09
`
`24
`
`infringement contentions and are relied on in making those
`
`09:09
`
`25
`
`contentions as well as the third party reverse engineering
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-8 Filed 02/23/21 Page 14 of 29
`
`13
`
`reports that were relied on and produced in the contentions are
`
`confidential.
`
`Now, Mr. Nash brought up the point yesterday that the
`
`contentions don't contain excerpts of these third party reverse
`
`engineering reports, but of course there's no obligation to
`
`recreate those materials in the chart. The important part is
`
`that they are -- contentions are based on and reflect that
`
`information. And protective orders often use the language
`
`referring or relating to confidential information to encompass
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`09:09
`
`09:09
`
`09:09
`
`09:09
`
`09:09
`
`09:09
`
`09:09
`
`09:09
`
`09:09
`
`09:09
`
`10
`
`just this type of work product.
`
`09:09
`
`11
`
`Your Honor has the VLSI's -- the Intel case before him
`
`09:09
`
`12
`
`that uses exactly that language referring or relating to
`
`09:09
`
`13
`
`confidential information is the information that's protectable.
`
`09:09
`
`14
`
`In this case Demaray relied on the interim protective order.
`
`09:09
`
`15
`
`It has confidential information underlying its contentions, and
`
`09:10
`
`16
`
`it thinks it should be protected.
`
`09:10
`
`17
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Let me hear from Mr. Nash. What is it
`
`09:10
`
`18
`
`that you want to do or not do that is making the plaintiff
`
`09:10
`
`19
`
`unhappy in this case?
`
`09:10
`
`20
`
`MR. NASH: Your Honor, I think this designation is
`
`09:10
`
`21
`
`entirely improper. These are accusations that take the public
`
`09:10
`
`22
`
`language of a patent and say that you infringe this patent and
`
`09:10
`
`23
`
`we believe you infringe it based on your product, and that
`
`09:10
`
`24
`
`should only be information that Samsung is able to review
`
`09:10
`
`25
`
`without any restriction and pass on to its suppliers without
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-8 Filed 02/23/21 Page 15 of 29
`
`14
`
`any restrictions.
`
`With all due respect to opposing counsel, this somewhat
`
`sounds trumped up in the sense that they're not even contending
`
`that there's something confidential in this document in terms
`
`of like it's like source code or a copy and paste from some
`
`confidential diagram. What they're saying is that there's an
`
`RE report. They read an RE report which they've never
`
`produced, we've never seen, no one has it, it's not a produced
`
`document. They're saying that that alleged RE report is
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`09:10
`
`09:10
`
`09:10
`
`09:10
`
`09:10
`
`09:10
`
`09:11
`
`09:11
`
`09:11
`
`09:11
`
`10
`
`somehow confidential. And after they thought about that, then
`
`09:11
`
`11
`
`they could tell that our claims were infringed and that by
`
`09:11
`
`12
`
`virtue of them telling us that our claims are infringed, that's
`
`09:11
`
`13
`
`somehow now confidential? That doesn't make any sense to me at
`
`09:11
`
`14
`
`all.
`
`09:11
`
`15
`
`I've gone through this multiple times trying to identify
`
`09:11
`
`16
`
`what could possibly be considered confidential in here, and,
`
`09:11
`
`17
`
`Your Honor, I believe we submitted it for in camera review.
`
`09:11
`
`18
`
`You can take a look at it yourself, but as you read this, it
`
`09:11
`
`19
`
`says, here's the claim language. Here's why we think Samsung
`
`09:11
`
`20
`
`infringes. And each of those statements is a public -- is
`
`09:11
`
`21
`
`drawn from a public document, and, in fact, all of their
`
`09:11
`
`22
`
`production except for about three documents are public. Two of
`
`09:11
`
`23
`
`those I think arguably relate to maybe conception. I'm not
`
`09:11
`
`24
`
`entirely certain, but the one that they're referring to that I
`
`09:12
`
`25
`
`believe they contend is an internal Demaray document and
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-8 Filed 02/23/21 Page 16 of 29
`
`15
`
`Mr. Wells said that we don't challenge that designation or
`
`something like that, I don't think that -- I think it's too
`
`early to say whether we do challenge that designation or not.
