Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 106 Filed 01/25/19 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 4063
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
`THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`CASE NO. 2:17-cv-514-JRG
`(Lead Case)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`CASE NO. 2:17-CV-515-JRG
`(Member Case)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`§§§§§§§§§
`
`§§§§§§§§§§§
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, LLC
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`HTC CORPORATION, et al.
`
`Defendant.
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, LLC
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`LG ELECTRONICS INC.
`
`Defendant.
`
`DEFENDANT LG ELECTRONICS INC.’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`THAT U.S. PATENT NO. 7,630,724 MAY NOT BE RELIED UPON TO SHOW THAT
`U.S. APPLICATION NO. 14/027,410 PROVIDES WRITTEN DESCRIPTION SUPPORT
`FOR U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,408,055; 9,445,251; AND 9,467, 838
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 106 Filed 01/25/19 Page 2 of 11 PageID #: 4064
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED BY THE COURT ....................... 1
`
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ..................................... 1
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ............................................................................................. 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Summary Judgment .................................................................................... 2
`
`Written Description Requirement and Incorporation By Reference ........... 3
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................... 4
`
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 5
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 106 Filed 01/25/19 Page 3 of 11 PageID #: 4065
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Advanced Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ.,
`212 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2000)..................................................................................................3
`
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
`477 U.S. 242 (1986) ...................................................................................................................2
`
`Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..................................................................................................3
`
`Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
`477 U.S. 317 (1986) ...................................................................................................................3
`
`Cook Biotech Inc. v. ACell, Inc.,
`460 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..................................................................................................3
`
`Crawford v. Formosa Plastics Corp., La.,
`234 F.3d 899 (5th Cir. 2000) .....................................................................................................2
`
`Harari v. Lee,
`656 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..................................................................................................5
`
`Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997)..................................................................................................3
`
`Northrop Grumman Info. Tech., Inc. v. United States,
`535 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..............................................................................................4, 5
`
`Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar,
`935 F.2d 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1991)..................................................................................................3
`
`Zenon Evntl., Inc. v. U.S. Filter Corp.,
`506 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2007)..................................................................................................3
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C.
`§ 112...........................................................................................................................................3
`§ 120...........................................................................................................................................3
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) ........................................................................................................................2
`
`-iii-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 106 Filed 01/25/19 Page 4 of 11 PageID #: 4066
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Exhibit Number
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`Description
`U.S. Patent Nos. 9,408,055
`U.S. Patent No. 9,445,251
`U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838
`U.S. Patent Application No. 14-027,410
`Apple Inc. v. AGIS Software Development LLC, IPR2018-00817
`(P.T.A.B. Oct. 3, 2018) (Paper 9)
`Apple Inc. v. AGIS Software Development LLC, IPR2018-00819
`(P.T.A.B. Nov. 7, 2018) (Paper 9)
`Apple Inc. v. AGIS Software Development LLC, IPR2018-00818
`(P.T.A.B. Oct. 3, 2018) (Paper 9)
`The New Oxford American Dictionary (2001) (excerpt)
`
`-iv-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 106 Filed 01/25/19 Page 5 of 11 PageID #: 4067
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Defendant LG Electronics Inc. (“LGEKR”) moves for summary judgment that the
`
`disclosures in U.S. Patent No. 7,630,724 may not be relied upon to show that U.S. Application
`
`No. 14/027,410 provides written description support for three of the patents asserted by AGIS
`
`Software Development LLC (“AGIS”) in this suit because the application to which asserted U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 9,408,055; 9,445,251; and 9,467,838 claim priority failed to incorporate U.S. Patent
`
`No. 7,630,724 by reference. LGEKR therefore respectfully requests that the Court grant
`
`summary judgment that the disclosures of U.S. Patent No. 7,630,724 are not incorporated by
`
`reference into U.S. Application No. 14/027,410 to provide written description support for the
`
`asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,408,055; 9,445,251; and 9,467,838.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED BY THE COURT
`
`Whether U.S. Patent No. 7,630,724 may be relied upon to show that U.S. Application No.
`
`14/027,410 provides written description support for the asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`9,408,055; 9,445,251; and 9,467,838 where U.S. Application No. 14/027,410 fails to incorporate
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,630,724 by reference.
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
`
`1.
`
`AGIS has asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 9,408,055 (the “’055 Patent”), 9,445,251 (the
`
`“’251 Patent”), and 9,467,838 (the “’838 Patent”) (collectively, the “location sharing patents”)
`
`against LGEKR. (515 D.I. 1).
`
`2.
`
`Each of the location sharing patents purports to claim priority to the U.S.
`
`Application No. 14/027,410 (the “’410 Application”). (Lee Decl.1, Ex. 1 at 1; Lee Decl., Ex. 2 at
`
`1; Lee Decl., Ex. 3 at 1).
`
`1 “Lee Decl.” refers to the Declaration of Nicholas H. Lee In Support of Defendant LG
`Electronics Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment that U.S. Patent No. 7,630,724 May Not Be
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 106 Filed 01/25/19 Page 6 of 11 PageID #: 4068
`
`3.
`
` Each of the location sharing patents also purports to claim priority to U.S. Patent
`
`Nos. 7,630,724 (the “’724 Patent”) and 7,031,728 (the “’728 Patent”). (Lee Decl., Ex. 1 at 2;
`
`Lee Decl., Ex. 2 at 2; Lee Decl., Ex. 3 at 2).
`
`4.
`
` The ’410 Application contains only one incorporation statement: “The method
`
`and operation of communication devices used herein are described in U.S. Pat. No. 7,031,728
`
`which is hereby incorporated by reference and U.S. Pat. No. 7,630,724.” (Lee Decl., Ex. 4 ¶ 5.)
`
`5.
`
`In three separate inter partes review proceedings, the Patent Office has held that
`
`the ’410 Application did not incorporate the ’724 Patent by reference because “a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the phrase, ‘which is hereby incorporated by
`
`reference,’ refers only to the immediately preceding ’728 patent and does not include the ’724
`
`patent following it. Patent Owner is responsible for the use of this particular phrasing, and
`
`Patent Owner was in the best position to clarify any possible ambiguity.” (Lee Decl., Ex. 5 at
`
`18-20; Lee Decl., Ex. 6 at 15-17; Lee Decl., Ex. 7 at 15-17).
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A.
`
`Summary Judgment
`
`Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and
`
`the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). “A genuine issue of
`
`material fact exists ‘if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
`
`non-moving party.’” Crawford v. Formosa Plastics Corp., La., 234 F.3d 899, 902 (5th Cir.
`
`2000) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). A party moving for
`
`summary judgment can satisfy its initial burden of establishing its right to judgment by showing
`
`Relied Upon to Show That U.S. Application No. 14/027,410 Provides Written Description
`Support for U.S. Patent Nos. 9,408,055; 9,445,251; and 9,467,838, filed concurrently herewith.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 106 Filed 01/25/19 Page 7 of 11 PageID #: 4069
`
`that “there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case.” Celotex Corp. v.
`
`Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-25 (1986).
`
`B.
`
`Written Description Requirement and Incorporation By Reference
`
`“‘In order to 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 Evntl., Inc. v. U.S. Filter Corp.,
`
`506 F.3d 1370, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“Zenon”) (quoting Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107
`
`F.3d 1565, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). For a patent to be entitled to priority from another patent,
`
`“continuity of disclosure must have been maintained throughout a chain of patents” between the
`
`two patents. Zenon, 506 F.3d at 1378. To satisfy the written description requirement, “the
`
`description must ‘clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor]
`
`invented what is claimed.’” Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2010) (quoting Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1562-63 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). The
`
`test is “whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled
`
`in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Id.
`
`“‘To incorporate material by reference, the host document must identify with detailed
`
`particularity what specific material it incorporates and clearly indicate where that material is
`
`found in the various documents.’” Cook Biotech Inc. v. ACell, Inc., 460 F.3d 1365, 1376 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2006) (quoting Display Sys., Inc. v. Kent State Univ., 212 F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).
`
`“Whether material has been incorporated by reference into a host document, and the extent to
`
`which it has been incorporated, is a question of law.” Zenon, 506 F.3d at 1378 (citing Cook, 460
`
`F.3d at 1376). Referencing its case law in the patent context, the Federal Circuit has said that the
`
`incorporating document “must use language that is express and clear, so as to leave no ambiguity
`
`about the identity of the document being referenced, nor any reasonable doubt about the fact that
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 106 Filed 01/25/19 Page 8 of 11 PageID #: 4070
`
`the referenced document is being incorporated into the contract.” Northrop Grumman Info.
`
`Tech., Inc. v. United States, 535 F.3d 1339, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (emphases in original).
