Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 29 Filed 01/22/18 Page 1 of 34 PageID #: 166
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-cv-514-JRG
`(LEAD)
`
`
`HTC CORPORATION,
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Defendant.
`
`DEFENDANT HTC CORPORATION’S MOTION TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED.
`R. CIV. P. 12(B)(2) OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TRANSFER VENUE PURSUANT TO
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(A) TO THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 29 Filed 01/22/18 Page 2 of 34 PageID #: 167
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`C.
`D.
`
`B.
`
`Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1
`Factual background ............................................................................................................ 2
`A.
`Procedural background and AGIS’s ephemeral ties to East Texas ........................ 2
`B.
`HTC Corp. and its subsidiaries have no ties to the Eastern District of
`Texas ...................................................................................................................... 4
`1.
`HTC Corp. is a foreign corporation based in Taiwan ................................ 4
`2.
`HTC America is HTC Corp.’s American subsidiary ................................. 5
`3.
`HTC America Innovation, Inc. has offices in San Francisco .................... 5
`Third party Google is located in the Northern District of California .................... 6
`Other third parties either reside in the Northern District of California or
`outside the Eastern District of Texas ..................................................................... 6
`Legal standard .................................................................................................................... 7
`A.
`Personal jurisdiction standard ................................................................................ 7
`B.
`Transfer of venue ................................................................................................... 9
`Argument ......................................................................................................................... 11
`A.
`AGIS’s complaint should be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction ............ 11
`1.
`HTC Corp. is not subject to general jurisdiction in the Eastern
`District of Texas ....................................................................................... 11
`HTC Corp. is not subject to specific jurisdiction in the Eastern
`District of Texas ....................................................................................... 12
`HTC Corp. is not subject to personal jurisdiction under the stream
`of commerce theory ................................................................................. 13
`Exercise of jurisdiction over HTC Corp. would not be reasonable
`or fair ........................................................................................................ 14
`The Court should transfer this case to the Northern District of California
`under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) ................................................................................... 15
`1.
`The Court should disregard AGIS’s ephemeral contacts with Texas ...... 15
`2.
`AGIS could have brought suit in the Northern District of California ...... 16
`3.
`Private interest factors weigh in favor of transfer .................................... 16
`a.
`The relative ease of access to sources of proof favors
`transfer to the Northern District of California ............................. 16
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 29 Filed 01/22/18 Page 3 of 34 PageID #: 168
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`V.
`
`4.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`The availability of compulsory process to secure the
`attendance of witnesses favors the Northern District of
`California ..................................................................................... 19
`Convenience for witnesses favors transfer to the Northern
`District of California .................................................................... 20
`The Northern District of California is easier for practical
`purposes ....................................................................................... 23
`As a whole, the public interest factors favor transfer to the
`Northern District of California................................................................. 24
`Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 25
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 29 Filed 01/22/18 Page 4 of 34 PageID #: 169
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORIITES
`
`CASES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` PAGE(S)
`
`3D Sys., Inc. v. Aarotech Labs., Inc.,
`160 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 1998)..................................................................................................7
`
`3G Licensing, SA, et al. v. HTC Corp. et al,
`No. 17-83-LPS-CJB, D.I. 73 (D. Del. 2017) ...........................................................................14
`
`AFTG-TG, LLC v. Nuvoton Tech. Corp.,
`689 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..............................................................................................7, 9
`
`Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court of California, Solano Cty.,
`480 U.S. 102 (1987) .........................................................................................................8, 9, 13
