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 41 Filed 10/26/21 Page 1 of 24
`
`
`
`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
`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.
`
`
`LYFT, INC.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Case No. 5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`PLAINTIFF LYFT, INC.’S OPPOSITION
`TO DEFENDANT AGIS SOFTWARE
`DEVELOPMENT LLC’S MOTION TO
`DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman
`Date: January 27, 2022
`Time: 9:00 a.m.
`Location: Courtroom 3
`
`
`v.
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 41 Filed 10/26/21 Page 2 of 24
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 
`I. 
`II.  RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................ 2 
`III. 
`LEGAL STANDARD ............................................................................................................ 4 
`IV.  ARGUMENT ......................................................................................................................... 6 
`A.  AGIS Cannot Be Insulated From Jurisdiction Based On Its Corporate Structure .............. 6 
`B.  AGIS Is Subject to Specific Personal Jurisdiction in this District ..................................... 9 
`1.  AGIS’ numerous contacts with residents in this District exceed the minimum
`contacts requirement. ............................................................................................................. 10 
`2.  AGIS’ arguments contradict Federal Circuit precedent. ............................................... 11 
`3. 
`This Action was the direct result of AGIS’ numerous contacts. ................................... 13 
`4. 
`Jurisdiction here is reasonable, and AGIS has failed to show otherwise. ..................... 13 
`First-To-File Rules Does Not Control .............................................................................. 16 
`C. 
`V.  REQUEST FOR JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY ........................................................... 17 
`VI.  CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 18 
`
`
`
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`
`i
`
`CASE NO. 5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 41 Filed 10/26/21 Page 3 of 24
`
`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
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`
`3D Sys., Inc. v. Aarotech Labs., Inc.,
`160 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ................................................................................................. 7
`
`Adobe Sys., Inc. v. Tejas Research, LLC,
`No. C-14-0868 EMC, 2014 WL 4651654 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2014) .............................. 11, 12
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`Case No. 2:17-cv-516 (E.D. Tex.) .................................................................................. 2, 4, 14
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Google LLC,
`Case No. 2:19-cv-361 (E.D. Tex.) ...................................................................................... 2, 14
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. HTC Corp.,
`Case No. 2:17-cv-514 (E.D. Tex.) ...................................................................................... 2, 14
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Huawei Device USA Inc.,
`et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-513 (E.D. Tex.) ............................................................................. 2, 14
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`Case No. 2:17-cv-515 (E.D. Tex.) ...................................................................................... 2, 14
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Lyft, Inc.,
`Case No. 2:21-cv-24 (E.D. Tex.) ........................................................................................ 2, 14
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. et al.,
`Case No. 2:19-cv-362 (E.D. Tex.) ...................................................................................... 2, 14
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`Case No. 2:21-cv-72 (E.D. Tex.) ........................................................................................ 2, 14
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Uber,
`Case No. 2:21-cv-26 (E.D. Tex.) ........................................................................................ 2, 14
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Waze Mobile Limited,
`Case No. 2:19-cv-359 (E.D. Tex.) ...................................................................................... 2, 14
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. WhatsApp, Inc.,
`Case No. 2:21-cv-29 (E.D. Tex.) .................................................................................... 2, 4, 14
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. ZTE Corp. et al.,
`Case No. 2:17-cv-517 (E.D. Tex.) ...................................................................................... 2, 14
`
`AGIS Software Development LLC v. Uber Technologies Inc. d/b/a Uber,
`2-21-cv-28 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 29, 2021) ........................................................................................ 4
`
`
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`
`ii
`
`CASE NO. 5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 41 Filed 10/26/21 Page 4 of 24
`
`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
