Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 162 Filed 07/23/18 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 5641
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA INC., HUAWEI
`DEVICE CO., LTD. AND HUAWEI
`DEVICE (DONGGUAN) CO., LTD.,
`HTC CORPORATION,
`LG ELECTRONICS INC.,
`APPLE INC.,
`ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE (USA), INC.,
`AND ZTE (TX), INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`Civil Action No. 2:17-CV-513-JRG
`(Lead Case)
`
`Civil Action No. 2:17-CV-514-JRG
`Civil Action No. 2:17-CV-515-JRG
`Civil Action No. 2:17-CV-516-JRG
`Civil Action No. 2:17-CV-517-JRG
`
`P.R. 4-3 – UPDATED JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND PREHEARING
`STATEMENT
`
`Pursuant to Patent Local Rule 4-3 and the schedule provided by the Court’s Second
`
`Amended Docket Control Order (D.I. 115), Plaintiff AGIS Software Development LLC
`
`(“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Huawei Device USA Inc., Huawei Device Co., Ltd., Huawei Device
`
`(Dongguan) Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Huawei”), HTC Corporation (“HTC”), LG Electronics Inc.
`
`(“LG”), Apple Inc. (“Apple”), and ZTE (USA) Inc., and ZTE (TX), Inc. (collectively, “ZTE”),
`
`(Huawei, HTC, LG, Apple, and ZTE collectively referred to herein as “Defendants”) hereby
`
`provide an Amended Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (“Joint Statement”).
`
`This updated Joint Statement reflects revisions worked out between the parties and
`
`reduces the number of disputed terms.
`
`This Joint Statement addresses the agreed and disputed claim terms and phrases from the
`
`asserted claims of the five asserted patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,213,970 (the “’970 Patent”),
`
`1
`
`AGIS Software Development LLC
`IPR2018-01082 Ex. 2004
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 162 Filed 07/23/18 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 5642
`
`
`
`9,408,055 (the “’055 Patent”), 9,445,251 (the “’251 Patent”), and 9,467,838 (the “’838 Patent”),
`
`and 9,749, 829 (the “’829 Patent”) (collectively, “Patents-In-Suit”).1
`
`I.
`
`The Construction Of Those Claim Terms On Which The Parties Agree
`
`Pursuant to P.R. 4-3(a), the parties have been unable to agree on the constructions of any
`
`claim terms at issue in this case as set forth in Appendix 1. At this stage, the parties are unaware
`
`of any other disputes regarding construction of the asserted claims.2
`
`II.
`
`Each Party’s Proposed Construction Of Each Disputed Claim Term
`
`Pursuant to P.R. 4-3(b), the parties have attached a chart hereto as Appendix 1, which
`
`shows each party’s proposed construction of each disputed claim term, phrase, or clause,
`
`together with an identification of all references from the specification or prosecution history that
`
`support that construction, and an identification of any extrinsic evidence known to the party on
`
`which it intends to rely either to support its proposed construction or to oppose any other party’s
`
`proposed construction, including but not limited to, as permitted by law, dictionary definitions,
`
`citations to learned treatises and prior art, and testimony of percipient and expert witnesses.3,4
`
`
`1 AGIS has asserted the ’829 Patent only against Apple. Accordingly, unless otherwise stated,
`the claim terms identified herein from that patent, and any subsequent positions taken with
`respect to those terms, are only proffered by and attributable to Apple. In this regard, no
`inferences shall apply to those defendants against whom AGIS has not asserted the ’829 Patent
`(e.g., Huawei, LG, HTC, and ZTE).
`2 AGIS informed Defendants that it is AGIS’s position that the remaining terms of the asserted
`claims should be affording their plain and ordinary meaning.
`3 Defendants object to Plaintiff’s disclosures in Appendix 1. Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently
`identify its positions pursuant to P.R. 4-2, which requires each party to provide its proposed
`construction of each disputed claim term, phrase, or clause, including “for each element which
`any party contends is governed by 35 U.S.C. 112(6), [an identification of] the structure(s), act(s),
`or material(s) corresponding to that element.” Plaintiff failed to meet those requirements in at
`least two ways: (i) by citing nearly identical lists of “exemplary ‘structure(s), act(s), or
`material(s)’ that may correspond” with each of the claim element that Defendants contend are
`governed by 35 U.S.C. 112(f), which cover nearly the entire specification of each asserted
`patent; and (ii) by including, for each claim element that Defendants contend is governed by 35
`U.S.C. 112(f), an assertion that Plaintiff “reserves the right to identify additional structure from
`
`
`2
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 162 Filed 07/23/18 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 5643
`
`
`
`Where intrinsic and extrinsic citations have been made for a particular claim term,
`
`phrase, or clause they should be understood as applicable to each other instance where the same
`
`term, phrase, or clause appears elsewhere.
