Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 46 Filed 11/27/17 Page 1 of 34 PageID #: 1010
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA INC., HUAWEI
`DEVICE CO., LTD. AND HUAWEI DEVICE
`(DONGGUAN) CO., LTD.
`
`Defendants.
`
`LEAD CASE NO. 2:17-cv-513-JRG
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.
`
`Defendant.
`
`MEMBER CASE NO. 2:17-cv-515-JRG
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT LG ELECTRONICS, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF
`PERSONAL JURISDICTION OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO TRANSFER VENUE
`TO THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 46 Filed 11/27/17 Page 2 of 34 PageID #: 1011
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PAGE
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`AGIS’S COMPLAINT AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY .................................... 3
`
`PLAINTIFF AGIS AND ITS FORUM SELECTION TACTICS .......................... 4
`
`DEFENDANT LGEKR IS A FOREIGN CORPORATION WITH NO
`JURISDICTIONAL CONTACTS WITH TEXAS RELATED TO THE
`ACCUSED DEVICES ............................................................................................ 5
`
`THIRD-PARTY EVIDENCE RELATED TO THE ACCUSED
`APPLICATIONS USED WITH THE ACCUSED DEVICES ARE
`LOCATED IN AND AROUND NORTHERN CALIFORNIA ............................. 7
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ...................................................................................................... 8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`PERSONAL JURISDICTION ................................................................................ 8
`
`TRANSFER OF VENUE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §1404(A) ........................ 10
`
`IV. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................... 11
`
`A.
`
`EXERCISING PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER LGEKR WOULD
`NOT COMPORT WITH DUE PROCESS ........................................................... 11
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`LGEKR Is Not Subject To General Jurisdiction In EDTX....................... 11
`
`The Court Does Not Have Specific Jurisdiction Over LGEKR
`Because The Issues In This Case Do Not Arise Out Of Or Relate
`To Any Contacts Between LGEKR And Texas ....................................... 12
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`LGEKR Does Not Have Minimum Contacts With Texas .............13
`
`Any Exercise Of Jurisdiction Over LGEKR Would Not Be
`Reasonable Or Fair ........................................................................15
`
`B.
`
`ALTERNATIVELY, THIS COURT SHOULD TRANSFER THIS CASE
`TO THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNDER 28 U.S.C.
`§ 1404(A) .............................................................................................................. 18
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`AGIS Could Have Brought Suit In The Northern District of
`California .................................................................................................. 18
`
`The Court Should Not Give Deference To AGIS’s Choice of
`Venue ........................................................................................................ 19
`
`All Private Interest Factors Weigh In Favor of Transfer .......................... 19
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 46 Filed 11/27/17 Page 3 of 34 PageID #: 1012
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`The Relative Ease of Access To Sources of Proof Factor
`Favors NDCA ................................................................................19
`
`The Availability of Compulsory Process To Secure the
`Attendance of Witnesses Factor Strongly Favors NDCA ..............21
`
`The Convenience For Witnesses Factor Favors NDCA ................22
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`The Local Interests Factor Favors Transfer To NDCA ............................ 23
`
`All Remaining Factors Are Neutral .......................................................... 24
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 46 Filed 11/27/17 Page 4 of 34 PageID #: 1013
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`PAGE(S)
`
`In re Acer Am. Corp.,
`626 F.3d 1252 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................21
`
`Affinity Labs of Tex. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. et al.,
`968 F. Supp. 2d 852 (E.D. Tex. 2013) ...............................................................................17, 19
`
`AFTG-TG, LLC v. Nuvoton Tech. Corp.,
`689 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012)............................................................................................9, 10
`
`In re Apple, Inc.,
`581 F. App’x 886 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..........................................................................................22
`
`Autogenomics, Inc. v. Oxford Gene Tech. Ltd.,
`566 F.3d 1012 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................................................................................8, 9, 12, 13
`
`Beijing Zhongyi Zhongbiao Elec. Info. Tech. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`No. 4:12-cv-4077, 2013 WL 3808009 (W.D. Ark. July 22, 2013) ..........................................20
`
`Bluestone Innovations, LLC v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`940 F. Supp. 2d 310 (E.D. Va. 2013) ................................................................................17, 19
`
`Bluestone Innovations Tex., LLC v. Formosa Epitaxy Inc.,
`822 F. Supp. 2d 657 (E.D. Tex. 2011) .....................................................................................12
`
`Breckenridge Pharm., Inc. v. Metabolite Labs., Inc.,
`444 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................12
`
`Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz,
`105 S. Ct. 2174 (1985) .............................................................................................................15
`
`Celgard, LLC v. SK Innovation Co., Ltd.
