Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 83-3 Filed 09/24/18 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 1226
`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 83-3 Filed 09/24/18 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 1226
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT C
`EXHIBIT C
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 83-3 Filed 09/24/18 Page 2 of 17 PageID #: 1227
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
`
`v.
`
`HTC CORPORATION,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE (USA), Inc.
`AND ZTE (TX), INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:17-cv-514-JRG
`(LEAD CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:17-cv-517-JRG
`(CONSOLIDATED CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`DEFENDANTS ZTE (USA), INC. AND ZTE (TX), INC.’S
`FIRST AMENDED INITIAL AND ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES
`
`Pursuant to the Court’s Discovery Order (Dkt. 38) and Rule 26(a)(1) of the Federal Rules
`
`of Civil Procedure, Defendants, ZTE (USA), Inc. and ZTE (TX), Inc.,1 (collectively “ZTE”), by
`
`and through their undersigned counsel, hereby provide to Plaintiff AGIS Software Development,
`
`LLC (“AGIS”) the following First Amended Initial and Additional Disclosures.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS
`
`
`1 Defendant ZTE Corporation has not yet been served or appeared in this matter; thus, these
`Disclosures are on behalf of ZTE (USA), Inc. and ZTE (TX), Inc. only.
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 83-3 Filed 09/24/18 Page 3 of 17 PageID #: 1228
`
`These disclosures are based on information reasonably, presently available to ZTE and do
`
`not include information that may be used solely for impeachment purposes. Discovery in this
`
`action is ongoing and ZTE has not completed its investigation into facts which may further
`
`support its defenses to the charge of infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,213,970 (the ’970
`
`patent”); 9,408,055 (“the ’055 patent”); 9,445,251 (“the ’251 patent”); 9,467,838 (“the ’838
`
`patent”); and 9,749,829 (“the ’829 patent”) (collectively the “patents-in-suit”) by Plaintiff. ZTE
`
`accordingly reserves the right to supplement these disclosures, and present witnesses, documents
`
`and evidence in addition to the information that is disclosed and identified herein based on
`
`additional information obtained through formal discovery or other means. In addition, ZTE
`
`recognizes its obligation under FED. R. CIV. P. 26(e)(1)(A) to supplement these Initial
`
`Disclosures under certain circumstances, and will do so in a timely manner if ZTE learns that in
`
`some material respect these Initial Disclosures are incomplete or incorrect (except to the extent
`
`that other disclosures made by ZTE in this lawsuit adequately provide such information) or as
`
`otherwise appropriate.
`
`The individuals who are identified in these Initial Disclosures may possess information or
`
`knowledge protected by one or more privileges and protections. The documents identified in
`
`these Initial Disclosures may include documents protected from discovery by the attorney-client
`
`privilege, the work product doctrine, the “common interest” or “joint defense” doctrine or other
`
`applicable legal privileges and protections. By identifying documents and listing individuals,
`
`ZTE does not waive the right to assert any applicable privilege or protection at an appropriate
`
`time. ZTE makes these disclosures based on its current knowledge and without waiver of
`
`attorney-client privilege, work product, common interest privilege, or any other privilege. ZTE
`
`may object to the production of documents and things from the categories identified or the
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 83-3 Filed 09/24/18 Page 4 of 17 PageID #: 1229
`
`obtaining of testimony from the witnesses identified on any applicable basis. Each of the
`
`following disclosures is made subject to the above qualifications.
`
`INITIAL DISCLOSURES
`
`A.
`
`The Correct Names of the Parties to the Lawsuit
`
`The correct name of the disclosing parties are ZTE (USA) Inc. and ZTE (TX) Inc.
`
`(collectively, “ZTE”). ZTE does not know whether the other parties to this lawsuit are properly
`
`named.
`
`B.
`
`The Name, Address, and Telephone Number of Any Potential Parties
`
`ZTE is not aware of any potential parties at this time except for any parent companies or
`
`other entities listed in Plaintiff’s corporate disclosure statement or any of Plaintiff’s corporate
`
`affiliates that may (i) have or previously had any interest in any of the patents in suit or (ii) direct
`
`or coordinate operations with Plaintiff.
`
`C.
`
`The Legal Theories and, in General, the factual Bases of the
`Disclosing Party’s Claims or Defenses (the disclosing party need not
`marshal all evidence that may be offered at trial)
`
`Due to the pending Motion to Dismiss, 2:17-cv-517-JRG (Dkt. 38), ZTE has not yet
`
`answered the Amended Complaint. At the appropriate time and in the appropriate forum, ZTE
`
`will answer, and at that time, ZTE may add additional defenses.
