Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 111 Filed 04/22/22 Page 1 of 5
`
`
`
`Alfred R. Fabricant
`afabricant@fabricantllp.com
`Peter Lambrianakos
`plambrianakos@fabricantllp.com
`Vincent J. Rubino, III
`vrubino@fabricantllp.com
`FABRICANT LLP
`411 Theodore Fremd Avenue, Suite 206 South
`Rye, New York 10580
`Telephone: (212) 257-5797
`Facsimile: (212) 257-5796
`
`Benjamin T. Wang
`bwang@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
`
`LYFT, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
` Case No. 5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`DEFENDANT AGIS SOFTWARE
`DEVELOPMENT LLC’S REPLY IN
`SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO
`AMEND INFRINGEMENT
`CONTENTIONS PURSUANT TO
`PATENT LOCAL RULE 3-6 (DKT. 84)
`
`Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`DEFENDANT AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE
`TO AMEND INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS, 5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`
`
`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-04653-BLF Document 111 Filed 04/22/22 Page 2 of 5
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`Lyft misconstrues the issue at hand. AGIS Software does not seek to ’amend its deficient
`infringement contentions,” but rather, seeks to remove information from its infringement
`contentions that was inadvertently included. AGIS Software merely sought to make clear that it is
`not accusing any Apple products or iOS systems, and sought to remove any disclosures that
`suggested that it was doing so.
`Lyft’s disputes from the Eastern District of Texas (“EDTX”) action are irrelevant here. Dkt.
`102 at 1-3. The infringement contentions submitted in the EDTX action are separate and apart from
`the infringement contentions submitted by AGIS Software here. Lyft should not be permitted to
`import the disputes from the EDTX action, which Lyft concedes was dismissed for improper venue
`to manufacture the same disputes in this Court where no such disputes exist. Nonetheless, AGIS
`Software disputes that its infringement contentions in the EDTX action were deficient where AGIS
`Software included publicly available information and amended its infringement contentions on at
`least two instances to include references to Lyft’s source code which was reviewed and added in
`accordance with the Patent Local Rules. Further, AGIS Software disagrees that its infringement
`allegations were directed to only Lyft’s iOS applications, where AGIS Software identified and
`accused Lyft applications, services, and servers, and Lyft Driver applications, services, and servers.
`Further, AGIS Software had disclosed that the version of the Lyft product it had charted in its
`contentions was a representative product, representative of all versions of the Accused Products.
`To allege that AGIS software only accused Lyft’s iOS applications is a misrepresentation and is
`inconsistent with the disclosures in the both the EDTX case and the present litigation.
`In addition, AGIS Software’s additional screenshots are largely replacements of the
`information in its original infringement contentions, showing the exact same accused features in
`Android as previously shown in the iOS screenshots in a good faith effort to remove any doubt
`regarding AGIS Software’s representation that it is not asserting infringement of Lyft iOS
`applications or Apple products. The replacements are necessary because Lyft refuses to accept this
`representation as evidence by Lyft’s opposition. As shown in the red-lined versions submitted to
`this Court (Dkt. 104), AGIS removed certain items that were inadvertently included in its original
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`DEFENDANT AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE
`TO AMEND INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS, 5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`
`
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 111 Filed 04/22/22 Page 3 of 5
`
`
`
`infringement contentions in this action and replaced them with the appropriate evidence. Lyft seeks
`to compare infringement contentions that were disclosed in the EDTX action with the present action.
`Lyft’s comparison of the infringement contentions in the EDTX and present litigation are improper,
`as AGIS Software did not seek to incorporate its infringement contentions from the EDTX litigation
`and accordingly, its motion for leave to amend its infringement contentions are limited to the present
`litigation.
`Lyft’s reliance on RideApp, Inc. v. Lyft, Inc. is unavailing where the Court noted that
`“RideApp did not serve any infringement contentions in compliance with Patent Local Rule 3-1 by
`the April 3 deadline, nor does it appear that it has done so since that time.” No. 4:18-cv-07152-JST,
`Dkt. 84 at 2 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2019). Further, RideApp sought to amend its infringement
`contentions to “add Lyft’s scooter products and Claims 1, 4, and 5 of the ’730 Patent to the
`complaint.” Id. at 5. In contrast, AGIS Software does not seek to add any additional products or
`claims to the present litigation. Accordingly, Lyft’s reliance on RideApp is unpersuasive.
`Similarly, the plaintiffs in Oyster Optics and GoPro, Inc. sought to amend their infringement
`contentions to add additional products. See Oyster Optics, LLC v. Ciena Corp., No. 20-cv-02354-
`JSW (LB), 2022 WL 561931, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2022) (“Oyster also contends that it has good
`cause to amend its infringement contentions to chart the non-WaveLogic5 Nano products.”); GoPro,
`Inc. v. 360Heros, Inc., No. 16-cv-01944-SI, 2017 WL 1278756, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2017)
`(“360Heros now seeks the Court’s leave to amend its infringement contentions to accuse GoPro’s
`Omni device.”). Again, AGIS Software does not seek to amend its infringement contentions to add
`additional products. Accordingly, the case law submitted by Lyft is unpersuasive and AGIS
`Software’s request for leave to amend its infringement contentions should be granted.
`I. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Defendant AGIS Software respectfully requests that its Motion
`for Leave to Amend Infringement Contentions Pursuant to Patent Local Rule 3-6 be granted.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`DEFENDANT AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELPOMENT LLC’S INITIAL DISCLOSURES 5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`
`
`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-04653-BLF Document 111 Filed 04/22/22 Page 4 of 5
`
`DATED: April 22, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`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 Avenue, 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
`
`
`4
`DEFENDANT AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE
`TO AMEND INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS, 5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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-04653-BLF Document 111 Filed 04/22/22 Page 5 of 5
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned hereby certified that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
`
`document has been served via electronic mail on April 22, 2022, to all counsel of record.
`I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`DATED: April 22, 2022
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Benjamin T. Wang
` Benjamin T. Wang
`
`5
`DEFENDANT AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE
`TO AMEND INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS, 5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`