Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 98-1 Filed 12/27/18 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 3607
`
`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
`
`HTC CORPORATION,
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`DECLARATION OF KYLE R. CANAVERA IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT
`HTC CORPORATION’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER DENIAL OF MOTION TO
`TRANSFER VENUE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404(A) TO THE NORTHERN
`DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`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
`
`HTC CORPORATION,
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`DECLARATION OF KYLE R. CANAVERA IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT
`HTC CORPORATION’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER DENIAL OF MOTION TO
`TRANSFER VENUE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404(A) TO THE NORTHERN
`DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 98-1 Filed 12/27/18 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 3608
`
`I, Kyle R. Canavera, hereby declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am an attorney at the law firm of Perkins Coie LLP and counsel of record for
`
`HTC Corporation (“HTC Corp.”) in the above entitled matter. I am a member of good standing
`
`of the California and United States Patent and Trademark Bar and am admitted to practice in the
`
`Eastern District of Texas.
`
`2.
`
`I make this declaration in support of HTC Corp.’s Motion to Reconsider Denial of
`
`the Motion to Transfer Venue to the Northern District of California.
`
`3.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the
`
`transcript of the deposition of Eric Armstrong.
`
`4.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the
`
`transcript of the deposition of Rebecca Clark.
`
`5.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the
`
`transcript of the deposition of Ronald Wisneski.
`
`6.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the
`
`transcript of the deposition of Sandel Blackwell.
`
`7.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the
`
`transcript of the deposition of Malcolm Beyer.
`
`8.
`
` On October 16, 2018, Vincent Rubino, counsel for AGIS Software Development
`
`LLC (“AGIS”), reported by email to counsel for HTC Corp. and other defendants that
`
`Mr. Sietsema would not at that time be available for deposition, and that AGIS would not call
`
`him as a witness at trial unless they did make him available. Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is a
`
`true and correct copy of Mr. Rubino’s October 16, 2018 email (email chain removed for brevity).
`
`AGIS has not made Mr. Sietsema available for deposition.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 98-1 Filed 12/27/18 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 3609
`
`9.
`
`On October 14, 2018, Amy Park, counsel for AGIS, reported by email to counsel
`
`for HTC Corp. and other defendants that Ms. Clark would no longer be designated for the
`
`“testing” portion of Rule 30(b)(6) topic 74: “The structure, operation, design, development,
`
`functionality, use, and testing of any AGIS Practicing Product.” Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 is
`
`a true and correct copy of Ms. Park’s October 14, 2018 email (email chain removed for brevity).
`
`With this de-designation, Ms. Clark was no longer designated for any topics.
`
`10.
`
`On September 21, 2018, Enrique Iturralde, counsel for AGIS, provided
`
`designations of AGIS’s witnesses for the Rule 30(b)(6) topics. The designees were: Ronald
`
`Wisneski, Malcolm Beyer, Sandel Blackwell, and Rebecca Clark. Attached hereto as Exhibit 8
`
`is a true and correct copy of Mr. Iturralde’s September 21, 2018 email (email chain removed for
`
`brevity). Though some designations were subsequently changed, no witnesses other than these
`
`four were ever designated for any topics.
`
`11.
`
`On November 26, 2018, Mr. Iturralde informed counsel for HTC Corp. that
`
`Google had made source code available for inspection in Palo Alto, that AGIS’s expert had
`
`inspected the source code, and that AGIS’s counsel had requested printouts of some of the source
`
`code. Attached hereto as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of Mr. Iturralde’s November 26,
`
`2018 email. AGIS requested printing of 422 pages of source code, identified by production
`
`numbers in the range Google_SC_00000001 to Google_SC_00000422.
`
`12.
`
`On December 13, 2018, Mr. Iturralde informed counsel for HTC Corp. that
`
`AGIS’s technical expert, Mr. McAlexander, had reviewed Google’s source code in Palo Alto.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 10 is a true and correct copy of Mr. Iturralde’s December 13, 2018
`
`email.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 98-1 Filed 12/27/18 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 3610
`
`13.
`
`On October 3, 2018, Omid Kia, on behalf of AGIS, reviewed source code made
`
`available by HTC Corp. at the office of HTC Corp.’s counsel in San Diego, California. Mr. Kia
`
`reviewed the source code only on October 3, 2018, and he did not request any printouts. AGIS
`
`has not sent any further representatives to review HTC Corp.’s source code.
`
`14.
`
`HTC Corp. served interrogatories on AGIS, of which Interrogatory No. 8 related
`
`to damages claimed by AGIS. In its Second Supplemental Responses, AGIS has not provided
`
`any substantive response to Interrogatory No. 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit 11 is a true and
`
`correct copy of excerpts from AGIS’s Second Supplemental Responses, including AGIS’s
`
`response to Interrogatory No. 8.
`
`15.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 12 is a true and correct copy of Uniloc USA, Inc. et al
`
`v. Apple Inc., No. 2:17-cv-00258-JRG, D.I. 104 (E.D. Tex. 2017).
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`Executed this 20th day of December, 2018, in San Diego, California.
`
`/s/ Kyle R. Canavera
`Kyle R. Canavera
`
`
`
`4
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
