Case 5:20-cv-05676 Document 1 Filed 08/13/20 Page 1 of 9
`
`
`
`
`
`YAR R. CHAIKOVSKY (SB# 175421)
`yarchaikovsky@paulhastings.com
`PHILIP OU (SB# 259896)
`philipou@paulhastings.com
`JOSEPH J. RUMPLER, II (SB# 296941)
`josephrumpler@paulhastings.com
`BERKELEY FIFE (SB# 325293)
`berkeleyfife@paulhastings.com
`BORIS LUBARSKY (SB# 324896)
`borislubarsky@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`1117 S. California Avenue
`Palo Alto, California 94304-1106
`Telephone: 1(650) 320-1800
`Facsimile: 1(650) 320-1900
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`DEMARAY LLC,
`Defendant.
`
`CASE NO.
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF
`NON-INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-05676 Document 1 Filed 08/13/20 Page 2 of 9
`
`
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1. This is an action for a declaratory judgment of noninfringement arising under the patent
`
`laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United States Code. Applied Materials, Inc. (“Applied”)
`
`requests this relief because Defendant Demaray LLC (“Demaray”) has filed lawsuits alleging that
`
`certain customers of Applied infringe United States Patent Nos. 7,544,276 and 7,381,657 (the
`
`“Asserted Patents”) by, for example, “making, using, offering to sell, selling, supplying or
`
`causing to supply semiconductor manufacturing equipment including reactive magnetron
`
`sputtering reactors” also identified in the complaints as “from Applied Materials, Inc.” True and
`
`correct copies of these complaints against Applied’s customers are attached as Exhibits A and B.
`
`Demaray’s lawsuits has placed a cloud on Applied’s products; threatened Applied’s business and
`
`relationships with its customers and partners, as well as its sales of its reactors; and created a
`
`justiciable controversy between Applied and Demaray.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`2. Plaintiff Applied Materials, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of
`
`the state of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 3050 Bowers Avenue, Santa Clara,
`
`CA 95054-3299. Applied is a leader in materials engineering solutions that creates technology
`
`and products used for semiconductor fabrication, including but not limited to reactors in the
`
`“Endura” product line.
`
`3. Defendant Demaray LLC is a limited liability company organized and existing under the
`
`laws of the state of Delaware. Dr. Richard Ernest Demaray is the founder of Demaray LLC. Dr.
`
`Demaray is also one of the named inventors on the Asserted Patents. Dr. Demaray describes
`
`Demaray LLC as a “Silicon Valley, CA” company which “[is] about the portfolio of my
`
`patents.”1
`
`
`1 https://www.edemaray.com/bios.html
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-05676 Document 1 Filed 08/13/20 Page 3 of 9
`
`
`
`JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
`
`4. This action arises under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and under the
`
`patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1-390.
`
`5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,
`
`1338(a), and 2201(a).
`
`6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Demaray. Among other things, Demaray has
`
`continuous and systematic business contacts with Northern California. Demaray’s “founder and
`
`president,” Dr. Demaray, describes Demaray as a “Silicon Valley, CA” company:2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`On information and belief, according to Demaray’s website, several of the Board members and
`
`employees of Demaray are from and/or based in Northern California.3 Under its “Partners” sub-
`
`page, Demaray’s website lists the University of California at Santa Cruz as one of its primary
`
`partners, and claims that “Professor Kobayashi of UCSC is working with Demaray LLC to further
`
`develop the Sun2Fiber technology with a grant from ARPA-E.”4 Further, on information and
`
`
`2 https://www.edemaray.com/bios.html; https://www.linkedin.com/in/ernestdemarayphd/
`3 https://www.edemaray.com/bios.html
`4 https://www.edemaray.com/partners.html
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-05676 Document 1 Filed 08/13/20 Page 4 of 9
`
`
`
`belief, the technology underlying the Asserted Patents was allegedly developed in Northern
`
`California.
`
`7. In addition, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Demaray because Demaray has
`
`purposefully directed into California its enforcement activities regarding the Asserted Patents. As
`
`referenced above, Demaray has filed complaints against Intel (headquartered in Northern
`
`California)5 and Samsung (conducts substantial business operations related to the allegedly
`
`infringing technology in Northern California and holds a large US office in Northern California).6
`
`Further, Demaray’s complaints against both Samsung and Intel accuse Applied technology, and
`
`Applied is also headquartered in Northern California.7 And, at least against Samsung, Demaray
`
`relies on meetings occurring in Northern California to establish alleged pre-suit notice and
`
`knowledge of the Asserted Patents, and alleged willful infringement. See Ex. B at 24-25.
