Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 125 Filed 01/28/19 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 8686
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`HTC CORPORATION,
`
`Defendant.
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-CV-514-JRG
`(LEAD)
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT HTC CORPORATION’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
`NO DIRECT INFRINGEMENT AND NO INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF
`U.S. PATENT NO. 8,213,970
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 125 Filed 01/28/19 Page 2 of 19 PageID #: 8687
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED BY THE COURT .................................. 2 
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ................................................ 2 
`A. 
`AGIS’s Direct Infringement Allegations ............................................................... 2 
`B. 
`Google’s Find My Device Application .................................................................. 2 
`C. 
`AGIS’s Direct Infringement Allegations Focus Entirely on the Find My
`Device Application ................................................................................................ 3 
`Find My Device Is Not Pre-Installed on HTC Corp. Devices ............................... 5 
`D. 
`Google Play Protect ............................................................................................... 7 
`E. 
`LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................................................................ 7 
`ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 8 
`Summary Judgement of No Direct Infringement of the ’970 Patent Is
`A. 
`Warranted Because the Find My Device Software Application Is Not
`Installed on the Accused Devices When Sold by HTC Corp. ............................... 8 
`Summary Judgement of No Direct or Indirect Infringement of the ’970
`Patent Prior to August 2, 2013 Is Warranted Because Find My Device Is
`the Sole Basis for AGIS’s Infringement Claim, and It was Released on
`This Date .............................................................................................................. 12 
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 14 
`
`B. 
`
`
`
` 
`I. 
`II. 
`III. 
`
`IV. 
`V. 
`
`VI. 
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 125 Filed 01/28/19 Page 3 of 19 PageID #: 8688
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
`477 U.S. 242 (1986) .................................................................................................................... 7
`Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
`477 U.S. 317 (1986) .................................................................................................................... 7
`DataQuill Ltd. v. High Tech Computer Corp.
`887 F. Supp. 2d 999 (S.D. Cal. 2011) ....................................................................................... 12
`Gen. Am. Transp. Corp. v. Cryo-Trans, Inc.
`93 F. 3d 766 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ............................................................................................... 8, 13
`Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies., Inc.
`572 U.S. 915 (2014) .................................................................................................................. 13
`Little v. Liquid Air Corp.
`37 F.3d 1069 (5th Cir. 1994) ...................................................................................................... 7
`
`
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a) .......................................................................................................................... 8
`
`
`RULES
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ....................................................................................................................... 7
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 125 Filed 01/28/19 Page 4 of 19 PageID #: 8689
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`AGIS alleges that HTC Corp. directly and indirectly infringes U.S. Pat. No. 8,213,970
`
`(the “’970 patent”) based on the premise that Google’s Find My Device application, when
`
`running on an HTC Corp. device, infringes the asserted claims of the ’970 patent. Setting aside
`
`the merits of whether the Find My Device application actually includes the elements of the
`
`asserted claims, AGIS’s infringement theory is deficient as a matter of law for two reasons.
`
`First, as it relates to direct infringement, HTC Corp. does not install the Find My Device
`
`application on its smartphones. Thus, whenever HTC Corp. performs activities that might
`
`allegedly be making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing those smartphones, the
`
`smartphones are not capable of infringement. They do not contain the Find My Device software
`
`that AGIS itself says is necessary to infringe the asserted claims of the ’970 patent. For this
`
`reason, it is black letter law that HTC Corp. cannot directly infringe the ’970 patent.
`
`Second, while the ’970 patent was issued in 2012, the Find My Device application was
`
`not released until August 2013. Thus, under AGIS’s theory of infringement—based on the
`
`presence of Find My Device on HTC Corp.’s smartphones—it was a factual impossibility for
`
`HTC Corp., or anyone, to directly or indirectly infringe the asserted claims of the ’970 patent
`
`prior to August 2013.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, HTC Corp. respectfully requests that the Court grant summary
`
`judgment of no direct infringement of the ’970 patent. HTC Corp. also respectfully requests that
`
`the Court grant summary judgment of no infringement (both direct and indirect) of the ’970
`
`patent for dates prior to August 2, 2013.
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 125 Filed 01/28/19 Page 5 of 19 PageID #: 8690
`
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED BY THE COURT
`
` Whether HTC Corp. directly infringes the ’970 patent, when the alleged
`
`infringement is based on operation of a software application that is not installed
`
`on the accused devices when sold by HTC Corp.
`
` Whether HTC Corp. directly or indirectly infringes the ’970 patent prior to
`
`August 2, 2013, when the only alleged infringement requires a software
`
`application that was first announced on that date.
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
`A.
`
`AGIS’s Direct Infringement Allegations
`
`AGIS alleges that HTC Corp. and end users of HTC Corp.’s smartphones (“accused
`
`devices”) infringe claims 1, 3, 5, and 8 of the ’970 patent. (Ex. 1, AGIS’s Final Election of
`
`Asserted Claims, p. 2.). AGIS bases these direct infringement allegations on the position that
`
`Google’s Find My Device application, when installed on one of the accused devices, can be used
`
`in a way that infringes the asserted claims. (See, e.g., Ex. 2, Exhibit A to AGIS’s Dec. 19, 2018
`
`Infringement Contentions, p. A-9.)
`
`B.
`
`Google’s Find My Device Application
`
`Find My Device is a software application developed by Google that runs on the Android
`
`operating system. Find My Device was initially announced on August 2, 2013, as a Google-
`
`operated website, and was called Android Device Manager. (Ex. 3, Official Android Blog,
`
`HTC-AGIS-064016, HTC-AGIS-064017; see also Ex. 4, Joseph McAlexander Dep. Tr., 181:19–
`
`182:6; Ex. 5, Ratliff Damages Report, ¶ 28.) Android Device Manager was later rebranded by
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 125 Filed 01/28/19 Page 6 of 19 PageID #: 8691
`
`
`Google as Find My Device in May 2017.1 (Ex. 6, McAlexander Infringement Report, ¶ 170;
`
`Ex. 7, Wolfe Decl., Attachment A, ¶ 146.)
`
`Find My Device is available on the Google Play Store, where it can be downloaded and
`
`installed on Android smartphones. (Ex. 6 at ¶ 171; Ex. 7 at ¶ 149.) Find My Device is also
`
`available on Google’s website, using the Chrome browser. (Ex. 6 at ¶ 207.) Find My Device
`
`allows users to locate lost Android devices and invoke remote actions on them, e.g., play a sound
`
`on the lost device, secure the lost device by locking it, and erase the lost device. Screen shots of
`
`each function of the Find My Device application are shown below, starting with the Google Play
`
`download screen.2
`
`
`
`C.
`
`AGIS’s Direct Infringement Allegations Focus Entirely on the Find My
`Device Application
`
`AGIS alleges that the accused devices directly infringe the ’970 patent because of the
`
`Find My Device application. (See, e.g., Ex. 2 at pp. A-4, A-9.) Find My Device is the lynchpin
`
`of AGIS’s infringement contentions on each of the asserted claims, without which entire
`
`limitations would not be addressed at all. (See, e.g., id. at p. A-9 (stating that the Find My
`
`
`1 It is uncontested that “Find My Device” is a rebranding of “Android Device Manager.” The
`discussion herein applies to both although, for the sake of readability, only “Find My Device” is
`described.
`2 Screenshots taken from Ex. 7 at ¶¶ 149, 422.
