Case 5:21-cv-03677-BLF Document 35 Filed 09/21/21 Page 1 of 17
`
`
`
`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 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 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,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`AND DOES 1 TO 10,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
` Case No. 5:21-cv-03677-BLF
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
`TRANSFER TO THE UNITED STATES
`DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN
`DISTRICT OF TEXAS PURSUANT TO 28
`U.S.C. § 1404(a
`
`Date: February 24, 2022
`Time: 9:00 a.m.
`Location: Courtroom 3
`
`[Declaration of Vincent J. Rubino, III and
`exhibit; and Proposed Order filed
`concurrently herewith]
`
`Hon. Beth Labson Freeman
`
`
`MOTION TO TRANSFER PURSUANT TO § 1404, CASE NO. 3:21-CV-03677-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 35 Filed 09/21/21 Page 2 of 17
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO TRANSFER
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, on February 24, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as
`
`the matter may be heard before The Honorable Beth Labson Freeman in the United States District
`
`Court for the Northern District of California in the Robert F. Peckham Federal Building & United
`
`States Courthouse, Courtroom 3, 5th Floor, 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, California 95113.
`
`Defendant AGIS Software Development LLC (“AGIS Software” or “Defendant”) will and hereby
`
`does move the Court to transfer venue to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
`
`Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1404(a).
`
`This motion is made on the grounds that the Eastern District of Texas could exercise personal
`
`jurisdiction over AGIS Software and venue would be proper there pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391
`
`and 1400(b). 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 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, no lawsuit has ever been filed by AGIS Software in California for any
`
`reason. The Eastern District of Texas has subject matter jurisdiction over Smith Micro’s declaratory
`
`judgment claims relating to patent infringement under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), 2201, and 2202.
`
`The balance of the private factors favors transfer. First, Plaintiff’s choice of forum should
`
`be accorded no weight as the first-to-file rule favors transfer. Second, litigation in California is
`
`inconvenient for AGIS Software, which is a limited liability company established and existing under
`
`the laws of Texas, with its principal place of business in Texas, and transferring this case to the
`
`Eastern District of Texas, is much more convenient for AGIS Software and its witnesses. Third, the
`
`relative ease of access to sources of proof weighs in favor of transfer, where AGIS Software
`
`maintains its documentary evidence in its Marshall, Texas office. Fourth, the Eastern District of
`
`
`
`MOTION TO TRANSFER PURSUANT TO § 1404, CASE NO. 3:21-CV-03677-BLF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03677-BLF Document 35 Filed 09/21/21 Page 3 of 17
`
`
`
`Texas is already familiar with the subject matter and issues and could consolidate the case with other
`
`related cases, particularly where Smith Micro has already moved to intervene in the AGIS Software
`
`Development LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al. Case.
`
`The public interest factors strongly favor transferring this case to the Eastern District of
`
`Texas. A transfer will save judicial resources as Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap is already familiar
`
`with the technical issues, and transfer would also protect against inconsistent rulings. Judge Gilstrap
`
`has already issued two claim construction orders for some of the same patents at issue in this case.
`
`There is also no dispute that Texas has a substantial local interest in adjudicating this dispute against
`
`AGIS Software, one of its residents. Lastly, the administrative difficulties flowing from court
`
`congestion favors the Eastern District of Texas, where time from filing to trial in the Eastern District
`
`of Texas is less than this District.
`
`This motion is based upon this notice of motion, the accompanying memorandum of points
`
`and authorities, the accompanying declaration and exhibits, the pleadings and papers filed herein,
`
`as well as any other and further matters, papers, and arguments as may be presented before the Court
`
`prior to or at the time of the hearing.
`
`DATED: September 21, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`By: /s/ Benjamin T. Wang
`
` Benjamin T. Wang
`
`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 Ave., Suite 206 South
`Rye, New York 10580
`Telephone: (212) 257-5797
`Facsimile: (212) 257-5796
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`AGIS Software Development LLC
`
`
`MOTION TO TRANSFER PURSUANT TO § 1404, CASE NO. 3:21-CV-03677-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 35 Filed 09/21/21 Page 4 of 17
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 2
`
`A. The Parties ............................................................................................................................. 2
`B. Chief Judge Gilstrap’s Experience with the Patents-in-Suit ................................................. 3
`
`LEGAL STANDARD .......................................................................................................... 4
`III.