`
`Alien Tech. Corp. v. Intermec, Inc.,
`No. 3:06–cv–51, 2007 WL 63989 (D.N.D. Jan. 4, 2007) ......................................................... 9
`
`Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Super. Ct. of Cal., Solano Cty.,
`480 U.S. 102 (1987) ................................................................................................................ 16
`
`Autogenomics, Inc. v. Oxford Gene Tech. Ltd.,
`566 F.3d 1012 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .............................................................................................. 4-5
`
`Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Aten Int’l Co.,
`552 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ..................................................................................... 5, 10, 12
`
`Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz,
`471 U.S. 462 (1985) ......................................................................................................... passim
`
`Campbell Pet Co. v. Miale,
`542 F.3d 879 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................. 13
`
`Celgard, LLC v. SK Innovation Co.,
`792 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ................................................................................................. 9
`
`Dainippon Screen Mfg. Co. v. CFMT, Inc.,
`142 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ................................................................................. 1, 6, 7, 8, 9
`
`Elecs. for Imaging, Inc. v. Coyle,
`340 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ............................................................................................... 13
`
`Ergo Licensing, LLC v. Cardinal Health, Inc.,
`No. 08-259-P-S, 2009 WL 585789 (D. Me. Mar. 5, 2009) ............................................... 17, 18
`
`Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct.,
`141 S. Ct. 1017 .................................................................................................................... 5, 10
`
`Google Inc. v. Rockstar Consortium U.S. LP,
`No. C13-5933-CW, 2014 WL 1571807 (N.D. Cal. 2014) .................................................... 7, 8
`
`Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc.,
`2020 WL 6822880 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 20, 2020) ........................................................................ 17
`
`Hanson v. Denckla,
`357 U.S. 235 (1958) .................................................................................................................. 5
`
`In re Microsoft Corp.,
`630 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................. 7
`
`In re Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.,
`2 F.4th 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2021) .................................................................................................... 1
`
`
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`
`iii
`
`CASE NO. 5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 41 Filed 10/26/21 Page 5 of 24
`
`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
`
`Inamed Corp. v. Kuzmak,
`249 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ........................................................................................... 5, 13
`
`Indep. Elec. Supply Inc. v. Solar Installs, Inc.,
`No. 18-CV-01435-KAW, 2018 WL3344545 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2018) ............................. 15-16
`
`Jack Henry & Assocs., Inc. v. Plano Encryption Techs, LLC,
`910 F.3d 1199 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ........................................................................................... 5, 11
`
`Kyocera Int’l, Inc. v. Semcon IP, Inc.,
`No. 3:18-CV-1575-CAB-MDD, 2018 WL 5112056 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2018) ................ 11-12
`
`Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior,
`342 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2003) ................................................................................................. 17
`
`Life360, Inc. v. Advanced Ground Info. Sys., Inc.,
`No. 15-CV-151-BLF, 2015 WL 5612008 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2015) .......................... 1, 3, 4, 6
`
`Life360, Inc. v. Advanced Ground Info. Sys., Inc.,
`No. 15-CV-151-BLF, Dkt. 52 at 13 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2015) ............................................. 14
`
`Lyft, Inc. v. Quartz Auto Techs. LLC,
`4:21-cv-1871, Dkt. 44 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2021) ................................................................. 9-10
`
`Ross v. Abbott Vascular, Inc.,
`No. 19-CV-03794-JST, 2020 WL 4934487 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2020) (Tigar, J.) ................... 17
`
`S. Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.,
`138 S. Ct. 2080 (2018) ............................................................................................................ 13
`
`Smith Micro Software, Inc. et al v. AGIS Software Development LLC,
`5-21-cv-3677 (N.D. Cal. May. 17, 2021) ................................................................................ 14
`
`Stewart v. Screen Gems–EMI Music, Inc.,
`81 F. Supp. 3d 938 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ........................................................................................ 9
`
`Trimble Inc. v. PerDiemCo LLC,
