Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 217 Filed 02/21/19 Page 1 of 42 PageID #: 18885
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`Case No. 2:17-cv-0515-JRG
`(Member Case)
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`JOINT PRE-TRIAL ORDER FOR THE
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC V. LG ELECTRONICS, INC. TRIAL
`
`The Pretrial Conference is scheduled for March 1, 2019 in Marshall, Texas, pursuant to
`
`the Court’s Fourth Amended Docket Control Order (Case No. 17-cv-00513, Dkt. 141) and Rule
`
`16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As used herein, “AGIS” or “Plaintiff” means AGIS
`
`Software Development LLC. As used herein, “LG Korea” or “Defendant” means LG
`
`Electronics, Inc.
`
`The following parties submit this Joint Pre-Trial Order:
`
`A.
`
`COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`AGIS Software Development LLC
`
`Alfred R. Fabricant
`NY Bar No. 2219392
`Email: afabricant@brownrudnick.com
`Lawrence C. Drucker
`NY Bar No. 2303089
`Email: ldrucker@brownrudnick.com
`Peter Lambrianakos
`NY Bar No. 2894392
`Email: plambrianakos@brownrudnick.com
`Vincent J. Rubino, III
`NY Bar No. 4557435
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 217 Filed 02/21/19 Page 2 of 42 PageID #: 18886
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Email: vrubino@brownrudnick.com
`Alessandra C. Messing
`NY Bar No. 5040019
`Email: amessing@brownrudnick.com
`Shahar Harel
`NY Bar No. 4573192
`Email: sharel@brownrudnick.com
`John A. Rubino
`NY Bar No. 5020797
`Email: jrubino@brownrudnick.com
`Enrique W. Iturralde
`NY Bar No. 5526280
`Email: eiturralde@brownrudnick.com
`Daniel J. Shea, Jr.
`NY Bar No. 5430558
`Email: dshea@brownrudnick.com
`Justine Minseon Park
`NY Bar No. 5604483
`Email: apark@brownrudnick.com
`BROWN RUDNICK LLP
`7 Times Square
`New York, NY 10036
`Telephone: 212-209-4800
`Facsimile: 212-209-4801
`
`Samuel F. Baxter
`Texas State Bar No. 01938000
`Email: sbaxter@mckoolsmith.com
`Jennifer L. Truelove
`Texas State Bar No. 24012906
`Email: jtruelove@mckoolsmith.com
`McKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`104 East Houston Street, Suite 300
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`Telephone: 903-923-9000
`Facsimile: 903-923-9099
`
`LG Electronics, Inc.
`
`J. Mark Mann (SBN: 12926150)
`G. Blake Thompson (SBN: 24042033)
`MANN TINDEL THOMPSON
`300 West Main Street
`Henderson, Texas 75652
`Tel: (903) 657-8540
`mark@themannfirm.com
`
`2
`
`2.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 217 Filed 02/21/19 Page 3 of 42 PageID #: 18887
`
`
`
`
`
`blake@themannfirm.com
`
`Michael A. Berta
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`Three Embarcadero Center, 10th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111-4024
`Tel: (415) 471-3277
`Michael.Berta@arnoldporter.com
`
`Matthew M. Wolf
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`601 Massachusetts Ave, NW
`Washington, DC 20001-3743
`Tel: (202) 942-5000
`Matthew.Wolf@arnoldporter.com
`
`James S. Blackburn
`Nicholas H. Lee
`Justin J. Chi
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`777 South Figueroa Street, 44th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90017-5844
`Tel: (213) 243-4156
`James.Blackburn@arnoldporter.com
`Nicholas.Lee@arnoldporter.com
`Justin.Chi@arnoldporter.com
`
`Bonnie Phan
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`3000 El Camino Real
`Five Palo Alto Square, Suite 500
`Palo Alto, CA 94306-3807
`Tel: (650) 319-4500
`Bonnie.Phan@arnoldporter.com
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 217 Filed 02/21/19 Page 4 of 42 PageID #: 18888
`
`
`
`A.
`
`STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
`
`and 1338(a) because this action arises under the patent laws of the United States, including 35
`
`U.S.C. § 1 et seq. For the purpose of this action, AGIS contends that this Court has personal
`
`jurisdiction over the parties. LG Korea disputes that this Court has personal jurisdiction over it
`
`in this District. LG Korea does not waive any, and reserves all rights to challenge personal
`
`jurisdiction Further, to the extent there is personal jurisdiction over LG Korea, any such
`
`jurisdiction is limited solely to the acts in Texas that are alleged to create specific jurisdiction.
