UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`
` Case No. 18-cv-06185-HSG
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
`DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
`
`[Declaration of Malcolm K. Beyer, Jr.,
`Declaration of Vincent J. Rubino, III and exhibits,
`and Proposed Order filed concurrently herewith]
`
`Amended Complaint Filed: 31-DEC-2018
`Deadline to Respond: 22-JAN-2019
`
`Hearing Date:
`Time:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ZTE (USA) INC.,
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC, et
`al.
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`April 25, 2019
`2:00 p.m. PST
`
`Case 4:18-cv-06185-HSG Document 30 Filed 01/22/19 Page 1 of 24
`
`
`
`SARAH G. HARTMAN (Bar No. 281751)
`shartman@brownrudnick.com
`BROWN RUDNICK LLP
`Seven Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`Telephone: (212) 209-4800
`Facsimile: (212) 209-4801
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM, CASE NO. 18-cv-06185
`
`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
`
`

`

`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 4:18-cv-06185-HSG Document 30 Filed 01/22/19 Page 2 of 24
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 25, 2019 at 2:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as
`
`the matter may be heard before the Honorable Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. in the United
`
`States District Court for the Northern District of California, in the Ronald V. Dellums Federal
`
`Building and United States Courthouse, Courtroom 2, 4th Floor, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland,
`
`California 94612, Defendant AGIS Software Development LLC (“AGIS Software”) will and
`
`hereby does move the Court, for an order dismissing the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”)
`
`filed by Plaintiff ZTE (USA) Inc. (“ZTE” or “Plaintiff”) pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`This Motion is made on the grounds that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over AGIS
`
`Software. AGIS Software is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in
`
`Marshall, Texas. AGIS Software is not registered to conduct business in California; does not have
`
`a registered agent for service of process in California; does not have offices, employees, equipment,
`
`bank accounts or other assets in California; is not subject to and has never paid taxes in California;
`
`does not manufacture or sell products in California; does not solicit or engage in business in
`
`California; has not signed contracts in California; does not recruit employees in California; and does
`
`not own, lease or rent any property in California. Further, with the exception of the present suit, no
`
`lawsuit has ever been filed by or against AGIS Software in California for any reason. Additionally,
`
`AGIS Software has not purposefully directed any activities related to the enforcement or
`
`defense of the Patents-in-Suit at California.
`
`The Motion will be and is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the accompanying
`
`Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the accompanying declarations and exhibits, the
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`
`1
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT, MEMORANDUM, CASE NO. 18-cv-06185
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-06185-HSG Document 30 Filed 01/22/19 Page 3 of 24
`
`
`
`pleadings and papers filed herein, as well as upon such other and further matters, papers and
`
`arguments as may be submitted to the Court.
`
`
`Dated: January 22, 2019
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`BROWN RUDNICK LLP
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Sarah G. Hartman
`Sarah G. Hartman
`
`BROWN RUDNICK LLP
`Attorneys for Defendants
`AGIS Software Development LLC
`
`
`2
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM, CASE NO. 18-cv-06185
`
`

`

`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 4:18-cv-06185-HSG Document 30 Filed 01/22/19 Page 4 of 24
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED ................................................................................... 3
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ...................................................................... 3
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .............................................................................................. 3
`
`BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Parties ................................................................................................................................. 3
`
`Prior Enforcement Actions ........................................................................................................ 4
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ............................................................................................................... 6
`
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................ 8
`
`A.
