Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 70 Filed 09/19/18 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 3061
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`HTC CORPORATION,
`
`Defendant.
`
`CASE NO. 2:17-CV-0514-JRG
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`HTC CORPORATION’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
`MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO
`DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(B)(2) OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
`TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 70 Filed 09/19/18 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 3062
`
`
`Based on good cause, Defendant HTC Corporation (“HTC”) respectfully requests this
`
`Court grant it leave to file an opposed motion to supplement the record in support of its pending
`
`Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) or, in the Alternative, to Transfer Venue
`
`to the Northern District of California. D.I. 29.
`
`I.
`
`GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR GRANTING HTC LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION
`TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD
`
`On January 22, 2018, HTC moved to transfer the above-captioned action filed by AGIS
`
`Software Development LLC (“Plaintiff” or “AGIS”) to the Northern District of California.
`
`(D.I. 29). HTC 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. Specifically, HTC
`
`submitted declarations from Google witnesses establishing that, for the accused functionality
`
`related to the Google Maps and Google’s Find My Device (formerly known as Android Device
`
`Manager), the source code and other information regarding these applications is confidential and
`
`proprietary, and that those documents and Google’s relevant witnesses are located in the
`
`Northern District of California. D.I. 29 at 6 (citing 2:17-cv-00513-JRG, D.I. 36-6, ¶¶ 1, 6-8);
`
`D.I. 29 at 5 (citing 2:17-cv-00513-JRG, D.I. 36-4 at ¶¶ 1, 4; 2:17-cv-00513-JRG, D.I. 36-5 at ¶
`
`1; and 2:17-cv-00513-JRG, D.I. 36-6 at ¶¶ 6-8).
`
`On February 20, 2018, AGIS filed its Opposition to HTC’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack
`
`of Personal Jurisdiction or, in the Alternative, to Transfer Venue to the Northern District of
`
`California (D.I. 40). In its Opposition, AGIS dismissed the relevance, location and convenience
`
`of non-party Google, arguing that their infringement claims against HTC were premised on and
`
`provable through use of “publicly available” Android operating system source code and other
`
`information. (Id. at 2, 24). In fact, AGIS explicitly disputed Google’s possible role as a non-
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 70 Filed 09/19/18 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 3063
`
`
`party and took the position that any discovery into Google’s confidential and proprietary source
`
`code and other information for Google Maps and Find My Device is irrelevant to the claims
`
`asserted against HTC. D.I. 40 at 24-25
`
`Notwithstanding these representations in its transfer opposition, on August 23, 2018 and
`
`August 29, 2018, Plaintiff served deposition and document subpoenas 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-JRG (E.D. Tex.) and AGIS Software Development LLC
`
`v. HTC Corp., No. 2:17-cv-514-JRG (E.D. Tex.). These subpoenas seek deposition testimony
`
`and documents such as the source code for Google Maps and Find My Device, documents
`
`showing the structure, operation, design, development, functionality, features, testing, and
`
`manufacture for portions of Google Maps and Find My Device related to the accused features,
`
`and documents showing the communication protocols used with Android Applications between
`
`one or more Google Servers and/or one or more other Android Devices— precisely the
`
`information AGIS previously represented wasn’t relevant to its infringement theories. Because
`
`Plaintiff’s recent subpoenas to Google contradicts its previous attempt to undermine the
`
`significance of Google’s documents and witnesses in the transfer analysis, good cause exists to
`
`allow HTC leave to file a motion to supplement the record.
`
`II.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, HTC respectfully requests the Court grant HTC leave to file
`
`the opposed Motion to Supplement the Record in Support of its Motion to Transfer Venue to the
`
`Northern District of California filed separately pursuant to local rules CV-7(k).
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 70 Filed 09/19/18 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 3064
`
`
`Dated: September 19, 2018
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Miguel Bombach
`Matthew C. Bernstein, (Lead Attorney)
`CA State Bar No. 199240
`mbernstein@perkinscoie.com
`Miguel J. Bombach
`CA State Bar No. 274287
`mbombach@perkinscoie.com
`James Young Hurt (Pro Hac Vice)
`CA State Bar No. 312390
`jhurt@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`11988 El Camino Real, Suite 350
`San Diego, CA 92130-2594
`Tel: (858) 720-5700
`Fax: (858) 720-5799
`
`Eric Findlay
`State Bar No. 00789886
`efindlay@findlaycraft.com
`FINDLAY CRAFT, P.C.
`102 N. College Ave., Suite 900
`Tyler, TX 75702
`Tel: (903) 534-1100
`Fax: (903) 534-1137
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
`HTC CORPORATION
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 70 Filed 09/19/18 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 3065
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
`
`document has been served on September 19, 2018, to all counsel of record who are deemed to
`
`have consented to electronic service via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Miguel J. Bombach
` Miguel J. Bombach
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
`
`Pursuant to L.R. CV-7(i), the undersigned hereby certifies that counsel for HTC
`
`Corporation conferred with counsel for AGIS via phone on September 19, 2018 regarding
`
`whether AGIS opposes the motion for leave. Plaintiff informed counsel for HTC Corporation
`
`that it does not oppose the motion for leave, but opposes the motion to supplement the record.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Miguel J. Bombach
` Miguel J. Bombach
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`