Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 245 Filed 12/18/18 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 15481
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`Case No. 2:17-CV-0513-JRG
`(LEAD CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA INC. ET AL.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC’S MOTION
`FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO INVALIDITY
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 2:17-CV-0516-JRG
`(CONSOLIDATED CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 245 Filed 12/18/18 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 15482
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ................................................1
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE TO BE DECIDED BY THE COURT.............................2
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD .....................................................................................................3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Prior Art ...............................................................................................................3
`
`Summary Judgment .............................................................................................4
`
`IV.
`
`ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Poulin Does Not Disclose “User-Selectable” Symbols .........................................4
`
`The Alleged Prior Art System, FBCB2, Fails to Disclose the Limitation
`that Devices Do Not Have Access to Respective IP Addresses of Other
`Devices ................................................................................................................6
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................................9
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 245 Filed 12/18/18 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 15483
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Active Video Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .............................................................................................. 7
`
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
`477 U.S. 242 (1986) .............................................................................................................. 4
`
`B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Aircraft Breaking Sys. Corp.,
`72 F.3d 1577, 37 USPQ2d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 1996) .................................................................. 8
`
`Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
`477 U.S. 317 (1986) .............................................................................................................. 4
`
`Cheese Systems, Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese and Powder Systems, Inc.,
`725 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .......................................................................................... 8, 9
`
`Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc.,
`523 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .............................................................................................. 3
`
`Helifix Ltd. v. Blok-Lok, Ltd.,
`208 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .............................................................................................. 3
`
`Ivera Med. Corp. v. Hospira, Inc.,
`801 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................................................. 3
`
`In re Kotzab,
`217 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .............................................................................................. 8
`
`Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co.,
`234 F.3d 654 (Fed. Cir. 2000)................................................................................................ 3
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ...................................................................................................................... 3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ........................................................................................................................... 3
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 .................................................................................................................... 1, 4
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) .................................................................................................................... 4
`
`L.R. CV-56 ................................................................................................................................. 1
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 245 Filed 12/18/18 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 15484
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, L.R. CV-56, and the Court’s Docket Control Order of
`
`October 29, 2018 (Dkt. 217), Plaintiff AGIS Software Development LLC (“AGIS”) respectfully
`
`moves the Court for partial summary judgment of:
`
`[1] no anticipation of U.S. Patent No. 9,445,251 (the “’251 Patent”), U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,408,055 (the “’055 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838 (the “’838 Patent”), and U.S. Patent
`
`No. 9,749,829 (the “’829 Patent”) (collectively, the “Location Patents”) with respect to U.S.
`
`Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0115453 (“Poulin”); and
`
`[2] no anticipation of the ’251 Patent, the ’055 Patent, the ’838 Patent, and the ’829
`
`Patent over the alleged Force XXI Battle Command Brigade-and-Below (“FBCB2”) system.
`
`
`
`Particularly, there is no evidence in the record that: [1] Poulin discloses “user selectable”
`
`symbols, or that [2] FBCB2 discloses sending data from a first device that “does not have access
`
`to respective Internet Protocol addresses” of the destination device(s). AGIS respectfully
`
`submits as follows:
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
`
`1.
`
`AGIS asserts the following U.S. Patent Nos. in this case: 9,445,251; 9,408,055;
`
`9,467,838; and 9,749,829. AGIS Software Development LLC v. Apple Inc., 2:17-cv-00516, Dkts.
`
`32-B through 32-E.
`
`2.
`
`Apple asserts that Poulin is prior art. See Ex. A, U.S. Patent Application
`
`Publication No. 2002/0115453; Ex. B, Apple Inc.’s Final Election of Prior Art References1
`
`3.
`
`Apple asserts that the FBCB2 system is a prior art product. See Ex. B, Apple
`
`Inc.’s Final Election of Prior Art References.
`
`
`1 References to Exs. A–G refer to the exhibits submitted with the Declaration of Alfred R.
`Fabricant in support of this motion and attached hereto.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 245 Filed 12/18/18 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 15485
`
`4.
`
`Apple alleges that the Location Patents are anticipated by Poulin and anticipated
`
`or rendered obvious by FBCB2. See Ex. C, Expert Report of Paul Clark, served on October 26,
`
`2018; Ex. D, Expert Report of Neil Siegel, served on October 29, 2018.
