`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`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-00636-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`PLAINTIFF DEMARAY LLC’S OPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUR-
`REPLY TO SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
`
`Pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(b), Plaintiff Demaray LLC (“Demaray”) files this opposed
`
`Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply to Samsung’s Motion to Transfer Venue (Dkt. 40). A copy
`
`of Demaray’s sur-reply brief is attached as Exhibit A. Samsung’s March 30, 2021 reply brief
`
`regarding its motion to transfer venue raises a snowstorm of cherry-picked, close-cropped,
`
`mischaracterized and untimely “evidence” (including twenty-four new exhibits and a new
`
`witness declaration) that Demaray has not been afforded an opportunity to address. For example:
`
` Samsung has submitted twenty-four new exhibits and a new declaration from
`
`Donald Verplancken in support of its reply to which Demaray has not had the
`
`opportunity to respond. Most of this evidence relates to Applied personnel and
`
`was readily available to Samsung at the time it filed its motion;
`
` Samsung identifies witnesses relating to unalleged, speculative inventorship and
`
`10924238
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 98 Filed 04/07/21 Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`inequitable conduct defenses to which Demaray has not had the opportunity to
`
`respond; and
`
` Samsung identifies a new laundry list of additional witnesses regarding its
`
`speculative inequitable conduct and inventorship defenses and the SRA
`
`underlying its licensing defense. Demaray should be allowed to respond to
`
`Samsung’s heavily-skewed picture of these tangential matters.
`
`In the interest of fairness, Demaray respectfully requests the Court grant it leave to file its
`
`sur-reply brief and attached declaration and exhibits addressing these new arguments. See
`
`Rodriguez v. Hall, CV SA-14-CA-459-OLG, 2015 WL 13796699, at *5 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 15,
`
`2015) (“[I]n granting leave to file a sur-reply, the Court afforded defendants the opportunity to
`
`respond to the new argument raised in the plaintiff's reply brief.”).
`
`Samsung has been contacted with respect to the filing of this motion and opposes the
`
`relief requested.
`
`Dated: March 31, 2021
`
`/s/ C. Maclain Wells
`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
`
`10924238
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 98 Filed 04/07/21 Page 3 of 3
`
`
`
`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
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
`
`The undersigned certifies counsel notified Samsung of this filing and Samsung stated that
`
`it “disagree[s] that a sur-reply is warranted.” Accordingly, this motion and the relief requested
`
`herein are filed as opposed.1
`
`
`
`By: /s/ C. Maclain Wells
`C. Maclain Wells
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`A true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument and its attachments were served
`
`electronically via email upon all counsel of record on this 31 day of March, 2021.
`
`By: /s/ C. Maclain Wells
`C. Maclain Wells
`
`
`
`1 Counsel for Samsung indicated it may meet and confer further if Demaray listed all
`“new arguments and evidence” from the reply and identified any responsive evidence that
`Demaray intended to submit. Given Samsung’s position that a sur-reply is “unwarranted,”
`Demaray does not believe that any further meet and confer will be useful and is filing this
`motion as opposed.
`
`10924238
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
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