`
`Personal Jurisdiction Does Not Exist Over AGIS Software In California ................................ 8
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`General Jurisdiction Does Not Exist over AGIS Software Because
`AGIS Software Is Not “At Home” in California .............................................. 8
`
`Specific Jurisdiction Does Not Exist Over AGIS Software in
`California ........................................................................................................ 11
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Enforcement Actions in Texas Against Alleged California
`Entities Do Not Support Jurisdiction Over AGIS Software in
`California ............................................................................................ 12
`
`Contacts That Are “Merely Ancillary” to Out-of-State
`Enforcement Actions Do Not Subject AGIS Software to
`Jurisdiction in California..................................................................... 15
`
`Exercising Personal Jurisdiction over Any Defendant Would
`Not Comport with Fair Play and Substantial Justice .......................... 17
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT, MEMORANDUM, CASE NO. 18-cv-06185
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 4:18-cv-06185-HSG Document 30 Filed 01/22/19 Page 5 of 24
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`Adobe Sys. Inc. v. Tejas Research, LLC.,
`No. C-14-0868 EMC, 2014 WL 4651654 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2014) ............. passim
`
`AFTG-TG, LLC v. Nuvoton Tech. Corp.,
`689 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................. 8
`
`AGIS Software Dev., LLC v. ZTE Corp.,
`No. 2:17-CV-00517-JRG, 2018 WL 4854023 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 28,
`2018) .......................................................................................................................... 8
`
`Amba Mktg. Sys., Inc. v. Jobar Int’l, Inc.,
`551 F.2d 784 (9th Cir. 1977) ..................................................................................... 8
`
`Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
`No. ED CV 15--1914 RGK, 2016 WL 6822312 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 26,
`2016) .......................................................................................................................... 8
`
`Autogenomics, Inc. v. Oxford Gene Tech. Ltd.,
`566 F.3d 1012 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ..................................................................... 7, 10, 11
`
`Autonomy, Inc. v. Adiscov, LLC,
`No. C11–0420 SBA, 2011 WL 2175551, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 3,
`2011) ............................................................................................................ 11, 13, 14
`
`Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Aten Int’l Co.,
`552 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................................ passim
`
`Boschetto v. Hansing,
`539 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2008) ................................................................................. 17
`
`Breckenridge Pharm., Inc. v. Metabolite Labs., Inc.,
`444 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ............................................................................... 11
`
`Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz,
`471 U.S. 462 (1985)....................................................................................... 7, 15, 16
`
`Campbell Pet Co. v. Miale,
`542 F.3d 879 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................... 8
`
`
`ii
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM, CASE NO. 18-cv-06185
`
`
`
`
`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 4:18-cv-06185-HSG Document 30 Filed 01/22/19 Page 6 of 24
`
`
`
`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
`
`Comm Vault Sys., Inc. v. PB & J Software, LLC,
`No. C13–1332 MMC, 2013 WL 3242251 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2013) .............. 14, 17
`
`Daimler AG v. Bauman,
`571 U.S. 117 (2014)....................................................................................... 8, 10, 11
`
`Data Disc, Inc. v. Systems Tech. Assocs. Inc.,
`557 F.2d 1280 (9th Cir. 1977) ................................................................................... 8
`
`Elecs. For Imaging, Inc. v. Coyle,
`340 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1111 (2004) ....................... 7
`
`Gallagher v. U.S.,
`No. 17-CV-00586-MEJ, 2017 WL 4390172 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2017) ................... 16
`
`Goodyear Dunlop Tires Ops., S.A. v. Brown,
`131 S. Ct. 2846 (2011) ........................................................................................... 7, 8
`
`Hanson v. Deckla,
`357 U.S. 253 (1958)............................................................................................. 7, 15
`
`Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia S.A. v. Hall,
`466 U.S. 408 (1984)......................................................................................... 7, 9, 10
`
`Hildebrand v. Steck Mfg. Co.,
`279 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ............................................................................... 17
`
`Int’l Shoe Co. v. Wash.,
`326 U.S. 310 (1945)............................................................................................... 7, 8
`
`Invisible Fence, Inc. v. Fido’s Fences, Inc.,
`687 F. Supp. 2d 726 (E.D. Tenn. 2009) .................................................................. 16
`
`Juniper Networks, Inc. v. SSL Servs., LLC,
`No. C08–5758 SBA, 2009 WL 3837266 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2009),
`aff'd, 2010 WL 5140471 (Fed. Cir. Dec.13, 2010)...................................... 12, 13, 14
`
`Key Source Int’l v. CeeColor Indus., LLC,
`No. C12–01776 WHA, 2012 WL 6001059 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2012) .................. 14
`
`Klayman v. Deluca,
`No. 5:14-CV-03190-EJD, 2015 WL 427907 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2015) ................. 16
`
`Kulko v. Cal. Sup. Ct.,
`436 U.S. 84 (1978)................................................................................................... 15
`
`iii
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM, CASE NO. 18-cv-06185
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-06185-HSG Document 30 Filed 01/22/19 Page 7 of 24
`
`
`
`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
`
`Kyocera In’'l, Inc. v. Semcon IP, Inc.,
`No. 3:18-CV-1575-CAB-MDD, 2018 WL 5112056 (S.D. Cal. Oct.