`
`Autogenomics, Inc. v. Oxford Gene Tech. Ltd.,
`566 F.3d 1012 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................................................................................................7
`
`Beverly Hills Fan Co. v. Royal Sovereign Corp.,
`21 F.3d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1994)....................................................................................................9
`
`Blue Spike, LLC v. Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., et al,
`No. 6:13-cv-00679-RWS, 2016 WL 3951665 (E.D. Tex. 2016) ..................................... passim
`
`Blue Spike, LLC v. Texas Instruments, Inc.,
`6:12-CV-499, 2014 WL 11829323 (E.D. Tex. 2014) ........................................................7, 8, 9
`
`Blue Spike LLC v. Texas Instruments, Inc. et al.,
`6:12-cv-00499, 2013 WL 12062262 (E.D. Tex. 2014)..............................................................8
`
`Blue Spike LLC v. Texas Instruments, Inc. et al.,
`No. 6:12-cv-00499, 2014 WL 11858195 (E.D. Tex. 2014) .......................................................8
`
`Breckenridge Pharm., Inc. v. Metabolite Labs., Inc.,
`444 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..................................................................................................7
`
`Campbell Pet Co. v. Miale,
`542 F.3d 879 (Fed. Cir. 2008)....................................................................................................7
`
`Celgard, LLC v. SK Innovation Co., Ltd.,
`792 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2015)............................................................................................7, 12
`
`Cheetah Omni, LLC v. NP Photonics, Inc.,
`No. 6:13-cv-00418, 2014 WL 11709437 (E.D. Tex. 2014) .............................................7, 8, 12
`
`ColorQuick, L.L.C. v. Vistaprint Ltd.,
`No. 6:09-CV-323, 2010 WL 5136050 (E.D. Tex. Jul. 22, 2010) ............................................24
`
`-iii-
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 29 Filed 01/22/18 Page 5 of 34 PageID #: 170
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORIITES
`(continued)
`
`CASES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` PAGE(S)
`
`Daimler Ag v. Bauman,
`134 S. Ct. 746 (2014) ...........................................................................................................8, 11
`
`Dalton v. R & W Marine, Inc.,
`897 F.2d 1359 (5th Cir. 1990) .................................................................................................12
`
`Fellowship Filtering Techs., LLC v. Alibaba.com, Inc. et al.,
`No. 2:15-cv-2049-JRG, 2016 WL 6917272 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 1, 2016) ...................................12
`
`Freudensprung v. Offshore Technical Servs., Inc.,
`379 F.3d 327 (1985) ...................................................................................................................9
`
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. Xilinx, Inc.,
`No. 2:17-cv-00100-JRG-RSP, 2017 WL 4076052 (E.D. Tex. 2017) .............................. passim
`
`Gonzalez v. Autotrader.com,
`2:14-cv-650-JRG-RSP, 2015 WL 1387858 .......................................................................20, 23
`
`Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown,
`131 S. Ct. 2846 (2011) .............................................................................................................11
`
`Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall,
`466 U.S. 408 (1984) ...................................................................................................................7
`
`In re Acer Am. Corp.,
`626 F.3d 1252 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................19
`
`In re Genentech, Inc.,
`566 F.3d 13838 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................................................................................17, 20, 21
`
`In re Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc.,
`587 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................25
`
`In re Microsoft Corp.,
`630 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..........................................................................................15, 16
`
`In re Nintendo Co., Ltd.,
`589 F.3d 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................15
`
`In re Volkswagen AG,
`371 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2004) .................................................................................10, 16, 23, 24
`
`In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc.,
`545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) .............................................................................................16, 19
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 29 Filed 01/22/18 Page 6 of 34 PageID #: 171
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORIITES
`(continued)
`
`CASES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` PAGE(S)
`
`In re Zimmer Holdings, Inc.,
`609 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................25
`
`Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington,
`326 U.S. 310 (1945) ...................................................................................................................7
`
`J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro,
`564 U.S. 873 (2011) (Supreme Court failing to announce majority opinion) ...........................9
`
`Johnston v. Multidata Sys. Int’l Corp.