`792 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2015)......................................................................................8, 14, 15
`
`Daimler AG v. Bauman,
`134 S. Ct. 746 (2014) ...............................................................................................9, 11, 12, 16
`
`Droplets, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. 11-cv-392, 2012 WL 3578605 (E.D. Tex. June 27, 2012) ...............................................22
`
`Fellowship Filtering Techs., LLC v. Alibaba.com, Inc. et al.,
`No. 2:15-cv-2049-JRG, 2016 WL 6917272 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 1, 2016) ...................................14
`
`Fujinomaki v. Google Inc. et al.,
`No. 2:15-cv-1381-JRG-RSP, 2016 WL 2807798 (E.D. Tex. May 13, 2016) ...................17, 18
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 46 Filed 11/27/17 Page 5 of 34 PageID #: 1014
`
`In re Genentech, Inc.,
`566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009)....................................................................................10, 19, 22
`
`Global Equity Mgmt. (SA) Pty. Ltd. v. Alibaba.com, Inc.,
`No. 2:15-cv-01702-RWS-RSP (E.D. Tex. Mar. 24, 2017), ECF No. 73.................................23
`
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. Xilinx, Inc.,
`No. 2:17-cv-00100-JRG-RSP, 2017 WL 4076052 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 14, 2017) .................11, 21
`
`Gonzalez v. Social Concepts, Inc.,
`No. 2:14-cv-650-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex. Mar. 24, 2015), ECF No. 12 ......................................23
`
`Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown,
`131 S. Ct. 2846 (2011) ...................................................................................................9, 11, 12
`
`In re Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc.,
`587 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2009)....................................................................................20, 21, 23
`
`In re Horseshoe Ent’mt,
`337 F.3d 429 (5th Cir. 2003) ...................................................................................................18
`
`Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington,
`326 U.S. 310 (1945) ...........................................................................................................11, 12
`
`J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro,
`131 S. Ct. 2780 (2011) .............................................................................................................18
`
`Johnston v. Multidata Sys. Int’l Corp.,
`523 F.3d 602 (5th Cir. 2008) .....................................................................................................8
`
`In re Microsoft Corp.,
`630 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................19
`
`In re Nintendo Co., Ltd.,
`589 F.3d 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................19
`
`Optimum Power Sols. LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`794 F. Supp. 2d 696 (E.D. Tex. 2011) .....................................................................................20
`
`Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co.,
`342 U.S. 437 (1952) .................................................................................................................12
`
`Porto Tech. Co., Ltd. v. Samsung Elec. Am., Inc. et al.,
`Case No. 15-cv-00456-JRG-RSP, 2:15-cv-00458-JRG-RSP, 2:15-cv-00459-
`JRG-RSP, 2:15-cv-00460-JRG-RSP, 2016 WL 937388
`(E.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2016) ........................................................................................................23
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 46 Filed 11/27/17 Page 6 of 34 PageID #: 1015
`
`QR Spex, Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.,
`507 F. Supp. 2d 650 (E.D. Tex. 2007) ...............................................................................10, 14
`
`Regent Mkts. Grp., Ltd. v. IG Mkts., Inc.,
`No. 2:10-cv-42-TJW, 2011 WL 1135123 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2011) .....................................21
`
`Rothschild Storage Retrieval Innovations, LLC v. LG Elecs., Inc. et al.,
`No. 14-cv-22654-DPG, 2015 WL 11233067 (S.D. Fla. June 3, 2015) ...................................18
`
`Software Rights Archive, LLC v. Google, Inc.,
`No. 2:07-cv-511, 2010 WL 2950351 (E.D. Tex. July 22, 2010) .............................................23
`
`In re TS Tech USA Corp.,
`551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2008)....................................................................................10, 19, 22
`
`TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC,
`137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017) .........................................................................................................2, 17
`
`In re Volkswagen AG (Volkswagen I),
`371 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2004) .............................................................................................10, 18
`
`In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc. (Volkswagen II),
`545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc) .......................................................................10, 11, 22
`
`Walden v. Fiore,
`134 S. Ct. 1115 (2014) ...................................................................................................9, 13, 14
`
`In re Zimmer Holdings, Inc.,
`609 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................24
`
`Zitovault, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. 6:15-cv-152-JRG, 2015 WL 11089482 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 4, 2015) ....................................20
`
`STATUTES, RULES AND REGULATIONS
`
`28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1391(c)(2) .............................................................................................................................18
`
`§ 1391(c)(3) .......................................................................................................................17, 18
`
`§ 1400(b) ..................................................................................................................................18
`
`§ 1404(a) ..................................................................................................................1, 10, 18, 22
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 46 Filed 11/27/17 Page 7 of 34 PageID #: 1016
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`12(b)(2) ................................................................................................................................9, 17
`
`45(c)(1)(B) ...............................................................................................................................21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 46 Filed 11/27/17 Page 8 of 34 PageID #: 1017
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE TO BE DECIDED
`
`1. Whether the Court should dismiss this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`
`12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction over Defendant LG Electronics, Inc., who Plaintiff
`
`acknowledges is a Korean company with its principal place of business in Korea and who has
`
`no contacts relevant to Plaintiff’s patent infringement allegations in Texas.
