Free Redacted Document - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 1 of 52

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE PROMOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION C.A. No. 06-788 (JJF) CONFIDENTIAL ­ SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER FILED UNDER SEAL

APPENDIX TO OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF FREESCALE'S MOTION TO COMPEL PROMOS TO PROVIDE INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS AND LICENSING INFORMATION

MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP Mary B. Graham (#2256) James W. Parrett, Jr. (#4292) 1201 N. Market Street P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899-1347 302.658.9200 OF COUNSEL: David L. Witcoff Kevin P. Ferguson John M. Michalik JONES DAY 77 West Wacker Chicago, IL 60601-1692 312.782.3939 F. Drexel Feeling JONES DAY North Point 901 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, OH 44114-1190 216.586.3939 Dated: August 23, 2007
Redacted Filing Date: August 30, 2007

Attorneys for Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 2 of 52

TABLE OF EXHIBITS

DESCRIPTION ProMOS Technologies, Inc.'s Responses to Interrogatories Nos. 1-3 and 9, May 14, 2007, supplemental responses to 1-3 August 15, 2007 ProMOS's Claim Readings, May 14, 2007 · · · Attachment 1: 6,670,267 Fortin Attachment 2: 5,488,709 Chan Attachment 3: 5,732,241 Chan

EXHIBIT A

B

ProMOS Technologies, Inc.'s Response to Interrogatory No. 18, July 25, 2007 ProMOS Technologies, Inc.'s Responses to Interrogatories Nos. 20 and 24, August 15, 2007 U.S. Patent 5,732,241 Chan (excerpts) U.S. Patent 5,488,709 Chan (excerpts) U.S. Patent 6,670,267 Fortin Amendment, Fortin prosecution history, July 30, 2007 (pg. 9) August 14, 2007 letter Michalik to Jensen August 17, 2007 letter Jensen to Michalik Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.'s Response to Interrogatory No. 19, August 16, 2007
1219348

C D

E F G H I J K

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 3 of 52

EXHIBIT A

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 4 of 52

CONFIDENTIAL EXHIBIT

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 5 of 52

EXHIBIT B

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 6 of 52

CONFIDENTIAL EXHIBIT

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 7 of 52

EXHIBIT C

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 8 of 52

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE PROMOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C.A. No. 06-788-JJF

PLAINTIFF PROMOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES (No. 18) Pursuant to Rules 26 and 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff ProMOS Technologies, Inc. ("ProMOS") hereby submits the following objections and responses to Defendant Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.'s Second Set of Interrogatories (the "Requests"). GENERAL STATEMENT AND OBJECTIONS ProMOS hereby incorporates by reference its General Statement and Objections from its Objections and Responses to Defendant Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.'s First Set of Interrogatories as though fully set forth herein. RESPONSES AND SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS TO REQUESTS ProMOS also expressly incorporates by reference its General Statement and Objections from its Objections and Responses to Defendant Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.'s First Set for Interrogatories in response to each of the following Requests and, to the extent they are not raised in any particular response, ProMOS does not waive those objections. In addition to the objections asserted therein, ProMOS responds as follows:

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 9 of 52

INTERROGATORY NO. 18: State whether ProMOS contends that a fabrication method that includes the step of forming the claimed titanium nitride layer by chemical vapor deposition can infringe any claim of the `267 patent and, if so, identify which claims can be infringed by such method, and, for each such claim, state whether such method infringes that claim literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, provide all facts support such contention, and identify each person with knowledge of such facts. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 18: ProMOS objects to this request on the ground that it is premature and vague and ambiguous because the claims of the `267 patent have not yet been construed by the Court and Freescale has not defined the term "chemical vapor deposition." ProMOS also objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is premature because it seeks expert opinion. ProMOS will disclose expert opinions at the time and in the manner contemplated by the Scheduling Order entered in this case. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, ProMOS states that the term "chemical vapor deposition" has not been defined by Freescale or clearly defined in the relevant art, nor is the line between chemical vapor deposition and physical vapor deposition well settled. Indeed, more recent developments in the art have blurred that line. Thus, a process that Freescale or others might characterize as "chemical vapor deposition" could in fact properly be understood to be or to include physical vapor deposition. Accordingly, absent a construction by the Court of the term "physical vapor deposition," or some other resolution of the extent of overlap and distinction between physical vapor deposition and chemical vapor deposition, it is not possible to know with certainty in the abstract whether a fabrication method that includes the step of forming the claimed titanium nitride layer by the latter may infringe one or more claims of the `267 patent literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.

