Case 5:23-cv-03624-BLF Document 38 Filed 10/17/23 Page 1 of 40
`
`Alfred R. Fabricant (pro hac vice)
`ffabricant@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 Ave., 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 Defendants AGIS Holdings, Inc.,
`Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc.,
`and AGIS Software Development LLC
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`GOOGLE LLC
`
`Case No. 5:23-cv-03624-BLF
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Hon. Judge Beth L. Freeman
`
`v.
`
`AGIS HOLDINGS, INC., ADVANCED
`GROUND INFORMATION SYSTEMS,
`INC., AND AGIS SOFTWARE
`DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
`DISMISS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
`TO TRANSFER TO THE EASTERN
`DISTRICT OF TEXAS; MEMORANDUM
`OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`Defendants.
`
`Date: March 21, 2024
`Time: 9:00 a.m.
`Location: Courtroom 3
`
`[Declaration of Malcolm K. Beyer, Jr; and
`Proposed Order filed concurrently herewith]
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, on March 21, 2024, at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the
`
`matter may be heard before The Honorable Beth L. Freeman in the United States District Court for the
`
`Northern District of California in the Robert F. Peckham Federal Building & United States Courthouse,
`
`1
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO TRANSFER TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
`TEXAS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, Case No. 5:23-cv-03624-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 5:23-cv-03624-BLF Document 38 Filed 10/17/23 Page 2 of 40
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, California 95113. Defendants AGIS Holdings,
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`Inc. (“AGIS Holdings”), Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc. (“AGIS, Inc.”), and AGIS
`
`Software Development LLC (“AGIS Software”) (collectively, “Defendants”) will and hereby move the
`
`Court for: (1) an order dismissing the Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed by Plaintiff Google LLC
`
`(“Google”) pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (2) an order dismissing
`
`Count III of Google’s Complaint; (3) an order dismissing Count IV of Google’s Complaint pursuant to
`
`Rule 9 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (4) an order dismissing Count V of Google’s Complaint;
`
`or (5) in the alternative, to transfer to the Eastern District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a).
`
`This Motion is made on the grounds that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over each
`
`Defendant. AGIS Holdings is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in Florida, at 92
`
`Lighthouse Drive, Jupiter, Florida 33469. AGIS Holdings is not registered to conduct business in
`
`California; does not have a registered agent for service of process in California; does not have offices,
`
`employees, equipment, bank accounts, or other assets in California; is not subject to taxes in California;
`
`does not manufacture or sell products in California; does not solicit or engage in business in California;
`
`does not sign contracts in California; does not recruit employees in California; and does not own, lease,
`
`16
`
`or rent any property in California.
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`Similarly, AGIS Software is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws
`
`of the State of Texas, with its principal place of business in Marshall, Texas. AGIS Software is not
`
`registered to conduct business in California; does not have a registered agent for service of process in
`
`California; does not have offices, employees, equipment, bank accounts, or other assets in California; is
`
`not subject to taxes in California; does not manufacture or sell products in California; does not solicit or
`
`engage in business in California; does not sign contracts in California; does not recruit employees in
`
`California; and does not own, lease, or rent any property in California. Additionally, no lawsuit has ever
`
`been filed by AGIS Software in California for any reason. AGIS Software denies that it is an agent and
`
`25
`
`alter ego of AGIS, Inc.
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Further, AGIS, Inc. is a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in Florida, at 92
`
`Lighthouse Drive, Jupiter, Florida 33469. AGIS, Inc. is not registered to conduct business in California;
`
`2
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO TRANSFER TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
`TEXAS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, Case No. 5:23-cv-03624-BLF
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:23-cv-03624-BLF Document 38 Filed 10/17/23 Page 3 of 40
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`does not have a registered agent for service of process in California; does not have offices, employees,
`
`equipment, bank accounts, or other assets in California; is not subject to taxes in California; does not
`
`manufacture or sell products in California; does not solicit or engage in business in California; does not
`
`sign contracts in California; does not recruit employees in California; and does not own, lease, or rent
`
`any property in California.