`19, 2018) ........................................................................................................... passim
`
`McGee v. Int’l Life Ins. Co.,
`355 U.S. 220 (1957)................................................................................................. 15
`
`Nuance Comms., Inc. v. Abbyy Software House,
`626 F.3d 1222 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................................. 7
`
`NuCal Foods, Inc. v. Quality Egg LLC,
`887 F. Supp. 2d 977 (E.D. Cal. 2012) ....................................................................... 8
`
`P.I.C. Int’l Inc. v. Miflex 2 SpA,
`No. 3:17-CV-0556-CAB-WVG, 2017 WL 3583122 (S.D. Cal. Aug.
`17, 2017) .............................................................................................................. 6, 10
`
`Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co.,
`342 U.S. 437 (1952)................................................................................................... 9
`
`Radio Sys. Corp. v. Accession, Inc.,
`638 F.3d 785 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ........................................................................... 11, 12
`
`Red Wing Shoe Co. v. Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc.,
`148 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ............................................................................... 17
`
`RxHeat, LLC v. Thermapure, Inc.,
`No. 4:10CV2402 JCH, 2011 WL 998158 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 17, 2011) ..................... 15
`
`Silent Drive, Inc. v. Strong Indus., Inc.,
`326 F.3d 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................... 11
`
`Walden v. Fiore,
`571 U.S. 277 (2014)....................................................................................... 7, 14, 15
`
`World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson,
`444 U.S. 286 (1980)........................................................................................... 15, 16
`
`Xilinx, Inc. v. Invention Inv. Fund I LP,
`No. C 11-0671 SI, 2011 WL 3206686 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2011) ............................. 6
`
`California Statutes
`
`Cal. Civ. Proc. Code
`§ 410.10 ..................................................................................................................... 7
`
`iv
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM, CASE NO. 18-cv-06185
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-06185-HSG Document 30 Filed 01/22/19 Page 8 of 24
`
`
`
`Other Authorities
`
`FRCP 11 .......................................................................................................................... 6
`
`FRCP 12(b)(2) ................................................................................................................ 6
`
`FRCP 26(f) ...................................................................................................................... 6
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM, CASE NO. 18-cv-06185
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`

`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 4:18-cv-06185-HSG Document 30 Filed 01/22/19 Page 9 of 24
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`1. Whether this Court lack personal jurisdiction over AGIS Software in the instant
`
`declaratory judgment action.
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`The instant declaratory judgment action, which seeks a determination that ZTE did not
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`infringe several of AGIS Software’s patents, must be dismissed because this Court lacks personal
`
`jurisdiction over AGIS Software. AGIS Software is a Texas corporation with a principal place of
`
`business in Texas. AGIS Software is not registered to conduct business in California; does not
`
`have a registered agent for service of process in California; does not have offices, employees,
`
`equipment, bank accounts or other assets in California; is not subject to and has never paid taxes in
`
`California; does not manufacture or sell products in California; does not solicit or engage in business
`
`in California; has not signed contracts in California; does not recruit employees in California; and
`
`does not own, lease or rent any property in California. Further, with the exception of the present
`
`suit, no lawsuit has ever been filed by or against AGIS Software in California for any reason. The
`
`sole contacts relied on by ZTE to bring litigation against AGIS Software in this Court are
`
`enforcement actions filed outside of California, travel to California to take depositions of witnesses
`
`in connection with the out-of-state enforcement actions, and service of subpoenas on a non-party in
`
`California in connection with the out-of-state enforcement actions. None of these contacts are
`
`sufficient to show that AGIS Software purposefully directed any activities related to the
`
`enforcement or defense of the Patents-in-Suit at California, as is necessary for this Court to
`
`exercise personal jurisdiction over AGIS Software in accordance with federal Due Process.