`
`III. Anticipated Length Of Time Necessary For Claim Construction Hearing
`
`Pursuant to P.R. 4-3(c), the Defendants anticipate that the parties will need a combined
`
`total of four hours for presentation at the Claim Construction Hearing with equal time for each
`
`side. This case involves five defendants and five asserted patents—with different patents
`
`asserted against different defendants. At the time of the Claim Construction Hearing, Plaintiff
`
`will have narrowed the asserted claims to 38 claims per defendant. The parties agree that at least
`
`6 terms are governed by 112(6) and dispute whether numerous additional terms are governed by
`
`112(f).
`
`Plaintiff does not oppose this request.
`
`IV. Witness Testimony At The Claim Construction Hearing
`
`Pursuant to P.R. 4-3(d), neither party has current plans to call any live witnesses at the
`
`claim construction hearing. The parties may, however, be offering expert declarations in support
`
`
`all preceding applications in the priority chain” for each such term. These statements obscure the
`specific “structure(s), act(s), or material(s)” that Plaintiff contends corresponds to each element
`and thereby fail to provide Defendants with fair notice of AGIS’s positions as required by P.R. 4-
`2. As such, Defendants reserve the right to move to strike or to request additional briefing if
`Plaintiff raises any arguments in its briefs that only a subset of the disclosures identified in the
`P.R. 4-2 and 4-3 disclosures for a give element provides the “structure(s), act(s), or material(s)”
`corresponding to that element, or that additional structure from any preceding applications in the
`priority chain provide such “structure(s), act(s), or material(s).”
`
` 4
`
` AGIS objects to Defendants’ disclosures set forth in Appendix 1. Defendants 4-1 statement
`alleged broadly that entire claims of the ’055, ’251, ’838, and ’829 Patents were governed by 35
`U.S.C. 112(f) and were invalid as indefinite. AGIS’s 4-2 statement responded to Defendants’ 4-
`1 statement and contends that the claims are not governed by 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and are not
`indefinite. Defendants 4-2 statement further divides the claims into smaller portions and alleges
`that the smaller portions are each governed by 35 U.S.C. 112(f). AGIS maintains its position
`that the claims of the ’055, ’251, ’838, and ’829 Patents are not governed by 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
`
`3
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 162 Filed 07/23/18 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 5644
`
`
`
`of their Markman briefs. With respect to the timing of expert declarations and depositions
`
`regarding claim construction and indefiniteness, the parties agree to the following:
`
`• Any expert declaration from Plaintiff’s expert submitted to support a proposed
`
`construction or position will be submitted with Plaintiff’s Opening Markman
`
`Brief, except that Plaintiff may also submit—with its Reply Brief—an expert
`
`declaration in response to any indefiniteness contentions made by Defendants in
`
`their Responsive Markman Brief. If Plaintiff submits expert testimony for the first
`
`time in its Reply Brief on any issue, Defendants may also submit—with a Sur-
`
`Reply Brief—an expert declaration in response.
`
`• Any expert declaration from Defendants’ expert submitted to support a proposed
`
`construction or position (including any indefiniteness contentions) will be
`
`submitted with Defendants’ Responsive Markman Brief.
`
`• All expert depositions are to occur after briefing is complete.
`
`V.
`
`Other Issues For A Prehearing Conference Prior To The Claim Construction
`Hearing
`
`Pursuant to P.R. 4-3(e), the parties are unaware of any other issues that would be
`
`appropriate for a prehearing conference.