`
`2. Alternatively, whether the Court should transfer this case to the Northern District of
`
`California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404, which is the forum that is more convenient for the
`
`relevant party and non-party witnesses and evidence implicated by the Complaint.
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 46 Filed 11/27/17 Page 9 of 34 PageID #: 1018
`
`Defendant LG Electronics, Inc. (“LGEKR”) respectfully moves this Court to dismiss
`
`AGIS Software Development LLC’s (“AGIS”) Complaint for Patent Infringement (D.I. 1)
`
`pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of personal
`
`jurisdiction, or, in the alternative, to transfer this case to the Northern District of California
`
`(“NDCA”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`It is a well-known fact and a matter of public record that LGEKR is a foreign entity and
`
`that the relevant U.S. entity for the importation and sale of LG mobile devices in the United
`
`States is LGEKR’s United States subsidiary, LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc.
`
`(“LGEMU”). LGEMU is a California company with large offices in the Northern and Southern
`
`Districts of California. Here, AGIS has tactically ignored the relevant U.S. subsidiary, and its
`
`Complaint is purposefully and solely limited to claims that LGEKR infringes four related U.S.
`
`patents by selling certain Android mobile devices in this District (“EDTX”).
`
`As confirmed by the declarations filed in support of this motion and previous public
`
`record filings in EDTX, LGEKR does not make, sell, offer for sale or import any of the accused
`
`mobile phones in the United States, let alone within EDTX or the State of Texas. LGEKR, a
`
`Korean corporation with its principal place of business in Seoul, South Korea, also has no
`
`physical presence, employees or records related to the accused mobile phones in EDTX or
`
`Texas. Instead, as is well-known in this District, LGEKR’s California subsidiary, LGEMU (and
`
`its own subsidiary LG Electronics MobileResearch LLC (“LGEMR”)1, is solely and
`
`independently responsible for importing, selling, and offering for sale the accused mobile
`
`
`1 LGEMR is also a California company with offices in the Northern and Southern Districts of
`California.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 46 Filed 11/27/17 Page 10 of 34 PageID #: 1019
`
`devices in the United States. For its part, LGEKR’s work related to the design, development,
`
`and manufacture of the accused mobile devices occurs internationally, primarily in South Korea.
`
`Furthermore, as plainly apparent from the Complaint, the core of the accused functionalities in
`
`this case is provided by non-parties, such as Google LLC (“Google”), and the relevant witnesses
`
`and information about those functionalities are located in and around Northern California.
`
`Exercising personal jurisdiction against LGEKR in view of these facts would be improper and
`
`the Complaint is properly dismissed on this basis.
`
`That AGIS, which was formed solely to file and maintain this litigation in EDTX, sued
`
`the wrong LG defendant is no accident. Rather, it is a deliberate attempt to forum shop and
`
`evade the jurisdiction of the most convenient and proper forum for this action – NDCA.
