Case 5:23-cv-03624-BLF Document 53 Filed 12/29/23 Page 1 of 33
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DARIN SNYDER (CA S.B. #136003)
`dsnyder@omm.com
`LUANN L. SIMMONS (CA S.B. #203526)
`lsimmons@omm.com
`MARK LIANG (CA S.B. #278487)
`mliang@omm.com
`BILL TRAC (CA S.B. #281437)
`btrac@omm.com
`AMY LIANG (CA S.B. #291910)
`aliang@omm.com
`SORIN ZAHARIA (CA S.B. #312655)
`szaharia@omm.com
`DANIEL SILVERMAN (CA S.B. #319874)
`dsilverman@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
`San Francisco, California 94111-3823
`Telephone:
`+1 415 984 8700
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`Google LLC
`
`
`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
`Hon. Judge Beth L. Freeman
`GOOGLE LLC’S OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
`DISMISS, OR IN THE
`ALTERNATIVE, TO TRANSFER
`Date: March 21, 2024
`Time: 9:00 a.m.
`Location: Courtroom 3
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GOOGLE OPP. TO MTD OR TRANSFER
`5:23-CV-03264-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:23-cv-03624-BLF Document 53 Filed 12/29/23 Page 2 of 33
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ......................................................... 1
`A.
`The Parties ................................................................................................................ 1
`B.
`’970 Patent Litigation History .................................................................................. 2
`THIS COURT HAS PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER THE AGIS ENTITIES .......... 4
`A.
`Legal Standard For Personal Jurisdiction ................................................................ 4
`B.
`AGIS Entities Are Alter Egos For Purposes Of Personal Jurisdiction .................... 4
`1.
`There Is Unity Of Interest And Ownership .................................................. 4
`2.
`Justice Requires Disregarding AGIS’s Putative Separate Identities ............ 7
`C.
`AGIS Entities’ Contacts With This District Confer Personal Jurisdiction .............. 7
`1.
`AGIS’s Contacts With Google Confer Personal Jurisdiction ...................... 8
`a. AGIS Purposefully Directed Activities At Google ............................... 8
`b. AGIS’s Contacts With Google Relate To Google’s Claims ................. 9
`2.
`AGIS’s Contacts With Third Parties Establish Personal Jurisdiction ........ 10
`D.
`California ............................................................................................................... 11
`E.
`The Exercise Of Personal Jurisdiction Is Fair ........................................................ 12
`F.
`In The Alternative, Google Requests Jurisdictional Discovery ............................. 13
`IV.
`CLAIM PRECLUSION AND THE KESSLER DOCTRINE (COUNT III) ...................... 13
`A.
`Legal Standards For Claim Preclusion And The Kessler Doctrine ........................ 13
`B.
`Doctrine .................................................................................................................. 14
`V.
`INEQUITABLE CONDUCT (COUNT IV) ...................................................................... 17
`A.
`Legal Standard Governing Inequitable Conduct .................................................... 17
`B.
`Google Has Sufficiently Pleaded Inequitable Conduct .......................................... 18
`VI.
`UNCLEAN HANDS (COUNT V)..................................................................................... 19
`A.
`Legal Standard Governing Unclean Hands ............................................................ 19
`B.
`Google Has Sufficiently Pleaded Unclean Hands .................................................. 20
`VII. THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE TRANSFERRED TO THE EDTX ............................... 21
`A.
`Legal Standard Governing Transfer ....................................................................... 21
`B.
`AGIS Fails To Show This Suit Could Have Been Brought In The EDTX ............ 22
`C.
`The EDTX Is Not More Convenient Than The NDCA ......................................... 22
`
`AGIS Has Consented To Jurisdiction In The Northern District Of
`
`Google Has Sufficiently Pleaded Claim Preclusion And The Kessler
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`GOOGLE OPP. TO MTD OR TRANSFER
`5:23-CV-03264-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:23-cv-03624-BLF Document 53 Filed 12/29/23 Page 3 of 33
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`
`Google’s Choice Of Forum Weighs Strongly Against Transfer ................ 22
`1.