`
`5.
`
`Each claim of the ’251 Patent requires that “the first device does not have access
`
`to respective Internet Protocol addresses of the second devices.” AGIS Software Development
`
`LLC v. Apple Inc., 2:17-cv-00516, Dkt. 32-C.
`
`6.
`
`With regard to the FBCB2 System, Dr. Siegel does not disclose any secondary
`
`reference to allegedly teach that “the first device does not have access to respective Internet
`
`Protocol addresses of the second devices.” Ex. D, at ¶¶ 118-119, 215-216, 430-431, 484-485.
`
`7.
`
`Dr. Siegel admits that all versions of FBCB2 are “dynamic” and “[t]he FBCB2
`
`units that are . . . acting in the role of a server will change over time.” Ex. E, Deposition
`
`Transcript of Neil Siegel at 192:10-199:23.
`
`8.
`
`Dr. Siegel admitted at his deposition that FBCB2 dynamic electing servers require
`
`a startup procedure where IP addresses are exchanged among at least some of the systems.
`
`Ex. D at ¶¶ 71, 100, 104, 164, 168, 183, 219, 235, 243, 265, 273, 418, 470; Ex. E, Deposition
`
`Transcript of Neil Siegel at 194:5-199:23.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE TO BE DECIDED BY THE COURT
`
`Whether AGIS is entitled to summary judgment that the claims of the ‘251 Patent, the
`
`‘055 Patent, the ’838 Patent, and the ’829 Patent are not anticipated by Poulin and the FBCB2
`
`system, where the record contains no evidence that the alleged prior art references meet each and
`
`every limitation of the Patents-in-Suit such that they are anticipated by Poulin and the FBCB2
`
`system.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 245 Filed 12/18/18 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 15486
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A.
`
`Prior Art
`
`There is a presumption that a patent is valid. Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 234 F.3d 654, 662
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2000). Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a), a person shall be entitled to a patent unless
`
`(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in
`public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing
`date of the claimed invention; or (2) the claimed invention was described in a
`patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or
`deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the
`case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective
`filing date of the claimed invention.”
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
`
`
`
`An anticipating prior art reference “must disclose each and every limitation of the
`
`claimed invention, must be enabling, and must describe the claimed invention sufficiently
`
`to have placed it in possession of a person of ordinary skill in the field of invention.”
`
`Helifix Ltd. v. Blok-Lok, Ltd., 208 F.3d 1339, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Finisar Corp. v.
`
`DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“To anticipate a claim, a
`
`single prior art reference must expressly or inherently disclose each claim limitation.”).
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a patent is invalid for obviousness if “the differences between the
`
`claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have
`
`been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary
`
`skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains.” Obviousness is a legal question that is
`
`assessed according to the following underlying inquiries: “(1) the scope and content of the prior
`
`art; (2) the level of ordinary skill in the art; (3) the differences between the claimed invention and
`
`the prior art; and (4) secondary evidence of nonobviousness.” Ivera Med. Corp. v. Hospira, Inc.,
`
`801 F.3d 1336, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 245 Filed 12/18/18 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 15487
`
`B.
`
`Summary Judgment
`
`Summary judgment should be granted “if the movant shows that 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). Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine dispute of material
`
`fact, Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986), viewing any evidence in the light most
`
`favorable to the non-movant. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). Rule
`
`56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “mandates the entry of summary judgment, after
`
`adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing
`
`sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that
`
`party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322.
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`No genuine dispute of material fact exists as to whether Poulin and the FBCB2 system
`
`each fail to meet each and every limitation of the Patents-in-Suit. Additionally, there is no
`
`genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the FBCB2 system fails to meet each and every
`
`limitation of the Patents-in-Suit in combination with any other reference. Thus, even viewing the
`
`evidentiary record in the light most favorable to Apple, the Court should find that Apple has not
`
`established that the Poulin and the FBCB2 system are prior art.
`
`A.
