Case 5:21-cv-03076-BLF Document 37 Filed 08/23/21 Page 1 of 26
`
`
`
`Alfred R. Fabricant (pro hac vice)
`afabricant@fabricantllp.com
`Peter Lambrianakos (pro hac vice)
`plambrianakos@fabricantllp.com
`Vincent J. Rubino, III (pro hac vice)
`vrubino@fabricantllp.com
`Enrique Iturralde (pro hac vice)
`eiturralde@fabricantllp.com
`FABRICANT LLP
`411 Theodore Fremd Road, Suite 206 South
`Rye, New York 10580
`Telephone: (212) 257-5797
`Facsimile: (212) 257-5796
`
`Benjamin T. Wang (CA SBN 228712)
`bwang@raklaw.com
`Minna Y. Chan (CA SBN 305941)
`mchan@raklaw.com
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90025
`Telephone: (310) 826-7474
`Facsimile: (310) 826-9226
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`AGIS Software Development LLC
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
` Case No. 5:21-cv-03076-BLF
`
`Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
`DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
`
`Date:
` September 30, 2021
`Time:
` 9:00 a.m.
`Location: Courtroom 3
`
`[Declaration of Malcolm K. Beyer, Jr;
`Declaration of Vincent J. Rubino, III and
`exhibits; and Proposed Order filed
`concurrently herewith]
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`WHATSAPP LLC,
`
`
`v.
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT, MEMORANDUM, CASE NO. 5:21-cv-03076
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03076-BLF Document 37 Filed 08/23/21 Page 2 of 26
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on September 30, 2021 at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter
`as the matter may be heard before The Honorable Beth Labson Freeman in the United States District
`Court for the Northern District of California in the Robert F. Peckham Federal Building & United
`States Courthouse, Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, California 95113,
`Defendant AGIS Software Development LLC (“AGIS Software” or “Defendant”) will and hereby
`does move the Court, for: (1) an order dismissing the Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed by
`Plaintiff WhatsApp LLC (“WhatsApp” or “Plaintiff”) pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules
`of Civil Procedure; (2) an order dismissing the Complaint for Declaratory Judgment in favor of the
`first-filed action; or (3) in the alternative, an order staying this action pending a decision on
`WhatsApp’s motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, to transfer, which is currently pending in the
`Eastern District of Texas.
`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 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. Additionally, AGIS Software has not purposefully directed any
`activities related to the enforcement or defense of the Patents-in-Suit at California.
`Additionally, this Motion requests that this Court dismiss the Complaint based on the first-
`to-file rule. AGIS Software filed a complaint against WhatsApp in the Eastern District of Texas
`prior to the filing of WhatsApp’s Complaint in this Court. The two actions involve the same parties
`and the same issues, and accordingly, the first-to-file rule applies here. There are no exceptions to
`the rule that apply and, even if there were, whether any exceptions should trump the first-to-file rule
`should be determined by the Eastern District of Texas. In the alternative, the Court should stay this
`
`
` 1
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT, MEMORANDUM, CASE NO. 5:21-cv-03076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03076-BLF Document 37 Filed 08/23/21 Page 3 of 26
`
`
`
`action pending resolution of WhatsApp’s motion in the Eastern District of Texas, where parties have
`completed briefing and is currently awaiting a decision by the Texas Court.
`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 pleadings
`and papers filed herein, as well as upon such and other further mattes, papers, and arguments as may
`be presented to the Court.