`523 F.3d 602 (5th Cir. 2008) .....................................................................................................7
`
`Klaustech, Inc. v. AdMob, Inc.,
`6:10-cv-39, 2010 WL 11484498 (2010) ..................................................................................25
`
`LSI Indus. Inc. v. Hubbell Lighting, Inc.,
`232 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2000)..................................................................................................7
`
`Moncrief Oil Int’l, Inc. v. OAO Gazprom,
`481 F.3d 309 (5th Cir. 2007) .....................................................................................................7
`
`Network Prot. Scis., LLC v. Juniper Networks, Inc.,
`No. 2:10-CV-224-JRG, 2012 WL 194382 (E.D. Tex. 2012) ............................................15, 19
`
`Phonometrics, Inc. v. Northern Telecom Inc.,
`133 F.3d 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1998)................................................................................................12
`
`Princeton Digital Image Corp. v. Facebook, Inc.,
`No. 2:11-CV-400-JRG, 2012 WL 3647182 (E.D. Tex. 2012) ..................................................7
`
`Regent Mkts. Grp., Ltd. v. IG Mkts., Inc.,
`No. 2:10-cv-42-TJW, 2011 WL 1135123 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2011) .....................................20
`
`Stroman Realty, Inc. v. Wercinski,
`513 F.3d 476, 487 (5th Cir. 2008) .............................................................................................9
`
`TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC,
`137 S.Ct. 1514 (2017) ..........................................................................................................1, 14
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 2:17-cv-00258-JRG, D.I. 104 at 8 (E.D. Tex. 2017) ................................................ passim
`
`Walden v. Fiore,
`134 S. Ct. 1115 (2014) .............................................................................................................12
`
`
`
`-v-
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 29 Filed 01/22/18 Page 7 of 34 PageID #: 172
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORIITES
`(continued)
`
`CASES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` PAGE(S)
`
`Wireless Recognition Techs. LLC v. A9.com, Inc.,
`2:10-CV-364-JRG, 2012 WL 506669 (E.D. Tex. 2012) .........................................................25
`
`Zoch v. Daimler, AG,
`No. 6:16-cv-00057-RWS, 2017 WL 2903264 (E.D. Tex. 2017) .............................................14
`
`STATUTES
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) ............................................................................................................... passim
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2)....................................................................................................1, 2, 15, 25
`
`
`
`
`
`-vi-
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 29 Filed 01/22/18 Page 8 of 34 PageID #: 173
`
`
`Defendant HTC Corporation (“HTC Corp.”) respectfully submits this motion to dismiss
`
`pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction or, in the alternative, to
`
`transfer venue to the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Plaintiff AGIS Software Development LLC (“AGIS”) has no legitimate connection to
`
`this District. AGIS’s parent company, Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc. (“AGIS
`
`Florida”), unsuccessfully brought suit on related patents in the Southern District of Florida. That
`
`case lacked merit, resulting in AGIS Florida paying attorneys’ fees to the defendant. AGIS
`
`Florida is now forum shopping to find another jurisdiction through recently-incorporated AGIS.
`
`But this District is not appropriate for this case. HTC Corp. has no connection to this District,
`
`and personal jurisdiction against HTC Corp. would not be reasonable. Moreover, even if this
`
`Court did have jurisdiction over HTC Corp., transfer of this case to the Northern District of
`
`California is clearly more convenient given the convenience of party and third party witnesses,
`
`especially Google, Inc. (“Google”) who makes the software that is “[t]he heart of the invention.”
`
`In an effort to avoid proper venue in the Northern District of California or the Western
`
`District of Washington, AGIS only named HTC Corp. but not HTC America, Inc (“HTC
`
`America”). HTC Corp. designs and manufactures smartphones in Taiwan, while HTC America
`
`imports and sells smartphones in the United States. While AGIS has attempted to end-around
`
`the Supreme Court’s TC Heartland decision, it must still establish personal jurisdiction over
`
`HTC Corp., something it did not do in its complaint, and something it cannot do. HTC Corp.
`
`does not purposely avail itself into this District—HTC Corp. makes smartphones in Taiwan and
`
`HTC America’s actions, or the unilateral actions of other third parties, cannot be imputed to
`
`HTC Corp. for this Court to exercise personal jurisdiction.
`
`While this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over HTC Corp., even if jurisdiction existed,
`
`-1-
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 29 Filed 01/22/18 Page 9 of 34 PageID #: 174
`
`
`the Northern District of California is clearly the most convenient court to hear this case. AGIS
`
`did not even exist until a few weeks before this suit was filed. None of its key witnesses are in
`
`East Texas—the trial record from the previous case establishes this unequivocally. HTC Corp.
`
`also has no witnesses or documents in this District, and the Northern District of California is
`
`much more convenient for those witnesses. The Northern District of California is also
`
`significantly more convenient for third parties such as Google who, in California, designs and
`
`maintains the highly confidential source code for the actual applications accused of infringement
`
`in this case. Likewise, one of the co-inventors on the Patents-in-Suit is located in Washington,
`
`much closer to the Northern District of California.
`
`For these reasons, as discussed in more detail below, HTC Corp. respectfully requests
`
`that this case be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) because exercising personal
`
`jurisdiction over HTC Corp. does not comply with the due process requirements. In the
`
`alternative, HTC Corp. requests that this case be transferred to the Northern District of California
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
`
`II.