`
`Poulin Does Not Disclose “User-Selectable” Symbols
`
`Claims 5, 10, 15, 18, 19, 20, 38, 40, and 54 of the ’838 Patent require presenting first and
`
`second georeferenced maps, each having respective sets of “one or more user-selectable
`
`symbols” positioned on the map at respective device locations. Claims 5, 7, 24, 32, 36, 42, and
`
`54 of the ’055 Patent; claims 2, 5, 6, 12, 15, 18, 27, 29, 31, and 35 of the ’251 Patent; and claims
`
`14 and 50 of the ’829 Patent also require “user selectable” symbols positioned on maps. AGIS
`
`Software Development LLC v. Apple Inc., 2:17-cv-00516, Dkts. 32-B -32-E (E.D. Tex.)..
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 245 Filed 12/18/18 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 15488
`
`Poulin does not anticipate these asserted claims because Poulin’s symbols are not “user
`
`selectable” as required by the claims. Poulin appears to describe generally obtaining other
`
`subscriber locations and statuses using a web-based map display. Poulin at ¶¶ 7, 21, and 36.
`
`However, Poulin on its face fails to describe any symbols positioned on the map that are user-
`
`selectable, as required by the claims. Ex. G, Rebuttal Expert Report of Joseph McAlexander at
`
`¶ 416.
`
`Apple fails to bridge the gap with supported expert testimony. Apple’s expert, Paul
`
`Clark, opines only that
`
` While Dr. Clark
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` For example, claim 1 of the ’838 Patent
`
`recites “presenting, via an interactive display of the first device, a first interactive,
`
`georeferenced map and a first set of one or more user-selectable symbols corresponding to a
`
`first set of one or more of the second devices, wherein the first set of symbols are positioned on
`
`the first georeferenced map at respective positions corresponding to the locations of the first set
`
`of second devices, and wherein first georeferenced map data relate positions on the first
`
`georeferenced map to spatial coordinates.” (emphasis added). AGIS Software Development LLC
`
`v. Apple Inc., 2:17-cv-00516, Dkt. 32-D. In his report, Dr. Clark
`
` The Clark Report
`
` However, Dr. Clark
`
`5
`
`
`
`-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 245 Filed 12/18/18 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 15489
`
`. The Clark Report does not allege inherency for this
`
`claim element, and the Clark Report does not proffer any combination or evidence of the
`
`knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art to show obviousness for this claim element; it
`
`is merely silent as to the “user selectable” limitation. Accordingly, there is no evidence in the
`
`record to show that Poulin alone or any Poulin-based combination discloses the “user selectable”
`
`symbol limitations as recited in the claims.
`
`B.
`
`The Alleged Prior Art System, FBCB2, Fails to Disclose the Limitation that
`Devices Do Not Have Access to Respective IP Addresses of Other Devices
`
`Claims 1 and 24 of the ‘251 Patent, claim 5 of the ’838 Patent, and claim 30 of the ‘829
`
`Patent require that “the first device does not have access to respective Internet Protocol addresses
`
`of the second devices.” Each of the asserted claims of the ’251 Patent depend from claims 1 and
`
`24. The FBCB2 system does not anticipate the asserted claims because FBCB2 does not teach or
`
`suggest that user devices do not have the IP addresses of other devices. Additionally, Apple’s
`
`expert, Dr. Siegel, does not provide any secondary reference to teach or disclose this limitation.
`
`Ex. D at ¶¶ 118-119, 215-216, 430-431, 484-485. Therefore, AGIS is entitled to summary
`
`judgment of no invalidity based on the FBCB2 system of the claims of the ’251 Patent, claim 5
`
`of the ’838 Patent, and claim 30 of the ’829 Patent.
`
`The FBCB2 system does not anticipate the claims 1 and 24 of the ’251 Patent; claim 5 of
`
`the ’838 Patent; and claim 30 of the ’829 Patent because Apple fails to demonstrate that the
`
`FBCB2 system meets each and every limitation of the Patents-in-Suit. The Expert Report of
`
`Neil Siegel fails to demonstrate that FBCB2 devices or units do not have access to the IP
`
`addresses of other users or the recipient. See generally Ex. D at ¶¶ 73-74. While Dr. Siegel
`
`states that a sender “does not need” to enter an IP address of the second device, this statement is
`
`irrelevant to the claim limitation. Ex. D at ¶¶ 74 and 118. The limitation requires that the first
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 245 Filed 12/18/18 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 15490
`
`device does not have access to the IP address of the second device. Even taking Dr. Siegel’s
`
`statement as true, there is no evidence in the record that access is precluded. Dr. Siegel’s sole
`
`supporting evidence also fails to describe access. He cites to Figs. 7 and 17 of his own patent,
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,212,559 (the “’559 Patent”). Ex. D at ¶ 485. However, Fig. 17A of the ’559
`
`Patent depicts “a nets/net members report and a platforms/nets report,” and Figure 7 depicts a
`
`user interface “screen list[ing] the nets and platforms associated with a defined unit.” Ex. F, the
`
`’559 Patent, at 7:53-56, 10:15-16. Neither citation bears any relation to the access to IP
`
`addresses. Generic expert testimony that is “conclusory and factually unsupported” is not
`
`evidence, much less clear and convincing evidence that can support a determination of
`
`obviousness. Active Video Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1327 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2012). Accordingly, Dr. Siegel fails to demonstrate that the ’559 Patent presents any
`
`evidence showing whether a sending device has access to a recipient device’s IP address.
`
`Additionally, uncontroverted evidence supports the conclusion that the FBCB2 System
`
`cannot satisfy “the first device does not have access to respective Internet Protocol addresses of
`
`the second devices” limitation. Dr. Siegel stated in his report and at deposition that the FBCB2
`
`System is a system where servers could be “dynamically” selected. Ex. D at ¶¶ 71, 100, 104,
`
`164, 168, 183, 219, 235, 243, 265, 273, 418, 470; Ex. E at 193:21-194:3. In other words, the
`
`alleged first and second devices can each fulfill the role of a server, as “FBCB2 devices were
`
`programmed to collaborate and dynamically select one of their number to act as the server.” Id.
`
`In order for this “dynamic “system to operate, the devices of the FBCB2 system must have
`
`access to each others’ IP addresses, otherwise it would be impossible for the server role to be
`
`reassigned. Ex. G at ¶¶ 551-552. (emphasis added). Dr. Siegel conceded this point in his
`
`deposition when he stated that “[t]here is a complicated protocol that allowed units to discover
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 245 Filed 12/18/18 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 15491
`
`each other that at the beginning of the discovery process they did not have to know the IP
`
`addresses of anybody else, but by the end of the discovery process they had discovered the
`
`IP addresses. Ex. E at 194:19-24. (emphasis added). In other words, the FBCB2 devices, acting
`
`as servers, know the IP addresses of other devices. Ex. E, at 192:10-192:12; 195:5-15; 196:10-
`
`19; 199:15-23. Accordingly, the record contains uncontroverted evidence demonstrating only
`
`that a first device on the FBCB2 system has access to the IP addresses of other user devices and
`
`thus FBCB2 cannot meet the limitation.
`
`Siegel does not contend that this particular limitation is rendered obvious with any other
`
`teachings. Ex. D at ¶¶ 118-119, 215-216, 430-431, 484-485. “Even when obviousness is based
`
`on a single prior art reference, there must be a showing of a suggestion or motivation to modify
`
`the teachings of that reference.” In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (citing B.F.
`
`Goodrich Co. v. Aircraft Breaking Sys. Corp., 72 F.3d 1577, 1582, 37 USPQ2d 1314, 1318 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1996)). Claims should not be declared invalid because Apple fails to support a finding of
`
`anticipation or obviousness.
`
`Like the case Cheese Systems, Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese and Powder Systems, Inc., where
`
`the Federal Circuit affirmed a find of no invalidity based on the alleged prior art that fails to
`
`disclose a key aspect of the invention, the facts here show that Apple has failed to demonstrate
`
`that each of the prior art references meets all the limitations of the Patents-in-Suit. 725 F.3d
`
`1341, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2013). In Cheese Systems, the Federal Circuit found that “[e]ven
`
`construing ambiguities in CSI’s favor,” they could not hold that the prior art meets each and
`
`every limitation of the patent because the phrase “can be arranged” did not suggest that the
`
`panels for shafts allow for counter-rotation. Id. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s
`
`finding that the alleged prior art patents “say nothing about reorienting the panels,” and the
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 245 Filed 12/18/18 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 15492
`
`argument that a person of ordinary skill would read the patents to understand “can be arranged”
`
`for contra-rotation was unpersuasive. As a result, “[w]ithout a clear and unambiguous teaching,
`
`a jury could only speculate, hardly a compelling case for anticipation.” Id. Like Cheese Systems,
`
`the alleged prior art references fail to meet each and every limitation of the Patents-in-Suit
`
`because Apple fails to demonstrate that Poulin discloses “user-selectable symbols,” and that
`
`FBCB2 requires that devices do not have access to the IP addresses of other devices.
