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.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`C.A. NO. 2:17-CV-0513-JRG
`LEAD CASE
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`HTC CORPORATION,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE (USA), INC., AND
`ZTE (TX), INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`C.A. NO. 2:17-cv-514-JRG
`(CONSOLIDATED CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`C.A. NO. 2:17-cv-517-JRG
`(CONSOLIDATED CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS HTC CORPORATION, ZTE (USA), INC., AND ZTE (TX), INC.’S
`INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS PURSUANT TO PATENT LOCAL RULE 3-3
`
`
`
`IPR2019-00485, Exhibit 2003
`Patent Owner, AGIS Software Development
`Page 1
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to Local Patent Rules (“P.R.”) 3-3 and 3-4, Defendants HTC Corporation
`
`(“HTC”)1 and ZTE (USA), Inc., and ZTE (TX), Inc. (collectively, “ZTE”)2 (HTC and ZTE are
`
`herein, collectively, referred to as “Defendants”) hereby serve their Invalidity Contentions and
`
`accompanying document production on Plaintiff AGIS Software Development LLC (“AGIS” or
`
`“Plaintiff”). Defendants’ discovery and investigation related to the above-captioned cases are
`
`continuing, and, as such, these contentions and disclosures are based on information reasonably
`
`obtained by Defendants to date in view of the unreasonable number of claims currently asserted
`
`by AGIS. Defendants reserve the right to supplement or modify these contentions, consistent
`
`with P.R. 3-6 and any applicable Court order.
`
`AGIS has asserted the following patents and claims against Defendants in this case:
`
`• Claims 1 and 3-9 of U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970 (the “ʼ970 Patent”);
`• Claims 1-54 of U.S. Patent No. 9,408,055 (the “ʼ055 Patent”);
`• Claims 1-35 of U.S. Patent No. 9,445,251 (the “ʼ251 Patent”); and
`• Claims 1-54 of U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838 (the “ʼ838 Patent”)
`
`
`The ’970 Patent, ’055 Patent, ’251 Patent, and ’838 Patent are collectively referred to herein as
`
`the “Patents-in-Suit” and the claims identified above are collectively referred to herein as the
`
`“Asserted Claims.” That AGIS has asserted all or substantially all the claims in each of the
`
`Patents-in-Suit is overly burdensome and unsustainable. To that end, AGIS has agreed to a
`
`phased reduction of asserted claims, but, under the amended Docket Control Order (2:17-cv-
`
`00514-JRG, D.I. 39; see also 2:17-cv-00513-JRG, D.I. 89), this reduction will occur after service
`
`of these Invalidity Contentions. For at least this reason, Defendants reserve the right to amend or
`
`otherwise supplement these contentions and disclosures to the extent necessary and permitted.
`
`1 HTC Corp. serves these invalidity contentions subject to its objection and motion to dismiss for lack of personal
`jurisdiction.
`2 Defendant ZTE Corporation has not yet been served or appeared in this matter; thus, all scheduling deadlines will
`apply, if Defendant ZTE Corporation is served.
`
`- 1 -
`
`2
`
`

`

`remotely controlling the particular second device to perform an action, wherein the
`particular second device is configured to perform the action based on receiving the
`second message.”
`
`
`Claim 47:
`
`• “wherein the information associated with the facility comprises a uniform resource
`locator (URL) of a web site associated with the facility.”
`
`
`Claim 48:
`
`• “further comprising performing, by the first device: identifying user interaction with the
`interactive display selecting the symbol corresponding to the facility and user interaction
`with the display specifying an action, and based thereon, loading a web page associated
`with the facility.”
`
`
`Claim 51:
`
`
`
`• “wherein the first server is the second server.”
`
`B.
`
`Patent Local Rule 3-3(a)-(c) Initial Disclosures
`
`Pursuant to P.R. 3-3(a), and as detailed below and in the attached Exhibits, Defendants
`
`contend that the asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit are invalid as anticipated and/or obvious
`
`under (pre-AIA and/or AIA) 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 over at least the following prior art.