`
`It looks to be an internal document, but I can't tell for sure.
`
`It's from 2002, though, Your Honor, and I'm not entirely
`
`certain -- I certainly don't think he's contending that that's
`
`the RE report.
`
`And this internal document that purports to have been
`
`created in 2002, 18 years ago, is somehow informing their
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`09:12
`
`09:12
`
`09:12
`
`09:12
`
`09:12
`
`09:12
`
`09:12
`
`09:12
`
`09:12
`
`09:12
`
`10
`
`present infringement contentions against Samsung. To me that's
`
`09:12
`
`11
`
`a huge question mark in and of itself, but it's also doubly so
`
`09:12
`
`12
`
`a question as to how that somehow makes these contentions
`
`09:12
`
`13
`
`confidential now in 2020.
`
`09:12
`
`14
`
`That's the -- that's -- ultimately, Your Honor, we
`
`09:12
`
`15
`
`challenge this designation as a starting point because we think
`
`09:12
`
`16
`
`it's improperly made, but at the very least I think that if
`
`09:12
`
`17
`
`they want to maintain this, they need to go through here line
`
`09:12
`
`18
`
`by line and say, this is a -- this statement here is
`
`09:13
`
`19
`
`confidential and this one is -- is not. I mean, that's how you
`
`09:13
`
`20
`
`would typically do this. And otherwise, you know, their broad
`
`09:13
`
`21
`
`interpretation of what would constitute confidential would make
`
`09:13
`
`22
`
`the entirety of a case confidential. Because when I go back
`
`09:13
`
`23
`
`and tell them, you know what? I've looked at this and Samsung
`
`09:13
`
`24
`
`does not infringe. That's going to be based on my own internal
`
`09:13
`
`25
`
`review of Samsung's confidential information. I certainly
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-8 Filed 02/23/21 Page 17 of 29
`
`16
`
`won't be taking a position, though, that that blanket
`
`contention that I do not infringe or that Samsung does not
`
`infringe is somehow based on -- is somehow a confidential
`
`contention. The contentions can't be confidential. They may
`
`be based on confidential information, and you're welcome to
`
`blanket that information confidential.
`
`Typically in a case -- and, in fact, in every case I've
`
`ever had, in my experience, the only confidential information
`
`that's involved in an infringement contention is the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`09:13
`
`09:13
`
`09:13
`
`09:13
`
`09:13
`
`09:13
`
`09:13
`
`09:13
`
`09:13
`
`09:13
`
`10
`
`defendant's confidential information. I've never seen it where
`
`09:14
`
`11
`
`a plaintiff has been able to shroud its contentions in secrecy
`
`09:14
`
`12
`
`by somehow contending that it's based on their quote/unquote
`
`09:14
`
`13
`
`work product.
`
`09:14
`
`14
`
`THE COURT: Well, we've got -- what we'll do is this.
`
`09:14
`
`15
`
`Josh and I will take a look at the infringement contentions
`
`09:14
`
`16
`
`which we have, and we'll get that -- we'll get that done today
`
`09:14
`
`17
`
`and we'll huddle back up. I just wanted to -- I just wanted to
`
`09:14
`
`18
`
`check again this morning. We were at the end of the trial
`
`09:14
`
`19
`
`yesterday and I was a little scattered when you all were
`
`09:14
`
`20
`
`chatting with me. We'll look at the infringement contentions
`
`09:14
`
`21
`
`and we'll set up something -- a call for tomorrow if we need a
`
`09:14
`
`22
`
`call or we'll just enter a ruling, but essentially the position
`
`09:14
`
`23
`
`plaintiff wants us to take is that they can -- the plaintiff
`
`09:14
`
`24
`
`can maintain marking of confidential on these documents and the
`
`09:14
`
`25
`
`defendants suggest that these infringement contentions should
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-8 Filed 02/23/21 Page 18 of 29
`
`17
`
`not be -- there should be no restraint on who the defendant can
`
`show them to.