`Convenience Of Witnesses Weighs Strongly Against Transfer ................ 22
`2.
`Access To Sources Of Proof Weighs Strongly Against Transfer .............. 23
`3.
`Judicial Economy Weighs Strongly Against Transfer ............................... 24
`4.
`Remaining Factors Weigh Against Transfer Or Are Neutral ..................... 25
`5.
`VIII. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 25
`
`Page
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`GOOGLE OPP. TO MTD OR TRANSFER
`5:23-CV-03264-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:23-cv-03624-BLF Document 53 Filed 12/29/23 Page 4 of 33
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Page
`
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Trans Video Elecs., Ltd.,
`975 F. Supp. 2d 1083 (N.D. Cal. 2013) ................................................................................... 10
`Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp.,
`525 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ................................................................................................ 14
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Google LLC,
`No. 2:19-CV-00361-JRG (E.D. Tex.) ............................................................................... passim
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Google LLC,
`No. 5:22-CV-04826-BLF ........................................................................................................... 3
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Google LLC,
`No. 6:23-CV-00160-DC-DTG ............................................................................................. 3, 14
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`No. 2:22-cv-263-JRG-RSP .................................................................................................... 3, 4
`Allergan USA, Inc. v. Sun Pharm. Indus. Ltd.,
`2022 WL 11819975 (D. Del. Oct. 20, 2022) ........................................................................... 20
`Apple Inc. v. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc.,
`506 F. Supp. 3d 947 (N.D. Cal. 2020) ..................................................................................... 12
`Apple Inc. v. Zipit Wireless, Inc.,
`30 F.4th 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ................................................................................................... 4
`Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc.,
`672 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................................... 15, 16
`Brain Life, LLC v. Elekta Inc.,
`746 F.3d 1045 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................ 14
`Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz,
`471 U.S. 462 (1985) ......................................................................................................... 4, 8, 12
`Dainippon Screen Mfg. Co. v. CFMT, Inc.,
`142 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .............................................................................................. 6, 7
`Elecs. for Imaging, Inc. v. Coyle,
`340 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2003) .................................................................................................. 9
`Erfindergemeinschaft UroPep GbR v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`2017 WL 275465 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 20, 2017) ............................................................................ 21
`Exergen Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
`575 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................ 17
`Finjan, Inc. v. Juniper Network, Inc.,
`2018 WL 4181905 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2018) ......................................................................... 21
`Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc.,
`721 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................................................................................ 15
`GOOGLE OPP. TO MTD OR TRANSFER
`5:23-CV-03264-BLF
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:23-cv-03624-BLF Document 53 Filed 12/29/23 Page 5 of 33
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`
`Page
`
`Gilead Scis., Inc. v. Merck & Co.,
`888 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................................................................................ 19
`Google Inc. v. Eolas Techs. Inc.,
`2014 WL 2916621 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2014) ........................................................................... 11
`Google Inc. v. Rockstar Consortium U.S. LP,
`2014 WL 1571807 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2014) ....................................................................... 6, 7
`Graphics Properties Holdings, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
`2014 WL 6629021 (D. Del. Nov. 20, 2014) ............................................................................ 19
`In re Genentech, Inc.,
`566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................................... 24, 25
`In re Google Inc.,
`2017 WL 977038 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 23, 2017) ............................................................................. 25
`In re Google LLC,
`2022 WL 1613192 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2022) ................................................................... passim
`In re Juniper Networks, Inc.,
`14 F.4th 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ................................................................................................. 24
`In re PersonalWeb Techs. LLC,
`961 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ................................................................................................ 17
`In re Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`2 F.4th 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ................................................................................................... 23
`Inamed Corp. v. Kuzmak,
`249 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................................................ 12
`Jack Henry & Assocs., Inc. v. Plano Encryption Techs. LLC,
`910 F.3d 1199 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................................................................................ 11
`Jazz Pharms., Inc. v. Roxane Lab’ys, Inc.,
`2013 WL 6858765 (D.N.J. Dec. 30, 2013) .............................................................................. 20
`Laitram Corp. v. NEC Corp.,
`163 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ................................................................................................ 15
`Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior,