`
`Count III fails as a matter of law and should be dismissed because Google failed to plead a viable
`
`claim under the Kessler doctrine or claim preclusion. Google premises Count III on a joint motion
`
`dismissing the ’970 Patent before the Northern District of California that expressly limited the parties’
`
`agreement as not covering the reexamination-amended claims of the ’970 Patent. In seeking dismissal
`
`of the pre-reexamination original asserted claims of the ’970 Patent, Google conceded that the
`
`reexamination-amended claims contained substantiative, material differences from their original form,
`
`and therefore, the first dismissal cannot support Count III as to the reexamination-amended claims of the
`
`13
`
`’970 Patent and should be dismissed.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`As to Count IV, Google alleges the ’970 Patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct
`
`during the ’970 Patent reexamination based on an alleged failure to disclose a prior indefiniteness
`
`determination concerning the claim term “symbol generator” in another non-asserted U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,031,728 (the “’728 Patent”). However, Count IV is deficient for failure to meet the materiality
`
`requirement and for futility. The non-asserted ’728 Patent is not at issue in this case. The term “symbol
`
`generator” is not recited in any claims of the ’970 Patent. The prior decision found the non-asserted ’728
`
`Patent term “symbol generator” indefinite for failure to disclose a corresponding algorithm. None of this
`
`concerns the ’970 Patent, and Google does not and cannot show how the prior order is material to
`
`patentability of the ’970 Patent’s recitation of “means for presenting a recipient symbol on the
`
`geographical map corresponding to a correct geographical location of the recipient PDA/cell phone.”
`
`Because Google fails to meet the heightened pleading standard of Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`25
`
`Procedure, Count IV should be dismissed.
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Similarly, Count V alleges the ’970 Patent is unenforceable because of deceit and bad faith during
`
`the reexamination of the ’970 Patent and should be dismissed for the same reasons as Count IV.
`
`3
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO TRANSFER TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
`TEXAS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, Case No. 5:23-cv-03624-BLF
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:23-cv-03624-BLF Document 38 Filed 10/17/23 Page 4 of 40
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`Additionally, Count V alleges a protective order violation based on the presence of Fabricant LLP and
`
`Zhong LLP attorneys at an examiner interview during the reexamination of the ’970 Patent. But the
`
`protective order in question expressly permits attorney participation in reexamination proceedings when
`
`it states that nothing in the protective order is intended to preclude Fabricant “from participating directly
`
`or indirectly in reexamination.” Because there are no plausible facts supporting that Fabricant LLP
`
`engaged in any conduct precluded by the protective order, Google fails to meet the proper pleading
`
`standard or plausibly allege unclean hands and should be dismissed.
`
`In the alternative, transfer is appropriate because the EDTX is clearly the more convenient forum
`
`and is already handling pending AGIS cases involving Google’s Find My Device (“FMD”) and U.S.
`
`Patent No. 8,213,970 (“the ’970 Patent”), where Google is participating as a non-party and has already
`
`began producing information. The transfer factors and judicial economy favor transfer.
`
`The Motion will be and is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the accompanying
`
`Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the accompanying Declaration, the pleadings and papers filed
`
`herein, as well as upon such other and further matters, papers, and arguments as may be presented to the
`
`15
`
`Court.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`DATED: October 16, 2023
`
`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 Ave., Suite 206 South
`Rye, New York 10580
`Telephone: (212) 257-5797
`Facsimile: (212) 257-5796
`
`Benjamin T. Wang (CA SBN 228712)
`bwang@raklaw.com
`
`4
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO TRANSFER TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
`TEXAS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, Case No. 5:23-cv-03624-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 5:23-cv-03624-BLF Document 38 Filed 10/17/23 Page 5 of 40
`
`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 Defendants
`AGIS Holdings, Inc., Advanced Ground
`Information Systems, Inc., and AGIS
`Software Development LLC
`
`5
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO TRANSFER TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
`TEXAS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, Case No. 5:23-cv-03624-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 5:23-cv-03624-BLF Document 38 Filed 10/17/23 Page 6 of 40
`
`
`
`
`Alfred R. Fabricant (pro hac vice)
`ffabricant@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 Ave., 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 Defendants AGIS Holdings, Inc.,
`Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc.,
`and AGIS Software Development LLC
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`Case No. 5:23-cv-03624-BLF
`
`Hon. Judge Beth L. Freeman
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
`DISMISS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
`TO TRANSFER TO THE EASTERN
`DISTRICT OF TEXAS; MEMORANDUM
`OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`GOOGLE LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`AGIS HOLDINGS, INC., ADVANCED
`GROUND INFORMATION SYSTEMS,
`INC., AND AGIS SOFTWARE
`DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`
`Date: March 21, 2024
`
`Time: 9:00 a.m.
`Defendants.
