Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 102 Filed 03/22/18 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 5099
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`
`
`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
`
`DEFENDANTS HUAWEI DEVICE USA INC., HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD. AND
`HUAWEI DEVICE (DONGGUAN) CO., LTD.’S AND LG ELECTRONICS INC.’S
`MOTION TO STAY PENDING RESOLUTION OF HUAWEI’S MOTION TO
`TRANSFER (DKT. NO. 36) AND LGEKR’S MOTION TO DISMISS OR TRANSFER
`(DKT. NO. 46)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 102 Filed 03/22/18 Page 2 of 16 PageID #: 5100
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`
`A. Pending Motions To Dismiss Or Transfer
`
`B. Case Schedule And Status
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`A. A Stay Does Not Unduly Prejudice AGIS.
`
`B. Huawei and LGEKR Will Incur Hardship Absent A Stay.
`
`C. Judicial Efficiency Favors A Stay.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page
`
`1
`
`1
`
`1
`
`3
`
`4
`
`6
`
`6
`
`7
`
`9
`
`10
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 102 Filed 03/22/18 Page 3 of 16 PageID #: 5101
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`B.E. Tech., LLC v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am., LLC,
`No. 2:12-cv-02826, 2013 WL 524893 (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 11, 2013) .......................................... 6
`
`Brite Smart Corp. v. Google Inc.,
`No. 2:14-cv-760, Dkt. No. 151 (E.D. Tex. July 16, 2015) ......................................................... 6
`
`Brown v. DFS Servs.,
`434 F. App’x 347 (5th Cir. 2011) ............................................................................................. 10
`
`DSS Tech. Mgmt., Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 6:13-cv-919, Dkt. No. 83 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 28, 2014) ........................................................... 5
`
`Enhanced Sec. Research, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`No. 09-cv-571, 2010 WL 2573925 (D. Del. June 25, 2010) ...................................................... 7
`
`Evolutionary Intelligence LLC v. Sprint Nextel, Inc.,
`No. 6:12-cv-00791, 2013 WL 12162396 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 18, 2013)......................................... 7
`
`Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Agilent Techs., Inc.,
`No. 12-cv-01616, 2012 WL 2906571 (N.D. Cal. July 16, 2012) ........................................... 6, 7
`
`In re EMC Corp.,
`501 F. App’x 973 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ....................................................................................... 1, 10
`
`In re Fusion-IO, Inc.,
`489 F. App’x 465 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................................. 5
`
`In re Google Inc.,
`No. 2015-138, 2015 WL 5294800 (Fed. Cir. July 16, 2015) ...................................................... 5
`
`Landis v. N. Am. Co.,
`299 U.S. 248 (1936) .................................................................................................................... 4
`
`Maurice Mitchell Innovations, LP v. Intel Corp.,
`No. 2:04-cv-450, 2006 WL 1751779 (E.D. Tex. June 21, 2006) ............................................... 9
`
`Moser v. Navistar Int’l Corp.,
`No. 4:17-cv-00598, 2018 WL 1169189 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 6, 2018) ............................................. 7
`
`NFC Tech. LLC v. HTC Am., Inc.,
`No. 2:13-cv-1058, 2015 WL 1069111 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2015) ............................................. 8
`
`Parish of Jefferson v. S. Recovery Mgmt., Inc.,
`No. 96-cv-0230, 1996 WL 144400 (E.D. La. Mar. 27, 1996) .................................................. 10
`
`Petrus v. Bowen,
`833 F.2d 581 (5th Cir. 1987) .................................................................................................... 10
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 102 Filed 03/22/18 Page 4 of 16 PageID #: 5102
`
`Secure Axcess, LLC v. Nintendo of Am., Inc.,
`No. 2:13-cv-00032, Dkt. No. 133 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 10, 2014) ..................................................... 5
`
`Solid State Storage Sols., Inc. v. STEC, Inc.,
`No. 2:11-cv-00391, Dkt. No. 292 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 3, 2013) ........................................................ 5
`
`TCGC IP Holdings, LLC v. Graves Golf Acad.,
`No. 3:10-cv-0055, 2010 WL 2671302 (N.D. Tex. July 1, 2010).............................................. 10
