Case 5:21-cv-03677-BLF Document 34 Filed 09/20/21 Page 1 of 20
`
`
`
`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 JOSE DIVISION
`
`SMITH MICRO SOFTWARE, INC., and
`SMITH MICRO SOFTWARE, LLC
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`and DOES 1 to 10,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
` Case No. 5:21-cv-03677-BLF
`
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
`MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
`FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`Date: January 27, 2022
`Time: 9:00 a.m.
`Ctrm: 3
`
`Judge Beth Labson Freeman
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT, MEMORANDUM, CASE NO. 5:21-cv-3677-BLF
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03677-BLF Document 34 Filed 09/20/21 Page 2 of 20
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`PLAINTIFF’S RECITATION OF “UNCONTESTED FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS”
`II.
`ARE MISLEADING AND DO NOT ESTABLISH IMPUTATION OF AGIS, INC’S
`PURPORTED CONTACTS OVER AGIS SOFTWARE ............................................................ 1
`SMITH MICRO’S RECITATION OF
`“UNCONTESTED
`FACTUAL
`III.
`ALLEGATIONS” ARE MISLEADING AND DO NOT ESTABLISH “MINIMUM
`CONTACTS” SUFFICIENT FOR SPECIFIC JURISDICTION .............................................. 4
`THE PROPER VENUE FOR THIS ACTION IS THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
`IV.
`TEXAS .............................................................................................................................................. 7
`SMITH MICRO’S COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED UNDER THE FIRST-
`V.
`TO-FILE RULE .............................................................................................................................. 9
`PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER AGIS SOFTWARE DOES NOT COMPORT
`VI.
`WITH FAIR PLAY AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE .............................................................. 11
`VII. ALTERNATIVELY, THIS ACTION SHOULD BE STAYED PENDING A
`DECISION IN THE TEXAS ACTION ....................................................................................... 13
`VIII. SMITH MICRO’S REQUEST FOR JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY SHOULD BE
`DENIED ......................................................................................................................................... 14
`IX. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT, MEMORANDUM, CASE NO. 5:21-cv-3677-BLF
`i
`
`
`
`
`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 34 Filed 09/20/21 Page 3 of 20
`
`
`
`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
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`2018 WL 2721826 (E.D. Tex. June 6, 2018) ........................................................................ 3, 4, 5
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. HTC Corp.,
`2018 WL 4680557 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 28, 2018) ............................................................................. 3
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., et al.,
`No. 2:21-cv-00072-JRG, Dkts. 53, 54 (E.D. Tex. May 18, 2021) ....................................... passim
`Allphin v. Peter K. Fitness, LLC,
`2014 WL 6997653 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2014) .............................................................................. 2
`AU Optronics Corp. Am. v. Vista Peak Ventures, LLC,
`No. 18-CV-04638-HSG, 2019 WL 690282 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2019) ........................................ 5
`Autogenomics, Inc. v. Oxford Gene Tech. Ltd.,
`566 F.3d 1012 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................. 4, 7
`Avocent v. Huntsville Corp. v. Aten Intern. Co., Ltd.,
`552 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................. 4, 7
`Bayer Healthcare LLC v. Nektar Therapeutics,
`2018 WL 1258202 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2018) .............................................................................. 7
`Boschetto v. Hansing,
`539 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2008) .................................................................................................... 14
`Celgard, LLC v. SK Innovation Co., Ltd.,
`792 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..................................................................................................... 6
`Dainippon Screen Mfg. Co.,
`142 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ..................................................................................................... 3
`Doe v. Unocal Corp.,
`248 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2001) ......................................................................................................... 5
`EMC Corp. v. Bright Response, LLC,
`2012 WL 4097707 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2012) ............................................................................ 13
