Case 5:21-cv-03677-BLF Document 28 Filed 08/23/21 Page 1 of 23
`
`
`
`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
`AGIS Software Development LLC
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`SMITH MICRO SOFTWARE, INC., and
`SMITH MICRO SOFTWARE, LLC
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`and DOES 1 to 10,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
` Case No. 3:21-cv-03677-JD
`
`Hon. Judge James Donato
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
`DISMISS COMPLAINT FOR
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT;
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
`
`Date:
` October 7, 2021
`Time:
` 10:00 a.m.
`Location: Courtroom 11
`
`[Declaration of Malcolm K. Beyer, Jr. and
`Proposed Order filed concurrently herewith]
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT, MEMORANDUM, CASE NO. 3:21-cv-3677
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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-03677-BLF Document 28 Filed 08/23/21 Page 2 of 23
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 7, 2021 at 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as
`the matter may be heard before The Honorable James Donato in the United States District Court for
`the Northern District of California in the San Francisco Courthouse, Courtroom 11, 19th Floor, 450
`Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102. Defendant AGIS Software Development LLC
`(“AGIS Software” or “Defendant”) will and hereby does move the Court, for: (1) An order
`dismissing the Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed by Plaintiffs Smith Micro Software, Inc.
`(“SMSI”) and Smith Micro Software, LLC (“SMSL”) (collectively, “Smith Micro” or “Plaintiffs”)
`pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (2) An order dismissing the
`Complaint for Declaratory Judgment in favor of the first-filed action; Or (3), in the alternative, an
`order staying this action pending a decision on a motion to dismiss filed in the Eastern District of
`Texas by Smith Micro’s subsidiaries, T-Mobile USA, Inc. and T-Mobile US, Inc.’s (collectively,
`“T-Mobile”) .
`This Motion is made on the grounds that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over AGIS
`Software. AGIS Software is a Texas corporation 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 and has never paid taxes in California; does not
`manufacture or sell products in California; does not solicit or engage in business in California; has
`not signed contracts in California; does not recruit employees in California; and does not own, lease,
`or rent any property in California. Additionally, AGIS Software has not purposefully directed any
`activities related to the enforcement or defense of the Patents-in-Suit at California.
`Additionally, this Motion requests that this Court dismiss the Complaint based on the first-
`to-file rule. AGIS Software filed a complaint against T-Mobile in the Eastern District of Texas prior
`to the filing of Smith Micro’s Complaint in this Court. The two actions involve substantially the
`same parties and the same issues, and accordingly, the first-to-file rule applies here. There are no
`exceptions to the rule that apply. Even if there were, the question of whether any exception should
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT, MEMORANDUM, CASE NO. 3:21-cv-03076
`
`
`
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03677-BLF Document 28 Filed 08/23/21 Page 3 of 23
`
`
`
`trump the first-to-file rule should be determined by the Eastern District of Texas. In the alternative,
`the Court should stay this action pending resolution of T-Mobile’s motion in the Eastern District of
`Texas, where parties have completed briefing and are currently awaiting a decision by the Texas
`Court.
`
`The Motion will be and is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the accompanying
`Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the accompanying declarations and exhibits, the pleadings
`and papers filed herein, as well as upon such and other further mattes, papers, and arguments as may
`be presented to the Court.