`342 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir. 2003) .................................................................................................. 13
`Levi Strauss & Co. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co.,
`719 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................................................................................ 16
`Life360, Inc. v. AGIS, Inc.,
`No. 15-cv-151-BLF, 2015 WL 5612008 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2015) ...................................... 11
`Lyft, Inc. v. AGIS Software Dev. LLC,
`2022 WL 1991265 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2022) ............................................................................. 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`GOOGLE OPP. TO MTD OR TRANSFER
`5:23-CV-03264-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:23-cv-03624-BLF Document 53 Filed 12/29/23 Page 6 of 33
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`
`Page
`
`Lyft, Inc. v. AGIS Software Dev. LLC,
`2022 WL 267409 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2022) .............................................................................. 5
`Lyft, Inc. v. AGIS Software Dev. LLC,
`2022 WL 767616 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2022) ............................................................... 21, 22, 23
`Lyft, Inc. v. AGIS Software Dev. LLC,
`No. 21-cv-04653-BLF (N.D. Cal.) ........................................................................................... 13
`Magnacoustics, Inc. v. Resonance Tech. Co.,
`132 F.3d 49 (Table) (Fed. Cir. 1997) ....................................................................................... 22
`Natera, Inc. v. Genosity Inc.,
`2022 WL 767602 (D. Del. Mar. 14, 2022) .............................................................................. 19
`Nilssen v. Osram Sylvania, Inc.,
`504 F.3d 1223 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ................................................................................................ 19
`Nystrom v. Trex Co.,
`580 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................ 13
`Pactiv Corp. v. Dow Chem. Co.,
`449 F.3d 1227 (Fed. Cir. 2006) .......................................................................................... 16, 17
`Park v. Dole Fresh Vegetables, Inc.,
`964 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (N.D. Cal. 2013) ................................................................................... 22
`Ranza v. Nike, Inc.,
`793 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2015) .................................................................................................... 4
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Netflix, Inc.,
`41 F.4th 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ................................................................................................. 14
`Red Wing Shoe Co. v. Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc.,
`148 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998) .................................................................................................. 9
`Regeneron Pharm., Inc. v. Merus N.V.,
`864 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................................................................ 17
`Ross v. Abbott Vascular, Inc.,
`|2020 WL 4934487 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2020) .......................................................................... 13
`Senju Pharm. Co. v. Apotex Inc.,
`746 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................................... 15, 16
`Stragent, LLC v. BMW of N. Am., LLC,
`2021 WL 1147468 (D. Del. Mar. 25, 2021) ............................................................................ 16
`Target Training Int’l v. Extended Disc N. Am.,
`645 F. App’x 1018 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ........................................................................................ 16
`Trimble Inc. v. PerDiemCo LLC,
`997 F.3d 1147 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ......................................................................................... passim
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`GOOGLE OPP. TO MTD OR TRANSFER
`5:23-CV-03264-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:23-cv-03624-BLF Document 53 Filed 12/29/23 Page 7 of 33
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`
`Page
`
`Xilinx, Inc. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG,
`848 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................................................. 4, 9
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) ....................................................................................................................... 21
`
`STATUTES
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`RULES
`
`ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1347 .............................................................................................................. 3
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 ........................................................................................................................... 14
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) .................................................................................................................. 14
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B) ....................................................................................................... 14, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`GOOGLE OPP. TO MTD OR TRANSFER
`5:23-CV-03264-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:23-cv-03624-BLF Document 53 Filed 12/29/23 Page 8 of 33
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over the three AGIS defendants (collectively, “AGIS”)
`because of their extensive history of patent licensing and enforcement activities in this District,
`against plaintiff Google and many other NDCA-based companies. As AGIS has itself alleged,
`since 2008, AGIS, Inc. has repeatedly contacted Google to leverage AGIS’s patents—all of which
`are in the ’970 Patent family—in an effort to obtain licenses or sell its patents and technology to
`Google. Since forming AGIS Software in 2017, AGIS has filed 27 district court cases, 20 of which
`are against Google and its customers. Moreover, AGIS has twice consented to litigating in this
`District, once in a forum selection clause in an agreement with Google and again in agreeing to
`transfer one of its Texas cases against Google asserting the ’970 Patent, the same patent at issue
`here, to this District. AGIS’s patent-related activities against Google and other NDCA-based
`companies and agreements to litigate in this Court confer personal jurisdiction.