`
`Following TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017), AGIS
`
`is well aware that EDTX is not a proper venue for a suit against LGEKR’s California subsidiary,
`
`LGEMU, which is the entity actually responsible for importing, selling, and offering for sale the
`
`accused mobile devices. Thus, AGIS elected to sue only LGEKR, who, AGIS views as subject
`
`to venue in any District, including EDTX, by virtue of being a foreign corporation. But AGIS’s
`
`attempted end-run around the venue rules fails because LGEKR has no contacts with Texas
`
`relevant to this case for the exercise of personal jurisdiction.
`
`AGIS’s forum-shopping is also a waste of judicial resources – any claim of infringement
`
`would ultimately have to be directed at LGEKR’s U.S. subsidiary, since LGEKR does not
`
`import, sell, or control the distribution of the accused devices in the United States. AGIS’s
`
`efforts to avoid California jurisdiction by choosing not to sue the relevant party now means that
`
`any work by the courts in this District may ultimately be for naught, because AGIS ultimately
`
`has no claim against LGEKR – any claim would have to arise through LGEKR’s California
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 46 Filed 11/27/17 Page 11 of 34 PageID #: 1020
`
`subsidiary, LGEMU. For these reasons, maintenance of this lawsuit here is neither reasonable,
`
`nor fair, nor efficient.
`
`Alternatively, if the Court determines that it may exercise personal jurisdiction over
`
`LGEKR, then LGEKR requests that the case be transferred to NDCA. The core evidence
`
`implicated by AGIS’s allegations exists in and around NDCA. Core evidence includes relevant
`
`documents and witnesses for the accused mobile devices from LGEMU and LGEMR operating
`
`out of California and for the third-party applications (which are the primary focus of the
`
`infringement claims) provided by non-parties Google and Family Safety Production / Life360,
`
`Inc. (“Life360”), both of whom are located in NDCA.
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`AGIS’S COMPLAINT AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`
`AGIS filed the Complaint on June 21, 2017. (D.I. 1.) It alleges that LGEKR infringes
`
`one or more claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,213,970 (the “’970 Patent”), 9,408,055 (the “’055
`
`Patent”), 9,445,251 (the “’251 Patent”), and 9,467,838 (the “’838 Patent”) (collectively,
`
`“Patents-In-Suit”) based on the inclusion of “Google Maps, Android Device Manager, Find My
`
`Phone, Find My Device, Google Messages, Android Messenger, Google Hangouts, Google Plus,
`
`and Google Latitude” (the “Accused Applications”) on certain LG-branded devices.2 (D.I. 1,
`
`¶ 15.) In simplified terms, AGIS alleges infringement based on Accused Devices including
`
`functionality from third parties that “allows users to form groups with other users such that users
`
`may view each others’ locations on a map and engage in communication.” (Id.) AGIS asserts
`
`that this Court can exercise personal jurisdiction over LGEKR with respect to its infringement
`
`
`2 The Complaint alleges that the following LG devices are at issue: G Stylo, G6, X venture,
`V20, Phoenix, G5, K10, Phoenix 2, V10, Vista 2, and Escape 2 (collectively, the “Accused
`Devices”). (D.I. 1, ¶ 15.)
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 46 Filed 11/27/17 Page 12 of 34 PageID #: 1021
`
`allegations because “[LGEKR] conducts business and has committed acts of patent infringement
`
`and/or has induced acts of patent infringement by others in this judicial district and/or has
`
`contributed to patent infringement by others in this judicial district, the State of Texas, and
`
`elsewhere in the United States.” (Id., ¶ 4.) AGIS does not support this boilerplate assertion with
`
`any facts or evidence.
`
`The Court has consolidated this case with Case No. 17-cv-513 (D.I. 20) and set a
`
`scheduling conference for November 28, 2017 (Case No. 17-cv-513, D.I. 33). No docket control
`
`order has been entered and discovery has not begun.
`
`B.
`
`PLAINTIFF AGIS AND ITS FORUM SELECTION TACTICS
`
`AGIS was formed on June 1, 2017, less than three weeks prior to the commencement of
`
`this action. (513 D.I. 36, Ex. 5.) The Patents-In-Suit themselves were only assigned to AGIS
`
`one day before it filed the Complaint. (513 D.I. 36, Exs. 1-4.) AGIS alleges that it is a Texas
`
`company with its principal place of business at 100 W. Houston Street, Marshall, TX 75670.
