Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 131 Filed 01/29/19 Page 1 of 22 PageID #: 9333
`
`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 OF
`NON-INFRINGMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,213,970
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 131 Filed 01/29/19 Page 2 of 22 PageID #: 9334
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................1
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED BY THE COURT ......................................1
`
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS ....................................................1
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS .........................................................................................................6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT ........................................................................................6
`
`DIRECT INFRINGEMENT ......................................................................................7
`
`INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT ..................................................................................7
`
`CONTRIBUTORY INFRINGEMENT .....................................................................8
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT .........................................................................................................................9
`
`A.
`
`THE ACCUSED LG DEVICES DO NOT DIRECTLY INFRINGE THE
`’970 PATENT BECAUSE LGEKR DOES NOT MANUFACTURE THE
`DEVICES WITH THE ALLEGEDLY INFRINGING GOOGLE FIND
`MY DEVICE APPLICATION PRE-INSTALLED...................................................9
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The Find My Device Application Is Not Pre-Installed On LG-
`Branded Mobile Devices................................................................................10
`
`Accessing A Google Web Page On A Chrome Browser Cannot
`Infringe The ’970 Patent ................................................................................12
`
`Receiver-Side Find My Device Functionality Included On the
`Accused LG Devices Alone Cannot Meet The Asserted Claims Of
`The ’970 Patent ..............................................................................................14
`
`B.
`
`LGEKR HAS NOT INDIRECTLY INFRINGED THE ’970 PATENT ...................15
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................17
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 131 Filed 01/29/19 Page 3 of 22 PageID #: 9335
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
`477 U.S. 242 (1986) ...................................................................................................................6
`
`Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
`477 U.S. 317 (1986) ...................................................................................................................7
`
`Centillion Data Sys., LLC v. Qwest Commc’ns Int’l, Inc.,
`631 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..........................................................................................11, 14
`
`Cleveland Clinic Found. v. True Health Diagnostics LLC,
`859 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................16
`
`Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`135 S. Ct. 1920 (2015) .....................................................................................................7, 8, 15
`
`Crawford v. Formosa Plastics Corp., La.,
`234 F.3d 899 (5th Cir. 2000) .....................................................................................................6
`
`Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc.,
`424 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................................................7
`
`DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co.,
`471 F.3d 1293 (Fed Cir. 2006) (en banc).............................................................................8, 15
`
`Frank’s Casing Crew & Rental Tools, Inc. v. Weatherford Int’l, Inc.,
`389 F.3d 1370 (Fed Cir. 2004)...................................................................................................7
`
`Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A.,
`563 U.S. 754 (2011) ...................................................................................................................7
`
`In re Bill of Lading Transmission & Processing Sys. Patent Litig.,
`681 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................8
`
`IRIS Corp. v. Japan Airlines Corp.,
`769 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2014)......................................................................................15
`
`Manville Sales Corp. v. Paramount Sys., Inc.,
`917 F.2d 544 (Fed. Cir. 1990)..................................................................................................15
`
`Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.,
`545 U.S. 913 (2005) .................................................................................................................15
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 131 Filed 01/29/19 Page 4 of 22 PageID #: 9336
`
`NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd.,
`418 F.3d 1282, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2005)......................................................................................14
`
`Ricoh Co. v. Quanta Computer Inc.,
`550 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................................8
`
`Water Techs. Corp. v. Calco, Ltd.,
`850 F.2d 660 (Fed. Cir. 1988)....................................................................................................8
`
`Wordtech Sys., Inc. v. Integrated Networks Sols., Inc.,
`609 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................16
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a) .......................................................................................................................7, 9
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(b) .......................................................................................................................7, 8
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(c) .....................................................................................................................8, 16
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) ........................................................................................................................6
`
`-iii-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 131 Filed 01/29/19 Page 5 of 22 PageID #: 9337
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Defendant LG Electronics Inc. (“LGEKR”) moves for summary judgment of non-
`
`infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970 because LGEKR does not pre-install the accused
`
`Google Find My Device application on its mobile devices sold by third-party LG Electronics
`
`U.S.A, Inc. (“LGEUS”) in the United States.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED BY THE COURT
`
`Whether LGEKR is entitled to summary judgment of non-infringement as to U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,213,970.
