Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 233 Filed 02/27/19 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 19802
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`HTC CORPORATION,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`LG ELECTRONICS INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`Case No. 2:17-CV-0514-JRG
`(LEAD CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:17-CV-0515-JRG
`(CONSOLIDATED CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC’S SUR-REPLY
`IN OPPOSITION TO 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 233 Filed 02/27/19 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 19803
`
`
`
`LG agrees that the standard for 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. Dkt. 230 at 1. It is undisputed that the ’410 application
`
`satisfies the second part of this test and identifies the ’724 patent. Whether the ’410 application
`
`indicates a clear intent to incorporate the ’724 patent is a disputed material fact and the Court
`
`should consider how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the content
`
`within the four corners of the document itself. Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd., No. 5:12-
`
`cv-00630-LHK, 2014 WL 252045, at *23 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2014).
`
`
`
`The ’410 application itself provides sufficient evidence to establish incorporation. The
`
`incorporation statement unambiguously uses of the words “incorporated by reference,” and the
`
`record shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the statement to be an
`
`incorporation by reference. LG’s main contention--that the express recitation within the
`
`incorporation statement of the “’724 patent” could pertain to something other than an
`
`incorporation--lacks factual support within the four corners of the ’410 application. LG does not
`
`identify any alternative theory as to intent and LG’s conclusory assertions fail to show any
`
`ambiguity. As noted in AGIS’ opposition, the ’410 application identifies cross references to
`
`familial applications in a preceding paragraph. Thus, LG cannot argue that the reference to the
`
`’724 patent in the incorporation by reference statement is merely a cross reference. LG offers no
`
`additional evidence to support its allegation that the incorporation statement does not include the
`
`’724 patent. Dkt. 173 at 4.
`
`
`
`LG’s reliance on several cases is misplaced. In contrast to the plaintiff in Northrop,
`
`AGIS both identified the ’724 patent and expressly uses the language “incorporated by
`
`reference.” In fact, Northrop merely reinforces that the focus of the incorporation analysis is on
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 233 Filed 02/27/19 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 19804
`
`the document itself and how one of skill in the art would have understood it. Northrop
`
`Grumman Info. Tech., Inc. v. United States, 535 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2008). As noted
`
`above, it is undisputed that the ’410 application identifies the ’724 patent within the
`
`incorporation statement. See supra 1. LG’s citation to a Markman order in Smartflash LLC v.
`
`Apple Inc. is irrelevant because the citation is directed to interpreting the language of a claim
`
`term. 77 F. Supp. 3d 535, 561 (E.D. Tex. 2014). Similarly, LG fails to show the relevance of
`
`Festo which is a case concerning prosecution history estoppel. Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku
`
`Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., 535 U.S. 722 (2002). LG submits no case assessing the sufficiency
`
`of incorporation by reference. Finally, LG’s Reply provides no reason why the Board’s
`
`preliminary findings in IPR2018-00817, IPR2018-00819, and IPR2018-00818 are relevant to this
`
`case. The Board’s findings on written description and incorporation were based on a
`
`preliminary, incomplete record that did not include any expert testimony from AGIS and the case
`
`was dismissed before AGIS filed its statutory response. Accordingly, the evidence of record
`
`shows a clear intent to incorporate the ’724 patent into the ’410 application. LG fails to establish
`
`there are no genuine issues of material fact and, therefore, LG’s motion for summary judgment
`
`should be denied.
`
`Dated: February 27, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BROWN RUDNICK LLP
`
`
`
` /s/ Alfred R. Fabricant
`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
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 233 Filed 02/27/19 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 19805
`
`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
`Timothy J. Rousseau
`NY Bar No. 4698742
`Email: trousseau@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
`
`Rebecca MacDowell Lecaroz
`Massachusetts Bar No. 666860
`Email: rlecaroz@brownrudnick.com
`BROWN RUDNICK LLP
`One Financial Center
`Boston, MA 02111
`Telephone: (617) 856-8200
`Facsimile: (617) 856-8201
`
`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
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 233 Filed 02/27/19 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 19806
`
`Telephone: 903-923-9000
`Facsimile: 903-923-9099
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF, AGIS
`SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 233 Filed 02/27/19 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 19807
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that, on February 27, 2019, all counsel of record who
`
`are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document
`
`via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3).
`
`
`/s/ Alfred R. Fabricant
` Alfred R. Fabricant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`