1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 5:23-cv-03624-BLF Document 44 Filed 11/27/23 Page 1 of 35
`
`
`
`Alfred R. Fabricant (pro hac vice)
`ffabricant@fabricantllp.com
`Peter Lambrianakos (pro hac vice)
`plambrianakos@fabricantllp.com
`Vincent J. Rubino, III (pro hac vice)
`vrubino@fabricantllp.com
`Enrique Iturralde (pro hac vice)
`eiturralde@fabricantllp.com
`FABRICANT LLP
`411 Theodore Fremd Ave., Suite 206 South
`Rye, New York 10580
`Telephone: (212) 257-5797
`
`Facsimile: (212) 257-5796
`Benjamin T. Wang (CA SBN 228712)
`bwang@raklaw.com
`Minna Y. Chan (CA SBN 305941)
`mchan@raklaw.com
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90025
`Telephone: (310) 826-7474
`Facsimile: (310) 826-9226
`Attorneys for Defendants AGIS Holdings, Inc.,
`Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc.,
`and AGIS Software Development LLC
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`
`
` Date: March 21, 2024
`
`Time: 9:00 a.m.
`Defendants.
`Location: Courtroom 3
`
`[Declaration of Malcolm K. Beyer, Jr; and
`Proposed Order filed concurrently herewith]
`
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO TRANSFER TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
`TEXAS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, Case No. 5:23-cv-03624-BLF
`
`
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`AGIS HOLDINGS, INC., ADVANCED
`GROUND INFORMATION SYSTEMS,
`INC., AND AGIS SOFTWARE
`DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`Case No. 5:23-cv-03624-BLF
`
`Hon. Judge Beth L. Freeman
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
`DISMISS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
`TO TRANSFER TO THE EASTERN
`DISTRICT OF TEXAS; MEMORANDUM
`OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 5:23-cv-03624-BLF Document 44 Filed 11/27/23 Page 2 of 35
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`Page
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS ........................................................................ 1
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES TO BE DECIDED ........................................................................... 1
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ....................................................................... 2
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 2
`II.
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................................... 3
`A.
`The Parties ............................................................................................................ 3
`B.
`Prior Enforcement Actions ................................................................................... 4
`LEGAL STANDARDS .................................................................................................... 5
`A.
`Dismissal for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction ......................................................... 5
`B.
`Inequitable Conduct .............................................................................................. 7
`C.
`Kessler Doctrine and Claim Preclusion ................................................................ 8
`D.
`Unclean Hands ...................................................................................................... 8
`E.
`Transfer ................................................................................................................. 9
`PERSONAL JURISDICTION DOES NOT EXIST OVER DEFENDANTS IN
`CALIFORNIA .................................................................................................................. 9
`A.
`Specific Jurisdiction Does Not Exist Over Each Defendant in California ......... 10
`COUNT III SHOULD BE DISMISSED BECAUSE IT FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM
`UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED AS GOOGLE CANNOT RELY ON A
`PRIOR DISMISSAL OF ORIGINAL PRE-REEXAMINATION CLAIMS AS
`PRECLUSIVE OF FUTURE INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS CONCERNING POST-
`REEXAMINATION CLAIMS ....................................................................................... 16
`COUNT IV SHOULD BE DISMISSED BECAUSE IT FAILS TO MEET THE
`HEIGHTENED PLEADING STANDARD FOR INEQUITABLE CONDUCT .......... 17
`VII. COUNT V SHOULD BE DISMISSED BECAUSE GOOGLE HAS NOT
`SUFFICIENTLY PLED UNCONSIONABLE CONDUCT BY AGIS OR ITS
`ATTORNEYS ................................................................................................................. 19
`IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THIS ACTION SHOULD BE TRANSFERRED TO THE
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`......................................................................................................................................... 21
`A.
`This Action Could Have Been Brought in the Eastern District of Texas ........... 21
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO TRANSFER TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
`TEXAS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, Case No. 5:23-cv-03624-BLF
`
`
`
`VI.
