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 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 122 Filed 05/03/22 Page 1 of 4
`
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`Jeremy J. Taylor (SBN 249075)
`jeremy.taylor@bakerbotts.com
`Arya Moshiri (SBN 324231)
`arya.moshiri@bakerbotts.com
`101 California St., Ste. 3600
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: 415.291.6200
`Facsimile: 415.291.6300
`Kurt M. Pankratz (pro hac vice)
`Bethany R. Salpietra (pro hac vice)
`kurt.pankratz@bakerbotts.com
`bethany.salpietra@bakerbotts.com
`2001 Ross Ave., Ste. 900
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Telephone: 214.953.6500
`Facsimile: 214.953.6503
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Lyft, Inc.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`LYFT, INC.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 5:21-cv-04653-BLF (SVK)
`
`PLAINTIFF LYFT, INC.’S STATEMENT
`REGARDING APPROPRIATE
`TIMEFRAME FOR EVALUATING
`PERSONAL JURISDICTION CONTACTS
`
`Judge: Hon. Beth Labson Freeman
`Trial Date: October 16, 2023
`Courtroom: 3, Fifth Floor
`
`LYFT’S STATEMENT RE APPROPRIATE
`TIMEFRAME FOR EVALUATING PERSONAL
`JURISDICTION CONTACTS
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 122 Filed 05/03/22 Page 2 of 4
`
`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
`
`Plaintiff Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”) respectfully submits this Statement Regarding Appropriate
`Timeframe for Evaluating Personal Jurisdiction Contacts pursuant to this Court’s Order re
`Supplemental Briefing and Protective Order (Dkt. 117).
`The specific personal jurisdiction inquiry considers to what extent the defendant
`purposefully directed its activities at residents of the forum, and to what extent the declaratory
`judgment “claim arises out of or relates to those activities.” Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Aten Int’l
`Co., 552 F.3d 1324, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (emphasis added). As recognized by the Federal Circuit,
`a patentee’s enforcement activities should be considered in the jurisdictional inquiry and need not
`be limited to activities directed at the plaintiff in the action. Id. at 1334 (“While ‘the plaintiff need
`not be the forum resident toward whom any, much less all, of the defendant's relevant activities were
`purposefully directed,’ we have consistently required the defendant to have engaged in ‘other
`activities’ that relate to the enforcement or the defense of the validity of the relevant patents.”
`(emphasis in original)); see also Trimble Inc. v. PerDiemCo LLC, 997 F.3d 1147, 1155–56 (Fed.
`Cir. 2021) (confirming the relevance of third-party nonexclusive patent licenses and licensing
`communications as relevant to the jurisdictional inquiry). Indeed, the connection between the
`contacts and the suit required for a court to exercise jurisdiction simply “demands that the suit ‘arise
`out of or relate to the defendant’s contacts with the forum.’” Trimble, 997 F.3d at 1156 (quoting
`Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 141 S. Ct. 1017, 1021 (2021)) (emphasis added).
`In this case, Lyft seeks a declaration of non-infringement from the first date AGIS Software
`Development LLC (“AGIS”) may recover damages for the alleged infringement (i.e., January 29,
`2015, six years before AGIS first sued Lyft in E.D. Tex.). See Dkt. 1 at 9 (seeking relief from all
`past and ongoing alleged infringement); see also 35 U.S.C. § 286. Accordingly, AGIS’s activities
`related to the patents-in-suit and directed at this forum during this time period relate to Lyft’s causes
`of action and should be considered for purposes of personal jurisdiction. Courts routinely consider
`a defendant’s contacts with a forum occurring on or before the time when the cause of action first
`accrued and, in many instances, more than one year before the filing of a complaint. See, e.g., Apple
`Inc. v. Zipit Wireless, Inc., No. 2021-1760, 2022 WL 1132169, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2022)
`(considering contacts seven years before patent infringement lawsuit when determining personal
`
`LYFT’S STATEMENT RE APPROPRIATE
`TIMEFRAME FOR EVALUATING PERSONAL
`JURISDICTION CONTACTS
`
`1
`
`CASE NO. 5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 122 Filed 05/03/22 Page 3 of 4
`
`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
`
`jurisdiction in a declaratory judgment patent case); NexLearn, LLC v. Allen Interactions, Inc., 859
`F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (tying the jurisdictional inquiry to the date of first alleged patent
`infringement); Campbell Pet Co. v. Miale, 542 F.3d 879 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (considering defendant’s
`contacts with a forum eight years prior to patent infringement complaint when considering general
`jurisdiction); Akro Corp. v. Luker, 45 F.3d 1541 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (considering contacts more than
`three years prior to initiating a patent infringement lawsuit as relevant to personal jurisdiction);
`Autogenomics, Inc. v. Oxford Gene Tech. Ltd., 566 F.3d 1012, 1018 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (considering
`defendant’s attendance at a conference in the forum four years prior to filing suit for personal
`jurisdiction purposes); Synthes (U.S.A.) v. G.M. Dos Reis Jr. Ind. Com. De Equip. Medico, 563 F.3d
`1285, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (considering defendant’s participation at a trade show in the forum four
`years prior to filing suit as a contact for personal jurisdiction purposes); ActiveVideo Networks, Inc.
`v. Trans Video Elecs. Ltd., 975 F. Supp. 2d 1083, 1097 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (considering, as relevant
`to the jurisdictional inquiry, a defendant patentee’s prior judicial enforcement actions in the forum,
`the earliest of which was filed more than six years before the challenged lawsuit); Twitter, Inc. v.
`VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., No. 21-CV-02769-LHK, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 211777, at *37 (N.D. Cal.
`Nov. 2, 2021) (considering a defendant’s judicial enforcement actions filed four years prior to filing
`suit for purposes of determining personal jurisdiction); Table De France, Inc. v. DBC Corp., No.
`EDCV 19-423-JGB (KKx), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 221931 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2019) (granting-in-
`part plaintiff’s motion to compel requests for production concerning defendant’s contacts with the
`forum for nine years prior to initiating the lawsuit, finding such requests relevant to the issue of
`personal jurisdiction).
`At least as indicated by the case law cited herein, defendant’s contacts with a forum—even
`when those contacts are unrelated to the plaintiff—is appropriately measured by when the cause of
`action first accrued, which is January 29, 2015 in this action.
`
`Dated: May 3, 2022
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Jeremy J. Taylor
`Jeremy J. Taylor
`
`LYFT’S STATEMENT RE APPROPRIATE
`TIMEFRAME FOR EVALUATING PERSONAL
`JURISDICTION CONTACTS
`
`2
`
`CASE NO. 5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 122 Filed 05/03/22 Page 4 of 4
`
`Jeremy J. Taylor (SBN 249075)
`Arya Moshiri (SBN 324231)
`jeremy.taylor@bakerbotts.com
`arya.moshiri@bakerbotts.com
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`101 California St., Ste. 3600
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: 415.291.6200
`Facsimile: 415.291.6300
`Kurt M. Pankratz (pro hac vice)
`Bethany R. Salpietra (pro hac vice)
`kurt.pankratz@bakerbotts.com
`bethany.salpietra@bakerbotts.com
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`2001 Ross Ave., Ste. 900
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Telephone: 214.953.6500
`Facsimile: 214.953.6503
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Lyft, Inc.
`
`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’S STATEMENT RE APPROPRIATE
`TIMEFRAME FOR EVALUATING PERSONAL
`JURISDICTION CONTACTS
`
`3
`
`CASE NO. 5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`