`
`Univ. of S. Florida Research Found. Inc. v. Fujifilm Med. Sys. USA, Inc.,
`No. 8:16-cv-1194, 2017 WL 4155344 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 29, 2017) ............................................. 6
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) ........................................................................................................................ 2
`
`Rules
`
`Northern District of California, Patent L.R. 4-1(b) ........................................................................ 8
`
`Northern District of California, Patent L.R. 4-3(c) ......................................................................... 8
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 102 Filed 03/22/18 Page 5 of 16 PageID #: 5103
`
`
`
`Defendants Huawei Device USA Inc., Huawei Device Co., Ltd., and Huawei Device
`
`(Dongguan) Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Huawei”) and LG Electronics Inc. (“LGEKR”) respectfully
`
`move this Court to stay this case pending resolution of Huawei’s Motion to Change Venue to the
`
`Northern District of California and LGEKR’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, or in
`
`the Alternative, to Transfer Venue to the Northern District of California.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Federal Circuit has counseled that district courts should resolve transfer motions
`
`before addressing the merits of a litigation. See In re EMC Corp., 501 F. App’x 973, 975 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2013). Huawei’s transfer motion, and LGEKR’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal
`
`jurisdiction, or alternatively, to transfer, are both fully briefed and ripe for the Court’s decision.
`
`Meanwhile, claim construction deadlines are fast approaching and the parties are already
`
`engaged in discovery. To avoid the need for the parties to expend resources litigating
`
`substantive matters in a potentially inconvenient venue, Huawei and LGEKR request a stay of
`
`the case pending disposition of their motions. A stay is likely to be short, as the motions are
`
`fully briefed, and thus will not prejudice AGIS. Rather, a stay will reduce the burden on all
`
`parties—and the Court—by ensuring that the threshold issues of venue and jurisdiction are
`
`resolved before proceeding to the substantive merits of the case. For these reasons, Huawei and
`
`LGEKR request that the Court stay this litigation pending resolution of their motions.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Pending Motions To Dismiss Or Transfer
`
`On July 21, 2017, Plaintiff AGIS Software Development, LLC (“AGIS”) filed lawsuits
`
`against Huawei and LGEKR, asserting infringement of the same four patents. On the same day,
`
`AGIS filed lawsuits against Apple, HTC, and ZTE, asserting infringement of either identical or
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 102 Filed 03/22/18 Page 6 of 16 PageID #: 5104
`
`overlapping sets of patents. See Case Nos. 2:17-cv-00516, 2:17-cv-00514, and 2:17-cv-00517.
`
`AGIS filed an amended complaint against Huawei on August 17, 2017. Dkt. No. 20.1 AGIS
`
`served its complaint against LGEKR on September 28, 2017. 2:17-cv-00515, Dkt. No. 18.
`
`Huawei and LGEKR promptly filed motions to dismiss or transfer. On November 14,
`
`2017, approximately five weeks after answering AGIS’s Amended Complaint, Huawei filed a
`
`Motion to Change Venue to the Northern District of California (“Huawei’s Motion To
`
`Transfer”). Dkt. No. 36. Less than two weeks later, on November 27, 2017, LGEKR filed a
`
`Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, or in the Alternative, to Transfer Venue to the
`
`Northern District of California (“LGEKR’s Motion To Dismiss Or Transfer”). Dkt. No. 46. As
`
`a Korean company with a principal place of business in Seoul, South Korea and no relevant ties
`
`to Texas, LGEKR sought dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of
`
`Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). Id. Briefing on both motions was completed on January 12, 2018.
`
`In their respective cases, Apple, HTC, and ZTE each filed motions to dismiss or transfer
`
`to the Northern District of California. See 2:17-cv-00516 at Dkt. No. 53 (Apple’s Motion to
`
`Change Venue to the Northern District of California); 2:17-cv-00514, Dkt. No. 29 (HTC’s
`
`Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2), Or in the Alternative, Transfer Venue
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to the Northern District of California); 2:17-cv-00517 at Dkt.
