Applied Materials, Inc. v. Demaray LLC
- Edward Davila
- 5:20-cv-05676
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Applied Materials v. Demaray, Judge Davila denied Demaray’s request to file a sur-reply because Applied’s reply responded to Demaray’s opposition.
Demaray LLC’s request to file an additional response was denied; Applied Materials, Inc.’s reply remained before the court.
What happened
Applied Materials, Inc. v. Demaray LLC concerns Demaray’s request to respond again to Applied Materials’ reply supporting its motion for a preliminary injunction.
Demaray argued that Applied’s reply introduced new arguments and evidence about patent licensing, customer relationships, an employment agreement, and related Texas cases. Applied argued that its reply responded directly to points Demaray had raised in opposition.
The court denied Demaray’s motion, finding that Applied’s reply did not present new information requiring another response. Judge Edward J. Davila issued the order on December 16, 2020.
The detailed version
- Applied Materials, Inc. v. Demaray LLC · No. 5:20-cv-05676
- Edward Davila
- Dec. 16, 2020
Background
Demaray LLC filed an administrative motion for leave to file a sur-reply—a further response to Applied Materials, Inc.’s reply supporting its motion for a preliminary injunction. Demaray argued that Applied’s reply introduced new arguments and evidence that had not appeared in its original motion. Applied opposed the request.
Demaray identified four alleged categories of new material: Applied’s argument that an email about licensing Demaray’s patents established subject-matter jurisdiction; facts about the relationship between Applied and its customers; Applied’s argument that an employment agreement applied to patent assignments; and facts about the activities of Samsung and Intel defendants in earlier-filed Texas cases.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that when a reply presents genuinely new evidence, the opposing party ordinarily should have an opportunity to respond. But evidence attached to a reply is not new when it is submitted to rebut arguments made in the opposition.
The court found that Applied’s reply responded to arguments Demaray had raised. The court concluded that Applied did not present new factual contentions about Demaray’s patent-licensing offer or the relationship between Applied and its customers, but instead addressed Demaray’s arguments about subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also found that Applied’s discussion of the employment agreement responded to Demaray’s arguments that assignment provisions were unlawful and that Applied was barred from litigating related claims based on earlier court rulings. The court determined that Applied’s discussion of customer activities responded to Demaray’s venue argument that the Western District of Texas would be more convenient.
Ruling
The court denied Demaray LLC’s Administrative Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply. Judge Edward J. Davila’s order addressed only whether Demaray could file an additional response; it did not decide the underlying motion for a preliminary injunction.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.