`
`Accordingly, ZTE’s First Amended Complaint should be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction
`
`without leave to amend.
`II. BACKGROUND
`A. The Parties
`AGIS Software is the sole owner of all right, title, and interest in and to U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`
`
`8,213,970 (the “’970 Patent”); 9,408,055 (the “’055 Patent”); 9,445,251 (the “’251 Patent”);
`
`
`3
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT, MEMORANDUM, CASE NO. 18-cv-06185
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-06185-HSG Document 30 Filed 01/22/19 Page 10 of 24
`
`
`
`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
`
`9,467,838 (the “’838 Patent”); and 9,749,829 (the “’829 Patent”) (collectively, the “Patents-in-
`
`Suit”). AGIS Software Development LLC v. ZTE Corp., et. al., Case No. 2:18-cv-00517-JRG, Dkt. 1
`
`¶ 1 (E.D. Tex.); see also Dkt. 18 ¶¶ 17-21; Declaration of Malcolm K. Beyer, Jr. (“Beyer Decl.”) ¶ 7.
`
`
`
`AGIS Software is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business located in
`
`Marshall, Texas. Dkt. 18 ¶ 3; see also Beyer Decl. ¶ 9. AGIS Software’s Chief Executive Officer,
`
`Mr. Malcolm K. Beyer, Jr. resides in Florida, not California. Beyer Decl. ¶¶ 2, 4. AGIS Software
`
`is not registered to conduct business in California; does not have a registered agent for service of
`
`process in California; does not have offices, employees, equipment, bank accounts or other assets in
`
`California; is not subject to and has never paid taxes in California; does not manufacture or sell
`
`products in California; does not solicit or engage in business in California; has not signed contracts
`
`in California; does not recruit employees in California; and does not own, lease or rent any property
`
`in California. Beyer Decl. ¶¶ 10-19. Further, with the exception of the present suit, no lawsuit has
`
`ever been filed by or against AGIS Software in California for any reason. Id. ¶ 21; see also
`
`Declaration of Vincent J. Rubino, III (“Rubino Decl.”) ¶ 8.
`
`
`
`ZTE alleges that it is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of New Jersey, with
`
`a principal place of business at 2425 N. Central Expressway, Suite 600, Richardson, Texas 75080,
`
`and an office located in Milpitas California. Dkt. 18 ¶ 2.
`B. Prior Enforcement Actions
`In the summer of 2017, AGIS Software filed five patent infringement actions involving the
`
`
`
`Patents-in-Suit in the Eastern District of Texas. See AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. ZTE Corp, et al.,
`
`Case No. 2:17-cv-517 (E.D. Tex.), Dkts. 1, 32 (as amended, alleging infringement of all five
`
`Patents-in-Suit against ZTE Corporation, ZTE (TX) and ZTE) (the “ZTE Texas Case”); AGIS
`
`Software Dev. LLC v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-516 (E.D. Tex.), Dkt. 32 (as amended, alleging
`
`infringement of all five Patents-in-Suit) (the “Apple Texas Case”); AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. HTC
`
`Corp., Case No. 2:17-cv-514 (E.D. Tex.), Dkt. 1 (alleging infringement of the ‘838, ‘251, ‘055 and
`
`970 patents); AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Huawei Device USA Inc., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-513
`
`(E.D. Tex.), Dkts. 1, 20 (alleging infringement of the ‘838, ‘251, ‘055 and 970 patents); and AGIS
`
`Software Dev. LLC v. LG Elecs., Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-515 (E.D. Tex.), Dkt. 1 (alleging
`
`4
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM, CASE NO. 18-cv-06185
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-06185-HSG Document 30 Filed 01/22/19 Page 11 of 24
`
`
`
`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
`
`infringement of the ‘838, ‘251, ‘055 and 970 patents) (collectively, the “Texas Cases”). Aside from
`
`the filing and prosecution of the Texas Cases, AGIS Software has taken no other action to enforce its
`rights in the Patents-in-Suit against any entity. Beyer Decl. ¶ 22; see also Rubino Decl. ¶ 91.