`
`Exhibit
`(Chart)
`
`Reference
`
`A-1
`
`A-2
`
`A-3
`
`A-4
`
`U.S. Patent Application
`Publication No. US
`2003/0217109
`
`U.S. Patent Application
`Publication No. US
`2008/0219416
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`7,609,669
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`7,386,589
`
`Inventor or
`Author
`
`Ordille et al.
`
`Date of Issue or
`Publication or
`Public Use /
`Availability
`Nov. 20, 2003
`
`Filing Date
`
`June 26, 2002
`
`Roujinsky
`
`Sept. 11, 2008
`
`Feb. 15, 2008
`
`Sweeney
`
`Oct. 27, 2009
`
`Feb. 14, 2005
`
`Tanumihardja et
`al.
`
`June 10, 2008
`
`June 27, 2001
`
`- 19 -
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`A-5
`
`A-6
`
`A-6
`A-7
`
`A-7
`
`A-7
`
`A-8
`
`A-9
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`6,816,878
`
`U.S. Patent
`Application
`Publication No.
`U.S. Pat. No.
`6,854,007
`
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`5,325,310
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`5,742,905
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`7,619,584
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`7,912,913
`
`Zimmers et al.
`
`Nov. 9, 2004
`
`Feb. 11, 2000
`
`Kubala
`
`Sept. 28., 2006
`
`Mar. 24, 2005
`
`Hammond
`
`Feb. 8, 2005
`
`Sept. 17, 1998
`
`Johnson et al.
`
`June 28, 1994
`
`June 26, 1992
`
`Pepe et al.
`
`Apr. 21, 1998
`
`Sept. 19, 1994
`
`Wolf
`
`Nov. 17, 2009
`
`Sept. 8, 2006
`
`Accapadi et al.
`
`Mar. 22, 2011
`
`Sept. 15, 2005
`
`A-10
`
`WO 2008/118878
`
`Swanburg et al.
`
`Oct. 2, 2008
`
`Mar. 24, 2008
`
`C-1
`E-1
`G-1
`
`C-2
`E-2
`G-2
`
`C-3
`E-3
`G-3
`
`C-4
`E-4
`G-4
`
`C-5
`E-5
`G-5
`C-5
`E-5
`G-5
`
`U.S. Patent Application
`Publication No. US
`2007/0281690
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`7,330,112
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`7,917,866
`
`U.S. Patent Application
`Publication No. US
`2002/0115453
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`6,867,733
`
`U.S. Patent No.
`7,271,742
`
`Altman et al.
`
`Dec. 6, 2007
`
`June 1, 2006
`
`Emigh et al.
`
`Feb. 12, 2008
`
`Sept. 9, 2004
`
`Karam
`
`Mar. 29, 2011
`
`Dec. 30, 2005
`
`Poulin et al.
`
`Aug. 22, 2002
`
`Feb. 15, 2002
`
`Sandhu et al.
`
`Mar. 15, 2005
`
`Apr. 9, 2001
`
`Sheha et al.
`
`Sept. 18, 2007
`
`Mar. 3, 2003
`
`- 20 -
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Dated: March 15, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Miguel Bombach
`Matthew C. Bernstein, (Lead Attorney)
`CA State Bar No. 199240
`mbernstein@perkinscoie.com
`Miguel J. Bombach
`CA State Bar No. 274287
`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/ Lionel Lavenue
`Lionel Marks Lavenue (Lead Attorney)
`Lionel.Lavenue@finnegan.com
`VA State Bar No. 49,005
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`Two Freedom Square
`11955 Freedom Drive
`Reston, VA 20190
`Tel: (571) 203-2700
`Fax: (202) 408-4400
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
`ZTE (USA) INC. AND ZTE (TX), INC.
`
`- 62 -
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on March 15, 2018, the forgoing document was served via e-mail
`
`upon counsel for Plaintiff AGIS Software Development, LLC.
`
` /s/ Miguel Bombach
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`6
`
`