`Finisar Corp. v. Capella Photonics, Inc.,
`2021 WL 810227 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2021) ................................................................................ 11
`In re Apple, Inc.,
`No. 2018-151 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 16, 2018) ........................................................................................ 3
`In re LG Elecs. Inc.,
`No. 2019-107 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 24, 2019) ......................................................................................... 3
`In re Nintendo of Amer., Inc.,
`756 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................... 10
`Kyocera Int’l Inc. v. Semcon IP, Inc.,
`No. 18-cv-1575-CAB-MDD, 2018 WL 5112056 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2018) ................................ 5
`Life360, Inc. v. Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc.,
`No. 5:15-cv-00151-BLF (N.D. Cal.) ................................................................................... 2, 4, 11
`Martinez v. Manheim Cent. Cal.,
`2011 WL 1466684 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2011) ............................................................................. 14
`Microchip Tech., Inc. v. United Module Corp.,
`2011 WL 266927 (E.D. Tex. July 7, 2011) ................................................................................. 11
`Radio Sys. Corp. v. Accession, Inc.,
`638 F.3d 785 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ....................................................................................................... 5
`Ranza v. Nike,
`793 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2015) ....................................................................................................... 6
`Stewart v. Screen Gems-EMI Music, Inc.,
`81 F. Supp. 3d 938 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ........................................................................................ 2, 5
`Trimble Inc. v. PerDiemCo LLC,
`997 F.3d 1147 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ................................................................................................... 12
`Walden v. Fiore,
`
`
`
`571 U.S. 277 (2014) ...................................................................................................................... 5
`DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT, MEMORANDUM, CASE NO. 5:21-cv-3677-BLF
`ii
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03677-BLF Document 34 Filed 09/20/21 Page 4 of 20
`
`
`
`Williams v. Yamaha Motor Co.,
`851 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2017) ....................................................................................................... 6
`ZTE (USA) Inc v. AGIS Software Dev. LLC,
`No. 18-cv-06185-HSG, Dkt. 114 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2021) ......................................... 2, 4, 5, 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT, MEMORANDUM, CASE NO. 5:21-cv-3677-BLF
`iii
`
`
`
`
`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 34 Filed 09/20/21 Page 5 of 20
`
`
`
`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
`Smith Micro cannot meet its burden to establish personal jurisdiction over AGIS Software.
`AGIS Software is a Texas corporation with a principal place of business in Texas and no relevant
`ties to California. Smith Micro concedes that AGIS Software itself lacks the minimum contacts
`necessary to find specific jurisdiction, and thus, relies on the purported contacts of AGIS Software’s
`sister entity and non-party, AGIS, Inc. However, Smith Micro fails to allege facts sufficient to
`demonstrate that the alleged contacts of AGIS, Inc. should be imputed to AGIS Software. Rather,
`Smith Micro overlooks the fact that AGIS Software has not answered the Complaint and relies on
`misrepresentations by listing dozens of bullet points stating “uncontested factual allegations,”
`which, to the contrary, are contested. AGIS Software has provided specific facts rebutting each
`allegation that the purported contacts of AGIS, Inc. should be imputed to AGIS Software.
`Smith Micro has failed to show any of non-party AGIS, Inc’s purported contacts warrant the
`exercise of personal jurisdiction over AGIS Software in this action, or factual allegations sufficient
`to show that AGIS Software itself has contacts with California sufficient to subject it to suit in this
`Court. Accordingly, AGIS Software’s Motion to Dismiss should be granted.1
`II.
`FACTUAL
`PLAINTIFF’S
`RECITATION
`OF
`“UNCONTESTED
`ALLEGATIONS” ARE MISLEADING AND DO NOT ESTABLISH
`IMPUTATION OF AGIS, INC’S PURPORTED CONTACTS OVER AGIS
`SOFTWARE
`
`Smith Micro misleads the Court when it recites thirty legally and factually incorrect
`“uncontested factual allegations.” Smith Micro misrepresents the record and ignores the Federal
`Rules of Civil Procedure because, in accordance with the rules, AGIS Software has not answered
`the Complaint in this Action. Nonetheless, such assertions do not establish that specific jurisdiction
`exists over AGIS Software.