`
`Accordingly, there is no genuine dispute of material fact whether the references fail to anticipate
`
`and render obvious the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`In any event, Apple bears the burden of demonstrating invalidity, and has presented no
`
`evidence that the Location Patents are anticipated by Poulin or the FBCB2 system. Accordingly,
`
`AGIS is entitled to partial summary judgment that the Patents-in-Suit are not invalid over the
`
`Poulin and the FBCB2 system.
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, AGIS respectfully requests that the Court grant partial
`
`summary judgment that claims 1, 10, 15, 24, and 54 of the ’838 Patent; claims 1, 6, 15, 24, and
`
`29 of the ’251 Patent; claims 1, 28, 36, 41, and 54 of the ’055 Patent, and claims 1, 34, 35, and
`
`68 of the ’829 Patent are not invalid over Poulin; and claims 1 and 24 of the ’251 Patent; claim 5
`
`of the ’838 Patent; and claim 30 of the ’829 Patent are not invalid over the FBCB2 system.
`
`AGIS further requests that the Court preclude Apple from raising these references, and any
`
`products associated with these references, at trial.
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 245 Filed 12/18/18 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: 15493
`
`Dated: December 14, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`BROWN RUDNICK LLP
`
` /s/ Alfred R. Fabricant
`Alfred R. Fabricant
`NY Bar No. 2219392
`Email: afabricant@brownrudnick.com
`Lawrence C. Drucker
`NY Bar No. 2303089
`Email: ldrucker@brownrudnick.com
`Peter Lambrianakos
`NY Bar No. 2894392
`Email: plambrianakos@brownrudnick.com
`Vincent J. Rubino, III
`NY Bar No. 4557435
`Email: vrubino@brownrudnick.com
`Alessandra C. Messing
`NY Bar No. 5040019
`Email: amessing@brownrudnick.com
`Shahar Harel
`NY Bar No. 4573192
`Email: sharel@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
`Justine Minseon Park
`NY Bar No. 5604483
`Email: apark@brownrudnick.com
`BROWN RUDNICK LLP
`7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`Telephone: 212-209-4800
`Facsimile: 212-209-4801
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 245 Filed 12/18/18 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 15494
`
`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
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF, AGIS
`SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 245 Filed 12/18/18 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 15495
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on December 14, 2018 a true and correct copy of the above and
`
`foregoing document has been served by email on:
`
`Melissa Richards Smith
`melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`GILLAM & SMITH, LLP
`303 South Washington Ave.
`Marshall, TX 75670
`
`Michael P. Stadnick
`mstadnick@desmaraisllp.com
`DESMARAIS LLP
`230 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10169
`
`Kerri-Ann Limbeek
`klimbeek@desmaraisllp.com
`DESMARAIS LLP
`230 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10169
`Paul A. Bondor
`pbondor@desmaraisllp.com
`DESMARAIS LLP
`230 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10169
`
`Francesco D. Silletta
`fsilletta@desmaraisllp.com
`DESMARAIS LLP
`230 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10169
`
`Cosmin Maier
`CMaier@desmaraisllp.com
`DESMARAIS LLP
`230 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10169
`
`
`
`
`Harry Lee Gillam, Jr.
`gil@gillamsmithlaw.com
`GILLAM & SMITH, LLP
`303 South Washington Ave.
`Marshall, TX 75670
`
`John M. Desmarais
`jdesmarais@desmaraisllp.com
`DESMARAIS LLP
`230 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10169
`
`Ameet A. Modi
`amodi@desmaraisllp.com
`DESMARAIS LLP
`230 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10169
`Brian Matty
`bmatty@desmaraisllp.com
`DESMARAIS LLP
`230 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10169
`
`Wesley L. White
`wwhite@desmaraisllp.com
`DESMARAIS LLP
`230 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10169
`
`Tom BenGera
`tbengera@desmaraisllp.com
`DESMARAIS LLP
`230 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10169
`
`Attorneys for Apple Inc.
`
` /s/ Vincent J. Rubino, III
` Vincent J. Rubino, III
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`