`
`DATED: August 23, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`By: /s/ Benjamin T. Wang
`
` Benjamin T. Wang
`
`FABRICANT LLP
`Alfred R. Fabricant
`ffabricant@fabricantllp.com
`Peter Lambrianakos
`plambrianakos@fabricantllp.com
`Vincent J. Rubino, III
`vrubino@fabricantllp.com
`411 Theodore Fremd Road, Suite 206 South
`Rye, New York 10580
`Telephone: (212) 257-5797
`Facsimile: (212) 257-5796
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`AGIS Software Development LLC
`
`
` 2
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT, MEMORANDUM, CASE NO. 5:21-cv-03076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03076-BLF Document 37 Filed 08/23/21 Page 4 of 26
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ............................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................... 2
`A. The Parties ............................................................................................................................. 2
`B. Prior Enforcement Actions .................................................................................................... 2
`III. LEGAL STANDARD .............................................................................................................. 4
`A. Motion to Dismiss ................................................................................................................. 4
`B. First-to-File Rule ................................................................................................................... 5
`IV. ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................................... 6
`A. Personal Jurisdiction Does Not Exist Over AGIS Software in California ............................ 6
`1. General Jurisdiction Does Not Exist Over AGIS Software Because AGIS Software Is Not
`“At Home” in California ........................................................................................................... 7
`2. Specific Jurisdiction Does Not Exist Over AGIS Software in California ......................... 9
`V. WHATSAPP’S COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED UNDER THE FIRST-TO-
`FILE RULE ................................................................................................................................... 15
`VI. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THIS ACTION SHOULD BE STAYED PENDING A
`DECISION IN THE TEXAS ACTION ....................................................................................... 18
`VII. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT, MEMORANDUM, CASE NO. 5:21-cv-03076
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03076-BLF Document 37 Filed 08/23/21 Page 5 of 26
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Cases
`3D Sys., Inc. v. Aarotech Labs., Inc.,
`160 F.3d 1373 (Fed Cir. 1998) .............................................................................................. 13, 15
`Adobe Sys., Inc. v. Tejas Research, LLC,
`No. C-14-0868 EMC, 2014 WL 4651654 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2014) .................................. 10, 11
`AFTG-TG, LLC v. Nuvoton Tech. Corp.,
`689 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..................................................................................................... 5
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`2018 WL 2721826 (E.D. Tex. June 6, 2018) .............................................................................. 15
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Google LLC,
`No. 2:19-cv-000361-JRG, Dkt. 147 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 8, 2020) ................................................... 17
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. HTC Corp.,
`2018 WL 4680557 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 28, 2018) ........................................................................... 15
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Huawei Device USA Inc., et al.,
`No. 2:17-cv00513-JRG, Dkt. 205 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 10, 2018) ..................................................... 17
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`No. 2:19-cv-00072-JRG, Dkt. 80 (E.D. Tex. June 4, 2021) ....................................................... 17
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. ZTE Corp. et al.,
`Case No. 2:17-cv-517 (E.D. Tex. .................................................................................................. 3
`Allphin v. Peter K. Fitness, LLC,
`2014 WL 6997653 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2014) ............................................................................ 15
`Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Prods., Inc.,
`946 F.2d 622 (9th Cir. 1991) ......................................................................................................... 6
`Amba Mktg. Sys., Inc. v. Jobar Int’l, Inc.,
`551 F.2d 784 (9th Cir. 1977) ......................................................................................................... 5
`Autogenomics, Inc. v. Oxford Gene Tech. Ltd.,
`566 F.3d 1012 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ....................................................................................... 4, 8, 9, 10
`Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Aten Int’l Co.,
`552 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................................ passim
`Breckenridge Pharm., Inc. v. Metabolite Labs., Inc.,
`444 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ................................................................................................... 10
`Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz,
`471 U.S. 462 (1985) ...................................................................................................................... 5
`Campbell Pet Co. v. Miale,
`541 F.3d 879 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ....................................................................................................... 7
`Celgard, LLC v. SK Innovation Co.,
`792 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ....................................................................................... 13, 14, 15
`CommVault Sys., Inc. v. PB&J Software, LLC,
`2013 WL 3242251 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2013) ............................................................................ 12
`Daimler AG v. Bauman,
`571 U.S. 117 (2014) .................................................................................................................. 7, 9
`Data Disc, Inc. v. Systems Tech. Assocs. Inc.,
`557 F.2d 1280 (9th Cir. 1977) ....................................................................................................... 5
`Doe v. Unocal Corp.,
`248 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2001) ....................................................................................................... 13
`Elecs. For Imaging, Inc. v. Coyle,