`997 F.3d 1147, 2021 WL 1898127 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ........................................................ passim
`
`WhatsApp LLC v. AGIS Software Development LLC
`5-21-cv-3076 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2021) ................................................................................. 14
`
`Wistron Corp. v. Phillip M. Adams & Assocs., LLC,
`No. C-10-4458 EMC, 2011 WL 1654466 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2011) ....................................... 7
`
`Xilinx, Inc. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG,
`848 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................................... 14, 15, 16
`
`
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`
`iv
`
`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
`
`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 41 Filed 10/26/21 Page 6 of 24
`
`ZTE (USA) Inc. v. AGIS Software Development LLC et al
`4-18-cv-6185 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2018) ................................................................................... 14
`
`
`
`
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`
`v
`
`CASE NO. 5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 41 Filed 10/26/21 Page 7 of 24
`
`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
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`In 2014, Malcom Beyer, the named inventor of the Patents-In-Suit, acting as CEO of
`AGIS, Inc. (a predecessor to Defendant AGIS Software Development LLC (“AGIS”)
`demonstrated and marketed products purportedly covered under the Patents-In-Suit through
`several meetings and business efforts in California—subjecting AGIS, Inc to personal jurisdiction
`in California. Life360, Inc. v. Advanced Ground Info. Sys., Inc., No. 15-CV-151-BLF, 2015 WL
`5612008, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2015) (denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for lack of
`personal jurisdiction). In response, Mr. Beyer, created Defendant’s entity, AGIS, and transferred
`his patents to this new company. Despite Mr. Beyer sitting as CEO of both AGIS, Inc. and AGIS,
`and both companies representing that they own the Patents-In-Suit, AGIS now seeks to hide
`behind corporate structure to shield AGIS from personal jurisdiction. AGIS’ attempt to use
`corporate organization to avoid personal jurisdiction, however, has been rejected by Federal
`Circuit law, stating that a patent owner is not insulated from “defending declaratory judgment
`actions in those fora where its [affiliate] company operates under the patent and engages in
`activities sufficient to create personal jurisdiction and declaratory judgment jurisdiction.”
`Dainippon Screen Mfg. Co. v. CFMT, Inc., 142 F.3d 1266, 1271 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Indeed, AGIS is
`unable to deny that the same corporate officers for AGIS, Inc. and AGIS purposefully availed
`themselves to the benefits of this forum. The use of corporate structure to manipulate jurisdiction,
`as AGIS attempted to do after this Court’s ruling, has been soundly rejected by the Federal
`Circuit. In re Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 2 F.4th 1371, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“the Supreme Court
`and other courts have rejected litigants’ attempts to manipulate jurisdiction, disregarding property
`transfers among entities under common ownership designed to create jurisdiction”).
`Moreover, AGIS’ independent actions subject it to personal jurisdiction in California under
`the Federal Circuit’s recently decided Trimble decision. Trimble Inc. v. PerDiemCo LLC, 997 F.3d
`1147, 2021 WL 1898127 (Fed. Cir. 2021). AGIS is in the business of monetizing its patent
`portfolio by seeking licensing payments from California companies, among others. To monetize
`its patents, AGIS first files a lawsuit against the target company, typically in the Eastern District
`
`
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`
`1
`
`CASE NO. 5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 41 Filed 10/26/21 Page 8 of 24
`
`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
`
`of Texas. To date, AGIS has filed lawsuits against at least 15 different entities1—five of which are
`headquartered in California. After a lawsuit is filed, AGIS negotiates with and enters into a license
`agreement with the target company. Thus far, AGIS’ efforts have most likely yielded licenses with
`two California companies, Apple2 and WhatsApp,3 and at least three pending lawsuits against
`California companies. Through AGIS’ numerous contacts with California companies (including
`Lyft—who is headquartered in this District) for the purpose of enforcing and licensing its patent
`portfolio, AGIS’ activities in this District go beyond what the Federal Circuit has found sufficient.
`Trimble Inc., 997 F.3d at 1152 (confirming that negotiating and entering into patent licensing
`agreements with companies residing in a district is sufficient for personal jurisdiction).
`Because Lyft has made a prima facie case that this Court has jurisdiction over AGIS, and
`AGIS has failed to provide a compelling reason for the Court to decline to exercise jurisdiction,
`Lyft respectfully requests that the Court deny AGIS’ motion to dismiss. To the extent the Court is
`not convinced that AGIS is subject to jurisdiction in this District, Lyft respectfully requests a 60-
`day stay of this motion to conduct limited jurisdictional discovery to develop the factual record.
