Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 285 Filed 01/14/19 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 18771
`
`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
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 2:17-CV-0516-JRG
`(CONSOLIDATED CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`PLAINTIFF AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC’S REPLY
`TO APPLE INC.’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO
`AGIS’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
`NO INVALIDITY OVER THE FBCB2 SYSTEM (DKT. 236)
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 285 Filed 01/14/19 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 18772
`
`Plaintiff AGIS Software Development LLC (“AGIS”), by and through its undersigned
`
`counsel, hereby submits this reply in support of its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of No
`
`Invalidity Over the FBCB2 System (Dkt. 236) (the “Motion”).
`
`I.
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`AGIS moves for partial summary judgment of no invalidity over the FBCB2 system.
`
`Apple responds that, even if AGIS’s motions to strike the expert report of Dr. Neil Siegel are
`
`granted, “Dr. Siegel’s report . . . contain[s] ample support for his opinion that FBCB2 anticipates
`
`or renders obvious every asserted claim of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,467,838 (the “838 Patent”),
`
`9,445,251 (the “’251 Patent”); 9,749,829 (the “’829 Patent”); and 9,408,055 (the “’055 Patent”)
`
`(collectively, the “Location Patents”).
`
`II.
`
`
`
`RESPONSE TO APPLE’S STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS
`
`With regard to Apple’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (Dkt. 266 at 1-2), AGIS
`
`disputes that Apple’s statements contains any facts material to this Motion.
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`Apple argues that AGIS’s motion for partial summary judgment of no invalidity in view
`
`of the FBCB2 system is contingent upon the Court’s decision to grant AGIS’s two motions to
`
`strike portions of Dr. Siegel’s expert report and as AGIS’s motions to strike should be denied,
`
`“on that basis alone, this motion should be denied.” Dkt. 266 at 4. The portions of the Siegel
`
`Report that AGIS moves to strike are essential to Apple’s assertion of invalidity of the Location
`
`Patents. AGIS will not rehash its arguments for the Motions to Strike the Siegel Report.
`
`However, without these arguments, Dr. Siegel’s Report fails to establish that the FBCB2 system
`
`anticipates or renders obvious the asserted claims.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 285 Filed 01/14/19 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 18773
`
`A. Without the “Dynamically Elected Servers” Theory, Apple Cannot Provide
`Evidence the FBCB2 System Discloses the Server-Based Limitations of the
`Location Patents
`
`
`
`Apple argues that with respect to Apple’s undisclosed theory of “dynamically elected
`
`servers,” even if the Court strikes those portions of Dr. Siegel’s report, the remainder of the
`
`report contains ample evidence to support invalidity of the relevant server-based claim
`
`limitations.
`
`
`
`The motion to strike pertains to the new invalidity theory based on “dynamically electing
`
`servers,” and Dr. Siegel defines the FBCB2 system servers as “dynamically electing servers.”
`
`Dkt. 266-1, Expert Report of Neil Siegel at ¶¶ 71, 100, 104, 164, 168, 183, 219, 235, 243, 265,
`
`273, 418, and 470). Apple argues that how the FBCB2 system uses the servers should be
`
`permitted, even if the motion to strike be granted. Dkt. 266 at 6. Apple cannot, on the one hand,
`
`argue that the servers are “dynamically electing servers” and, on the other, divorce its definition
`
`of the server from its functionality. See Dkt. 266 at 6. Further, Apple ignores Dr. Siegel’s
`
`opinion on how the FBCB2 system meets the limitation of “second server” which is met by the
`
`“dynamically electing” server. See e.g., Dkt. 266-1 at ¶ 104 (“FBCB2 could send a request for a
`
`map via a second server. . . . Because users moved around and access to a particular server could
`
`be blocked . . ., there was not a single static server designation in FBCB2 . . . Instead, FBCB2
`
`devices were programmed to collaborate and dynamically select one of their number to act as a
`
`server.”). Therefore, the “dynamically electing servers” theory is pervasive throughout
`
`Dr. Siegel’s report and Apple’s argument that there are server limitations that are invalidated by
`
`FBCB2 because they simply describe the various types and uses of servers is without merit.
`
`
`
`Lastly, Apple argues in a footnote that AGIS “only purports to be surprised by
`
`Dr. Siegel’s description of how the FBCB2 system “dynamically elected” servers because Apple
`
`had disclosed the FBCB2 system’s use of a server. Apple does not argue how the FBCB2
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 285 Filed 01/14/19 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 18774
`
`system’s disclosure of servers discloses its new theory of “dynamically elected” servers. As a
`
`result, AGIS is entitled to partial summary judgment that the Patents-in-Suit are not invalid over
`
`the FBCB2 system.
`
`B. Without the Obviousness Combination Relying on the Siegel Patents, Apple
`Cannot Provide Evidence that the FBCB2 System Discloses or Renders
`Obvious Each and Every Limitation of the Asserted Claims
`
`
`
`Apple argues that Apple’s undisclosed combination based on the Siegel patents should
`
`not permit a finding of summary judgment, even if the Court strikes every reference of the Siegel
`
`patents in Dr. Siegel’s report, because Dr. Siegel’s report still contains “ample factual support.”
`
`Dkt. 266 at 7. AGIS will not rebrief the same arguments it has made in its Motion to Strike (Dkt.
`
`234) and its Reply brief (Dkt. 282). However, AGIS notes that Apple did not elect the Siegel
`
`patents as prior art references, despite Dr. Siegel’s testimony that the Siegel patents themselves
`
`are the source for allegedly teaching the claim limitations. Dkt. 234; Dkt. 282. Further, given
`
`Apple’s concession that it does not rely on this undisclosed combination, it cannot be permitted
`
`to rely on the Siegel patents now to meet the claim limitations as stated in Dr. Siegel’s report.
`
`
`
`Without the Siegel patents, Apple cannot establish that FBCB2 meets each and every
`
`limitations of the claims. Dr. Siegel’s report is dependent on the Siegel patents, as is evidenced
`
`by the extensive portions of the report that cite exclusively to the patents for evidentiary support
`
`to meet the claim limitations. See e.g., Dkt. 266-1 at ¶¶ 75, 83, 97, 119, 154, 11, 186, 191, 194,
`
`216, 222, 227, 230, 237, 244, 250, 267, 274, 280, 303, 324, 350, 376, 404, 415, 431, 437, 467,
`
`485. Further, extensive portions of Dr. Siegel’s report contain conclusory statements relating to
`
`how the FBCB2 system meets the claim limitations without any evidentiary support because he
`
`has “personal knowledge of every feature” he describes. Dkt. 266-1 at ¶ 89; see e.g., id. at
`
`¶¶ 118, 122-125,160. For the remaining elements of those features, Dr. Siegel relies on his
`
`“personal knowledge” and cites to the Siegel patents. Dr. Siegel also relies on the combination
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 285 Filed 01/14/19 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 18775
`
`of the Siegel patents with the FBCB2 system to establish obviousness. As a result, Apple cannot
`
`establish that the FBCB2 system anticipates or renders obvious every limitation of every asserted
`
`claim of each of the Locations Patents without reliance on the obviousness combination based on
`
`the Siegel patents. As a result, AGIS is entitled to partial summary judgment of no invalidity of
`
`the Location Patents over the FBCB2 system.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, AGIS respectfully requests that the Court grant its Motion for
`
`Partial Summary Judgment of No Invalidity Over the FBCB2 System.
`
`Dated: January 14, 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
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 285 Filed 01/14/19 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 18776
`
`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
`
`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
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 285 Filed 01/14/19 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 18777
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that, on January 14, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`