`340 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ..................................................................................................... 5
`Elecs. for Imaging, Inc. v. Coyle,
`394 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ..................................................................................................... 6
`EMC Corp. v. Bright Response, LLC,
`2012 WL 4097707 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2012) ................................................................ 16, 17, 18
`Futurewei Techs., Inc. v. Acacia Research Corp.,
`737 F.3d 704 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ....................................................................................................... 5
`Genentech, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC,
`2010 WL 4923954 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 1, 2010) .............................................................................. 18
`ii
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT, MEMORANDUM, CASE NO. 5:21-cv-03076
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03076-BLF Document 37 Filed 08/23/21 Page 6 of 26
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Goodyear Dunlop Tires Ops., S.A. v. Brown,
`131 S. Ct. 2846 (2011) .............................................................................................................. 4, 7
`Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia S.A. v. Hall,
`466 U.S. 408 (1984) .............................................................................................................. 4, 7, 9
`Hildebrand v. Steck Mfg. Co.,
`279 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ................................................................................................... 12
`In re Apple, Inc.,
`No. 2018-151 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 16, 2018) ...................................................................................... 15
`In re LG Elecs., Inc.,
`No. 2019-107 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 24, 2019) ....................................................................................... 15
`Int’l Shoe Co. v. Wash.,
`326 U.S. 310 (1945) (quotations omitted) ................................................................................. 4, 7
`Juniper Networks, Inc. v. SSL Servs., LLC,
`No. C08-5758 SBA, 2009 WL 3837266 (N.D. Ca. Nov. 16, 2009) ..................................... 11, 12
`Kyocera Int’l, Inc. v. Semcon IP, Inc.,
`No. 3:18-CV-1575-CAB-MDD, 2018 WL 5112056 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2018) ............. 10, 11, 12
`Life360, Inc. v. Advanced Ground Information Sys. Inc.,
`2015 WL 5612008 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 21, 2015) ......................................................................... 8, 10
`Marvell Semiconductor Inc. v. Monterey Res., LLC,
`2020 WL 6591197 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 11, 2020) ............................................................................ 15
`Nuance Comms., Inc. v. Abbyy Software House,
`626 F.3d 1222 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ..................................................................................................... 4
`NuCal Foods, Inc. v. Quality Egg LLC,
`887 F. Supp. 2d 977 (E.D. Cal. 2012) ........................................................................................... 5
`NXP Semiconductors USA, Inc. v. Brevets,
`2014 WL 4621017 (N.D Cal. Sept. 15, 2014) ............................................................................. 14
`P.I.C. Int’l Inc. v. Miflex 2 SpA,
`No. 3:17-CV-556-CAB-WVG, 2017 WL 3583122 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2017) ........................ 4, 8
`Pacesette Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc.,
`678 F.2d 93 (9th Cir. 1982) ........................................................................................................... 6
`Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co.,
`342 U.S. 437 (1952) ...................................................................................................................... 7
`Radio Sys. Corp. v. Accession, Inc.,
`638 F.3d 785 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ..................................................................................................... 10
`Ranza v. Nike,
`793 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2015) ..................................................................................................... 14
`Red Wing Shoe Co. v. Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc.,
`148 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ................................................................................................... 12
`Ruckus Wireless, Inc. v. Harris Corp.,
`No. 11-cv-019440-LHK, 2012 WL 588792 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2012) ............................ 6, 15, 16
`SMIC, Ams. v. Innovative Foundry Techs. LLC,
`473 F. Supp. 3d 1021 (N.D. Cal. 2020) .................................................................................. 6, 16
`Stewart v. Screen Gems-EMI Music, Inc.,
`81 F. Supp. 3d 938 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .................................................................................... 13, 15
`Walden v. Fiore,
`571 U.S. 277 (2014) ...................................................................................................................... 5
`Xilinx, Inc. v. Invention Inv. Fund I LP, No. C 11-0671 SI,
`2011 WL 3206686 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2011) (citing Avocent, 552 F.3d at 1329-30) .................. 4
`ZTE (USA) Inc. v. AGIS Software Dev. LLC et al.,
`Case No. 4:18-cv-06185-HSK (N.D. Cal.) ................................................................................... 3
`Statutes
`Cal. Civ. Pro. Code § 410.10 ............................................................................................................. 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT, MEMORANDUM, CASE NO. 5:21-cv-03076
`
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03076-BLF Document 37 Filed 08/23/21 Page 7 of 26
`
`
`
`I.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`
`The instant declaratory judgment action, which seeks a determination that WhatsApp did not
`
`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. The sole contacts relied on by WhatsApp to bring litigation against AGIS
`
`Software in this Court are enforcement actions filed outside of California against residents of this judicial
`
`district, a single declaratory judgment action brought by ZTE (USA) Inc. that was voluntarily dismissed,
`and allegations that AGIS Software is “an alter ego to AGIS Holdings and/or AGIS.” 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,
`WhatApp’s Complaint for Declaratory Judgment should be dismissed for lack of personal
`jurisdiction without leave to amend.