`
`LG will not contest venue at trial separate from its arguments regarding the court’s lack of
`
`personal jurisdiction.
`
`B.
`
`NATURE OF ACTION
`
`Plaintiff AGIS alleges that Defendant LG Korea directly infringes and/or indirectly
`
`infringes U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970 (the “’970 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 9,408,055 (the “’055
`
`patent”), U.S. Patent No. 9,445,251 (the “’251 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838 (the
`
`“’838 patent”) (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”), by making, using, selling, offering for sale
`
`and/or importing into the United States certain Android-based phones and tablets, based on
`
`certain software on those devices. AGIS further alleges that LG Korea willfully infringes the
`
`Patents-in-Suit. AGIS alleges that it is entitled to damages from the issue date forward for each
`
`patent-in-suit, which is July 3, 2012 for the ’970 patent, August 2, 2016 for the ’055 patent,
`
`September 13, 2016 for the ‘251 patent, and October 11, 2016 for the ’838 patent.
`
`LG Korea contends that there is no infringement of any of the asserted patents and that
`
`each of the asserted claims of the patents is invalid.
`
`1.
`
`AGIS’s Statement Regarding the Description of the Case
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 217 Filed 02/21/19 Page 5 of 42 PageID #: 18889
`
`
`
`Plaintiff AGIS alleges that Defendant LG directly infringes and/or indirectly infringes
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970 (the “’970 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 9,408,055 (the “’055 patent”),
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,445,251 (the “’251 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838 (the “’838 patent”)
`
`(collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”), by making, using, selling, offering for sale and/or importing
`
`into the United States Android-based phones and tablets, including but not limited to V30 (H931,
`
`LS998U, H932, H932U, VS996, US998, AS998), X charge (US601, SP320, M327, M322), Q6
`
`(US700), G6+ (US997U), G6 (US997, VS988, AS993, H871, H872, LS993), Fiesta 2 (L173BL,
`
`L164VL), V20 (LS997, H910, H918, US996, VS995), X venture (US701, H700), Stylo 3
`
`(LS777), Stylo 3 Plus (MP450, TP450), Tribute HD (LS676), Rebel 2 (L57BL, L58BL, L58VL),
`
`Fiesta LTE (L63BL, L64VL), Stylo 3 LTE (L83BL, L84VL), K20 plus (MP260, TP260), Grace
`
`LTE (L59BL), K3 (AS110, US110, LS450), Stylo 3 (LS777, M430), Phoenix 3 (M150), Risio 2
`
`(M154), K8 2017 (US215), Stylo 2 V (VS835), K20 (M255, RS501), K20 V (VS501), Aristo
`
`(M210), Harmony (M257), G5 (VS987, AS992, H820, H830, LS992, RS988, US992), G5
`
`(VS987, AS992, H820, H830, LS992, RS988, US992), Aristo Silver (MS210), Aristo Cobalt
`
`Blue (MS210UK), Stylo 2 Plus (MS550BK, K550), Fortune (M153), Tribute HD (LS676), X
`
`power (K212, K450, LS755, US610), K10 (MS428, K425, K428SG), Stylo 2 (LS775, K540), G
`
`Vista (VS880), Escape 3 (K373), Classic (L18VC), Rebel LTE (L43AL, L44VL), Treasure LTE
`
`(L51AL, L52VL), Premier LTE (L61AL, L62VL), Stylo 2 LTE (L82VL), K7 (MS330, AS375,
`
`K330), K8 (RS500, US375), G4 (US991), K4 (VS425), Optimus Zone 3 (VS425PP), K8 V
`
`(VS500, VS500PP), Phoenix 2 (K371), Tribute 5 (LS675), Spree (K120), G Vista 2 (H740),
`
`Escape 2 (H443), Risio (H343), Access TE (L31L), Leon LTE (H345, MS345), G Stylo (H631,
`
`MS631, H634, LS770), Volt 2 (LS751), Tribute 2 (LS665), Escape 2 (H445), Logos (US550),
`
`Transpyre (VS810PP), G3 (D850, LS990, D851, AS985, VS985, AS990, US990), Ultimate 2