`Contrary to Smith Micro’s unsupported allegation, AGIS Holdings, Inc. (“AGIS Holdings”)
`is not the “successor to Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc. (“AGIS, Inc.”). See Dkt. 33
`
`
`1 Smith Micro’s opposition refers to Mr. Beyer and his declaration as “Mr. Breyer” and the “Breyer
`Declaration.” See, e.g., Dkt. 33 at 6. To provide clarification to the extent necessary, the inventor
`
`
`
`of the Patents-in-Suit and the CEO of AGIS Software is Mr. Malcolm K. Beyer, Jr.
`DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT, MEMORANDUM, CASE NO. 5:21-cv-3677-BLF
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03677-BLF Document 34 Filed 09/20/21 Page 6 of 20
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`at 4. AGIS Holdings is the parent corporation of subsidiaries, AGIS, Inc. and AGIS Software. See
`Dkt. 28-1, Declaration of Malcolm K. Beyer, Jr. (“Beyer Decl.”) ¶ 6. AGIS Software was formed
`on June 1, 2017 in the state of Texas. See Ex. 1, Certificate of Formation for AGIS Software
`Development LLC. As such, Smith Micro’s allegations that Mr. Beyer was “wearing both CEO
`hats” with respect to activities conducted in 2014 with respect to AGIS, Inc. are misleading. Dkt.
`33 at 7. AGIS Software did not exist in 2014 nor does it hold itself out to be the “successor-in-
`interest with respect to ownership and enforcement of the Patents-in-Suit.” Dkt. 33 at 4. Moreover,
`the Court in ZTE (USA) Inc v. AGIS Software Dev. LLC stated that where plaintiff alleged that AGIS
`Software and AGIS, Inc. have “overlapping officers, employees, and past legal representation,”
`testimony that AGIS Software and AGIS, Inc. “work closely with one another,” and “AGIS, Inc.
`has a non-exclusive licensee for the patents-in-suit from Defendant,” such facts “even if true, do not
`establish that Defendant has no identity separate and apart from AGIS, Inc.” No. 18-cv-06185-HSG,
`Dkt. 114 at 6-7 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2021) (“At best, Plaintiff has established that the entities share
`a parent-subsidiary relationship, which is ‘insufficient, on its own, to justify imputing one entity’s
`contacts with a forum state to another for the purpose of establishing personal jurisdiction.’”); see
`also Stewart v. Screen Gems-EMI Music, Inc., 81 F. Supp. 3d 938, 954 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (“[I]n the
`absence of evidence of actual control, courts generally presume that directors can and do ‘change
`hats’ to represent each corporation separately, despite their overlapping obligations as officers or
`directors for more than one entity.”); Allphin v. Peter K. Fitness, LLC, 2014 WL 6997653, at *5
`(N.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2014) (“Courts generally presume that the directors are wearing their subsidiary
`hats and not their parent hats when acting for the subsidiary.”).
`Smith Micro’s speculations regarding the Life360 case are similarly without merit. The
`Court in ZTE (USA) Inc. also stated that it was “similarly unpersuaded that the district court’s
`personal jurisdiction in Life360, Inc. v. Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc., No. 5:15-cv-
`00151-BLF (N.D. Cal.), somehow settles this issue, as AGIS Software was not a party to that suit.”
`ZTE (USA) Inc., No. 18-cv-06185-HSG, Dkt. 114 at 5. Again, AGIS Software was not a party to
`the Life360 case. Smith Micro alleges that AGIS, Inc. and AGIS Holdings formed AGIS Software
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT, MEMORANDUM, CASE NO. 5:21-cv-3677-BLF
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03677-BLF Document 34 Filed 09/20/21 Page 7 of 20
`
`
`
`“in an attempt to remake AGIS and to distance AGIS from the adverse result in Life360 case.” Dkt.
`33 at 8. However, the Court in ZTE (USA) Inc. also rejected arguments that “Defendant is merely
`the alter ego of AGIS, Inc. or was created solely to circumvent jurisdiction.” ZTE (USA) Inc., No.
