Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 203-1 Filed 11/04/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 7243
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 203-1 Filed 11/04/21 Page 1of 3 PagelD #: 7243
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`NOante rN one lates ele) pa
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 203-1 Filed 11/04/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 7244
`
`THE DACUS FIRM
`
`ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW
`A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
`
`November4, 2021
`
`Honorable Roy Payne
`Magistrate Judge
`USDC-EDTX-Marshall
`100 East Houston Street
`Marshall, TX 75670
`
`RE:=2:21-cv-72-JRG-RSP (Lead); AGIS Software Development LLC v
`T-Mobile USA,Inc. et al; USDC, Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
`
`Dear Judge Payne:
`
`Defendant Lyft writes regarding its pending Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue (Dkt. 30)
`(the “Motion”) and to respectfully request a ruling on the Motion. Lyft filed its Motion on April
`27, 2021. After full briefing, the Court conducted a hearing on September 29, 2021. The Court
`also conducted a Markman hearing on October 21, 2021, but has not yet issuedits
`Markman/claim construction opinion and order.
`
`Both the Federal] Circuit and the Fifth Circuit prioritize resolution of venue disputes, and the
`Federal Circuit also appears to place an obligation onthelitigant to diligently pursue a venue
`ruling, which is the impetusfor this letter. The Federal Circuit has instructed that the resolution
`of venue issues should be addressed before any Markman ruling, See In re Apple Inc., 979 F.3d
`1332, 1337-38 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (noting that venue issues should be prioritized over a Markman
`hearing and claim construction order as two of the most important and time-intensive substantive
`tasks a district court undertakesin a patent case.)'
`In Apple, the Federal Circuit emphasized that
`district courts should prioritize venue disputes before addressing any of the other substantive
`issues ina case. See 979 F.3d at 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (indicating that resolution of venue issues
`should “unquestionably take top priority” in a case).
`
`' See also In re SK Hynix Inc., 835 F. App’x 600, 601 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (same); Jn re Nintendo
`Co., 544 Fed. App’x 934, 941 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (explaining that“a trial court must first address
`whetherit is a proper and convenient venue before addressing any substantive portion ofthe
`case”); In re EMC Corp., 501 F. App’x 973, 975-76 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (recognizing “the
`importance of addressing motionsto transfer at the outset oflitigation”); In re Fusion-IO, Inc.,
`489 F. App’x 465, 466 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“We fully expect ... the district court to act on those
`motions before proceeding to any motion on the merits of the action”); and Jn re Horseshoe
`Entm’t, 337 F.3d 429, 433 (5"Cir. 2003) (“[I]n our view disposition ofthat ]transfer] motion
`should have taken a top priority in handling of this case by the ... District Court”).
`
`Deron Dacus,Attorney At Law, Certified Public Accountant
`
`821 ESE Loop 323, Suite 430 | Tyler, Texas 757071 | Phone/Fax: 903.705.1117 | Direct Dial: 903.705.7233 | ddacus@dacusfirm.com
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 203-1 Filed 11/04/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 7245
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 203-1 Filed 11/04/21 Page 3 of 3 PagelD #: 7245
`
`Because the Federal Circuit also appears to place an obligation on the litigant to diligently pursue
`a venue ruling from the Court, Lyft respectfully, and with full acknowledgementofthis Court’s
`very heavy docket load, requests this Court promptly rule on its Motion and, at a minimum,prior
`to any Markmanruling/orderherein.
`
`Sincerely,
`
`/
`
`~Ve 2 Lone—
`
`Deron R. Dacus
`
`DRD/da
`
`