`
`III.
`
`STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
`
`1.
`
`AGIS Software Development LLC (“AGIS”) filed its Complaint in this action
`
`against LGEKR on June 21, 2017. (Case No. 2:17-cv-515, D.I. 1).
`
`2.
`
`AGIS alleges that LGEKR infringes claims 1, 3, 5, and 8 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,213,970 (the “’970 Patent”) based on functionality found in the Find My Device application,
`
`which was previously branded as Android Device Manager. (Lee Decl.1, Ex. 1; Luh Decl.2 ¶ 1).
`
`3.
`
`Google is solely responsible for developing, designing, maintaining, modifying,
`
`making available, and/or distributing the Find My Device system. (Luh Decl. ¶ 2).
`
`4.
`
`Find My Device can be used to locate, ring, secure or lock, and/or wipe another
`
`device linked to a Google account. (Luh Decl. ¶ 2).
`
`5.
`
`The client-side of Find My Device is the application and interface that a Google
`
`user interacts with to view an account-linked device’s location and to select and create a remote
`
`1 “Lee Decl.” refers to the Declaration of Nicholas H. Lee In Support of Defendant LG
`Electronics Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No.
`8,213,970 filed concurrently herewith.
`2 “Luh Decl.” refers to the Declaration of William Luh In Support of LG Electronics Inc.’s
`Motion for Summary Judgment filed concurrently herewith.
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 131 Filed 01/29/19 Page 6 of 22 PageID #: 9338
`
`instruction to be transmitted to that device. (Luh Decl. ¶ 4). Examples of such remote
`
`instructions are to lock or secure the device, ring the device, or erase the device. (Id.).
`
`6.
`
`The client-side Find My Device application is not pre-installed on the accused LG
`
`devices; it is instead available for download to the end user from the Google Play Store after the
`
`user purchases an LG device. (Lee Decl., Ex. 2 at 56:11-12, 14-20; id. at 56:25-57:1; id. at
`
`57:14-19, 21-22; id. at 57:24-58:14; Luh Decl. ¶ 4).
`
`7.
`
`Software updates to the client-side Find My Device application are also provided
`
`via the Google Play Store, which is provided, managed, and controlled by Google. (Luh Decl.
`
`¶ 4).
`
`8.
`
`LGEKR’s technical expert independently confirmed that the Find My Device
`
`client-side application is not pre-installed on the accused LG devices by purchasing and checking
`
`what Google applications are included on at least the LG G4 and LG G6 devices. (See Lee
`
`Decl., Ex. 3 ¶¶ 168-70).
`
`9.
`
`The client-side functionality can also be accessed through a generic web browser
`
`at the following URL: https://www.google.com/android/find, which is provided and managed by
`
`third-party Google and through which a user can create, request and transmit the same client-side
`
`remote instruction, such as secure or lock, ring, or wipe a device. (Luh Decl. ¶ 5). To the extent
`
`it is accessed through a generic web browser on a mobile device, the Google webpage
`
`functionality is not installed on that device. (Luh Decl. ¶ 5; Lee Decl., Ex. 3 ¶¶ 179-181).
`
`10.
`
`The ’970 Patent relates to “forced message alerts sent by an initiating device to
`
`one or more receiving devices.” (Lee Decl., Ex. 4 ¶ 69; 515 D.I. 1, Ex. A (“’970 Patent”)). The
`
`’970 specification explains that the claimed invention relates to “a process of sending a forced
`
`message alert to one or more recipients as well as for ascertaining which recipients received the
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 131 Filed 01/29/19 Page 7 of 22 PageID #: 9339
`
`forced message alert and which recipients responded to the forced message alert.” (See ’970
`
`patent, 3:4-14; Fig. 3A-3B). And, the “process of sending a forced message alert from a PC or
`
`PDA/ cell phone begins with a sender selecting the forced message alert software application
`
`program on a sender PC or PDA/cell phone.” (Id., 7:42-8:15 (emphasis added)). The ’970
`
`Patent provides that “the forced message alert software application program must be installed on
`
`a plurality of PCs and/or PDA/cell phones.” (Id., 7:8-11).
`
`11.
`
`The asserted claims of the ’970 Patent require, among other things, client-side
`
`application functionality:
`
`A communication system for transmitting, receiving, confirming receipt,
`and responding to an electronic message, comprising:
`
`[. . . .]
`
`a sender PDA/cell phone and at least one recipient PDA/cell phone for each
`electronic message;
`
`a forced message alert software application program including a list of required
`possible responses to be selected by a participant recipient of a forced message
`response loaded on each participating PDA/cell phone;
`
`means for attaching a forced message alert software packet to a voice or text
`message creating a forced message alert that is transmitted by said sender
`PDA/cell phone to the recipient PDA/cell phone, said forced message alert
`software packet containing a list of possible required responses
`
`[. . . .]
`
`means for receiving and displaying a listing of which recipient PDA/cell phones
`have automatically acknowledged the forced message alert and which recipient
`PDA/cell phones have not automatically acknowledged the forced message
`alert;
`
`means for periodically resending said forced message alert to said recipient
`PDA/cell phones that have not automatically acknowledged the forced message
`alert; and
`
`means for receiving and displaying a listing of which recipient PDA/cell phones
`have transmitted a manual response to said forced message alert and details the
`response from each recipient PDA/cell phone that responded.
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 131 Filed 01/29/19 Page 8 of 22 PageID #: 9340
`
`(See ’970 Patent, claim 1 (emphasis added); see also claim 6 (reciting similar functional
`
`limitations, i.e., “accessing a forced message alert software application program on a sender
`
`PDA/cell phone”; “creating the forced message alert on said sender PDA/cell phone by
`
`attaching a voice or text message to a forced message alert application software packet to said
`
`voice or text message”; “designating one or more recipient PDA/cell phones in the
`
`communication network”; “electronically transmitting the forced message alert to said recipient
`
`PDA/cell phones”; “periodically resending the forced message alert to the recipient PDA/cell
`
`phones that have not acknowledged receipt.”) (emphasis added)).
`
`12.
`
`The accused functionality related to those claim limitations originates from the
`
`devices on which the client-side Find My Device application (i.e., the accused “forced message
`
`alert software application”) is installed, because that is where the selection and creation of the
`
`allegedly infringing remote instructions (i.e., accused “forced message alert”) occurs. (Lee
`
`Decl., Ex. 3 ¶ 161; Lee Decl., Ex. 4, Attachment A at A-a13-A-a29; Luh Decl. ¶ 4.).
`
`13.
`
`AGIS’s sole technical expert, Mr. Joseph McAlexander, admits that the claimed
`
`“forced message alert software application program including a list of required possible
`
`responses to be selected by a participant recipient of a forced message response loaded on each
`
`participating PDA/cell phone” “is the application program executing on the Accused LG device
`
`that initiates and/or receives a forced message alert, for example, the Find My Device
`
`application. The application software is the part of the Find My Device application software that
`
`creates and transmits the forced message alerts.” (See Lee Decl., Ex. 4, Attachment A at A-a13).
`
`He further confirms that “[t]he claimed step of accessing a forced message alert software
`
`application program is the initiation of the forced message application program by the Android
`
`operating system when the application has been selected by a user for execution” (id. at A-a86
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 131 Filed 01/29/19 Page 9 of 22 PageID #: 9341
`
`(emphasis added))—while also providing a screenshot on the device once the user selects the
`
`accused Find My Device application for execution:
`
`(Id. at A-a87 (citing _DSC1028.JPG)).
`
`14. Mr. McAlexander points to the client-side Google source code for Find My
`
`Device / Android Device Manager application to support his infringement theory involving the
`
`’970 Patent. (See Lee Decl. Ex. 4, Attachment A at A-9, A-a21, A-a49-53, A-a59-62, A-a65, A-
`
`a67-69, A-a71-73, A-a85-86, A-a90-92, A-a97-99, A-a103-105, A-a108-109, A-a112-114, A-
`
`a116, A-a119; Lee Decl., Ex. 3 ¶ 163).
`
`15.
`
`There is no dispute that, for the asserted claims of the ’970 patent, AGIS is
`
`relying upon the client-side application as the basis for alleged infringement:
`
`. . . the forced message alert software application program (i.e. Find My Device)
`is installed on a plurality of PCs and/or PDA/cell phones.
`
`[. . .]
`
`Find My Device, as set forth in the example use-case below, can designate a
`“single PC and/or PDA/cell phone” such as the lost phone from a listing of
`devices.
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 131 Filed 01/29/19 Page 10 of 22 PageID #: 9342
`
`(See Lee Decl., Ex. 4, Attachment A at A-a27-a28 (emphasis added); see also id. at A-a34 (“The
`
`first step in utilizing the Find My Device functionality is to select the forced message alert
`
`software application program on the sender PC or PDA/cell phone, i.e., to launch the Find My
`
`Device App by selecting the icon.”) (emphasis added)).
`
`16.
`
`There is no pre-installed application software on the accused LG devices for Find
`
`My Device that provides the functionality that Mr. McAlexander relies upon when he points to
`
`sender-side functionality to prove infringement. (See Luh Decl. ¶¶ 3-4; Lee Decl., Ex. 2 at
`
`68:24-69:9; Lee Decl., Ex. 3 ¶ 163).
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A.
`
`Summary Judgment
`
`Summary judgment is appropriate 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
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 131 Filed 01/29/19 Page 11 of 22 PageID #: 9343
`
`showing 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.
`
`Direct Infringement
`
`Direct infringement only occurs when someone “makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any
`
`patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented
`
`invention . . . .” 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). “To prove direct infringement, the plaintiff must establish
`
`by a preponderance of the evidence that one or more claims of the patent read on the accused
`
`device literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.” Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic
`
`Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1310 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “‘Literal infringement requires that
`
`each and every limitation set forth in a claim appear in an accused product.’” Id. (quoting
`
`Frank’s Casing Crew & Rental Tools, Inc. v. Weatherford Int’l, Inc., 389 F.3d 1370, 1378 (Fed
`
`Cir. 2004)).
`
`C.
`
`Indirect Infringement
`
`Indirect infringement may occur when someone “actively induces infringement of a
`
`patent . . . .” See 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The phrase “actively induce[]” in section 271(b) means
`
`intent and taking affirmative steps to bring about a desired result are required. See Global-Tech
`
`Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754, 760 (2011) (“Global-Tech”). The Supreme Court
`
`has held that “induced infringement under § 271(b) requires knowledge that the induced acts
`
`constitute patent infringement.” Id. at 766. A patentee must show that the accused infringer
`
`both knew of the patent in question and knew that the induced acts constitute infringement.
`
`Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1920, 1925 (2015) (“Commil”) (citing Global-
`
`Tech, 563 U.S. at 765-66). In Commil, the Supreme Court clarified that Global-Tech requires
`
`more than knowing acts might infringe depending on whether the accused infringer correctly
`
`reads the claims of the patent at issue differently from the patentee. See id. at 1928. This
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 131 Filed 01/29/19 Page 12 of 22 PageID #: 9344
`
`standard “requires proof the defendant knew the acts were infringing” and “reject[s] any lesser
`
`mental state as the standard.” Id. (emphasis added). The phrase “actively induce[]
`
`infringement” in section 271(b) thus requires an intent to bring about infringement. Id.
`
`“To establish liability under section 271(b), a patent holder must prove that once the
`
`defendants knew of the patent, they ‘actively and knowingly aid[ed] and abett[ed] another’s
`
`direct infringement.’” DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co., 471 F.3d 1293, 1305 (Fed Cir. 2006) (en
`
`banc) (emphasis in original) (citing Water Techs. Corp. v. Calco, Ltd., 850 F.2d 660, 668 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1988)). A “finding of inducement requires a threshold finding of direct infringement.”
`
`Ricoh Co. v. Quanta Computer Inc., 550 F.3d 1325, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`D.
`
`Contributory Infringement
`
`To be liable for contributory infringement, an infringer must “offer[] to sell or sell[]
`
`within the United States or import[] into the United States a component of a patented machine
`
`manufacture, combination or composition, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a
`
`patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially
`
`made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or
`
`commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use.” See 35 U.S.C. § 271(c); In
`
`re Bill of Lading Transmission & Processing Sys. Patent Litig., 681 F.3d 1323, 1334, 1337 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2012). The party asserting contributory infringement must show 1) that the alleged infringer
`
`made and sold the product or device at issue; 2) that said product or device had no substantial
`
`non-infringing uses; 3) that the alleged infringer engaged in conduct within the United States that
`
`contributed to another’s direct infringement; and 4) that another party engaged in an act of direct
`
`infringement. DSU Med. Corp., 471 F.3d at 1303.
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 131 Filed 01/29/19 Page 13 of 22 PageID #: 9345
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Before adjudicating whether the functionality of Google’s Find My Device application
`
`meets each and every limitation of the asserted claims of the ’970 Patent, there is a threshold
`
`deficiency in AGIS’s infringement allegations against LGEKR. Under AGIS’s theory of
`
`infringement for the ’970 Patent, for LGEKR to be liable for infringement, LGEKR must
`
`actually provide to end users in the United States LG devices with the Find My Device
`
`application pre-installed, or must otherwise contribute to or induce end-users to download and
`
`use that Google application. But, there is no genuine issue of material fact that LGEKR does
`
`neither.
`
`A.
`
`The Accused LG Devices Do Not Directly Infringe The ’970 Patent Because
`LGEKR Does Not Manufacture The Devices With The Allegedly Infringing
`Google Find My Device Application Pre-Installed
`
`To prove direct infringement, AGIS must show that LGEKR makes, uses, offers to sell or
`
`sells within, or imports into the United States an accused device that practices each and every
`
`limitation of claims 1, 3, 5, or 8 of the ’970 Patent.3 (See 35 U.S.C. § 271(a); Lee Decl., Ex. 1).
`
`AGIS’s expert, Mr. Joseph McAlexander, asserts that “the ’970 Patent relates to forced message
`
`alerts sent by an initiating device to one or more receiving devices” and that infringement begins
`
`with the selection of “the forced message alert software application program on the sender PC or
`
`PDA/cell phone, i.e., to launch the Find My Device App by selecting the icon.” (Lee Decl., Ex.
`
`4, Attachment A at A-a34, A-a13, A-a86; Lee Decl., Ex. 4 ¶ 69; Lee Decl., Ex. 1). Furthermore,
`
`the Google source code he cites to support infringement of the ’970 Patent is the Find My Device
`
`/ Android Device Manager Application. (See supra ¶ 14). However, the Find My Device
`
`Application is not pre-installed on the accused LG devices. (Lee Decl., Ex. 2 at 56:11-12, 14-20;
`
`3 As LGEKR has set out in a concurrently filed motion, its actions are limited to manufacturing
`and selling devices overseas, such that it is independently entitled to summary judgment for not
`committing any acts capable of constituting infringement in the United States.
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 131 Filed 01/29/19 Page 14 of 22 PageID #: 9346
`
`id. at 56:25-57:1; id. at 57:14-19, 21-22; id. at 57:24-58:14; Luh Decl. ¶ 4). Accordingly,
`
`LGEKR has not directly infringed the ’970 Patent because LGEKR does not include the
`
`admittedly necessary application functionality in the accused LG devices sold in the United
`
`States.