`18-cv-06185-HSG, Dkt. 114 at 7; see also AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Apple, Inc., 2018 WL
`2721826, at *3 (E.D. Tex. June 6, 2018) (rejecting argument that AGIS Software is a “sham” entity
`and ephemeral because the party making the affirmative assertion failed to present concrete evidence
`that the business is actually a sham and has no real operations), mandamus denied, In re Apple, Inc.,
`No. 2018-151 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 16, 2018); AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. HTC Corp., 2018 WL 4680557,
`at *10 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 28, 2018), mandamus denied, In re LG Elecs. Inc., No. 2019-107 (Fed. Cir.
`Jan. 24, 2019).
`Smith Micro’s reliance on Dainippon Screen Mfg. Co. v. CFMT, Inc., is misplaced. Dkt. 33
`at 2. The court in Dainippon did not even address an alter ego issue. Dainippon Screen Mfg. Co.,
`142 F.3d 1266, 1271 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (noting that “the parent-subsidiary relationship in this case
`is legally proper” and that “[the plaintiff] does not seek here to pierce the corporate veil”). Moreover,
`the facts in Dainippon are easily distinguishable. In Dainippon, the court determined that it was
`“fair and reasonable” to exercise jurisdiction over a parent and subsidiary where the parent had (1)
`engaged in a deliberate scheme to insulate itself from jurisdiction by creating a sham subsidiary in
`another state; (2) transferred its patents to the holding company; (3) arranged for an exclusive license
`back to itself by virtue of its complete control over the holding company; and (4) continued to
`“operate[] under the patent” and engage in other jurisdictionally sufficient activities in the forum.
`142 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1998). In addition, the court determined that the subsidiary had sufficient
`contacts with the forum even without imputing the contacts of the parent to the subsidiary because,
`among other things, the subsidiary had entered into an exclusive license with the parent, which
`maintained sales agents in the forum specifically to make, use, and sell products covered by the
`patents nationwide, and derived substantial licensing revenues from the parent’s forum-based sales.
`Id. at 1271 n.3. No such facts exist on this record.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT, MEMORANDUM, CASE NO. 5:21-cv-3677-BLF
`3
`
`
`
`
`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 34 Filed 09/20/21 Page 8 of 20
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`Smith Micro raises no new arguments or evidence that AGIS Software was created solely to
`“remake AGIS” or “distance AGIS” and accordingly, unsubstantiated imputation and alter ego
`arguments should be rejected. ZTE (USA) Inc., No. 18-cv-06185, Dkt. 114 at 5 (“The Court finds
`that imputation would be improper on the basis of this record . . .”).
`III.
`FACTUAL
`SMITH MICRO’S RECITATION OF
`“UNCONTESTED
`ALLEGATIONS” ARE MISLEADING AND DO NOT ESTABLISH “MINIMUM
`CONTACTS” SUFFICIENT FOR SPECIFIC JURISDICTION
`
`In a declaratory judgment action, “the nature of the claim . . . arises out of or relates to the
`activities of the defendant patentee in enforcing the patent or patents in suit.” Avocent v. Huntsville
`Corp. v. Aten Intern. Co., Ltd., 552 F.3d 1324, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2008). As such, “only enforcement
`or defense efforts related to the patent” rather than the patentee’s own commercialization efforts are
`to be considered for establishing specific personal jurisdiction.” Autogenomics, Inc. v. Oxford Gene
`Tech. Ltd., 566 F.3d 1012, 1020 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (emphasis added).
`Here, Smith Micro alleges that specific jurisdiction is proper over AGIS Software due to (1)
`patent infringement actions against Apple, Inc., ZTE (USA) Inc., ZTE Corporation (collectively,
`“ZTE”), WhatsApp LLC, Waze, Uber, and Lyft; (2) settlement agreements resulting from the patent
`infringement actions against Apple, Inc. and ZTE; (3) marketing and providing downloads of
`LifeRing in California; (4) operation of AGIS, Inc.’s website which is accessible to California
`residents; (5) conducting business over the Internet through this website; (6) “transact[ing] business
`and engag[ing] in the knowing and repeated transmission of computer files over the Internet,
`including into California;” (7) the Life360 case and its holdings; and (8) the activities of AGIS, Inc.