2

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 10 of 52

ASHBY & GEDDES /s/ Lauren E. Maguire __________________________ Steven J. Balick (I.D. #2114) John G. Day (I.D. #2403) Lauren E. Maguire (I.D. #4261) 500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor P.O. Box 1150 Wilmington, DE 19899 Telephone: (302) 654-1888 Telecopier: (302) 654-2067 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff ProMOS Technologies, Inc. Of Counsel: William H. Wright Hogan & Hartson LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 785-4672 Facsimile: (31) 785-4601 E-Mail: [email protected] Steven J. Routh Sten A. Jensen Hogan & Hartson LLP 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 637-6472 Facsimile: (202) 637-5910 E-Mail:[email protected] [email protected] Dated: July 25, 2007
182591.1

3

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 11 of 52

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 12 of 52

EXHIBIT D

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 13 of 52

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE PROMOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., Defendant, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C.A. No. 06-788-JJF

PLAINTIFF PROMOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO FREESCALE'S THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26.1 of the Local Rules of Civil Practice and Procedure of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (hereinafter referred to as "Local Rules"), and the orders of this Court, plaintiff ProMOS Technologies, Inc. ("'ProMOS") hereby submits the following objections and responses to Freescale's Third Set of Interrogatories (the "Interrogatories"). GENERAL STATEMENT AND OBJECTIONS ProMOS hereby incorporates by reference its General Statement and Objections from its Objections and Responses to Defendant Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.'s First Set of Interrogatories as though fully set forth herein. RESPONSES AND SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS TO REQUESTS ProMOS also expressly incorporates by reference its General Statement and Objections from its Objections and Responses to Defendant Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.'s First Set of Interrogatories in response to each of the following Interrogatories and, to the extent they are not raised in any particular response, ProMOS does not waive those objections. In addition to the objections asserted therein, ProMOS responds as follows:

\\\DC - 022856/000005 - 2581196 v1

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 14 of 52

ProMOS and Freescale representatives who attended the licensing negotiations with ProMOS have relevant knowledge regarding the information requested in this interrogatory. Documents related to Freescale's knowledge of the patents-in-suit include the ProMOS meeting minutes, ProMOS notice letters, and ProMOS powerpoint presentations that were previously produced to Freescale in this action.

INTERROGATORY NO. 20: For each asserted claim of the '267 patent, state where with respect to the claimed opening (i.e., in the field, on the sidewalls of the opening, at the bottom of the opening, or otherwise) and when with respect to the steps in the claimed processes (i.e., immediately following deposition of the layer at issue, following the completion of the entire process, or otherwise) ProMOS contends layers of titanium and titanium nitride are to be measured, and identify the persons most knowledgeable about, and each document or thing supporting or otherwise relating to, such contention. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 20: ProMOS objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information that is protected from disclosure by the attorney client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. ProMOS also objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is premature to the extent that it purports to seek disclosure of expert opinions. ProMOS will disclose its expert opinions at the time and in the manner required by the Federal Rules, the Local Rules and the Scheduling Order entered by the Court. ProMOS further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is premature in the absence of a claim construction ruling by the Court. Moreover, to the extent this is a "contention" interrogatory, ProMOS objects on the ground that it is untimely under the Scheduling Order because it was served after 6 p.m. EST on July 16 in violation of the parties' agreement regarding service procedures for this case. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, ProMOS responds that this interrogatory seeks ProMOS's contention on a claim construction issue. As 3
\\\DC - 022856/000005 - 2581196 v1

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 15 of 52

stated in response to Interrogatory No. 24 (which more directly seeks ProMOS's claim construction positions on all of the patents in suit), ProMOS would be willing to meet and confer with Freescale to establish a schedule pursuant to which the parties would simultaneously exchange proposed terms for construction, and then at a later date, proposed constructions for those terms, in advance of the date the parties' opening claim construction briefs are due.

