Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 983 Filed 08/30/22 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 38056
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`)
`VLSI TECHNOLOGY LLC,
`
`)
`
`
`)
`Plaintiff,
`C.A. No. 18-966 (CFC) (CJB)
`)
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`v.
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`INTEL CORPORATION’S OBJECTION TO VLSI TECHNOLOGY LLC’S
`RESPONSE TO THE COURT’S AUGUST 1, 2022 ORDER
`
`
`
`On July 18, 2022, VLSI submitted a declaration from Michael Stolarski
`
`pursuant to the Court’s April 18, 2022 Standing Order Regarding Disclosure
`
`Statements. D.I. 972. The Court, however, found these disclosures to be “clearly
`
`inadequate to meet the requirements of the Rule 7.1 Disclosure Order” and stayed
`
`the case until VLSI complies with the standing order. D.I. 975 at 2. On August 15,
`
`2022, VLSI filed another declaration from Mr. Stolarski in response to the Court’s
`
`August 1 order. D.I. 976. Mr. Stolarski now claims that he cannot provide the
`
`information the Court seeks because he does not know the identity of the owners he
`
`identified by category in his first declaration, and others with that information at
`
`Fortress Investment Group LLC (“Fortress”) would not disclose it to him because of
`
`unspecified confidentiality agreements. This excuse is inconsistent with VLSI’s
`
`prior actions and does not comply with the Court’s orders. The case should remain
`
`1
`
`REDACTED - PUBLIC VERSION
`Original Filing Date: August 23, 2022
`Redacted Filing Date: August 30, 2022
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 983 Filed 08/30/22 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 38057
`
`
`stayed until VLSI complies.
`
`First, it is clear that Mr. Stolarski, VLSI, and Fortress are cherry picking the
`
`information they disclose to this Court. In his August 15 declaration, Mr. Stolarski
`
`claims not to have any further information regarding the entities that are investors in
`
`either the majority or minority owners of VLSI’s parent company; he claims not to
`
`be able even to confirm whether these investment funds are corporations as
`
`specifically requested by the Court. D.I. 976 at ¶ 2; D.I. 975 at 2. He explains that
`
`VLSI asked Fortress to provide it with the requested information, but “Fortress’s
`
`representative stated that there are strict contractual confidentiality obligations owed
`
`to the hundreds of investors in the entities listed in my July 18, 2022 declaration,
`
`and therefore Fortress has not disclosed and cannot voluntarily disclose additional
`
`information related to the identity of those investors to VLSI.” D.I. 976 at ¶ 4. But
`
`this assertion is inconsistent with prior disclosures from VLSI, Fortress, and other
`
`entities involved in this case.
`
`Most notably, Mr. Stolarski acknowledges that during a trial in the Western
`
`District of Texas in a related litigation, a witness revealed that one of the ultimate
`
`investors in VLSI is “a retirement fund associated with Texas A&M University.”
`
`Id. at ¶ 3. Mr. Stolarski appears to be referencing testimony from trial between the
`
`parties on February 22, 2021, during which a corporate witness from NXP
`
`Semiconductors (“NXP”) revealed that other parties, including “teachers unions,”
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 983 Filed 08/30/22 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 38058
`
`
`“pension funds,” and “Texas A&M [University]” had a vested stake in the litigation.
`
`VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp., No. 6:21-cv-0057-ADA (W.D. Tex. Feb. 22, 2021),
`
`D.I. 565 at 300:1-12. This information must have been provided to the NXP witness
`
`from Fortress itself or the counsel that represents VLSI and Fortress, calling into
`
`doubt Mr. Stolarksi and Fortress’s current assertion that identities of VLSI’s
`
`investors are all subject to “strict contractual confidentiality obligations.” D.I. 976
`
`at ¶ 4. Further, Mr. Stolarski has now provided the additional information that the
`
`witness’s reference to “Texas A&M” at trial was in fact a reference to a “retirement
`
`fund associated with” the university. Fortress should not be able to selectively reveal
`
`information that it deems favorable, while shielding all other information required
`
`by the Court.1
`
`Second, Mr. Stolarski cannot distance himself and VLSI from the Fortress
`
`entities and employees that he says have the information necessary to comply with
`
`the Court’s order. Fortress created VLSI in 2016, and two of the three members of
`
`
`1 There is a protective order for confidential information in place in this case. D.I.
`96. Both parties have obtained, produced, and filed confidential information from
`third parties with appropriate confidentiality designations or under seal pursuant to
`this protective order. If the information sought by the Court is truly confidential,
`VLSI could request to maintain it under seal. Indeed, VLSI has demanded that Intel
`disclose its confidential source code, process recipes, license agreements with third
`parties, and other confidential documents throughout the course of this litigation.
`Intel has done so pursuant to this protective order. VLSI cannot demand that Intel
`produce its most sensitive documents, including documents with third-party
`confidential information, and then hide behind its deliberately complex corporate
`structure to shield its own purportedly confidential information.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 983 Filed 08/30/22 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 38059
`
`
`VLSI’s board are Fortress employees. D.I. 801 at ¶¶ 4, 7.
