`
`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
`
`ORDER
`
`Before the Court is Defendant HTC Corporation’s (“HTC”) 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 to the Northern District of California (the
`
`“Motion to Supplement”). (Dkt. No. 71.) Having considered the Motion to Supplement, the
`Court is of the opinion that it should be and hereby is GRANTED to the extent and for the
`
`reasons set forth herein.
`
`In its Motion to Supplement, HTC submits that on August 23, 2018 and August 29,
`
`2018, Plaintiff AGIS Software Development LLC ("AGIS") served subpoenas duces 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. a t2.)
`
`These subpoenas were served on Google in the Northern District of California. They sought
`
`testimony and documents about Google's confidential source code for Google Maps and Find
`
`My Device as well as other related technical documents. (Id. at 2-3.) HTC argues that these
`
`subpoenas "will advance the Court's consideration of the transfer venue motion by, inter alia,
`
`demonstrating that the relative ease of access to sources of proof and convenience for
`
`witnesses factors favor transfer, and confirming that AGIS's arguments downplaying the
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 76 Filed 09/26/18 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 3322
`
`relevance of Google's documents and witnesses was an argument of convenience during
`
`transfer briefing that AGIS has abandoned now that it actually must litigate the merits of its
`
`claims." (Id. at 4.)
`
`In opposition, AGIS argues that HTC’s Motion to Supplement should be denied
`
`because “AGIS’s subpoena to Google contributes nothing to the quantum of proof before the
`
`Court on the merits of the underlying motion to transfer venue,” and “HTC has not
`
`demonstrated that this would materially affect the outcome of the decision as to transfer
`
`venue.” (Dkt. 74 at 4.) Moreover, AGIS argues that it has never stated “that it would not
`
`seek the discovery of Google with respect to any proprietary Google application material,”
`
`despite HTC’s arguments to the contrary. (Id. at 6.) AGIS submits that HTC has refused to
`
`produce relevant discovery to AGIS, and thus AGIS was forced to seek discovery from
`
`Google. (Id. at 2.)
`
`On balance, the Court finds that the subpoena notices served on Google will assist the
`
`Court’s consideration of HTC’s pending Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`12(b)(2) or, in the Alternative, to Transfer to the Northern District of California. (Dkt. No.
`
`29.) Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS HTC’s Motion to Supplement and it is
`
`ORDERED that the Google Subpoenas attached as Exhibit A to the Motion to Supplement,
`
`(Dkt. No. 71-1), be forthwith FILED by the Clerk as part of the record for this case.
`
`