`Location: TBD
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF
`MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
`TO TRANSFER TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`
`1
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO TRANSFER TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
`TEXAS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, Case No. 5:23-cv-03624-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 5:23-cv-03624-BLF Document 38 Filed 10/17/23 Page 7 of 40
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Parties ............................................................................................................ 3
`
`Prior Enforcement Actions ................................................................................... 4
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS .................................................................................................... 5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`Dismissal for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction ......................................................... 5
`
`Inequitable Conduct .............................................................................................. 7
`
`Kessler Doctrine and Claim Preclusion ................................................................ 8
`
`Unclean Hands ...................................................................................................... 8
`
`Transfer ................................................................................................................. 9
`
`IV.
`
`PERSONAL JURISDICTION DOES NOT EXIST OVER DEFENDANTS IN
`CALIFORNIA .................................................................................................................. 9
`
`A.
`
`Specific Jurisdiction Does Not Exist Over Each Defendant in California ......... 10
`
`V.
`
`COUNT III SHOULD BE DISMISSED BECAUSE IT FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM
`UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED AS GOOGLE CANNOT RELY ON A
`PRIOR DISMISSAL OF ORIGINAL PRE-REEXAMINATION CLAIMS AS
`PRECLUSIVE OF FUTURE INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS CONCERNING POST-
`REEXAMINATION CLAIMS ....................................................................................... 15
`
`VI.
`
`COUNT IV SHOULD BE DISMISSED BECAUSE IT FAILS TO MEET THE
`HEIGHTENED PLEADING STANDARD FOR INEQUITABLE CONDUCT .......... 17
`
`VII. COUNT V SHOULD BE DISMISSED BECAUSE GOOGLE HAS NOT
`SUFFICIENTLY PLED UNCONSIONABLE CONDUCT BY AGIS OR ITS
`ATTORNEYS ................................................................................................................. 19
`
`VIII.
`
`IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THIS ACTION SHOULD BE TRANSFERRED TO THE
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`......................................................................................................................................... 21
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`This Action Could Have Been Brought in the Eastern District of Texas ........... 21
`
`This Action Should Be Transferred to the Eastern District of Texas ................. 22
`
`IX.
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 25
`
`i
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO TRANSFER TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
`TEXAS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, Case No. 5:23-cv-03624-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 5:23-cv-03624-BLF Document 38 Filed 10/17/23 Page 8 of 40
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Advanced Ground Info. Sys., Inc. v. Life360, Inc.,
`830 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)......................................................................................1, 18, 19
`
`Aerielle, Inc. v. Monster Cable Prods., Inc.,
`No. 2:06-cv-382 (TJW), 2007 WL 951639 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 26, 2007)...................................24
`
`AFTG-TG, LLC v. Nuvoton Tech. Corp.,
`689 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................6
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 2:17-CV-00516-JRG, 2018 WL 2721826 (E.D. Tex. June 6, 2018) ..................................4
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 2:17-cv-516 (E.D. Tex.) ......................................................................................................4
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Google LLC,
`Case No. 2:19-cv-361 (E.D. Tex.) .............................................................................................2
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Google LLC,
`Case No. 22-cv-04826-BLF (N.D. Cal.) ..................................................................................23
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Google LLC,
`No. 2:19-cv-361 (E.D. Tex.) ......................................................................................................4
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Google LLC,
`No. 5:22-cv-04826-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. 437 .................................................................15, 16
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. HTC Corp.,
`No. 2:17-CV-00514-JRG, 2018 WL 4680557 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 28, 2018) ...............................4
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. HTC Corp.,
`No. 2:17-CV-00514-JRG, 2018 WL 4680558 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 28, 2018) ...............................4
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. HTC Corp.,
`No. 2:17-cv-514 (E.D. Tex.) ......................................................................................................4
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Huawei Device USA Inc.,
`No. 2:17-CV-00513-JRG, 2018 WL 2329752 (E.D. Tex. May 23, 2018) ................................4
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Huawei Device USA Inc.,
`No. 2:17-cv-513 (E.D. Tex.) ......................................................................................................4
`
`ii
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO TRANSFER TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
`TEXAS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, Case No. 5:23-cv-03624-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 5:23-cv-03624-BLF Document 38 Filed 10/17/23 Page 9 of 40
`
`
`
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`No. 2:17-cv-515 (E.D. Tex.) ......................................................................................................4
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Lyft, Inc.,
`Case No. 2:21-cv-24 (E.D. Tex.) .....................................................................................2, 5, 12
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al.,