`
`DATED: August 23, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`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 Road, Suite 206 South
`Rye, New York 10580
`Telephone: (212) 257-5797
`Facsimile: (212) 257-5796
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`AGIS Software Development LLC
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT, MEMORANDUM, CASE NO. 3:21-cv-03076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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-03677-BLF Document 28 Filed 08/23/21 Page 4 of 23
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ............................................................................................ 1
`II. BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................... 1
`A. The Parties ............................................................................................................................. 2
`B. Prior Enforcement Actions .................................................................................................... 2
`III. LEGAL STANDARD .............................................................................................................. 3
`A. Motion to Dismiss ................................................................................................................. 3
`B. First-to-File Rule ................................................................................................................... 5
`IV. ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................................... 6
`A. Personal Jurisdiction Does Not Exist Over AGIS Software in California ............................ 6
`1. General Jurisdiction Does Not Exist Over AGIS Software Because AGIS Software Is Not
`“At Home” in California ........................................................................................................... 6
`2. Specific Jurisdiction Does Not Exist Over AGIS Software in California ......................... 7
`V. SMITH MICRO’S COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED UNDER THE FIRST-TO-
`FILE RULE ................................................................................................................................... 11
`A. The First-to-File Rule Applies ............................................................................................ 11
`B. No Exceptions to the First-to-File Rule Apply ................................................................... 12
`VI. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THIS ACTION SHOULD BE STAYED PENDING A
`DECISION IN THE TEXAS ACTION ....................................................................................... 15
`VII. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT, MEMORANDUM, CASE NO. 5:21-cv-03076
`
`
`
`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-03677-BLF Document 28 Filed 08/23/21 Page 5 of 23
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Cases
`3D Sys., Inc. v. Aarotech Labs., Inc.,
`160 F.3d 1373 (Fed Cir. 1998) .............................................................................................. 10, 11
`Adobe Sys., Inc. v. Tejas Research, LLC,
`2014 WL 4651654 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2014) .............................................................................. 8
`AFTG-TG, LLC v. Nuvoton Tech. Corp.,
`689 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..................................................................................................... 4
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`2018 WL 2721826 (E.D. Tex. June 6, 2018) .............................................................................. 11
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Google LLC,
`Case No. 2:19-cv-361 (E.D. Tex.) .......................................................................................... 3, 14
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. HTC Corp.,
`2018 WL 4680557 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 28, 2018) ........................................................................... 11
`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. T-Mobile USA, Inc. and T-Mobile US, Inc.,
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00072-JRG, Dkt. 1 ¶1 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 3, 2021) ..................................... passim
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Waze Mobile Limited,
`Case No. 2:19-cv-359 (E.D. Tex.) ................................................................................................ 3
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. WhatsApp, Inc.,
`Case No. 2:21-cv-29 (E.D. Tex.) .................................................................................................. 3
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. ZTE Corp. et al.,
`Case No. 2:17-cv-517 (E.D. Tex.) ................................................................................................ 2
`Allphin v. Peter K. Fitness, LLC,
`2014 WL 6997653 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2014) ............................................................................ 11
`Amba Mktg. Sys., Inc. v. Jobar Int’l, Inc.,
`551 F.2d 784 (9th Cir. 1977) ......................................................................................................... 4
`ASUSTeK Comput. Inc. v. Round Rock Res., LLC,
`2012 WL 2055026 (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2012) ................................................................................ 5
`Autogenomics, Inc. v. Oxford Gene Tech. Ltd.,
`566 F.3d 1012 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................. 4, 7
`Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Aten Int’l Co.,
`552 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................................................. 3, 4, 8
`Benguet Consol. Mining Co.,
`342 U.S. 437 (1952) ...................................................................................................................... 6
`Breckenridge Pharm., Inc. v. Metabolite Labs., Inc.,
`444 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ..................................................................................................... 7
`Campbell Pet Co. v. Miale,
`541 F.3d 879 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ....................................................................................................... 6
`CareFusion 202, Inc. v. Tres Tech. Corp.,
`2013 WL 12335011 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2013 ............................................................................. 12
`Celgard, LLC v. SK Innovation Co.,
`792 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................................. 10, 11
`CommVault Sys., Inc. v. PB&J Software, LLC,
`2013 WL 3242251 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2013) .............................................................................. 9