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 217 Filed 02/21/19 Page 6 of 42 PageID #: 18890
`
`
`
`(L41C), Tribute (LS660), G3 Vigor (D725), Realm (LS620), G Vista (D631), Volt (LS740),
`
`Optimus Fuel (L34C), Optimus L90 (D415), Optimus F3Q (D520), D820, G2 (VS9801, D800,
`
`D801, LS980), Optimus F6 (D500), Enact (VS890), Optimus F3 (VM720, LS720), Rumor
`
`Reflex S (LN272S), Optimus F7 (LG870, US780), Optimus F5 (AS870), Optimus G Pro (E980),
`
`Lucid2 (VS870), Spirit 3G (MS870), LGE960 (LGE960), Optimus REGARD (LW770), Mach
`
`(LS860), Optimus G (LS970, E970), Optimus L9 (P769), Venice (LG730), Escape (P870),
`
`Spectrum 2 (VS930), Splendor (US730), Intuition (VS950), Motion 4 (MS770), Optimus Plus
`
`(AS695), Elite (LS696), Viper (LS840), Optimus M+ (MS695), Lucid (VS840), Nitro (P930),
`
`Spectrum (VS920), Marquee (LG855), Connect 4G(MS830), Optimus Q (LGL55C), Optimus 2
`
`(AS680), Ignite (AS855), myTouch Q (LGC800DG, LGC800VL), Optimus One (P504),
`
`myTouch (LGE739BK), DoublePlay (C729), Optimus Slider (VM701), Esteem (MS910),
`
`Enlighten (VS700), Marquee (LS855), Thrill 4G (P925), Revolution (VS910), Genesis (US760),
`
`G2x (P999), Thrive (P506), Phoenix (P505), Optimus C (LW690), Optimus V (WM670),
`
`Optimus U (US670), Optimus M (MS690), Axis (LGAS740), Apex (US740), Vortex (VS660),
`
`Optimus S (LS670), Optimus T (P509), Ally (VS740), G Pad F2 8.0 (LK460), G Pad X II 8.0
`
`Plus (V530), G Pad X II 10.1 (UK750), G Pad F 8.0 2nd Gen (AK495, UK495), G Pad X 8.0
`
`(V520, V521), G Pad II 10.1 Full HD (V940N), G Pad X 10.1 (V930), G Pad II 8.0 HD+
`
`(V498), G Pad 8.0 (V480), G Pad 10.1 (V700), G Pad 7.0 (V400), G Pad F 8.0 1st Gen (AK495,
`
`V495, V496, UK495), G Pad X 8.3 (VK815, VK810), G Pad F 7.0 (LK430), G Pad 7.0 LTE
`
`(VK410, UK410, V410), G Pad 10.1 LTE (VK700), G Pad 8.3 Google Play Edition (V510), G
`
`Pad 8.3 Black (V500), LG: G7 ThinQ , V30S ThinQ, Zone 4, K30, K10 (2018), K8 (2018),
`
`Aristo 2, X4+, V30, Q8, Q6, G Pad IV 8.0 FHD, X venture, G6, X power2, Stylus 3, G Pad III
`
`10.1 FHD, U, X Skin, X5, X max, X mach, G Pad III 8.0 FHD, G Pad X 8.0, X power, Stylus 2
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 217 Filed 02/21/19 Page 7 of 42 PageID #: 18891
`
`
`
`Plus, K5, G5 SE, X cam, X screen, K8, Stylus 2, G Pad II 8.3 LTE, V10, Ray, V10, G Pad II
`
`10.1, G Pad II 8.0 LTE, Wine Smart, Bello II, G4 Beat, G360, G350, G4c, G4 Dual, G Stylo, G4
`
`Stylus, AKA, Magna, Spirit, Leon, Joy, G Flex2, L Prime, G2 Lite, G3 Dual-LTE, G3 Screen,
`
`F60, L60, L60 Dual, G3 Stylus, L Bello, L Fino, G Pad 8.0 LTE, G Vista, G3 A, L50, L30, L20,
`
`G Vista (CDMA), G3 LTE-A, G3 S Dual, G3 S, L65 D280, G3 (CDMA), 450,L35, Volt, L80,
`
`L80 Dual, Lucid 3 VS876, L65 Dual D285, G Pad 8.3 LTE, F70 D315, G2 mini LTE (Tegra),
`
`G2 mini LTE, G2 mini, L90 Dual D410, L90 D405, L70 D320N,L70 Dual D325, L45 Dual
`
`X132, L40 D160, L40 Dual D170, G Pro 2, Optimus L4 II Tri E470, Optimus L1 II Tri E475, G
`
`Flex, Fireweb, G Pro Lite, G Pro Lite Dual, Optimus L2 II E435, Vu 3 F300L, G Pad
`
`8.3,Optimus L9 II, Optimus Gj E975W, Optimus L4 II Dual E445, Optimus L4 II E440,
`
`Optimus Zone VS410, Optimus G Pro E985, OptimusL7 II Dual P715, Optimus L7 II P710,
`
`Optimus L5 II Dual E455, Optimus L5 II E460, Optimus L3 II Dual E435, Optimus L3 II E430,
`
`Optimus L1 II E410, Optimus Vu II, Optimus Vu II F200, Optimus G E975, Optimus L5 Dual
`
`E615, Optimus L9 P760, Motion 4G MS770, Optimus Vu P895, Optimus Elite LS696, Optimus
`
`LTE2, Optimus True HD LTE P936, Xpression C395, Lucid 4G VS840, Optimus 4X HD P880,
`
`Optimus 3D Max P720, Optimus 3D Cube SU870, Optimus L7 P700, Optimus L5 E610,
`
`Optimus Vu F100S, Optimus LTE Tag, Optimus L3 E400, Optimus Pad LTE, Rumor Reflex
`
`LN272, Connect 4G MS840, Viper 4G LTE LS840, X350, Prada 3.0, Nitro HD, Optimus 4G
`
`LTE P935, Extravert VN271, S367, Jil Sander Mobile, Optimus LTE SU640, Optimus LTE
`
`LU6200, Optimus EX SU880, Optimus SU880 Optimus Q2 Lu6500, Optimus Hub E510,
`
`Optimus Sol E730, Optimus Net Dual, Optimus Net, Optimus Black (White version), Optimus
`
`Pro C66, and any variants thereof that are (1) running the following versions (and all intervening
`
`updates and subversions) of the Android mobile operating system: Android 2.3, 4.0, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3,
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 217 Filed 02/21/19 Page 8 of 42 PageID #: 18892
`
`
`
`4.4, 5.0, 5.1, 6.0, 7.0, 7.1, 8.0, and 8.1; (2) running any versions of the following Android-based
`
`applications and/or software: Android Device Manager, Find My Phone, Find My Device,
`
`Google Latitude, Google Plus, Google Hangouts, Google Maps, Google Assistant, Google
`
`Search, Google Messages, Android Messenger, Google Allo, Google Duo, GMail, and Google
`
`Chrome; (3) participating in any networks and/or services related to the execution and/or use of
`
`the Android mobile operating system versions and Android-based applications and/or software
`
`described herein; and (4) participating in any networks and/or services related to the execution
`
`and/or use of the Android mobile operating system versions and Android-based applications
`
`and/or software described herein (collectively, the “Accused Devices”), all of which are pre-
`
`configured or adapted with map-based communication applications and/or features such as
`
`Google Maps, Android Device Manager, Find My Phone, Find My Device, Google Chrome
`
`Google Messages, Android Messenger, Google Hangouts, Google Plus, and Google Latitude,
`
`among other relevant applications and/or features relevant to the patents-in-suit. The Accused
`
`Devices include software, including but not limited to the above-listed applications and/or
`
`features as components of its operating system and as downloads from a pre-installed application
`
`store, such as the Play Store, in the Accused Devices. The Accused Devices include
`
`functionality that allows users to form groups with other users such that users may view each
`
`other’s locations on a map and engage in communication including text, voice, and multimedia
`
`based communication. AGIS also alleges that LG indirectly infringes by way induced
`
`infringement of the ’970 patent, the ’055 patent, the ’251 patent, and the ’838 patent. AGIS
`
`further alleges that LG willfully infringes the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`The Patents-in-Suit are directed to location sharing and communications technology. The
`
`technology uses GPS-based location technology on existing or special-purpose cellular
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 217 Filed 02/21/19 Page 9 of 42 PageID #: 18893
`
`
`
`communication networks through which users can exchange location and information with other
`
`members of a group, view each other’s locations on maps and satellite images, and rapidly
`
`communicate. A device joins a group and begins transmitting and receiving location
`
`information. Location updates show updated positions of group members or users on a
`
`geographical map, and devices can add points to such map and transmit location information as
`
`well as message through the map display.
`
`AGIS alleges that LG has sold multiple generations of cell phones and tablets that are
`
`pre-configured or adapted with map-based communication applications and/or features such as,
`
`but not limited to: Google Maps, Android Device Manager, Find My Phone, Find My Device,
`
`Google Chrome, Google Messages, Android Messenger, Google Hangouts, Google Plus, and
`
`Google Latitude. The Accused Devices include functionalities that allow users to form groups
`
`with other users and/or Accused Devices, to view the geographical locations, which may be
`
`continuously updated, of other users and/or Accused Devices in the groups, including text, voice,
`
`and multimedia-based communications. The Accused Devices include additional functionalities
`
`that allow users to form groups to include their own Accused Devices and track their own lost or
`
`stolen Accused Devices, to send and receive communications from their own lost or stolen
`
`Accused Devices, and to remotely control the lost or stolen Accused Devices.
`
`AGIS alleges that LG induces the infringement of the Patents-in-Suit by, among other
`
`things, making, using, offering to sell, selling and/or importing into the United States the
`
`infringing Accused Devices and by instructing users of the Accused Devices to perform methods
`
`claimed in the Patents-in-Suit. AGIS alleges that LG induces the infringement of the Patents-in-
`
`Suit by instructing users of the Accused Devices to use the Google Maps, Google Plus, Google
`
`Hangouts, Google Chrome, Android Device Manager, and Find My Device applications on
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 217 Filed 02/21/19 Page 10 of 42 PageID #: 18894
`
`
`
`Accused Devices and/or to upgrade the Android operating system on the LG Accused Devices
`
`such that the LG Accused Devices are configured to infringe the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`AGIS alleges that it is entitled to damages from the issue date forward for each patent-in-
`
`suit, which is July 3, 2012 for the ’970 patent, August 2, 2016 for the ’055 patent, September 13,
`
`2016 for the ‘251 patent, and October 11, 2016 for the ’838 patent. Currently, LG has alleged
`
`invalidity based on 17 prior art references, a volume that AGIS contends is unreasonably large
`
`and will confuse and overwhelm the jury.
`
`2.
`
`LG Korea’s Response to AGIS’s Statement Regarding the Description of the
`Case
`
`AGIS has alleged that certain LG devices directly and/or indirectly infringe U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,213,970 (the “’970 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 9,408,055 (the “’055 patent”), U.S. Patent
`
`No. 9,445,251 (the “’251 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838 (the “’838 patent”)
`
`(collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”) based on limited functionality found in the Google Find My
`
`Device application and the Google Maps application.
`
`AGIS began its case against LG Korea by alleging infringement of 151 claims from the
`
`Patents-In-Suit. In its final election of asserted claims, served on August 15, 2018, AGIS
`
`maintained 38 of those 151 claims for trial. Those 38 claims, however, implicate 54 total claims
`
`given that the majority of AGIS’s final election were dependent claims, which, in turn, depend
`
`from numerous un-elected claims, including all the originally asserted independent claims. AGIS
`
`accuses Defendant of relying upon an “unreasonable large” volume of prior art references. But
`
`this flows directly from its decision to assert 54 claims at trial. LG Korea contends that
`
`presenting that many claims in the proposed trial time is realistically unworkable.
`
`LG Korea disputes AGIS’s characterization of the case, particularly as it relates to the
`
`Google applications and systems that are at issue in this case. Herein, AGIS purports to have put
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 217 Filed 02/21/19 Page 11 of 42 PageID #: 18895
`
`
`
`at issue any LG device that is:
`
`(1) running the following versions (and all intervening updates and subversions)
`of the Android mobile operating system: Android 2.3, 4.0, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 5.0,
`5.1, 6.0, 7.0, 7.1, 8.0, and 8.1;
`
`(2) running any versions of the following Android-based applications and/or
`software: Android Device Manager, Find My Phone1, Find My Device, Google
`Latitude, Google Plus, Google Hangouts, Google Maps, Google Assistant, Google
`Search, Google Messages, Android Messenger, Google Allo, Google Duo, GMail,
`and Google Chrome;
`
`(3) participating in any networks and/or services related to the execution and/or
`use of the Android mobile operating system versions and Android-based
`applications and/or software described herein; and
`
`(4) participating in any networks and/or services related to the execution and/or
`use of the Android mobile operating system versions and Android-based
`applications and/or software described herein.
`
`And, AGIS claims further that its case puts at issue any LG device that includes
`
`applications and/or features “as downloads from a pre-installed application store.”
`
`This is not an accurate reflection of AGIS’s infringement contentions. AGIS’s
`
`infringement contentions rely on functionality found in Google Maps and Find My Device as
`
`standalone applications (see Case No. 17-cv-00514-JRG, D.I. 155). However, because Find My
`
`Device is not installed on LG phones at any point during the manufacturing and sale process (and
`
`thus cannot be a basis for a direct infringement claim against LG Korea (see Case No. 17-cv-
`
`00514-JRG, D.I. 112)), the only standalone Google application that should be at issue in this
`
`case is Google Maps.
`
`Further, because AGIS’s claim for indirect infringement against LG Korea depends upon
`
`a misplaced theory regarding the installation of updates to the Android OS operating system (and
`
`
`1 “Find My Phone” is not installed at any point in the sale process, and is not a Google
`application. AGIS’s infringement contentions did not use the words “Find My Phone” (Case No.
`17-cv-513-JRG, D.I. 68 at 19, n.8), and AGIS has not explained why it is nevertheless
`attempting to include that application here or what that application is.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 217 Filed 02/21/19 Page 12 of 42 PageID #: 18896
`
`
`
`not Google Maps or Find My Device as standalone applications), and where AGIS does not have
`
`any claim of infringement against the Android OS operating system (D.I. 155), it follows that it
`
`cannot have any valid claim for indirect infringement. Furthermore, there is no evidence
`
`indicating that LG Korea had any pre-suit knowledge of infringement sufficient to create liability
`
`for indirect infringement or that LG Korea had taken any action to induce or contribute to
`
`infringement of the use of the accused functionality in Google Maps and Find My Device as
`
`standalone Google applications. (Case No. 17-cv-00514-JRG, D.I. 119.)
`
`Finally, AGIS has not, and cannot, adduce any evidence of an infringing act by LG Korea
`
`in the United States. (See Case No. 17-cv-00514-JRG, D.I. 119.) Thus, AGIS cannot prove
`
`direct infringement. AGIS also contends that LG Korea willfully infringed the Patents-In-Suit.
`
`AGIS’s sole basis for willful infringement against LG Korea is a citation to the ’838 patent in a
`
`Korean patent application as well as citations in that patent application and other patent
`
`applications to un-asserted patents from third-party Advance Ground Information Systems, Inc.
`
`(“AGIS Inc.”). As stated above with respect to AGIS’s claims of indirect infringement, there is
`
`no evidence that LG Korea had the requisite knowledge for liability. (Case No. 17-cv-00514-
`
`JRG, D.I. 119.) And, even if mere knowledge of one of the asserted patents alone was enough to
`
`establish willful infringement (which it is not, see, e.g., Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.,
`
`136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016)), it is legally insufficient to put LG Korea on notice of alleged
`
`infringement of that patent. This is especially true given that AGIS’s infringement claims are
`
`based on the internal workings of third-party, proprietary Google applications on LG phones.
`
`AGIS has no viable claim for willful infringement.
`
`LG Korea denies AGIS’s infringement allegations and further contends that the Patents-
`
`In-Suit are invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112. AGIS is not entitled to any of
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 217 Filed 02/21/19 Page 13 of 42 PageID #: 18897
`
`
`
`the relief it requests, including, for instance, damages or injunctive relief (because it does not
`
`satisfy the requirements established by eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (2006)).
`
`And, LG Korea seeks attorneys’ fees given that the facts and circumstances unique to this case
`
`render it exceptional.
`
`C.
`
`CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`AGIS’s Statement of its Contentions
`
`By providing these contentions, AGIS does not concede that all of these issues are
`
`appropriate for trial. In addition, AGIS does not waive any of its motions in limine.
`
`1.
`
`In this case, AGIS contends that LG is directly infringing and/or indirectly
`
`infringing claims 1, 3, 5, and 8 of the ’970 patent under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 and 281-285, by
`
`making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing products with patented AGIS
`
`technology.
`
`2.