`
`ZTE has not and does not infringe the patents-in-suit, either directly or indirectly, literally
`
`or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`The asserted claims of the patents-in-suit are invalid because they fail to comply with one
`
`or more provisions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, or 112; and/or the prohibition on double
`
`patenting.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 83-3 Filed 09/24/18 Page 5 of 17 PageID #: 1230
`
`The asserted claims are barred and the patents are unenforceable, generally and against
`
`ZTE specifically, in whole or in part, due to the doctrines of laches, waiver, unclean hands,
`
`estoppel, and acquiescence.
`
`ZTE believes that AGIS’s claims for relief are barred, in whole or in part, by claim
`
`construction estoppel.
`
`ZTE believes that AGIS’s claims for relief are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine
`
`of prosecution history estoppel.
`
`ZTE believes that AGIS is not entitled to a finding of willful infringement because AGIS
`
`cannot demonstrate that infringement occurred. Furthermore, even if AGIS were able to
`
`demonstrate that infringement had occurred, AGIS would still not be entitled to a finding of
`
`willful infringement. In particular, AGIS will not be able to show that ZTE acted despite an
`
`objectively high likelihood that any actions constituted infringement of any valid claim of the
`
`patents-in-suit. Furthermore, AGIS will not be able to show that ZTE knew or should have
`
`known of such a risk.
`
`The asserted claims are barred or otherwise limited based upon exhaustion, the first sale
`
`doctrine, implied license, and restrictions on double recovery.
`
`The asserted claims are barred for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
`
`granted.
`
`Plaintiff is barred in whole or in part from recovering damages under 35 U.S.C. § 287
`
`because it and/or its licensees have not consistently marked products that allegedly practice the
`
`patents-in-suit.
`
`Plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive relief because any alleged injury to Plaintiff is not
`
`immediate or irreparable and Plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law for any claims it can prove.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 83-3 Filed 09/24/18 Page 6 of 17 PageID #: 1231
`
`Plaintiff lacks standing to assert infringement of the patents-in-suit because it did not
`
`have sufficient rights to the patents-in-suit at the time the suit was filed.
`
`To the extent that the Original and Amended Complaints accuse products or services that
`
`are provided by or for the government of the United States of America, there is no jurisdiction
`
`over such claims, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a), outside of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
`
`ZTE should receive its fees and costs pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, as this is an
`
`exceptional case. ZTE is presently unable to compute these costs, as the majority of them have
`
`not yet accrued, but ZTE will provide computations of such costs at an appropriate time.
`
`ZTE is presently investigating the facts relating to the procurement of the patents-in-suit
`
`and the assertions of infringement against ZTE, and will continue to do so throughout the
`
`discovery process. To the extent that this investigation reveals any improprieties in connection
`
`with such matters, ZTE reserves the right to assert such allegations or defenses based thereon
`
`that may be appropriate.
`
`D.
`
`Names, Addresses, and Telephone Number of Persons Having
`Knowledge of Relevant Facts
`
`Subject to and incorporating its Preliminary Statement, ZTE identifies the individuals
`
`listed in the below chart as likely to have discoverable information that ZTE may use to support
`
`its claims and defenses in this case (unless such use would likely be solely for impeachment
`
`based on information now known to ZTE) without any concessions, agreements, admissions, or
`
`waivers of any ultimate determination of relevance or admissibility of particular information for
`
`any purpose, and without waiver of attorney-client privilege or work-product immunity, or any
`
`other privilege or immunity. Contact information is provided to the extent presently known by
`
`ZTE.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 83-3 Filed 09/24/18 Page 7 of 17 PageID #: 1232
`
`ZTE does not consent to or authorize Plaintiffs or their attorneys to communicate with
`
`anyone who is identified as a ZTE employee or former employee, or with individuals with
`
`privileged information. ZTE also does not consent to or authorize any communications otherwise
`
`prohibited by any applicable rules of professional conduct. Individuals designated in this
`
`disclosure are current and former employees of ZTE should be contacted through ZTE’s
`
`undersigned attorneys. No one should contact any individual listed in the below chart for which
`
`there is an indication that such individual should be “[c]ontact[ed] through counsel for ZTE
`
`only;” for such individuals, Plaintiff should proceed only through ZTE’s undersigned counsel of
`
`record.
`
`Person(s)
`
`ZTE (USA) Inc. and
`employees thereof
`
`James Ray Wood
`
`Edward Rayeski
`
`Waiman Lam
`
`Qizhi Chen
`
`
`
`Contact Information (to the
`extent presently known)
`2425 Central Expressway
`Suite 800
`Richardson, Texas 75080
`
`[contact through ZTE counsel]
`c/o ZTE (USA) Inc.
`2425 Central Expressway
`Suite 800
`Richardson, Texas 75080
`
`[contact through ZTE counsel]
`c/o ZTE (USA) Inc.
`2425 Central Expressway
`Suite 800
`Richardson, Texas 75080
`
`[contact through ZTE counsel]
`c/o ZTE (USA) Inc.
`2425 Central Expressway
`Suite 800
`Richardson, Texas 75080
`
`[contact through ZTE counsel]
`c/o ZTE (USA) Inc.
`11400 Tomahawk Pkwy
`Suite 310
`
`6
`
`Connection with Case and
`Likely Relevant Knowledge
`Operations, structure,
`features, and financial
`information related to the
`accused devices
`
`ZTE employee with
`knowledge regarding the
`accused products
`
`ZTE employee with
`knowledge regarding the
`accused products
`
`ZTE employee with
`knowledge regarding the
`accused products
`
`ZTE employee with
`knowledge regarding the
`accused products
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 83-3 Filed 09/24/18 Page 8 of 17 PageID #: 1233
`
`Person(s)
`
`ZTE Corporation and
`employees thereof
`
`Jeff Yee
`
`ZTE (TX), Inc. and
`employees thereof
`
`Chao George Shan
`
`Jilin Xue
`
`Contact Information (to the
`extent presently known)
`Leawood, KS 66211
`
`[contact through ZTE counsel]
`c/o ZTE Corporation
`No. 55, Hi-tech Road South
`ShenZhen
`P.R. China 518057
`
`[not yet served in case]
`1900 McCarthy Blvd.
`Suite 420
`Milpitas, CA 95035
`
`[contact through ZTE counsel]
`c/0 ZTE (TX), Inc.
`1900 McCarthy Blvd.
`Suite 420
`Milpitas, CA 95035
`
`[contact through ZTE counsel]
`c/0 ZTE (TX), Inc.
`1900 McCarthy Blvd.
`Suite 420
`Milpitas, CA 95035
`
`[contact through ZTE counsel]
`c/0 ZTE (TX), Inc.
`1900 McCarthy Blvd.
`Suite 420
`Milpitas, CA 95035
`
`[contact through ZTE counsel]
`
`Connection with Case and
`Likely Relevant Knowledge
`
`Operations, structure,
`features, and financial
`information related to the
`accused devices
`
`Former ZTA employee with
`knowledge regarding the
`accused products
`
`Operations, structure,
`features, and financial
`information related to the
`accused devices
`
`ZTE employee with
`knowledge regarding the
`accused products
`
`ZTE employee with
`knowledge regarding the
`accused products
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 83-3 Filed 09/24/18 Page 9 of 17 PageID #: 1234
`
`Person(s)
`
`Tone Holmen
`
`HTC Corporation and
`employees therefore
`
`LG Electronics, Inc.
`and employees thereof
`
`Huawei Device USA,
`Inc. and employees
`thereof
`
`Huawei Device Co.,
`LTD. and employees
`thereof
`
`Huawei Device
`(Dongguan) Co., LTD.
`and employees thereof
`
`Contact Information (to the
`extent presently known)
`c/o iQor
`200 Central Avenue, 5th Floor
`St. Petersburg, FL 33701 USA
`
`[contact through iQor counsel:
`Brendan Lee
`Office: +1 (727) 369-0876
`Brendan.Lee@iqor.com]
`c/o HTC Corporation
`23 Xinghau Road
`Taoyuan City, Taoyuan 330
`Taiwan, R.O.C.
`
`[contact through HTC counsel]
`c/o LG Electronics, Inc.
`LG Twin Tower 128
`Yeoui-daero, Yeoungdeungpogu
`Soeul, Korea
`
`[contact through LGE counsel]
`c/o Huawei Device USA, Inc.
`5700 Tennyson Parkway
`Suite 600
`Plano, Texas 75024
`
`[contact through Huawei counsel]
`c/o Huawei Device Co.
