Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 126 Filed 01/28/19 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 8768
`
`
`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 WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 126 Filed 01/28/19 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 8769
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED BY THE COURT .................................. 1
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ................................................ 1
`A.
`AGIS’s Enhanced Damages Allegations ............................................................... 1
`B.
`HTC Corp.’s Lack of Knowledge of the Patents ................................................... 3
`LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................................................................ 4
`ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 5
`A.
`The Court Should Grant Summary Judgment of No Pre-Suit Willful
`Infringement Because There Is No Genuine Dispute that HTC Corp.
`Lacked Knowledge of the Asserted Patents Before the Filing of the
`Complaint ............................................................................................................... 5
`Summary Judgment of No Pre-Suit or Post-Suit Willful Infringement Is
`Warranted Because There Is No Genuine Dispute that HTC Corp. Has Not
`Committed Egregious Conduct .............................................................................. 8
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 10
`
`B.
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`IV.
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 126 Filed 01/28/19 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 8770
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
`477 U.S. 242 (1986) ...................................................................................................................5
`
`Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
`477 U.S. 317 (1986) ...................................................................................................................5
`
`Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. J.C. Penney Co. Inc.,
`45 F. Supp. 3d 1181 (C.D. Cal. 2014) .......................................................................................7
`
`DermaFocus LLC v. Ulthera, Inc.,
`201 F. Supp. 3d 465 (D. Del. 2016) ...........................................................................................6
`
`Enfindergemeinschaft UroPep GbR v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`No. 2:15-CV-1202-WCB, 2017 WL 2190055 (E.D. Tex. May 18, 2017) ................................6
`
`Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings, Ltd.,
`No. 2:15-CV-00011-RSP, 2017 WL 5137401 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2017)..................................6
`
`Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.,
`136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016) ........................................................ 5, 6, 8, 9WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co.,
`829 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................5
`
`Huawei Techs. Co. Ltd. v. T-Mobile US, Inc.,
`No. 2:16-CV-00052-JRG-RSP, 2017 WL 1129951 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 21, 2017) ........................6
`
`i4i Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................8
`
`Imonex Servs., Inc. v. W.H. Munzprufer Dietmar Trenner GMBH,
`408 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................................................7
`
`Little v. Liquid Air Corp.,
`37 F.3d 1069 (5th Cir. 1994) .....................................................................................................5
`
`Personal Audio, LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 9:09-CV-111, 2011 WL 13134849 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 26, 2011) ...........................................8
`
`Puma SE v. Forever 21, Inc.,
`No. CV-17-2523-PSG, 2017 WL 4771004 (C.D. Cal. June 29, 2017) .....................................8
`
`Salazar v. HTC Corp.,
`No. 2:16-CV-01096-JRG-RSP, 2018 WL 4242416 (E.D. Tex. May 1, 2018) ..........................6
`
`Tareco Props., Inc. v. Morriss,
`No. 6:07-CV-181, 2008 WL 1836377 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 2008) .........................................8, 9
`
`VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`324 F. Supp. 3d 836 (E.D. Tex. 2017) .......................................................................................5
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 126 Filed 01/28/19 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 8771
`
`
`
`VNUS Med. Techs., Inc. v. Diomed Holdings, Inc.,
`527 F. Supp. 2d 1072 (N.D. Cal. 2007) .....................................................................................8
`
`WesternGeco L.L.C. v. ION Geophysical Corp.,
`837 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016), overruled on other grounds by 138 S. Ct.
`2129 (2018) ................................................................................................................................8
`
`ZitoVault, LLC v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp.,
`No. 3:16-CV-0962-M, 2018 WL 2971131 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 29, 2018) .....................................6
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 284 ................................................................................................................................1
`
`35 U.S.C. § 287(a) ...........................................................................................................................7
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ........................................................................................................................4
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 126 Filed 01/28/19 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 8772
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`AGIS alleges that HTC Corp. willfully infringes U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,213,970; 9,408,055;
`
`9,445,251; and 9,467,838 (the “asserted patents”). But AGIS’s allegations have two crucial
`
`flaws. First, even though willful infringement requires knowledge of the patents, AGIS has
`
`failed to identify any evidence demonstrating that HTC Corp. had knowledge of the asserted
`
`patents prior to the filing of the Complaint. HTC Corp. therefore cannot be liable for pre-suit
`
`willful infringement. Second, AGIS has not alleged any facts or provided any evidence
`
`demonstrating any egregious conduct by HTC Corp. The total extent of AGIS’s egregiousness
`
`allegation is listing a series of synonyms for “egregious” in an interrogatory response without
`
`any supporting evidence. This is insufficient to create a triable issue of fact on willful
`
`infringement.
`
`For these reasons, as set forth below, HTC Corp. respectfully requests that the Court
`
`grant summary judgement of no pre-suit willful infringement and summary judgment of no post-
`
`suit willful infringement.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED BY THE COURT
`• Whether HTC Corp. can be found to have willfully infringed a patent prior to suit
`
`when it had no pre-suit knowledge of the asserted patents.
`
`• Whether HTC Corp. can be found to willfully infringe a patent where there is no
`
`evidence of egregious conduct, just a plaintiff listing synonyms for “egregious”
`
`without any supporting evidence.
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
`A.
`
`AGIS’s Enhanced Damages Allegations
`
`AGIS alleges that HTC Corp. willfully infringed the asserted patents. (Complaint
`
`(Dkt. No. 1), ¶¶ 24, 37, 50, 63; id. at Prayer for Relief, § b.) AGIS seeks treble damages under
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 126 Filed 01/28/19 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 8773
`
`
`
`35 U.S.C. § 284 for HTC Corp.’s alleged willful infringement. (Complaint at Prayer for Relief,
`
`§ e.)
`
`On May 18, 2018, HTC served the following Interrogatory No. 15 on AGIS:
`
`If You contend that HTC Corp. has previously willfully infringed
`or currently willfully infringes any of the Asserted Claims, identify
`the behavior You allege is egregious and culpable and provide the
`basis for Your contention.
`
`(Ex. 1, HTC Corp.’s First Set of Interrogatories, p. 17.)
`
`On June 18, 2018, AGIS responded, in relevant part, as follow:
`
`Discovery in this case is still ongoing and AGIS continues to
`investigate this matter. AGIS directs HTC to documents within its
`own possession.
`
`(Ex. 2, AGIS’s Responses to HTC Corp.’s First Set of Interrogatories, p. 36.)
`
`On August 17, 2018, AGIS provided supplemental responses to its interrogatory
`
`responses, but it did not supplement its responses to Interrogatory No. 15. (Ex. 3, AGIS’s First
`
`Supplemental Responses to HTC Corp.’s First Set of Interrogatories, p. 217).
`
`On November 21, 2018, counsel for HTC Corp. sent a letter to counsel for AGIS
`
`requesting that AGIS supplement its interrogatory responses. (Ex. 4, November 21, 2018 Letter
`
`from Kyle R. Canavera to Vincent Rubino, pp. 1–3.) With respect to Interrogatory No. 15, the
`
`letter stated as follows.
`
`Interrogatory No. 15 requests information about AGIS’s contention
`that HTC willfully infringed the asserted patents. Even though
`AGIS already has all of HTC’s emails produced in this case and
`has already deposed HTC’s witnesses, AGIS has provided no
`response to this interrogatory. The response states that “AGIS
`directs HTC to documents within its own possession.” But with
`fact discovery nearly closed, AGIS cannot possibly prove this
`theory at trial unless AGIS possesses evidence of HTC’s alleged
`willfulness. If AGIS holds no such evidence, then AGIS needs to
`state as such. In the alternative, HTC would be willing to accept a
`stipulation from AGIS that AGIS will no longer pursue a willful
`infringement claim.
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 126 Filed 01/28/19 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 8774
`
`
`(Id. at p. 2.)