`Google has also more than sufficiently pleaded its causes of action. For Count III,
`preclusion, AGIS’s two prior dismissals of claims for relief asserting the ’970 Patent have
`preclusive effect. For Count IV, inequitable conduct, AGIS failed to disclose a Federal Circuit
`indefiniteness ruling for a related patent that, based on AGIS’s own statements, is directly relevant
`to AGIS’s ’970 Patent reexamination claim amendments. For Count V, unclean hands, the same
`litigation counsel who reviewed Google’s confidential documents for Find My Device (“FMD”)
`software then participated in amending claims that target FMD, directly violating a protective order.
`Finally, AGIS is not entitled to transfer. AGIS fails to meet its burden to show that Google
`could have brought this suit against all three AGIS entities in EDTX. Moreover, all of the transfer
`factors weigh strongly against transfer—indeed, both this Court and the Federal Circuit have
`already found the NDCA to be more convenient than the EDTX in other cases involving AGIS,
`including a case where AGIS was asserting the ’970 Patent against FMD.
`II.
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`A.
`The Parties
`Plaintiff Google LLC’s principal place of business is in Mountain View, California, in this
`District. First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), ECF 42 ¶12; see also ECF 48 (unredacted version).
`
`
`1
`
`GOOGLE OPP. TO MTD OR TRANSFER
`5:23-CV-03264-BLF
`
`I.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:23-cv-03624-BLF Document 53 Filed 12/29/23 Page 9 of 33
`
`
`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
`
`Defendants AGIS, Inc. and AGIS Holdings are Florida corporations with their principal
`place of business at the same address in Jupiter, Florida. FAC ¶13. As detailed in the FAC, from
`2008 to the present, AGIS, Inc. has purposefully directed business, patent, and licensing efforts at
`Google and other NDCA-based companies regarding the ’970 Patent or related patents, and AGIS,
`Inc.’s LifeRing product, which practices the ’970 Patent according to AGIS. Id. ¶¶108-155.
`On June 1, 2017, AGIS Software was created as a Texas LLC, headquartered at a lawyer’s
`office in Marshall, Texas, blocks away from the EDTX Marshall courthouse. Id. ¶46; see also
`ECF 44-1, Beyer Decl. ¶13. Two weeks later, AGIS, Inc. assigned the ’970 Patent and all its other
`patents to AGIS Software via AGIS Holdings without consideration. FAC ¶¶47-48.
`AGIS, Inc. and AGIS Software are wholly owned subsidiaries of AGIS Holdings. Id. ¶49.
`Malcom K. Beyer, Jr., the named inventor of the ’970 Patent, is the CEO of all three AGIS entities.
`Id. ¶50. AGIS Software also identifies as its own business address the Jupiter, Florida headquarters
`of AGIS Holdings and AGIS, Inc., and all of AGIS Software’s board members and shareholders
`are employees, officers, board members, or shareholders of AGIS, Inc. Id. ¶51.
`B.
