Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 124 Filed 01/28/19 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 8615
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`HTC CORPORATION,
`
`Defendant.
`
`CASE NO. 2:17-CV-514-JRG
`(LEAD CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT HTC CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
`OF NO PRE-SUIT INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 124 Filed 01/28/19 Page 2 of 11 PageID #: 8616
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED BY THE COURT .................................. 1
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ................................................ 1
`LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................................................................ 4
`ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 4
`A.
`Summary Judgment of No Pre-Suit Indirect Infringement Is Warranted
`Because There Is No Genuine Dispute that HTC Corp. Lacked Knowledge
`of the Asserted Patents Before the Filing of the Complaint .................................. 4
`CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 6
`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`IV.
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 124 Filed 01/28/19 Page 3 of 11 PageID #: 8617
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
`477 U.S. 242 (1986) ...................................................................................................................4
`
`Candela Corp. v. Palomar Med. Techs., Inc.,
`No. 9:06-CV-277, 2008 WL 11442020 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 5, 2008) ............................................5
`
`Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
`477 U.S. 317 (1986) ...................................................................................................................4
`
`Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`135 S. Ct. 1920 (2015) ...............................................................................................................4
`
`Genband US LLC v. Metaswitch Networks Corp.,
`No. 2:14-CV-33-JRG-RSP, 2016 WL 7645424 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 6, 2016) .................................5
`
`Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A.,
`563 U.S. 754 (2011) ...................................................................................................................4
`
`Largan Precision Co., Ltd. v. Genius Elec. Optical Co., Ltd.,
`646 F. App’x 946 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................................5
`
`LBS Innovations, LLC v. BP Am. Inc.,
`No. 2:12-CV-00407-JRG, 2014 WL 61050 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 7, 2014) .......................................5
`
`Little v. Liquid Air Corp.,
`37 F.3d 1069 (5th Cir. 1994) .....................................................................................................4
`
`Opticurrent, LLC v. Power Integrations, Inc.,
`No. 2:16-CV-325-JRG, 2016 WL 9275395 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 19, 2016) .....................................5
`
`T-Rex Prop. AB v. Regal Entm’t Grp.,
`No. 6:16-CV-927-RWS-KNM, 2017 WL 4229372 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 31, 2017) .......................5
`
`Tierra Intelectual Borinquen, Inc. v. Asus Comput. Int’l, Inc.,
`No. 2:13-CV-44-JRG, 2014 WL 1233040 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 24, 2014) ......................................5
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6)....................................................................................................................3
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ........................................................................................................................4
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 124 Filed 01/28/19 Page 4 of 11 PageID #: 8618
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`AGIS alleges that HTC Corp. indirectly infringes U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,213,970; 9,408,055;
`
`9,445,251; and 9,467,838 (“asserted patents”). But it is axiomatic that a defendant cannot
`
`commit indirect infringement without having knowledge of the asserted patents. Despite
`
`interrogatories, depositions, and correspondence between counsel on the subject, AGIS has failed
`
`to identify any evidence demonstrating that HTC Corp. had knowledge of the asserted patents
`
`prior to the filing of the Complaint. On the other hand, HTC Corp. has presented testimonial
`
`evidence that it did not have pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patents. Because there is no
`
`genuine dispute that HTC Corp. lacked such knowledge, HTC Corp. could not, as a matter of
`
`law, indirectly infringe the asserted patents prior to the filing of the Complaint.
`
`For that reason, HTC Corp. respectfully requests that the Court grant summary judgment
`
`of no pre-suit indirect infringement of the asserted patents.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED BY THE COURT
`• Whether HTC Corp. can be liable for pre-suit indirect infringement as a matter of
`
`law when it had no pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patents.
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
`
`AGIS alleges that HTC Corp. induces infringement of the asserted patents and
`
`contributorily infringes the asserted patents. (Complaint (Dkt. No. 1), ¶¶ 4, 19, 28, 41, 54; id. at
`
`Prayer for Relief, § a; Ex. 1, McAlexander Infringement Report, ¶ 134.) AGIS seeks pre-suit
`
`damages for HTC Corp.’s alleged indirect infringement. (Complaint at ¶¶ 22, 35, 48, 61; id. at
`
`Prayer for Relief, § d; Ex. 2, Ratliff Damages Report, ¶ 33.)
`
`In the Complaint, AGIS’s only allegation as to HTC Corp.’s knowledge of the patents
`
`and knowledge of the alleged infringement is that HTC Corp. had knowledge “at least as of the
`
`date of this Complaint.” (Complaint at ¶¶ 19, 28, 41, 54.)
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 124 Filed 01/28/19 Page 5 of 11 PageID #: 8619
`
`
`On November 7, 2018, HTC served the following Interrogatory No. 17 on AGIS:
`
`Identify all communications made by any representative or
`individual associated with any AGIS Company to any
`representative or individual associated with HTC Corporation or
`HTC America, Inc. that pre-date June 21, 2017.
`
`(Ex. 3, HTC Corp.’s Second Set of Interrogatories, p. 11.) Despite the fact that AGIS served its
`
`response to Interrogatory No. 17 on the last day of fact discovery, AGIS’s response, in relevant
`
`part, was the following:
`
`Discovery in this case is still ongoing and AGIS continues to
`investigate this matter.
`
`(Ex. 4, AGIS’s Responses to HTC Corp.’s Second Set of Interrogatories, pp. 4–5.)
`
`On November 7, 2018, HTC served Interrogatory No. 18 on AGIS, which stated in part:
`
`Describe, in full, the date on which AGIS contends that HTC
`Corporation received notice of each of the ’055, ’251, ’838, and
`’970 patents[.]
`
`(Ex. 3 at p. 11.) AGIS’s response, in relevant part, was the following:
`
`HTC received notice of the Patents-in-Suit, at least of [sic] the date
`of the Complaint.
`
`(Ex. 4, AGIS’s Responses to HTC Corp.’s Second Set of Interrogatories, pp. 5–6.)
`
`On November 7, 2018, HTC served the following Request for Admission No. 1 on AGIS:
`
`Admit that no representative from AGIS sent notice to HTC
`Corporation identifying any of the Patents-in-Suit prior to AGIS’s
`filing of its complaint alleging infringement against HTC
`Corporation (filed on June 21, 2017).
`
`(Ex. 5, HTC Corp.’s First Set of Requests for Admission, p. 9.) AGIS responded, in relevant
`
`part:
`
`Admitted.
`
`(Ex. 6, AGIS’s Responses to HTC Corp.’s First Set of Requests for Admission, pp. 3–4.) HTC
`
`Corp. served other requests for admission as to any party providing pre-suit notice to HTC about
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 124 Filed 01/28/19 Page 6 of 11 PageID #: 8620
`
`
`the existence of the asserted patents or alleged infringement thereof, but AGIS responded only
`
`with objections. (Ex. 6 at pp. 4–5.)
`
` (Ex. 7, Christopher Rice Dep. Tr., 316:10–
`
`
`
`320:12; Ex. 8, Eric Armstrong Dep. Tr., 232:16–235:13; Ex. 9, Sandel Blackwell Dep. Tr.,
`
`409:21–414:11; Ex. 10, Rebecca Clark Dep. Tr., 62:22–64:10; Ex. 11, Ronald Wisneski Dep.
`
`Tr., 300:20–303:15; Ex. 12, Margaret Beyer Dep. Tr., 66:15–67:9; Ex. 13, Malcolm Beyer Dep.
`
`Tr., 477:10–480:24; Ex. 14, James Fordyce Dep. Tr., 68:9–70:13.)
`
`HTC Corp.’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness testified that HTC Corp. first became aware of the
`
`asserted patents: “
`
`.” (Ex. 15, Lynn Yu Dep. Tr., 27:14–20; id. at 31:6–20;
`
`see also Ex. 16, AGIS’s Notice of 30(b)(6) Deposition, p. 12 (topic 55 regarding “first
`
`awareness” of patents-in-suit); Ex. 15, Lynn Yu Dep. Tr., 10:10–17 (confirming Ms. Yu was
`
`corporate witness for topic 55).)
