Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 271 Filed 01/08/19 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 17981
`
`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.
`
`
`Case No. 2:17-CV-0513-JRG
`(LEAD CASE)
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`PLAINTIFF AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC’S RESPONSE
`IN OPPOSITION TO 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 (DKT. 226)
`
`Case No. 2:17-CV-0516-JRG
`(CONSOLIDATED CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 271 Filed 01/08/19 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 17982
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`RESPONSE TO STATEMENT OF ISSUES ..................................................................... 1
`
`RESPONSE TO STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS ............................................ 2
`
`COUNTER-STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ............................. 2
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................... 3
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 3
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`VII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 7
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 271 Filed 01/08/19 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 17983
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Advanced Display Sys, Inc. v. Kent State Univ.,
`212 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2000)..................................................................................................3
`
`Allure Energy, Inc. v. Nest Labs, Inc.,
`No. 9:13-cv-102, Dkt. 281 at 2 (E.D. Tex. May 18, 2015) ........................................................5
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.,
`No. 5:12-cv-00630-LHK, 2014 WL 252045 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2014) ....................................6
`
`Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co.,
`576 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................................................................................................4
`
`Cruson v. Jackson Nat’l Life Ins. Co.,
`No. 4:16-cv-00912, 2018 WL 3752853 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 8, 2018) ............................................5
`
`Harari v. Hollmer,
`602 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..................................................................................................3
`
`Hollmer v. Harari,
`681 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................4
`
`Husky Injection Molding Sys. Ltd. v. Athena Automation Ltd.,
`838 F.3d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................4
`
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997)..................................................................................................3
`
`Northrop Grumman Info. Tech. Inc., v. U.S.,
`78 Fed. Cl. 45 (Fed. Cl. 2007) ...................................................................................................4
`
`NuStar Energy L.P. v. Diamond Offshore Co.,
`402 S.W.3d 461 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.) ...........................................5
`
`Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Zynga, Inc.,
`No. 2:12-cv-00068, Dkt. 232 at 2 (E.D. Tex. November 8, 2013) ............................................5
`
`Tier Reit Inc. v. Uvest Fin. Servs. Grp. Inc.,
`No. 3:15-cv-03831, 2016 WL 4039163 (N.D. Tex. July 28, 2016)...........................................5
`
`Zenon Envtl., Inc. v. U.S. Filter Corp.,
`506 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007)..............................................................................................3, 5
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 271 Filed 01/08/19 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 17984
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ................................................................................................................................3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 120 ................................................................................................................................3
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.57(b) ..........................................................................................................................3
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a).......................................................................................................................6
`
`Local Rule CV-56(a)........................................................................................................................2
`
`Local Rule CV-56(d) .......................................................................................................................2
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 271 Filed 01/08/19 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 17985
`
`
`
`Plaintiff AGIS Software Development LLC (“AGIS”) hereby submits its Response in
`
`Opposition to Defendant Apple Inc.’s (“Apple”) Motion for Summary Judgment that U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,630,724 Is Not Incorporated Into U.S. Patent Application No. 14/027,410 (Dkt. 226).
`
`AGIS respectfully submits that each of Apple’s arguments lacks merit and Apple’s motion
`
`should be denied.
`
`I.
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`U.S. Patent Application No. 14/027,410 (the “’410 application”) properly incorporates by
`
`reference U.S. Patent No. 7,630,724 (the “’724 patent”). Apple alleges that the ’410 application
`
`does not incorporate the ’724 patent because (1) the grammar and syntax of the incorporation
`
`statement shows only U.S. Patent No. 7,031,728 (the “’728 patent”) was incorporated by
`
`reference; (2) there is ambiguity in the incorporation statement which defeats a finding of
`
`incorporation; and (3) AGIS’s expert’s opinion is unnecessary to determine whether there is
`
`incorporation. Apple’s arguments are without merit because the ’410 application specifically
`
`references the ’724 patent using the necessary language for incorporation by reference, there is
`
`no ambiguity in the incorporation statement, and AGIS’s expert, Joseph McAlexander’s expert
`
`opinion was provided in response to Apple’s expert, Paul Clark’s opinion. In addition, Mr.
`
`McAlexander’s opinion provides the reasonable person of ordinary skill in the art standard under
`
`which incorporation by reference is assessed. Therefore, the Court should deny Apple’s
`
`summary judgment motion.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`RESPONSE TO STATEMENT OF ISSUES
`
`Apple has failed to show that the ’410 application does not incorporate the ’724 patent by
`
`reference because Apple does not show that the incorporation statement in the ’410 application
`
`does not expressly and unambiguously incorporate the ’724 patent.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 271 Filed 01/08/19 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 17986
`
`III. RESPONSE TO STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS
`
`
`
`Apple has failed to present a Statement of Undisputed Material Facts as required by
`
`Local Rule CV-56(a) because the statements contain disputed facts, are argumentative, and lack
`
`citations to proper summary judgment evidence under Local Rule CV-56(d). AGIS presents the
`
`following responses to the allegations in the Statement of Undisputed Material Facts.
`
`1.
`
`Undisputed that AGIS asserts infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,408,055 (the
`
`“’055 patent”); 9,445,251 (the “’251 patent”); 9,467,838 (the “’838 patent”); and 9,749,829 (the
`
`“’829 patent”).
`
`2.
`
`Undisputed that each of the ’055, ’251, ’838, and ’829 patents claim priority to
`
`the ’410 application.
`
`3.
`
`Undisputed that each of the ’055, ’251, ’838, and ’829 patents claim priority to
`
`the ’724 patent and U.S. Patent No. 7,031,728 (the “’728 patent”).
`
`4.
`
`AGIS disputes that the ’410 application contains only one incorporation
`
`statement. AGIS states that the incorporation statement referred to by Apple in the ’410
`
`application refers to the ‘728 and ’724 patents.
`
`5.
`
`AGIS disputes that the Patent Office has held the ’410 application did not
`
`incorporate by reference the ‘724 patent. AGIS states that the Patent Office denied institution of
`
`inter partes review on other grounds and AGIS did not take any position regarding the priority
`
`statement alleged by Apple in those proceedings.
`
`IV. COUNTER-STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
`
`1.
`
`The ’410 application contains two references to the ’724 patent: (1) in the
`
`statement of Cross References to Related Applications; and (2) the incorporation by reference
`
`statement. File History of U.S. Patent Application No. 14/027,410 [0001]; [0005].
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 271 Filed 01/08/19 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 17987
`
`V.
`
`
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Incorporation by reference requires (1) clear intent to incorporate by reference using the
`
`root words “incorporat(e)” and “reference”; and (2) clear identification of the referenced patent,
`
`application or publication. 37 C.F.R. § 1.57(b) (2004). “[T]o gain the benefit of the filing date of
`
`an earlier application under 35 U.S.C. § 120, each application in the chain leading back to the
`
`earlier application must comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112.”
`
`Zenon Envtl., Inc. v. U.S. Filter Corp., 506 F.3d 1370, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting Lockwood
`
`v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
`
`
`
`“Whether and to what extent a patent application incorporates by reference is a question
`
`of law we review de novo.” Harari v. Hollmer, 602 F.3d 1348, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The
`
`standard to be applied in determining whether a document describes the material to be
`
`incorporated by reference with sufficient particularity is of one reasonably skilled in the art.
`
`Advanced Display Sys, Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
`
`VI. ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`The ’410 application properly incorporates by reference the ’728 patent and the ’724
`
`patent. Apple alleges that the language used by the patentee in the ’410 application was
`
`insufficient to incorporate by reference the ’724 patent. Incorporation by reference requires a
`
`(1) clear intent to incorporate by reference, using, for example, “incorporated by reference,” and
`
`(2) a clear identification of the referenced patent application or publication. 37 C.F.R. § 1.57(b).
`
`In the ’410 application, the applicant explicitly uses the words “incorporated by reference.”
`
`Further, both the ’728 and ’724 patents are clearly identified in the ‘410 application, in both the
`
`Cross Reference to Related Applications and the incorporation by reference statement. Apple
`
`fails to acknowledge the identification of the ‘728 and ’724 patents in the Related Applications
`
`statement. If the incorporation by reference statement were just another identification of the
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 271 Filed 01/08/19 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 17988
`
`related applications, it would render this statement superfluous. Thus, Apple’s interpretation that
`
`the statement in the ’410 application is not an incorporation by reference statement would render
`
`superfluous those statements in the specification.
`
`
`
`In Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co., the court held that Nesbitt, the alleged prior art
`
`reference, identifies “what specific material is being incorporated by reference . . . and where it
`
`may be found.” 576 F.3d 1331, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The court also held that language “nearly
`
`identical to that used in Nesbitt . . . can be sufficient to indicate to one of skill in the art that the
`
`referenced material is fully incorporated in the host document,” where the host document
`
`identified “foamable polymeric compositions suitable for golf ball layers” in the Molitor patent.
`
`Id. The incorporation statement here is more explicit than that of Nesbitt, and sufficiently
`
`identifies the specific material incorporated by reference (the method and operation of
`
`communication devices), and where it may be found (the ’728 and the ’724 patents). Id.; see
`
`also Husky Injection Molding Sys. Ltd. v. Athena Automation Ltd., 838 F.3d 1236, 1248 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2016) (the sentence “[a]ll cross-referenced patents and application[s] referred to in this
`
`specification are hereby incorporated by reference” in concert with the sentence describing the
`
`portions of the patent that are incorporated by reference was sufficient to demonstrate
`
`incorporation by reference to a skilled artisan); Cf. Hollmer v. Harari, 681 F.3d 1351, 1358 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2012) (where the court held that a co-pending patent application identified by the title and
`
`inventors did not sufficiently identify the material being incorporated by reference because at
`
`least two other applications by the same inventors and with the same title were co-pending).
`
`
`
`Incorporation by reference arises from general principles of contract law, where “a
`
`contract may incorporate another document by making clear reference to it and describing it in
`
`such terms that its identity may be ascertained beyond doubt.” Northrop Grumman Info. Tech.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 271 Filed 01/08/19 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 17989
`
`Inc., v. U.S., 78 Fed. Cl. 45, 48 (Fed. Cl. 2007). In contract law, “[a] contract is not necessarily
`
`ambiguous merely because some sections arguably conflict.” Tier Reit Inc. v. Uvest Fin. Servs.
`
`Grp. Inc., No. 3:15-cv-03831, 2016 WL 4039163, at *5 (N.D. Tex. July 28, 2016) (citing NuStar
`
`Energy L.P. v. Diamond Offshore Co., 402 S.W.3d 461, 466 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]
`
`2013, no pet.)). Further, if the contract contains an alleged ambiguity, “summary judgment is
`
`improper ‘because the interpretation of the instrument becomes a fact issue.’” Cruson v. Jackson
`
`Nat’l Life Ins. Co., No. 4:16-cv-00912, 2018 WL 3752853, at *6 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 8, 2018).
`
`Apple argues the terms of the ’410 application incorporation statement is ambiguous and,
`
`therefore, this issue is not proper for summary judgment.
`
`
`
`Additionally, Apple cites to the Zenon Envtl. Inc. v. U.S. Filter Corp. case to support its
`
`statement that “[t]here are ample examples of unambiguous incorporation statements that
`
`incorporate more than one application into a host document.” 506 F.3d 1370, 1379 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2007). However, this case addressed the language of the subject matter of the invention
`
`disclosed in the patent, not the ambiguity of the incorporation statement. Id. (“We are not
`
`persuaded by Zenon’s assertion, which the trial court accepted, that that language incorporates
`
`by reference the entire disclosures of the ’373 and ’083 patents.”).
`
`
`
`Apple argues that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “PTAB”) has agreed the ’410
`
`application does not incorporate by reference the ’724 patent during inter partes review
`
`proceedings. However, Apple cites to non-precedential decisions of the PTAB denying
`
`institution of inter partes review. This court has stated that “the danger of undue prejudice is
`
`extremely high, and that danger of unfair prejudice cannot be mitigated simply by the use of a
`
`limiting instruction.” Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Zynga, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-00068,
`
`Dkt. 232 at 2 (E.D. Tex. November 8, 2013); see also Allure Energy, Inc. v. Nest Labs, Inc., No.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 271 Filed 01/08/19 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 17990
`
`9:13-cv-102, Dkt. 281 at 2 (E.D. Tex. May 18, 2015) (“Any probative value . . . is substantially
`
`outweighed by the danger of misleading the jury and waste of time involved in explaining to the
`
`jury what is involved in such proceedings and the natural counterclaim.”). Further, a preliminary
`
`response to an inter partes petition is limited to providing why a review should not be instituted.
`
`37 C.F.R. § 42.107(a) (“In response to an inter partes petition, “[a] patent owner may file a
`
`preliminary response to the petition . . . limited to setting forth the reasons why no inter partes
`
`review should be instituted.”).
`
`
`
`Apple also argues that determining whether the ’410 application incorporates by
`
`reference the ’724 and ’728 patents does not require the expert opinion of Mr. McAlexander
`
`because it can be resolved without the help of technical experts.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Further, “expert testimony may in some circumstances
`
`help a court determine whether a host document incorporates another document by reference.”
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 5:12-cv-00630-LHK, 2014 WL 252045, at *23
`
`(N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2014) (emphasis added). Here, the appropriate standard to determine whether
`
`the ’410 application incorporates by reference the ’724 and ’728 patents is a person with
`
`reasonable skill in the art.
`
`
`1 References to Exs. A-B refer to exhibits to the Declaration of Alfred R. Fabricant attached hereto.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 271 Filed 01/08/19 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 17991
`
`exclude the opinions of Mr. McAlexander provided in response to Dr. Clark’s opinions regarding
`
` As a result, Apple should not be permitted to
`
`incorporation by reference of the ’724 patent.
`
`VII. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, AGIS respectfully requests that the Court deny summary
`
`judgment that the ’410 application does not incorporate the ’724 patent by reference.
`
`Dated: January 4, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 271 Filed 01/08/19 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 17992
`
`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
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF, AGIS
`SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 271 Filed 01/08/19 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 17993
`
`CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
`
`The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document is authorized to be filed under seal
`
`pursuant to the Protective Order entered in this case.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Alfred R. Fabricant
`Alfred R. Fabricant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 271 Filed 01/08/19 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 17994
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that, on January 4, 2019, 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).
`
`
`/s/ Alfred R. Fabricant
`Alfred R. Fabricant
`
`
`
`
`
`