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`The ’410 Application expressly incorporates the ’728 Patent by reference but does not
`
`incorporate the ’724 Patent by reference. (Lee Decl., Ex. 4 ¶ 5 (“The method and operation of
`
`communication devices used herein are described in U.S. Pat. No. 7,031,728 which is hereby
`
`incorporated by reference and U.S. Pat. No. 7,630,724.”)). The patent owner’s choice of diction
`
`in the this sentence and the structure of this sentence indicate that only the ’728 Patent is
`
`incorporated into the ’410 Application’s specification. As to the patent owner’s choice of
`
`diction, the phrase “which is hereby incorporated by reference” includes the singular verb “is,”
`
`which indicates that the phrase is describing a singular patent (i.e., the ’728 Patent), not multiple
`
`patents. As to structure, the phrase “which is hereby incorporated by reference” follows the
`
`reference to the ’728 Patent, and therefore describes the immediately preceding reference to the
`
`’728 Patent, and not to the reference to the ’724 Patent that follows later. (Lee Decl., Ex. 8 at
`
`1921 (defining “which” as “referring to something previously mentioned when introducing a
`
`clause giving further information”) (emphasis added).) Thus, the ’410 Application incorporated
`
`by reference the ’728 Patent only and did not incorporate the ’724 Patent. The Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board has agreed that the ’410 Application does not incorporate the ’724 Patent during
`
`inter partes review proceedings concerning the location sharing patents. (Lee Decl., Ex. 5 at 18-
`
`20; Lee Decl., Ex. 6 at 15-17; Lee Decl., Ex. 7 at 15-17).
`
`Furthermore, as the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) noted in its inter partes
`
`review decisions, patent owners control the particular words of their applications and thus are in
`
`the best position to clarify any possible ambiguity. (Lee Decl., Ex. 5 at 18-20; Lee Decl., Ex. 6
`
`at 15-17; Lee Decl., Ex. 7 at 15-17). And, through this lens, the PTAB confirmed that the ’724
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 106 Filed 01/25/19 Page 9 of 11 PageID #: 4071
`
`Patent was not properly incorporated into the ’410 Application, meaning it could not be relied
`
`upon to support the location sharing patents. (Lee Decl., Ex. 5 at 18-20; Lee Decl., Ex. 6 at 15-
`
`17; Lee Decl., Ex. 7 at 15-17). Because the patent applicant for the location sharing patents is
`
`responsible for the words used in the applications, the patent applicant could have (and should
`
`have) clarified any ambiguity by clearly and expressly incorporating both the ’728 Patent and the
`
`’724 Patent. See Harari v. Lee, 656 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (concluding that the
`
`incorporation passage, which stated that the “disclosures of the two applications are hereby
`
`incorporate[d] by reference,” incorporated the entire disclosures of two applications). The ’410
`
`Application does not include any such language, instead incorporating only the ’728 Patent and,
`
`at best, leaving it ambiguous whether the ’724 Patent was also incorporated by reference.
`
`Because the ’410 Application does not clearly and expressly incorporate the ’724 Patent
`
`by reference, the Court should find that the ’724 Patent was not incorporated into the ’410
`
`Application, see, e.g., Northrop, 535 F.3d at 1344, and, thus, may not be relied upon to show that
`
`the ’410 Application provides written description support to the location sharing patents.
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, LGEKR respectfully requests that the Court grant summary
`
`judgment that the ’724 Patent may not be relied upon to provide written description support to
`
`the location sharing patents as part of the disclosures of the ’410 Application.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 106 Filed 01/25/19 Page 10 of 11 PageID #: 4072
`
`Dated: January 25, 2019
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Michael A. Berta
`J. Mark Mann (SBN: 12926150)
`G. Blake Thompson (SBN: 24042033)
`MANN TINDEL THOMPSON
`300 West Main Street
`Henderson, Texas 75652
`Tel: (903) 657-8540
`mark@themannfirm.com
`blake@themannfirm.com
`
`Michael A. Berta
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`Three Embarcadero Center, 10th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111-4024
`Tel: (415) 471-3277
`Michael.Berta@arnoldporter.com
`
`James S. Blackburn
`Nicholas H. Lee
`Justin J. Chi
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`777 South Figueroa Street, 44th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90017-5844
`Tel: (213) 243-4156
`James.Blackburn@arnoldporter.com
`Nicholas.Lee@arnoldporter.com
`Justin.Chi@arnoldporter.com
`
`Bonnie Phan
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`3000 El Camino Real
`Five Palo Alto Square, Suite 500
`Palo Alto, CA 94306-3807
`Tel: (650) 319-4500
`Bonnie.Phan@arnoldporter.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant LG Electronics Inc.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 106 Filed 01/25/19 Page 11 of 11 PageID #: 4073
`
`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 January 25, 2019.
`
`/s/ J. Mark Mann
`J. Mark Mann
`
`7
`
`