throbber
Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 75 Filed 06/26/18 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1027
`
`
`AGIS Software Development, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE (USA) INC.,
`AND ZTE (TX), INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:17-CV-00517-JRG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ SUR-SUR-REPLY BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S SUR-
`REPLY (DKT. 52) IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION (DKT. 38) TO
`DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR IMPROPER VENUE OR,
`IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO TRANSFER VENUE
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 75 Filed 06/26/18 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 1028
`
`In accordance with the Court’s June 19, 2018 Order,1 Defendants ZTE (USA), Inc. and
`
`ZTE (TX), Inc. (“ZTA” and “ZTX,” collectively, “ZTE”) 2 submit this Sur-Sur-Reply brief
`
`addressing two issues. First, AGIS’s Sur-Reply (Dkt. 52) contains factual errors, which AGIS
`
`refused to correct. Second, AGIS’s Sur-Reply brief includes a new argument not included in
`
`AGIS’s opening brief (Dkt. 46) based on theories neither relied upon nor disclosed previously.
`
`Both of these issues simply stem from AGIS’s erroneous and conclusory rhetoric that
`
`blur distinctions between arguing the merits of infringement for a case-in-chief versus arguing
`
`the “acts of infringement” requirement of § 1400(b). The “acts of infringement” venue element
`
`does not require extensive briefing. See In re Cordis Corp., 769 F.2d 733, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
`
`(“[t]he issue of infringement is not reached on the merits in considering venue requirements”);
`
`Intellectual Ventures, 2017 WL 5630023, at *8. In two errors, AGIS (1) improperly concludes
`
`that ZTE’s briefing on the “acts of infringement” is deficient and (2) that ZTE does not contest
`
`the merits of infringement for the case-in-chief. These two allegations are factually incorrect.
`
`In the opening venue brief (Dkt. 38), ZTE clearly states that “no Defendant resides,3 has
`
`committed alleged acts of infringement, or has a regular and established place of business in this
`
`District.” Dkt. 38 at 1 (emphasis added). Further, pursuant to Local Rule 7(a)(1), ZTE further
`
`clarified: “the Court should dismiss this patent case under 28 U.S.C. § 1406 for improper venue
`
`because the Defendants do not reside in this Judicial District, 4 have not committed alleged acts
`
`of infringement in this District, and do not have a regular and established place of business here,
`
`1 On June 19, 2018 this Court granted Defendants’ request for leave to file a sur-sur-reply brief in response to the
`sur-reply brief (Dkt. 52) filed by Plaintiff AGIS Software Development, LLC (“AGIS”), regarding Defendants’
`Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for Improper Venue, or in the Alternative, to Transfer (Dkt. 38).
`
` 2
`
` ZTE Corporation has not yet been served with the Amended Complaint or appeared in this matter, and the Motion
`to Dismiss for Improper Venue or, in the Alternative, to Transfer is therefore on behalf of ZTX and ZTA only.
`
` 3
`
` 4
`
` “No Defendant” is defined in the brief as both Defendants ZTE (USA), Inc. and ZTE (TX), Inc.
`
` “Defendants” are again defined in the brief as both Defendants ZTE (USA), Inc. and ZTE (TX), Inc.
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 75 Filed 06/26/18 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 1029
`
`as required to support venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400.” Dkt. 38 (emphasis added). In addition, in
`
`the Reply (Dkt. 51), ZTE unambiguously states again that “ZTA also denies any acts of
`
`infringement.” Dkt. 51 at 4. Yet, AGIS fails to consider these arguments and twists ZTE’s
`
`positions in the Sur-Reply (Dkt. 52), asserting factual errors, which AGIS has refused to correct.
`
`I.
`
`AGIS Refused to Correct Factual Errors in the Sur-Reply
`
`AGIS’s Sur-Reply brief (Dkt. 52) contains misstatements of fact requiring rectification.
`
`AGIS overreaches in its Sur-Reply brief, by incorrectly asserting that it “alleged, without
`
`contest, that ZTA manufactures, uses, sells, offers for sale, imports, and/or induces the sale of
`
`infringing products in this District.” See Dkt. 52 at 2 (emphasis added). In addition to this
`
`incorrect statement on the merits of infringement, AGIS also incorrectly asserts that “Defendants
`
`did not argue in its Motion to Dismiss that the ‘acts of infringement’ requirement of 1400(b) was
`
`not satisfied.”5 Id. Not only are AGIS’s statements factually incorrect, but they ignore Federal
`
`Circuit guidance. As requested by ZTE, these errors should have been corrected by AGIS. 6
`
`AGIS ignores precedent setting a low threshold for the “acts of infringement” element of
`
`§1400(b), by attempting to transform the discussion from “uncontested” briefing to a “lack of
`
`adequate briefing.” Dkt. 57 at 2-3. As already addressed, excessive briefing for the “acts of
`
`infringement” element is not required. See In re Cordis Corp., 769 F.2d at 737. ZTE argued
`
`twice that Defendants do not infringe, yet this is not sufficient for AGIS. AGIS overzealously
`
`states in the Sur-Reply (Dkt. 52) that it “alleged, without contest, that ZTA manufactures, uses,
`
`sells, offers for sale, imports, and/or induces the sale of infringing products in this District.” See
`
`
`5 In fact, eventually under protest, AGIS begrudgingly implies that ZTE did contest the “acts of infringement”
`requirement. See Dkt. 57 at 3 (AGIS referencing “[ZTE’s] acts of infringement argument”) (emphasis added).