`Daimler AG v. Bauman,
`571 U.S. 117 (2014) .................................................................................................................. 6, 7
`Data Disc, Inc. v. Systems Tech. Assocs. Inc.,
`557 F.2d 1280 (9th Cir. 1977) ....................................................................................................... 4
`Elecs. For Imaging, Inc. v. Coyle,
`340 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ..................................................................................................... 4
`Elecs. for Imaging, Inc. v. Coyle,
`394 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ..................................................................................................... 5
`EMC Corp. v. Bright Response, LLC,
`2012 WL 4097707 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2012) ...................................................................... 12, 15
`
`
` ii
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT, MEMORANDUM, CASE NO. 3:21-cv-3677
`
`
`
`
`
`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-03677-BLF Document 28 Filed 08/23/21 Page 6 of 23
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`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
`
`
`Finisar Corp. v. Capella Photonics, Inc.,
`2021 WL 810227 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2021) .......................................................................... 13, 14
`Futurewei Techs., Inc. v. Acacia Research Corp.,
`737 F.3d 704 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ....................................................................................................... 5
`Genentech, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC,
`2010 WL 4923954 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 1, 2010) .............................................................................. 15
`Goodyear Dunlop Tires Ops., S.A. v. Brown,
`131 S. Ct. 2846 (2011) .................................................................................................................. 4
`Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia S.A. v. Hall,
`466 U.S. 408 (1984) ...................................................................................................................... 6
`In re Apple, Inc.,
`No. 2018-151 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 16, 2018) ...................................................................................... 11
`In re LG Elecs., Inc.,
`No. 2019-107 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 24, 2019) ....................................................................................... 11
`Juniper Networks, Inc. v. SSL Servs., LLC,
`2009 WL 3837266 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2009) .......................................................................... 8, 9
`Life360, Inc. v. Advanced Ground Information Sys. Inc.,
`2015 WL 5612008 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 21, 2015) ........................................................................... 7, 8
`Marvell Semiconductor Inc. v. Monterey Res., LLC,
`2020 WL 6591197 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 11, 2020) ............................................................................ 12
`Microchip Tech., Inc. v. United Module Corp.,
`2011 WL 2669627 (N.D. Cal. July 7, 2011) ......................................................................... 13, 14
`Nuance Comms., Inc. v. Abbyy Software House,
`626 F.3d 1222 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ..................................................................................................... 3
`NXP Semiconductors USA, Inc. v. Brevets,
`2014 WL 4621017 (N.D Cal. Sept. 15, 2014) ............................................................................. 11
`P.I.C. Int’l Inc. v. Miflex 2 SpA,
`No. 3:17-CV-556-CAB-WVG, 2017 WL 3583122 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2017) ........................ 3, 7
`Pacesette Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc.,
`678 F.2d 93 (9th Cir. 1982) ........................................................................................................... 5
`Radio Sys. Corp. v. Accession, Inc.,
`638 F.3d 785 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ....................................................................................................... 8
`Ranza v. Nike,
`793 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2015) ..................................................................................................... 10
`Red Wing Shoe Co. v. Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc.,
`148 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ..................................................................................................... 9
`Ruckus Wireless, Inc. v. Harris Corp.,
`2012 WL 588792 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2012) ........................................................................... 5, 12
`SMIC, Ams. v. Innovative Foundry Techs. LLC,
`473 F. Supp. 3d 1021 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ............................................................................ 5, 12, 14
`Spread Spectrum Screening LLC v. Eastman Kodak Co.,
`657 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................... 15
`Stewart v. Screen Gems-EMI Music, Inc.,
`81 F. Supp. 3d 938 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .......................................................................................... 10
`Walden v. Fiore,
`571 U.S. 277 (2014) ...................................................................................................................... 4
`Ward v. Follett Corp.,
`158 F.R.D. 645 (N.D. Cal. 1994) .................................................................................................. 5
`Xilinx, Inc. v. Invention Inv. Fund I LP,
`No. C 11-0671 SI, 2011 WL 3206686 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2011) ................................................. 3
`Statutes
`Cal. Civ. Pro. Code § 410.10 ............................................................................................................. 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT, MEMORANDUM, CASE NO. 5:21-cv-03076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03677-BLF Document 28 Filed 08/23/21 Page 7 of 23
`
`
`
`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.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`At issue here are: (1) whether this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over AGIS Software in
`this action; (2) whether this action should be transferred to the Eastern District of Texas under the
`first-to-file rule; or, in the alternative, (3) whether this action should be temporarily stayed pending
`T-Mobile’s Motion to Dismiss in the Eastern District of Texas.