`
`On November 13, 2018, in an attempt to narrow the issues in this case, counsel for HTC
`
`Corp. sent a letter to counsel for AGIS asking AGIS to stipulate that HTC Corp. “does not
`
`induce infringement [of the ’970 patent] prior to AGIS’s filing of the complaint (June 21,
`
`2017).” (Ex. 17, November 13, 2018 Letter from Matt Bernstein to Vincent Rubino, p. 1.) The
`
`letter noted that discovery had shown no evidence of pre-suit knowledge of the ’970 patent by
`
`HTC Corp., and that as a result HTC Corp. had not committed pre-suit induced infringement as a
`
`matter of law. (id. at p. 2.) Counsel for AGIS responded with a paragraph that seemingly argued
`
`that HTC Corp. could still be liable for post-suit induced infringement. (See Ex. 18, November
`
`28, 2018 Letter from Vincent Rubino to Matt Bernstein, pp. 1–2 (explaining in paragraph
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 124 Filed 01/28/19 Page 7 of 11 PageID #: 8621
`
`
`beginning with “Third, . . .” that “HTC has no basis to challenge post-complaint inducement”).)
`
`Counsel for HTC Corp. made one last attempt to resolve the matter:
`
`It is black letter law that there cannot be induced infringement
`without notice of the patents-in-suit. There was no pre-suit notice,
`and AGIS’s pre-suit inducement claims are therefore frivolous as a
`matter of law.
`
`(Ex. 19, December 4, 2018 Letter from Matt Bernstein to Vincent Rubino, p. 1.) Counsel for
`
`AGIS did not respond.
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A movant is entitled to summary judgment if “there is no genuine dispute as to any
`
`material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a);
`
`Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). A dispute of fact is “genuine” only if
`
`evidence presented “is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving
`
`party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). “[T]he party moving for
`
`summary judgment must ‘demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact,’ but need
`
`not negate the elements of the nonmovant’s case.” Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075
`
`(5th Cir. 1994) (quoting Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323).
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT
`A.
`
`Summary Judgment of No Pre-Suit Indirect Infringement Is Warranted
`Because There Is No Genuine Dispute that HTC Corp. Lacked Knowledge of
`the Asserted Patents Before the Filing of the Complaint.
`
`It is black letter law that indirect infringement requires knowledge of the patent. Commil
`
`USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1920, 1926 (2015) (“Like induced infringement,
`
`contributory infringement requires knowledge of the patent in suit and knowledge of patent
`
`infringement.”); Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754, 764–766 (2011);
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 124 Filed 01/28/19 Page 8 of 11 PageID #: 8622
`
`
`Largan Precision Co., Ltd. v. Genius Elec. Optical Co., Ltd., 646 F. App’x 946, 948 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2016).
`
`This Court has repeatedly articulated the principle that the filing of a complaint creates
`
`knowledge of the patents as required by indirect infringement, but only for indirect infringement
`
`occurring after the filing of the complaint:
`
`[The defendant] argues that the Complaint fails to allege
`knowledge of the patents-in-suit at the time that [the defendant]
`induced the infringement. They are of course correct that they
`cannot be held liable for induced infringement for conduct
`occurring prior to its knowledge of the patents-in-suit. However,
`because [the plaintiff] has alleged post-suit knowledge, it has
`properly pled induced infringement with respect to [the accused
`products] distributed after service of the Complaint.
`
`Tierra Intelectual Borinquen, Inc. v. Asus Comput. Int’l, Inc., No. 2:13-CV-44-JRG, 2014 WL
`
`1233040, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 24, 2014) (emphasis in the original); see also T-Rex Prop. AB v.
`
`Regal Entm’t Grp., No. 6:16-CV-927-RWS-KNM, 2017 WL 4229372, at *8 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 31,
`
`2017); Opticurrent, LLC v. Power Integrations, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-325-JRG, 2016 WL 9275395,
`
`at *3 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 19, 2016).