`II.
`RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`Lyft operates a multimodal transportation platform and is headquartered in San Francisco,
`California, where it develops the products accused of infringement by AGIS. See Complaint ¶1. In
`2021, Lyft had 4,578 employees worldwide—the majority of whom are in California. See Lyft
`
`1 See Motion at 2; see AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Apple, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-516 (E.D. Tex.);
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. HTC Corp., Case No. 2:17-cv-514 (E.D. Tex.); AGIS Software Dev.
`LLC v. Huawei Device USA Inc., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-513 (E.D. Tex.); AGIS Software Dev.
`LLC v. ZTE Corp. et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-517 (E.D. Tex.); and AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. LG
`Elecs., Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-515 (E.D. Tex.); AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Google LLC, Case No.
`2:19-cv-361 (E.D. Tex.); AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. et al., Case No.
`2:19-cv-362 (E.D. Tex.); AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Waze Mobile Limited, Case No. 2:19-cv-359
`(E.D. Tex.); AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-72 (E.D. Tex.);
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Uber, Case No. 2:21-cv-26 (E.D. Tex.);
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. WhatsApp, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-29 (E.D. Tex.); AGIS Software
`Dev. LLC v. Lyft, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-24 (E.D. Tex.).
`2 On March 14, 2019, AGIS’ case against Apple was voluntarily dismissed. See Order, AGIS
`Software Development LLC v. Apple Inc., Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-516 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 14,
`2019), Dkt. 87.
`3 On October 13, 2021, AGIS’ case against WhatsApp, Inc. was voluntarily dismissed with
`prejudice. See Order, AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. WhatsApp, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-29 (E.D.
`Tex. Oct. 13, 2021), Dkt. 15.
`
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`
`2
`
`CASE NO. 5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 41 Filed 10/26/21 Page 9 of 24
`
`(May 6, 2021), available at
`(Form 10-Q) at pgs. 62–63
`Inc., Quarterly Report
`https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001759509/000175950921000034/lyft-20210331.htm.
`Each day, Lyft’s peer-to-peer marketplace for on-demand ridesharing connects drivers with riders
`across the United States, including in this District.
`Defendant AGIS is the product of a “corporate restructuring plan” orchestrated by Mr.
`Malcolm Beyer. Beyer Decl. ¶6. In 2004, Mr. Beyer founded AGIS, Inc., and in 2017, Beyer
`reorganized his AGIS corporations such that AGIS, Inc. and newly formed AGIS became co-
`subsidiaries under a “patent corporation,” AGIS Holding, Inc. Id. Mr. Beyer, founder and CEO of
`AGIS, Inc., still currently sits as Chief Executive Officer at AGIS. Beyer Decl. ¶¶2, 6; Complaint
`¶17.
`
`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
`
`When Mr. Beyer founded his company, AGIS, Inc., in 2004, the company developed
`location-based communication software for the military and first responders through its LifeRing
`product. Life360, Inc., 2015 WL 5612008, at *4, n7. AGIS has and continues to offer LifeRing
`products marked with the Patents-In-Suit to users in California. Beyer Decl. ¶5; Complaint ¶19. In
`an effort to promote AGIS’ LifeRing product, in 2014 Mr. Beyer attended a U.S. Navy military
`exercise in San Diego where he demonstrated AGIS’ LifeRing product on PCs and smartphones.
`Complaint ¶17; Life360, Inc., 2015 WL 5612008, at *3. During this demonstration in California,
`Mr. Beyer is believed to have discussed AGIS’ LifeRing product with companies, including ADI
`Technology and Maven Consulting, and discovery, if granted, would similarly support that.