`
`
`
`4
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 162 Filed 07/23/18 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 5645
`
`
`
`Dated: July 23, 2018
`
`
`Respectfully submitted by:
`
`BROWN RUDNICK LLP
`
` /s/ Alfred R. Fabricant
`
`
`
`Alfred R. Fabricant
`N.Y. Bar No. 2219392
`Email: afabricant@brownrudnick.com
`Peter Lambrianakos
`N.Y. Bar No. 2894392
`Email: plambrianakos@brownrudnick.com
`Vincent J. Rubino, III
`N.Y. Bar No. 4557435
`Email: vrubino@brownrudnick.com
`Alessandra C. Messing
`NY Bar No. 5040019
`Email: amessing@brownrudnick.com
`John A. Rubino
`NY Bar No. 5020797
`Email: jrubino@brownrudnick.com
`Enrique W. Iturralde
`NY Bar No. 5526280
`Email: eiturralde@brownrudnick.com
`Daniel J. Shea Jr
`NY Bar No. 5430558
`Email: dshea@brownrudnick.com
`BROWN RUDNICK LLP
`7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`Telephone: 212-209-4800
`Facsimile: 212-209-4801
`
`Samuel F. Baxter
`Texas Bar No. 01938000
`Email: sbaxter@mckoolsmith.com
`Jennifer L. Truelove
`Texas State Bar No. 24012906
`Email: jtruelove@mckoolsmith.com
`
`McKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`104 East Houston Street, Suite 300
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`Telephone: 903-923-9000
`Facsimile: 903-923-9099
`
`
`5
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 162 Filed 07/23/18 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 5646
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF, AGIS
`SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC
`
`
`
`/s/ Nicholas H. Lee
`Mark Mann
`SBN: 12926150
`mark@themannfirm.com
`G. Blake Thompson
`SBN: 24042033
`blake@themannfirm.com
`MANN TINDEL THOMPSON
`300 West Main Street
`Henderson, Texas 75652
`Tel: 903-657-8540
`
`
`Michael A. Berta
`Michael.berta@arnoldporter.com
`Marisa Armanino Williams
`Marisa.armanino@arnoldporter.com
`ARNOLD & PORTER
`KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`Three Embarcadero Center
`10th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111-4024
`Tel: 415-471-3277
`
`James S. Blackburn
`James.blackburn@arnoldporter.com
`Nicholas H. Lee
`Nicholas.lee@arnoldporter.com
`ARNOLD & PORTER
`KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`777 South Figueroa Street
`44th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90017-5844
`Tel: 213-243-4156
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA INC., HUAWEI
`DEVICE CO., LTD. AND HUAWEI
`DEVICE (DONGGUAN) CO., LTD. AND
`LG ELECTRONICS INC.
`
`Kent E. Baldauf, Jr.
`kbaldaufjr@webblaw.com
`Bryan P. Clark
`
`6
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 162 Filed 07/23/18 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 5647
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`bclark@webblaw.com
`THE WEBB LAW FIRM
`One Gateway Center
`420 Ft. Duquesne Blvd. Suite 1200
`Pittsburgh, PA 15222
`Tel: 412-471-8815
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA INC., HUAWEI
`DEVICE CO., LTD. AND HUAWEI
`DEVICE (DONGGUAN) CO., LTD.
`
`/s/ Kerri-Ann Limbeek
`Melissa Richards Smith
`State Bar No. 24001351
`GILLAM & SMITH, LLP
`303 South Washington Ave.
`Marshall, TX 75670
`Tel: (903) 934-8450
`Fax: (903) 934-9257
`melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`
`John M. Desmarais
`Michael P. Stadnick
`Ameet A. Modi
`Kerri-Ann Limbeek
`Brian Matty
`DESMARAIS LLP
`230 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10169
`Telephone: (212) 351-3400
`Facsimile: (212) 351-3401
`Email: jdesmarais@desmaraisllp.com
`Email: mstadnick@desmaraisllp.com
`Email: amodi@desmaraisllp.com
`Email: klimbeek@desmaraisllp.com
`Email: bmatty@desmaraisllp.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR APPLE INC.
`
`
`
`
`/s/Miguel Bombach
`Matthew C. Bernstein, (Lead Attorney)
`CA State Bar No. 199240
`mbernstein@perkinscoie.com
`Miguel J. Bombach
`CA State Bar No. 274287
`
`7
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 162 Filed 07/23/18 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 5648
`
`
`
`mbombach@perkinscoie.com
`James Young Hurt (Pro Hac Vice)
`CA State Bar No. 312390
`jhurt@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`11988 El Camino Real, Suite 350
`San Diego, CA 92130-2594
`Tel: (858) 720-5700
`Fax: (858) 720-5799
`
`Eric Findlay
`State Bar No. 00789886
`efindlay@findlaycraft.com
`FINDLAY CRAFT, P.C.
`102 N. College Ave., Suite 900
`Tyler, TX 75702
`Tel: (903) 534-1100
`Fax: (903) 534-1137
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT HTC
`CORPORATION
`
`
`
`/s/Bradford Schulz
`Lionel M. Lavenue (Lead Attorney)
`VA State Bar No. 49,005
`Bradford C. Schulz
`VA State Bar No. 91,057
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`Two Freedom Square
`11955 Freedom Drive
`Reston, VA 20190
`Phone: (571) 203-2700
`Fax: (202) 408-4400
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
`ZTE (USA) Inc. and ZTE (TX), Inc.
`
`
`
`8
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 162 Filed 07/23/18 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 5649
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have
`
`consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s
`
`CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on July 23, 2018.
`
`
`
`/s/ Vincent J. Rubino, III
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Vincent J. Rubino, III
`
`
`
`9
`
`9
`
`