Applied Materials, Inc. v. Demaray LLC

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: December 16, 2020
• Docket: 5:20-cv-05676
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 APPLIED MATERIALS, INC., 8 Case No. 5:20-cv-05676-EJD Plaintiff, 9 ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE v. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUR- 10 REPLY DEMARAY LLC, 11 Re: Dkt. No. 30 Defendant. 12

13 Before the Court is Defendant Demaray LLC’s (“Demaray”) Administrative Motion for 14 Leave to File Sur-Reply. See Dkt. No. 30. Demaray seeks leave to file a response to Plaintiff 15 Applied Materials, Inc.’s (“Applied”) Reply in Support of the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 16 (“Reply”), arguing that Applied presented new evidence in its Reply brief. Applied opposes the 17 motion. See Applied Materials, Inc.’s Opposition to Demaray LLC’s Administrative Motion to 18 File Sur-Reply to Applied’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (“Opp.”), Dkt. No. 31. For the 19 reasons discussed below, the motion is DENIED. 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 The instant dispute concerns Demaray’s claim that Applied has raised new arguments 22 related to additional evidence attached to its Reply brief that was not included in the moving 23 papers. Demaray identifies the following four categories of new arguments: 24 • “‘Applied now contends that declaratory judgment subject matter jurisdiction is 25 present based upon an email in which Demaray approached Applied to license 26 certain Demaray patents. Reply at 2-3.’ 27 • ‘Applied now provides new facts regarding the relationship between Applied and 1 its customers. Reply at 4-5.’ 2 • ‘Applied now contends that [Mukundan] Narasimhan’s employment agreement 3 applies to patent assignments, despite never informing the Court that these 4 provisions had been declared unlawful or presenting the Court with said agreement. 5 Reply at 12-13.’ 6 • ‘Applied now provides new facts regarding the activities of the Samsung and Intel 7 defendants in the earlier-filed Texas cases. Reply at 14-15.’” 8 II. DISCUSSION 9 Applied argues that it “properly raised these arguments in its Reply directly in response to 10 the arguments raised in Demaray’s Opposition.” Opp. at 3. “Where new evidence is presented in 11 a reply . . . the district court should not consider the new evidence without giving the non-movant 12 an opportunity to respond.” Provenz v. Miller, 102 F.3d 1478, 1483 (9th Cir. 1996) (alteration and 13 citation omitted). However, evidence submitted with a reply brief is not new evidence when it is 14 submitted to rebut arguments raised in the opposition brief. See Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor 15 Graphics Corp., 2013 WL 6577143, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2013) (“Synopsys’s Administrative 16 Motion for Leave to File Sur–Reply is hereby DENIED. . . Mentor does not “[raise new arguments 17 and evidence] . . . in its reply brief” . . . but, rather, responds to arguments made in Synopsys’s 18 opposition”). 19 Having considered the parties’ briefing on Applied’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, 20 the Court finds that the arguments raised in Applied’s Reply brief do not present new information, 21 but respond to arguments raised in Demaray’s Opposition. Specifically, Applied does not present 22 new factual contentions about Demaray’s offer to license the asserted patents and the relationship 23 between Applied and its customers, but instead responds to Demaray’s argument regarding 24 whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Moreover, in its Opposition, 25 Demaray argued assignment provisions in licensing/employment agreements referenced in 26 Applied’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction are unlawful and that Applied is estopped from 27 litigating claims addressing these claims given prior court rulings. Opposition to Applied 1 Materials’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction at 11-14. In its Reply brief, Applied responds to the 2 || arguments raised in Demaray’s Opposition and introduces the full employment agreement at issue 3 as evidence. Thus, contrary to Demaray’s assertions, Applied’s Reply does not raise the 4 || employment agreement as new evidence for the first time in the Reply. Similarly, the Court finds 5 || that Demaray’s discussion of the location of relevant customer activities responded to evidence in 6 || Demaray’s Opposition used to argue that it is more convenient to litigate this matter in the 7 Western District of Texas. Accordingly, no sur-reply is warranted on these issues. 8 || I. CONCLUSION 9 For the reasons stated above, Demaray’s Administrative Motion for Leave to File Sur- 10 || Reply is DENIED 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. a 12 Dated: December 16, 2020

EDWARD J. DAVILA 14 United States District Judge 15 16

it

4 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 || Case No.: 5:20-cv-05676-EJD ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY