Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 226 Filed 12/14/18 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 11626
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA INC., et al.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:17-CV-513-JRG
`(LEAD CASE)
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:17-CV-516-JRG
`(CONSOLIDATED CASE)
`
`DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT U.S.
`PATENT NO. 7,630,724 IS NOT INCORPORATED INTO U.S. PATENT APPLICATION
`NO. 14/027,410
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 226 Filed 12/14/18 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 11627
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Pages
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ..................................................1
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ..........................................................................................................1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Summary Judgment .................................................................................................1
`
`Incorporation By Reference .....................................................................................2
`
`IV.
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED BY THE COURT ....................................2
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................2
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................4
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 226 Filed 12/14/18 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 11628
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Pages
`
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
`477 U.S. 242 (1986) ............................................................................................................ 2
`
`Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
`477 U.S. 317 (1986) ........................................................................................................ 1, 2
`
`Harari v. Lee,
`656 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2011)........................................................................................... 3
`
`Hollmer v. Harari,
`681 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012)....................................................................................... 2, 4
`
`Husky Injection Molding Sys. Ltd. v. Athena Automation Ltd.,
`838 F.3d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2016)........................................................................................... 3
`
`Little v. Liquid Air Corp.,
`37 F.3d 1069 (5th Cir. 1994) .............................................................................................. 2
`
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997)........................................................................................... 4
`
`Northrop Grumman Info. Tech., Inc. v. United States,
`535 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2008)....................................................................................... 2, 4
`
`Zenon Envtl., Inc. v. U.S. Filter Corp.,
`506 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007)....................................................................................... 2, 3
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ....................................................................................................................... 1
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 226 Filed 12/14/18 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 11629
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit Number
`
`Description
`
`Ex. 1
`Ex. 2
`Ex. 3
`Ex. 4
`Ex. 5
`Ex. 6
`Ex. 7
`Ex. 8
`Ex. 9
`Ex. 10
`Ex. 11
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,408,055
`U.S. Patent No. 9,445,251
`U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838
`U.S. Patent No. 9,749,829
`U.S. Patent Application No. 14-027,410
`U.S. Patent No. 7,301,728
`U.S. Patent No. 7,630,724
`The New Oxford American Dictionary (excerpt) (2001)
`Case IPR2018-00817 Institution Decision
`Case IPR2018-00819 Institution Decision
`Case IPR2018-00818 Institution Decision
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 226 Filed 12/14/18 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 11630
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The parties dispute the proper priority dates of four patents-in-suit. That dispute includes,
`
`among other issues, whether AGIS’s U.S. Application No. 14/027,410 (Ex. 5, the “’410
`
`application”) incorporated by reference AGIS’s earlier U.S. Patent No. 7,630,724 (Ex. 7, the “’724
`
`patent”). The plain language and syntax of the only incorporation statement in the ’410 application
`
`does not incorporate the ’724 patent. The Court should thus grant summary judgment to simplify
`
`and streamline the potential priority-related issues for trial.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
`
`AGIS asserts infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,408,055 (Ex. 1, the “’055 patent”);
`
`9,445,251 (Ex. 2, the “’251 patent”); 9,467,838 (Ex. 3, the “’838 patent”); and 9,749,829 (Ex. 4,
`
`the “’829 patent”). (Dkt. No. 32.) Each of the ’055, ’251, ’838, and ’829 patents purports to claim
`
`priority to the ’410 application. Each of the ’055, ’251, ’838, and ’829 patents also purports to
`
`claim priority to U.S. Patent No. 7,031,728 (Ex. 6, the “’728 patent”) and the ’724 patent.
`
`The ’410 application contains only one incorporation statement: “The method and
`
`operation of communication devices used herein are described in U.S. Pat. No. 7,031,728 which
`
`is hereby incorporated by reference and U.S. Pat. No. 7,630,724.” (Ex. 5 ¶ 5.) In three separate
`
`inter partes review proceedings, the Patent Office has held that the ʼ410 application did not
`
`incorporate by reference the ʼ724 patent. (Ex. 9 (’251 patent IPR decision) at 18-20; Ex. 10 (’838
`
`patent IPR decision) at 15-17; Ex. 11 (’055 patent IPR decision) at 15-17.)
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A.
`
`Summary Judgment
`
`A movant is entitled to summary judgment if “there is no genuine dispute as to any material
`
`fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Celotex
`
`Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). A dispute of fact is “genuine” only if evidence
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 226 Filed 12/14/18 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 11631
`
`
`
`presented “is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving
`
`party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). “[T]he party moving for
`
`summary judgment must ‘demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact,’ but need
`
`not negate the elements of the nonmovant’s case.” Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075
`
`(5th Cir. 1994) (quoting Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323).
`
`B.
`
`Incorporation By Reference
`
`For a patent or application to properly incorporate material by reference, “the host
`
`document must identify with detailed particularity what specific material it incorporates and
`
`clearly indicate where that material is found.” Zenon Envtl., Inc. v. U.S. Filter Corp., 506 F.3d
`
`1370, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (emphases in original). “[P]atent draftsmanship is an exacting art,
`
`and no less care is required in drafting an incorporation by reference statement than in any other
`
`aspect of a patent application.” Id. at 1382 n.3. Ambiguity in an incorporation statement “does
`
`not suffice.” Hollmer v. Harari, 681 F.3d 1351, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also Northrop
`
`Grumman Info. Tech., Inc. v. United States, 535 F.3d 1339, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[T]he
`
`incorporating [document] must use language that is express and clear, so as to leave no ambiguity
`
`about the identity of the document being referenced, nor any reasonable doubt about the fact that
`
`the referenced document is being incorporated. . .”) (emphases altered).
`
`IV.
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED BY THE COURT
`
`1. Whether the ’410 application fails to incorporate the ’724 patent by reference because
`
`the only incorporation statement in the ’410 application does not expressly and unambiguously
`
`incorporate the ’724 patent.
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`The ’410 application expressly incorporates the ’728 patent and does not incorporate the
`
`’724 patent, citing methods and operations “described in U.S. Pat. No. 7,031,728 which is hereby
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 226 Filed 12/14/18 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 11632
`
`
`
`incorporated by reference and U.S. Pat. No. 7,630,724.” (Ex. 5 ¶ 5.) The grammar and syntax of
`
`the incorporation sentence dictates that only the ’728 patent is incorporated into the ’410
`
`application’s specification for at least two reasons. First, the clause “which is hereby incorporated
`
`by reference” follows the reference to the ’728 patent, and therefore refers back to the ’728 patent
`
`that immediately precedes it, and not to the ’724 patent that follows later. (Ex. 8 (defining “which”
`
`as “referring to something previously mentioned when introducing a clause giving further
`
`information”) (emphasis added).) Second, the clause “which is hereby incorporated by reference”
`
`uses the singular verb “is,” indicating only one patent (i.e., the ’728 patent) is incorporated by
`
`reference, as opposed to incorporating multiple patents. Thus, the ’410 application incorporated
`
`by reference the ’728 patent only—and did not incorporate the ’724 patent. The Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board has agreed that the ’410 application does not incorporate the ’724 patent during inter
`
`partes review proceedings concerning the ’251, ’838, and ’055 patents. (Ex. 9 at 18-20; Ex. 10 at
`
`15-17; Ex. 11 at 15-17.)
`
`Furthermore, any arguable ambiguity in the ’410 application’s incorporation statement
`
`defeats a finding of incorporation. Patent applicants control the words of their applications, and
`
`thus they are in the best position to clarify any potential ambiguity. There are ample examples of
`
`unambiguous incorporation statements that incorporate more than one application into a host
`
`document.1 The ’410 application does not include any such language, instead incorporating only
`
`the ’728 patent, or at the very least injecting ambiguity as to whether or not the ’724 patent was
`
`
`1 See, e.g., Zenon, 506 F.3d at 1379 (“Further details relating to the construction and deployment
`of a most preferred skein are found in the parent U.S. Pat. No. 5,639,373, and in Ser. No.
`08/690,045, the relevant disclosures of each of which are included by reference thereto as if fully
`set forth herein.”) (emphasis added); Husky Injection Molding Sys. Ltd. v. Athena Automation Ltd.,
`838 F.3d 1236, 1241 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“All cross-referenced patents and application[s] referred
`to in this specification are hereby incorporated by reference.”); Harari v. Lee, 656 F.3d 1331, 1335
`(Fed. Cir. 2011) (“The disclosures of the two applications are hereby incorporate[d] by reference”).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 226 Filed 12/14/18 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 11633
`
`
`
`incorporated. Even if the Court finds ambiguity in the incorporation statement, such ambiguity
`
`should be resolved against AGIS. The Court should find that the ’724 patent was not incorporated
`
`into the ’410 application. See, e.g., Northrop, 535 F.3d at 1344; Hollmer, 681 F.3d at 1358.
`
`AGIS offers a purported expert opinion from its technical expert, Joseph McAlexander, to
`
`expand the ’410 application’s incorporation statement to include the ’724 patent. But this is not a
`
`situation in which a certain level of specialized technical acumen is helpful to ascertain the
`
`meaning of technical terms. It is an issue of patent law that can be resolved without needing to
`
`resort to technical experts.
`
`Summary judgment is warranted to simplify the potential issues for trial. The parties
`
`dispute the proper priority date of the ’055, ’251, ’838, and ’829 patents. This incorporation issue
`
`is relevant to the priority date dispute because “each application in the chain leading back to the
`
`earlier application must comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112.”
`
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The ’410 application is one
`
`of those applications in the chain that must contain enough disclosure to support the asserted
`
`claims, or else AGIS cannot rely on it to support its asserted priority dates. Summary judgment
`
`should be granted on this narrow issue in order to streamline the potential priority date issues for
`
`resolution at trial.
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Apple respectfully requests that the Court grant summary
`
`judgment that the ’410 application does not incorporate the ’724 patent by reference.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 226 Filed 12/14/18 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 11634
`
`Dated: December 14, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: Respectfully submitted:
`
`
`
`/s/ Melissa R. Smith
`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
`Paul A. Bondor
`Michael P. Stadnick
`Ameet A. Modi
`Cosmin Maier
`Kerri-Ann Limbeek
`Brian Matty
`Tom BenGera
`Kathryn Bi
`Francesco Silletta
`DESMARAIS LLP
`230 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10169
`Telephone: (212) 351-3400
`Facsimile: (212) 351-3401
`Email: jdesmarais@desmaraisllp.com
`Email: pbondor@desmaraisllp.com
`Email: mstadnick@desmaraisllp.com
`Email: amodi@desmaraisllp.com
`Email: cmaier@desmaraisllp.com
`Email: klimbeek@desmaraisllp.com
`Email: bmatty@desmaraisllp.com
`Email: tbengera@desmaraisllp.com
`Email: kbi@desmaraisllp.com
`Email: fsilletta@desmaraisllp.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
`APPLE INC.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 226 Filed 12/14/18 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 11635
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that counsel of record who are deemed to have consented
`
`to electronic services are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF
`
`system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on this the 14th day of December, 2018.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Melissa R. Smith
`Melissa R. Smith
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`