`
`(D.I. 1, ¶ 1.) But, outside this assertion, according to Texas’s Secretary of State and Office of the
`
`Comptroller, AGIS’s address is 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701, which is the
`
`address of its agent for service of process. (513 D.I. 36, Exs. 7-8.) AGIS’s Certificate of
`
`Formation identifies one corporate member, AGIS Holdings Inc. (“AGIS Holdings”), a Florida
`
`corporation located at 92 Lighthouse Drive, Jupiter, Florida, with Florida-resident directors and
`
`officers. (513 D.I. 36, Exs. 5-6, 9.) AGIS has no known employees in Texas, and it conducts no
`
`business in Texas. (513 D.I. 36-7, ¶ 12.) Stated differently, even if it is true that AGIS is located
`
`in this District, and not where it is registered with the Texas Secretary of State, AGIS’s recent
`
`establishment was solely for litigating these cases in EDTX.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 46 Filed 11/27/17 Page 13 of 34 PageID #: 1022
`
`C.
`
`DEFENDANT LGEKR IS A FOREIGN CORPORATION WITH NO
`JURISDICTIONAL CONTACTS WITH TEXAS RELATED TO THE
`ACCUSED DEVICES
`
`LGEKR is a South Korean corporation with its principal place of business in Seoul,
`
`Korea. (Ryu Decl.,3 ¶ 4; Lee Decl.4, Ex. 2, ¶ 3.) LGEKR’s employees are responsible for
`
`designing, engineering, sourcing components, and manufacturing the Accused Devices. All of
`
`this work is done outside the United States, mostly in South Korea. (Ryu Decl., ¶ 4; Lee Decl.,
`
`Ex. 1, ¶ 4; id., Ex. 2, ¶¶ 3, 8.) Because the Accused Devices are manufactured by LGEKR
`
`outside the United States, the installation of the Android OS and any pre-installation of Android
`
`applications on those devices also occur outside the United States, in South Korea. (Ryu Decl., ¶
`
`7; Lee Decl., Ex. 2, ¶ 8.) The Android OS is developed by non-party Google, who also provides
`
`most of the Accused Applications. (Ryu Decl., ¶¶ 3, 7.) LGEKR obtains the Android OS from
`
`Google and performs any integration and/or modification tasks related to installation of the
`
`Android OS, including any pre-installation of Google-provided Android applications that occurs
`
`during the manufacturing process, into the Accused Devices outside the United States. (Ryu
`
`Decl., ¶ 7; Lee Decl., Ex. 1, ¶¶ 7-8; id., Ex. 2, ¶¶ 7-8.) All of LGEKR’s technical information is
`
`located outside the United States, and primarily in South Korea. (Ryu Decl., ¶¶ 7, 12; Lee Decl.,
`
`Ex. 2, ¶ 12.)
`
`The entities solely responsible for importing, testing, performing quality management,
`
`marketing, offering for sale, and selling the Accused Devices in the United States are LG
`
`
`3 “Ryu Decl.” refers to the Declaration of JuSeong Ryu In Support Of Defendant’s Motion To
`Dismiss For Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Or Transfer Venue To The Northern District of
`California filed concurrently herewith.
`
`4 “Lee Decl.” refers to the Declaration of Nicholas H. Lee In Support Of Defendant LG
`Electronics, Inc.’s Motion To Dismiss For Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Or, In The Alternative,
`To Transfer Venue To The Northern District of California filed concurrently herewith.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 46 Filed 11/27/17 Page 14 of 34 PageID #: 1023
`
`Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc. (“LGEMU”) and its wholly-owned subsidiary, LG
`
`Electronics MobileResearch U.S.A., LLC (“LGEMR”). (Ryu Decl., ¶¶ 5-6, 8-9; Lee Decl., Ex.
`
`1, ¶ 5; id., Ex. 2, ¶ 6.) LGEMU and LGEMR are both California corporations, and they both
`
`maintain key operations with respect to the Accused Devices in California, including Santa Clara
`
`in the Northern District of California. (Ryu Decl., ¶¶ 5, 8-9; Lee Decl., Ex. 1, ¶¶ 10-11, 13; id.,
`
`Ex. 2, ¶¶ 6, 9-10, 13.) LGEMU and LGEMR are wholly-owned subsidiaries of LG Electronics
`
`U.S.A., Inc. (“LGEUS”), which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of LGEKR. (Lee Decl., Ex. 2, ¶¶
`
`4, 6.) LGEUS, a Delaware company with its principal place of business in Englewood Cliffs,
`
`NJ, is the sole entity responsible for maintaining the website for LG-branded products that are
`
`viewable from the U.S., including Texas. (Ryu Decl., ¶ 15; Lee Decl., Ex. 2, ¶ 4.) The website
`
`is passive and provides only product-related information, meaning a consumer cannot purchase
`
`the Accused Devices directly on it. (Id.) LGEKR does not control or have authority over the
`
`day-to-day operations of LGEMU (or LGEMR). (Ryu Decl., ¶ 14.) LGEMU, LGEMR, and
`
`LGEUS are not parties to this litigation.
`
`LGEMU acquires the Accused Devices from LGEKR overseas and imports them into the
`
`United States for sale to national mobile phone carriers, retailers, and distributors, who in turn
`
`sell those devices to end users throughout the nation. (Ryu Decl., ¶ 5; Lee Decl., Ex. 1, ¶ 5; id.,
`
`Ex. 2, ¶ 6.) With respect to compliance testing for the Android OS on the Accused Devices,
`
`LGEMR’s Partner Engineering team, which works in Northern California, is responsible for
`
`interfacing with Google to ensure that the Accused Devices comply with Google’s compatibility
`
`requirements for Android. (Ryu Decl., ¶ 8; Lee Decl., Ex. 1, ¶¶ 9-11; id., Ex. 2, ¶¶ 9-10.) Thus,
`
`Android-related certification documents and records are physically present in or electronically
`
`accessible at the Northern California office. (Ryu Decl., ¶ 11; Lee Decl., Ex. 1, ¶ 12; id., Ex. 2,
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 46 Filed 11/27/17 Page 15 of 34 PageID #: 1024
`
`¶¶ 11, 14.) With respect to testing and quality management of the Accused Devices, there are
`
`LGEMU employees in San Diego, California who are responsible for ensuring pre-launch and
`
`post-launch quality assurance of those devices in the United States. (Ryu Decl., ¶ 9; Lee Decl.,
`
`Ex. 1, ¶ 13; id., Ex. 2, ¶ 13.) The documents and records concerning testing, quality
`
`management, and other similar types of documentation related to the Accused Devices are
`
`maintained in the San Diego office. (Ryu Decl., ¶ 11; Lee Decl., Ex. 1, ¶ 13; id., Ex. 2, ¶ 14.)
`
`LGEKR itself does not maintain any of its records related to the Accused Devices in the United
`
`States; has no contacts related to the sale or distribution of the Accused Devices in Texas; and
`
`does not direct any of its activities related to the Accused Devices to Texas. (Ryu Decl., ¶¶ 7,
`
`10, 12-13; Lee Decl., Ex. 1, ¶ 12; id., Ex. 2, ¶¶ 12, 15.)
`
`As related to the Accused Devices, LGEKR’s relationship with LGEMU indicates that
`
`LGEKR’s jurisdictional contacts lie, if anywhere in the United States, with California, not Texas.
`
`These California contacts, as outlined above, were a matter of public record in this District’s
`
`court docket prior to AGIS filing suit. (Lee Decl., Exs. 1-2.) And for purposes of this motion,
`
`LGEKR does not challenge California’s exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over LGEKR
`
`for the issues presented in this case.
`
`D.