`
`Factual background
`
`A.
`
`Procedural background and AGIS’s ephemeral ties to East Texas
`
`AGIS Florida lost “an exceptionally weak case” of patent infringement at trial on related
`
`patents in the Southern District of Florida1 where it was ordered to pay defendant Life360, Inc.
`
`$684,190.25 in fees.2 About a year and a half later, on June 20, 2017, AGIS sued HTC Corp. in
`
`the Eastern District of Texas on child patents of those that were asserted in the Florida Case.3
`
`
`1 The Southern District of Florida case is referred to hereinafter as the “Florida Case.”
`2 See Bombach Decl., Ex. 1 at 2, 4; see also Ex. 2. The declaration of Miguel Bombach
`(“Bombach Decl.”) is concurrently filed with this motion.
`3 U.S. Pat. No. 7,031,728 (the “parent ’728 patent”) was asserted in the Florida Case. Bombach
`Decl., Ex. 3 at 3-4 (showing non-infringement of the ’728 patent); see also id., Ex. 4 at ¶ 15
`(showing the ’728 patent as being asserted). All of U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,213,970 (the “’970 patent”);
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 29 Filed 01/22/18 Page 10 of 34 PageID #: 175
`
`
`AGIS was formed in Texas on June 1, 2017, about two weeks prior to filing suit. 2:17-
`
`cv-00513-JRG, D.I. 36-12. Five days prior to that, AGIS executed an assignment of the Patents-
`
`in-Suit from AGIS Holdings, Inc., who in turn received the Patents-in-Suit from AGIS Florida
`
`that same day. 2:17-cv-00513-JRG, D.I. 36-8, 36-9, 36-10, 36-11. The patents originated from
`
`inventor Malcolm Beyer, who founded AGIS Florida in 2004 and serves as the CEO of both
`
`AGIS and AGIS Florida. 2:17-cv-00513-JRG, D.I. 56-1 at ¶ 4; Bombach Decl., Ex. 5 at ¶ 3.
`
`AGIS Florida was incorporated in Florida and has its principal place of business in
`
`Jupiter, Florida, where Mr. Beyer lives and works. See 2:17-cv-00513-JRG, D.I. 56-1 at ¶ 4;
`
`Bombach Decl., Ex. 5 at ¶¶ 1, 3-4. Mr. Beyer’s work in Jupiter resulted in the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`Bombach Decl., Ex. 5 at ¶ 6. AGIS Florida developed and sold products such as LifeRing,
`
`which allegedly practices the ’055, ’251, and ’838 patents. D.I. 1 at ¶¶ 10-12; see also Bombach
`
`Decl., Ex. 6 at 2. AGIS Florida conducts most of its business in Jupiter (see Bombach Decl.,
`
`Ex. 5 at ¶ 10) and, at least as of the date of the Florida Case, almost all of AGIS Florida’s
`
`electronic and paper documents, and all of its source code and servers, were housed in Jupiter.
`
`Id. at ¶ 18. No documents were housed in its satellite office in Kansas. Id. at ¶¶ 17-18.
`
`Several AGIS-identified witnesses work in Jupiter, Florida: (i) Margaret Beyer, the
`
`corporate secretary for AGIS and AGIS Florida (2:17-cv-00513-JRG, D.I. 68-1 at ¶ 20); (ii)
`
`Malcolm Beyer III, a programmer for AGIS Florida (id.); (iii) Ronald Wisneski, the CFO and
`
`treasurer for AGIS Florida and AGIS (id.); and (iv) Sandel Blackwell, who works in Jupiter,
`
`Florida and Lenexa, Kansas (id. at ¶ 18). Co-inventor Christopher Rice works in Redmond,
`
`Washington. Id. at ¶ 20. All of these individuals but Mr. Beyer III were identified as potential
`
`witnesses in the Florida Case. See 2:17-cv-00513-JRG, D.I. 74-5 at 2.
`
`
`9,408,055 (the “’055 patent”); 9,445,251 (the “’251 patent”); and 9,467,838 (the “’838 patent”)
`(collectively the “Patents-in-Suit”) claim priority to the parent ’728 patent. See D.I. 1, Exs. A-D.