`Complaint ¶17; Life360, Inc., 2015 WL 5612008, at *6. During Mr. Beyer’s restructuring of his
`AGIS companies, Mr. Beyer moved ownership of the Patents-in-Suit from AGIS, Inc. to AGIS
`(Beyer Decl. ¶7); however, AGIS, Inc. still claims these patents as its own for marketing and
`enforcement purposes. Complaint ¶19; Patents, AGIS INC., http://agisinc.com/about/patents (last
`visited October 20, 2021) (“AGIS, INC., HAS LICENSED 23 US PATENTS AND 2 FOREIGN
`PATENTS WITH ADDITIONAL PATENTS PENDING”).4
`After AGIS was formed in 2017 (Beyer Decl. ¶6), AGIS filed suit in the Eastern District of
`Texas against defendants headquartered in California (e.g. Apple Inc., Google LLC, WhatsApp,
`
`4 All emphasis added unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`
`3
`
`CASE NO. 5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 41 Filed 10/26/21 Page 10 of 24
`
`Inc., Uber Technologies Inc., Lyft, Inc.) or with offices located in California (e.g. ZTE (USA)
`Inc., Waze, Samsung, T-Mobile, LG, and Huawei). Complaint ¶¶8-9. These lawsuits similarly
`involved some of the same patents at issue in this case, including: the ’970 and ’838 Patents and
`other patents related to the Patents-in-Suit. Complaint ¶8. AGIS leverages its lawsuits to monetize
`its patents. After filing lawsuits, AGIS negotiates and enters into settlement agreements,
`presumably licenses for the Patents-in-Suit with the target companies, many of which are
`California companies, including Apple and WhatsApp, who are headquartered in the Northern
`District of California. Complaint ¶¶8-9, 11; see e.g., AGIS Software Development LLC v. Uber
`Technologies Inc. d/b/a Uber, 2-21-cv-28 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 29, 2021); AGIS Software Development
`LLC v. WhatsApp Inc., 2-21-cv-29 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 29, 2021); AGIS Software Development LLC v.
`Apple Inc., 2-17-cv-516 (E.D. Tex. Jun. 21, 2017).
`AGIS’ product (LifeRing software) has been available on the AGIS website for
`downloading upon request, including by residents in the state of California. Complaint ¶19;
`Life360, Inc., 2015 WL 5612008, at *7. Since its inception, LifeRing has been marketed to
`companies that resulted in downloads of LifeRing in California (Complaint ¶17), and has been
`marketed to residents of California, such as CornerTurn LLC and American Reliance, Inc.
`Complaint ¶18; Life360, Inc., 2015 WL 5612008, at *6. AGIS also formed a “strategic
`partnership” to allow compatibility between Green Hills Software, Inc.’s products (a security
`software firm located in Santa Barbara, California) and AGIS’ LifeRing products. Complaint ¶20;
`Motion at 9; Life360, Inc., 2015 WL 5612008, at *7.
`In view of the numerous activities of both AGIS and AGIS, Inc. with respect to negotiating
`and licensing the Patents-in-Suit and offering the LifeRing product in this District, Mr. Beyer’s
`fabricated entity, AGIS, is subject to specific personal jurisdiction within this judicial District.
`Complaint ¶21.
`
`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
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`Federal Circuit law controls questions of personal jurisdiction in patent cases. Trimble Inc.,
`997 F.3d at 1152 (citing Autogenomics, Inc. v. Oxford Gene Tech. Ltd., 566 F.3d 1012, 1016 (Fed.
`Cir. 2009)). To survive a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, Lyft “need[s] only to
`
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`
`4
`
`CASE NO. 5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 41 Filed 10/26/21 Page 11 of 24
`
`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
`
`make a prima facie showing that [AGIS is] subject to personal jurisdiction.” Autogenomics, 566
`F.3d at 1017 (quoting Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Aten Int’l Co., 552 F.3d 1324, 1328 (Fed. Cir.
`2008)). “As such, the pleadings and affidavits are to be construed in the light most favorable to
`[Lyft].” Id.
