Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 102-3 Filed 04/15/22 Page 1 of 3
`
`Exhibit B
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 102-3 Filed 04/15/22 Page 2 of 3
`
`Taylor, Jeremy
`Wednesday, July 21, 2021 4:25 PM
`Enrique Iturralde; Jennifer Truelove; kurt@truelovelawfirm.com; Amy Park; Peter
`Lambrianakos; sbaxter@mckoolsmith.com; Vincent Rubino; Fred Fabricant
`DL Lyft AGIS
`AGIS v. Lyft--infringement contentions deficiencies
`
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`
`Cc:
`Subject:
`
`Counsel,
`
`I’m writing concerning AGIS’s infringement contentions served on Lyft on May 19, 2021.
`
`While AGIS’s infringement contentions identify certain infringement theories and evidence, they also seek to
`broadly, and improperly, rely on undisclosed theories and evidence not identified in the contentions. For
`example, AGIS alleges infringement of “at least the following claims of the Patents-in-Suit . . . .” and reserves
`the right to later add additional asserted claims. See May 19, 2021 Infringement Contentions at 2. This
`approach is repeated throughout the infringement contentions, where AGIS refers to its infringement theories
`and evidence as exemplary, using language such as “for example,” “at least,” “representative,” and
`“preliminary identification.” Id. at 1–5.
`
`With respect to theories of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, AGIS states in its infringement
`contentions that it is relying on the doctrine of equivalents to support its infringement theories but fails to
`provide any evidence or specific contentions supporting this statement. See generally May 19, 2021
`Infringement Contentions at 3, Exhibits A–E. This is inadequate disclosure. If AGIS intends to rely on a
`doctrine of equivalents theory, it needed to provide all bases for that allegation in its infringement contention.
`
`Additionally, AGIS alleges that Lyft indirectly infringes each of the asserted claims, but does not specifically
`identify who would directly infringe under this theory or provide supporting evidence for AGIS’s indirect
`infringement allegations. See May 19, 2021 Infringement Contentions at 3–4, Exhibits A–E. This is insufficient
`disclosure of AGIS’s indirect infringement theory.
`
`With respect to the accused instrumentalities, AGIS’s generic reference to “Lyft applications, services and
`servers” is insufficient to provide adequate notice of what AGIS accuses of infringement. The infringement
`charts appear to only specifically identify where elements of each asserted claim is found within the accused
`Lyft iOS App without evidence or explanation for how the allegations against the iOS app could apply to any
`other application, service, or server. AGIS’s conclusory statement that the provided claim charts are
`“representative for all other such applications, services, or servers including all prior and future versions
`unless otherwise noted,” without any supporting evidence or explanation, fails to provide proper notice of
`infringement beyond those products specifically described in the claim charts. See May 19, 2021 Infringement
`Contentions at 3.
`
`With respect to the priority dates of the asserted patents, AGIS states that each of the asserted claims of the
`Patents-in-Suit is entitled to a priority date of “at least as early as” September 21, 2014. See May 19, 2021
`Infringement Contentions at 4. If AGIS intends to rely on a priority date earlier than September 21, 2004, it
`should have been stated in its infringement contentions, in accordance with the Local Patent Rules.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 102-3 Filed 04/15/22 Page 3 of 3
`
`Turning to AGIS’s specific allegations with respect to Claim 13 of the ’970 Patent, AGIS does not provide any
`supporting evidence regarding infringement by any accused products, and as a result, AGIS has not provided
`adequate notice of infringement for at least this claim. See May 19, 2021 Infringement Contentions at Exhibit
`D.
`
`The infringement theories, and evidence AGIS intends to rely on to support those theories that AGIS is aware
`of, or should be aware of, from publicly-available or other sources, must be identified in AGIS’s infringement
`contentions to provide Lyft adequate notice of AGIS’s infringement theories. See, e.g., UltimatePointer, LLC v.
`Nintendo Co., No. 6:11-CV-496, 2013 WL 12140173, at *2 (E.D. Tex. May 28, 2013) (Plaintiff has a “duty of
`providing infringement contentions that are reasonably precise and detailed to provide defendants with
`adequate notice of the plaintiffs theories of infringement.”); Eolas Techs. Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 6:15-
`CV-01038, 2016 WL 7666160, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 2016) (explaining that the use of vague, “boilerplate
`language also does not reserve any special right for Plaintiff to assert DOE contentions at a time of its
`choosing.”); Traxcell Techs., LLC v. Huawei Techs. USA Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00042, 2017 WL 6559256, at *4 (E.D.
`Tex. Dec. 21, 2017) (“The point of [infringement contentions] is for Traxcell to solidify, to the best it can at this
`stage, the theory of how the accused products infringe the asserted claims. Traxcell's infringement
`contentions make it impossible for a defendant to determine the theory of infringement with any certainty.”).
`
`Lyft is relying on AGIS’s infringement contentions—including the disclosed infringement theories, cited
`evidence, identified alleged direct infringers—to defend itself in this case and to prepare for the upcoming
`claim construction process. Any later supplementation or amendment of the infringement contentions seeking
`to add new theories or evidence based on information currently available to AGIS would be untimely and
`would prejudice Lyft’s ability to defend itself in this case.
`
`Jeremy J. Taylor | Baker Botts L.L.P.
`office 415.291.6202 | mobile 510.688.0999
`
`2
`
`