`
`VIII.
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 5:23-cv-03624-BLF Document 44 Filed 11/27/23 Page 3 of 35
`
`This Action Should Be Transferred to the Eastern District of Texas ................. 22
`B.
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 25
`
`IX.
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO TRANSFER TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
`TEXAS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, Case No. 5:23-cv-03624-BLF
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 5:23-cv-03624-BLF Document 44 Filed 11/27/23 Page 4 of 35
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Advanced Ground Info. Sys., Inc. v. Life360, Inc.,
`830 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)......................................................................................1, 18, 19
`
`Aerielle, Inc. v. Monster Cable Prods., Inc.,
`No. 2:06-cv-382 (TJW), 2007 WL 951639 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 26, 2007) ...................................24
`
`AFTG-TG, LLC v. Nuvoton Tech. Corp.,
`689 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................6
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 2:17-cv-516 (E.D. Tex.) ......................................................................................................4
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Google LLC,
`Case No. 22-cv-04826-BLF (N.D. Cal.) ..................................................................................23
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Google LLC,
`No. 2:19-cv-361 (E.D. Tex.) ......................................................................................................4
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Google LLC,
`No. 5:22-cv-04826-BLF (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. 437 .................................................................16, 17
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. HTC Corp.,
`No. 2:17-cv-514 (E.D. Tex.) ......................................................................................................4
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Huawei Device USA Inc.,
`No. 2:17-cv-513 (E.D. Tex.) ......................................................................................................4
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`No. 2:17-cv-515 (E.D. Tex.) ......................................................................................................4
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Lyft, Inc.,
`Case No. 2:21-cv-24 (E.D. Tex.) ...................................................................................5, 12, 15
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al.,
`No. 2:22-cv-263 (E.D. Tex.) ............................................................................................2, 5, 22
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`No. 2:21-cv-72 (E.D. Tex.) ........................................................................................................5
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc.,
`No. 2:21-cv-26 (E.D. Tex.) ........................................................................................................5
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO TRANSFER TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
`TEXAS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, Case No. 5:23-cv-03624-BLF
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 5:23-cv-03624-BLF Document 44 Filed 11/27/23 Page 5 of 35
`
`
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Waze Mobile Limited,
`No. 2:19-cv-359 (E.D. Tex.) ......................................................................................................4
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. WhatsApp, Inc.,
`No. 2:21-cv-29 (E.D. Tex.) ........................................................................................................5
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. ZTE Corp. et al.,
`Case No. 2:17-cv-517 (E.D. Tex.) .......................................................................................4, 15
`
`Allphin v. Peter K. Fitness, LLC,
`2014 WL 6997653 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2014) .........................................................................15
`
`Aloft Media, LLC v. Adobe Sys. Inc.,
`No. 6:07-cv-355, 2008 WL 819956 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2008) ..............................................24
`
`Amba Mktg. Sys., Inc. v. Jobar Int’l, Inc.,
`551 F.2d 784 (9th Cir. 1977) .....................................................................................................6
`
`Ameranth, Inc. v. Menusoft Sys. Corp.,
`No. 2:07-CV-271-TJW-CE, 2010 WL 11530949 (E.D. Tex. June 18, 2010) ...........................7
`
`Aptix Corp. v. Quickturn Design Sys., Inc.,
`269 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................21
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .................................................................................................................20
`
`Autogenomics, Inc. v. Oxford Gene Tech. Ltd.,
`566 F.3d 1012 (Fed. Cir. 2009)......................................................................................6, 10, 12
`
`Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Aten Int’l Co.,
`552 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................5, 6, 11, 13
`
`Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) .................................................................................................................20
`
`Breckenridge Pharm., Inc. v. Metabolite Labs., Inc.,
`444 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................10
`
`Brian Life, LLC v. Elekta Inc.,
`746 F.3d 1045 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................8
`
`Celgard, LLC v. SK Innovation Co.,
`792 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..........................................................................................14, 16