`
`8. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), (c), because a substantial part
`
`of the events giving rise to Applied’s claim occurred in this district, and because Demaray is
`
`subject to personal jurisdiction here.
`
`9. An immediate, real, and justiciable controversy exists between Applied and Demaray as to
`
`whether Applied is infringing or has infringed United States Patent Nos. 7,544,276 and
`
`7,381,657.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5 https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/support/articles/000015107/programs.html
`6 https://www.dezeen.com/2016/06/09/samsung-nbbj-silicon-valley-office-campus-california-usa-
`nap-pods-music-listening-
`rooms/#:~:text=Located%20in%20San%20Jose%20%E2%80%93%20a,the%20company's%20U
`S%20semiconductor%20division.&text=The%20office%20campus%20features%20a,glass%20a
`nd%20white%20metal%20panels.; https://www.samsung.com/us/ssic/location/san-jose-ca/
`7 http://www.appliedmaterials.com/company/contact/locations
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-
`
`- 3 -
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-05676 Document 1 Filed 08/13/20 Page 5 of 9
`
`
`
`DEMARAY’S HISTORY AND BUSINESS
`
`10. On information and belief, Demaray was formed by Dr. Demaray in 2013 “to provide
`
`portfolio related R&D activities, IP demonstration and development and new product
`
`application.”8
`
`11. On information and belief, Dr. Demaray has filed over a hundred patents over the course
`
`of his career, which has been spent almost entirely Northern California.9 After receiving the
`
`entirety of his education at schools located in Northern California (Cal State Hayward and the
`
`University of California at Santa Cruz), Dr. Demaray has spent almost 40 years working at
`
`California-based companies, including Applied Komatsu, Varian Semiconductor, Symmphorix,
`
`and Demaray.10
`
`APPLIED DOES NOT INFRINGE THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`12. Applied’s reactors in the “Endura” product line do not directly or indirectly infringe any
`
`claim of the Asserted Patents.
`
`13. To the best of Applied’s knowledge, no third party infringes any claim of the Asserted
`
`Patents by using Applied’s reactors in the “Endura” product line. Applied has not caused,
`
`directed, requested, or facilitated any such infringement, much less with specific intent to do so.
`
`Applied’s reactors in the “Endura” product line are not designed for use in any combination
`
`which infringes any claim of the Asserted Patents. To the contrary, each is a product with
`
`substantial uses that does not infringe any claim of these patents.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8 https://www.edemaray.com/bios.html
`9 https://www.linkedin.com/in/ernestdemarayphd/
`10 Id.
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-05676 Document 1 Filed 08/13/20 Page 6 of 9
`
`
`
`FIRST COUNT
`
`(Declaration of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,544,276)
`
`14. Applied restates and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 13
`
`of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`15. Demaray claims to own all rights, title, and interest, including the right to seek damages
`
`for past, present, and future infringement thereof, in U.S. Patent No. 7,544,276 (“the ’276
`
`patent”). A true and correct copy of the ’276 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
`
`16. In the cases Demaray has brought against Samsung and Intel, Demaray accuses
`
`Defendants Samsung Electronics Ltd, Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung
`
`Semiconductor, Inc., Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC, and Intel Corporation of infringing
`
`the ’276 patent based on allegations that each “mak[es], us[es], offer[s] to sell, and sell[s] within
`
`the United States, suppl[ies] or caus[es] to be supplied in or from the United States, and/or
`
`import[s] into the United States” Applied technology and devices. Ex. A at 6; Ex. B at 7-8. For
`
`example, in its complaints against both the Intel and Samsung Defendants, Demaray accuses the
`
`Defendants’ use of “RMS reactors” from “the Endura product line from Applied Materials, Inc.”
`
`Ex. A at 7-14; Ex. B. at 8-16.
`
`17. A substantial, immediate, and real controversy exists between Applied and Demaray
`
`regarding whether Applied’s reactors infringe or have infringed the ’276 patent. A judicial
`
`declaration is necessary to determine the parties’ respective rights regarding the ’276 patent.