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`This declaratory judgment action must be dismissed because this Court lacks personal
`jurisdiction over AGIS Software. AGIS Software is a Texas corporation with a principal place of
`business in 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 and has never paid taxes in California;
`does not manufacture or sell products in California; does not solicit or engage in business in
`California; has not signed contracts in California; does not recruit employees in California; and does
`not own, lease, or rent any property in California. The sole contacts relied on by Smith Micro to
`bring litigation against AGIS Software in this Court are enforcement actions filed outside of
`California against residents of this judicial district that are multinational companies with places of
`business outside of California, a single declaratory judgment action brought by ZTE (USA) Inc. that
`was voluntarily dismissed, and allegations that AGIS Software is “an agent and alter ego to AGIS
`Holdings and AGIS.” None of these contacts are sufficient to show that AGIS Software purposefully
`directed any activities related to the enforcement or defense of the Patents-in-Suit in California, as
`is necessary for this Court to exercise personal jurisdiction over AGIS Software in accordance with
`Federal Due Process. Accordingly, Smith Micro’s Complaint for Declaratory Judgment should be
`dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction without leave to amend.
`Additionally, since this action was filed nearly three months after AGIS Software filed its
`Complaint in the Eastern District of Texas (“EDTX”), this action should be transferred under the
`first-to-file rule or, alternatively, stayed pending T-Mobile’s Motion to Dismiss filed in the EDTX.
`II.
`BACKGROUND
`
` 1
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT, MEMORANDUM, CASE NO. 3:21-cv-3677
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03677-BLF Document 28 Filed 08/23/21 Page 8 of 23
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`A. The Parties
`AGIS Software is the sole owner of all right, title, and interest in and to U.S. Patent Nos.
`9,408,055; 9,445,251; 9,467,838; 9,749,829; 7,630,724; and 7,031,728 (collectively, the “Patents-
`in-Suit”). AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. and T-Mobile US, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-
`00072-JRG, Dkt. 1 ¶1 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 3, 2021) (“T-Mobile Texas Case”); Declaration of Malcolm
`K. Beyer, Jr. (“Beyer Decl.”) ¶3.
`AGIS Software is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business located in Marshall,
`Texas. Dkt. 1 ¶2; see also Beyer Decl. ¶9. AGIS Software’s Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Malcolm
`K. Beyer, Jr., resides in Florida. Beyer Decl. ¶¶2, 4. 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
`and has never paid taxes in California; does not manufacture or sell products in California; does not
`solicit or engage in business in California; has not signed contracts in California; does not recruit
`employees in California; and does not own, lease, or rent any property in California. Beyer Decl.
`¶¶10-19. Further, no lawsuit has ever been filed by AGIS Software in California. Id. ¶21.
`SMSI alleges that it is a corporation existing under the laws of Delaware with its principal
`place of business located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Dkt. 1 ¶1. SMSL alleges that it is a limited
`liability company existing under the laws of Delaware that is wholly owned by SMSI. Dkt. 1 ¶3.
`B. Prior Enforcement Actions
`In 2017, AGIS Software filed five patent infringement actions involving some of the Patents-
`in-Suit in the EDTX.1 On September 28, 2018, Judge Gilstrap issued an order to transfer the ZTE
`Texas Case to the Northern District of California (“NDCal”), in response to the defendant’s motion
`to dismiss or transfer for improper venue. See ZTE Texas Case, Dkt. 86. On October 8, 2018, AGIS
`Software filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, which the court granted on October 9, 2018. Id.,
`Dkt. 87. That same day, ZTE filed an action in NDCal seeking a judicial declaration of non-
`
`1 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.) (“Huawei Case”); AGIS Software Dev.
`LLC v. ZTE Corp. et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-517 (E.D. Tex.) (“ZTE Texas Case”); and AGIS Software
`Dev. LLC v. LG Elecs., Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-515 (E.D. Tex.).
