Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 124 Filed 05/03/22 Page 1 of 5
`
`
`
`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
`FABRICANT LLP
`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
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`LYFT, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
` Case No. 5:21-cv-04653-BLF (SVK)
`
`DEFENDANT AGIS SOFTWARE
`DEVELOPMENT LLC’S STATEMENT
`REGARDING DISCOVERY REQUESTS
`
`Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`DEFENDANT AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC’S STATEMENT REGARDING INTERROGATORY NO. 1
`Case No. 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 124 Filed 05/03/22 Page 2 of 5
`
`
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s April 29, 2022 Hearing before Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen
`Regarding Plaintiff Lyft, Inc’s Motion to Compel Discovery and Compliance with Local Patent
`Rules (Dkt. 88) (the “Hearing”), Defendant AGIS Software Development LLC (“AGIS Software”)
`submits the following supplemental statement regarding Plaintiff’s request for (1) a complete
`response to Lyft’s Interrogatory No. 1; and (2) document productions pursuant to P.L.R. 3-2.
`A. Motion to Compel Response to Lyft’s Interrogatory No. 1
`At the Hearing, the Court stated its intention to permit Lyft discovery on AGIS Software’s
`communications with the California Companies one year prior to the date of the filing of the
`complaint in response to the appropriate timeline of the requests contained within Interrogatory No.
`1. AGIS Software submits that the relevant time period is based off the time the cause of action
`accrued. See Steel v. U.S., 813 F.2d 1545, 1549 (9th Cir. 1987) (“When a court is exercising specific
`jurisdiction over a defendant, ‘arising out of or related to the defendant’s contacts with the forum,’
`the fair warning that the due process requires arises not at the time of the suit, but when the events
`that gave rise to the suit occurred.”) (internal citation omitted). Based on this case law, AGIS
`proposes a timeframe of one year from the date of its formation, i.e., June 2017. Alternatively,
`AGIS proposes a timeframe from the AGIS Software’s formation (June 2017) to the date of the
`filing of the complaint alleging infringement against Lyft in EDTX, (January 29, 2021), where Lyft
`has identified the harm as “AGIS Software sued Lyft for infringing” the Asserted Patents. See Dkt.
`1, ¶ 4. AGIS Software submits that it shall identify communications responsive to Interrogatory
`No. 1 with the California Companies, to the extent such communications exist, for the time period
`starting with its formation in June 2017 through the date of the filing of the complaint in the EDTX
`action.1 Anything later than Lyft’s statement of the accrual of the cause of action is not relevant.
`Beyond AGIS Software’s proposal, Lyft has not demonstrated the relevance of discovery
`dating back to six years prior to the first date of allegation of infringement. Cf. Neal Techs., Inc. v.
`
`
`1 AGIS Software reserved all rights and arguments and noted that any identification of
`communications was not intended to be a waiver of any kind or a concession that any such
`communications are relevant to the specific jurisdiction analysis.
`
`
`
`2
`DEFENDANT AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC’S STATEMENT REGARDING INTERROGATORY NO. 1
`Case No. 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 124 Filed 05/03/22 Page 3 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
`
`
`Innovative Performance Res., LLC, No. 4:16-cv-00746, 2017 WL 590298, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 14,
`2017); Calix Networks, Inc. v. Wi-Lan, Inc., No. C-09-06038-CRB (DMR), 2010 WL 3515759, at
`*7 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2010) (“Thus, having considered the aggregate picture of Wi-LAN’s
`California contacts, the Court concludes that Calix has set forth a colorable basis to obtain
`jurisdictional discovery and demonstrated that such discovery prior to January 2008 may yield
`additional facts relevant to the question of personal jurisdiction.”). Lyft has not cited to any case
`law demonstrating that six years prior to the date of infringement is a bright-line rule regarding
`jurisdictional discovery. Lyft must demonstrate the relevance of the discovery it seeks, and any
`discovery must have some bearing on the infringement issue or the alleged harm to the declaratory
`judgment plaintiff.
`B. Motion to Compel Further Document Production Pursuant to P.L.R. 3-2
`Yesterday, AGIS Software produced the entire P.R .3-2 production from the EDTX Case.
`This P.R. 3-2 production from the EDTX Case was produced pursuant to arguments made by Lyft
`in its briefing for its motion to compel and during the Hearing to the Court. Seeking more than it
`requested, Lyft changed course and requested more discovery (approximately 600,000 pages of
`documents AND source code). On this issue, Lyft’s briefing submitted that P.L.R. 3-2(a) – (c) is
`coextensive with EDTX P.R. 3-2 and that AGIS Software would produce the same 3-2 documents
`in this case, notwithstanding that they are AGIS, Inc. documents. Dkt. 88 at 2-3. This is not the
`first time Lyft changes course on discovery requests. In its briefing in response to AGIS Software’s
`motion to dismiss the original complaint, Lyft asked for limited jurisdictional discovery (five
`interrogatories to AGIS Software and one four-hour Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of AGIS Software) in
`order to obtain approval from the Court. Dkt. 41 at 17. After receiving what it had explicitly
`requested, Lyft sought more discovery and attempted to conduct third party discovery outside the
`scope of the Court’s order. Now, Lyft continues to engage in the same bad faith tactics. Lyft
`requested re-production of the EDTX P.R. 3-2 document production in its motion, and immediately
`upon receiving AGIS Software’s compromise, it seeks more. AGIS Software respectfully requests
`that the Court find that Defendant has satisfied its obligations and deny Lyft’s new request.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`DEFENDANT AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELPOMENT LLC’S INITIAL DISCLOSURES 5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 124 Filed 05/03/22 Page 4 of 5
`
`
`
`
`
`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 DEVELPOMENT LLC’S INITIAL DISCLOSURES 5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`
`
`DATED: May 3, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 124 Filed 05/03/22 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 May 3, 2022, to all counsel of record.
`I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`DATED: May 3, 2022
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Benjamin T. Wang
` Benjamin T. Wang
`
`5
`DEFENDANT AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC’S STATEMENT REGARDING INTERROGATORY NO. 1
`Case No. 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
`
`
`
`
`