`
`18. Applied seeks a judgment declaring that Applied’s reactors, including those in the Endura
`
`product line, do not directly or indirectly infringe any claim of the ’276 patent. In its complaints
`
`against Applied’s customers, Demaray cites to Applied’s Endura products as purported evidence
`
`of infringement of claim 1 of the ’276 patent. Based on Applied’s present understanding of claim
`
`1 of the ’276 patent and Demaray’s allegations, Applied’s Endura products fail to meet or
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-05676 Document 1 Filed 08/13/20 Page 7 of 9
`
`
`
`embody limitations of claim 1 of the ’276 patent. For example, claim 1 recites a reactor
`
`comprising, in part, “a pulsed DC power supply coupled to the target area” and “a narrow band-
`
`rejection filter that rejects at a frequency of the [RF] bias power supply coupled between the
`
`pulsed DC power supply and the target area.” Applied’s Endura products do not infringe claim 1
`
`of the ’276 patent at least because these products do not meet or embody a reactor comprising “a
`
`pulsed DC power supply coupled to the target area” and “a narrow band-rejection filter that
`
`rejects at a frequency of the [RF] bias power supply coupled between the pulsed DC power
`
`supply and the target area.”
`
`SECOND COUNT
`
`(Declaration of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,381,657)
`
`19. Applied restates and incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 18
`
`of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`20. Demaray claims to own all rights, title, and interest, including the right to seek damages
`
`for past, present, and future infringement thereof, in U.S. Patent No. 7,381,657 (“the ’657
`
`patent”). A true and correct copy of the ’657 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
`
`21. In the cases Demaray recently brought against Samsung and Intel, Demaray accuses
`
`Defendants Samsung Electronics Ltd, Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung
`
`Semiconductor, Inc., Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC, and Intel Corporation of infringing
`
`the ’657 patent in that each uses “the claimed methods for reactive sputtering in an infringing
`
`manner to produce semiconductor products, and/or making, offering to sell, and selling within the
`
`United States, and/or importing into the United States, without authority or license,
`
`semiconductor products produced using the claimed methods for reactive sputtering in an
`
`infringing manner.” Ex. A at 15-16; Ex. B at 17. Specifically, Demaray alleges Defendants use
`
`“RMS reactors” to perform the claimed method. Ex. A at 16-23; Ex. B at 17-24. As discussed
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-05676 Document 1 Filed 08/13/20 Page 8 of 9
`
`
`
`above, the only RMS reactors Demaray identifies as used by Defendants are “reactors in the
`
`Endura product line from Applied Materials, Inc.”
`
`22. A substantial, immediate, and real controversy exists between Applied and Demaray
`
`regarding whether Applied’s reactors infringe or have infringed the ’657 patent. A judicial
`
`declaration is necessary to determine the parties’ respective rights regarding the ’657 patent.
`
`23. Applied seeks a judgment declaring that Applied’s reactors, including those in the Endura
`
`product line, do not directly or indirectly infringe any claim of the ’657 patent. In its complaints
`
`against Applied’s customers, Demaray cites to Applied’s Endura products as purported evidence
`
`of infringement of claim 1 of the ’657 patent. Based on Applied’s present understanding of claim
`
`1 of the ’657 patent and Demaray’s allegations, Applied’s Endura products fail to meet or
`
`embody steps of the method recited in claim 1 of the ’657 patent. For example, claim 1 recites a
`
`method comprising, in part, “providing pulsed DC power to the target through a narrow band
`
`rejection filter such that the target alternates between positive and negative voltages” and
`
`“providing an RF bias at a frequency that corresponds to the narrow band rejection filter to the
`
`substrate.” Using Applied’s Endura products does not infringe claim 1 of the ’657 patent at least
`
`because these products do not comprise “providing pulsed DC power to the target through a
`
`narrow band rejection filter such that the target alternates between positive and negative voltages”
`
`and “providing an RF bias at a frequency that corresponds to the narrow band rejection filter to
`
`the substrate.”
`
`WHEREFORE, Applied prays for judgment and relief as follows:
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`A. Declaring that Applied’s reactors, including those used in the Endura product line, do not
`
`directly or indirectly infringe any claim of the ’276 patent;
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-05676 Document 1 Filed 08/13/20 Page 9 of 9
`
`
`
`B. Declaring that Applied’s reactors, including those used in the Endura product line, do not
`
`directly or indirectly infringe any claim of the ’657 patent;
`
`C. Finding that this is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285;
`
`D. Awarding Applied its costs and attorneys’ fees in connection with this action; and
`
`E. Such further and additional relief as the Court deems just and proper.
`
`Applied demands a jury trial on all issues and claims so triable.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`
`DATED: August 13, 2020
`
`
`
`
`YAR R. CHAIKOVSKY
`PHILIP OU
`JOSEPH J. RUMPLER, II
`BERKELEY FIFE
`BORIS LUBARSKY
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`
`By: /s/ Yar R. Chaikovsky
`YAR R. CHAIKOVSKY
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`APPLIED MATERIALS
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`