Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 286 Filed 01/14/19 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 18778
`
`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 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY
`JUDGMENT OF APPLICATION OF POST-AIA LAW TO U.S. PATENT NOS.
`9,408,055; 9,445,251; 9,467,838; AND 9,749,829; AND FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
`UNENFORCEABILITY DUE TO UNCLEAN HANDS
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 286 Filed 01/14/19 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 18779
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Pages
`
`Blue Calypso LLC v. Groupon, Inc.,
`815 F. 3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016).......................................................................................... 1
`
`Fox Grp., Inc. v. Cree, Inc.,
`700 F.3d 1300 (Fed.Cir.2012)............................................................................................. 2
`
`Perfect Surgical Techniques, Inc. v. Olympus Am., Inc.,
`841 F.3d 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2016)........................................................................................... 2
`
`TQP Dev., LLC v. 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc.,
`120 F. Supp. 3d 600 (E.D. Tex. 2015) ................................................................................ 2
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(g) .......................................................................................................................... 2
`
`Leahy–Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”),
`Pub. L. No. 112‐29, § 3(n)(1), 125 Stat. 284 (2011) ...................................................... 1, 2
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 286 Filed 01/14/19 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 18780
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`Ex. 12
`Ex. 13
`Ex. 14
`Ex. 15
`Ex. 16
`Ex. 17
`Ex. 18
`Ex. 19
`Ex. 20
`Ex. 21
`Ex. 22
`Ex. 23
`Ex. 24
`Ex. 25
`
`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
`’838 File History Excerpt - 2015-10-30 Corrected Application Data
`Sheet
`’838 File History Excerpt - 2016-04-25 Reply to Office Action
`’829 File History Excerpt - 2015-10-07 Corrected Application Data
`Sheet
`’829 File History Excerpt - 2016-01-20 Corrected Application Data
`Sheet
`’251 File History Excerpt - 2015-11-13 Reply to Office Action
`’251 File History Excerpt - 2016-01-26 Reply to Office Action
`’251 File History Excerpt - 2016-06-03 Reply to Office Action
`’055 File History Excerpt - 2015-10-30 Reply to Office Action
`’055 File History Excerpt - 2016-02-26 Reply to Office Action
`’055 File History Excerpt - 2016-05-31 Reply to Office Action
`AGIS's Responses to Apple's Interrogatories Nos. 12-15
`AGIS's Responses to Apple's Requests for Admission Nos. 1-4
`AGIS's Responses to Apple's Interrogatories Nos. 17-22
`McAlexander Infringement Report Excerpts
`McAlexander Validity Report Excerpts
`’838 File History Excerpt - 2016-08-04 Office Action
`’838 File History Excerpt - 2015-08-19 Office Action
`’829 File History Excerpt - 2015-02-27 Application Data Sheet
`’829 File History Excerpt - 2015-04-07 Office Action
`Apple’s Final Election of Prior Art
`Siegel Deposition Excerpt
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 286 Filed 01/14/19 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 18781
`
`
`
`AGIS concedes the key fact requiring application of the AIA to the ’055, ’251, ’838, and
`
`’829 patents: an application leading to those patents “contained at any time, a claim to an invention
`
`that has an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013.” (Dkt. No. 260 (“Opp.”) at 9.) That
`
`is what AGIS repeatedly told the Patent Office after taking on “heavy burdens” and “complex
`
`analyses” to determine AIA law applied. (Id. at 12.) AGIS should be held to its representations
`
`and cannot “swear behind” prior art. Further, AGIS’s attempts to wordsmith around its
`
`representations—forcing Apple to bring this issue to the Court—warrants finding unclean hands.