`
`Certainteed Gypsum, Inc. v. Pacific Coast Bldg. Prod., Inc.,
`No. 19-CV-00802-LHK, 2021 WL 1405477 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2021) ................................18
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO TRANSFER TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
`TEXAS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, Case No. 5:23-cv-03624-BLF
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 5:23-cv-03624-BLF Document 44 Filed 11/27/23 Page 6 of 35
`
`
`
`CommVault Sys., Inc. v. PB&J Software,
`LLC, 2013 WL 3242251 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2013) ...............................................................13
`
`Ctr. For Biological Diversity v. Kempthorne,
`No. C 08-1339 CW, 2008 WL 4543043 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2008) ..........................................9
`
`Data Disc, Inc. v. Systems Tech. Assocs. Inc.,
`557 F.2d 1280 (9th Cir. 1977) ...................................................................................................7
`
`Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co.,
`805 F.2d 834 (9th Cir. 1986) .....................................................................................................9
`
`DocuSign, Inc. v. Clark,
`2022 WL 225623 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2022) ......................................................................11, 12
`
`Elecs. For Imaging, Inc. v. Coyle,
`340 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1111 (2004) ........................................6
`
`Eon Corp. IP Hldgs., LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
`No. 6:10-CV-379-LED-JDL, 2011 WL 13134896 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 13, 2011) ...................7, 19
`
`Erfindergemeinschaft UroPep GbR v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`No. 2:15-CV-1202-WCB, 2017 WL 275465 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 20, 2017) .................................21
`
`Exergen Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
`575 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2009)........................................................................................7, 8, 18
`
`Fitbit, Inc. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V.,
`336 F.R.D. 574 (N.D. Cal. 2020) .........................................................................................9, 23
`
`Gaudioso v. Mellon,
`269 F.2d 873 (3d Cir. 1959).....................................................................................................21
`
`Goodyear Dunlop Tires Ops., S.A. v. Brown,
`131 S. Ct. 2846 (2011) ...............................................................................................................6
`
`Hansell v. TracFone Wireless Inc.,
`No. C-13-3440-EMC, 2013 WL 6155618 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2013) ....................................24
`
`Hildebrand v. Steck Mfg. Co.,
`279 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................................13
`
`iFLY Holdings LLC v. Indoor Skydiving Germany GmbH,
`No. 2:14- CV-1080-JRG-RSP, 2016 WL 3675136 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2016) ....................8, 9
`
`Kyocera Int’l, Inc. v. Semcon IP, Inc.,
`No. 3:18-CV-1575-CAB-MDD, 2018 WL 51112056 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2018) ..............11, 12
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO TRANSFER TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
`TEXAS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, Case No. 5:23-cv-03624-BLF
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 5:23-cv-03624-BLF Document 44 Filed 11/27/23 Page 7 of 35
`
`
`
`Los Angeles Mem’l Coliseum Comm'n v. Nat’l Football League,
`89 F.R.D. 497 (C.D. Cal. 1981) ...............................................................................................23
`
`Lyft, Inc. v. AGIS Software Dev. LLC,
`Case No. 21-CV-04653-BLF, 2022 WL 267409 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2022) .................5, 12, 15
`
`Monarch Networking Solutions LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`No. 2:20-Cv-00015-JRG ..........................................................................................................25
`
`NuCal Foods, Inc. v. Quality Egg LLC,
`887 F. Supp. 2d 977 (E.D. Cal. 2012)........................................................................................7
`
`P.I.C. Int’l Inc. v. Miflex 2 SpA,
`No. 3:17-CV-0556-CAB-WVG, 2017 WL 3583122 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2017) ......................5
`
`In re PersonalWeb Techs. LLC,
`961 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................................................................................................17
`
`Radio Sys. Corp. v. Accession, Inc.,
`638 F.3d 785 (Fed. Cir. 2011)............................................................................................10, 11
`
`Ranza v. Nike,
`793 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2015) ...........................................................................................14, 15
`
`Red Wing Shoe Co. v. Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc.,
`148 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)................................................................................................13
`
`Regents of Univ. of al. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`119 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1997)................................................................................................22
`
`Reynolds v. Binance Holdings Ltd.,
`481 F. Supp. 3d 997 (N.D. Cal. 2020) .....................................................................................15
`
`Saleh v. Titan Corp.,
`361 F. Supp. 2d 1152 (S.D. Cal. 2005) ....................................................................................23
`
`Seven Networks v. Google LLC,
