Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 151 Filed 05/15/23 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)
`kurt.pankratz@bakerbotts.com
`Bethany R. Salpietra (pro hac vice)
`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.
`
`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
`
`Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim
`Plaintiff AGIS Software Development LLC
`
`Additional counsel listed on signature page
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`LYFT, INC.
`
`Case No. 5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`PARTIES’ JOINT STATUS UPDATE
`
`v.
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`Defendant.
`
`Judge: Hon. Beth Labson Freeman
`Trial Date:
`Courtroom: 3, Fifth Floor
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s May 19, 2022 Order staying this action pending disposition of the ex
`parte reexaminations (“EPR”) before the United State Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and
`the inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board, and the
`Court’s November 15, 2022 Order directing parties to submit a further status update, Plaintiff Lyft,
`Inc. (“Lyft”) and Defendant AGIS Software Development LLC (“AGIS”) (collectively, the
`“Parties”) submit this Joint Status Report regarding the status of the EPRs concerning U.S. Patent
`Nos. 7,031,728 (the “’728 Patent”), 7,630,724 (the “’724 Patent”), and 8,213,970 (the “’970
`
`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
`
`PARTIES’ STATUS UPDATE
`
`1
`
`CASE NO. 5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 151 Filed 05/15/23 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
`
`Patent”), and the IPR proceedings relating to U.S. Patent Nos. 10,299,100 (the “’100 Patent”) and
`10,341,838 (the “’838 Patent”).
` The EPR concerning the ’728 Patent (Serial No. 90/014,890) is concluded with no
`amendments or cancellations to any challenged claims. A Reexamination Certificate
`issued on April 18, 2023.
` The EPR concerning the ’724 Patent (Serial No. 90/014,889) is currently pending,
`awaiting a response from AGIS to the USPTO’s Advisory Action. The USPTO
`issued an Order Granting Ex Parte Reexamination on December 7, 2021 and,
`subsequently, issued a Non-Final Office Action on July 7, 2022, rejecting asserted
`claims 9 and 12-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.1 On November 7, 2022, AGIS filed its
`Response to the July 7, 2022 Non-Final Office Action, which included amendments
`to asserted independent claims 9 and 16 and added new dependent claims 17-18, in
`addition to remarks. The USPTO subsequently issued a Final Office Action on
`December 22, 2022, rejecting asserted claims 9 and 12-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 and
`35 U.S.C. § 103.2 Claims 16 and 18 were further rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 305 as
`enlarging the scope of the claims being reexamined. On April 24, 2023, AGIS filed
`its Response to the December 22, 2022 Final Office Action, which included
`amendments to asserted independent claims 9 and 16, in addition to remarks. On
`May 3, 2023, the USPTO issued an Advisory Action stating that AGIS’s proposed
`amendments from its April 24, 2023 Response would not be entered.
` The IPR petitions filed by Lyft challenging the ’100 Patent (IPR2022-00514;
`IPR2022-00515) were both instituted on June 2, 2022, with a final written decision
`expected by June 2, 2023.
` The IPR petition filed by Lyft challenging the ’838 Patent (IPR2022-00513) was
`instituted on June 2, 2022, with a final written decision expected by June 2, 2023.
`
`1 The Non-Final Office Action dated December 7, 2021 also rejects unasserted claim 10.
`2 The Final Office Action dated December 22, 2022 also rejects unasserted claim 10 and newly
`added claims 17-18.
`
`PARTIES’ STATUS UPDATE
`
`2
`
`CASE NO. 5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 151 Filed 05/15/23 Page 3 of 4
`
` The “’970 Patent” is not subject to any EPRs or IPR proceedings.
` The EPR concerning the ’970 Patent (Serial No. 90/014,507) is concluded with
`amendments to the challenged claims. A Reexamination Certificate issued on
`December 12, 2021.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By:
`
`Jeremy J. Taylor
`Jeremy J. Taylor
`
`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)
`kurt.pankratz@bakerbotts.com
`Bethany R. Salpietra (pro hac vice)
`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.
`
`Dated: May 15, 2023
`
`Vincent J. Rubino, III
`Vincent J. Rubino, III
`
`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/Counterclaim
`Plaintiff AGIS Software Development LLC
`
`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
`
`PARTIES’ STATUS UPDATE
`
`3
`
`CASE NO. 5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 151 Filed 05/15/23 Page 4 of 4
`
`ATTESTATION OF CONCURRENCE IN FILING
`Pursuant to Northern District of California Local Rule 5-1(h)(3), I attest that concurrence
`in the filing of this document has been obtained from the other Signatories to this document.
`
`By:
`
`Jeremy J. Taylor
`Jeremy J. Taylor
`
`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
`
`PARTIES’ STATUS UPDATE
`
`4
`
`CASE NO. 5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`