`See Dkt. 33 at 6-7. As a preliminary matter, as held by the Court in ZTE, any imputation arguments
`are without merit and accordingly, any purported activities of AGIS, Inc. are irrelevant. Moreover,
`in accordance with the Court’s statements in ZTE, this analysis should be limited to “those
`allegations solely related to Defendant and the patents-in-suit.” As such, Smith Micro’s statements
`regarding LifeRing and any marketing or demonstrations of LifeRing are irrelevant to this analysis.
`ZTE (USA) Inc., No. 18-cv-06185-HSG, Dkt. 114 at 9.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT, MEMORANDUM, CASE NO. 5:21-cv-3677-BLF
`4
`
`
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03677-BLF Document 34 Filed 09/20/21 Page 9 of 20
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`First, with respect to the patent infringement actions against Apple, Inc., ZTE, WhatsApp
`LLC, Waze, Uber, and Lyft, AGIS Software “filed these [] actions in the Eastern District of Texas.”
`Id. Smith Micro does not dispute that the enforcement actions filed by AGIS Software involving
`the patents-ins-suit were filed outside of California. Dkt. 33 at 6-7. “Courts have repeatedly found
`that out-of-state enforcement activities are insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.” Id. (citing
`Radio Sys. Corp. v. Accession, Inc., 638 F.3d 785, 792 (Fed. Cir. 2011)); AU Optronics Corp. Am.
`v. Vista Peak Ventures, LLC, No. 18-CV-04638-HSG, 2019 WL 690282, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 19,
`2019); Kyocera Int’l Inc. v. Semcon IP, Inc., No. 18-cv-1575-CAB-MDD, 2018 WL 5112056, at *3
`(S.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2018)). The analysis looks to the “defendant’s contacts with the forum State
`itself, not the defendant’s contacts with persons who reside there.” Id. (citing Walden v. Fiore, 571
`U.S. 277, 285 (2014)). Nevertheless, filing patent infringement actions against residents of
`California does not satisfy “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice” such that personal
`jurisdiction is warranted. See id. at 10. Accordingly, Smith Micro’s allegations that specific
`jurisdiction is satisfied by these out-of-state enforcement activities are unavailing.
`Second, Smith Micro alleges that “AGIS Software either individually or as an alter ego of
`AGIS . . . is subject to specific personal jurisdiction within this judicial district.” Dkt. 33 at 8. As
`stated above, a Court in this district has already found that imputation of AGIS, Inc.’s purported
`contacts to AGIS Software is not warranted. Nonetheless, Smith Micro fails to meet its burden to
`establish that imputing the purported contacts of AGIS, Inc. to AGIS Software is warranted. The
`existence of a parent-subsidiary or mere sister-sister entity relationship “is not sufficient to establish
`personal jurisdiction over the parent on the basis of the subsidiaries’ minimum contacts with the
`forum.” Stewart, 81 F. Supp. 3d at 954 (citing Doe v. Unocal Corp., 248 F.3d 915, 925 (9th Cir.
`2001)).
`While the actions of a third party may be imputed to a defendant under the alter ego
`exception, Smith Micro fails to meet its burden here. To establish jurisdiction under an alter ego
`theory, “a plaintiff must make out a prima facie showing: (1) that there is such unity of interest and
`ownership that the separate personalities of the two corporations no longer exist; and (2) if the acts
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT, MEMORANDUM, CASE NO. 5:21-cv-3677-BLF
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03677-BLF Document 34 Filed 09/20/21 Page 10 of 20
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`are treated as those of only one of the corporations, an inequitable result will follow.” Id. at 960.
`Under this theory, “pervasive control” over the affiliate entity must exist “such as when a parent
`corporation dictates every facet of the subsidiary’s business—from broad policy decisions to routine
`matters of day-to-day operations.” Ranza v. Nike, 793 F.3d 1059, 1073 (9th Cir. 2015). In assessing
`whether a “unity of interest” exists, courts may consider the commingling of funds and other assets
`of the entities, the holding out by one entity that it is liable for the debts of the other, the use of one
`entity as a mere shell or conduit for the affairs of the other, inadequate capitalization, disregard of
`corporate formalities, and lack of segregation of corporate records. Id. “Total ownership and shared
`management personnel are alone insufficient to establish the requisite level of control.” Id. at 1073.