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 125 Filed 01/28/19 Page 7 of 19 PageID #: 8692
`
`
`Device application is the claimed “forced message alert software application program”); see also
`
`id. at p. A-19 (“the forced message alert software application program (i.e. Find My Device)”);
`
`id. at pp. A-24–A-25 (stating that the user must “select the forced message alert software
`
`application on the sender PC or PDA/cell phone, i.e. to launch the Find My Device App”); id. at
`
`p. A-4 (“Find My Device [is] representative of this [claimed] method.”); id. at p. A-56 (stating
`
`that Find My Device is the software the user is “accessing”); id. at p. A-16 (“This automatic
`
`acknowledgement is shown to the Sender when the Find My Device App displays ‘lock
`
`requested’ and then ‘locked’ and ‘secured.’”); id. at p. A-34 (“is shown to the Sender when the
`
`Find My Device App states, ‘lock requested’ and then ‘locked’”); id. at p. A-62 (“For example,
`
`the sender receives status updates as locations and times on the main screen of the Find My
`
`Device app.”).) Notably, AGIS’s infringement contentions have numerous screenshots of the
`
`Find My Device application for each element (id. at pp. A-11, A-12, A-14, A-20, A-23, A-25, A-
`
`26, A-29, A-30, A-35, A-36, A-41, A-44, A-45, A-48, A-49, A-51, A-57, A-58, A-60, A-61, A-
`
`63, A-64, A-66, A-69, A-70), a small sampling of which are excerpted below.
`
`AGIS’s expert, Mr. McAlexander, also alleges that the Find My Device application
`
`directly infringes the ’970 patent. He mostly repeats AGIS’s element-specific infringement
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 125 Filed 01/28/19 Page 8 of 19 PageID #: 8693
`
`
`contention allegations. (See, e.g., Ex. 8, Attachment A to the McAlexander Infringement Report,
`
`pp. A-a13 (“
`
`”), A-a22 (“
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`”), A-a26–A-a28, A-a33–A-a34, A-a41, A-a46, A-a53, A-a54, A-a63, A-
`
`a78, A-a87, A-a99). Mr. McAlexander also includes numerous screenshots of the Find My
`
`Device application in his report (id. at pp. A-a16–A-a18, A-a20, A-a28, A-a32, A-a35, A-a36, A-
`
`a39, A-a40, A-a47, A-a48, A-a57, A-a63, A-a65, A-a71, A-a77, A-a86, A-a88, A-a93, A-a95, A-
`
`a100, A-a104, A-a108, A-a115, A-a119), and further includes citations to Google’s Find My
`
`Device application source code (id. at A-a21, A-a49–a53, A-a59–a62, A-a66–a69, A-a72–A-a74,
`
`A-a84–a85, A-a89–A-a91, A-a96–A-a98, A-a101–a103, A-a105–a106, A-a109–a111, A-a113,
`
`A-a116). Mr. McAlexander also provides additional explanation regarding how Find My Device
`
`works. (Ex. 6 at ¶¶ 178–181.)
`
`D.
`
`Find My Device Is Not Pre-Installed on HTC Corp. Devices
`
`It is undisputed that the Find My Device application is not pre-installed on any HTC
`
`Corp. phone, as all of the actual evidence establishes this undisputed fact. AGIS’s expert,
`
`Mr. McAlexander, confirmed this:
`
`
`
`Q:
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 125 Filed 01/28/19 Page 9 of 19 PageID #: 8694
`
`
`A:
`
`
`
`(Ex. 4 at 155:18–156:4; see also id. at 149:19–150:3, 129:5–18, 184:12–185:5.) The
`
`screen capture of A18, which shows the Find My Device application’s user interface referenced
`
`in deposition, is excerpted below. (Ex. 8 at A-a18.)
`
`at 203:25–204:5.)
`
`
`
`
`
` (Id. at 128:25–129:18; see also id.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Lack of pre-installation of the Find My Device application is also confirmed by HTC’s
`
` (Ex. 7 at ¶¶ 153–154.)
`
`Project Manager Steven Teng’s sworn 30(b)(6) testimony
`
`(Ex. 9, Steven Teng Dep. Tr., 22:8–11.)
`
`
`
`
`
` (id. at 49:21–25; see
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 125 Filed 01/28/19 Page 10 of 19 PageID #: 8695
`
`
`also Ex. 10, List of Required Software, HTC-AGIS-060252),
`
`51:3–5, 60:24–61:3; see also id. at 92:13–93:3.)
`
`at 62:1–16.)
`
`¶¶ 151, 157). HTC Corp. does not install the Find My Device application.
`
`(Ex. 4 at 173:23–174:9; see also id. at 126:10–21),
`
` (Ex. 9,
`
` (Id.
`
`Ex. 7 at
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` (Id. at 127:7–11; see also id. at 173:23–174:9.)
`
`E.
`
`Google Play Protect
`
`Google Play Protect is a new feature that provides security. It is an extra layer of
`
`protection on Android that observes traffic and protects the user from harmful applications.
`
`(Ex. 4 at 186:7–20.) Google Play Protect was not released until May 17, 2017. (Id. at 213:19–
`
`214:14; Ex. 11, Keeping you Safe with Google Play Protect, Android Blog, p. 1.)
`
`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).
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 125 Filed 01/28/19 Page 11 of 19 PageID #: 8696
`
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT
`A.
`
`Summary Judgement of No Direct Infringement of the ’970 Patent Is
`Warranted Because the Find My Device Software Application Is Not
`Installed on the Accused Devices When Sold by HTC Corp.
`
`Direct infringement requires that a single party makes, uses, offers to sell, sells, or
`
`imports any patented invention. 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). Direct infringement requires that a party
`
`perform or use each and every step or element of a claimed method or product, and if the
`
`accused infringer can prove that at least one required claim element is missing in the accused
`
`device, then there can be no infringement as a matter of law. Gen. Am. Transp. Corp. v. Cryo-
`
`Trans, Inc., 93 F.3d 766, 771 (Fed. Cir. 1996). But this is not an instance where a single element
`
`is missing—the accused application itself is missing.
`
`The Find My Device application is the sole basis for AGIS’s direct infringement
`
`allegations for numerous features of the asserted claims of the ’970 patent. (See, e.g., Ex. 2 at A-
`
`8–A-9.) Specifically, the Find My Device application is the sole basis for the “forced message
`
`alert software application program” of claims 1, 3, and 5, as well as the “accessing a forced
`
`message alert software application program” of claim 8. (Id. at A-9, A-56.) Thus, if the Find
`
`My Device application is not installed on the accused devices, the accused devices cannot, as a
`
`matter of law, practice the claimed inventions, and HTC Corp. does not directly infringe the
`
`asserted claims.
`
`All of the evidence in this case shows that The Find My Device application is not
`
`installed on the accused devices when they reach the end user, at which point any making, using,
`
`selling, offering to sell, or importing by HTC Corp. has been completed.
`
`155:18-156:4; see also id. at 149:19-150:3, 129:5-18, 184:12-185:5.),
`
`
`
` (Ex. 4 at
`
`
`
`(See Ex. 7 at ¶¶ 150–
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 125 Filed 01/28/19 Page 12 of 19 PageID #: 8697
`
`
`167.)
`
`(Ex. 9 at 22:8–11),
`
`
`
` (Id. at 51:3–5, 60:24–61:3; see also id. at 92:13–93.)
`
`(Ex. 7 at ¶ 151.)
`
`
`
`(Ex. 4 at 127:7–11; see also id. at 173:23–174:9.) The evidence overwhelmingly
`
`shows that HTC Corp.’s phones do not have the Find My Device application when HTC Corp.
`
`sells them; HTC Corp. therefore is not a direct infringer.
`
`AGIS’s expert, Mr. McAlexander, unequivocally testified that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Q:
`
`A.
`
`Q.
`
`A:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 4 at 155:18–156:4; see also id. at 149:19–150:3, 129:5–18, 184:12–185:5.) Yet, he
`
`later attempted to distance himself from this clear admission by presenting a theory for the first
`
`time at deposition that
`
`
`
`). (Id. at 205:4–10.)