`Bantian, Longggang District,
`Shenzhen, 518129 China
`
`[contact through Huawei counsel]
`c/o Huawei Device (Dongguan)
`Songshan Lake Science and
`Technology Industrial Zone,
`Dongguan, Guangdong
`China, 523808
`
`[contact through Huawei counsel]
`
`Connection with Case and
`Likely Relevant Knowledge
`iQor employee with
`knowledge regarding the
`iQor facility located in Plano,
`Texas
`
`Operations, structure,
`features, and financial
`information related to the
`accused devices
`
`Operations, structure,
`features, and financial
`information related to the
`accused devices
`
`Operations, structure,
`features, and financial
`information related to the
`accused devices
`
`Operations, structure,
`features, and financial
`information related to the
`accused devices
`
`Operations, structure,
`features, and financial
`information related to the
`accused devices
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 83-3 Filed 09/24/18 Page 10 of 17 PageID #: 1235
`
`Person(s)
`
`Apple, Inc. and
`employees thereof
`
`Google Inc. and
`employees thereof
`
`Contact Information (to the
`extent presently known)
`c/o Apple, Inc.
`1 infinite Loop
`Cupertino, California 95014
`
`[contact through Apple counsel]
`c/o Google Inc.
`1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
`Mountain View, CA 94043
`
`[contact through Google counsel]
`
`Connection with Case and
`Likely Relevant Knowledge
`Operations, structure,
`features, and financial
`information related to the
`accused devices
`
`It is unknown at this time
`which employees or former
`employees of Google, if any,
`will be needed to provided
`relevant facts and evidence.
`However, ZTE anticipates the
`subject of testimony may
`include:
`Development and
`functionality of Android code
`and functionality identified in
`Plaintiff’s infringement
`contentions.
`Issues raised by the
`documents in question.
`
`
`
`Any person not
`specifically listed
`herein, but who may be
`identified in documents,
`papers, publications, or
`patents, or in the initial
`disclosures and
`amendments or
`supplements thereto, to
`be produced, disclosed
`or filed by any of the
`parties during the
`course of this litigation.
`All named inventors
`and prosecuting
`attorneys for the
`Asserted Patents any
`related U.S. or foreign
`patents and
`applications, including,
`but not limited to:
`
`Malcolm K. Beyer
`Christopher R. Rice
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jupiter Inlet Colony, FL
`Redmond, WA
`
`Named inventors of the
`respective ’970, ’055, ’251,
`’838, and ’829 patents.
`Relevant information on
`matters related to patents-in-
`suit, including but not limited
`to, inventorship,
`patentability, prior art,
`validity, claim construction,
`conception, diligence in
`reducing to practice,
`reduction to practice,
`inequitable conduct,
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 83-3 Filed 09/24/18 Page 11 of 17 PageID #: 1236
`
`Person(s)
`
`Contact Information (to the
`extent presently known)
`
`Dale DiMaggio (Reg.
`31,823)
`Barry Haley (Reg.
`25,339)
`Mark Bowen (Reg.
`39,914)
`
`
`Daniel J. Burns (Reg.
`50,222)
`
`
`Malin Haley DiMaggio & Bowen,
`P.A.
`Spectrum Office Building
`4901 NW 17th Way, Suite 308
`Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309
`
`
`
`Goodwin Procter LLP
`100 Northern Avenue
`Boston, MA 02210
`
`Advanced Ground
`Information Systems,
`Inc.
`
`92 Lighthouse Drive
`Jupiter, FL 33469
`
`AGIS Holdings, Inc.
`
`92 Lighthouse Drive
`Jupiter, FL 33469
`
`AGIS Software
`Development, LLC and
`employees thereof
`
`100 W. Houston St
`Marshall, TX 75670
`
`Prior Art Authors
`Inventors and authors of
`the prior art listed on
`
`Unknown
`
`
`
`10
`
`Connection with Case and
`Likely Relevant Knowledge
`infringement, transfer of title,
`and communications and
`agreements with original
`assignees of the patents.
`Prosecuting Attorneys are
`likely to have relevant
`information on matters
`related to the ’970, ’055,
`’251, ’838, and ’829 patents,
`including, but not limited to,
`inventorship, patentability,
`prior art, validity, claim
`construction, conception,
`diligence in reducing to
`practice, reduction to
`practice, inequitable conduct,
`transfer of title, and
`communications and
`agreements between the
`purported inventors and the
`original assignees of the
`patents.