`Smith Micro fails to allege facts sufficient to make out a prima facie case that AGIS, Inc.
`and AGIS Software are alter egos. See generally Dkt. 1 (lacking any allegations relating to the
`elements required to demonstrate an alter ego relationship exists); see Williams v. Yamaha Motor
`Co., 851 F.3d 1015, 1022 (9th Cir. 2017) (affirming dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction
`because plaintiff “fail[ed] . . . to plead facts sufficient to make out a prima facie case that [the two
`entities] are ‘alter egos’”). Smith Micro fails to allege any facts sufficient to demonstrate the
`requisite “pervasive control” and “unity of interest” necessary to find an alter ego relationship, or
`show that a fraud or injustice would result if the entities were not treated as one. See, e.g., Ranza,
`793 F.3d at 1074 (affirming rejection of alter ego theory of personal jurisdiction, even though parent
`exercised control over subsidiary’s budget, established general human-resources policies for its
`subsidiary, was involved in some of its subsidiary’s hiring decisions, operated unified information-
`tracking systems that all of its subsidiaries used, ensured that its branded products were marketed
`consistently throughout the world, and required some subsidiary-company employees to report to
`parent-company employees). Thus, Smith Micro has failed to establish that AGIS, Inc. and AGIS
`Software are alter egos. See, e.g., Celgard, LLC v. SK Innovation Co., Ltd., 792 F.3d 1373, 1379
`(Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[Plaintiff] has not alleged facts sufficient to base jurisdiction on the acts of an
`alter ego.”).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT, MEMORANDUM, CASE NO. 5:21-cv-3677-BLF
`6
`
`
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03677-BLF Document 34 Filed 09/20/21 Page 11 of 20
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`Third, Smith Micro misrepresents the facts regarding AGIS, Inc.’s LifeRing product. AGIS
`Software does not make, use, sell, or offer for sale AGIS, Inc.’s LifeRing product. Cf. Dkt. 33 at 6;
`Declaration of Malcolm K. Beyer, Jr. in Support of AGIS Software Development LLC’s Reply to
`its Motion to Dismiss, ¶ 1. AGIS Software does not make the LifeRing software available for
`download on AGIS Software’s website. Id. ¶ 2. AGIS Software does not operate AGIS, Inc.’s
`website. Id. ¶ 3. Whether the LifeRing product is covered by one or more of the patents-in-suit is
`irrelevant to whether personal jurisdiction exists over AGIS Software in this declaratory judgment
`action. See Avocent, 552 F.3d at 1336 (“[A] defendant patentee’s mere acts of making, using,
`offering to sell, selling, or importing products—whether covered by the relevant patent(s) or not—
`do not, in the jurisdictional sense, relate in any material way to the patent right that is at the center
`of any declaratory judgment claim for non-infringement, invalidity, and/or unenforceability.”);
`Autogenomics, 556 F.3d at 1020 (“[O]nly enforcement or defense efforts related to the patent rather
`than the patentee’s own commercialization efforts are to be considered for establishing specific
`personal jurisdiction in a declaratory judgement action against the patentee.”); Bayer Healthcare
`LLC v. Nektar Therapeutics, 2018 WL 1258202, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2018) (“Federal Circuit
`precedent squarely states that efforts to commercialize a patent are not relevant contacts for the
`purposes of a specific jurisdiction analysis in the declaratory judgment context
`.
`.
`.
`commercialization efforts will not satisfy the second prong of the specific jurisdiction test.”).
`Moreover, Smith Micro cites to no case law to support its statement that “engag[ing] in the knowing
`and repeated transmission of computer files over the Internet” generally is sufficient to establish
`personal jurisdiction over an entity. Dkt. 33 at 9. Nonetheless, Smith Micro fails to detail what
`“computer files” have allegedly been transmitted over the Internet, who or where these recipients
`are located, or how this would satisfy the minimum contacts necessary to exercise personal
`jurisdiction over AGIS Software in this District. Accordingly, Smith Micro’s arguments fail.
`IV.