`
`
`
`On December 7, 2018, the last day of fact discovery, AGIS supplemented its response to
`
`Interrogatory No. 15, in relevant part, as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Ex. 5, AGIS’s Second Supplemental Responses to HTC Corp.’s First Set of Interrogatories, pp.
`
`461–62.) AGIS has provided no further supplemental responses to this interrogatory.
`
`B.
`
`HTC Corp.’s Lack of Knowledge of the Patents
`
`In the Complaint, AGIS’s only allegation as to HTC Corp.’s knowledge of the patents or
`
`alleged infringement thereof is that HTC Corp. had knowledge “at least as of the date of this
`
`Complaint.” (Complaint at ¶¶ 19, 28, 41, 54.)
`
`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. 6, 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. 7, 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:
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 126 Filed 01/28/19 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 8775
`
`
`
`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. 6 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. 7, 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. 8, HTC Corp.’s First Set of Requests for Admission, p. 9.) AGIS responded, in relevant
`
`part:
`
`Admitted.
`
`(Ex. 9, AGIS’s Responses to HTC Corp.’s First Set of Requests for Admission, pp. 3–4.)
`
` (Ex. 10, Christopher Rice Dep. Tr., 316:10–
`
`
`
`320:12; Ex. 11, Eric Armstrong Dep. Tr., 232:16–235:13; Ex. 12, Sandel Blackwell Dep. Tr.,
`
`409:21–414:11; Ex. 13, Rebecca Clark Dep. Tr., 62:22–64:10; Ex. 14, Ronald Wisneski Dep.
`
`Tr., 300:20–303:15; Ex. 15, Margaret Beyer Dep. Tr., 66:15–67:9; Ex. 16, Malcolm Beyer Dep.
`
`Tr., 477:10–480:24; Ex. 17, James Fordyce Dep. Tr., 68:9–70:13.)
`
`HTC Corp.’s fact witness testified that HTC Corp. first became aware of the asserted
`
`patents: “
`
`.” (Ex. 18, Lynn Yu Dep. Tr., 27:14–20; id. at 31:6–20.)
`
`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);
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 126 Filed 01/28/19 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 8776
`
`
`
`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).
`
`Willful misconduct is conduct that is “wanton, malicious, bad-faith, deliberate,
`
`consciously wrongful, flagrant, or—indeed—characteristic of a pirate.” Halo Elecs., Inc. v.
`
`Pulse Elecs., Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923, 1932 (2016). A finding of willful infringement is appropriate
`
`only in “egregious” cases. Id. A plaintiff can establish willful infringement by proving the
`
`“subjective willfulness of a patent infringer.” Id. at 1932, 1934. “Subjective willfulness is
`
`characterized by recklessness, or ‘knowing or having reason to know of facts which would lead a
`
`reasonable man to realize his action is unreasonably risky.’” VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc., 324
`
`F. Supp. 3d 836, 859 (E.D. Tex. 2017) (quoting Halo, 136 S. Ct. at 1933). “Culpability for
`
`willfulness is ‘measured against the knowledge of the actor at the time of the challenged
`
`conduct.’” Id. (quoting Halo, 136 S. Ct. at 1933). The plaintiff must prove willful infringement
`
`by a preponderance of the evidence. Id.
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT
`A.
`
`The Court Should Grant Summary Judgment of No Pre-Suit Willful
`Infringement Because There Is No Genuine Dispute that HTC Corp. Lacked
`Knowledge of the Asserted Patents Before the Filing of the Complaint.
`
`“Knowledge of the patent alleged to be willfully infringed continues to be a prerequisite
`
`to enhanced damages” after Halo. WBIP, LLC v. Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1341
`
`(Fed. Cir.2016); see also Halo, 136 S. Ct. at 1936 (Breyer, J., concurring) (“First, the Court’s
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 126 Filed 01/28/19 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 8777
`
`
`
`references to ‘willful misconduct’ do not mean that a court may award enhanced damages simply
`
`because the evidence shows that the infringer knew about the patent and nothing more.”).
`
`This Court has recognized that willful infringement requires at least knowledge of the
`
`patents. Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings, Ltd., No. 2:15-CV-00011-RSP, 2017
`
`WL 5137401, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2017) (“As this Court has recognized, however,
`
`knowledge of an asserted patent, without more, cannot justify enhanced damages under the Halo
`
`standard.”); Enfindergemeinschaft UroPep GbR v. Eli Lilly & Co., No. 2:15-CV-1202-WCB,
`
`2017 WL 2190055, at *3 (E.D. Tex. May 18, 2017); see also Salazar v. HTC Corp., No. 2:16-
`
`CV-01096-JRG-RSP, 2018 WL 4242416, at *5 (E.D. Tex. May 1, 2018) (granting summary
`
`judgment of no willful infringement because plaintiff conceded that no evidence showed
`
`defendant’s knowledge of the patent prior to expiration).
`
`While a plaintiff can allege willful infringement based on the defendant’s knowledge of
`
`the patent arising from filing of the complaint, this knowledge would only be sufficient to
`
`support post-suit willfulness. See ZitoVault, LLC v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., No. 3:16-CV-0962-
`
`M, 2018 WL 2971131, at *2–3 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 29, 2018) (dismissing allegations in complaint
`
`regarding pre-suit willfulness due to lack of plausible allegations regarding pre-suit knowledge
`
`of the patents, but not dismissing post-suit willful infringement allegations); DermaFocus LLC
`
`v. Ulthera, Inc., 201 F. Supp. 3d 465, 473 (D. Del. 2016) (same); cf. Huawei Techs. Co. Ltd. v.
`
`T-Mobile US, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00052-JRG-RSP, 2017 WL 1129951, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 21,
`
`2017) (not dismissing willful infringement allegations in complaint based on failure to allege
`
`pre-suit knowledge of infringement, because scienter requirement for willfulness could arise
`
`post-suit).
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 126 Filed 01/28/19 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 8778
`
`
`
`In this case, not only has AGIS failed to identify evidence showing something more than
`
`pre-suit knowledge of the patents by HTC Corp., AGIS has failed to identify any evidence
`
`showing pre-suit knowledge itself. See § III.B, supra. In fact, the evidence overwhelmingly
`
`shows that HTC Corp. did not have the required pre-suit knowledge. The Complaint relies on
`
`the 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. 7 at pp. 5–6.) AGIS’s RFA responses
`
`admit that AGIS did not give HTC Corp. pre-suit notice of the patents. (Ex. 9 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.B, supra. There is no genuine dispute that HTC Corp. lacked any knowledge of the asserted
`
`patents prior to filing of the Complaint.
`
`Based on AGIS’s response to HTC Corp.’s Interrogatory No. 15, AGIS apparently
`
`intends to pursue a pre-suit willful infringement claim based on
`
`
`
` (See Ex. 5 at pp. 461–62 (“Defendants have been on constructive
`
`notice of some or all of AGIS’s patents asserted in this action because products have been
`
`marked with the patent numbers in compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 287(a).”).)
`
`But AGIS’s theory has no basis in the law. In discussing the “egregious conduct”
`
`required for willful infringement in pre-Halo and pre-Seagate caselaw, the Federal Circuit
`
`explained that it is not sufficient to show “[c]onstrutive notice, as by marking a product with a
`
`patent number.” Imonex Servs., Inc. v. W.H. Munzprufer Dietmar Trenner GMBH, 408 F.3d
`
`1374, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005). In post-Seagate but pre-Halo caselaw, courts recognized the same
`
`principle: “Actual knowledge—not constructive knowledge—is the criterion.” Deckers
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 126 Filed 01/28/19 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 8779
`
`
`
`Outdoor Corp. v. J.C. Penney Co. Inc., 45 F. Supp. 3d 1181, 1188 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (citing i4i
`
`Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 860 (Fed. Cir. 2010)); accord Personal Audio, LLC
`
`v. Apple, Inc., No. 9:09-CV-111, 2011 WL 13134849, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 26, 2011) (“The
`
`court has found no Federal Circuit case holding that a finding of willful infringement can be
`
`premised on an infringer’s ‘constructive’ knowledge of a patent.”); VNUS Med. Techs., Inc. v.