`Additionally, WhatsApp files this action for declaratory judgment nearly three months after
`AGIS Software filed its Complaint in the Eastern District of Texas. As such, this action should be
`1
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT, MEMORANDUM, CASE NO. 5:21-cv-03076
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`Whether this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over AGIS Software in the instant
`Declaratory Judgment action.
`Whether this action should be transferred to the Eastern District of Texas under the
`first-to-file rule.
`Or, in the alternative, whether this action should be temporarily stayed pending
`WhatsApp’s Motion to Dismiss in the Eastern District of Texas.
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03076-BLF Document 37 Filed 08/23/21 Page 8 of 26
`
`
`
`
`
`
` transferred under the first-to-file rule or alternatively, stayed pending WhatsApp’s Motion to
`Dismiss filed in the Eastern District of Texas.
`II.
`BACKGROUND
`
`A. The Parties
`AGIS Software is the sole owner of all right, title, and interest in and to U.S. Patent Nos.
`9,408,055 (the “’055 Patent”); 9,445,251 (the “’251 Patent”); 9,467,838 (the “’838 Patent”);
`9,749,829 (the “’829 Patent”); 7,630,724 (the “724 Patent”); and 7,031,728 (the “’728 Patent”)
`(collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”). AGIS Software Development LLC v. WhatsApp Inc., Case No.
`2:21-cv-00029-JRG, Dkt. 1 ¶ 1; Declaration of Malcolm K. Beyer, Jr. (“Beyer Decl.”) ¶ 3.
`AGIS Software is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business located in Marshall,
`Texas. Dkt. 1 ¶ 2; 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, no lawsuit has ever been filed by AGIS Software in California for
`any reason. Id. ¶ 21.
`WhatsApp alleges that it is a corporation existing under the laws of Delaware with its
`principal place of business located in Menlo Park, California. Dkt. 1 ¶ 1.
`
`B. Prior Enforcement Actions
`In 2017, AGIS Software filed five patent infringement actions involving some of the Patents-
`in-Suit in the Eastern District of Texas. See AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 2:17-
`cv-516 (E.D. Tex.); AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. HTC Corp., Case No. 2:17-cv-514 (E.D. Tex.);
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Huawei Device USA Inc., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-513 (E.D. Tex.); AGIS
`
`
`2
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT, MEMORANDUM, CASE NO. 5:21-cv-03076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03076-BLF Document 37 Filed 08/23/21 Page 9 of 26
`
`
`
`
`
`Software Dev. LLC v. ZTE Corp. et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-517 (E.D. Tex.) (“ZTE Texas Case”); and
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. LG Elecs., Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-515 (E.D. Tex.) (collectively, “AGIS
`I Cases”). 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. 86. On October 8, 2018, AGIS Software filed a
`Notice of Voluntarily Dismissal (id. Dkt. 86) which the court granted on October 9, 2018. Id., Dkt.