INTERROGATORY NO. 21: With respect to each Asserted Claim of the Patents-in-Suit, describe with specificity all grounds for ProMOS's contention that each such claim is not invalid, including without limitation a specific identification of each claim element which ProMOS contends is not present in each prior art reference identified by Freescale in this case and a specific, limitation-bylimitation rebuttal to the invalidity contentions set forth by Freescale in this case; identify the persons most knowledgeable about the facts supporting such grounds; and identify all documents supporting or otherwise relating to such facts. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 21: ProMOS objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it purports to alter the burden of proof that rests squarely on Freescale to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that one or more of the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit are invalid. ProMOS also objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it assumes ­ incorrectly ­ that Freescale has served "invalidity contentions." Freescale has responded to ProMOS's request for invalidity contentions merely by identifying a number of allegedly invalidating prior art references, without making any attempt to provide a limitation-by-limitation comparison of the prior art to the claims of the patents-insuit. ProMOS further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is premature to the extent that it purports to seek disclosure of expert opinions. ProMOS will disclose its expert opinions at the time and in the manner required by the Federal Rules, the Local Rules and the Scheduling Order entered by the Court. Finally, ProMOS objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information that is protected from disclosure by the attorney client privilege and/or the 4
\\\DC - 022856/000005 - 2581196 v1

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 16 of 52

INTERROGATORY NO. 24: For each claim of the Patents-in-Suit, provide in detail ProMOS's contentions of claim construction, state ProMOS's proposed construction of each word, term, or phrase of the claim and identify any of such constructions that is a special or uncommon meaning, state in detail the basis for ProMOS's construction, state each fact supporting or relating to ProMOS's construction, identify each reference or portion of the specification (including column and line or figure and label) or prosecution history that supports, describes, or explains ProMOS's construction and explain how, identify any extrinsic evidence that supports the construction, identify each person with knowledge relating to ProMOS's construction, and identify each document that reflects, or refers or relates to, ProMOS's construction. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 24: ProMOS objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is premature. ProMOS is not required to disclose its claim construction positions until the date set forth in the Court's Scheduling Order by which ProMOS must file its opening claim construction brief. ProMOS also objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it seeks information that is protected from disclosure by the attorney client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. ProMOS further objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is premature to the extent that it purports to seek disclosure of expert opinions. ProMOS will disclose its expert opinions at the time and in the manner required by the Federal Rules, the Local Rules and the Scheduling Order entered by the Court. In addition, ProMOS objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is overly broad and unduly burdensome and represents an untimely contention interrogatory. Moreover, to the extent this is a "contention" interrogatory, ProMOS objects on the ground that it is untimely under the Scheduling Order because it was served after 6 p.m. EST on July 16 in violation of the parties' agreement regarding service procedures for this case. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, ProMOS states that it would be willing to meet and confer with Freescale to establish a schedule pursuant to which the parties would simultaneously exchange proposed terms for construction, and then at

7
\\\DC - 022856/000005 - 2581196 v1

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 17 of 52

a later date, proposed constructions for those terms, in advance of the date the parties' opening claim construction briefs are due.