`
`
`2
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT, MEMORANDUM, CASE NO. 5:21-cv-03076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03677-BLF Document 28 Filed 08/23/21 Page 9 of 23
`
`
`
`infringement, invalidity, and/or unenforceability as to certain of the Patents-in-Suit against AGIS
`Software, AGIS Holdings, Inc. (“AGIS Holdings”), and Advanced Ground Information Systems,
`Inc. (“AGIS, Inc.”). ZTE (USA) Inc. v. AGIS Software Dev. LLC et al., Case No. 4:18-cv-06185-
`HSK (N.D. Cal.).
`In 2019, AGIS Software filed three patent infringement actions involving some of the
`Patents-in-Suit in the EDTX.2 In 2021, AGIS Software filed four infringement actions, including the
`action against T-Mobile, involving some of the Patents-in-Suit in the EDTX.3 The AGIS II and AGIS
`III Cases still pending in the EDTX. On April 27, 2021, T-Mobile filed a motion to dismiss alleging
`ineligible subject matter and inadequate pleading in the EDTX. T-Mobile Texas Case, Dkt. 46.
`III.
`LEGAL STANDARD
`A. Motion to Dismiss
`Rule 12(b)(2) requires a district court to dismiss an action when the Court lacks personal
`jurisdiction over a defendant. In a patent case, such as a declaratory judgment action involving a
`patent, Federal Circuit law governs the inquiry. Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Aten Int’l Co., 552 F.3d
`1324, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Where, like here, an action seeks a declaration of non-infringement and
`invalidity, personal jurisdiction is required “over the owner, assignee or exclusive licensee of the
`patent.” See Xilinx, Inc. v. Invention Inv. Fund I LP, No. C 11-0671 SI, 2011 WL 3206686, at *4
`(N.D. Cal. July 27, 2011). Personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant is proper if permitted
`by a state’s long-arm statute and if the exercise of jurisdiction does not violate federal Due Process.
`P.I.C. Int’l Inc. v. Miflex 2 SpA, No. 3:17-CV-556-CAB-WVG, 2017 WL 3583122, at *2 (S.D. Cal.
`Aug. 17, 2017) (citing Nuance Comms., Inc. v. Abbyy Software House, 626 F.3d 1222, 1230 (Fed.
`Cir. 2010)). “[B]ecause California’s long-arm statute is coextensive with the limits of due process,
`the two inquiries collapse into a single inquiry: whether jurisdiction comports with due process.”
`
`
`2 See AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Google LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-361 (E.D. Tex.) (“Google Case”);
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-361 (E.D. Tex.); and
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Waze Mobile Limited, Case No. 2:19-cv-359 (E.D. Tex.) (“AGIS II”).
`3 See 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. Lyft, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-24 (E.D. Tex.); and AGIS Software
`Dev. LLC v. WhatsApp, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-29 (E.D. Tex.) (“AGIS III”).
`
`
`
`3
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT, MEMORANDUM, CASE NO. 5:21-cv-03076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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-03677-BLF Document 28 Filed 08/23/21 Page 10 of 23
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`Autogenomics, Inc. v. Oxford Gene Tech. Ltd., 566 F.3d 1012, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2009)4; see also Cal.
`Civ. Pro. Code § 410.10.
`To satisfy federal Due Process (1) the defendant must have established certain minimum
`contacts with the forum state; and (2) the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant must not offend
`“traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Goodyear Dunlop Tires Ops., S.A. v. Brown,
`131 S. Ct. 2846, 2853 (2011). Jurisdiction may be either “general or all-purpose jurisdiction,” or
`“specific or case-linked jurisdiction.” Id. at 2851. “Specific jurisdiction … must be based on
`activities that arise out of or relate to the cause of action.” Autogenomics, 566 F.3d at 1017. However,
`“it is essential in each case that there must be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails5
`itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and
`protections of its laws.” Avocent, 552 F.3d at 1329. “The purposeful availment requirement ensures
`that a defendant will not be haled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of random, fortuitous, or
`attenuated contacts, or of the unilateral activity of another party or a third person.” Id. Moreover, the
`“‘minimum contacts’ analysis looks to the defendant’s contacts with the forum State itself, not the
`defendant’s contacts with persons who reside there.” Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 285 (2014).