`87. That same day, ZTE filed an action in the Northern District of California seeking a judicial
`declaration of non-infringement, invalidity, and/or unenforceability as to certain of the Patents-in-
`Suit against AGIS Software, AGIS Holdings, Inc. (“AGIS Holdings”), and Advanced Ground
`Information Systems, Inc. (“AGIS, Inc.”). ZTE (USA) Inc. v. AGIS Software Dev. LLC et al., Case
`No. 4:18-cv-06185-HSK (N.D. Cal.). In 2019, AGIS Software filed three patent infringement actions
`involving some of the Patents-in-Suit in the Eastern District of Texas. See AGIS Software Dev. LLC
`v. Google LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-361 (E.D. Tex.); AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-361 (E.D. Tex.); and AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Waze Mobile Limited,
`Case No. 2:19-cv-359 (E.D. Tex.) (collectively, “AGIS II Cases”). In 2021, AGIS Software filed
`four infringement actions, including the action against WhatsApp, involving some of the Patents-in-
`Suit in the Eastern District of Texas. See AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., Case No.
`2:21-cv-72 (E.D. Tex.); AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Uber, Case No.
`2:21-cv-26 (E.D. Tex.); AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Lyft, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-24 (E.D. Tex.); and
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. WhatsApp, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-29 (E.D. Tex.) (“WhatsApp Texas
`Case”) (collectively, “AGIS III Cases”).
`The AGIS II and AGIS III Cases are currently still pending in the Eastern District of Texas.
`On April 27, 2021, WhatsApp filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue in the Eastern District
`of Texas. WhatsApp Texas Case, Dkt. 34. AGIS Software amended its complaint against WhatsApp
`on May 11, 2021. Id., Dkt. 47. WhatsApp filed its motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint
`for improper venue. Id., Dkt. 63.
`
`
`
`3
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT, MEMORANDUM, CASE NO. 5:21-cv-03076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03076-BLF Document 37 Filed 08/23/21 Page 10 of 26
`
`
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`
`
`A. Motion to Dismiss
`Rule 12(b)(2) requires a district court to dismiss an action when the Court lacks personal
`jurisdiction over a defendant. 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 and invalidity, 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. Miflex 2 SpA, No. 3:17-CV-556-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. Pro. 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 our relate to the
`cause of action.” Autogenomics, 566 F.3d at 1017 (citation omitted). However, “it is essential in
`
`
`4
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT, MEMORANDUM, CASE NO. 5:21-cv-03076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03076-BLF Document 37 Filed 08/23/21 Page 11 of 26
`
`
`
`
`
`each case that there must 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). “The 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 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).
`
`B. First-to-File Rule
`“When two actions that sufficiently overlap are filed in different federal district courts, one
`for infringement and the other for declaratory relief, the declaratory judgment action, if filed later,
`generally is to be stayed, dismissed, or transferred to the forum of the infringement action.”
`Futurewei Techs., Inc. v. Acacia Research Corp., 737 F.3d 704, 708 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “There is a
`
`
`5
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT, MEMORANDUM, CASE NO. 5:21-cv-03076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03076-BLF Document 37 Filed 08/23/21 Page 12 of 26
`
`
`
`
`
`generally recognized doctrine of federal comity which permits a district court to decline jurisdiction
`over an action when a complaint involving the same parties and issues has already been filed in
`another district.” Pacesette Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 678 F.2d 93, 94-95 (9th Cir. 1982). This
`rule “promotes judicial efficiency and prevents the risk of inconsistent decisions that would arise
`from multiple litigations of identical claims.” Ruckus Wireless, Inc. v. Harris Corp., No. 11-cv-
`019440-LHK, 2012 WL 588792, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2012). Accordingly, this rule “was
`developed to ‘serve[]the purpose of promoting efficiency well and should not be disregarded
`lightly.” Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Prods., Inc., 946 F.2d 622, 625 (9th Cir. 1991). In addition to
`judicial efficiency, the rule helps “prevent[] the risk of inconsistent decisions that would arise from
`multiple litigations of identical claims.” Ruckus, 2012 WL 588792, at *2. The Federal Circuit has
`“made clear that the first to file rule applies to patent cases and thus likewise requires deference to
`the first-filed action ‘unless considerations of judicial and litigant economy, and the just and effective
`disposition of disputes, requires otherwise.’” Elecs. for Imaging, Inc. v. Coyle, 394 F.3d 1341, 1347
`(Fed. Cir. 2005).
`Under the first-to-file doctrine, a district court may “choose to transfer, stay, or dismiss an
`action where a similar c