`’970 Patent Litigation History
`AGIS Software has asserted the ’970 Patent in 18 actions against Google and its customers,
`alleging infringement based on FMD, summarized below:
`2017 Customer Lawsuits: On June 21, 2017, 20 days after its formation, AGIS Software
`filed lawsuits asserting the ’970 Patent and related patents against Google’s customers, HTC,
`Huawei, ZTE, and LG, based on their smartphones’ use of FMD. Id. ¶61. As part of those cases,
`AGIS Software served Google with deposition and document subpoenas, requesting testimony,
`source code, and documents about FMD. Id. ¶62. The subpoenas identified this District as the
`place of compliance, and AGIS has since relied on these litigations and the subpoenas to argue
`Google had notice of infringement of the ’970 Patent. Id. ¶¶60-62.
`Soon after Google filed an IPR challenging the ’970 Patent, AGIS engaged in settlement
`and patent licensing negotiations with Google, including calls between AGIS and Google on at
`least June 25, 2018, and July 16, 2018. Id. ¶¶63-65.
`2019 “Google AGIS I” Litigation: On November 4, 2019, AGIS Software filed suit against
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`GOOGLE OPP. TO MTD OR TRANSFER
`5:23-CV-03264-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:23-cv-03624-BLF Document 53 Filed 12/29/23 Page 10 of 33
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`Google in the Eastern District of Texas (“EDTX”) asserting, among other claims, the ’970 Patent
`against FMD. AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2:19-CV-00361-JRG (E.D. Tex. Nov.
`4, 2019) (“Google AGIS I”); FAC ¶5. After the Federal Circuit granted Google’s mandamus
`petition, the Google AGIS I case was transferred to this District, and this Court has been presiding
`over the case since August 25, 2022. AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Google LLC, No. 5:22-CV-
`04826-BLF. After transfer, Google re-filed in this District its motion to dismiss the ’970 Patent for
`lack of subject matter jurisdiction because AGIS Software had substantively amended the patent’s
`asserted claims during an ex parte reexamination proceeding filed in 2020. FAC ¶6. In response,
`AGIS Software dismissed the ’970 Patent with prejudice. Id.; see Google AGIS I, ECF 437, 438.
`2022 ITC Action: On November 16, 2022, AGIS Software and AGIS, Inc. together filed
`an ITC action against Google, Samsung, and eleven other respondents, along with parallel district
`court actions in the EDTX against each of those eleven other respondents. See ITC Inv. No. 337-
`TA-1347. Each of the additional respondents are Google’s customers, and AGIS asserted
`infringement of the ’970 Patent against each respondent based on FMD. See id.
`2023 WDTX Action: On March 1, 2023, before dismissing with prejudice the ’970 Patent
`in the NDCA, AGIS Software sued Google in the WDTX, again asserting the ’970 Patent against
`FMD. AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Google LLC, No. 6:23-CV-00160-DC-DTG (“WDTX Case”).
`Google then filed an unopposed motion for stay pending resolution of the ITC Action, which
`memorialized AGIS’s agreement to transfer the WDTX Case to this District: “[t]he parties have
`agreed that if and after the requested stay has been lifted, AGIS will not oppose a motion by Google
`to transfer this case to the Northern District of California following the stay.” WDTX Case, ECF
`10 at 3 n.1. On July 20, 2023, AGIS Software dismissed the WDTX Case. Id., ECF 12.
`2023 Samsung EDTX Action: On July 14, 2022, AGIS Software sued Samsung in the
`EDTX. AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2:22-cv-263-JRG-RSP (“Samsung
`EDTX Action”). Initially, in opposing a stay of this case pending resolution of the ITC Action,
`AGIS stated that it was not asserting infringement by Samsung based on FMD. Id., ECF 41 at 2.
`But over a year into the case, on August 24, 2023, AGIS obtained leave to amend its infringement
`contentions to assert the ’970 Patent against FMD. Id., ECF 115. Samsung has moved to sever
`
`
`3
`
`GOOGLE OPP. TO MTD OR TRANSFER
`5:23-CV-03264-BLF
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:23-cv-03624-BLF Document 53 Filed 12/29/23 Page 11 of 33
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`and transfer the FMD claims to this District, and that motion remains pending. Id., ECF 117.