`
`First, AGIS’s opposition confirms that AIA law governs the ’838 patent. AGIS admits
`
`that the ’838 patent’s application “contained at any time, a claim to a claimed invention that has
`
`an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013.” (Opp. at 9.) The statute dictates that the AIA
`
`applies to such applications, and there is no dispute that the ’838 patent issued from its
`
`corresponding application.1 AGIS’s argument that “issued patents” are not subject to the AIA
`
`(Opp. at 9) is wrong.2 Whether or not issued claims might have a priority date earlier than March
`
`2013 is irrelevant; by the statutory terms, the AIA applies to the patent as a whole. Id. And
`
`contrary to AGIS’s argument (Opp. at 11), expert opinions on the priority of specific claims do
`
`not impact the legal determination of the applicability of AIA law to the patent.3
`
`Second, AGIS’s opposition confirms that the AIA governs the ’055, ’251, and ’829 patents,
`
`because AGIS admits that “[t]he ’838 patent is included in the priority chain of each” of those
`
`
`1 Leahy–Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112‐29, § 3(n)(1)(A), 125 Stat. 284,
`293 (2011) (outlining that AIA applies “to any application for patent, and to any patent issuing
`thereon, that contains or contained at any time . . . a claim to a claimed invention that has an
`effective filing [on or after March 16, 2013]”).
`2 Id. (The AIA “shall apply to any application . . . and to any patent issuing thereon . . . .”).
`3 AGIS’s reliance on Blue Calypso LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 815 F. 3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016), is
`misplaced. Blue Calypso involved patents that were filed and issued before March 16, 2013, and
`thus could not have ever contained a post-AIA claim, in contrast to the patents at issue here.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 286 Filed 01/14/19 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 18782
`
`
`
`patents. (Opp. at 4.) Because the ’838 patent’s application contained a post-AIA claim, AIA law
`
`also applies to the ’055, ’251, and ’829 patents claiming priority to it. AIA § 3(n)(1)(B).
`
`Third, AGIS’s citation to correspondence (see Opp. at 1-2, 13) simply highlights its
`
`gamesmanship. AGIS craftily acknowledged that “AGIS’s prosecution counsel stated” that certain
`
`claims had an effective filing date after March 16, 2013, but still denied those facts. (Opp. at 1;
`
`see also Ex. C.) Indeed, AGIS maintains those denials in discovery responses.4
`
`Fourth, AGIS’s reliance on 35 U.S.C. § 102(g) is misplaced. (See Opp. at 2-3, 10.) That
`
`subsection of pre-AIA law addresses interference proceedings and prior invention prior art.5 As
`
`AGIS knows, Apple and its experts assert invalidity based on printed publications and public
`
`systems. (Ex. 24.6) Apple does not intend to assert prior invention under § 102(g) at trial; AGIS
`
`confirmed that at deposition.7 AGIS asserts that § 102(g) allows AGIS to swear behind “any prior
`
`art in this case” (Opp. at 10), but the case upon which AGIS relies did not apply AIA law, and in
`
`particular did not apply AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102, which is applicable here.8
`
`At bottom, by telling the Patent Office that its applications contained (at one time) claims
`
`with a post-March 2013 priority date, AGIS avoided the Patent Office’s scrutiny over whether
`
`those claims were adequately supported in earlier applications—a key dispute between the parties
`
`here. Reversing course, AGIS now asserts that its patents should be entitled to a priority date
`
`before the effective filing date—something the AIA expressly prohibits. That conduct is
`
`egregious, and Apple respectfully submits that it warrants a finding of unclean hands.
`
`
`4 Compare Opp. at 1, with Ex. 16 at 4-5, and Ex. 15 at 5.
`5 Fox Grp., Inc. v. Cree, Inc., 700 F.3d 1300, 1304 (Fed.Cir.2012); see also TQP Dev., LLC v. 1-
`800-Flowers.com, Inc., 120 F. Supp. 3d 600, 608 (E.D. Tex. 2015).
`6 Exs. 1-23 were filed with Apple’s opening brief (Dkt. No. 227). Exs. 24-25 are filed herewith.
`7 Ex. 25 at 210:10-211:16 (“Q. How about 102 (g)? A. No. My – my analysis was focused on 102
`(a) and 102 (b).”)
`8 Perfect Surgical Techniques, Inc. v. Olympus Am., Inc., 841 F.3d 1004, 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 286 Filed 01/14/19 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 18783
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: January 14, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`Ameet A. Modi
`Cosmin Maier
`Kerri-Ann Limbeek
`Brian Matty
`Tom BenGera
`Kathryn Bi
`Francesco Silletta
`Joze Welsh
`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: 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
`Email: jwelsh@desmaraisllp.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
`APPLE INC.
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 286 Filed 01/14/19 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 18784
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 January, 2019.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Melissa R. Smith
`Melissa R. Smith
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`