Case 6:20-cv-01212-ADA Document 22 Filed 04/21/21 Page 1 of 5
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`Ocean Semiconductor LLC,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`NXP Semiconductors N.V., et al.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Civil Action No.: 6:20-cv-01212-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`PATENT CASE
`
`REPLY RE MOTION BY OCEAN SEMICONDUCTOR LLC FOR LEAVE
`TO FILE SUR-REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO
`NXP USA, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Alex Chan__________________________
`Timothy Devlin (DE Bar No. 4241)
`tdevlin@devlinlawfirm.com
`Henrik D. Parker
`hparker@devlinlawfirm.com
`Alex Chan (State Bar No. 24108051)
`achan@devlinlawfirm.com   
`DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC 
`1526 Gilpin Avenue 
`Wilmington, Delaware 19806 
`Telephone: (302) 449-9010 
`Facsimile: (302) 353-4251 
`
` 
`
`
`DATED: April 21, 2021
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01212-ADA Document 22 Filed 04/21/21 Page 2 of 5
`
`NXP’s Opposition (Dkt. 21) to Ocean’s Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply is both
`
`misguided and belied by filings in a parallel action.
`
`First, as the Court is doubtless aware, there are four other currently-pending Motions to
`
`Dismiss filed by defendants in parallel actions.1 The issues raised in these various motions
`
`substantially overlap with those here. In particular, Silicon Labs’ motion raises every legal issue
`
`that is raised by NXP’s Motion to Dismiss and Silicon Labs’ Reply similarly addressed the many
`
`arguments common across the five Motions to Dismiss. Nevertheless, Silicon Labs did not
`
`oppose Ocean’s Motion for Leave to file a sur-reply. That Silicon Labs did not oppose making
`
`Ocean’s Sur-Reply arguments of record and having them considered by the Court illustrates a
`
`recognition that the various Replies raised new arguments that merited further response from
`
`Ocean. NXP’s Reply, addressing the same legal issues in a similar manner, is no different.
`
`Second, a review of Ocean’s Sur-Reply (Dkt. 20-2) readily illustrates that the Sur-Reply
`
`is entirely directed to responding to specific new arguments made by NXP in its Reply—
`
`arguments that were conspicuously absent in NXP’s opening brief. (Notably, NXP’s Reply is
`
`longer than its original Motion.) Throughout the Sur-Reply, Ocean explicitly discusses and
`
`responds to those new arguments made, and positions taken, by NXP in NXP’s Reply. These
`
`new arguments could not have been addressed in Ocean’s Opposition as they were never raised
`
`in NXP’s opening brief. Similarly, Ocean directly addresses factual arguments raised by NXP in
`
`its Reply that were intentionally mis-stated or taken out of context. See Jenam Tech, LLC v.
`
`Google LLC, No. 6-20-cv-00453-ADA, at 1 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 12, 2021) (granting Plaintiff’s
`
`motion for leave because of the Court’s “main interests” in providing “justice and achieving the
`
` 
`1 No. 6:20-cv-1214-ADA, Dkt. 14 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2021) (Silicon Labs); No. 6:20-cv-1211-
`ADA, Dkt. 13 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 12, 2021) (NVIDIA); No. 6:20-cv-1216-ADA, Dkt. 12 (W.D. Tex.
`Mar. 12, 2021) (Western Digital Technologies); and No. 6:20-cv-1215-ADA, Dkt. 18 (W.D. Tex.
`Mar. 12, 2021) (STMicroelectronics).
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01212-ADA Document 22 Filed 04/21/21 Page 3 of 5
`
`correct outcome based on all of the facts.”) Instances of Ocean responding directly to those new
`
`and mis-stated arguments include the following:
`
` Sur-Reply at 1: “NXP’s Reply continues either to mischaracterize or ignore relevant
`
`precedent while attempting to blur the early threshold requirements to survive a motion to
`
`dismiss. . . .”2
`
` Sur-Reply at 1: “NXP misconstrues Bayer when it argues [on Reply] that ‘the claimed
`
`process itself manufacture a physical product.’ (Dkt. 19 at 1.) Bayer holds no such thing.
`
`. . .”