`III. THIS COURT HAS PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER THE AGIS ENTITIES
`A.
`Legal Standard For Personal Jurisdiction
`Federal Circuit law applies for assessing personal jurisdiction in a declaratory judgment
`matter involving only patent claims. Xilinx, Inc. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, 848 F.3d
`1346, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2017). At the pleading stage and in the absence of an evidentiary hearing, a
`plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction. Id.
`Google relies on specific jurisdiction, which requires the existence of “minimum contacts,”
`meaning “(1) the defendant ‘purposefully directed’ its activities at residents of the forum; and (2) []
`the claim ‘arise[s] out of or relate[s] to’ the defendant’s activities within the forum.” Apple Inc. v.
`Zipit Wireless, Inc., 30 F.4th 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Alternatively, a party may “consent to
`the personal jurisdiction of the court.” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472 n.14
`(1985). Once minimum contacts are shown, the defendant must present a “compelling case that
`the presence of some other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable.” Id.
`The contacts of related entities may be used to extend personal jurisdiction where one entity
`is the alter ego of another. Ranza v. Nike, Inc., 793 F.3d 1059, 1073 (9th Cir. 2015). To satisfy the
`alter ego test, a plaintiff must make out a prima facie case “(1) that there is such unity of interest
`and ownership that the separate personalities [of the two entities] no longer exist and (2) that failure
`to disregard [their separate identities] would result in fraud or injustice.” Id.
`B.
`AGIS Entities Are Alter Egos For Purposes Of Personal Jurisdiction
`Each AGIS defendant entity’s contacts with this District can be imputed to the others for
`personal jurisdiction, as all three are alter egos of each other.
`1.
`There Is Unity Of Interest And Ownership
`AGIS Holdings, AGIS, Inc., and AGIS Software are alter egos of each other because there
`is complete unity of interest and ownership. The AGIS entities are commonly owned and
`controlled, and they operate jointly to litigate and license AGIS’s patents. Indeed, on similar facts
`in an AGIS case against Lyft (another NDCA-based company), this Court granted, over AGIS’s
`opposition, Lyft’s motion for leave to amend its complaint to add all three AGIS entities as
`
`
`4
`
`GOOGLE OPP. TO MTD OR TRANSFER
`5:23-CV-03264-BLF
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:23-cv-03624-BLF Document 53 Filed 12/29/23 Page 12 of 33
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`defendants based on an alter ego theory, finding the alter ego relationship to be adequately pleaded
`and not “futile,” as AGIS argued. Lyft, Inc. v. AGIS Software Dev. LLC, 2022 WL 1991265, at *2
`(N.D. Cal. June 6, 2022).1 Here, Google pleads the same allegations as Lyft and much more.
`Specifically, AGIS, Inc. alleges it has been leveraging its patent portfolio for licensing and
`business purposes since at least 2008, when it first allegedly contacted Google regarding its patents
`and its patent-practicing LifeRing product. FAC ¶¶113-123. AGIS, Inc. also contacted Life360, a
`San Francisco-based company, before filing suit in 2014. Id. ¶¶123-127. Then, in 2017, AGIS,
`Inc. assigned (without consideration) its patents to AGIS Software, whose sole purpose is to
`continue what AGIS, Inc. started—leveraging AGIS’s patent portfolio. Id. ¶¶32-33, 46-48, 55, 61.
`All three AGIS entities are commonly owned, with AGIS Holdings owning AGIS, Inc. and
`AGIS Software. Id. ¶49. And the same officers control all three entities (id. ¶¶42-43, 49-50):
`Executive
`AGIS Software
`AGIS Holdings
`AGIS, Inc.
