Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 68 Filed 09/12/18 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 3052
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`HTC CORPORATION,
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE (USA), INC.,
`AND ZTE (TX), INC.
`
`Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`Civil Action No. 2:17-CV-514-JRG
`(Lead Case)
`
`Civil Action No. 2:17-CV-515-JRG
`Civil Action No. 2:17-CV-517-JRG
`
`DEFENDANT LG ELECTRONICS, INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS
`MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD
`IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 68 Filed 09/12/18 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 3053
`
`Defendant LG Electronics, Inc. (“Defendant” or “LGEKR”) respectfully submits this
`
`reply in support of its motion for leave to file a motion to supplement the record in support of its
`
`pending Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction or, in the Alternative, to Transfer
`
`Venue to the Northern District of California (the “Motion to Transfer Venue”) (513 Dkt. 46).
`
`AGIS contends that its subpoena on Google LLC (“Google”) is consistent with its
`
`statements at the August 8, 2018 evidentiary hearing that it “may take discovery of Google with
`
`respect to any proprietary Google application material that’s not in . . . the public information.”
`
`(513 Dkt. 176 at 70:20-22.) AGIS is mischaracterizing the record. AGIS’s full statement at the
`
`evidentiary hearing was that “we don’t think we need it at this point in time, but there may be,
`
`and we may take discovery of Google with respect to any proprietary Google application
`
`material that’s not in the [ ] public information.” (513 Dkt. 176 at 70:18-22 (emphasis added).)
`
`AGIS fully intended to create the impression that, for transfer, as of August 8, it did not need
`
`discovery from third-party Google (in California) and that it was standing on its infringement
`
`contentions, which, as AGIS claimed, were solely based on publicly available information (see,
`
`e.g., 513 Dkt. 68 at 2, 19, 22). AGIS’s representation cannot be squared with a subpoena sent
`
`out just 15 days later expressly seeking 15 categories of confidential Google information, where
`
`nothing in the case had substantively changed in the interim. The Court has the right to know
`
`when games are being played with representations to the Court.
`
`Relatedly, with respect to the deposition subpoenas on Google, AGIS’s assertions that it
`
`“is entitled to seek discovery from witnesses listed in LGEKR’s initial disclosures” misses the
`
`point. AGIS knew that Google witnesses were listed on the initial disclosures during the transfer
`
`briefing and during the transfer hearing. Nevertheless, AGIS contended that Google witnesses
`
`were not relevant and should not be considered under the convenience of the parties and
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 68 Filed 09/12/18 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 3054
`
`witnesses factor because “AGIS’s infringement contentions rely on Google’s open source code
`
`and/or application programming interfaces, which are publicly available.” (513 Dkt. 68 at 19.)
`
`Nothing in this regard changed in between the transfer hearing and the issuance of the subpoena
`
`– the Google witnesses had been in initial disclosures the entire time. AGIS’s subpoena merely
`
`confirms that AGIS was being misleading in its transfer arguments about witnesses as well as
`
`documents. Accordingly, supplementation of the record to include the deposition subpoena is
`
`appropriate to show that Google’s witnesses are relevant to understand the operation of the
`
`accused features of at least Google Maps and Find My Device, and that those witnesses are
`
`located in the Northern District of California.
`
`For the reasons stated herein and in LGEKR’s motion for leave to file, LGEKR
`
`respectfully requests that the Court grant LGEKR leave to file the Motion to Supplement the
`
`Record in Support of its Motion to Transfer Venue to the Northern District of California.
`
`Dated: September 12, 2018
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`/s/ Mark Mann
`Mark Mann
`SBN: 12926150
`mark@themannfirm.com
`G. Blake Thompson
`SBN: 24042033
`blake@themannfirm.com
`MANN TINDEL THOMPSON
`300 West Main Street
`Henderson, Texas 75652
`Tel: 903-657-8540
`
`Michael A. Berta
`Michael.berta@arnoldporter.com
`ARNOLD & PORTER
`KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`Three Embarcadero Center
`10th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111-4024
`Tel: 415-471-3000
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 68 Filed 09/12/18 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 3055
`
`Matthew M. Wolf
`Matthew.wolf@arnoldporter.com
`ARNOLD & PORTER
`KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`601 Massachusetts Ave., NW
`Washington, DC 20001-3743
`Tel: 202-942-5000
`
`James S. Blackburn
`James.blackburn@arnoldporter.com
`Nicholas H. Lee
`Nicholas.lee@arnoldporter.com
`ARNOLD & PORTER
`KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`777 South Figueroa Street
`44th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90017-5844
`Tel: 213-243-4000
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 68 Filed 09/12/18 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 3056
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on September 12, 2018, a true and correct copy of
`
`the foregoing was served to the parties’ counsel of record via ECF pursuant to Local Rule CV-
`
`5(d).
`
`/s/ Mark Mann
`
`4
`
`