`Because California’s long-arm statute is co-extensive with the due process limits, the
`inquiry here collapses to “whether the exercise of jurisdiction over [AGIS] would be consistent
`with due process.” Trimble, 997 F.3d at 1152. The Federal Circuit has “set[] forth a three-factor
`test” to make that determination. Inamed Corp. v. Kuzmak, 249 F.3d 1356, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
`“The three factors are: (1) whether the defendant ‘purposefully directed’ its activities at residents
`of the forum; (2) whether the claim ‘arises out of or relates to’ the defendant’s activities with[] the
`forum; and (3) whether assertion of personal jurisdiction is ‘reasonable and fair.’” Jack Henry &
`Assocs., Inc. v. Plano Encryption Techs, LLC, 910 F.3d 1199, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting
`Inamed, 249 F.3d at 1360).
`“The first two factors comprise the ‘minimum contacts’ portion of the jurisdictional
`framework.” Id. “The contacts needed for [specific] jurisdiction often go by the name ‘purposeful
`availment.’” Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 141 S. Ct. 1017, 1024 (quoting
`Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985)). This is not a high bar—it is met
`when the defendant takes “some act by which [it] purposefully avails itself of the privilege of
`conducting activities within the forum State.” Ford, 141 S. Ct. at 1024–25 (quoting Hanson v.
`Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958)).
`Regarding the third factor, where the plaintiff makes a prima facie showing of sufficient
`minimum contacts under the first two factors, the “burden of proof” shifts to the defendant,
`“which must ‘present a compelling case that the presence of some other considerations would
`render jurisdiction unreasonable’ under the five-factor test articulated by the Supreme Court in
`Burger King.” Autogenomics, 566 F.3d at 1018 (quoting Burger King, 471 U.S. at 477) (additional
`citations omitted). These additional factors include: (1) “the burden on the defendant”; (2) “the
`forum State’s interest in adjudicating the dispute”; (3) “the plaintiff’s interest in obtaining
`convenient and effective relief”; (4) “the interstate judicial system’s interest in obtaining the most
`
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`
`5
`
`CASE NO. 5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 41 Filed 10/26/21 Page 12 of 24
`
`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
`
`efficient resolution of controversies”; and (5) the “shared interest of the several States in furthering
`fundamental substantive social policies.” Trimble, 997 F.3d at 1153 (quoting Burger King, 471
`U.S. at 477). “In Burger King, the Court explained that these considerations sometimes make it
`easier to find personal jurisdiction because they ‘serve to establish the reasonableness of
`jurisdiction upon a lesser showing of minimum contacts than would otherwise be required.’” Id.
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`In its Motion to Dismiss, AGIS attempts to avoid jurisdiction in this District despite its
`numerous activities in California by focusing solely on limited aspects of “personal jurisdiction
`over AGIS Software in California” (Motion at 6) and casting a blind eye to the fifteen year
`footprint of its nearly identical co-subsidiary which has already been subject to this Court. Indeed,
`AGIS dismisses this Court’s previous ruling that AGIS, Inc. is subject to jurisdiction in this
`District as “irrelevant because [the prior case] did not involve AGIS Software,” and rather
`involved Mr. Beyer’s previous company and former owner of the Patents-in-Suit, AGIS, Inc.
`MTD at 10; Life360, 2015 WL 5612008, at *8. AGIS’ narrow view of its relevant actions should
`be denied, and at a minimum the Court should order jurisdictional discovery as an appropriate
`alternative remedy to determine if there is personal jurisdiction in this District over AGIS.
`Moreover, recent Federal Circuit precedent confirms that negotiating and entering into
`patent licensing agreements with companies residing in a district is sufficient for personal
`jurisdiction. Trimble, 997 F.3d at 1155.
`
`A.
`
`AGIS Cannot Be Insulated From Jurisdiction Based On Its Corporate
`Structure
`AGIS tries to skirt jurisdiction in this Court by arguing that AGIS is completely isolated
`from its successor-in-interest, over which there is adjudicated jurisdiction in California. Life360,
`2015 WL 5612008. However, a company cannot “incorporate a holding company,” “transfer its
`patents to the holding company, arrange to have those patents licensed back to itself by virtue of
`its complete control over the holding company, and threaten its competitors with infringement
`without fear of being a declaratory judgement defendant.” Dainippon, 142 F.3d at 1271. Yet, this
`is exactly what AGIS urges the Court to allow here.