`
`Diomed Holdings, Inc., 527 F. Supp. 2d 1072, 1075 n.4 (N.D. Cal. 2007). Courts have continued
`
`to recognize this principle after Halo. See Puma SE v. Forever 21, Inc., No. CV-17-2523-PSG,
`
`2017 WL 4771004, at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 29, 2017). And the Federal Circuit recognized that the
`
`Supreme Court in Halo did not disturb the principles underlying the subjective willfulness
`
`analysis in the pre-Halo caselaw. See WesternGeco L.L.C. v. ION Geophysical Corp., 837 F.3d
`
`1358, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016), overruled on other grounds by 138 S. Ct. 2129 (2018). Thus,
`
`AGIS’s theory is not viable as a matter of law.
`
`Therefore, since there is no genuine dispute that HTC Corp. did not have knowledge of
`
`the asserted patents prior to filing of the Complaint, there can be no genuine dispute that HTC
`
`Corp. did not willfully infringe the asserted patents prior to the filing of the Complaint.
`
`Summary judgment of no pre-suit willful infringement is therefore warranted.
`
`B.
`
`Summary Judgment of No Pre-Suit or Post-Suit Willful Infringement Is
`Warranted Because There Is No Genuine Dispute that HTC Corp. Has Not
`Committed Egregious Conduct.
`
`There is no genuine dispute as to whether HTC Corp. willfully infringed the asserted
`
`patents either pre-suit or post-suit, because AGIS has not identified any evidence on which a
`
`reasonable jury could rely to find that HTC Corp. has committed “egregious conduct.”
`
`“Summary judgment is a tool designed to ensure cases with no evidentiary support or no
`
`genuine factual issues need not proceed to trial.” Tareco Props., Inc. v. Morriss, No. 6:07-CV-
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 126 Filed 01/28/19 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: 8780
`
`
`
`181, 2008 WL 1836377, at *7 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 2008). “[B]are bones allegations are
`
`insufficient to withstand summary judgment . . . [.]” Id.
`
`In response to HTC Corp.’s Interrogatory No. 15 requesting that AGIS “identify the
`
`behavior You allege is egregious and culpable and provide the basis for Your contention,” AGIS
`
`provided only the following description of HTC Corp.’s conduct: “
`
`
`
`
`
`” (Ex. 5 at pp. 461–62.) AGIS did not
`
`support this bare legal recitation with any factual allegations, identification of any documents,
`
`identification of any deposition testimony, or any evidence at all. (See id.) And this listing of
`
`synonyms for “egregious” is in fact not even a high level factual allegation; rather it is an
`
`unattributed quotation from Halo: “The sort of conduct warranting enhanced damages has been
`
`variously described in our cases as willful, wanton, malicious, bad-faith, deliberate, consciously
`
`wrongful, flagrant, or—indeed—characteristic of a pirate.” 136 S. Ct. at 1932 (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`Quite simply, even though AGIS was served with an interrogatory directly on point, and
`
`then asked to either provide a legitimate response or stipulate to not pursuing a willfulness
`
`theory, AGIS has done nothing more than copy and paste a line from Halo. AGIS has thus failed
`
`to identify even a single piece of evidence to show that HTC Corp. has committed the
`
`“egregious” conduct required for a finding of willful infringement.
`
`Therefore, there is no genuine dispute that HTC Corp. has not committed egregious
`
`conduct, because AGIS has failed to identify any evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to
`
`reach that conclusion. Accordingly, there is no genuine dispute that HTC Corp. did not willfully
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 126 Filed 01/28/19 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 8781
`
`
`
`infringe the asserted patents either before or after the filing of the Complaint. Summary
`
`judgment of no willful infringement is therefore warranted.
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, HTC Corp. respectfully requests that the Court grant summary
`
`judgment of no willful infringement.
`
`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
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 126 Filed 01/28/19 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 8782
`
`
`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-
`
`