`IV.
`THIS CASE SHOULD BE TRANSFERRED TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
`COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS ............................................................ 5
`
`A. This Action Could Have Been Brought in the Eastern District of Texas.............................. 5
`B. This Action Should Be Transferred to the Eastern District of Texas .................................... 5
`
`1. Transfer Saves Judicial Resources and Protects Against Inconsistent Rulings ................ 5
`2. Plaintiff’s Choice of Forum Should be Accorded No Weight .......................................... 7
`3. Convenience of the Parties and Witnesses Weighs in Favor of Transfer ......................... 8
`4. The Relative Ease of Access to Sources of Proof ............................................................. 9
`5. The Remaining Public and Private Interest Factors Also Favor Transfer ....................... 10
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 10
`
`
` i
`MOTION TO TRANSFER PURSUANT TO § 1404, CASE NO. 3:21-CV-03677-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 35 Filed 09/21/21 Page 5 of 17
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`Aerielle, Inc. v. Monster Cable Prods., Inc.,
`No. 2:06-cv-382 (TJW), 2007 WL 951639 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 26, 2007) ........................................ 9
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`Case No. 2:21-cv-72 (E.D. Tex.).......................................................................................... passim
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. ZTE Corp. et al.,
`Case No. 2:17-cv-517 (E.D. Tex.)................................................................................................. 3
`Aloft Media, LLC v. Adobe Sys. Inc.,
`No. 6:07-cv-355, 2008 WL 819956 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2008) ................................................... 9
`Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Savage,
`611 F.2d 270 (9th Cir. 1979) ......................................................................................................... 6
`Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Kempthorne,
`No. C 08-1339 CW, 2008 WL 4543043 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2008) .............................................. 5
`Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co.,
`805 F.2d 834 (9th Cir. 1986) ..................................................................................................... 4, 5
`Fitbit, Inc. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V.,
`336 F.R.D. 574 (N.D. Cal. 2020) .............................................................................................. 5, 8
`Futurewei Techs., Inc. v. Acacia Research Corp.,
`737 F.3d 704 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ....................................................................................................... 8
`Hansell v. TracFone Wireless Inc.,
`No. C-13-3440-EMC, 2013 WL 6155618 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2013) ........................................ 10
`Los Angeles Mem’l Coliseum Comm'n v. Nat’l Football League,
`89 F.R.D. 497 (C.D. Cal. 1981) .................................................................................................... 9
`Monarch Networking Solutions LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`No. 2:20-Cv-00015-JRG (E.D. Tex. Jan. 15, 2021) .................................................................... 10
`National Judicial Caseload Profile,
`ADMIN. OFFICE OF U.S. CTS. (Sept. 30, 2020) ..................................................................... 10
`Regents of Univ. of al. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`119 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ..................................................................................................... 5
`Reiffen v. Microsoft,
`104 F. Supp. 2d 48 (D.D.C. 2000) ................................................................................................ 6
`Saleh v. Titan Corp.,
`361 F. Supp. 2d 1152 (S.D. Cal. 2005) ......................................................................................... 9
`Seven Networks v. Google LLC,
`No. 2:17-cv-00442-JRG, 2018 WL 4026760 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 14, 2018) ................................... 11
`Tafolla v. City of Tustin,
`885 F.2d 1473 (9th Cir. 1989) ..................................................................................................... 10
`TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC,
`137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017) .................................................................................................................. 7
`Van Dusen v. Barrack,
`376 U.S. 612 (1964) ...................................................................................................................... 4
`Ventress v. Japan Airlines,
`486 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir. 2007) ....................................................................................................... 5
`Vu v. Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc.,
`602 F. Supp. 2d 1151 (N.D. Cal. 2009)......................................................................................... 7
`Statutes
`28 U.S.C. § 1331 ........................................................................................................................... 2, 5
`28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) ....................................................................................................................... 2, 5
`28 U.S.C. § 1391 ........................................................................................................................... 2, 5
`28 U.S.C. § 1400(b)....................................................................................................................... 2, 5
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) ................................................................................................................... 1, 4, 5
`28 U.S.C. § 2201 ........................................................................................................................... 2, 5
`28 U.S.C. § 2202 ........................................................................................................................... 2, 5
` ii
`
`
`MOTION TO TRANSFER PURSUANT TO § 1404, CASE NO. 3:21-CV-03677-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 35 Filed 09/21/21 Page 6 of 17
`
`
`
`1
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`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
`
`
`
`Defendant AGIS Software Development LLC (“AGIS Software”) moves to transfer this
`
`action under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to the Eastern District of Texas (“E.D. Tex.”). This declaratory
`
`judgment action brought by Plaintiffs Smith Micro Software, Inc. and Smith Micro Software, LLC
`
`(“Smith Micro”) is duplicative of an action in E.D. Tex. filed by AGIS Software against T-Mobile
`
`USA, Inc. and T-Mobile US, Inc. (collectively, “T-Mobile”) for infringement of the same Patents-
`
`in-Suit at issue here, and which was filed months before Smith Micro’s Complaint in this action.