`
`No. 38 (ZTE’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint for Improper Venue, Or in the
`
`Alternative to Transfer). Briefing is complete in each case. On March 1, 2018, Apple moved for
`
`a hearing on its transfer motion, and the Court scheduled the requested hearing on March 27,
`
`2018. 2:17-cv-00516 at Dkt. Nos. 68 & 70.
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise noted, all citations to docket numbers are to the docket in Civil Action No.
`2:17-CV-513-JRG (lead case).
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 102 Filed 03/22/18 Page 7 of 16 PageID #: 5105
`
`Huawei and LGEKR are informed that Apple, HTC, and ZTE do not oppose the instant
`
`Motion to Stay. Declaration of James Blackburn (“Blackburn Decl.”), at ¶ 2.
`
`B.
`
`Case Schedule And Status
`
`On January 24, 2018, at the Court’s direction, AGIS and Apple jointly moved to amend
`
`the schedule in the Apple case to align it with the schedule adopted in the Huawei and LGEKR
`
`litigation. See 2:17-cv-00516 at Dkt. No. 62. Shortly thereafter, AGIS proposed that the parties
`
`amend the Docket Control Orders in the Apple, Huawei, and LGEKR cases to align with the
`
`schedule adopted in the HTC and ZTE litigations. Blackburn Decl., at ¶ 3. The Defendants
`
`agreed, and on February 21, 2018, the parties jointly requested to amend their docket control
`
`orders to adopt the schedule in the HTC and ZTE litigations. Dkt. No. 87. On March 5, 2018,
`
`the Court granted the motion to amend the Docket Control Order and also consolidated all five
`
`related cases for all pre-trial issues, except venue. Dkt. Nos. 89 & 90. As a result, the trial date
`
`in the Huawei and LGEKR actions was continued from January 7, 2019 to March 4, 2019, and
`
`all other preceding deadlines were continued by approximately one to three months. Dkt. No.
`
`89.
`
`Under the Amended Docket Control Order, claim construction disclosures begin next
`
`month. Id. The parties will exchange proposed claim terms on April 27, 2018, followed by
`
`preliminary constructions on May 18, 2018. Id. Briefing will occur between July 20, 2018 and
`
`August 10, 2018. Id. The claim construction hearing will take place on August 31, 2018. Id.
`
`The parties are already engaged in discovery. On January 8, 2018, AGIS served first sets
`
`of interrogatories on both Huawei and LGEKR. Blackburn Decl., at ¶ 4. Huawei and LGEKR
`
`each answered on February 22, 2018, and are in the process of collecting documents for
`
`production in response to the interrogatories. Id. On January 16, 2018, AGIS served letters
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 102 Filed 03/22/18 Page 8 of 16 PageID #: 5106
`
`regarding “opening discovery” which identified more than fifty categories of documents it
`
`expected Huawei and LGEKR to produce. Id. at ¶ 5. Huawei and LGEKR have completed their
`
`Patent L.R. 3-4 productions and are in the process of identifying additional relevant documents
`
`for collection and production. Id. On February 20, 2018, AGIS served notices of deposition
`
`pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) on Huawei and LGEKR, which each identified at least sixty topics for
`
`deposition. Id. at ¶ 6. Huawei and LGEKR are in the process of reviewing and responding to
`
`their respective notices, and soon will need to identify and prepare appropriate witnesses for
`
`deposition, several of whom are located and will be deposed in Asia. Id. The parties must
`
`substantially complete document production and exchange privilege logs by July 20, 2018, and
`
`must complete all fact discovery by October 15, 2018. Dkt. No. 89.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Courts may stay proceedings as part of “the power inherent in every court to control the
`
`disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and
`
`for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). To obviate the need for parties to
`
`expend resources litigating substantive matters in an inconvenient venue, the Federal Circuit has
`
`instructed that it is appropriate to stay a case pending disposition of a motion to transfer. See In
`
`re Fusion-IO, Inc., 489 F. App’x 465, 466 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (noting that the court expected the