`
`AGIS holds all right, title and interest to the ’970 patent and has standing to bring
`
`this suit. AGIS possesses all rights of recovery under the ’970 patent.
`
`3.
`
`The ’970 patent’s application is a continuation-in-part of application No.
`
`11/612,830, filed on December 19, 2006, now Patent No. 2,853,273, which is a continuation-in-
`
`part of application No. 11/308,648, filed on April 17, 2006, now Patent No. 7,630,724, which is
`
`a continuation-in-part of application No. 10/711,490, filed on September 21, 2004, now Patent
`
`No. 7,031,728, and which issued as the ’970 patent.
`
`4.
`
`In this case, AGIS contends that LG is directly infringing and/or indirectly
`
`infringing claims 1, 2, 7, 22, 24, 28, 32, 36, 42, 49, and 54 of the ’055 patent under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 271 and 281-285, either literally or, in the alternative, under the doctrine of equivalents, by
`
`making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing products with patented AGIS
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 217 Filed 02/21/19 Page 14 of 42 PageID #: 18898
`
`
`
`technology.
`
`5.
`
`AGIS holds all right, title and interest to the ’055 patent and has standing to bring
`
`this suit. AGIS possesses all rights of recovery under the ’055 patent.
`
`6.
`
`The ’055 patent’s application is a continuation of application No. 14/529,978,
`
`filed on October 31, 2014, now Patent No. 8,467,838, which is a continuation-in-part of
`
`application No. 14/027,410, filed on September 16, 2013, now Patent No. 8,880,042, which is a
`
`continuation of application No. 13/751,453, filed on January 28, 2013, now Patent No,
`
`8,538,393, which is a continuation-in-part of application No. 12/761,533, filed on April 16,
`
`2010, now Patent No. 8,364,129, which is a continuation-in-part of application No. 11/615,472,
`
`filed on December 22, 2006, now Patent No. 8,126,441, which is a continuation-in-part of
`
`application No. 11/308,648, filed on April 17, 2006, now Patent No. 7,630,724, which is a
`
`continuation-in-part of application No. 10/711,490, filed on September 21, 2004, now Patent No.
`
`7,031,728, and which issued as the ’055 patent.
`
`7.
`
`In this case, AGIS contends that LG is directly infringing and/or indirectly
`
`infringing claims 1, 5, 6, 12, 15, 19, 24, 27, 29, 31, and 35 of the ’251 patent under 35 U.S.C. §§
`
`271 and 281-285, either literally or, in the alternative, under the doctrine of equivalents, by
`
`making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing products with patented AGIS
`
`technology.
`
`8.
`
`AGIS holds all right, title and interest to the ’251 patent and has standing to bring
`
`this suit. AGIS possesses all rights of recovery under the ’251 patent.
`
`9.
`
`The ’251 patent’s application is a continuation of application No. 14/529,978,
`
`filed on October 31, 2014, now Patent No. 9,467,838, which is a continuation-in-part of
`
`application No. 14/027,410, filed on September 16, 2013, now Patent No. 8,880,042, which is a
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 217 Filed 02/21/19 Page 15 of 42 PageID #: 18899
`
`
`
`continuation of application No. 13/751,453, filed on January 28, 2013, now Patent No,
`
`8,538,393, which is a continuation-in-part of application No. 12/761,533, filed on April 16,
`
`2010, now Patent No. 8,364,129, which is a continuation-in-part of application No. 11/615,472,
`
`filed on December 22, 2006, now Patent No. 8,126,441, which is a continuation-in-part of
`
`application No. 11/308,648, filed on April 17, 2006, now Patent No. 7,630,724, which is a
`
`continuation-in-part of application No. 10/711,490, filed on September 21, 2004, now Patent No.
`
`7,031,728, and which issued as the ’251 patent.
`
`10.
`
`In this case, AGIS contends that LG is directly infringing and/or indirectly
`
`infringing claims 1, 5, 7, 10, 15, 18, 19, 20, 27, 38, 40, and 54 of the ’838 patent under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 271 and AGIS technology, either literally or, in the alternative, under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents, by making, using, offering for sale, selling, and/or importing products with patented
`
`AGIS technology.
`
`11.
`
`AGIS holds all right, title and interest to the ’838 patent and has standing to bring
`
`this suit. AGIS possesses all rights of recovery under the ’838 patent.
`
`12.
`
`The ’838 patent’s application is a continuation-in-part of application No.