`No. 2:17-cv-00442-JRG, 2018 WL 4026760 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 14, 2018) ...............................25
`
`SimpleAir, Inc. v. Google LLC,
`884 F.3d 1160 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................8
`
`SpeedTrack, Inc. v. Off Depot, Inc.,
`791 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..................................................................................................8
`
`Stewart v. Screen Gems- EMI Music, Inc.,
`81 F. Supp. 3d 938 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .................................................................................14, 15
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO TRANSFER TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
`TEXAS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, Case No. 5:23-cv-03624-BLF
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 5:23-cv-03624-BLF Document 44 Filed 11/27/23 Page 8 of 35
`
`
`
`Tafolla v. City of Tustin,
`885 F.2d 1473 (9th Cir. 1989) .................................................................................................25
`
`Target Training Int’l, Ltd. v. Extended Disc N Am., Inc.,
`645 Fed. App'x. 1018 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..............................................................................16, 17
`
`TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC,
`581 U.S. 258 (2017) .................................................................................................................22
`
`Therasense, Inc. v. Becton Dickson & Co.,
`649 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (en banc) ...........................................................................8, 18
`
`Trimble Inc. v. PerDiemCo LLC,
`997 F.3d 1147 (Fed. Cir. 2021)..........................................................................................11, 12
`
`Van Dusen v. Barrack,
`376 U.S. 612 (1964) ...................................................................................................................9
`
`Walden v. Fiore,
`571 U.S. 277 (2014) ...................................................................................................................6
`
`Xilinx, Inc. v. Invention Inv. Fund I LP,
`No. C 11-0671 SI, 2011 WL 3206686 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2011) .......................................5, 13
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), 2201, and 2202 .................................................................................22
`
`28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b) .....................................................................................................22
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) .....................................................................................................................2, 9
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.555 ...........................................................................................................................18
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(l)(B) .............................................................................................................17
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2)....................................................................................................................5
`
`Rule 8 ...............................................................................................................................................7
`
`Rule 9(b) ................................................................................................................................3, 7, 18
`
`Rule 12(b)(6) ......................................................................................................................16, 18, 20
`
`Rule 12(c) ...........................................................................................................................16, 18, 20
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO TRANSFER TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
`TEXAS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES, Case No. 5:23-cv-03624-BLF
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:23-cv-03624-BLF Document 44 Filed 11/27/23 Page 9 of 35
`
`
`
`
`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
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 21, 2024, at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter
`may be heard, in the courtroom of the Honorable Beth L. Freeman, located at 280 South 1st Street, San
`Jose, California 95113, Defendants AGIS Holdings, Inc. (“AGIS Holdings”), Advanced Ground
`Information Systems, Inc. (“AGIS, Inc.”), and AGIS Software Development LLC (“AGIS Software”)
`(collectively, “Defendants”) will and hereby move the Court for: (1) an order dismissing the Complaint
`for Declaratory Judgment filed by Plaintiff Google LLC (“Google”) for lack of personal jurisdiction
`pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (2) an order dismissing Counts III,
`IV, and V of Google’s Complaint; and (3) in the alternative to dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2), to
`transfer to the Eastern District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a). The Motion will be and is
`based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities,
`the accompanying Declaration, the pleadings and papers filed herein, as well as upon such other and
`further matters, papers, and arguments as may be presented to the Court.
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`1. Whether this Court lacks personal jurisdiction when Defendants have no contacts in California.
`2. Under Count III, whether Google failed to adequately plead a viable claim under the Kessler
`doctrine or claim preclusion with respect to U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970 (the “’970 Patent”) post-
`reexamination claims when a prior dismissal was limited to ’970 pre-reexamination claims.
`3. Under Counts IV and V, whether Google failed to adequately plead materiality and intent to
`deceive in alleging the non-disclosure of a prior Life360 litigation order concerning the non-
`asserted ’728 Patent and non-recited “symbol generator” term during the reexamination of the
`’970 Patent which does not recite the “symbol generator” term.
`4. Under Count V, whether Google failed to adequately plead sufficient facts to allege that AGIS
`or its counsel are guilty of fraud, deceit, unconscionability, or bad faith in connection with
`Fabricant LLP’s attendance in examiner interviews during the reexamination of the ’970 Patent,
`which is conduct expressly permitted under the protective order in question.
`5. Whether this action should be transferred to the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`1
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:23-cv-03624-BLF Document 44 Filed 11/27/23 Page 10 of 35
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION
`Google’s declaratory action must be dismissed because this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over
`each Defendant. AGIS Software is a Texas corporation with a principal place of business in Texas, while
`AGIS Holdings and AGIS Inc. are Florida corporations with principal places of business in Florida.
`Defendants are not registered to conduct business in California; do not have a registered agent for service
`of process in California; do not have offices, employees, equipment, bank accounts or other assets in
`California; are not subject to taxes in California; do not manufacture or sell products in California; do
`not solicit or engage in business in California; do not sign contracts in California; do not recruit
`employees in California; and do not own, lease or rent any property in California. The sole activities
`identified by Google are enforcement actions filed outside of California, licenses resulting from
`settlement of out-of-state enforcement actions, and bare bone allegations that “AGIS Software, AGIS,
`Inc. and/or AGIS holdings are alter egos of each other.” None of these activities are sufficient to show
`that each Defendant purposefully directed any activities related to the enforcement or defense of the ’970
`Patent at California.
`In the alternative, Defendants request transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to the Eastern District
`of Texas (“EDTX”) because it is clearly the most convenient forum. Notably, EDTX’s familiarity with
`the ’970 Patent extends to numerous earlier-filed cases that were litigated up to the pre-trial conferences.
`To date, EDTX has issued three claim construction orders regarding the ’970 Patent and will issue a
`fourth claim construction order following a November 3, 2023 Markman hearing in AGIS Software Dev.
`LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., No. 2:22-cv-263 (E.D. Tex.). Transfer will significantly
`improve the convenience of parties and witnesses and is in the interests of justice, and EDTX has a
`relative easier access to sources of proof. EDTX-resident AGIS Software and its relevant information
`are in EDTX. Google FMD witnesses and sources of proof are in London, England.
`Count III should be dismissed for failure to plead a viable claim under the Kessler doctrine or
`claim preclusion. Google premises Count III on a prior joint dismissal that limited dismissal to original
`pre-reexamination claims and excluded new reexamination-amended claims. Further, in seeking that
`dismissal, Google conceded that the reexamination-amended claims contained substantiative, material
`
`2
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:23-cv-03624-BLF Document 44 Filed 11/27/23 Page 11 of 35
`
`
`
`differences from their original form, and therefore, the prior joint dismissal cannot support preclusion.
`Counts IV and V are deficient for failure to meet the materiality requirement and for futility.
`Google alleges the ’970 Patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct failure to disclose during
`reexamination a prior indefiniteness determination concerning the term “symbol generator” of a different
`non-asserted U.S. Patent No. 7,031,728 (the “’728 Patent”). However, the non-asserted ’728 Patent is
`not at issue. The term “symbol generator” is not recited in the ’970 Patent claims. The prior determination
`is not material to patentability. Google fails to meet the heightened pleading standard of Rule 9(b).
`Further to Count V, Google alleges a protective order violation based on the presence of Fabricant
`LLP at examiner interviews during reexamination. But the protective order in question expressly permits
`attorney participation in reexamination proceedings when it states that nothing in the protective order is
`intended to preclude Fabricant “from participating directly or indirectly in reexamination.”
`II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`The Parties
`A.
`AGIS Software is the sole and exclusive owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the ’970
`Patent. Decl. of Malcolm K. Beyer, Jr. (“Beyer Decl.”) at 3 ¶ 11. 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. Id. at 3-4 ¶ 13. AGIS Software has been doing business
`in Marshall, Texas since its formation in 2017. Id.at 5 ¶ 31. AGIS Software has a data center in the
`EDTX, located at 1005 Stuart Lane, Marshall, Texas 75672. Id. at 5 ¶ 32. AGIS Software is not registered
`to conduct business in California; does not have a registered agent for service of process in California;
`does not have offices, employees, equipment, bank accounts, or other assets in California; is not subject
`to taxes in California; does not manufacture or sell products in California; does not solicit or engage in
`business in California; does not sign contracts in California; does not recruit employees in California;
`and does not own, lease, or rent any property in California. Beyer Decl. at 4-5 ¶¶ 18-28. Further, no
`lawsuit has ever been filed by AGIS Software in California for any reason. Id. at 5 ¶¶ 29-30. AGIS
`Software’s Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Malcolm K. Beyer, Jr., resides in Florida. Id. at 2 ¶ 4. In 2004,
`Mr. Beyer founded Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc. (“AGIS, Inc.”), a Florida corporation.
`Id. at 3 ¶ 7. In 2013, AGIS, Inc. began a corporate restructuring plan for business growth purposes. Id.
`
`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
`
`3
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:23-cv-03624-BLF Document 44 Filed 11/27/23 Page 12 of 35
`
`
`
`at 3 ¶ 9. 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”), a Florida corporation. Id.
`AGIS Holdings consists of two subsidiaries: AGIS, Inc. and AGIS Software Development LLC. Id. Each
`is a separate corporate entity and maintains separate corporate formalities, maintains separate bank
`accounts, and keeps separate business records. Id.
`Google LLC alleges it is a California corporation with its principal place of business located in
`Mountain View, California. Dkt. 42 at 4. Google alleges it develops FMD, which can be installed on
`devices that run the Android operating system. Based on discovery produced by Google to AGIS in other
`cases, all witnesses, and sources of proof for the current versions of FMD are located in London,
`England. To the extent Google disputes these facts, AGIS intends to request the production of that
`discovery in this case for the Court’s consideration of this Motion.
`Prior Enforcement Actions
`B.
`The ’970 Patent has an extensive prior litigation history in the EDTX. In 2017, AGIS Software
`filed five patent infringement actions in the EDTX involving the ’970 Patent, 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”); 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 before the pre-trial conferences for each respective defendant.
`In 2019, AGIS Software filed three patent infringement actions involving the ’970 Patent in the
`EDTX. See AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2:19-cv-361 (E.D. Tex.); AGIS Software Dev.
`LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2:19-cv-361 (E.D. Tex.); and AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Waze Mobile
`Limited, No. 2:19-cv-359 (E.D. Tex.) (collectively, “AGIS II Cases”). The AGIS II cases proceeded
`through discovery in EDTX until May 2022, when the Federal Circuit ordered transfer to the NDCA
`based on Google’s material misrepresentations and omissions to EDTX and the Federal Circuit regarding
`the location of sources of proof for FMD.
`
`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
`
`4
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:23-cv-03624-BLF Document 44 Filed 11/27/23 Page 13 of 35
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`In 2021, AGIS Software filed four infringement actions involving the ’970 Patent in the EDTX.
`See AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-72 (E.D. Tex.); AGIS Software Dev.
`LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 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., No. 2:21-cv-29 (E.D. Tex.)
`(collectively, “AGIS III Cases”). AGIS Software reached settlements in the AGIS III cases.
`In 2022, AGIS Software filed an infringement action against Samsung involving the ’970 Patent
`in the EDTX. AGIS Software Development LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2:22-cv-263 (E.D. Tex.)
`(“AGIS IV”). On June 16, 2023, AGIS Software filed a second amended complaint accusing FMD of
`infringing the ’970 P