`Case 4:18-cv-06185—HSG Document 48-2 Filed 03/15/19 Page 1 of 4
`
`Sarah G. Hartman (Cal. Bar No. 281751)
`shartman@brownrudnick.com
`Peter Lambrianakos (pro hac vice)
`plambrianakos@brownrudnick.com
`Vincent J. Rubino, 111 (um hac vice)
`vrubino@brownrudnick.com
`Brown Rudnick LLP
`
`7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`Telephone:
`(212) 209-4800
`Facsimile:
`(212) 209-4801
`
`Arjun Sivakumar (Cal. Bar No. 297787)
`asivakumar@brownrudnick.com
`Brown Rudnick LLP
`2211 Michelson Drive, Seventh Floor
`Irvine, California 92612
`Telephone: (949) 752-7100
`Facsimile:(949) 252-1514
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`AGIS Software Development LLC
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`Case No. 18-cv-06185-HSG
`
`ZTE (USA) INC.,
`
`V.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`DECLARATION OF VINCENT J. RUBIN0,
`III IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
`SANCTIONS
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC, et
`
`a1,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Hearing Date:
`Time:
`Trial Date:
`
`May 9, 2019
`2:00 p.m. PST
`None set
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF VINCENT J. RUBINO, III, CASE NO. 18-cv-06185
`
`\OOOQONVJIbUJNI—I
`
`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 48-2 Filed 03/15/19 Page 2 of 4
`Case 4:18-cv-06185—HSG Document 48-2 Filed 03/15/19 Page 2 of 4
`
`DECLARATION OF VINCENT J. RUBINO, III
`
`1, Vincent J. Rubino, III, hereby declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am a partner at the law firm of Brown Rudnick LLP. I submit this declaration in
`
`support of Defendant AGIS Software Development LLC’s (“AGIS Software” or “Defendant”)
`
`Motion to Sanctions against ZTE (USA) Inc. (“ZTE”).
`
`I am familiar with the facts set forth herein.
`
`2.
`
`I previously served as counsel for Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc.
`
`(“AGIS, Inc.”) in connection with Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc. v. Life360, Inc., Case
`
`No. 9:14-cv-80651—DMM (S.D. Fl. May 16, 2014, which alleged infringement of US. 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”)). AGIS Software was not involved in that action.
`
`3.
`
`I also serve as counsel for AGIS Software in connection with five patent infringement
`
`actions filed in the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of most or all of the patents at
`
`issue in this action, i.e., US. Patent Nos. 8,213,970 (the “”970 Patent”); 9,408,055 (the “’055
`
`Patent”); 9,445,251 (the “’251 Patent”); 9,467,838 (the “’838 Patent”); and 9,749,829 (the “’829
`
`Patent”) (collectively, the “Patents-in—Suit”). 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—5 16 (ED. Tex.), Dkt. 32 (as amended, alleging infringement of
`
`all five Patents—in-Suit); AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. HTC Corp, Case No. 2: 17-cv—5 14 (ED. Tex.),
`
`Dkt. 1 (alleging infi'ingement of the ’83 8, ’251, ’055 and ’970 patents); AGIS Software Dev. LLC v.
`
`Huawez' Device USA Inc., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-513 (E.D. Tex.), Dkts. l, 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 (ED. Tex.), Dkt. 1 (alleging infringement of the ’838, ’251, ’055 and
`
`’970 patents) (collectively, the “Texas Cases”).
`
`4.
`
`In connection with the Texas Cases, I and/or my colleagues took several depositions
`
`of witnesses located in California. These depositions took place in California as a result of the
`
`locations and convenience of the witnesses relevant to the Texas Cases, as well as the scheduling
`
`\DOOQONUI-bUJNr—t
`
`NNNNNNNNNI—‘I—‘h—‘l—‘h—‘I—il—IP—‘r—lt—lMQONMAWNt—‘OQOOQONUIAUJNI-‘O
`
`parameters of those witnesses and counsel.