`
`
`
`
`
`. D.I. 801 at ¶¶ 8-9. Marc Furstein, a Fortress executive,
`
`signed SEC filings on behalf of the general partners of various owners of VLSI
`
`Holdings. See, e.g., Ex. A at 5 (SEC Form D for FCO MA LLS LP); Ex. B at 5
`
`(SEC Form D for FCO MA Centre Street LP). Moreover, VLSI’s privilege logs
`
`produced in this case show that VLSI and Fortress employees have regular contact
`
`and communication regarding this and other litigation proceedings. Ex. C (VLSI’s
`
`8th Amended Privilege Log). VLSI claimed privilege over hundreds of
`
`communications with Fortress employees,
`
`
`
`, as well as communications and documents
`
` Id. VLSI’s log
`
`further indicates that there are additional allegedly privileged communications with
`
`Fortress in-house counsel
`
` that VLSI did not log. Id. at 2; Ex. D
`
`[Stolarski Dep.] at 31:3-19, 32:19-21, 36:18-20.
`
`Third, Mr. Stolarski asserts that “contractual confidentiality obligations”
`
`prevent Fortress from disclosing the investors that ultimately own VLSI but does not
`
`explain what those obligations are. D.I. 976 at ¶ 4. For example, VLSI does not
`
`state if the obligations exist for each and every investor; are the same for each
`
`investor; or if disclosure is permitted under certain circumstances, such as in
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 983 Filed 08/30/22 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 38060
`
`
`response to a subpoena or court order. Mr. Stolarski does not even say who at
`
`Fortress provided the information regarding confidentiality. VLSI should have tried
`
`harder and investigated Fortress’s assertion further before claiming that it “cannot
`
`provide the Court with further information.”
`
`Fourth, it appears that VLSI is relying solely on the personal knowledge of
`
`Mr. Stolarski, or lack thereof, to avoid disclosing additional information. But VLSI,
`
`not Mr. Stolarski personally, brought this suit. VLSI was formed by Fortress,
`
`maintains a close relationship with Fortress, and is represented by the same attorneys
`
`who have also represented Fortress as a third party in this suit. Despite this, VLSI
`
`appears to have chosen only to disclose to the Court, to Intel, and to the public the
`
`information that was selectively provided to its CEO. This is an improper attempt
`
`to absolve itself of its responsibilities as a plaintiff in this Court.
`
`VLSI chose to initiate this suit and seeks more than four billion in damages
`
`for the benefit of its investors and Fortress. VLSI and those investors should not be
`
`permitted to hide behind a complex corporate structure to avoid the Court’s order.
`
`Intel therefore requests that the case remain stayed until VLSI complies with the
`
`Court’s orders and discloses “the name of every owner, member, and partner of the
`
`party, proceeding up the chain of ownership until the name of every individual and
`
`corporation with a direct or indirect interest in the party has been identified.” D.I.
`
`975 at 1-2.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 983 Filed 08/30/22 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 38061
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`William F. Lee
`Dominic E. Massa
`Joseph J. Mueller
`Jordan L. Hirsch
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`(617) 526-6000
`Gregory H. Lantier
`Amanda L. Major
`Joshua L. Stern
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`(202) 663-6000
`S. Calvin Walden
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE AND DORR LLP
`7 World Trade Center
`250 Greenwich Street
`New York, NY 10007
`(212) 295-6359
`August 23, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
`
`/s/ Jeremy A. Tigan
`
`
`
`
`
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Jeremy A. Tigan (#5239)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@morrisnichols.com
`jtigan@morrisnichols.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 983 Filed 08/30/22 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 38062
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on August 23, 2022, I caused the foregoing to be
`
`electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will send
`
`notification of such filing to all registered participants.
`
`I further certify that I caused copies of the foregoing document to be served
`
`on August 23, 2022, upon the following in the manner indicated:
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`Brian E. Farnan, Esquire
`Michael J. Farnan, Esquire
`FARNAN LLP
`919 North Market Street, 12th Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`Morgan Chu, Esquire
`Ben Hattenbach, Esquire
`Iian D. Jablon, Esquire
`Christopher Abernethy, Esquire
`Amy E. Proctor, Esquire
`Dominik Slusarczyk, Esquire
`Charlotte J. Wen, Esquire
`Ian Washburn, Esquire
`Michael D. Harbour, Esquire
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
`Los Angeles, CA 90067
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00966-CFC-CJB Document 983 Filed 08/30/22 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 38063
`
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
`
`Ben J. Yorks, Esquire
`A. Matthew Ashley, Esquire
`IRELL & MANELLA LLP
`840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 400
`Newport Beach, CA 92660-6324
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`Steven Lieberman, Esquire
`Daniel R. McCallum, Esquire
`Rachel M. Echols, Esquire
`ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P.C.
`607 14th Street, N.W. Suite 800
`Washington, DC 20005
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jeremy A. Tigan
`__________________________
`Jeremy A. Tigan (#5239)
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`