`
`See AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-72 (E.D. Tex.) (“T-Mobile
`
`Texas case”), Dkt. 1 (Texas Complaint filed Mar. 3, 2021). The accused products there include the
`
`Family Mode, FamilyWhere, and Fleet Management Solutions applications, servers, and systems.
`
`Smith Micro alleges that it manufactures the Family Mode and FamilyWhere applications and
`
`products distributed by T-Mobile and has even filed a Motion to Intervene in the T-Mobile Texas
`
`case. See T-Mobile Texas case, Dkt. 114. The parties in the T-Mobile Texas case have already begun
`
`claim construction, exchanged proposals of terms for construction, served expert declarations in
`
`support of claim construction, and served discovery. See e.g., T-Mobile Texas case, Dkts. 91-94,
`
`Dkts. 102-103, and Dkt. 124. The Eastern District of Texas’s familiarity with the subject matter and
`
`issues also extends to six earlier-filed cases involving four or more of the same Patents-in-Suit,1 and
`
`previously handled four other cases filed in 2017 that were litigated all the way to the pre-trial
`
`conferences involving four of the Patents-in-Suit here. Accordingly, transferring this case to E.D.
`
`Tex. will conserve judicial resources and avoid parallel litigation. Transfer will also significantly
`
`
`
`1 See AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Google LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-361 (E.D. Tex.); AGIS Software
`
`Dev. LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-361 (E.D. Tex.); and AGIS Software
`
`Dev. LLC v. Waze Mobile Limited, Case No. 2:19-cv-359 (E.D. Tex.) (collectively, “AGIS II
`
`Cases”). See AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-72 (E.D. Tex.);
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Uber, Case No. 2:21-cv-26 (E.D. Tex.);
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. 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.) (collectively, “AGIS III Cases”).
`
`MOTION TO TRANSFER PURSUANT TO §1404, CASE NO. 3:21-CV-03677-BLF
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03677-BLF Document 35 Filed 09/21/21 Page 7 of 17
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`improve the convenience of parties and witnesses, and is in the interests of justice. Nor can Smith
`
`Micro credibly object to trial in Texas since it filed a motion to intervene in the T-Mobile Texas
`
`case. AGIS Software has not opposed Smith Micro’s request to intervene.
`
`4
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`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 a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the
`
`state of Texas, with a principal place of business at 100 W. Houston Street, Marshall, Texas 75670.
`
`Dkt. 28-1 at 1. AGIS Software has been doing business in Marshall, Texas since its formation in
`
`2017. T-Mobile Texas case Dkt. 82 at 3. AGIS Software has a data center in E.D. Tex., located at
`
`1005 Stuart Lane, Marshall, Texas 75672. Id. In contrast, 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. Dkt. 28-1 at 2.
`
`Further, no lawsuit has ever been filed by AGIS Software in California for any reason. Id.
`
`AGIS Software is the sole owner of all right, title, and interest in and to U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`9,408,055 (the “’055 Patent”); 9,445,251 (the “’251 Patent”); 9,467,838 (the “’838 Patent”);
`
`9,749,829 (the “’829 Patent”); 7,630,724 (the “724 Patent”); and 7,031,728 (the “’728 Patent”)
`
`(collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”). Dkt. 28-1 at 1.
`
`AGIS Software’s Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Malcolm K. Beyer, Jr., resides in Florida. Id.