`
`moving party “to promptly request transfer . . . along with a motion to stay proceedings pending
`
`disposition of the transfer motion, and for the district court to act on those motions before
`
`proceeding to any motion on the merits of the action.”); see also In re Google Inc., No. 2015-
`
`138, 2015 WL 5294800, at *1-2 (Fed. Cir. July 16, 2015) (granting mandamus and directing
`
`district court to rule on motion to transfer within thirty days and to stay all proceedings pending
`
`completion of transfer matter).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 102 Filed 03/22/18 Page 9 of 16 PageID #: 5107
`
`Indeed, this Court has stayed deadlines pending resolution of a transfer motion in prior
`
`cases. See, e.g., Secure Axcess, LLC v. Nintendo of Am., Inc., No. 2:13-cv-00032, Dkt. No. 133
`
`(E.D. Tex. Feb. 10, 2014) (Gilstrap, J.) (“[T]he Court is persuaded that a short stay pending
`
`resolution of the severance and transfer issues is likely to simplify the issues in this case. As this
`
`case is in its early stages and claim construction briefing has just begun, a short stay of limited
`
`duration will not unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical disadvantage to the Plaintiff.”); DSS
`
`Tech. Mgmt., Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:13-cv-919, Dkt. No. 83 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 28, 2014); Solid
`
`State Storage Sols., Inc. v. STEC, Inc., No. 2:11-cv-00391, Dkt. No. 292 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 3,
`
`2013); Brite Smart Corp. v. Google Inc., No. 2:14-cv-760, Dkt. No. 151 (E.D. Tex. July 16,
`
`2015). Other district courts similarly have granted stays while considering transfer motions in
`
`patent cases. See, e.g., Univ. of S. Florida Research Found. Inc. v. Fujifilm Med. Sys. USA, Inc.,
`
`No. 8:16-cv-1194, 2017 WL 4155344, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 29, 2017) (granting motion to stay
`
`deadlines pending resolution of whether venue was proper in the district); B.E. Tech., LLC v.
`
`Sony Computer Entm’t Am., LLC, No. 2:12-cv-02826, 2013 WL 524893, at *1 (W.D. Tenn. Feb.
`
`11, 2013) (granting motion to stay deadlines to “allow the Court to properly decide the pending
`
`Motions to Change Venue in light of judicial economy and comity”); Genetic Techs. Ltd. v.
`
`Agilent Techs., Inc., No. 12-cv-01616, 2012 WL 2906571, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 16, 2012)
`
`(granting motion to stay proceedings pending resolution of MDL motion).
`
`This Court considers the following factors when evaluating a request to stay pending
`
`resolution of a transfer motion: (1) the potential prejudice to the nonmoving party from a brief
`
`stay; (2) the hardship and inequity to the moving party if the action is not stayed; and (3) the
`
`judicial resources that would be saved by avoiding duplicative litigation. See Evolutionary
`
`Intelligence LLC v. Sprint Nextel, Inc., No. 6:12-cv-00791, 2013 WL 12162396, at *1 (E.D. Tex.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 102 Filed 03/22/18 Page 10 of 16 PageID #: 5108
`
`Sept. 18, 2013) (citing Nguyen v. BP Exploration & Prod. Inc., No. 10-cv-2484, 2010 WL
`
`3169316, at *3 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 9, 2010)); see also Moser v. Navistar Int’l Corp., No. 4:17-cv-
`
`00598, 2018 WL 1169189, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 6, 2018). For the reasons explained below,
`
`each of these factors strongly favors a stay.
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`A Stay Does Not Unduly Prejudice AGIS.
`
`As a preliminary matter, the requested stay is likely to be brief. Both Huawei’s and
`
`LGEKR’s motions to dismiss or transfer are fully briefed, and ripe for the Court’s decision.
`
`Therefore, because the Court is likely to resolve both motions in the next few months, an interim
`
`stay poses no undue prejudice to AGIS. See Genetic Techs. Ltd., 2012 WL 2906571, at *3
`
`(“Agilent has not identified any prejudice or hardship that may result from the institution of a
`
`stay likely to last two to three months”).
`
`Moreover, delay alone is not sufficient to constitute undue prejudice. See Enhanced Sec.
