Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 69 Filed 09/19/18 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 3057
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC, §
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`HTC CORPORATION,
`§
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE (USA), INC., §
`AND ZTE (TX), INC.
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Defendants.
`
`ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT LG ELECTRONICS, INC.’S
`OPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE
`RECORD IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Before the Court is Defendant LG Electronics, Inc.'s ("LG Korea") Opposed Motion for
`
`Leave to File Motion to Supplement the Record in Support of Its Motion to Transfer Venue to
`
`the Northern District of California (the "Motion"). (2:17-cv-514, Dkt. No. 65.) Having
`
`considered the Motion, the Court is of the opinion that it should be and hereby is GRANTED
`
`for the reasons set forth herein.
`
`On June 21, 2017, Plaintiff AGIS Software Development LLC (“AGIS”) filed suit
`
`against LG Korea. (2:17-cv-515, Dkt. No. 1.) On October 25, 2017, the Court consolidated the
`
`instant action with a related action filed by AGIS against Huawei Device USA, Inc., Huawei
`
`Device Co., Ltd., and Huawei Device (Dongguan) Co., Ltd. (the “Huawei case”) (2:17-cv-513,
`
`Dkt. No. 20.) On November 27, 2017, LG Korea filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
`
`Personal Jurisdiction or, in the Alternative, to Transfer Venue to the Northern District of
`
`California (the “Motion to Dismiss or Transfer”). (2:17-cv-513, Dkt. No. 46.) The Court held
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 69 Filed 09/19/18 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 3058
`
`an evidentiary hearing on the Motion to Dismiss or Transfer on August 8, 2018. (2:17-cv-513,
`
`Dkt. No. 176.) On August 22, 2018, the Court unconsolidated the instant action from the
`
`Huawei case and reconsolidated this case, AGIS Software Development LLC v. LG Electronics,
`Inc., 2:17-cv-515 and AGIS Software Development LLC v. ZTE Corporation, 2:17-cv-517 under
`
`a new lead case, AGIS Software Development LLC v. HTC Corporation, 2:17-cv-514. (2:17-cv-
`
`515, Dkt. No. 25.)
`
`On September 4, 2018, LG Korea moved for leave to file a motion to supplement the
`
`record in support of its pending Motion to Dismiss or Transfer. (2:17-cv-514, Dkt. No. 65.) LG
`
`Korea states that in support of its Motion to Dismiss or Transfer it “submitted evidence that the
`
`core of the accused applications in this case is provided by third-party Google LLC (“Google”),
`
`and the relevant witnesses and information about those functionalities are located in and around
`
`Northern California.” (Id. at 4.) In opposition to that motion, AGIS “dismissed the relevance,
`
`location and convenience of non-party Google” because it claimed that its “infringement claims
`
`against [LG Korea] were premised on and provable through use of ‘publicly available’ Android
`
`operating system source code and other information.” (Id.) (internal citations omitted) LG
`
`Korea submits, however, that “on August 23, 2018 and August 29, 2018, [AGIS] served
`
`subpoenas decus tecum on Google in both of the consolidated cases against Android
`
`Defendants, AGIS Software Development LLC v. Huawei Device USA Inc., et al., No. 2:17-cv-
`513 (E.D. Tex.) and AGIS Software Development LLC v. HTC Corp., No. 2:17-cv-514 (E.D.
`
`Tex.).” (Id. at 5.) These subpoenas were served on Google in the Northern District of
`
`California. They seek testimony and documents about Google’s confidential source code for
`
`Google Maps and Find my Device as well as the “operation, design, development, functionality,
`
`features, testing, and manufacture for portions of Google Maps and Find My Device related to
`the accused features.” (Id.) LG Korea argues that this is “precisely the information AGIS
`
`previously represented wasn’t relevant to its infringement theories,” and therefore confirms that
`
`there are relevant sources of proof and witnesses located in the Northern District of California.
`
`(Id.)
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 69 Filed 09/19/18 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 3059
`
`AGIS argues that “[a]t the Evidentiary Hearing held on August 8, 2018, AGIS
`
`represented that it ‘may take discovery of Google with respect to any proprietary Google
`
`application material that’s not in . . . the public information,” and so “the record already
`
`indicate[s] that AGIS may seek such information from Google.” (Dkt. No. 67 at 1.) No further
`
`supplementation is required. (Id.) In addition, LG Korea listed witnesses from Google LLC on
`
`its initial disclosures and “AGIS is entitled to seek discovery” from such witnesses. (Id.)
`
`In response, LG Korea points out that “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.” (Dkt. No. 68 at 1.) As such, LG Korea argues that “AGIS fully intended
`
`to create the impression that, [As of August 8] for transfer, it did not need discovery from third-
`
`party Google (in California).” (Id.) AGIS’s subpoenas on Google, however, “confirm[] that
`
`AGIS was being misleading” and that Google’s documents and witnesses located in the
`Northern District of California are relevant to this case. (Id. at 2.)
`
`This Court has broad discretion to allow a party to supplement the record when
`
`resolving a challenge to proper venue. See, e.g., Auto-Dimensions LLC v. Dessault Sys.
`
`SolidWorks Corp., No. 6:12-cv-1022, 2013 WL 12213014 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 9, 2013) (granting
`
`motion for leave to supplement record on motion to transfer venue); Innovative Global Sys. LLC
`v. OnStar, LLC, No. 6:10-CV-574, 2012 WL 12930885 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 14, 2012) (same).
`
`Having considered the Parties’ briefing, the Court finds that the subpoena notices served on
`
`Google may assist the Court’s consideration of LG Korea’s Motion to Dismiss or Transfer.
`
`(Dkt. No. 66 at 5.) The Court therefore GRANTS LG Korea’s Motion and it is ORDERED
`
`that LG Korea shall have leave to file a motion to supplement the record in support of its motion
`
`to transfer venue to the Northern District of California. Per Local Rule CV-7(k), LG Korea’s
`
`Motion to Supplement the Record in Support of Its Motion to Transfer Venue to the Northern
`
`District of California is deemed to have been filed on September 4, 2018 (the “Underlying
`
`Motion”). (Dkt. No. 66.) Leave having been granted herein, it is FURTHER ORDERED that
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 69 Filed 09/19/18 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 3060
`
`responsive briefing from AGIS to the merits of the motion to supplement be filed within three
`
`days of the issuance of this order.
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`