Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 230 Filed 02/25/19 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 19790
`
`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
`(CONSOLIDATED 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 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT U.S. PATENT NO. 7,630,724 MAY NOT BE RELIED
`UPON TO SHOW THAT U.S. APPLICATION NO. 14/027,410 PROVIDES WRITTEN
`DESCRIPTION SUPPORT FOR U.S. PATENT NOS. 9,408,055; 9,445,251; AND 9,467, 838
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 230 Filed 02/25/19 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 19791
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.,
`No. 5:12-cv-00630-LHK, 2014 WL 252045 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2014) ................................1, 2
`
`Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co.,
`576 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................................................................................................1
`
`Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd.,
`535 U.S. 722 (2002) ...................................................................................................................2
`
`Husky Injection Molding Sys. Ltd. v. Athena Automation Ltd.,
`838 F.3d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................1
`
`Northrop Grumann Info. Tech., Inc. v. United States,
`535 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................................2
`
`Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Zynga, Inc.,
`No. 2:12-cv-00068, Dkt. 229 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 8, 2013) ............................................................2
`
`Smartflash LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`77 F. Supp. 3d 535 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 4, 2014) ............................................................................2
`
`Other Authorities
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.57(c)...........................................................................................................................1
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 230 Filed 02/25/19 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 19792
`
`AGIS agrees that incorporation by reference requires “(1) clear intent to incorporate by
`
`reference, using, for example, ‘incorporated by reference,’ and (2) a clear identification of the
`
`referenced patent . . . .” (D.I. 173 at 4.) However, AGIS essentially argues that these
`
`requirements are entirely separate from one another because, for a “clear identification” of the
`
`’724 Patent, AGIS points to the ’410 Application’s “Cross Reference to Related Applications”
`
`section, which does not include the words “incorporate” and “reference” or any other language
`
`conveying a “clear intent to incorporate by reference.” (D.I. 106-6 at [0001].) That is not the
`
`law. The identified patent must be “reference[d]” by the incorporation statement. 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 1.57(c). That is precisely what the applicant did not do with respect to the ’724 Patent. Thus,
`
`the only inference available from this section is that the ’724 Patent is not incorporated by
`
`reference. Cf. Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 5:12-cv-00630-LHK, 2014 WL
`
`252045, at *21-22 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2014) (finding incorporation by reference where patentee
`
`both cross-referenced and expressly incorporated related applications by reference).1
`
`Other than the irrelevant “Cross Reference” section, all that remains is the “incorporated
`
`by reference” phrase later in the specification, which clearly and unambiguously “reference[s]”
`
`only the ’728 patent: “The method and operation of communication devices used herein are
`
`described in U.S. Pat. No. 7,031,728 which is hereby incorporated by reference and U.S. Pat. No.
`
`7,630,724.” (D.I. 106-6 at [0005].) The law requires “clear intent,” not guesswork. As stated by
`
`the PTAB, “Patent Owner is responsible for the use of this particular phrasing . . . and was in the
`
`best position to clarify any possible ambiguity.” (See, e.g., D.I. 106-7 at 20.) AGIS cannot
`
`1 AGIS’s cases are distinguishable. In Callaway Golf Co. v. Acushnet Co., 576 F.3d 1331, 1346-
`47 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the Court assessed whether compositions in a prior art reference were
`incorporated, not the art itself. In Husky Injection Molding Sys. Ltd. v. Athena Automation Ltd.,
`838 F.3d 1236, 1248 (Fed. Cir. 2016), an incorporation statement expressly referenced all of the
`identified patents, not just one. No such statement is found here.
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 230 Filed 02/25/19 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 19793
`
`rewrite it now. See Smartflash LLC v. Apple Inc., 77 F. Supp. 3d 535, 561 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 4,
`
`2014) (finding claim invalid as indefinite because “‘[c]ourts do not rewrite claims; instead we
`
`give effect to the terms chosen by the patentee’”). Patentees must describe their inventions in
`
`“full, clear, concise, and exact terms” to give the public notice of what is owned. Festo Corp. v.
`
`Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., 535 U.S. 722, 730-31 (2002).
`
`AGIS’s reliance on non-patent contract cases pertaining to ambiguities is misplaced.
`
`(D.I. 173 at 5.) In this context, the Federal Circuit confirms that “the incorporating contract must
`
`use language that is express and clear, so as to leave no ambiguity about the identity of the
`
`document being referenced, nor any reasonable doubt about the fact that the referenced
`
`document is being incorporated . . . .” Northrop Grumann Info. Tech., Inc. v. United States, 535
`
`F.3d 1339, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Here, where the clear language expressly does not incorporate
`
`the ’724 Patent, there is no evidence to support a contrary conclusion. AGIS’s argument that
`
`admission of the PTAB’s decisions is prejudicial is also misplaced. In the case AGIS cites, the
`
`Court found prejudice where the defendant sought to introduce pending IPRs as evidence of its
`
`lack of intent to induce infringement after the Court had granted a motion in limine precluding
`
`the defendant from introducing evidence of the IPRs. Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v.
`
`Zynga, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-00068, Dkt. 229 at 1 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 8, 2013). Here, considering the
`
`PTAB decisions to decide this question of law is not prejudicial.
`
`Finally, AGIS says one of skill in the art could intuit that the ’724 Patent was meant to be
`
`incorporated by reference, citing its expert. (D.I. 173 at 6.) But in the case AGIS cites, the court
`
`concluded that an expert’s statement could not overcome unequivocal language in a specification
`
`as “incorporation by reference is a question of law.” Apple, 2014 WL 252045, at * 23.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, LG Korea’s motion for summary judgment should be granted.
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 230 Filed 02/25/19 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 19794
`
`Dated: February 25, 2019
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Michael A. Berta
`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
`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
`
`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
`
`Attorneys for Defendant LG Electronics Inc.
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 230 Filed 02/25/19 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 19795
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that counsel of record who are deemed to have
`
`consented to electronic services are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s
`
`CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on February 25, 2019.
`
`/s/ Michael A. Berta
` Michael A. Berta
`
`
`
`4
`
`