`
`Mr. McAlexander is wrong. There is no evidence whatsoever that the separate, stand-
`
`alone, Find My Device application is embedded with Google Play Protect. AGIS’s unsupported,
`
`last gasp theory conflates enabling Find My Device accessibility (i.e., allowing the device to be
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 125 Filed 01/28/19 Page 13 of 19 PageID #: 8698
`
`
`remote locked or erased by another phone having the Find My Device application) with the
`
`actual Find My Device application itself.
`
`(See id. at 170:17–171:7; Ex. 8 at A-a14.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 4 at 195:4–195:16; Ex. 4 at 170:17–171:7; Ex. 8 at A-a14.).
`
`But allowing a device to be locked or erased is not the focus of AGIS’s infringement
`
`contentions; the Find My Device application with its associated user interface to allow one phone
`
`to lock or erase another phone is. See § III.B, supra. The enable box is entirely separate and
`
`distinct, and has absolutely nothing to with AGIS’s infringement allegations on the ’970 patent.3
`
`
`
`
`3 Google Play Protect is unrelated to Find My Device—Google Play Protect monitors apps and
`traffic to protect users. (Ex. 4 at 186:7–20.)
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 125 Filed 01/28/19 Page 14 of 19 PageID #: 8699
`
`
`Tellingly, Mr. McAlexander concedes that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Q: . . .
`
`
`
`A:
`
`
`
`(Ex. 4 at 203:10–17; see also id. at 199:12–15.)
`
`(Ex. 4 at 203:25–204:5.)
`
`(See Ex. 7 at ¶ 154
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`); Ex. 13, HTC Corp.’s 2nd Supp. Resp. to AGIS’s Interrogatories, dated September
`
`28, 2018, p 22 (
`
`(
`
`); Ex. 11 at p. 1
`
`).) Google Play Protect simply cannot
`
`save AGIS’s direct infringement claims on the ’970 patent because it has nothing do with
`
`whether the Find My Device application is installed on HTC’s phones (it is not).4
`
`The only evidence in this case unequivocally establishes that the Find My Device
`
`application is not installed on the accused devices prior to HTC Corp. relinquishing control of
`
`the products to end users or third parties. Because the software required for the infringement
`
`allegations does not exist on the accused devices when HTC Corp. performs any allegedly
`
`infringing making, using, selling, offering to sell, or importing, HTC Corp. cannot infringe the
`
`asserted claims.
`
`
`4 Even if this Court were to find that Google Play Protect raises a triable issue of fact, Google
`Play Protect was released on May 17, 2017. (Ex. 4 at 213:19–214:14; Ex. 11 at p. 1.) HTC
`Corp. could not have plausibly directly infringed the ’970 patent prior to May 17, 2017, and
`HTC Corp. requests judgment as to the same.
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 125 Filed 01/28/19 Page 15 of 19 PageID #: 8700
`
`
`This very fact pattern has been addressed another case where a plaintiff accused HTC
`
`Corp. of direct infringement based on the functionality of Google applications not pre-installed
`
`on HTC Corp.’s smartphones. In DataQuill Ltd. v. High Tech Computer Corp., DataQuill
`
`accused HTC Corp. of directly infringing DataQuill’s bar-code scanning patents by selling
`
`devices containing digital cameras combined with third party software (Google Goggles, Google
`
`Shopper, or ShopSavvy). DataQuill Ltd. v. High Tech Computer Corp., 887 F. Supp. 2d 999,
`
`1006–07 (S.D. Cal. 2011). HTC Corp. contended that its phones did not have the third party
`
`apps pre-installed. DataQuill Ltd., 887 F. Supp. 2d at 1007. The court stated that “if DataQuill
`
`contends that the accused devices infringe only when they are installed with certain third party
`
`applications, DataQuill must show that HTC makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells the accused
`
`devices with those third party applications installed.” Id. Similar to the instant case, DataQuill’s
`
`expert stated that the third-party apps were available for download and did not dispute HTC’s
`
`assertion that the devices did not come with the applications pre-installed. Id. As such, the court
`
`held that HTC Corp. was entitled to summary judgment of no direct infringement for those
`
`devices that did not have the accused third party apps pre-installed. Id. at 1008.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, there is no genuine dispute that the accused devices do not
`
`contain the software that is the basis for at least one claim element of each of the asserted claims
`
`of the ’970 patent. There is, therefore, no genuine dispute that HTC Corp. does not directly
`
`infringe the asserted claims of the ’970 patent. For this reason, summary judgment of no direct
`
`infringement of the ’970 patent is warranted.