`
`When a patentee is unable to show that the defendant had knowledge of the patents prior
`
`to the filing of the complaint, it is appropriate for the Court to grant summary judgment of no
`
`pre-suit indirect infringement. See LBS Innovations, LLC v. BP Am. Inc., No. 2:12-CV-00407-
`
`JRG, 2014 WL 61050, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 7, 2014) (granting summary judgment of no pre-suit
`
`induced infringement where plaintiff stipulated that defendant had no pre-suit knowledge of the
`
`patents); see also Genband US LLC v. Metaswitch Networks Corp., No. 2:14-CV-33-JRG-RSP,
`
`2016 WL 7645424, at *6 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 6, 2016) (granting summary judgment of no indirect
`
`infringement prior to serving of infringement contentions, because defendant had no knowledge
`
`of the alleged infringement prior to that date); Candela Corp. v. Palomar Med. Techs., Inc., No.
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 124 Filed 01/28/19 Page 9 of 11 PageID #: 8623
`
`
`9:06-CV-277, 2008 WL 11442020, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 5, 2008) ) (granting summary
`
`judgment of no induced infringement prior to specific meeting between plaintiff and defendant,
`
`because defendant had no knowledge of the patent prior to that date).
`
`In this case, AGIS has failed to identify a single piece of evidence demonstrating that
`
`HTC Corp. knew of the asserted patents prior to the filing of the lawsuit. See § III, supra. In
`
`fact, the evidence overwhelmingly shows that HTC Corp. did not have the required pre-suit
`
`knowledge. The Complaint itself relies on filing of the Complaint for establishing HTC Corp.’s
`
`knowledge of the patents. (Complaint at ¶¶ 19, 28, 41, 54.) AGIS’s interrogatory responses rely
`
`on filing of the Complaint for establishing HTC Corp.’s knowledge of the patents. (Ex. 4 at pp.
`
`5–6.) AGIS’s RFA responses admit that AGIS did not give HTC Corp. pre-suit notice of the
`
`patents. (Ex. 6 at pp. 3–4.) Neither deposition testimony, nor correspondence with counsel, nor
`
`any other discover resulted in identification of any other possible source of HTC Corp.’s
`
`knowledge of the patents. See § III, supra. There is no genuine dispute that HTC Corp. lacked
`
`any knowledge of the asserted patents prior to filing of the Complaint. Accordingly, there is no
`
`genuine dispute that HTC Corp. did not commit induced infringement or contribute to
`
`infringement prior to the filing of the Complaint.
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, HTC Corp. respectfully requests that the Court grant summary
`
`judgment of no pre-suit induced infringement or contributory infringement of the asserted
`
`patents.
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 124 Filed 01/28/19 Page 10 of 11 PageID #: 8624
`
`
`Dated: January 25, 2019
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Kyle R. Canavera
`Matthew C. Bernstein, (Lead Attorney)
`CA State Bar No. 199240
`mbernstein@perkinscoie.com
`Miguel J. Bombach
`CA State Bar No. 274287
`mbombach@perkinscoie.com
`Kyle R. Canavera
`CA State Bar No. 314664
`kcanavera@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`11452 El Camino Real, Suite 300
`San Diego, CA 92130-2080
`Tel: (858) 720-5700
`Fax: (858) 720-5799
`
`Eric Findlay
`State Bar No. 00789886
`efindlay@findlaycraft.com
`Brian Craft
`State Bar No. 04972020
`bcraft@findlaycraft.com
`FINDLAY CRAFT, P.C.
`102 N. College Ave., Suite 900
`Tyler, TX 75702
`Tel: (903) 534-1100
`Fax: (903) 534-1137
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
`HTC CORPORATION
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 124 Filed 01/28/19 Page 11 of 11 PageID #: 8625
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
`
`document has been served on January 25, 2019 to all counsel of record who are deemed to have
`
`consented to electronic service via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Kyle R. Canavera
`
`Kyle R. Canavera
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
`This certifies, pursuant to Local Rule CV-5(a)(7), this document is authorized to be filed
`
`Under Seal pursuant to a Protective Order [#119] entered April 10, 2018.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Kyle R. Canavera
`Kyle R. Canavera
`
`-1-
`
`