`
`In 2004, Mr. Beyer founded Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc. (“AGIS, Inc.”). Id. In
`
`2013, AGIS, Inc. began a corporate restructuring plan for business growth purposes. Id. By 2017,
`
`AGIS, Inc.’s board of directors approved the restructuring plan which resulted in the formation of a
`
`parent corporation, AGIS Holdings, Inc. (“AGIS Holdings”). Id. AGIS Holdings consists of two
`
`subsidiaries: AGIS, Inc. and AGIS Software Development LLC. Id.
`
`Smith Micro Software, Inc. is a foreign corporation existing under the laws of Delaware with
`
`
`
`
`its principal place of business located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Dkt. 1 at 2. Smith Micro
`
`MOTION TO TRANSFER PURSUANT TO §1404, CASE NO. 3:21-CV-03677-BLF
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03677-BLF Document 35 Filed 09/21/21 Page 8 of 17
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Software, LLC is a limited liability company existing under the laws of Delaware that is wholly
`
`owned by Smith Micro Software, Inc. Id. Smith Micro alleges that it manufactures the Family Mode
`
`and FamilyWhere applications and products distributed by T-Mobile, which are the same accused
`
`products at issue in the T-Mobile Texas case. Dkt. 28 at 12.
`
`B. Chief Judge Gilstrap’s Experience with the Patents-in-Suit
`
`The Patents-in-Suit (except for the ’724 and ’728 Patents) have prior litigation history in the
`
`E.D. Tex., and specifically before Chief Judge Gilstrap. In 2017, AGIS Software filed five patent
`
`infringement actions in E.D. Tex., four of which were litigated before Judge Gilstrap from filing
`
`through pre-trial conferences. See AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Apple, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-516 (E.D.
`
`Tex.); AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. HTC Corp., No. 2:17-cv-514 (E.D. Tex.); AGIS Software Dev.
`
`LLC v. Huawei Device USA Inc., No. 2:17-cv-513 (E.D. Tex.); AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. ZTE
`
`Corp. et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-517 (E.D. Tex.) (“ZTE”) 2; and AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. LG Elecs.,
`
`Inc., No. 2:17-cv-515, (E.D. Tex.) (collectively, “AGIS I Cases”). AGIS Software reached
`
`settlements in the AGIS I cases just before the completion of the pre-trial conferences for each
`
`respective defendant. In 2019, AGIS Software filed three additional patent infringement actions
`
`involving the same Patents-in-Suit3 in the E.D. Tex., covering the same underlying technology, and
`
`substantially identical claims. See AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2:19-cv-361, 2020
`
`
`
`2 Judge Gilstrap denied motions to dismiss and/or transfer in each of the 2017 AGIS Cases, except
`
`in ZTE. See AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. HTC Corp., No. 2:17-CV-00514-JRG, 2018 WL 4680558
`
`(E.D. Tex. Sept. 28, 2018); AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. HTC Corp., No. 2:17-CV-00514-JRG, 2018
`
`WL 4680557 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 28, 2018); AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Apple, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-
`
`00516-JRG, 2018 WL 2721826 (E.D. Tex. June 6, 2018); AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Huawei
`
`Device USA Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00513-JRG, 2018 WL 2329752 (E.D. Tex. May 23, 2018); see also
`
`AGIS Software Dev., LLC v. ZTE Corp., No. 2:17-CV-00517-JRG, 2018 WL 4854023 (E.D. Tex.
`
`Sept. 28, 2018). Before transfer of ZTE, AGIS filed a Notice of Dismissal. See ZTE, Dkt. 85.
`
`3 While the AGIS I Cases included the ’055, ’251, ’838, and ’829 Patents, they also included the
`
`
`
`
`’970 Patent and U.S. Patent No. 9,820,123, which are not asserted here.
`
`MOTION TO TRANSFER PURSUANT TO §1404, CASE NO. 3:21-CV-03677-BLF
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03677-BLF Document 35 Filed 09/21/21 Page 9 of 17
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`U.S. Dist. LEXIS 229863 (E.D. Tex.); AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 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.) (collectively, “AGIS II Cases”). In 2021, AGIS Software filed another four
`
`infringement actions, including the action against T-Mobile, involving the same Patents-in-Suit, the
`
`same underlying technology, and substantially identical claims. See AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. T-
`
`Mobile USA, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-72 (E.D. Tex.); AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Uber Technologies,
`
`Inc., 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.)