`
`B.
`
`Summary Judgement of No Direct or Indirect Infringement of the ’970
`Patent Prior to August 2, 2013 Is Warranted Because Find My Device Is the
`Sole Basis for AGIS’s Infringement Claim, and It was Released on This Date
`
`Direct infringement requires that a single party makes, uses, offers to sell, sells, or
`
`imports any patented invention. 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). And direct infringement only occurs if all
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 125 Filed 01/28/19 Page 16 of 19 PageID #: 8701
`
`
`elements of an asserted claim are present in the accused device. See Gen. Am. Transp. Corp., 93
`
`F.3d at 771.
`
`As described above, the Find My Device application is the sole basis for AGIS’s
`
`infringement allegations for numerous features of the asserted claims of the ’970 patent. Find
`
`My Device’s predecessor, Android Device Manager, could not have been released on any date
`
`earlier than August 2, 2013. (Ex. 3 at HTC-AGIS-064016, HTC-AGIS-064017; see also Ex. 4 at
`
`181:19–182:6; Ex. 5 at ¶ 28.) Furthermore, in deposition,
`
`
`
` (Ex. 12,
`
`Ratliff Dep. Tr. (rough) at 52:14–22 and 53:15–19.) The fact that Find My Device was not
`
`released any time prior to August 2, 2013 is undisputed.
`
`Thus, it is a factual impossibility that Find My Device or its predecessor was present on
`
`the accused devices before August 2, 2013. And because Find My Device is required by the
`
`infringement allegations for all asserted claims of the ’970 patent, HTC Corp. could not have
`
`directly infringed the asserted claims of the ’970 patent prior to August 2, 2013.
`
`Furthermore, no end user or anyone else could have directly infringed the asserted claims
`
`of the ’970 patent prior to August 2, 2013, based on use of HTC Corp.’s smartphones. And,
`
`because direct infringement is a prerequisite to indirect infringement (Limelight Networks, Inc. v.
`
`Akamai Technologies., Inc., 572 U.S. 915, 917 (2014)), HTC Corp. also could not have
`
`indirectly infringed the asserted claims of the ’970 patent prior to August 2, 2013.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, there is no genuine dispute that the accused devices were not
`
`capable of being used in a directly infringing manner prior to August 2, 2013, when Google
`
`announced Android Device Manager. As such, there is no genuine dispute that HTC Corp. did
`
`not directly infringe or indirectly infringe the asserted claims of the ’970 patent prior to that date.
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 125 Filed 01/28/19 Page 17 of 19 PageID #: 8702
`
`
`For this reason, summary judgment of no direct infringement or indirect infringement of the ’970
`
`patent prior to August 2, 2013 is warranted.
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, HTC Corp. respectfully requests that the Court grant summary
`
`judgment of no direct infringement of the ’970 patent. HTC Corp. also respectfully requests that
`
`the Court grant summary judgment of no infringement (both direct and indirect) of the ’970
`
`patent prior to August 2, 2013.
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 125 Filed 01/28/19 Page 18 of 19 PageID #: 8703
`
`
`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
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 125 Filed 01/28/19 Page 19 of 19 PageID #: 8704
`
`
`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-
`
`