`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 89-16 Filed 03/30/21 Page 1 of 3
`
`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,
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS ANIERICA, 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
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DONALD VERPLANCKEN
`
`IN SUPPORT OF MOTIONS TO TRANSFER VENUE
`
`1, Donald Verplancken, hereby declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am a partner at the law firm Patterson & Sheridan LLP Where I hate been
`
`employed since 2002. Prior tojoining my firm, I was formerly Chief PBG at Applied Materials,
`
`Inc. (“Applied”), when I worked at Applied’s headquarters in the Northern District of California
`
`and was responsible for the patent matters of the company. I currently reside in Houston, Texas.
`
`I either have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this declaration or my knowledge is
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 89-16 Filed 03/30/21 Page 2 of 3
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 89-16 Filed 03/30/21 Page 2 of 3
`
`based on my review of relevant documents. If called upon to do so, I could and would testify
`
`competently to the matters set forth herein.
`
`2.
`
`I understand that Demaray LLC (“Demaray”) has filed patent infringement suits
`
`against Applied’s customers, Intel Corporation (“Intel”) and multiple Samsung entities
`
`(collectively, “‘Samsung”) in the Western District of Texas and that Intel and Samsung have filed
`
`motions to transfer those suits to the Northern District of California.
`
`3.
`
`I understand that Intel and Samsung have asserted an affirmative defense that
`
`their use of equipment supplied by Applied Materials, Inc. (“Applied”) and accused of
`
`infringement is licensed under the patents-in-suit pursuant to a Sales and Relationship agreement
`
`between Symmorphix, Inc. (“Symmorphix”) and Applied Komatsu Technology, Inc. (“AKT”)
`
`executed on December 11, 1998 (“SRA”) and for which its Exhibit C was modified on January
`
`29, 1999 (“Modified Exhibit C”).
`
`4.
`
`I was involved in the negotiations of the SRA and the Modified Exhibit C on
`
`behalf of Applied and AKT, recall the intent of the parties in modifying the license grant of
`
`intellectual property under paragraph 3(b) of Exhibit C of the SRA, and if asked, could testify to
`
`my recollection. To the best of my present recollection, the person most knowledgeable on
`
`behalf of AKT and Applied about the negotiations of the SRA and the Modified Exhibit C was
`
`Kam Law, former present of AKT. Don Kumamoto, former VP of Intellectual Property of
`
`Applied, was also knowledgeable about the negotiations of the SRA and the Modified Exhibit C.
`
`To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Kumamoto currently resides in the Northern District of
`
`California.
`
`5.
`
`Although I currently reside in Houston, Texas, prior to the COVID-l9 pandemic,
`
`I frequently traveled to the Northern District of California where my daughter resides and where
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 89-16 Filed 03/30/21 Page 3 of 3
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 89-16 Filed 03/30/21 Page 3 of 3
`
`my law firm maintains an office in San Jose, California- My firm also maintains an office in
`
`Waco, Texas, but I do not recall ever visiting or working out of that office. If I were asked or
`
`compelled to testify at a trial regarding my recollection of the intent of the parties in modifying
`
`the license grant of intellectual property under paragraph 3(b) of Exhibit C of the SRA, because
`
`of my connections to the district, it would be significantly more convenient for me to attend a
`
`trial in the Northern District of California than a trial in in the Western District of Texas.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March
`
`30, 2021.
`
`Donald Verplancken
`
`
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