`Original assignee of the ’970,
`’055, ’251, ’838, and ’829
`patents; information on the
`invalidity and non-
`infringement of the claims of
`the ’970, ’055, ’251, ’838,
`and ’829 patents.
`Former assignee of the ’970,
`’055, ’251, ’838, and ’829
`patents; information on the
`invalidity and non-
`infringement of the claims of
`the ’970, ’055, ’251, ’838,
`and ’829 patents.
`Information on the invalidity
`and non-infringement of the
`claims of the patents-in-suit
`and on assignment, licensing,
`and other damages issues
`Information relating to prior
`art to the patents-in-suit
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 83-3 Filed 09/24/18 Page 12 of 17 PageID #: 1237
`
`Person(s)
`
`the face of the patents-
`in-suit and related
`patents, including
`without limitation,
`inventors and authors of
`prior art identified in
`the Asserted Patents
`and in the Defendants’
`P.R. 3-3 and 3-4
`invalidity disclosures
`Those individuals
`identified in the Initials
`Disclosures of the
`Plaintiff
`Those individuals
`identified in the Initial
`Disclosures of other
`Defendants
`
`Contact Information (to the
`extent presently known)
`
`Connection with Case and
`Likely Relevant Knowledge
`
`See Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures
`
`See description in Plaintiff’s
`Initial Disclosures
`
`See Defendants’ Initial Disclosures See description in
`Defendants’ Initial
`Disclosures
`
`There may be additional officers, employees, consultants, attorneys, and agents of ZTE,
`
`other parties, or of third patties, who have information relevant to ZTE's claims and defenses.
`
`The above chart is not intended to identify every individual with relevant knowledge in the areas
`
`listed (nor are the areas listed intended to describe the complete extent of each identified
`
`individual's possibly relevant knowledge). For example, there may be several individuals at ZTE
`
`with relevant knowledge regarding the accused product that to some extent duplicates or is a
`
`subset of the knowledge possessed by the listed individuals. The above list constitutes ZTE’s
`
`good faith effort to identify individuals with substantial knowledge who may supply its defenses
`
`without creating an unmanageable list of all individuals that may have some discoverable
`
`information.
`
`In addition to the individuals identified in the above chart, ZTE notes that the following
`
`classes of individuals and entities may have discoverable information that ZTE may use to
`
`support its defenses (to the extent that there are individuals and/or entities in addition to those
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 83-3 Filed 09/24/18 Page 13 of 17 PageID #: 1238
`
`identified in the above chart for each class): (1) individuals associated with or involved with the
`
`prosecution of the patents-in-suit or any related patents; (2) individuals and entities with
`
`knowledge regarding the ownership and/or licensing history of the patents-in-suit (including
`
`individuals associated with one or more prior assignees or licensees of the patents-in-suit and
`
`individuals and entities that have negotiated agreements related to rights under the patents-in-
`
`suit); (3) individuals and entities who will be deposed during this lawsuit and individuals and
`
`entities identified during such depositions; (4) individuals identified as inventors and/or authors
`
`of relevant prior art to the patents-in-suit or who have knowledge regarding relevant prior art; (5)
`
`individuals with knowledge of any public use, sale, or offer for sale of products or services
`
`covered by one or more claims of the patents-in-suit before its filing date; and (6) individuals or
`
`entities identified in the Initial Disclosures of the other parties in this lawsuit, including those of
`
`Plaintiff. ZTE reserves the right to subpoena documents and testimony from any individual or
`
`entity identified by Plaintiff in this case as having discoverable information.
`
`Additionally, ZTE will disclose the identity of any testifying expert witnesses in
`
`accordance with the schedule set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) and this Court’s Docket
`
`Control Order (Dkt. 39).
`
`ZTE reserves the right to identify and call as witnesses at trial additional persons who
`
`become known to ZTE and are knowledgeable regarding discoverable information that ZTE may
`
`use to supports its defenses, provided such person are known by or made known to Plaintiff in
`
`some manner during discovery in this or prior litigations involving Plaintiff and the patents-in-
`
`suit, including, for example, Plaintiff’s affiliates, principals, employees, agents, or attorneys who
`
`are likely to have discoverable information that ZTE may use to support its claims or defenses.
`
`E.