`
`All of the Texas Cases are currently still pending in the Eastern District of Texas, except the
`
`ZTE Texas Case. Rubino Decl. ¶ 4. On September 28, 2018, Judge Gilstrap issued an order to
`
`transfer the ZTE Texas Case to the Northern District of California, in response to the defendant’s
`
`motion to dismiss or transfer for improper venue. See ZTE Texas Case, Dkt. 85. On October 8,
`
`2018, prior to the transfer, AGIS Software filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (id. Dkt. 86) which
`the court granted on October 9, 2018 (id. Dkt. 87). That same day, ZTE filed the instant action
`seeking a judicial declaration of non-infringement, invalidity, and/or unenforceability as to the
`
`Patents-in-Suit against AGIS Software, AGIS Holdings, Inc. (“AGIS Holdings”), and Advanced
`
`Ground Information Systems, Inc. (“AGIS, Inc.”). Dkt. 1.
`
`
`
`On October 26, 2018, Defendants’ counsel sent ZTE’s counsel e-mail correspondence
`
`explaining that this Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction as to AGIS, Inc. and AGIS Holdings
`
`(neither of which were involved in the ZTE Texas Case) because AGIS Software is the sole and
`
`exclusive owner of all right, title and interest in and to each of the Patents-in-Suit, and thus the only
`
`entity that has standing to sue for infringement and that can be sued for a declaration of non-
`
`infringement, invalidity and/or unenforceability of the Patents-in-Suit. Rubino Decl. ¶ 10 & Ex. A.
`
`Defendants’ counsel also explained that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over all three entities
`
`because none of the Defendants purposefully directed activities related to the enforcement or defense
`
`of the Patents-in-Suit at California, as is required for the exercise of personal jurisdiction to comport
`
`with Due Process. Id., Ex. A. In support of its position, Defendants’ counsel included a copy of the
`
`decision in Kyocera In’'l, Inc. v. Semcon IP, Inc., No. 3:18-CV-1575-CAB-MDD, 2018 WL
`
`5112056, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2018) in which the court granted the defendant’s motion to
`
`1 ZTE alleges that AGIS Software also filed a lawsuit against Life360, Inc. in the Southern District
`of Florida in Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc. v. Life360, Inc., Case No. 9:14-cv-80651-
`DMM (S.D. Fl.) (the “Life360 Case”). Dkt. 18 ¶ 9. But that action, which alleged infringement of
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,031,728 (the “’728 Patent”); 7,764,954 (the “’954 Patent”); 8,126,441 (the “’441
`Patent”); and 7,672,681 (the “’681 Patent”), did not involve AGIS Software. See Life360 Case,
`Dkt. 1; see also Rubino Decl. ¶ 2.
`
`
`
`
`5
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM, CASE NO. 18-cv-06185
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-06185-HSG Document 30 Filed 01/22/19 Page 12 of 24
`
`
`
`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
`
`dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction based on substantially similar facts. Id. ZTE’s counsel
`
`replied on October 30, 2018, stating that ZTE would not dismiss its complaint. Id. ¶ 11 & Ex. B.
`
`
`
`In light of ZTE’s refusal to dismiss its complaint, Defendants’ counsel prepared a motion to
`
`dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as to AGIS, Inc. and AGIS Holdings,
`
`and for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to all three Defendants, and a motion for sanctions
`
`pursuant to FRCP 11. Id. ¶ 12. On December 26, 2018, Defendants shared their portion of the joint
`
`case management statement with ZTE, which explained that Defendants intended to file a motion to
`
`dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction, as well as a potential motion
`
`for sanctions based on ZTE’s counsel’s refusal to dismiss its baseless allegations of jurisdiction. Id.