`Case No. 2:22-cv-263 (E.D. Tex.) .............................................................................................2
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`Case No. 2:21-cv-72 (E.D. Tex.) ...............................................................................................2
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`No. 2:21-cv-72 (E.D. Tex.) ........................................................................................................5
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Uber,
`Case No. 2:21-cv-26 (E.D. Tex.) ...............................................................................................2
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc.,
`No. 2:21-cv-26 (E.D. Tex.) ........................................................................................................5
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Waze Mobile Limited,
`Case No. 2:19-cv-359 (E.D. Tex.) .............................................................................................2
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Waze Mobile Limited,
`No. 2:19-cv-359 (E.D. Tex.) ......................................................................................................4
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. WhatsApp, Inc.,
`Case No. 2:21-cv-29 (E.D. Tex.) ...............................................................................................2
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. WhatsApp, Inc.,
`No. 2:21-cv-29 (E.D. Tex.) ........................................................................................................5
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. ZTE Corp. et al.,
`Case No. 2:17-cv-517 (E.D. Tex.) .............................................................................................4
`
`AGIS Software Dev., LLC v. ZTE Corp.,
`No. 2:17-CV-00517-JRG, 2018 WL 4854023 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 28, 2018) ...............................4
`
`AGIS Software Development LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`No. 2:22-cv-263 (E.D. Tex.) ................................................................................................5, 22
`
`Allphin v. Peter K. Fitness, LLC,
`2014 WL 6997653 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2014) .........................................................................14
`
`Aloft Media, LLC v. Adobe Sys. Inc.,
`No. 6:07-cv-355, 2008 WL 819956 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2008) ..............................................24
`
`iii
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO TRANSFER TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
`TEXAS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, Case No. 5:23-cv-03624-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 5:23-cv-03624-BLF Document 38 Filed 10/17/23 Page 10 of 40
`
`
`
`
`Amba Mktg. Sys., Inc. v. Jobar Int’l, Inc.,
`551 F.2d 784 (9th Cir. 1977) .....................................................................................................6
`
`Ameranth, Inc. v. Menusoft Sys. Corp.,
`No. 2:07-CV-271-TJW-CE, 2010 WL 11530949 (E.D. Tex. June 18, 2010) ...........................7
`
`Aptix Corp. v. Quickturn Design Sys., Inc.,
`269 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................21
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .................................................................................................................20
`
`Autogenomics, Inc. v. Oxford Gene Tech. Ltd.,
`566 F.3d 1012 (Fed. Cir. 2009)............................................................................................6, 10
`
`Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Aten Int’l Co.,
`552 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................5, 6, 11, 13
`
`Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) .................................................................................................................20
`
`Breckenridge Pharm., Inc. v. Metabolite Labs., Inc.,
`444 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................10
`
`Brian Life, LLC v. Elekta Inc.,
`746 F.3d 1045 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................8
`
`Celgard, LLC v. SK Innovation Co.,
`792 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..........................................................................................13, 15
`
`Certainteed Gypsum, Inc. v. Pacific Coast Bldg. Prod., Inc.,
`No. 19-CV-00802-LHK, 2021 WL 1405477 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2021) ................................17
`
`CommVault Sys., Inc. v. PB&J Software,
`LLC, 2013 WL 3242251 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2013) ...............................................................12
`
`Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Kempthorne,
`No. C 08-1339 CW, 2008 WL 4543043 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2008) ..........................................9
`
`Data Disc, Inc. v. Systems Tech. Assocs. Inc.,
`557 F.2d 1280 (9th Cir. 1977) ...................................................................................................7
`
`Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co.,
`805 F.2d 834 (9th Cir. 1986) .....................................................................................................9
`
`DocuSign, Inc. v. Clark,
`2022 WL 225623 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2022) ............................................................................11
`
`iv
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO TRANSFER TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
`TEXAS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, Case No. 5:23-cv-03624-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 5:23-cv-03624-BLF Document 38 Filed 10/17/23 Page 11 of 40
`
`
`
`
`Elecs. For Imaging, Inc. v. Coyle,
`340 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1111 (2004) ........................................6
`
`Eon Corp. IP Hldgs., LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`No. 6:10-CV-379-LED-JDL, 2011 WL 13134896 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 13, 2011) ...................7, 19
`
`Erfindergemeinschaft UroPep GbR v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`No. 2:15-CV-1202-WCB, 2017 WL 275465 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 20, 2017) .................................21
`
`Exergen Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
`575 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2009)........................................................................................7, 8, 17
`
`Fitbit, Inc. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V.,
`336 F.R.D. 574 (N.D. Cal. 2020) .........................................................................................9, 23
`