`
`1
`__—_—_—_—_—_———————
`DECLARATION OF VINCENT J. RUBINO, III, CASE NO. l8-cv—06185
`
`
`
`Case 4:18-cv-06185-HSG Document 48-2 Filed 03/15/19 Page 3 of 4
`Case 4:18-cv-06185—HSG Document 48-2 Filed 03/15/19 Page 3 of 4
`
`5.
`
`Aside from the depositions discussed above, I am aware of no other depositions on
`
`behalf of AGIS Software that took place in California.
`
`6.
`
`To obtain information potentially relevant to the Texas Cases, my office served
`
`subpoenas on Google, a non-party that happens to be located in California.
`
`7.
`
`Aside from the present suit, I am aware of no lawsuit that has been filed by or against
`
`AGIS Software in California.
`
`8.
`
`To my knowledge, AGIS Software’s efforts to enforce its rights in the Patents-in-Suit
`
`consist only of litigating patent infringement lawsuits filed in the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`9.
`
`On October 26, 2018, my office sent ZTE’s counsel e-mail correspondence
`
`\DOOQQUI-FUJNr—I
`
`10
`
`explaining that ZTE’s initial Complaint was deficient for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as to the
`
`AGIS entities that do not own the Patents-in—Suit (Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`(“AGIS, Inc.”) and AGIS Holdings, Inc. (“AGIS Holdings”), and for lack of personal jurisdiction as
`
`to all three Defendants, as supported by the recent decision in Kyocera Int 7, Inc. v. Semcon IP, Inc. ,
`
`No. 3:18—CV-1575-CAB—MDD, 2018 WL 5112056, at *3 (SD. Cal. Oct. 19, 2018) in which the
`
`court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction based on
`
`substantially similar facts. The e-mail attached a copy of the Kyocera decision. Attached as Exhibit
`
`A is a true and correct copy of the relevant portion of the e-mail correspondence that includes the
`
`referenced communication, attaching a copy of the Kyocera decision.
`
`10.
`
`ZTE’s counsel replied on October 30, 2018 expressing its disagreement with
`
`Defendants’ position, and stating that it would not withdraw its complaint. Attached as Exhibit B is
`
`a true and correct copy of the relevant portion of the e-mail correspondence that includes ZTE’s
`
`counsel’s response.
`
`11.
`
`After ZTE’s counsel’s refusal to dismiss its initial complaint, my office began
`
`drafting a motion to dismiss ZTE’s complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(l) and 12(b)(2) of the Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure, and a motion for sanctions pursuant to Rule 11.
`
`12.
`
`On December 26, 2018, my office shared Defendants’ portion of the joint case
`
`management statement with ZTE’s counsel, which explained that defendants intended to file a
`
`motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and lack of personal jurisdiction, as well as a
`2
`_______________—_———————-—-
`DECLARATION OF VINCENT J. RUBINO, III, CASE NO. l8-cv—06185
`
`
`
`Case 4:18-cv-06185-HSG Document 48-2 Filed 03/15/19 Page 4 of 4
`Case 4:18-cv-06185—HSG Document 48-2 Filed 03/15/19 Page 4 of 4
`
`potential motion for sanctions based on ZTE’s counsel’s refusal to dismiss its baseless allegations of
`
`jurisdiction.
`
`13.
`
`That afternoon, the parties participated in a FRCP 26(1) discovery conference. ZTE’s
`
`counsel did not indicate any intent to withdraw its Complaint or file an amended complaint.
`
`14.
`
`My office served ZTE’s counsel with the Motion for Sanctions via email and
`
`overnight mail on February 20, 2019.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 20th
`
`day of February, 2019.
`
`M
`
`
`/s/VincentJ. Rubino III
`Vincent J. Rubino, HI
`
`|\
`
`3
`
`DECLARATION OF VINCENT J. RUBINO, III, 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
`
`