This joint development work resulted in landmark achievements and breakthroughs in technology, including the world’s first prototype chip using a “7nm”6 Traditionally, a transistor size referred to the half pitch of contacted metal wires.

GF and IBM spent millions of dollars on techniques for controlling, implementing, and using Extreme Ultraviolet (“EUV”) lithography tools, a key emerging process for enabling the manufacture of 7nm and the next generations of smaller transistor chips.

In exchange for taking on those risks and liabilities, and in order to protect its competitive positioning, GF received exclusive control over the licensing and disclosure of the advanced semiconductor manufacturing trade secrets that had been, and would be, developed in the research programs between GF and IBM.

decision to exit the chip-manufacturing business.25 For Intel, the partnership was part of a larger strategy to reinvigorate Intel’s foundry business which, as discussed above, had suffered numerous setbacks.26 Intel’s plans included spending $20 billion to build two new advanced-node fabs in Arizona, thus destined to use GF-Controlled Trade Secrets.27

IBM’s 2022 Annual Report states that “[i]n the fourth quarter of 2022, we signed a three-year joint development and licensing agreement with a Japanese consortium to leverage our intellectual property and expertise on advanced semiconductors which resulted in income of approximately $100 million in 2022.”50 134.

WHEREAS,Kurin filed three motions for summary judgment on May27, 2021 (see D.I.

308); WHEREAS,in order to promote the effective management of summary judgmentpractice in patent cases and deter parties from filing meritless motions, the Court issued a Standing Order for Summary JudgmentPractice in Patent Cases on April 30, 2021 (available at https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/FINAL%20STANDING%

%20IN%20PATENT%20CASES.pdf); WHEREAS,pursuant to the Standing Order, whena party in a patent case files more than one summary judgment motion, the Court reviews the motionsin the order designated by the party and, barring exceptional reasons determined sua sponte by the Court, if the Court denies a party’s summary judgment motionit will not review any further summary judgment motionsfiled by that party; WHEREAS, the Court denied yesterday Kurin’s Motion for Summary Judgment (No. 1) of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 9,855,001 Due to Indefiniteness (D.I.

395; and WHEREAS, no exceptional reasons exist to depart from the general practice implemented by the Standing Order; NOW THEREFORE,at Wilmington on this Twenty-seventh day of October in 2021, IT IS HEREBY ORDEREDthat 1, Kurin’s Motion for Summary Judgment (No. 2) of No Enhanced Damages Under 35 U.S.C. § 284 (D.I.

Kurin’s Motion for Summary Judgment (No. 3) of Noninfringement of All Asserted Claims Due to Lack of Sequestration (D.I.

Pending before me is Kurin’s Motion for Summary Judgment(No. 1) of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 9,855,001 Due to Indefiniteness.

In its Concise Statement of Facts filed in support of its motion, Kurin states that “[t]he passagesofthe written description at 5:35-44, 5:65-67, and 6:23-27 referencing pressure equalization relate specifically to what Dr. Santiago refers to as ‘single blood flow path’ embodiments.” D.I.

Magnolia disputes this asserted fact, and states that the passages cited by Kurin “provide examples of ‘substantial pressure equalization’ relevant to other embodiments and the claims.” D.I.

Magnolia cites portions of a declaration made by Dr. Voronov that appear to support its position.

WHEREFORE, this Twenty-sixth day of October in 2021, Kurin’s Motion for Summary Judgment(No. 1) of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 9,855,001 Due to Indefiniteness (D.I.

al., 1:15-cv-00211-LGS-SDA Dear Judge Schofield: Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d) and Rule I.B.2 of Your Honor’s Individual Rules and Procedures for Civil Cases, Plaintiffs Syntel, Inc. and Syntel Sterling Best Shores Mauritius Ltd. (“Syntel”) and Defendants The TriZetto Group, Inc. and Cognizant Technology Solutions Corp. (“TriZetto”) jointly write to the Court to request a 30 day extension, until November 29, 2021, to the current deadline for Syntel to comply with the “Removal and Quarantine” procedure set forth in Section II of the Order.

The original deadline by which Syntel was to comply with the Injunction was August 16, 2021, 90 days from the date of the Order.

Syntel has also agreed to, by no later than November 15, 2021, provide TriZetto with an interim report setting out documents identified for removal pursuant to Section II of the permanent injunction, including, inter alia, instances from among the 104 Trade Secrets set forth in paragraph 5 of the permanent injunction, that have been found on Syntel’s systems to date.

Without prejudice to their respective positions, the parties respectfully jointly request a 30 day extension, until November 29, 2021, of the period for compliance with the Permanent Injunction to allow Syntel additional time to comply with the “Removal and Quarantine” procedure set forth in Section II of the Order.

The deadline for Syntel to comply with the "Removal and Quarantine" procedure set forth in the May 18, 2021, Order is extended from October 29, 2021, to November 29, 2021.