`
`¶ 13. That same day, in the afternoon, the parties participated in a FRCP 26(f) discovery conference.
`
`Id. ¶ 14. During that conference, ZTE’s counsel did not indicate any intent to withdraw its
`
`Complaint or to file an amended complaint. Id.
`
`
`
`On December 31, 2018, the deadline for Defendants to respond to the initial Complaint,
`
`ZTE’s filed its First Amended Complaint, removing AGIS Holdings and AGIS, Inc. as named
`
`defendants, but continuing to assert a baseless claim of personal jurisdiction over AGIS Software.
`
`Dkt. 18; see also Rubino Decl. ¶ 15.
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`FRCP 12(b)(2) requires a district court to dismiss as to a defendant over which the court
`
`lacks personal jurisdiction. In a patent case, including a declaratory judgment action involving a
`
`patent, Federal Circuit law governs the inquiry. Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Aten Int’l Co., 552 F.3d
`
`1324, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[W]e apply Federal Circuit law because the jurisdictional issue is
`
`‘intimately involved with the substance of patent laws.’”) (citation omitted). Where, like here, an
`
`action seeks a declaration of non-infringement, invalidity, or unenforceability of a patent, personal
`
`jurisdiction is required “over the owner, assignee or exclusive licensee of the patent.” See Xilinx,
`
`Inc. v. Invention Inv. Fund I LP, No. C 11-0671 SI, 2011 WL 3206686, at *4 (N.D. Cal. July 27,
`
`2011) (citing Avocent, 552 F.3d at 1329-30).
`
`
`
`Personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant is proper if permitted by a state’s long-
`
`arm statute and if the exercise of jurisdiction does not violate federal Due Process. P.I.C. Int’l Inc. v.
`
`6
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM, CASE NO. 18-cv-06185
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-06185-HSG Document 30 Filed 01/22/19 Page 13 of 24
`
`
`
`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
`
`Miflex 2 SpA, No. 3:17-CV-0556-CAB-WVG, 2017 WL 3583122, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2017)
`
`(citing Nuance Comms., Inc. v. Abbyy Software House, 626 F.3d 1222, 1230 (Fed. Cir. 2010)).
`
`“[B]ecause California’s long-arm statute is coextensive with the limits of due process, the two
`
`inquiries collapse into a single inquiry: whether jurisdiction comports with due process.”
`
`Autogenomics, Inc. v. Oxford Gene Tech. Ltd., 566 F.3d 1012, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citation
`
`omitted); see also Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 410.10.
`
`
`
`To satisfy federal Due Process (1) the defendant must have established certain minimum
`
`contacts with the forum state; and (2) the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant must not offend
`
`“traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Goodyear Dunlop Tires Ops., S.A. v.
`
`Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846, 2853 (2011) (quoting Int’l Shoe Co. v. Wash., 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)
`
`(quotations omitted)). Jurisdiction may be either “general or all-purpose jurisdiction,” or “specific
`
`or case-linked jurisdiction.” Id. at 2851 (citing Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia S.A. v. Hall,
`
`466 U.S. 408, 414 (1984)). “Specific jurisdiction . . . must be based on activities that arise out of or
`
`relate to the cause of action.” Autogenomics, 566 F.3d at 1017 (citation omitted). However, “it is
`
`essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the
`
`privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections
`
`of its laws.” Avocent, 552 F.3d at 1329 (quoting Hanson v. Deckla, 357 U.S. 253 (1958)) (emphasis
`
`added). “This purposeful availment requirement ensures that a defendant will not be haled into a
`
`jurisdiction solely as a result of random, fortuitous, or attenuated contacts, or of the unilateral
`
`activity of another party or a third person.” Id. (citing Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S.
`
`462, 475 (1985)). Moreover, the “‘minimum contacts’ analysis looks to the defendant’s contacts
`
`with the forum State itself, not the defendant’s contacts with persons who reside there.” Walden v.