`Where, like here, the parties have not conducted discovery and there has been no evidentiary
`hearing, the plaintiff bears the burden of making a prima facie showing that each defendant is subject
`to personal jurisdiction. See Elecs. For Imaging, Inc. v. Coyle, 340 F.3d 1344, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2003),
`cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1111 (2004). The plaintiff cannot “simply rest on the bare allegations of its
`complaint, but rather [is] obligated to come forward with facts, by affidavit or otherwise, supporting
`personal jurisdiction.” Amba Mktg. Sys., Inc. v. Jobar Int’l, Inc., 551 F.2d 784, 787 (9th Cir. 1977).
`Additionally, although the court must accept uncontested allegations as true, it need not consider
`“bare formulaic accusations” that a defendant maintains sufficient contacts with the forum state.
`AFTG-TG, LLC v. Nuvoton Tech. Corp., 689 F.3d 1358, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). It also “may not
`assume the truth of allegations in a pleading which are contradicted by affidavit.” Data Disc, Inc. v.
`Systems Tech. Assocs. Inc., 557 F.2d 1280, 1284 (9th Cir. 1977).
`
`4 All internal citations and quotations of cases cited in this brief are omitted, unless otherwise noted.
`5 All emphasis in this brief are added, unless otherwise noted.
`
`
`4
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT, MEMORANDUM, CASE NO. 5:21-cv-03076
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03677-BLF Document 28 Filed 08/23/21 Page 11 of 23
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`B. First-to-File Rule
`“When two actions that sufficiently overlap are filed in different federal district courts, one
`for infringement and the other for declaratory relief, the declaratory judgment action, if filed later,
`generally is to be stayed, dismissed, or transferred to the forum of the infringement action.”
`Futurewei Techs., Inc. v. Acacia Research Corp., 737 F.3d 704, 708 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “There is a
`generally recognized doctrine of federal comity which permits a district court to decline jurisdiction
`over an action when a complaint involving the same parties and issues has already been filed in
`another district.” Pacesette Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 678 F.2d 93, 94-95 (9th Cir. 1982). This
`rule “promotes judicial efficiency and prevents the risk of inconsistent decisions that would arise
`from multiple litigations of identical claims.” Ruckus Wireless, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 2012 WL
`588792, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2012). In addition to judicial efficiency, the rule helps “prevent[]
`the risk of inconsistent decisions that would arise from multiple litigations of identical claims.” Id.
`at *2. The Federal Circuit has “made clear that the first to file rule applies to patent cases and thus
`likewise requires deference to the first-filed action ‘unless considerations of judicial and litigant
`economy, and the just and effective disposition of disputes, requires otherwise.’” Elecs. for Imaging,
`Inc. v. Coyle, 394 F.3d 1341, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`Under the first-to-file doctrine, a district court may “choose to transfer, stay, or dismiss an
`action where a similar complaint has been filed in another district court.” SMIC, Ams. v. Innovative
`Foundry Techs. LLC, 473 F. Supp. 3d 1021, 1024 (N.D. Cal. 2020). The court must consider three
`factors in determining whether the rule applies: “(1) the chronology of the two actions; (2) the
`similarity of the parties; and (3) the similarity of the issues.” Id. A court’s decision to depart from
`this general rule must present a “sound reason that would make it unjust or inefficient to continue
`the first-filed action.” Id. “The court with the first-filed action should normally determine whether
`an exception to the first-to-file rule applies.” ASUSTeK Comput. Inc. v. Round Rock Res., LLC, 2012
`WL 2055026, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2012). One exception to the rule may apply when “the balance
`of convenience weighs in favor of the later-filed action.” Ward v. Follett Corp., 158 F.R.D. 645, 648
`(N.D. Cal. 1994). This inquiry is “analogous to the ‘convenience of parties and witnesses’ factor
`considered in a transfer of venue motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).” ASUSTeK, 2012 WL
`
`
`5
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DIS