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 29 Filed 01/22/18 Page 11 of 34 PageID #: 176
`
`
`To secure venue in Texas, AGIS claims that there will be several new witnesses for its
`
`action in Texas that were deemed irrelevant by AGIS Florida in the Florida Case: (i) David
`
`Sietsema, who works in Austin, Texas (2:17-cv-513-JRG, D.I. 68-1 at ¶ 17); (ii) Eric Armstrong,
`
`who is a programmer for AGIS Florida and lives in Allen, Texas (id. at ¶ 15-16); and (iii)
`
`Rebecca Clark, who works in quality assurance at AGIS Florida’s Kansas office (id. at ¶¶ 16,
`
`19). Despite Mr. Sietsema having worked for AGIS Florida for 12 years and Mr. Armstrong
`
`having worked with AGIS Florida between 2010-2014 (id. at ¶¶ 15, 17), neither were identified
`
`as witnesses or called to trial in the Florida Case. See 2:17-cv-00513-JRG, D.I. 74-4 at ¶¶ 3-4;
`
`see also 2:17-cv-00513-JRG, D.I. 74-5 and D.I. 74-6. Neither was Mrs. Clark. Id. They are all
`
`unlikely to have relevant testimony.
`
`B.
`
`HTC Corp. and its subsidiaries have no ties to the Eastern District of Texas
`
`1.
`
`HTC Corp. is a foreign corporation based in Taiwan
`
`HTC Corp. is a Taiwanese corporation with its principal place of business in New Taipei
`
`City, Taiwan. Lin Decl. at ¶ 2.4 HTC Corp. develops, tests, and manufactures the accused
`
`smartphones in Taiwan. Id. HTC Corp. also works to ensure that its Android smartphones
`
`adhere to Google’s compliance requirements, primarily in Taiwan but also in the Northern
`
`District of California. Id. at ¶ 6. HTC Corp. does not market or sell any phones in the United
`
`States. Id. at 4.
`
`HTC Corp. operates in Taiwan and does not have any facilities, retail stores, or
`
`employees in the Eastern District of Texas—the vast majority of its employees are in Taiwan.
`
`Id. at ¶¶ 3-4. All of HTC Corp.’s relevant engineering, marketing, or finance records are in
`
`Taiwan and none are available in the Eastern District of Texas. Id. at ¶ 8. HTC Corp. does not
`
`have any employees in the Eastern District of Texas that are involved in the development and
`
`4 The declaration of Richard Lin (“Lin Decl.”) is concurrently filed with this motion.
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 29 Filed 01/22/18 Page 12 of 34 PageID #: 177
`
`
`testing of the accused devices. Id. at ¶ 3. Employees of HTC Corp. do, however, periodically
`
`work in the Northern District of California to interface with Google employees relating to the
`
`engineering of their smartphones. Id. at ¶ 6.
`
`Google designed the accused apps and services (e.g., Android Device Manager, Find My
`
`Device, Google Messages, Android Messenger, Google Hangouts, Google Plus, Google
`
`Latitude, and Google Maps, see, e.g., D.I. 1 at ¶¶ 20, 29, 42, and 55). Google provides some
`
`apps to HTC Corp., who in turn installs some of them in Taiwan. Id. at ¶ 7. HTC Corp. does not
`
`obtain source code for Google’s apps and cannot modify the accused Google apps and services
`
`or their source code. Id.
`
`2.
`
`HTC America is HTC Corp.’s American subsidiary
`
`Third party HTC America is a US-based subsidiary of HTC Corp. Lin Decl. at ¶ 9. HTC
`
`America imports, markets, and sells smartphones in the United States that were made by HTC
`
`Corp. Wiggins Decl. at ¶ 2.5 HTC America sells the phones it imports to third-parties. Id. at ¶ 4
`
`HTC America is a Washington State corporation with a principal place of business in
`
`Seattle, Washington. Id. at ¶ 1. All of HTC America’s records relating to sales, finance, and
`
`marketing are located in the State of Washington—none are in the Eastern District of Texas. Id.
`
`at ¶ 5. HTC America employees responsible for these tasks are located in the State of
`
`Washington. Id. at ¶¶ 2-3
`
`3.
`
`HTC America Innovation, Inc. has offices in San Francisco
`
`HTC America Innovation, Inc. (“HTC Innovation”) is a Washington State corporation.