`
` 6
`
` ZTE notified AGIS of these issues (and the additional argument) in the Sur-Reply brief (Dkt. 52). See Dkt. 54, Ex.
`A at 8-9. After several days of negotiations, and a meet-and-confer, AGIS still refused on numerous occasions to
`correct the issues regarding the erroneous allegations as to the 1400(b) “acts of infringement.” Id. at 2-3 and 7-8.
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 75 Filed 06/26/18 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 1030
`
`Dkt. 52 at 2 (emphasis added). AGIS’s statement is untrue. And, any further briefing by ZTE, as
`
`demanded by AGIS, would reach the “merits” of infringement, which is not required of ZTE.
`
`II.
`
`AGIS’S Sur-Reply Includes New Improper Arguments
`
`AGIS’s Sur-Reply brief also contains a new argument, which is first raised in the Sur-
`
`Reply brief (Dkt. 52) regarding the venue elements of § 1400(b). In the Sur-Reply, AGIS argues
`
`that: “Defendants did not argue in its Motion to Dismiss that the ‘acts of infringement’
`
`requirement of 1400(b) was not satisfied as to ZTA.” Dkt. 52 at 2. AGIS had not argued this
`
`previously, as AGIS’s opposition only referenced the “merits of infringement,” not “acts of
`
`infringement” for 1400(b).7 See Dkt. 46 at 15. As ZTE had responded to AGIS’s original
`
`argument regarding the merits of infringement, Dkt. 51 at n.7, ZTE’s Reply then confirmed that
`
`“ZTA [ ] denies any acts of infringement,” Dkt. 51 at 4. Yet, in the Sur-Reply, AGIS alleged
`
`(erroneously) for the first time that ZTA had waived the “‘acts of infringement’ requirement of
`
`1400(b)” (Dkt. 52 at 2), which is demonstrably not true. Not only is the statement wrong, but
`
`ZTE provided AGIS an opportunity to correct it--which AGIS refused to do. Dkt. 54, Ex. A.
`
`AGIS thus improperly added this inaccuracy in its Sur-Reply,8 and the Court should strike it.
`
`III. Conclusion - AGIS Should Correct its Errors, Or the Errors Should be Stricken
`
`In conclusion, in the Sur-Reply brief, AGIS erred and overstepped with (1) erroneous
`
`statements regarding ZTE’s dispute of infringement and (2) a new argument based thereon. ZTE
`
`notified AGIS of these errors and requested correction, but AGIS refused. Therefore, AGIS
`
`should correct the errors, or the Court should strike them from the briefing on the current record.
`
`7 In its opposition brief, AGIS erroneously asserted that “[Defendants] concede[ ] that ZTA engaged, and continues
`to engage, in the infringing activities alleged in the Amended Complaint.” Dkt. 46 at 15. Defendants specifically
`responded to this new argument by AGIS in ZTE’s reply brief, denying any such infringement. See Dkt. 51 at 4.
`
` 8
`
` In this District, and indeed in this Circuit (the Fifth Circuit), it is clear that a party is prohibited from arguing “new
`information” in replies and sur-replies. See Gillaspy v. Dallas Ind. School Dist., 278 Fed. Appx. 307, 315 (5th Cir.
`2008) (“It is the practice of [the 5th Cir.] to refuse to consider arguments raised for the first time in reply [and sur-
`reply] briefs”); see also Chrimar Sys., Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 2016 WL 9275408, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 29, 2016).
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 75 Filed 06/26/18 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 1031
`
`Dated: June 26, 2018
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Lionel M. Lavenue
`Lionel M. Lavenue
`
`
`
`Lionel M. Lavenue (Lead Attorney)
`VA State Bar No. 49,005
`Bradford C. Schulz
`VA State Bar No. 91,057
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
` GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`Two Freedom Square
`11955 Freedom Drive
`Reston, VA 20190
`Phone: (571) 203-2700
`Fax: (202) 408-4400
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
`ZTE (USA) INC. AND ZTE (TX), INC.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 75 Filed 06/26/18 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 1032
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have
`
`consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s
`
`CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on this June 26, 2018. All other counsel not deemed
`
`to have consented to service in such manner will be served via facsimile transmission and/or first
`
`class mail.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Lionel M. Lavenue
`Lionel M. Lavenue
`
`
`
`5
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket