Case 5:23-cv-03624-BLF Document 52 Filed 12/28/23 Page 1 of 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DARIN SNYDER (S.B. #136003)
`dsnyder@omm.com
`LUANN L. SIMMONS (S.B. #203526)
`lsimmons@omm.com
`MARK LIANG (S.B. #278487)
`mliang@omm.com
`BILL TRAC (S.B. #281437)
`btrac@omm.com
`AMY LIANG (S.B. #291910)
`aliang@omm.com
`SORIN ZAHARIA (S.B. #312655)
`szaharia@omm.com
`DANIEL SILVERMAN (S.B. #319874)
`dsilverman@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`Two Embarcadero Center
`28th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94111
`Telephone:
`+1 415 984 8700
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Google LLC
`
`[Additional counsel listed on signature page]
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`AGIS HOLDINGS, INC., ADVANCED
`GROUND INFORMATION SYSTEMS,
`INC., AND AGIS SOFTWARE
`DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 5:23-cv-03624-BLF
`JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
`STATEMENT
`Hearing Date: January 4, 2024
`Time: 11:00am
`Judge: Hon. Beth Labson Freeman
`Courtroom: 3, Fifth Floor
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JOINT CASE MGMT STATEMENT
`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 52 Filed 12/28/23 Page 2 of 16
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Google LLC (“Google”) and Defendants AGIS Holdings, Inc. (“AGIS Holdings”),
`Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc. (“AGIS, Inc.”), and AGIS Software Development
`LLC (“AGIS Software”) (collectively “AGIS” and together with Google “the parties”) hereby
`submit this Joint Case Management Statement and Proposed Order pursuant to Federal Rule of
`Civil Procedure 26(f), Civil Local Rule 16-9, Patent Local Rule 2-1, the Standing Order for All
`Judges of the Northern District of California – Contents of Joint Case Management Statement, and
`the Court’s notices and orders setting the January 4, 2024 Case Management Conference (ECF 11,
`30).
`1.
`
`JURISDICTION & SERVICE
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this declaratory judgment action pursuant to
`the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02, and the patent laws of the United States, 35
`U.S.C. § 100 et seq. AGIS contests personal jurisdiction. All parties have been served.
`2.
`FACTS
`In this declaratory judgment action, Google seeks judgments that: (1) claims 2 and 10-13
`of the U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970 (“’970 Patent”), assigned to AGIS Software, are not infringed by
`Google’s Find My Device (“FMD”) application; (2) claims 2 and 10-13 of the ’970 Patent are
`invalid; (3) any claims asserted by AGIS that Google infringes the ’970 Patent are barred under
`claim preclusion and the Kessler doctrine; and (4) claims 2 and 10-13 of the ’970 Patent are
`unenforceable due to inequitable conduct and unclean hands. ECF 41-2.
`The following is a history of litigation over the ’970 Patent between AGIS and Google.
`2018 Patent Office Challenges1
`On May 15, 2018, Google filed a petition for inter partes review of the ’970 Patent,
`
`1 Plaintiff’s Additional Statement: Before the “2018 Patent Office Challenges,” on June 21,
`2017, AGIS Software asserted, among other claims, infringement of the ’970 Patent based on
`FMD in cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas (“EDTX”) against Huawei, LG, ZTE, and
`HTC, who are all customers of Google and sell mobile devices that are capable of running FMD.
`See AGIS Software Development LLC v. ZTE Corp., 2:17-cv-00517 (E.D. Tex.); AGIS Software
`
`
`
`1
`
`JOINT CASE MGMT STATEMENT
`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 52 Filed 12/28/23 Page 3 of 16
`
`
`
`challenging original claims 1 and 3-9 of the ’970 Patent. Google LLC v. AGIS Software
`Development LLC, IPR2018-01079 (P.T.A.B.). On November 19, 2019, the PTAB issued a final
`written decision finding claims 1 and 3-9 unpatentable, which the Federal Circuit affirmed. Id.,
`Paper No. 34 (Nov. 19, 2019); AGIS Software Development, LLC v. Google LLC, No. 20-1401,
`ECF 46 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 4, 2021).
`AGIS’s 2019 Litigations (“AGIS I”) And Related Patent Office Challenges
`On November 4, 2019, AGIS Software filed a complaint against Google in the EDTX
`asserting, among other claims, the ’970 Patent against FMD. AGIS Software Development LLC v.
`Google LLC, No. 2:19-CV-00361-JRG (E.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2019) (“AGIS I”).2
`On May 15, 2020, Google filed a third-party ex parte reexamination (“EPR”) request
`challenging the patentability of original claims 2 and 10-13 of the ’970 Patent. Reexamination No.
`90/014,507. During the EPR proceedings, AGIS Software amended the claims of the ’970 Patent
`to overcome an examiner rejection based on prior art. On December 9, 2021, an ex parte
`reexamination certificate issued for the ’970 Patent, amending claims 2 and 10-13.
`On May 23, 2022, the Federal Circuit ordered that the AGIS I case be transferred to this
`District. ECF 388; In re Google LLC, No. 2022-140-42, 2022 WL 1613192, at *1 (Fed. Cir. May
`23, 2022).
`After transfer to this District, the AGIS I case was assigned to this Court on August 31,
`
`
`Development LLC v. LG Elecs. Inc., 2:17-cv-00515 (E.D. Tex.); AGIS Software Development
`LLC v. HTC Corp., 2:17-cv-00514 (E.D. Tex.); AGIS Software Development LLC v. Huawei
`Device USA Inc., 2:17-cv-00513 (E.D. Tex.). As part of those actions, AGIS Software served
`subpoenas on Google seeking discovery relating to FMD. In 2019, each of those actions was
`dismissed following settlements.
`2 Plaintiff’s Additional Statement: On November 4, 2019, AGIS also filed cases against Waze
`Mobile Limited (“Waze”) and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America,
`Inc. (collectively, “Samsung”). Those cases were consolidated into the AGIS I case. AGIS I, ECF
`29.
`
`
`2
`
`JOINT CASE MGMT STATEMENT
`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 52 Filed 12/28/23 Page 4 of 16
`
`
`
`2022. AGIS Software Development LLC v. Google LLC, No. 5:22-CV-04826-BLF. Google filed
`a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss the original claims 2 and 10-13 of the ’970 Patent for lack of
`subject matter jurisdiction based on the issuance of the reexamination-amended claims 2 and 10-
`13 of the ’970 Patent. AGIS I, ECF 249, 425. On April 7, 2023, the parties filed a joint stipulation
`and motion to dismiss the original claims of the ’970 Patent with prejudice. See AGIS I, ECF 437.3
`On April 10, 2023, this Court granted the parties stipulated dismissal of the original claims of the
`’970 Patent, and AGIS I proceeded with the remaining claims. See AGIS I, ECF 438.
`AGIS’s 2022 ITC Action
`On November 16, 2022, AGIS Software and AGIS, Inc. filed an ITC action against Google
`and twelve other respondents, accusing FMD of infringing the ’970 Patent. On June 15, 2023,
`AGIS withdrew its ITC complaint and moved to terminate its ITC investigation. On July 13, 2023,
`a notice of the ITC’s decision terminating the ITC investigation was published in the Federal
`Register. Certain Location-Sharing Systems, 88 Fed. Reg. 44,840 (July 13, 2023).
`AGIS’s 2023 WDTX Litigation And This Declaratory Judgment Action
`On March 1, 2023, AGIS Software filed suit against Google in the Western District of
`Texas, asserting the reexamination-amended claims 2 and 10-13 of the ’970 Patent against FMD.
`AGIS Software Development LLC v. Google LLC, No. 6:23-CV-00160-DC-DTG (“the WDTX
`Case”). On April 4, 2023, the WDTX court granted Google’s unopposed motion to stay the WDTX
`Case pending resolution of the ITC proceedings. See WDTX Case, ECF 11. On July 20, 2023,
`AGIS Software voluntarily dismissed the WDTX Case. See WDTX Case, ECF 12.
`The next day, July 21, 2023, Google filed this declaratory judgment action against the
`reexamination-amended claims 2 and 10-13 of the ’970 Patent. ECF 1. On November 13, 2023,
`Google filed a Sealed Amended Complaint. ECF 41-2. On November 27, 2023, AGIS filed a
`
`
`3 Defendants’ Additional Statement: The parties’ joint stipulation and motion to dismiss was
`filed pursuant to a compromise between Plaintiff and Defendant AGIS Software and expressly
`stated that the “dismissal does not cover the reexamination-amended claims of the ’970 Patent that
`issued on December 9, 2021.” Id.
`
`
`3
`
`JOINT CASE MGMT STATEMENT
`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 52 Filed 12/28/23 Page 5 of 16
`
`
`
`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
`
`motion to dismiss Google’s Amended Complaint. Google’s Opposition is due December 29,
`2023. ECF 46. AGIS’s Reply is due January 23, 2024. Id.
`3.
`LEGAL ISSUES
`The principal disputed legal issues are:
` Whether this Court has personal jurisdiction over AGIS Holdings, AGIS, Inc., and AGIS
`Software.
` Whether Google’s FMD and Google devices running FMD directly or indirectly infringe
`any claim of the ’970 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
` Whether each claim of the ’970 Patent is invalid.
` Whether AGIS is barred from asserting the ’970 Patent against Google or FMD under
`claim preclusion, res judicata, or the Kessler doctrine.
` Whether each claim of the ’970 Patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.
` Whether each claim of the ’970 Patent is unenforceable due to unclean hands.
` Whether this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
` Whether any party is entitled to its costs and attorneys’ fees in connection with this action.
` Whether any other forms of relief are due to any party.
`The parties reserve the right to raise additional factual or legal issues that may arise
`through the course of this action.
`4.
`MOTIONS
`A.
`Prior Motions
`
`Date
`
`Title
`
`October 23,
`2023
`
`AGIS Motion to Dismiss, or in the
`Alternative, to Transfer
`
`Status
`
`Moot, in light of
`Google’s Amended
`Complaint (ECF 42)
`
`B.
`
`Pending Motions
`
`Date
`
`Title
`
`November 27,
`2023
`
`AGIS Motion to Dismiss Amended
`Complaint, or in the Alternative, to
`
`Status
`
`Pending.
`
`
`4
`
`JOINT CASE MGMT STATEMENT
`NO. 5:23-CV-03624-BLF
`
`ECF
`No.
`40
`
`ECF
`No.
`43
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:23-cv-03624-BLF Document 52 Filed 12/28/23 Page 6 of 16
`
`
`
`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
`
`Transfer
`
`Google Opposition
`due December 29,
`2023
`
`Hearing set for
`March 21, 2024
`
`C.
`Anticipated Motions
`The parties anticipate filing dispositive motions, Daubert motions, motions to strike, and
`motions in limine.
`5.
`AMENDMENT OF PLEADINGS
`The parties have agreed on a deadline to amend pleadings as indicated in the schedule in
`Section 16 below.
`6.
`EVIDENCE PRESERVATION
`The parties have reviewed the Guidelines Relating to the Discovery of Electronically Stored
`Information (“ESI Guidelines”) and Checklist for ESI Meet and Confer, including the portions
`related to evidence preservation. They are aware of their obligation to cooperate on issues relating
`to the preservation, collection, search, review, and production of ESI and that the proportionality
`standard in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) applies to discovery.
`Additionally, the parties have met and conferred pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) regarding
`reasonable and proportionate steps taken to preserve evidence relevant to the issues reasonably
`evident in this action. The parties intend to submit a Stipulated E-Discovery Order substantively
`identical to the Order Regarding E-Discovery In Patent Cases entered in AGIS I.
`7.
`DISCLOSURES
`The parties agree to comply with the initial disclosure requirements of Rule 26(a)(1)
`according to the proposed schedule in Section 16 below.
`8.
`DISCOVERY
`A.
`Protective Order
`The parties intend to submit a Stipulated Protective Order substantively identical to the
`Protective Order entered in AGIS I.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`JOINT CASE MGMT STATEMENT
`NO. 5:23-CV-03624-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:23-cv-03624-BLF Document 52 Filed 12/28/23 Page 7 of 16
`
`
`
`B.
`Scope of Anticipated Discovery
`The parties anticipate that discovery will encompass information relevant to resolution of
`Plaintiff’s claims, including: the alleged conception, reduction to practice, and diligence relating to
`the claimed inventions of the ’970 Patent; prosecution of the ’970 Patent including post-grant
`proceedings; the state of the art at the time of the claimed inventions; the earliest alleged priority
`date of the ’970 Patent claims and the support thereof; ownership of the ’970 Patent; prior art to the
`’970 Patent; secondary considerations of non-obviousness for the ’970 Patent; Google’s FMD;
`licensing of the ’970 Patent, related patents, and/or similar patents; products practicing the ’970
`Patent including AGIS Inc’s LifeRing product; marking of products practicing the ’970 Patent; and
`communications relating to ’970 Patent, related patents, similar patents, and/or LifeRing.
`In its opposition to AGIS’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (ECF 43),
`Google also intends to request that if the Court is inclined to grant any aspect of AGIS’s motion,
`the Court grant Google leave to take jurisdictional discovery of AGIS. Google’s specific request
`for jurisdictional discovery will be set forth in Google’s opposition.
`C.
`Discovery Limits
`The parties agree to the following limits on non-jurisdictional fact discovery:
` 25 Interrogatories per side.
` 40 Requests for Admission per side.
` Each side may also serve a reasonable number of additional Requests for
`Admission that seek an admission as to (a) the authenticity of a particular
`document or thing, (b) the admissibility of a particular document or thing, and/or
`(c) whether a document qualifies as a printed publication under 35 U.S.C. § 102,
`or the date(s) of publication or public use/availability of documents and things.
` Google may take up to 70 hours of fact deposition testimony of AGIS, including
`depositions under Rule 30(b)(1) and Rule 30(b)(6).
` AGIS may take up to 70 hours of fact deposition testimony of Google, including
`depositions under Rule 30(b)(1) and Rule 30(b)(6).
`In addition, each side may take up to 60 hours of third party deposition testimony.
`JOINT CASE MGMT STATEMENT
`NO. 5:23-CV-03624-BLF
`
`
`
`6
`
`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 52 Filed 12/28/23 Page 8 of 16
`
`
`
`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 parties agree to the following limits on expert discovery:
` Each side is limited to three testifying experts. Each testifying expert may be
`deposed for no more than seven (7) hours per report offered by the expert, but in
`any event, for a total of no more than fourteen (14) hours per expert.
`Any party may later move to modify these limitations for good cause.
`D.
`Any Other Orders that the Court Should Issue Under FRCP 26(c) or Under
`FRCP 16(b)
`E-mail Service: The parties consent to service by electronic means as set forth in FRCP
`5(b)(2)(e), including service by e-mail and via other widely used electronic file transfer services.
`Service by e-mail will be treated as service by hand delivery. The parties agree that service by
`email by 11:59 P.M. Pacific time on a given day will be treated as service by personal delivery that
`day. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the parties further agree that documents filed publicly through
`the Court’s ECF system need not be separately served by email, and that ECF filing constitutes
`personal service as of the date and time such document was filed. Further, the parties will use best
`efforts to serve by email all documents filed under seal or manually within two hours following a
`related ECF filing. The email service of such documents shall relate back to the time of the related
`ECF filing.
`Production of Materials Obtained Via Third-Party Subpoena: A party who serves a
`subpoena in this matter on a third party shall immediately provide a copy to the other party. A
`party who receives documents from a third party pursuant to a subpoena will reproduce those
`documents to the other party within 3 business days. Where reproduction of documents within 3
`business days is not possible, the party who received the documents will provide prompt notice to
`the other party and will work in good faith to resolve the issue on a case-by-case basis. The parties
`agree to consult with each other before scheduling any third-party deposition and to provide at least
`5 business days’ notice to allow for the coordination of depositions.
`Expert Discovery Privilege: The parties agree that the protections provided in FRCP
`26(b)(4)(B) and (C) will apply equally to expert declarations as they do to expert reports, including
`both drafts of declarations and communications related to declarations. Pursuant to FRCP 26(b)(4),
`
`JOINT CASE MGMT STATEMENT
`NO. 5:23-CV-03624-BLF
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:23-cv-03624-BLF Document 52 Filed 12/28/23 Page 9 of 16
`
`
`
`10.
`
`draft expert reports, notes, outlines, and any other writings leading up to an expert’s final report(s)
`are exempt from discovery. In addition, all communications with and all materials generated by an
`expert with respect to his or her work on this action are exempt from discovery unless relied upon
`by the expert in forming his or her opinions. If an expert produces a report, the expert must produce
`his or her final report and all materials on which he or she relied.
`Privileged And Work Product Information: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d),
`production of materials covered by the attorney-client privilege or work-product protection is not
`a waiver in the pending case or any other federal or state proceeding. For example, the mere
`production of privilege or work-product protected documents in this case as part of a mass
`production is not itself a waiver in this case or any other federal or state proceeding. A producing
`party may assert privilege or work product protection over any produced documents after becoming
`aware of the production by notifying the receiving party of the assertion of privilege or protection
`in writing. For any document produced for which notice is given that it intends to assert privilege
`or work-product protection at the producing party’s request, the receiving party shall immediately
`return or destroy the produced materials. The producing party will provide a privilege log for such
`materials.
`9.
`CLASS ACTIONS
`Not applicable here.
`RELATED CASES
`The following district court cases currently involve or previously involved the ’970 Patent:
` AGIS Software Development LLC v. Google LLC, No. 5:22-cv-04826-BLF (N.D. Cal.)
`(the “AGIS I Case”);
` AGIS Software Development LLC v. ASUStek Computer Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00440 (E.D.
`Tex.);
` AGIS Software Development LLC v. BLU Products, No. 2:22-cv-00441 (E.D. Tex.);
` AGIS Software Development LLC v. Caterpillar Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00442 (E.D. Tex.);
` AGIS Software Development LLC v. HMD Global, No. 2:22-cv-00443 (E.D. Tex.);
` AGIS Software Development LLC v. Kyocera Corporation, No. 2:22-cv-00444 (E.D.
`JOINT CASE MGMT STATEMENT
`NO. 5:23-CV-03624-BLF
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`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 52 Filed 12/28/23 Page 10 of 16
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tex.);
` AGIS Software Development LLC v. Lenovo Group Limited, No. 2:22-cv-00445 (E.D.
`Tex.);
` AGIS Software Development LLC v. OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., No. 2:22-
`cv-00446 (E.D. Tex.);
` AGIS Software Development LLC v. Panasonic Corporation, No. 2:22-cv-00447 (E.D.
`Tex.);
` AGIS Software Development LLC v. Sony Corporation, No. 2:22-cv-00448 (E.D. Tex.);
` AGIS Software Development LLC v. TCL Technology Group Corporation, No. 2:22-cv-
`00449 (E.D. Tex.);
` AGIS Software Development LLC v. Xiaomi Corporation, No. 2:22-cv-00450 (E.D. Tex.);
` AGIS Software Development LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 2:22-cv-00263
`(E.D. Tex.);
` AGIS Software Development LLC v. Verizon Communications Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00185
`(E.D. Tex.);
` Lyft, Inc. v. AGIS Software Development LLC, No. 5:21-cv-04653 (N.D. Cal.);
` AGIS Software Development LLC v. Lyft, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00024 (E.D. Tex.);
` AGIS Software Development LLC v. Uber Technologies Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00026 (E.D.
`Tex.);
` AGIS Software Development, LLC v. Google LLC, No. 20-1401 (Fed. Cir.);
` AGIS Software Development LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2:19-cv-00361 (E.D. Tex.);
` ZTE (USA) Inc. v. AGIS Software Development LLC, No. No. 4:18-cv-06185 (N.D. Cal.);
` AGIS Software Development LLC v. Huawei Device USA Inc., No. 2:17-cv-00513 (E.D.
`Tex.);
` AGIS Software Development LLC v. HTC Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-00514 (E.D. Tex.);
` AGIS Software Development LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-00515 (E.D. Tex.);
` AGIS Software Development LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 2:17-cv-00516 (E.D. Tex.);
` AGIS Software Development LLC v. ZTE Corporation, No. 2:17-cv-00517 (E.D. Tex.).
`JOINT CASE MGMT STATEMENT
`NO. 5:23-CV-03624-BLF
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 5:23-cv-03624-BLF Document 52 Filed 12/28/23 Page 11 of 16
`
`
`
`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 following proceeding before the International Trade Commission also involved the
`’970 Patent:
` Certain Location-Sharing Systems, Related Software, Components Thereof, and Products
`Containing Same; Inv. No. 337-TA-1347.
`The following patent office proceedings resulted in cancellation or amendment of claims of
`the ’970 Patent:
` Google LLC v. AGIS Software Development LLC, IPR2018-01079 (P.T.A.B.);
` Ex parte Reexamination No. 90/014,507.
`Claim construction orders relating to the ’970 Patent have been entered in the following
`district court cases:
` AGIS Software Development LLC v. Huawei Device USA Inc., No. 2:17-cv-513, ECF 205
`(E.D. Tex.);
` AGIS Software Development LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2:19-cv-00361, ECF 147 (E.D.
`Tex.).
` AGIS Software Development LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 2:22-cv-00263,
`ECF 156 (E.D. Tex.).
`RELIEF
`Google’s Statement:
`Google seeks the relief requested in its Amended Complaint. ECF 41-2. The relief Google
`seeks includes: (A) a judgment declaring that FMD and Google devices running FMD do not
`directly or indirectly infringe any asserted claims of the ’970 Patent, either literally or under the
`doctrine of equivalents; (B) a judgment declaring that each claim of the ’970 Patent is invalid and
`unenforceable due to inequitable conduct and unclean hands; (C) a judgment declaring that the
`AGIS is barred from asserting the ’970 Patent against Google or FMD under claim preclusion, res
`judicata, and the Kessler doctrine; (D) a judgment entered in favor of Google and against AGIS on
`Google’s claims; (E) a judgment finding that this is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285; (F)
`a judgment awarding Google its costs and attorneys’ fees in connection with this action; and (G) a
`judgment awarding Google such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
`
`JOINT CASE MGMT STATEMENT
`NO. 5:23-CV-03624-BLF
`
`11.
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:23-cv-03624-BLF Document 52 Filed 12/28/23 Page 12 of 16
`
`
`
`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
`
`AGIS’s Statement:
`AGIS disagrees that Google is entitled to any relief in this action. If the Court denies
`AGIS’s pending motions, AGIS expects to file an answer
`12.
`SETTLEMENT AND ADR
`Google has filed its ADR L.R. 3-5(b) certification. ECF 49. AGIS has filed its ADR L.R.
`3-5(b) certification. ECF 50. The parties have agreed to private mediation as their preferred form
`of alternative dispute resolution. The parties previously conducted a mediation and related
`discussions with mediators Retired Judge David Folsom and Jeff Kichaven in connection with the
`AGIS I case.4 The parties will continue to confer on a mediator for this action.
`13. OTHER REFERENCES
`The parties agree that this case is not suitable for reference to binding arbitration, a special
`master, or the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
`14.
`NARROWING OF ISSUES
`The parties anticipate that issues in this case be further narrowed by motions for judgment
`on the pleadings, summary judgment motions, Daubert motions, motions to strike, and motions in
`limine.
`15.
`EXPEDITED TRIAL PROCEDURE
`The parties do not believe that this case is appropriate for the Expedited Trial Procedure of
`General Order No. 64.
`16.
`SCHEDULING
`Google’s Statement:
`Plaintiff Google respectfully proposes the following schedule:
`
`Scheduled Event
`Joint Case Management Statement For Case
`Management Conference
`
`Proposed Date / Deadline
`December 28, 2023
`
`
`4 Defendants’ additional statement: Google has refused to continue mediation before Judge
`Folsom. As a compromise and at the request of Google, AGIS agreed to continue mediation in
`AGIS I before Mr. Kichaven. All mediation before Mr. Kichaven in AGIS I has been conducted
`remotely, with AGIS attending from Jupiter, Florida.
`
`11
`
`JOINT CASE MGMT STATEMENT
`NO. 5:23-CV-03624-BLF
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:23-cv-03624-BLF Document 52 Filed 12/28/23 Page 13 of 16
`
`
`
`Initial Case Management Conference
`
`AGIS’s Patent L.R. 3-1, 3-2 Disclosures
`
`Fact Discovery Opens
`
`Google’s Patent L.R. 3-3, 3-4 Disclosures
`
`Initial Disclosures
`
`January 4, 2024
`
`January 18, 2024
`
`February 1, 2024
`
`March 4, 2024
`
`April 4, 2024
`
`Exchange Proposed Terms For Construction (Patent
`L.R. 4-1)
`
`September 16, 2024
`
`Exchange Preliminary Claim Constructions and
`Extrinsic Evidence (Patent L.R. 4-2)
`
`AGIS’s Patent L.R. 3-8 Damages Contentions
`
`October 14, 2024
`
`April 23, 2024
`
`
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement and
`Expert Reports (Patent L.R. 4-3)
`
`November 18, 2024
`
`Google’s Patent L.R. 3-9 Responsive Damages
`Contentions
`
`May 23, 2024
`
`
`Completion of Claim Construction Discovery
`
`December 19, 2024
`
`AGIS’s Opening Claim Construction Brief
`
`January 13, 2025
`
`Google’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief
`
`February 10, 2025
`
`AGIS’s Reply Claim Construction Brief
`
`March 3, 2025
`
`Technology Tutorial
`
`Claim Construction Hearing
`
`ADR Deadline
`
`Advice of Counsel (Patent L.R. 3-7)
`
`Deadline to Amend Pleadings or Join Parties
`
`Close of Fact Discovery
`
`Opening Expert Reports by the parties on issues where
`they bear the burden of proof
`
`Rebuttal Expert Reports
`
`At the Court’s convenience on or
`after March 17, 2025
`
`At the Court’s convenience on or
`after March 17, 2025
`
`[TBD]
`
`May 30, 2025
`
`June 30, 2025
`
`August 25, 2025
`
`September 29, 2025
`
`November 10, 2025
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`JOINT CASE MGMT STATEMENT
`NO. 5:23-CV-03624-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:23-cv-03624-BLF Document 52 Filed 12/28/23 Page 14 of 16
`
`
`
`Close of Expert Discovery
`
`Final Day for Filing Dispositive Motions
`
`Oppositions to Dispositive Motions
`
`Replies to Dispositive Motions
`
`December 19, 2025
`
`February 2, 2026
`
`March 16, 2026
`
`April 20, 2026
`
`Last Day to Hear Dispositive Motions
`
`May 28, 2026 at 9:00am
`
`Final Pretrial Conference
`
`Trial
`
`[TBD]
`
`[TBD]
`
`AGIS’s Statement:
`Defendants respectfully propose that the Court forego entering a scheduling order in this
`action until after resolution of Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss or, alternatively, to transfer.
`As a matter of procedure, because this is an action for declaratory judgment, Defendants cannot
`assert infringement before filing their answer, which is not due until after resolution of the pending
`motions.
`17.
`TRIAL
`The parties agree to a trial by jury.
`Google’s Additional Statement:
`Plaintiff Google estimates needing 2 weeks to try this case, subject to the outcome of
`discovery and dispositive motions, including summary judgment motions, Daubert motions, and
`motions to strike, as well the resolution of other cases involving AGIS, Google, FMD, and/or the
`’970 Patent.
`AGIS’s Additional Statement:
`AGIS estimates needing 1 week to try this case, subject to the outcome of discovery and
`dispositive motions, including summary judgment motions, Daubert motions, and motions to
`strike.
`18.
`
`DISCLOSURE OF NON-PARTY INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS
`Google’s Statement:
`Google has filed its Certification of Interested Entities or Persons. ECF 4.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`JOINT CASE MGMT STATEMENT
`NO. 5:23-CV-03624-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:23-cv-03624-BLF Document 52 Filed 12/28/23 Page 15 of 16
`
`
`
`Google discloses the following: Google LLC is a subsidiary of XXVI Holdings Inc., which
`is a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc., a publicly traded company; and no publicly traded company holds
`more than 10% of Alphabet Inc.’s stock. Google certifies that the following listed persons, firms,
`partnerships, corporations (including parent corporations) or other entities known by Google to
`have either (i) a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding
`or (ii) any other kind of interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the
`proceeding:
`1. Google LLC
`2. XXVI Holdings Inc., Holding Company of Google LLC
`3. Alphabet Inc., Holding Company of XXVI Holdings Inc.
`AGIS’s Statement:
`AGIS discloses the following: AGIS Software Development LLC is a limited liability
`company whose sole member is AGIS Holdings, Inc.
`19.
`PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
`All attorneys of record for the parties have reviewed the Guidelines for Professional
`Conduct for the Northern District of California.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`JOINT CASE MGMT STATEMENT
`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 52 Filed 12/28/23 Page 16 of 16
`
`
`
`Dated:
`
`December 28, 2023
`
`Dated:
`
`December 28, 2023
`
`
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Benjamin T. Wang
`
`
`
`Alfred R. Fabricant (pro hac vice)
`ffabricant@fabricantllp.com
`FABRICANT LLP
`411 Theodore Fremd Road, Suite 206 South
`Rye, New York 10580
`Telephone: (212) 257-5797
`
`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
`
`Attorneys for Defendants AGIS Holdings, Inc.,
`Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc.,
`and AGIS Software Development LLC
`
`/s/ Mark Liang
`By:
`Darin W. Snyder
`Luann L. Simmons
`Mark Liang
`Bill Trac
`Amy Liang
`Sorin Zaharia
`Daniel Silverman
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`
`Stacy Yae (S.B. #315663)
`syae@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90071
`Telephone:
`+1 213 430 6000
`
`Cason Cole (pro hac vice)
`ccole@omm.com
`Grant Gibson (pro hac vice)
`ggibson@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`2801 N. Harwood St., Suite 1800
`Dallas, Texas 75201
`Telephone:
`+1 972 360 1916
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Google LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`ATTESTATION
`Pursuant to Civil L.R. 5-1(i), I hereby attest that all other signatures listed, and on whose
`behalf the filing is submitted, concur in this document’s content and have authorized the filing of
`this document with the use of their electronic signature.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Mark Liang
` Mark Liang
`
`15
`
`JOINT CASE MGMT STATEMENT
`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
`
`
`
`