`
`Research, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 09-cv-571, 2010 WL 2573925, at *3 (D. Del. June 25,
`
`2010) (“[A] stay may delay resolution of the litigation, but this alone does not warrant a finding
`
`that Plaintiffs will be unduly prejudiced.”); see also NFC Tech. LLC v. HTC Am., Inc., No. 2:13-
`
`cv-1058, 2015 WL 1069111, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2015) (delay in the vindication of patent
`
`rights “is present in every case in which a patentee resists a stay, and it is therefore not sufficient,
`
`standing alone, to defeat a stay motion”). AGIS cannot point to any prejudice stemming from a
`
`modest delay in the litigation. It is not a competitor to Huawei and LGEKR. Nor has it sought a
`
`preliminary injunction or any other immediate relief in this action. Furthermore, at the Court’s
`
`direction, AGIS continued the Apple schedule to align with the schedule in the Huawei and
`
`LGEKR actions. See 2:17-cv-00516 at Dkt. No. 62. Shortly thereafter, on its own initiative,
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 102 Filed 03/22/18 Page 11 of 16 PageID #: 5109
`
`AGIS proposed that the parties amend the Docket Control Orders in the Apple, Huawei, and
`
`LGEKR cases to align with the schedule adopted in the HTC and ZTE litigations, which had the
`
`effect of continuing the schedule by approximately one to three months. Blackburn Decl., at ¶ 3.
`
`AGIS’s demonstrated willingness to postpone the case schedule suggests that there is no urgency
`
`in bringing these cases to trial, and thus, an additional—and likely brief—stay in the proceedings
`
`will not prejudice AGIS.
`
`B.
`
`Huawei and LGEKR Will Incur Hardship Absent A Stay.
`
`Should the case proceed while the transfer motions remain pending, all parties will incur
`
`significant hardship. Huawei and LGEKR—as well as AGIS—will be forced to expend time and
`
`resources in claim construction and discovery, and risk duplicating these efforts if the cases are
`
`transferred to the Northern District of California. For example, claim construction deadlines are
`
`fast approaching, with the parties set to exchange terms for construction on April 27, 2018
`
`pursuant to Patent L.R. 4-1. Should one or both cases be transferred to the Northern District of
`
`California, a different set of patent local rules will apply. Cf. Eastern District of Texas Patent
`
`Rules (eff. May 24, 2016) with Northern District of California Patent Local Rules (last rev. Jan.
`
`17, 2017).2 Certain judges also maintain individual patent standing orders with additional rules,
`
`such as limits on the number of terms that can be construed, and different practices regarding
`
`technical tutorials. Furthermore, if this Court were to issue a claim construction ruling, that
`
`order would not bind the Northern District of California, and claim construction potentially
`
`
`2 See, e.g., Northern District of California, Patent L.R. 4-1(b) & 4-3(c) (requiring that the parties
`jointly identify the 10 terms likely to be most significant to resolving the parties’ dispute,
`including those terms for which construction may be case or claim dispositive).
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 102 Filed 03/22/18 Page 12 of 16 PageID #: 5110
`
`would need to be redone. See Maurice Mitchell Innovations, LP v. Intel Corp., No. 2:04-cv-450,
`
`2006 WL 1751779, at *4 (E.D. Tex. June 21, 2006), aff’d, 249 F. App’x 184 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`Additionally, given LGEKR’s pending motion to dismiss for lack of personal
`
`jurisdiction, proceeding with discovery would cause particular hardship when LGEKR may be
`
`dismissed from the lawsuit entirely. The overwhelming majority of discovery still remains to be
`
`completed. While AGIS has served a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice, first set of interrogatories,
`
`and a letter regarding document discovery, LGEKR has yet to serve written discovery on AGIS.3
`
`Blackburn Decl., at ¶¶ 4-6. Document discovery has only just begun. Id. at ¶ 5 No depositions
`
`have been taken, and LGEKR currently anticipates that at least some, if not all, of its witnesses
`
`will be made available for deposition in South Korea, which will require extensive international
`
`travel for both parties. Id. at ¶ 6. Given the possibility that LGEKR will be dismissed for
`
`jurisdictional reasons, a stay is particularly appropriate here. See Brown v. DFS Servs., 434 F.