`
`Any Indemnity and Insuring Agreements Under Which any Person or
`Entity May be Liable to Satisfy part or All of a Judgment Entered in
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 83-3 Filed 09/24/18 Page 14 of 17 PageID #: 1239
`
`this Action or to Indemnify or Reimburse for Payments Made to
`Satisfy the Judgment
`
`At this time, ZTE is unaware of any insurance agreement under which an unrelated
`
`insurance business may be liable to satisfy all or part of a possible judgment against ZTE in this
`
`lawsuit or to indemnify or reimburse ZTE for payments made to satisfy any such judgment.
`
`F.
`
`Any Settlement Agreements Relevant to this Action
`
`At this time, ZTE is not aware of any settlement agreements relevant to the subject matter
`
`of this action other than those provided by, or identified by, or requested of Plaintiff. ZTE
`
`submits that settlement agreements relevant to this action are better known to AGIS than to ZTE.
`
`G.
`
`Any Statement of Any Party to the Litigation
`
`ZTE identifies the parties’ pleadings, disclosures, and contentions. At this time, ZTE does
`
`not have any additional statements other than those that have been made in its pleadings or
`
`appearances made before the Court. ZTE believes AGIS’s statements, including but not limited
`
`to pleadings, disclosures, and contentions, made in Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc.
`
`v. Life360, Inc., 9:14-cv-80651 (S.D. FL.) may be relevant to this litigation. Further, AGIS’s
`
`statements in pending IPR proceedings involving the patents-in-suit, including IPR2018-01079,
`
`IPR2018-00821, IPR2018-01080, IPR2018-00818, IPR2018-01082, IPR2018-01081, IPR2018-
`
`01083, IPR2018-01084, IPR2018-00817, IPR2018-01085, IPR2018-01087, IPR2018-01088,
`
`IPR2018-01086, and IPR2018-00819, may be relevant to this litigation. And, AGIS’s statements
`
`in co-pending district court litigation, consolidated lead case AGIS Software Development LLC v.
`
`Huawei Device USA Inc. et al., 2:17-cv-00513-JRG, may be relevant to this litigation. ZTE is
`
`currently unaware of further statements of any party to the litigation, and expressly reserves its
`
`right to supplement these disclosures as discovery progresses.
`
`ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 83-3 Filed 09/24/18 Page 15 of 17 PageID #: 1240
`
`A copy--or a description by category and location--of all documents, electronically
`stored information, and tangible things that the disclosing party has in its
`possession, custody, or control and that are relevant to the claims or defense of any
`party
`
`ZTE will produce or permit the inspection of documents, electronically stored
`
`information, and tangible things in ZTE’s possession, custody, or control that are relevant to the
`
`pleaded claims or defenses involved in this action, except to the extent these disclosures are
`
`affected by the time limits set forth in the Patent Rules for the Eastern District of Texas or are
`
`otherwise objectionable. ZTE further discloses by reference documents, electronically stored
`
`information, and tangible things disclosed by co-defendants to this action in their Initial and
`
`Additional Disclosures.
`
`Computation of Damages Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (a)(1)(A)
`
`ZTE seeks reimbursement of all costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees,
`
`incurred as a result of this action. Such costs and expenses continue to accrue, and therefore and
`
`exact computation thereof cannot be performed at this time. ZTE will provide computations of
`
`damages and produce or permit the inspection of documents or other evidentiary material on
`
`which such computation is based, including materials bearing on the nature and extent of injuries
`
`suffered after ZTE has retained a suitable expert to provide such information.
`
`At this time, ZTE does not have any other claim for damages against Plaintiff, but
`
`reserves its right when submitting its Answer and assert any counterclaims in accordance with
`
`the Local and Federal Rules.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 83-3 Filed 09/24/18 Page 16 of 17 PageID #: 1241
`
`Dated: September 11, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/Lionel M. Lavenue
`Lionel M. Lavenue
`Bradford C. Schulz
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
` GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`Two Freedom Square
`11955 Freedom Drive
`Reston, VA 20190
`Phone: (571) 203-2700
`Fax: (202) 408-4400
`
`ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS
`ZTE (USA) INC. AND ZTE (TX), INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 83-3 Filed 09/24/18 Page 17 of 17 PageID #: 1242
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
` I
`
` hereby certify that on the date set forth below, a copy of the foregoing DEFENDANTS
`
`ZTE (USA), INC. AND ZTE (TX), INC.’S FIRST AMENDED INITIAL AND
`
`ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURES to be served by email on counsel of record for Plaintiff.
`
`DATE: September 11, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/Lisa C. Hines
`Lisa C. Hines
`Litigation Legal Assistant
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett &
`Dunner, LLP
`
`
`
`16
`
`