`
`Is that a fair summary of both sides?
`
`MR. WELLS: Your Honor, one point, if I could make it,
`
`please. This is Maclain Wells.
`
`THE COURT: Sure. Of course.
`
`MR. WELLS: Mr. Nash just stated why he thinks this is not
`
`confidential, but he didn't address what use they want to make
`
`of this information, Your Honor. And, Your Honor, at the meet
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`09:14
`
`09:15
`
`09:15
`
`09:15
`
`09:15
`
`09:15
`
`09:15
`
`09:15
`
`09:15
`
`09:15
`
`10
`
`and confer on this issue, the defendants said, oh, we need to
`
`09:15
`
`11
`
`have -- be able to give notice to our clients. Well, we
`
`09:15
`
`12
`
`offered to let them disclose this to Intel and to their
`
`09:15
`
`13
`
`suppliers and to Samsung as long as they only used it for the
`
`09:15
`
`14
`
`purposes of this case, but that's not what they want to do.
`
`09:15
`
`15
`
`They want to take these contentions and they want to submit
`
`09:15
`
`16
`
`them in a third filed case in California to the court in
`
`09:15
`
`17
`
`California to try to get that court to enjoin this Court from
`
`09:15
`
`18
`
`proceeding and they want to submit them to the Patent Office to
`
`09:15
`
`19
`
`support IPRs. That's an improper use of this information. So
`
`09:16
`
`20
`
`just to be clear, that's the purpose that they're trying to
`
`09:16
`
`21
`
`achieve. So with that --
`
`09:16
`
`22
`
`And then in addition, if Your Honor would like the
`
`09:16
`
`23
`
`additional cases, I'm happy to support the -- submit those to
`
`09:16
`
`24
`
`you.
`
`09:16
`
`25
`
`THE COURT: Mr. Nash?
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-8 Filed 02/23/21 Page 19 of 29
`
`18
`
`MR. RAVEL: Your Honor, before we break, could Intel
`
`respond to that last comment for a couple of minutes?
`
`THE COURT: I was going to invite Mr. Nash to do it, but
`
`if it's you that should do that, I'm welcome to hear you do it.
`
`MR. RAVEL: Your Honor --
`
`MR. NASH: I have a statement, but I'll let Steve go
`
`first.
`
`Go ahead, Steve.
`
`MR. RAVEL: On the issue of the use to which issue Intel
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`09:16
`
`09:16
`
`09:16
`
`09:16
`
`09:16
`
`09:16
`
`09:16
`
`09:16
`
`09:16
`
`09:16
`
`10
`
`and Samsung want to put these contentions, there is a customer
`
`09:16
`
`11
`
`suit exception lawsuit in ND Cal that is in the nature of a
`
`09:16
`
`12
`
`coverage lawsuit. Applied Materials supplies the tools that
`
`09:16
`
`13
`
`are discussed in the infringement contentions. The smart
`
`09:16
`
`14
`
`lawyers are working a strategy. It's their job. It's
`
`09:17
`
`15
`
`appropriate to try it. It's not appropriate for them to
`
`09:17
`
`16
`
`succeed at it, but they are doing their job trying to muddy the
`
`09:17
`
`17
`
`waters out in their related case out in ND Cal, and the
`
`09:17
`
`18
`
`contested issue out there is, do the allegations relate to the
`
`09:17
`
`19
`
`Applied Material tools or something that Samsung and Intel are
`
`09:17
`
`20
`
`doing, very high level.
`
`09:17
`
`21
`
`What Samsung and Intel would like to do is not only share
`
`09:17
`
`22
`
`these contentions with one representative at each client but
`
`09:17
`
`23
`
`with their supplier Applied Materials, and I think I heard
`
`09:17
`
`24
`
`Mr. Wells say that's okay. And then subject to appropriate
`
`09:17
`
`25
`
`sealing or other protection that Applied and its outside
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 51-8 Filed 02/23/21 Page 20 of 29
`
`19
`
`counsel in ND Cal get to use those to the exten
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