`
`THIRD-PARTY EVIDENCE RELATED TO THE ACCUSED
`APPLICATIONS USED WITH THE ACCUSED DEVICES ARE
`LOCATED IN AND AROUND NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
`
`The most critical evidence for key issues in this case is located outside this District and
`
`primarily in NDCA. The Accused Applications, which are the focus of the infringement claims,
`
`are all developed by third parties located in and around NDCA. For example, AGIS’s
`
`infringement claims plainly depend upon functionality in the Google Maps application and the
`
`Find My Device application. (See D.I. 1, ¶¶ 14-15, 20-21, 30-34, 43-46, 55-60.) Third-party
`
`Google provides these two applications for the Android OS installed on the Accused Devices.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 46 Filed 11/27/17 Page 16 of 34 PageID #: 1025
`
`(513 D.I. 36-4, ¶¶ 1-3; 513 D.I. 36-5, ¶¶ 1-3.) The other Accused Applications for which Google
`
`is responsible, as set forth in the Complaint, include Messenger, Android Messages, Google
`
`Hangouts, and Google Plus.5 (D.I. 1, ¶ 15; 513 D.I. 36-6, ¶¶ 2, 5-8.) Each of these Google
`
`applications identified in the Complaint is designed, developed and/or maintained in or around
`
`NDCA, or logistically closer to NDCA than to EDTX. (513 D.I. 36-4, ¶¶ 2-6; 513 D.I. 36-5, ¶¶
`
`2-6; 513 D.I. 36-6, ¶¶ 4-9.) Nearly all the documents, including highly proprietary source code,
`
`related to those Google applications are either physically present in NDCA or electronically
`
`accessible from Mountain View, as are the persons most qualified to identify and locate those
`
`documents. (513 D.I. 36-4, ¶ 6; 513 D.I. 36-5, ¶ 6; 513 D.I. 36-6, ¶ 10.) Indeed, Google has no
`
`offices in this District and its Mountain View, California headquarter is the strategic center of its
`
`business, where the most significant management and engineering decisions for the accused
`
`Google applications occur. (513 D.I. 36-6, ¶¶ 4-5; 513 D.I. 36-4, ¶¶ 2, 5; 513 D.I. 36-5, ¶¶ 2, 5.)
`
`Stated differently, Google does not design, maintain, or manage any of the Accused Applications
`
`in EDTX. (513 D.I. 36-4, ¶ 5; 513 D.I. 36-5, ¶ 5; 513 D.I. 36-6, ¶ 9.)
`
`The other application identified in the Complaint appears to be a non-Google application:
`
`“Find My Phone.” (D.I. 1, ¶ 15.) But, that too is offered by a third party, i.e., Family Safety
`
`Production / Life360, Inc. (“Life360”), located in NDCA. (513 D.I. 37, Exs. 26-30.)
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A.
`
`PERSONAL JURISDICTION
`
`In patent infringement actions, personal jurisdiction is governed by Federal Circuit law.
`
`Autogenomics, Inc. v. Oxford Gene Tech. Ltd., 566 F.3d 1012, 1016 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The
`
`
`5 On information and belief, Google Latitude has been discontinued and is no longer available,
`meaning it is not supported on all the Accused Devices.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 46 Filed 11/27/17 Page 17 of 34 PageID #: 1026
`
`burden is on the plaintiff to establish that the Court has jurisdiction over the defendant. See
`
`Celgard, LLC v. SK Innovation Co., Ltd., 792 F.3d 1373, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Determining
`
`whether jurisdiction exists over a foreign defendant involves two inquiries: (1) whether the
`
`state’s long-arm statute permits service of process; and (2) whether the exercise of jurisdiction
`
`over the defendant is consistent with due process. See Autogenomics, 566 F.3d at 1017. Texas’s
`
`long-arm statute is coextensive with the due process inquiry, meaning the focus is solely on
`
`whether the exercise of jurisdiction over a foreign defendant would comport with due process.
`
`See Johnston v. Multidata Sys. Int’l Corp., 523 F.3d 602, 609 (5th Cir. 2008); Autogenomics, 566
`
`F.3d at 1017. The due process inquiry looks at two types of personal jurisdiction: general and
`
`specific.
`
`General jurisdiction allows the Court to hear “any and all claims against [the foreign
`
`defendant], wherever in the world the claims may arise.” Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct.
`
`746, 751 (2014). The exercise of general jurisdiction, however, is inappropriate unless the
`
`foreign defendant’s contact with the forum state is so “‘continuous and systematic’ as to render
`
`[it] essentially at home in the forum state.” Id. at 754 (quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires
`
`Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846, 2851 (2011)). The Supreme Court has made clear
`
`that a defendant’s “place of incorporation and principal place of business are paradig[m] . . .
`
`bases for general jurisdiction.” Id. at 760 (internal quotations omitted).
`
`“Specific or case-linked jurisdiction depends on an affiliation between the forum and the
`
`underlying controversy (i.e., an activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum State and
`
`is therefore subject to the State’s regulation).” Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115, 1121 n.6
`
`(2014) (internal quotations and alteration omitted). The defendant itself, and not unnamed third
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 46 Filed 11/27/17 Page 18 of