INTERROGATORY NO. 25: Identify and describe all opinions of counsel, validity or unenforceability searches, investigations or studies, and prior art made known to ProMOS relating to any or all of the Patents-in-Suit. RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 25: -- OUTSIDE COUNSEL'S EYES ONLY ProMOS objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it seeks information that is protected from disclosure by the attorney client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. ProMOS also objects to this interrogatory on the ground that it is premature to the extent that it purports to seek disclosure of expert opinions. ProMOS will disclose its expert opinions at the time and in the manner required by the Federal Rules, the Local Rules and the Scheduling Order entered by the Court. ProMOS further objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks information that is already known to Freescale. In addition, ProMOS objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it purports to require ProMOS to disclose information that is not within its possession, custody or control. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, ProMOS responds as follows: Freescale contends, in its answer to the complaint filed by ProMOS and in response to an interrogatory served by ProMOS, that certain prior art references invalidate the patents-in-suit. ProMOS will not repeat those contentions here as they are well known to Freescale. In addition, as previously described in ProMOS's response to Interrogatory No. 10, ProMOS has engaged in licensing discussions with Toshiba with respect to two of the patents-insuit. During those discussions, Toshiba has alleged that United States Patent No. 4,208,716 invalidates the claims of the `241 patent. 8
\\\DC - 022856/000005 - 2581196 v1

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 18 of 52

EXHIBIT E

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 19 of 52

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 20 of 52

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 21 of 52

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 22 of 52

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 23 of 52

EXHIBIT F

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 24 of 52

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 25 of 52

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 26 of 52

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 27 of 52

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 28 of 52

EXHIBIT G

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 29 of 52

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 30 of 52

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 31 of 52

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 32 of 52

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 33 of 52

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 34 of 52

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 35 of 52

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 36 of 52

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 37 of 52

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 38 of 52

EXHIBIT H

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 39 of 52

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 40 of 52

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 41 of 52

EXHIBIT I

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 42 of 52

CONFIDENTIAL EXHIBIT

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 43 of 52

EXHIBIT J

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 44 of 52

CONFIDENTIAL EXHIBIT

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 45 of 52

EXHIBIT K

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 46 of 52

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE PROMOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C.A. No. 06-788 (JJF)

DEFENDANT FREESCALE'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF PROMOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.'S FOURTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC. (NOS. 19-20) Pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. ("Freescale") responds as follows to Plaintiff ProMOS Technologies, Inc.'s Fourth Set Of Interrogatories To Defendant Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. (Nos. 19-20), served by ProMOS Technologies, Inc. ("ProMOS"). GENERAL OBJECTIONS Freescale hereby repeats and incorporates by reference its General Objections set forth in its Defendant Freescale's Response To Plaintiff ProMOS Technologies, Inc.'s First Set Of Interrogatories To Defendant Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. (Nos. 1-14). SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES INTERROGATORY NO. 19: For each claim of the Patents-in-Suit, provide in detail Freescale's contentions of claim construction, state Freescale's proposed construction of each word, term, or phrase of the claim and identify any of such constructions that is a special or uncommon meaning, state in detail the basis for Freescale's construction, state each fact supporting or relating to Freescale's construction, identify each reference or portion of the specification (including column and line or figure and label) or prosecution history that supports, describes, or explains Freescale's construction and explain how, identify any extrinsic evidence that supports the construction, identify each person with knowledge relating to Freescale's construction, and identify each document that reflects, or refers or relates to, Freescale's construction.

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 47 of 52

RESPONSE: In addition to its General Objections, Freescale objects to this interrogatory as premature because ProMOS has the burden of proof and yet has failed to provide any detail with regard to its infringement contentions. Without waiving any, and subject to all, of its General and Specific Objections, Freescale responds that, having brought and maintained this action against Freescale alleging infringement of the three Patents-in-Suit, ProMOS has the burden to set forth reasonable contentions of claim scope and infringement. Yet ProMOS has not done so. Instead, it has persisted in this litigation without giving meaningful contentions. For example, ProMOS has refused to provide meaningful claim charts (or any claim charts for most claims) setting forth actual contentions regarding which Freescale products infringe which patent claims and explaining how the limitations of the claims are allegedly met. Without this fundamental

information, it is impossible for Freescale to identify the claim terms it believes must be construed. ProMOS's failure to provide contentions is particularly egregious because ProMOS's position in this litigation conflicts squarely with statements made by the inventors to the United