`Gaudioso v. Mellon,
`269 F.2d 873 (3d Cir. 1959).....................................................................................................21
`
`Goodyear Dunlop Tires Ops., S.A. v. Brown,
`131 S. Ct. 2846 (2011) ...............................................................................................................6
`
`Hansell v. TracFone Wireless Inc.,
`No. C-13-3440-EMC, 2013 WL 6155618 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2013) ....................................24
`
`Hildebrand v. Steck Mfg. Co.,
`279 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................................12
`
`iFLY Holdings LLC v. Indoor Skydiving Germany GmbH,
`No. 2:14- CV-1080-JRG-RSP, 2016 WL 3675136 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2016) ....................8, 9
`
`Kyocera Int’l, Inc. v. Semcon IP, Inc.,
`No. 3:18-CV-1575-CAB-MDD, 2018 WL 51112056 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2018) ..............11, 12
`
`Los Angeles Mem’l Coliseum Comm'n v. Nat’l Football League,
`89 F.R.D. 497 (C.D. Cal. 1981) ...............................................................................................23
`
`Lyft, Inc. v. AGIS Software Dev. LLC,
`Case No. 21-CV-04653-BLF, 2022 WL 267409 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2022) .................5, 12, 14
`
`Monarch Networking Solutions LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`No. 2:20-Cv-00015-JRG ..........................................................................................................25
`
`NuCal Foods, Inc. v. Quality Egg LLC,
`887 F. Supp. 2d 977 (E.D. Cal. 2012)........................................................................................7
`
`P.I.C. Int’l Inc. v. Miflex 2 SpA,
`No. 3:17-CV-0556-CAB-WVG, 2017 WL 3583122 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2017) ......................5
`
`v
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO TRANSFER TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
`TEXAS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, Case No. 5:23-cv-03624-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 5:23-cv-03624-BLF Document 38 Filed 10/17/23 Page 12 of 40
`
`
`
`
`In re PersonalWeb Techs. LLC,
`961 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................................................................................................17
`
`Radio Sys. Corp. v. Accession, Inc.,
`638 F.3d 785 (Fed. Cir. 2011)............................................................................................10, 11
`
`Ranza v. Nike,
`793 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2015) .................................................................................................14
`
`Red Wing Shoe Co. v. Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc.,
`148 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)................................................................................................12
`
`Regents of Univ. of al. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`119 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1997)................................................................................................22
`
`Reynolds v. Binance Holdings Ltd.,
`481 F. Supp. 3d 997 (N.D. Cal. 2020) .....................................................................................14
`
`Saleh v. Titan Corp.,
`361 F. Supp. 2d 1152 (S.D. Cal. 2005) ....................................................................................23
`
`Seven Networks v. Google LLC,
`No. 2:17-cv-00442-JRG, 2018 WL 4026760 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 14, 2018) ...............................25
`
`SimpleAir, Inc. v. Google LLC,
`884 F.3d 1160 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................8
`
`SpeedTrack, Inc. v. Off Depot, Inc.,
`791 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..................................................................................................8
`
`Stewart v. Screen Gems- EMI Music, Inc.,
`81 F. Supp. 3d 938 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .................................................................................13, 14
`
`Tafolla v. City of Tustin,
`885 F.2d 1473 (9th Cir. 1989) .................................................................................................25
`
`Target Training Int’l, Ltd. v. Extended Disc N Am., Inc.,
`645 Fed. App'x. 1018 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ....................................................................................16
`
`TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC,
`581 U.S. 258 (2017) .................................................................................................................22
`
`Therasense, Inc. v. Becton Dickson & Co.,
`649 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (en banc) ...........................................................................8, 17
`
`Trimble Inc. v. PerDiemCo LLC,
`997 F.3d 1147 (Fed. Cir. 2021)..........................................................................................11, 12
`
`vi
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO TRANSFER TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
`TEXAS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, Case No. 5:23-cv-03624-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 5:23-cv-03624-BLF Document 38 Filed 10/17/23 Page 13 of 40
`
`
`
`
`Van Dusen v. Barrack,
`376 U.S. 612 (1964) ...................................................................................................................9
`
`Walden v. Fiore,
`571 U.S. 277 (2014) ...................................................................................................................6
`
`Xilinx, Inc. v. Invention Inv. Fund I LP,
`No. C 11-0671 SI, 2011 WL 3206686 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2011) .......................................5, 13
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), 2201, and 2202.................................................................................22
`
`28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b) .....................................................................................................22
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) .....................................................................................................................2, 9
`
`Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 410.10 .........................................................................................................6
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.555 ...........................................................................................................................17
`
`vii
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO TRANSFER TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
`TEXAS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, Case No. 5:23-cv-0362