`CEO / Director /
`CEO / Director /
`Malcolm K. Beyer Jr. CEO
`Chairman
`Chairman
`Secretary / Director
`Secretary / Director
`
`Margaret Beyer
`
`Secretary
`
`Ronald Wisneski
`
`CFO / Treasurer
`
`CFO / Treasurer
`
`CFO / Treasurer
`
`Sandel Blackwell
`
`President
`
`President / Director
`
`President
`
`Although AGIS Software purports to be a Texas corporation, it has no employees of its
`own, and no one affiliated with the company is in Texas. Instead, each of the AGIS entities operates
`out of the same address in Jupiter, Florida. Id. ¶¶35-39, 54. AGIS entities also fail to maintain
`corporate distinctiveness and commingle funds among themselves. Id. ¶¶25-26, 31, 40-41. Indeed,
`AGIS Software is undercapitalized and describes itself as an “inanimate entity.” Id. ¶¶ 23-24. The
`primary source of revenue for all three is licensing of AGIS Software’s patents. Id. ¶¶27-29.
`AGIS, Inc. and AGIS Holdings remain actively involved in AGIS Software’s patent
`
`1 AGIS’s motion repeatedly cites an earlier decision from this Court dismissing Lyft’s original
`complaint against AGIS. ECF 44 (“Mot.”) at 5, 12, 15 (citing Lyft, Inc. v. AGIS Software Dev.
`LLC, 2022 WL 267409 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2022)). AGIS omits that Lyft then moved for leave to
`amend its complaint to add more allegations to support personal jurisdiction and an alter ego theory,
`which the Court found sufficient to support granting leave. Lyft, 2022 WL 1991265.
`
`GOOGLE OPP. TO MTD OR TRANSFER
`5:23-CV-03264-BLF
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:23-cv-03624-BLF Document 53 Filed 12/29/23 Page 13 of 33
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`licensing and enforcement efforts. AGIS Holdings was created in 2017, shortly before AGIS
`Software, and is merely a holding entity for AGIS Software and AGIS, Inc. Id. ¶¶46, 49. In
`November 2022, both AGIS, Inc. and AGIS Software filed the ITC Action against Google and 11
`of Google’s customers, alleging infringement of the ’970 Patent based on FMD. Id. ¶¶17, 53. The
`AGIS entities have together licensed their patents to many companies, including Apple, Huawei,
`HTC, LG, ZTE, WhatsApp/Facebook, Uber, T-Mobile, Smith Micro. Id. ¶¶70-107. These licenses
`were not executed solely by AGIS Software, but also include AGIS, Inc. and AGIS Holdings as
`either express signatories or as AGIS Software’s affiliates and beneficiaries of the licenses. Id.
`The Federal Circuit has soundly rejected attempts by patent licensors, like AGIS, Inc., to
`evade jurisdiction based on the mere assignment of patents to a licensing entity. In Dainippon
`Screen Manufacturing Co. v. CFMT, Inc., the Federal Circuit found personal jurisdiction over both
`a business entity, CFM, and a patent holding subsidiary, CFMT, based on the activities of CFM.
`142 F.3d 1266, 1271 (Fed. Cir. 1998). As the Federal Circuit explained, a patent holding entity
`“cannot fairly be used to insulate patent owners from defending declaratory judgment actions in
`those fora where its parent company operates under the patent and engages in activities sufficient
`to create personal jurisdiction and declaratory judgment jurisdiction.” Id.
`Similarly, this District has found personal jurisdiction over a newly-created licensing entity
`based on contacts of a parent. Google Inc. v. Rockstar Consortium U.S. LP, 2014 WL 1571807, at
`*4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2014). Applying Dainippon, the court in Rockstar found facts “strongly
`suggest[ing]” that a patent holding entity was a “sham entity [formed] for the sole purpose of
`avoiding jurisdiction” where it was formed just a day before a series of lawsuits was filed. Id. The
`Rockstar court found it noteworthy that the two entities shared employees, officers, and offices. Id.
`Google has pleaded even more facts than in Dainippon and Rockstar showing that AGIS
`Software is a sham e