`
`(collectively, “AGIS III Cases”). The AGIS II and AGIS III Cases remain pending in the E.D. Tex.
`
`On April 27, 2021, T-Mobile filed a motion to dismiss, alleging ineligible subject matter and
`
`inadequate pleading in the E.D. Tex. T-Mobile Texas case, Dkt. 46. Smith Micro has filed a Motion
`
`to Intervene in the T-Mobile Texas case. See T-Mobile Texas case, Dkt. 114.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may
`
`transfer any action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1404(a). The purpose is “to prevent the waste of time, energy, and money and to protect litigants,
`
`witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and expense.” Van Dusen v. Barrack,
`
`376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964) (internal citation omitted). The district court must consider both public
`
`factors, which go to the interests of justice, and private factors, which go to the convenience of the
`
`parties and witnesses. Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir.
`
`1986). The public-interest factors include (a) relative degrees of court congestion, (b) local interest
`
`in deciding local controversies, (c) potential conflicts of laws, and (d) burdening citizens of an
`
`unrelated forum with jury duty. Id. at 843.
`
`Courts in the Northern District of California commonly examine the following factors to
`
`determine convenience and fairness under § 1404(a) (some of which overlap with Decker): (1) the
`
`plaintiff's choice of forum, (2) the convenience of the parties, (3) the convenience of the witnesses,
`
`(4) the ease of access to the evidence, (5) the familiarity of each forum with the applicable law, (6)
`
`the feasibility of consolidation with other claims, (7) any local interest in the controversy, and (8)
`
`
`
`
`MOTION TO TRANSFER PURSUANT TO §1404, CASE NO. 3:21-CV-03677-BLF
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03677-BLF Document 35 Filed 09/21/21 Page 10 of 17
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`the relative court congestion and time to trial in each forum. Fitbit, Inc. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V.,
`
`336 F.R.D. 574, 580 (N.D. Cal. 2020). Courts may examine all these factors, but “[n]o single factor
`
`is dispositive.” Id at 580 (citing Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Kempthorne, No. C 08-1339 CW,
`
`2008 WL 4543043, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2008)). The weighing of the factors for and against
`
`transfer is best left to the discretion of the trial judge. Id. at 580 (citing Ventress v. Japan Airlines,
`
`486 F.3d 1111, 1118 (9th Cir. 2007)).
`
`IV.
`
`THIS CASE SHOULD BE TRANSFERRED TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
`COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`A. This Action Could Have Been Brought in the Eastern District of Texas
`
`It is undisputed that AGIS Software is a Texas corporation headquartered in Marshall, Texas.
`
`T-Mobile Texas case Dkt. 1 at 1. Thus, the E.D. Tex. could have properly exercised personal
`
`jurisdiction over AGIS Software and venue would have been proper there pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
`
`1391 and 1400(b); see supra § II. A. The E.D. Tex. has subject matter jurisdiction over Smith
`
`Micro’s declaratory judgment claims relating to patent infringement under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,
`
`1338(a), 2201, and 2202. Therefore, this action could have properly been brought in the E.D. Tex.
`
`B. This Action Should Be Transferred to the Eastern District of Texas
`
`The judicial resources, court congestion, and local interest public factors, and the Plaintiff’s
`
`choice of forum, convenience, access to proof, and feasibility of consolidation private factors
`
`strongly favor transferring this case to the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`1.
`
`Transfer Saves Judicial Resources and Protects Against Inconsistent
`Rulings
`
`In a highly technical case such as this, the judge’s familiarity of the issues can be decisive.