`
`Lin Decl. at ¶ 10. HTC Innovation is a subsidiary of HTC Corp. and has a facility in San
`
`Francisco. Id. Employees of HTC Corp. and HTC America can use HTC Innovation’s San
`
`Francisco facilities to work remotely and securely access documents. Id. HTC Innovation does
`
`5 The declaration of David Wiggins (“Wiggins Decl.”) is concurrently filed with this motion.
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 29 Filed 01/22/18 Page 13 of 34 PageID #: 178
`
`
`not have any facilities or employees in the Eastern District of Texas. Id.
`
`C.
`
`Third party Google is located in the Northern District of California
`
`Google is central to this case. AGIS’s complaint identifies only the functionality of
`
`Google made apps (see, e.g., D.I. 1 at ¶¶ 20, 29, 42, and 55) as infringing the Patents-in-Suit.6
`
`These applications cannot be modified, only installed, by HTC Corp. See Lin Decl. at ¶ 7.
`
`Google has a principal place of business in Mountain View, California, where it designed and
`
`maintains source code for the accused applications. 2:17-cv-00513-JRG, D.I. 36-6 at ¶ 10.
`
`Primary Google witnesses for the accused applications reside in Northern California. Id. at ¶¶ 6-
`
`8 (identifying Abeer Dubey, id. at ¶ 1, Mr. Rowny who is the Project Manager of Android
`
`Messages, id. at ¶ 6, Mr. Lee who is the Technical Lead for Google Hangouts, id. at ¶ 7, and
`
`Mr. Johnson who is the Technical Lead for Google Plus, id. at ¶ 8). No Google employees work
`
`in the Eastern District of Texas. Id. at ¶ 9.
`
`D.
`
`Other third parties either reside in the Northern District of California or
`outside the Eastern District of Texas
`
`The prosecuting attorney of the ’055, ’838, and ’251 patents, Daniel Burns, resides in
`
`Santa Clara, California. Bombach Decl., Ex. 7; see also 2:17-cv-00513-JRG, D.I. 38-7, 38-8,
`
`38-9. The Patent attorney (Barry Haley) who prosecuted the parent ’728 patent and the ’970
`
`patent resides in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida and has documents relating to the conception and
`
`reduction to practice of the Patents-in-Suit. Bombach Decl., Ex. 5 at ¶¶ 7-8.
`
`
`6 AGIS also only accused the operation of Google’s apps in its infringement contentions against
`HTC Corp., LG Electronics Inc., (“LGEKR”), Huawei Device USA Inc. (“Huawei USA”),
`Huawei Device Co., Ltd. (“Huawei Device”), and Huawei Device (Dongguan) Co., Ltd.
`(“Huawei Dongguan”) (collectively “Huawei”). See Bombach Decl., Ex. 30; 2:17-CV-513-JRG,
`D.I. 75-1 and 76-1 (AGIS’s infringement contentions against Huawei); 2:17-CV-513-JRG, D.I.
`78-1 and 79-1(AGIS’s infringement contentions against LGKER).
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 29 Filed 01/22/18 Page 14 of 34 PageID #: 179
`
`
`III. Legal standard
`
`A.
`
`Personal jurisdiction standard
`
`Personal jurisdiction is governed by Federal Circuit law in patent infringement actions.
`
`Autogenomics, Inc. v. Oxford Gene Tech. Ltd., 566 F.3d 1012, 1016 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see also
`
`Blue Spike, LLC v. Texas Instruments, Inc., 6:12-CV-499, 2014 WL 11829323 at *1 (E.D. Tex.
`
`2014). The prima facie burden is on the plaintiff to establish that the court has jurisdiction. See
`
`Blue Spike, 2014 WL 11829323 at *1; Celgard, LLC v. SK Innovation Co., Ltd., 792 F.3d 1373,
`
`1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “In assessing personal jurisdiction, this Court is not required to credit
`
`conclusory allegations.” Princeton Digital Image Corp. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 2:11-CV-400-
`
`JRG, 2012 WL 3647182, at *2 (E.D. Tex. 2012) (dismissing one defendant while transferring
`
`others); see also AFTG-TG, LLC v. Nuvoton Tech. Corp., 689 F.3d 1358, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`“A court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant comports with
`
`constitutional due process7 requirements when (1) the defendant ‘purposefully availed’ itself of
`
`the benefits and protections of the forum state by establishing ‘minimum contacts’ with that
`
`state, and (2) the exercise of personal jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of ‘fair play
`
`and substantial justice.’” Blue Spike, 2014 WL 11829323 at *2 (citing Moncrief Oil Int’l, Inc. v.