`
`14/027,410, filed on September 16, 2013, now Patent No. 8,880,042, which is a continuation of
`
`application No. 13/751,453, filed on January 28, 2013, now Patent No, 8,538,393, which is a
`
`continuation-in-part of application No. 12/761,533, filed on April 16, 2010, now Patent No.
`
`8,364,129, which is a continuation-in-part of application No. 11/615,472, filed on December 22,
`
`2006, now Patent No. 8,126,441, which is a continuation-in-part of application No. 11/308,648,
`
`filed on April 17, 2006, now Patent No. 7,630,724, which is a continuation-in-part of application
`
`No. 10/711,490, filed on September 21, 2004, now Patent No. 7,031,728, and which issued as the
`
`’838 patent.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 217 Filed 02/21/19 Page 16 of 42 PageID #: 18900
`
`
`
`13.
`
`AGIS contends that it has been damaged by LG’s conduct and seeks pre-verdict,
`
`post-verdict, and post-judgment damages, and an accounting, if necessary, to compensate for the
`
`infringement by LG, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty, together with prejudgment
`
`and post-judgment interest and costs as fixed by the Court.
`
`14.
`
`AGIS contends that LG has willfully infringed the Patents-in-Suit and
`
`accordingly, that it is entitled to enhanced damages.
`
`15.
`
`AGIS asserts that certain claim elements may be satisfied under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents.
`
`16.
`
`AGIS contends that this case is exceptional and that AGIS is entitled to
`
`reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs (and consultant fees and costs) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`17.
`
`18.
`
`AGIS denies LG’s defenses and contends that LG’s defenses are without merit.
`
`AGIS denies that LG is entitled to its costs, or a declaration that this case is
`
`exceptional and its attorneys’ fees.
`
`2.
`
`LG Korea’s Statement of its Contentions
`
`By providing these contentions, LG Korea does not concede that all of these issues are
`
`appropriate for trial. In particular, LG Korea does not waive any of its motions in limine,
`
`motions for summary judgment, Daubert motions or motions to strike, which, if granted, would
`
`eliminate some or all of these issues. LG Korea’s contentions in this case are detailed in part in
`
`various documents exchanged or filed throughout this case, including, but not limited to, LG
`
`Korea’s answers and affirmative defenses, LG Korea’s motions filed in this case, including
`
`pending motions (see Part G below), such as motions for summary judgment, motions to strike,
`
`and motions in limine, LG Korea’s invalidity contentions, and LG Korea’s expert reports, which
`
`are all incorporated by reference herein. In addition, the court has entered a claim construction
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 217 Filed 02/21/19 Page 17 of 42 PageID #: 18901
`
`
`
`order governing the construction of claim terms in the ’970 patent, ’055 patent, ’251 patent, and
`
`’838 patent. (Case No. 17-cv-00513, D.I. 205; Case No. 17-cv-00514, D.I. 93.) LG does not
`
`waive any objections relating to the court’s claim construction order and expressly preserves any
`
`arguments in its claim construction briefing. (See Case No. 17-cv-00513, D.I. 174, 175, 194,
`
`205; Case No. 17-cv-00514, D.I. 93.) In sum, LG Korea contends the following:
`
`1.
`
`There is no specific or general personal jurisdiction over LG Korea for purposes
`
`of this action.
`
`2.
`
`LG Korea does not infringe and has not infringed, either directly or indirectly
`
`whether literally or, to the extent applicable, under the doctrine of equivalents, any asserted
`
`claim of the ’970 patent.
`
`3.
`
`LG Korea does not infringe and has not infringed, either directly or indirectly
`
`whether literally or, to the extent applicable, under the doctrine of equivalents, any asserted
`
`claim of the ’055 patent.
`
`4.
`
`LG Korea does not infringe and has not infringed, either directly or indirectly
`
`whether literally or, to the extent applicable, under the doctrine of equivalents, any asserted
`
`claim of the ’251 patent.
`
`5.
`
`LG Korea does not infringe and has not infringed, either directly or indirectly
`
`whether literally or, to the extent applicable, under the doctrine of equivalents, any asserted
`
`claim of the ‘838 patent.
`
`6.
`
`The asserted claims of the ’970 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because
`
`they are directed to abstract ideas or other non-statutory subject matter, under 35 U.S.C. § 102
`
`as anticipated by the prior art, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as