`
`1.
`
`The Find My Device Application Is Not Pre-Installed On LG-Branded
`Mobile Devices
`
`The client-side Find My Device is the application and interface that a Google user
`
`interacts with to view an account-linked device’s location and to select and create a remote
`
`instruction to be transmitted to that device, such as to lock or secure the device, to ring the
`
`device, or to erase the device. (Luh Decl. ¶ 4). There is no dispute that the client-side Find My
`
`Device application is not pre-installed on any accused LG devices. (Lee Decl., Ex. 2 at 56:11-
`
`12, 14-20; id. at 56:25-57:1; id. at 57:14-19, 21-22; id. at 57:24-58:14; Luh Decl. ¶ 4; Lee Decl.,
`
`Ex. 3 ¶¶ 168-70). This client-side application and interface is not included as part of Google’s
`
`GmsCore package, which LGEKR does pre-install in its devices. (Luh Decl. ¶¶ 3-4; Lee Decl.,
`
`Ex. 2 at 68:7-69:9). Instead, an end user wishing to install the client-side Find My Device
`
`application can download it via the Google Play Store after purchasing an LG-branded phone.
`
`(Luh Decl. ¶ 4; Lee Decl., Ex. 2 at 57:24-58:14).
`
`The client-side software application is a necessary part of the ’970 Patent and is what
`
`AGIS is relying upon to assert infringement against LGEKR. In particular, the ’970 Patent
`
`explains that “[a]pplicant’s communication system and method described herein is embodied in
`
`the forced alert software developed by applicant and installed in the PCs and PDA/cell phones
`
`used herein,” and further, that it is the forced alert software application program which provides,
`
`inter alia, the ability “to create and transmit” forced alerts; to “periodically resend the message to
`
`the recipient PCs and PDA/cell phones that have not sent an acknowledgment until an
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 131 Filed 01/29/19 Page 15 of 22 PageID #: 9347
`
`acknowledgment is received from every recipient PC or PDA/cell phone”; to “provide an
`
`indication on the display of the sender PC or PDA/cell phone of which recipient PCs and
`
`PDA/cell phones have acknowledged the forced message alert”; and to “provide an indication on
`
`the sender PC or PDA/cell phone of the status [of] the manual response and the content of the
`
`manual response from each recipient PCs and PDA/cell phones.” (See, e.g., ’970 Patent, 2:1-35;
`
`7:8-11; Fig. 2).
`
`The plain language of asserted claims 1, 3, 5, and 8 of the ’970 Patent is consistent with
`
`this disclosure and also requires client-side functionality originating from a forced message alert
`
`software application. (See supra ¶¶ 11-12). And, AGIS’s expert contends that such sender-side
`
`functionality from the forced message alert software application is provided when a user
`
`accesses, selects and launches the client-side Find My Device application. (See supra ¶¶ 12-15;
`
`see also supra ¶¶ 6, 8, 11).
`
`AGIS’s own theory of infringement establishes, as a matter of law, that the accused LG
`
`devices cannot infringe the ’970 Patent. An admittedly necessary part of AGIS’s infringement
`
`allegation for the ’970 Patent relies upon the Find My Device application on sender-side mobile
`
`devices. (See supra ¶¶ 10-16). But, it is undisputed that this client-side Find My Device
`
`application is not pre-installed on LG-branded mobile devices. (See supra ¶¶ 6, 8, 16; see also
`
`Lee Decl., Ex. 3 ¶¶ 161-181). Because an end user must choose to download the client-side Find
`
`My Device application after purchasing an LG-branded mobile device, summary judgment of no
`
`infringement by LGEKR is appropriate. See Centillion Data Sys., LLC v. Qwest Commc’ns Int’l,
`
`Inc., 631 F.3d 1279, 1287-88 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (finding no infringement where “[i]t [wa]s entirely
`
`the decision of the customer whether to install and operate” the accused software on a personal
`
`device and because “the entire system [wa]s not used until a customer load[ed] software on its
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 131 Filed 01/29/19 Page 16 of 22 PageID #: 9348
`
`personal computer and processe[d] data,” meaning ”[t]he customer, not [the accused infringer],
`
`completes the system by providing the ‘personal computer data processing means’ and installing
`
`the client software.”)
