Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 123-6 Filed 01/28/19 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 8588
`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 123-6 Filed 01/28/19 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 8588
`
`(cid:3)
`(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:59)(cid:43)(cid:44)(cid:37)(cid:44)(cid:55)(cid:3)(cid:23)(cid:3)
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 123-6 Filed 01/28/19 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 8589
`
`November 13, 2018
`
`VIA EMAIL: VRUBINO@BROWNRUDNICK.COM
`
`Matthew C. Bernstein
`MBernstein@perkinscoie.com
`D. +1.858.720.5721
`F. +1.858.720.5821
`
`Vincent J. Rubino, III
`Brown Rudnick LLP
`7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`
`Re: AGIS Software Development, LLC v. HTC Corp.
`Case No. 2:17-cv-0514 (E.D. Tex.) (Lead Case)
`
`Dear Mr. Rubino:
`
`HTC Corp. requests that AGIS stipulate that HTC Corp. does not directly infringe the ’970
`patent, and that HTC Corp. does not induce infringement prior to AGIS’s filing of the complaint
`(June 21, 2017). Under no good faith interpretation of the law and application of the facts can
`AGIS maintain these infringement claims.
`
`HTC Corp. cannot be a direct infringer because its smartphones do not have the accused Google-
`made applications, Find My Device and Device Manager. See 35 U.S.C. §271(a) (stating that
`direct infringement requires a party to make, use, offer to sell, or sell any patented invention).
`HTC Corp. does not install Find My Device.1 A user, in the United States, would need to locate,
`download, and then install Find My Device (and its predecessor Device Manager App) from the
`Google Play store in order to use it on any of the accused devices.2 Further, prior to these
`Android applications, the accused functionality was only available via browser on a website.3
`
`1 See S. Teng Dep. Tr. at 62:1-63:3; 65:20-24; 92:6-93:3; see also HTC-AGIS-MW000002 (showing Find My
`Device as optional); see also HTC-AGIS-020143-20161, HTC-AGIS-020162-20169, HTC-AGIS-020189-20200,
`HTC-AGIS-020213-20224, HTC-AGIS-020276-20309, HTC-AGIS-020310-20343, HTC-AGIS-020344-20377,
`HTC-AGIS-020455-20521, HTC-AGIS-020538-20545, HTC-AGIS-020546-20564, HTC-AGIS-020565-20572,
`HTC-AGIS-020573-20625, HTC-AGIS-020689-20174, HTC-AGIS-020782-20804, HTC-AGIS-020805-20819,
`HTC-AGIS-020820-20834, HTC-AGIS-020851-20872, HTC-AGIS-020940-20956, HTC-AGIS-021099-21106,
`HTC-AGIS-021130-21136, HTC-AGIS-021257-21279, HTC-AGIS-021365-21384, HTC-AGIS-021385-21395,
`HTC-AGIS-021404-21424, HTC-AGIS-021425-21449, HTC-AGIS-021532-21808, HTC-AGIS-021874-22039,
`HTC-AGIS-022049-22067, HTC-AGIS-022170-22181, HTC-AGIS-022182-22192, HTC-AGIS-022193-22225,
`HTC-AGIS-022295-22316, HTC-AGIS-022377-22403, HTC-AGIS-022562-22571, HTC-AGIS-022572-22581,
`HTC-AGIS-022582-22598, HTC-AGIS-022599-22629, HTC-AGIS-022704-22712, HTC-AGIS-022713-22730,
`HTC-AGIS-022731-22772, HTC-AGIS-060143-HTC-AGIS-060284 (all showing that Find My Device/Device
`Manager is not installed); see also HTC Corp.’s Response to AGIS’s Rog. No. 2 served on Oct. 9, 2018.
`2 https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.apps.adm&hl=en_US
`3 The following YouTube videos provide a good demonstration on how Device Manager worked on Android
`devices prior to Find My Device’s introduction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8XNIi_ecfQ and
`https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yB3UASnCzsg. As can be seen, the computer web browser is the element that
`would be implicated by the ’970 patent’s claims, not the phone.
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 123-6 Filed 01/28/19 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 8590
`
`Vincent Rubino
`November 13, 2018
`Page 2
`
`Being a website, AGIS cannot legitimately argue that HTC Corp. made it available on any of the
`accused devices. Any user who wanted to use Device Manager would need to navigate to a
`Google-owned website. If AGIS had conducted a proper Rule 11 analysis, all of this would have
`been readily apparent.4 AGIS’s maintenance of this claim is not being done in good faith.
`
`Turning to the inducement issue, AGIS is prohibited under the law from recovering for HTC
`Corp.’s alleged inducement because discovery has unequivocally shown HTC Corp. was
`unaware of any of the asserted patents before AGIS filed suit. Thus, AGIS lacks the bare
`minimum to assert pre-suit induced infringement: knowledge of the ’970 patent. See Global-
`Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754, 765-766 (2011). AGIS never sent HTC Corp.
`pre-suit notice of the ’970 patent5 and AGIS did not even allege pre-suit notice in its complaint.
`See D.I. 1 at ¶19 (stating that HTC Corp. induces as of the date of the ’970 patent’s filing). HTC
`Corp. first learned of the ’970 patent shortly after AGIS filed its complaint.6 In addition, beyond
`knowledge, inducement requires the specific intent to encourage infringement.7 Absent pre-suit
`notice, AGIS cannot conceivably argue that specific intent exists. AGIS’s continued pursuit of
`pre-suit infringement and damages for the ’970 patent is being done in bad faith for the purpose
`of driving up HTC Corp.’s defense costs.
`
`In summary, AGIS cannot legitimately maintain the above allegations of direct infringement and
`pre-suit inducement against HTC Corp. If AGIS refuses to stipulate to no direct infringement
`and no pre-suit induced infringement, HTC Corp. intends to raise this issue with Judge Gilstrap,
`and we will be seeking our attorneys’ fees.
`
`
`4 Tellingly, AGIS needed to download and install Find My Device from the Google Play Store for its allegedly
`representative product (Desire 550) that it charted in its infringement contentions. The Desire 550, like all other
`HTC Corporation-made phones, does not have Find My Device.
`5 Armstrong Dep. Tr. at 232:16-235:15; Beyer Dep. Tr. at 478:8-480:24; Margaret Beyer Dep. Tr. at 66:12-67:9;
`Blackwell Dep. Tr. at 409:21-414:11; Clark Dep. Tr. at 62:18-64:10; Rice Dep. Tr. at 316:20-320:12; Wisneski at
`300:17-202:15.
`6 Yu Dep. Tr. at 27:14-20; see also HTC Corp.’s Response to AGIS’s Rog. No. 9 served on April 9, 2018.
`7 Beneficial Innovations, Inc. v. Advance Publications, Inc., No. 2:11-CV-229-JRG-RSP, 2014 WL 12603492, at *3
`(E.D. Tex. Jan. 6, 2014) (citing Vita-Mix Corp. v. Basic Holding, Inc., 581 F.3d 1317, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2009));
`Symantec Corp. v. Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc., 522 F.3d 1279, 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“the specific intent necessary
`to induce infringement requires more than just intent to cause the acts that produce direct infringement ... the inducer
`must have an affirmative intent to cause direct infringement.”).
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 123-6 Filed 01/28/19 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 8591
`
`Vincent Rubino
`November 13, 2018
`Page 3
`
`Please provide a response to this letter by November 16, 2018. We are also available to discuss
`these issues before then.
`
`Regards,
`
`
`Matthew C. Bernstein
`
`
`
`
`
`
`