`
`Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 285 (2014) (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`Where, like here, the parties have not conducted discovery and there has been no evidentiary
`
`hearing, the plaintiff bears the burden of making a prima facie showing that each defendant is
`
`subject to personal jurisdiction. See Elecs. For Imaging, Inc. v. Coyle, 340 F.3d 1344, 1349 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1111 (2004). The plaintiff cannot “simply rest on the bare
`
`allegations of its complaint, but rather [is] obligated to come forward with facts, by affidavit or
`
`7
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM, CASE NO. 18-cv-06185
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-06185-HSG Document 30 Filed 01/22/19 Page 14 of 24
`
`
`
`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
`
`otherwise, supporting personal jurisdiction.” Amba Mktg. Sys., Inc. v. Jobar Int’l, Inc., 551 F.2d
`
`784, 787 (9th Cir. 1977). Additionally, although the court must accept uncontested allegations as
`
`true, it need not consider “bare formulaic accusations” that a defendant maintains sufficient contacts
`
`with the forum state. AFTG-TG, LLC v. Nuvoton Tech. Corp., 689 F.3d 1358, 1365 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012); see also NuCal Foods, Inc. v. Quality Egg LLC, 887 F. Supp. 2d 977, 988 (E.D. Cal. 2012)
`
`(“[T]he court need not consider merely conclusory claims, or legal conclusions in the complaint as
`
`establishing jurisdiction.”). It also “may not assume the truth of allegations in a pleading which are
`
`contradicted by affidavit.” Data Disc, Inc. v. Systems Tech. Assocs. Inc., 557 F.2d 1280, 1284 (9th
`
`Cir. 1977).
`IV. ARGUMENT
`A. Personal Jurisdiction Does Not Exist Over AGIS Software In California2
`
`
`
`ZTE has not and cannot present facts to support a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction
`
`over AGIS Software in California. Even if it could, exercising jurisdiction over AGIS Software
`
`would not comport with fair play and substantial justice.
`1.
`General Jurisdiction Does Not Exist over AGIS Software Because AGIS
`Software Is Not “At Home” in California
`General jurisdiction exists only when the defendant’s contacts with the forum are so
`
`
`
`“continuous and systematic” that the defendant is “essentially at home in the forum state.” Daimler
`
`AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 122 (2014) (citing Goodyear, 564 U.S. at 919). “[S]poradic and
`
`insubstantial contacts with the forum state . . . are not sufficient. . . .” Campbell Pet Co. v. Miale,
`
`542 F.3d 879, 884 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Moreover, “even continuous activity of some sorts within a
`
`state . . . is not enough to support the demand that the corporation be amenable to suits unrelated to
`
`that activity.” Goodyear Dunlop, 564 U.S. at 927 (quoting Int’l Shoe, 326 U.S. at 318)). Thus, the
`
`plaintiff bears a higher burden to establish general jurisdiction than to establish specific jurisdiction.
`
`2 Although the court in the ZTE Texas Case granted the defendants’ motion to transfer venue, the
`court did not determine the issue of personal jurisdiction as to AGIS Software in this Court. AGIS
`Software Dev., LLC v. ZTE Corp., No. 2:17-CV-00517-JRG, 2018 WL 4854023, at *4 (E.D. Tex.
`Sept. 28, 2018); see also Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No.
`ED CV 15--1914 RGK (SPx), 2016 WL 6822312, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2016) (“In analyzing
`whether transfer is appropriate under § 1404(a), the threshold issue is whether the case might have
`been brought in the proposed venue. This inquiry only asks if the transferee court has jurisdiction
`over the defendants, not the plaintiffs.” (internal citations and quotations omitted)).
`
`8
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM, CASE NO. 18-cv-06185
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-06185-HSG Document 30 Filed 01/22/19 Page 15 of 24
`
`
`
`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
`
`Avocent, 552 F.3d at 1330.
`
`
`
`Although there is no concrete test for determining what constitutes systematic and continuous
`
`contacts, the Supreme Court has held tha