States Patent and Trademark Office limiting the scope of their patent claims and with other direct evidence that ProMOS's assertions of infringement are unfounded. THE CHAN PATENTS ProMOS for months persisted in pursuing the two Chan Patents-in-Suit broadly against Freescale's entire product line, seeking in depth discovery of essentially all documents and concerning essentially all of Freescale's products. To support that improper discovery, ProMOS described the Chan patents in exceedingly broad terms, characterizing them as the "cache memory patents" and as "involve[ing] cache memory," which ProMOS defined as "a

-2-

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 48 of 52

supplementary system that temporarily stores frequently used instructions and data for quicker processing by the central processor of the computer." (ProMOS's motion to compel, DI 29, pp. 1-2). Based on that overbroad scope, ProMOS sought discovery of all "Freescale Products," defined by ProMOS without limitation as including all "microcontrollers, microprocessors, processors, digital signal processors, controller cores, processor cores or other components or goods that use, incorporate, work with or rely on cache memory." (Ex. A to ProMOS's motion, p. 5) (emphasis added). In other words, ProMOS attempted to obtain discovery of all products of any kind that use cache memory in any way, in plain disregard of the actual, limited scope of the Chan patent claims. Yet the Chan patents are very narrow in scope in view of the extensive prior art and the statements made and positions taken in the PTO in order to procure issuance of the patents over the prior art. As acknowledged in the Chan patents themselves, cache memory had been used in semiconductor technology for years before the Chan patents. Contrary to

ProMOS's position, the Chan patents clearly cannot be construed to cover all uses of cache memories for many reasons, including the following: First, the claims of Chan `709 are directed to a cache memory apparatus having a particular structure and functionality, and the claims of Chan `241 are directed to "computer systems" containing, among other things, the particular Chan cache claimed in the Chan '709 patent in combination with a cache controller configured in a special manner. Those limitations cannot be ignored. Second, the specification makes clear the limited scope of the Chan patents. For example, Figure 4 of each patent specification identifies as "prior art" a computer system with a cache memory and cache controller, thus emphasizing that only very particular systems of cache

-3-

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 49 of 52

memories and controllers could possibly be within the scope of the Chan patents. As another example, the Chan specification acknowledges that the prior art Intel 486 microprocessor, the product for which the Chan embodying product was developed, was provided with an embedded cache memory. Third, because cache memories were so well-known prior to the Chan patents, the inventor had a difficult time convincing the PTO to grant the two Chan patents. With the Chan `709 patent, which is directed to a cache memory apparatus with particular structure and functionality, the inventor amended the claims 4 times before the PTO would grant the patent. Acquiescing to the fact that most limitations of its cache apparatus claims were found in the prior art cited by the PTO, the inventor argued that the distinguishing feature of the claims was not just any cache memory, but instead "a cache memory which includes a memory write register for buffering data received from a host port and selectively providing that data to a RAM, to a system port, or to both, and a write back register for holding data received from the RAM and selectively providing that data to a system port." Thus, these arguments from the inventor apply to narrow the claims. Similarly, the inventor had to amend the claims of the Chan `241 patent 4 times, each time incorporating additional structure and features to its computer system claims before the PTO granted the patent. To gain allowance, the inventor argued that the claims covered a computer system including, among other things, "a dual port cache memory coupled between a host processor and a system memory" with "one [port] connected to a host data bus of the system memory" and "having registers coupling cache storage locations to a host port and to a system port, wherein a data path between the host data bus and the system data bus is operably decoupled by buffering and selective provision of data to and from the cache storage locations by

-4-

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 50 of 52

the registers, so as to allow concurrent transfer of data to and from the dual port cache memory." Again, these inventor arguments apply to narrow the claims. Given the limited nature of ProMOS's exclusion rights under its patents and the vast scope of permissible use of cache memory, ProMOS cannot rightfully claim all products using a cache memory, and cannot legitimately assert its patents against any product which does not have the specific structure and functionality which was required for patent issuance. Yet ProMOS has refused to limit its allegations of infringement to products meeting the above criteria and has failed to give any explanation as to how it could legitimately maintain a claim scope broad enough to cover products which do not meet these criteria. THE FORTIN PATENT As far as the Fortin patent, Fortin explicitly surrendered any claim to coverage of any processes that form a layer of titanium nitride by chemical vapor deposition ("CVD"). Nevertheless, ProMOS has persisted in accusing processes of Freescale that form a titanium nitride layer by CVD, without providing any explanation of how a CVD process could possibly infringe when ProMOS is estopped from asserting its patent against CVD processes. The Fortin patent claims "forming a titanium nitride layer over the structure by physical vapor deposition..." or some variation thereof in every claim. To overcome prior art cited by the Examiner during prosecution of the Fortin patent (the cited prior art is, in fact, a Motorola patent which discloses the steps claimed by Fortin), the inventor specifically distinguished between physical vapor deposition ("PVD") and CVD, and then represented to the PTO that "[i]n any event, CVD is not PVD or a type of PVD" (see, Amendment dated July 30, 2002, at p. 9). During this litigation, however, ProMOS has tried to obfuscate the well-known and previously-admitted differences between PVD and CVD. ProMOS has made vague and

-5-

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 51 of 52

untenable suggestions, without regard to the most basic of legal requirements governing the construction of patent claims, that somehow the terminology surrounding PVD and CVD has become unclear over the past few years (see, e.g., ProMOS's response to Freescale's Interrogatory No. 18: "[T]he line between chemical vapor deposition and physical vapor deposition [is not] well settled. Indeed more recent developments in the art have blurred that line."). Moreover, ProMOS has not even attempted to offer any evidence to support this

litigation-induced assertion. Instead, ProMOS has deliberately avoided providing any contention regarding the meaning of the Fortin claim terms. In any case, the Fortin patent claims cannot be construed to cover any process, including as used by Freescale, that forms a layer of titanium nitride by chemical vapor deposition. *************************************** Given the explicit claim language, the patent specifications, and the prosecution history, it is clear that the Patents-in-Suit cannot be given a construction that is broad enough to cover Freescale's products. INTERROGATORY NO. 20: Describe in detail each test or analysis of any Freescale product conducted by or on behalf of Freescale to determine whether such product infringes, including for each such test or analysis, the date(s) thereof, the name(s) and employer of the individual(s) who conducted such test or analysis, and the results of and conclusions drawn from such test or analysis, identify each person with knowledge of each such test or analysis, and identify all documents that relate to each such test or analysis. RESPONSE: In addition to its General Objections, Freescale objects to this interrogatory to the extent it seeks information, documents, or things protected under the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine, and as premature in light of the date in the Rule 16 Scheduling Order for Freescale to decide whether to rely on advice of counsel and to produce

-6-

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF

Document 61

Filed 08/30/2007

Page 52 of 52

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on August 30, 2007, I caused the foregoing to be electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF which will send electronic notification of such filing to the following: John G. Day, Esquire Steven J. Balick, Esquire ASHBY & GEDDES

Additionally, I hereby certify that true and correct copies of the foregoing were caused to be served on August 30, 2007 upon the following individuals in the manner indicated: BY E-MAIL AND HAND DELIVERY John G. Day, Esquire Steven J. Balick, Esquire ASHBY & GEDDES 500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor Wilmington, DE 19899 [email protected] [email protected] BY E-MAIL Steven J. Routh, Esquire HOGAN & HARTSON LLP [email protected] William H. Wright, Esquire HOGAN & HARTSON LLP [email protected] William C. Gooding, Esquire GOODING & CRITTENDEN, L.L.P. [email protected]

BY E-MAIL AND FEDERAL EXPRESS Sten A. Jensen, Esquire HOGAN & HARTSON LLP 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004 [email protected]

/s/ Mary B. Graham (#2256)
Mary B. Graham (#2256)