`
`OAO Gazprom, 481 F.3d 309, 311 (5th Cir. 2007)). “Both prongs must be satisfied for a court to
`
`exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant.” Id. (citing Johnston v. Multidata Sys. Int’l
`
`Corp., 523 F.3d 602, 609 (5th Cir. 2008)).
`
`
`7 “A court can exercise personal jurisdiction over an out-of-state defendant if the forum state’s
`long-arm statute permits jurisdiction without violating federal due process as delineated in Int’l
`Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945)” (see Cheetah Omni, LLC v. NP Photonics, Inc.,
`No. 6:13-cv-00418, 2014 WL 11709437 at *1 (E.D. Tex. 2014) (citing LSI Indus. Inc. v. Hubbell
`Lighting, Inc., 232 F.3d 1369, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2000) and 3D Sys., Inc. v. Aarotech Labs., Inc.,
`160 F.3d 1373, 1376–77 (Fed. Cir. 1998)) and the Texas “long-arm statute to reach[es] as far as
`the federal Constitution permits.” Blue Spike, 2014 WL 11829323 at *1. The analysis of
`Texas’s long-arm statute collapses into the federal due-process inquiry. Id.
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 29 Filed 01/22/18 Page 15 of 34 PageID #: 180
`
`
`“Minimum contacts” is satisfied through general or specific jurisdiction. Blue Spike,
`
`2014 WL 11829323 at *2 (citing Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S.
`
`408, 414 (1984)). The exercise of general jurisdiction allows a “court [to] assert jurisdiction
`
`over a foreign corporation to hear any and all claims against it only when the corporation’s
`
`affiliations with the State in which suit is brought are so constant and pervasive as to render it
`
`essentially at home in the forum State.” Daimler Ag v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746, 751 (2014)
`
`(quotations omitted). General jurisdiction lies in the corporation’s easily ascertainable principal
`
`place of business. Id. at 760.
`
`“A court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a defendant where the cause of action
`
`‘arises out of’ or ‘relates to’ the defendant’s in state activity.” Cheetah, 2014 WL 11709437 at
`
`*1 (quoting Breckenridge Pharm., Inc. v. Metabolite Labs., Inc., 444 F.3d 1356, 1360–61 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2006)). “This analysis requires courts to inquire ‘(1) whether the defendant has purposefully
`
`directed his activities at residents of the forum; and (2) whether the litigation results from alleged
`
`injuries that arise out of or relate to those activities.’” Id. (quoting Campbell Pet Co. v. Miale,
`
`542 F.3d 879, 884 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). The focus of the inquiry is on the relationship between the
`
`defendant, the forum, and the litigation where simply suffering the harm in Texas is insufficient.
`
`Blue Spike, 2014 WL 11829323 at *2 (citations omitted). Actions of a defendant’s partners or
`
`third parties cannot be imputed to the defendant.8
`
`Minimum contacts can also be met under the stream of commerce theory. See, e.g.,
`
`Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court of California, Solano Cty., 480 U.S. 102, 102 (1987).
`
`
`8 See Blue Spike LLC v. Texas Instruments, Inc. et al., No. 6:12-cv-00499, 2014 WL 11858195 at
`*3 (E.D. Tex. 2014) (granting motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction); Blue
`Spike LLC v. Texas Instruments, Inc. et al., 6:12-cv-00499, 2013 WL 12062262 at *3 (E.D. Tex.
`2014) (stating that actions of third-party customers cannot be imputed to defendant while
`granting motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction).
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 29 Filed 01/22/18 Page 16 of 34 PageID #: 181
`
`
`The law on the correct approach to the stream of commerce theory is uncertain but guided by
`
`opinions of Justices O’Connor and Brennan in Asahi.9 J. O’Connor, joined by three justices,
`
`stated that mere foreseeability or awareness is insufficient, and that there must be some
`
`ad