`
`App’x 347, 354 (5th Cir. 2011) (“It is properly within the province for the district court to stay
`
`discovery pending resolution of dispositive motions”); Petrus v. Bowen, 833 F.2d 581, 583 (5th
`
`Cir. 1987) (same); Parish of Jefferson v. S. Recovery Mgmt., Inc., No. 96-cv-0230, 1996 WL
`
`144400, at *2 (E.D. La. Mar. 27, 1996) (same); see also TCGC IP Holdings, LLC v. Graves Golf
`
`Acad., No. 3:10-cv-0055, 2010 WL 2671302, at *1, 3 (N.D. Tex. July 1, 2010) (staying all
`
`
`3 In view of the approaching claim construction deadlines and the deadline for filing a petition
`for inter partes review, LGEKR and Huawei intend to soon serve on AGIS narrow discovery
`specifically regarding issues that may influence claim construction and invalidity. While
`LGEKR and Huawei strongly prefer to suspend discovery while the motions to dismiss and
`transfer are pending, without knowing whether the Court will enter a stay or when the Court
`might rule on the motions to transfer, they have no choice but to seek the discovery needed to
`develop their claim construction and invalidity positions and meet the imminent disclosure
`deadlines, the earliest of which is set for next month.
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 102 Filed 03/22/18 Page 13 of 16 PageID #: 5111
`
`discovery—other than limited jurisdictional discovery—while motion to dismiss for lack of
`
`personal jurisdiction was pending).
`
`C.
`
`Judicial Efficiency Favors A Stay.
`
`The Federal Circuit has counseled that district courts should resolve transfer motions
`
`before addressing the merits of a litigation. See In re EMC Corp., 501 F. App’x 973, 975 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2013) (“[D]isposition of a motion to transfer should have taken a top priority in the handling
`
`of this case by the District Court”) (quoting In re Horseshoe Entm’t, 337 F.3d 429, 433 (5th Cir.
`
`2003)); In re Nintendo Co., 544 F. App’x 934, 941 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“a trial court must first
`
`address whether it is a proper and convenient venue before addressing any substantive portion of
`
`the case.”). A stay will provide this Court with time to resolve the transfer motions, while
`
`ensuring that the Court will not need to simultaneously undertake work that may prove to be
`
`unnecessary in the event the cases are ultimately transferred. In particular, there is a real
`
`possibility that, absent a stay, the parties and the Court will need to address claim construction
`
`prior to resolution of the pending motions. Claim construction deadlines begin next month, and
`
`the parties must submit joint claim construction charts in June, with briefing following in July,
`
`and the hearing in August. Dkt. No. 89. In addition, if the parties are required to proceed with
`
`discovery, a substantial amount of work will need to occur in the next three to four months, and
`
`there is some possibility that the Court would need to resolve any disputes that may arise. A stay
`
`will enable the Court to resolve the threshold issues of venue and jurisdiction before engaging in
`
`the merits of the case.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 102 Filed 03/22/18 Page 14 of 16 PageID #: 5112
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Huawei and LGEKR respectfully request that the Court grant
`
`the Motion To Stay Pending Resolution Of Huawei’s Motion To Transfer And LGEKR’s Motion
`
`To Dismiss Or Transfer.
`
`
`
`
`Dated: March 22, 2018
`
`
`Respectfully submitted by:
`
`
`
`/s/ J. Mark Mann _
`J. 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
`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
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 102 Filed 03/22/18 Page 15 of 16 PageID #: 5113
`
`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
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 102 Filed 03/22/18 Page 16 of 16 PageID #: 5114
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on March 22, 2018, a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing was served to the parties’ counsel of record via ECF pursuant to Local Rule CV-5(d).
`
`
`
`/s/ J. Mark Mann
`J. Mark Mann
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that Mark Mann, James Blackburn, and Marisa
`
`Williams, counsel for Defendants, conferred with Alessandra Messing, counsel for AGIS, on
`
`March 21, 2018 in connection with Huawei’s and LGEKR’s motion to stay. AGIS opposes the
`
`motion. Discussions have conclusively ended in an impasse, leaving an open issue for the Court
`
`to resolve.
`
`
`
`
`/s/ J. Mark Mann
`J. Mark Mann
`
`
`
`12
`
`