`
`
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`
`6
`
`CASE NO. 5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 41 Filed 10/26/21 Page 13 of 24
`
`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
`
`In declaratory judgment actions, where a defendant’s activities in a forum relating to
`enforcement or validity of a patent are relevant to the personal jurisdiction inquiry, a corporate
`structure cannot be used to insulate the defendant from jurisdiction. See Dainippon, 142 F.3d at
`1270-71 (finding that a patent holding company is not insulated from the actions of its related
`entities where the related entity “operates under the patent and engages in activities sufficient to
`create personal jurisdiction and declaratory judgment jurisdiction”); see also Wistron Corp. v.
`Phillip M. Adams & Assocs., LLC, No. C-10-4458 EMC, 2011 WL 1654466, at *6 n.8 (N.D. Cal.
`Apr. 28, 2011) (defendants not disputing that the jurisdictional contacts of one defendant are the
`jurisdictional contacts of the others, where the entities function as patent holding companies and
`nothing more than the alter egos of the CEO). Indeed, it is well-recognized that the activities of
`AGIS’ co-entity may be attributed to AGIS, and this Court may consider the two entities joined
`for the purposes of jurisdiction. See Dainippon, 142 F.3d at 1270-71; Google Inc. v. Rockstar
`Consortium U.S. LP, No. C13-5933-CW, 2014 WL 1571807, at *4 (N.D. Cal. 2014) (finding that
`the “traditional notions of fair play and justice would not be offended if the Court considers the
`two entities jointly” where the patent holder entity was formed a mere day before asserting the
`patents).
`Although the Federal Circuit has cautioned that “the corporate form is not to be lightly cast
`aside,” the corporate form is not intended to frustrate personal jurisdiction. See In re Microsoft
`Corp., 630 F.3d 1361, 1364–65 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (collecting cases); 3D Sys., Inc. v. Aarotech
`Labs., Inc., 160 F.3d 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Courts have imputed activities of a co-entity
`when “(1) there is a unity of interest and ownership such that the separate personalities of the two
`entities no longer exist and (2) failure to disregard the separate identities ‘would result in fraud or
`injustice.’” Rockstar, 2014 WL 1571807 at *3. Here, the known facts show that AGIS, Inc. and
`AGIS meet this test, and further discovery would confirm it.
`For example, this case is similar in facts to Dainippon and Rockstar where the Court
`attributed activities of a co-entity onto the defendant for purposes of the personal jurisdiction
`analysis. In Dainippon, the Federal Circuit found that the “agents of the defendants who were
`involved in these activities, [naming individual employees], were either employed by or held
`
`
`OPPOSITION TO MOT. TO DISMISS
`
`
`7
`
`CASE NO. 5:21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 41 Filed 10/26/21 Page 14 of 24
`
`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
`
`positions at both [co-entities].” Dainippon, 142 F.3d at 1270. Similarly, in Rockstar, the Court
`imputed activities of one entity to another for the purposes of jurisdiction in a declaratory
`judgment action where Rockstar formed MobileStar as a “sham entity,” and transferred ownership
`of the Patents-in-Suit to MobileStar mere days before initiating litigation in the EDTX. Rockstar,
`2014 WL 1571807 at *4. Google filed a declaratory judgment action in California, which
`defendant Rockstar moved to dismiss. The Court in Rockstar denied the motion to dismiss,
`reasoning that MobileStar maintained no independent identity and that the MobileStar employees
`also worked for Rockstar, and accordingly, the California contacts of Rockstar should be imputed
`to MobileStar as well. Id.
`Similar facts are present here. AGIS was created by Mr. Beyer—first named inventor on
`the Patents-in-Suit—in a “corporate restructuring plan” dev