`THE PROPER VENUE FOR THIS ACTION IS THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
`TEXAS
`
`Smith Micro concedes that AGIS Software is a Texas limited liability company with its
`office and principal place of business in Marshall, Texas. See Dkt. 28-1, Beyer Decl. ¶¶ 8-9. Mr.
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT, MEMORANDUM, CASE NO. 5:21-cv-3677-BLF
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03677-BLF Document 34 Filed 09/20/21 Page 12 of 20
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`Beyer and Margaret Beyer, the corporate secretary of AGIS Software, are located in Jupiter, Florida,
`not in California. Dkt. 28-1 at ¶ 4. Mr. Beyer has submitted that AGIS Software was established
`in Texas “because of [his] previous successful business operations in Texas and because of [his]
`longstanding personal connections to Texas.” See Ex. 2, AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Lyft, Inc., No.
`2:21-cv-00072-JRG, Dkt. 64-2, Decl. of Malcolm K. Beyer Jr. in Support of Opposition to Lyft,
`Inc’s Motion to Dismiss (E.D. Tex. May 25, 2021); see also Ex. 3, AGIS Software Dev. LLC v.
`WhatsApp, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00072-JRG, Dkt. 82-2. AGIS Software maintains all documentary
`evidence in its office in Marshall, including its “patents, file histories, assignment records,
`prosecution records, formation documents, licenses, agreements, and corporate records.” Ex. 2, ¶
`8. While Smith Micro speculates that AGIS, Inc. has “no other ‘office’ in Texas,” to the contrary,
`AGIS, Inc. maintains its data center in Marshall, Texas, which “hosts servers, code, applications,
`and services necessary to run operations for AGIS Inc.’s LifeRing and ASSIST products and
`solutions.” Id. ¶ 9. In addition, Eric Armstrong, a programmer and software developer for AGIS,
`Inc. lives and works in Allen, Texas, within the Eastern District of Texas. Id. ¶ 13. David Sietsema,
`who has been employed by AGIS, Inc. since October 2005, is located in Austin, Texas. Id. ¶ 15.
`Smith Micro’s allegations that AGIS Software and AGIS, Inc. “do not conduct any meaningful
`business” from Texas are incorrect.
`Additionally, Mr. Beyer submits that AGIS Software is not (1) registered to do business in
`California; (2) does not have a registered agent in California; (3) does not have offices, employees,
`equipment, bank accounts, or other assets in California; (4) is not subject to and has never paid taxes
`in California; (5) does not manufacture and has never made any sales in California; (6) does not
`solicit or engage in business in California; (7) has not signed any contracts in California; (8) does
`not recruit employees in California; (9) does not own, lease, or rent any property in California; and
`(9) has never filed a lawsuit in California. Dkt. 28-1 ¶¶ 10-21.
`Smith Micro also argues that the “Truelove Law Firm acts as local counsel for AGIS
`Software,” and that AGIS Software’s Marshall office only lists the “Truelove Law Firm.” Dkt. 33
`at 11-12. However, AGIS Software’s office is located at 100 W. Houston Street, Marshall, Texas
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT, MEMORANDUM, CASE NO. 5:21-cv-3677-BLF
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03677-BLF Document 34 Filed 09/20/21 Page 13 of 20
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`75670. See Dkt. 28-1, Beyer Decl., ¶ 9. Moreover, while the Truelove Law Firm is AGIS Software’s
`local counsel with respect to the T-Mobile Texas Case, McKool Smith, P.C. is local counsel for
`AGIS Software with respect to Defendants Lyft, Inc., WhatsApp, LLC, and Uber Technologies,
`Inc., d/b/a Uber. See, e.g., AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., et al., No. 2:21-cv-
`00072-JRG, Dkts. 53, 54 (E.D. Tex. May 18, 2021).
`Moreover, Smith Micro Software, Inc. was previously registered to do business in Texas and
`had a registered agent located in Austin, Texas. See Ex. 4, Smith Micro Software, Inc. Texas Tax
`Account Status. Smith Micro’s own contacts with California appear to be the result of acquisition
`of other