`
`2.
`
`Accessing A Google Web Page On A Chrome Browser Cannot
`Infringe The ’970 Patent
`
`The gravamen of AGIS’s infringement theory for the claimed sender-side functionality
`
`rests on the Find My Device client-side application. But, to the extent that AGIS also contends
`
`that the Google Chrome web browser on the accused LG devices infringes the ’970 patent when
`
`used to access the client-side web interface of Find My Device at
`
`https://www.google.com/android/find, that contention goes well beyond the scope of the ’970
`
`Patent’s claims and disclosures. (See, e.g., Lee Decl., Ex. 4, Attachment A at A-a27). There is
`
`no dispute that the Google Chrome mobile browser is simply a gateway to webpage publishers’
`
`content and backend programming that is hosted, maintained and provided outside the Accused
`
`LG Devices. (Lee Decl., Ex. 3 ¶ 179; Luh Decl. ¶ 5). And, although one can access the client-
`
`side Find My Device website at https://www.google.com/android/find, that website functionality
`
`is hosted outside of the device itself, from third-party Google’s servers. (Id.). In other words,
`
`the website is never installed on the accused LG devices. (Id.).
`
`The ’970 Patent requires a forced message alert software “application” on each
`
`participating PDA or cell phone to perform the claimed functionality. (See, e.g., ’970 patent,
`
`claims 1 and 8; Abstract). And, the inventors made clear that this application functionality must
`
`be installed on the mobile device. The Summary of the Invention notes that the claimed system
`
`and method “is embodied in the forced alert software developed by applicant and installed in the
`
`PCs and PDA/cell phones used herein.” (’970 patent, 2:1-6 (emphasis added); see generally id.,
`
`2:1-35 (describing operation of pre-installed forced alert software)). Further, the specification
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 131 Filed 01/29/19 Page 17 of 22 PageID #: 9349
`
`expressly notes that “in order to set up a communication network that utilizes the forced message
`
`alert system, the forced message alert software application program must be installed on a
`
`plurality of PCs and/or PDA/cell phones.” (Id., 7:8-11 (emphasis added)). Figure 2 from the
`
`specification confirms this:
`
`(See ’970 patent, Fig. 2 (highlighting added)). Stated differently, to infringe, the accused
`
`functionality cannot be hosted outside the device; it must be directly compiled into, executable
`
`from, and accessible within a software application installed on the Accused LG Devices. (Lee
`
`Decl., Ex. 3 ¶ 179). This is not the case with a Google webpage that an end user navigates to
`
`through any mobile browser on LG-branded mobile devices. (Luh Decl. ¶ 5). To find
`
`infringement liability here based on webpage functionality would greatly expand the scope of the
`
`claims and render any device with a web browser infringing. (Lee Decl., Ex. 3 ¶¶ 179-81).
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 131 Filed 01/29/19 Page 18 of 22 PageID #: 9350
`
`3.
`
`Receiver-Side Find My Device Functionality Included On the Accused
`LG Devices Alone Cannot Meet The Asserted Claims Of The ’970
`Patent
`
`Although the client-side Find My Device application is not pre-installed on the accused
`
`LG devices, LGEKR does pre-install Google’s GmsCore package on the accused phones. (See
`
`supra ¶¶ 6, 16; Lee Decl., Ex. 2 at 68:7-69:9). And, related to Find My Device, certain receiver-
`
`side UX functionality is included as part of the Google’s GmsCore package. (Luh Decl. ¶ 3).
`
`But, this functionality alone cannot meet the asserted claim limitations of the ’970 Patent.
`
`The receiver-side UX of Find My Device is what receives and implements remote
`
`instruction on the Android device. (Id.) For example, the receiver-side implements re