`
`See Regents of Univ. of al. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In Regents, the
`
`plaintiff brought suit against Lilly in the Northern District of California for infringement of its patent
`
`covering recombinant DNA technology. Id. at 1562. The case was consolidated for discovery
`
`purposes with four other cases in the Southern District of Indiana pursuant to multi-district litigation
`
`procedures. Id. at 1563. The Federal Circuit, in upholding the Indiana court’s decision to transfer
`
`venue to itself for trial after discovery was complete, provided that where “several highly technical
`
`
`
`
`factual issues are presented and the other relevant factors are in equipoise, the interest of judicial
`
`MOTION TO TRANSFER PURSUANT TO §1404, CASE NO. 3:21-CV-03677-BLF
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03677-BLF Document 35 Filed 09/21/21 Page 11 of 17
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`economy may favor transfer to a court that has become familiar with the issues.” Id. at 1565 (citing
`
`Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Savage, 611 F.2d 270, 279 (9th Cir. 1979)); see also Reiffen
`
`v. Microsoft, 104 F. Supp. 2d 48, 55 (D.D.C. 2000) (transferring because N.D. Cal. had already
`
`become familiar with the issues).
`
`Likewise, Chief Judge Gilstrap has already expended a substantial amount of time and effort
`
`in becoming familiar with issues relating to the Patents-in-Suit. The AGIS I cases—involving all of
`
`the Patents-in-Suit except the ’724 and ’728 Patents—proceeded before Chief Judge Gilstrap from
`
`filing through just before the pre-trial conferences. Moreover, there are seven other cases (i.e., the
`
`AGIS II and AGIS III cases) still currently pending before Chief Judge Gilstrap involving one or
`
`more of the Patents-In-Suit, and the three AGIS II cases have been pending since 2019. The AGIS
`
`III cases involve the identical Patents-in-Suit at issue here, and the AGIS II cases involve all the
`
`Patents-in-Suit except the ’724 and ’728 Patents. Both AGIS Software and the defendants in each
`
`of the AGIS I and II cases prepared and submitted tutorials and other submissions on the technology
`
`disclosed in the patents. Rubino Decl. ¶ 2, 5. Chief Judge Gilstrap is familiar with the technology,
`
`the detailed disclosures and claim terms for the Patents-in-Suit, the file histories for the Patents-in-
`
`Suit, various expert opinions on the technology and interpretation of various claim terms, and the
`
`parties’ arguments on various issues. And Chief Judge Gilstrap has issued various rulings on issues
`
`relevant to this case, including Markman decisions in the AGIS I and II cases. See AGIS Software
`
`Dev. LLC v. Huawei Device USA, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-00513-JRG, Dkt. 205 (E.D. Tex.
`
`Oct. 10, 2018) (Markman Order for the AGIS I cases on disputed terms for all of the patents at issue
`
`here, and construing the meaning of 18 claim terms over 60 pages); AGIS Software Dev. LLC v.
`
`Google LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-361-JRG, Dkt. 147 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 8, 2020), Dkt. 147 (Markman
`
`Order for the AGIS II cases on disputed terms for four of the patents at issue here, and construing
`
`the meaning of 19 claim terms over 99 pages). Given the overlap of the Patents-in-Suit with the
`
`AGIS I, II and III cases, Chief Judge Gilstrap would likely hear this case if transferred to the E.D.
`
`Tex. See E.D. Tex. Local Rules CV-42(a-c) (requiring counsel to notify court of cases with related
`
`subject matter and allowing consolidation of related cases.). It would be a duplication of effort for
`
`
`
`
`this Court to invest the time and energy to familiarize itself with the relevant technology when Chief
`
`MOTION TO TRANSFER PURSUANT TO §1404, CASE NO. 3:21-CV-03677-BLF
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-03677-BLF Document 35 Filed 09/21/21 Page 12 of 17
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Judge Gilstrap has already done so and where transfer would avoid inconsistent rulings. It would
`
`also cause unnecessary delay and expense for this Court to familiarize itself with the technology
`
`when significant resources have already been spent doing so in the E.D. Tex. Further, since the
`
`defendants in the AGIS II and III cases are also challenging the validity of the same Patents-in-Suit
`
`at issue here, judicial resources will be conserved by not having multiple judges reviewing the
`
`numerous prior art references submitted by defendants, and would avoid inconsistent decisions on
`
`validity. Other various issues are likely to overlap as well, including issues relating to the scope of
`
`the patents, infringement, priority, ownership and inventorship, damages, and various defenses.
`
`Accordingly, it would serve the interests of justice to transfer this case to the E.D. Tex. to save
`
`judicial resources and avoid duplicative, and potentially inconsistent, rulings.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff’s Choice of Forum Should be Accorded No Weight
`
`Smith Micro’s choice of forum should be disregarded in this instance. First, both Plaintiffs