`
` Sur-Reply at 1: “NXP’s continued reliance on Momenta (Dkt. 15 at 2-3) is also misplaced
`
`as that case involved. . . .”
`
` Sur-Reply at 2: “NXP’s [Reply] claim that ‘Ocean’s arguments as to the ’402 and ’538
`
`patents (and for that matter, the ’305 and ’248 patents) are essentially identical’ (Dkt. 19
`
`at 3) is false. Moreover, Ocean has not asserted that each of the patents is encompassed
`
`by § 271(g) solely because the claimed processes ‘relate’ to the production of
`
`semiconductors. (Dkt. 19 at 3-4.) Rather, . . . .”
`
` Sur-Reply at 3: “Contrary to NXP’s inaccurate [Reply] contention that the ’402 patent’s
`
`claimed process ‘do[es] not create a physical product’ (Dkt. 19 at 5), the invention of the
`
`’402 patent is directed to. . . .”
`
` Sur-Reply at 3: “NXP’s [Reply] contention that the claims of the ’538 patent ‘do not
`
`create a physical product’ (Dkt. 19 at 5) is contradicted by. . . .”
`
` Sur-Reply at 3-4: “Nor has NXP cited any authority for its creative [Reply] proposition
`
`that Ocean’s reliance on multiple claims and the specification of a patent is somehow
`
` 
`2 Unless otherwise stated, all emphasis in this brief has been added.
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01212-ADA Document 22 Filed 04/21/21 Page 4 of 5
`
`improper for the purpose of determining the applicability of Section 271(g). (Dkt. 19 at
`
`4-5.) In fact,. . . .”
`
` Sur-Reply at 4: “NXP’s [Reply] argument that the ’305 and ’248 patents ‘are limited to
`
`scheduling’ (Dkt. 19 at 6) grossly mischaracterizes and oversimplifies the invention of
`
`each patent. Instead, . . . .”
`
` Sur-Reply at 4: “NXP’s [Reply] recitation of applicable law contains numerous
`
`mischaracterizations and unsupported conclusions. . . .”
`
` Sur-Reply at 5: “Momenta offers zero support for NXP’s nebulous proposition that ‘an
`
`important relationship to manufacturing is not enough under § 271(g).’ (Dkt. 19 at 5.)”
`
` Sur-Reply at 5: “NXP’s convoluted [Reply] reading of Bio-Tech Gen. (Dkt. 19 at 5) also
`
`fails.”
`
` Sur-Reply at 5: “While NXP takes pains to argue [on Reply] that the Court should not
`
`consider the factual question of whether a patented process contributes to the commercial
`
`viability of a product (Dkt. 19 at 6-7), it once again relies on selective and misleading
`
`case law quotations. For example, . . . .”
`
` Sur-Reply at 6: “NXP entirely fails to address the final section of Ocean’s Opposition
`
`(see Dkt. 18 at 12). As such, NXP concedes that at worst the Court should grant leave to
`
`amend the Complaint rather than dismissing the Complaint outright.”
`
`In sum, Ocean’s Sur-Reply places NXP’s new and mis-stated Reply arguments and legal
`
`citations in context, highlighting their flaws so that the Court can fully understand each side’s
`
`positions and achieve “the correct outcome.” Leave should be granted for the Sur-Reply to be
`
`filed so that the Motion to Dismiss can be decided (and denied) on the merits.
`
` 
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01212-ADA Document 22 Filed 04/21/21 Page 5 of 5
`
`Dated: April 21, 2021
`
`
`
` 
` 
` 
` 
`
`
`
`/s/ Alex Chan
`Timothy Devlin
`tdevlin@devlinlawfirm.com
`Henrik D. Parker
`hparker@devlinlawfirm.com   
`Alex Chan (State Bar No. 24108051)
`achan@devlinlawfirm.com
`DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC
`1526 Gilpin Avenue
`Wilmington, DE 19806
`Telephone: (302) 449-9010
`Facsimile: (302) 353-4251
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`OCEAN SEMICONDUCTOR LLC
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on April 21, 2021, I caused a copy of this document to be served by
`
`transmitting it via e-mail or electronic transmission to counsel of record for Defendant.
`
`
`
`/s/ Alex Chan
`Alex Chan
`
`
`
`4
`
`