throbber
Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 205 Filed 11/04/21 Page 1 of 23 PageID #: 7251
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`CASE NO. 2:21-cv-00072-JRG
`(Lead Case)
`
`CASE NO. 2:21-cv-00024-JRG
`(Member Case)
`
`CASE NO. 2:21-cv-00026-JRG
`(Member Case)
`
`§§
`
`§
`§
`§
`
`§§§
`
`§§
`
`§
`§
`
`§§§
`
`§§
`
`§
`§
`
`§§
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC
`
`v.
`
`T-MOBILE USA, INC., and T-MOBILE
`US, INC.
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC
`
`v.
`
`LYFT, INC.
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC
`
`v.
`
`UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., d/b/a UBER
`
`LYFT, INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
`
`Defendant Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”), by and through its counsel, hereby answers the Complaint
`
`of Plaintiff AGIS Software Development LLC’s (“AGIS”) filed on January 29, 2021 in Case No.
`
`2:21-cv-00024, Dkt. 1.
`
`As an initial matter, Lyft denies each and every allegation contained in the Complaint that
`
`is not expressly admitted below. Any factual allegation admitted below is admitted only as to the
`
`specific facts, and not as to any purported conclusions, characterizations, implications, or
`
`speculations that might follow from the admitted facts. Additionally, to the extent that the headings
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 205 Filed 11/04/21 Page 2 of 23 PageID #: 7252
`
`
`
`or any other non-numbered statements in the Complaint contain any allegations, Lyft denies each
`
`and every such allegation. Lyft includes headings herein solely for purposes of clarity.
`
`In answering the specific allegations of AGIS’s Complaint, Lyft responds with the
`
`following paragraphs, which correspond sequentially to the paragraphs in AGIS’s Complaint:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Lyft is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore denies them.
`
`2.
`
`Lyft admits that it is a Delaware corporation with a place of business located at 185
`
`Berry Street, Suite 5000, San Francisco, California 94107. Lyft admits that it develops an
`
`application available for download that may be used to provide a peer-to-peer marketplace for on-
`
`demand ridesharing. Lyft denies any remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`This Paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. To the
`
`extent a response is deemed necessary, Lyft admits that AGIS purports to state causes of action
`
`for infringement, although Lyft denies that any such claims are meritorious, and Lyft admits that
`
`28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), 2201, and 2202 provide subject matter jurisdiction to this Court for
`
`cases arising under federal patent law, including declaratory judgment actions and appropriate
`
`counterclaims.
`
`4.
`
`This Paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. To the
`
`extent a response is deemed necessary, Lyft admits that the Court has personal jurisdiction over
`
`Lyft in this action. Lyft denies any remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`5.
`
`Lyft denies that venue is proper in this judicial district and has moved to dismiss
`
`on that basis (See Dkt. 30). This motion is presently pending before the Court.
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 205 Filed 11/04/21 Page 3 of 23 PageID #: 7253
`
`There Are No Lyft Express Drive Locations in this District
`
`
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`There are No Lyft Vehicles in this District
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Lyft admits that there were over one million drivers on the Lyft platform in the
`
`United States in 2020. Lyft admits that it develops an application available for download that may
`
`be used to provide a peer-to-peer marketplace for on-demand ridesharing. Lyft denies any
`
`remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`12.
`
` Lyft admits that it provides terms of service for use of its application at
`
`https://www.lyft.com/terms. Lyft denies any remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`13.
`
`Lyft admits that it provides terms of service for use of its application at
`
`https://www.lyft.com/terms. Lyft denies any remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`14.
`
`Lyft admits that it provides emblems that drivers may use to mark their vehicle
`
`when providing a ride using the Lyft application. Lyft denies any remaining allegations in this
`
`Paragraph.
`
`PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`15.
`
`Lyft admits that U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970 (the “’970 Patent”) is entitled “Method
`
`of Utilizing Forced Alerts for Interactive Remote Communications.” Lyft admits that the face of
`
`the ’970 patent indicates that it was issued on July 3, 2012. Lyft admits that a copy of the ’970
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 205 Filed 11/04/21 Page 4 of 23 PageID #: 7254
`
`
`
`Patent is attached as Exhibit A to AGIS’s Complaint. Lyft denies any remaining allegations in this
`
`Paragraph.
`
`16.
`
`Lyft admits that U.S. Patent No. 7,630,724 (the “’724 Patent”) is entitled “Method
`
`of Providing a Cellular Phone/PDA Communication System.” Lyft admits that the face of the ’724
`
`patent indicates that it was issued on December 8, 2009. Lyft admits that a copy of the ’724 Patent
`
`is attached as Exhibit B to AGIS’s Complaint. Lyft denies any remaining allegations in this
`
`Paragraph.
`
`17.
`
`Lyft admits that U.S. Patent No. 7,031,728 (the “’728 Patent”) is entitled “Cellular
`
`Phone/PDA Communication System.” Lyft admits that the face of the ’728 patent indicates that it
`
`was issued on April 18, 2006. Lyft admits that a copy of the ’728 Patent is attached as Exhibit C
`
`to AGIS’s Complaint. Lyft denies any remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`18.
`
`Lyft admits that U.S. Patent No. 10,299,100 (the “’100 Patent”) is “Method to
`
`Provide Ad Hoc and Password Protected Digital and Voice Networks.” Lyft admits that the face
`
`of the ’100 patent indicates that it was issued on May 21, 2019. Lyft admits that a copy of the ’100
`
`Patent is attached as Exhibit D to AGIS’s Complaint. Lyft denies any remaining allegations in this
`
`Paragraph.
`
`19.
`
`Lyft admits that U.S. Patent No. 10,341,838 (the “’838 Patent”) is entitled “Method
`
`to Provide Ad Hoc and Password Protected Digital and Voice Networks.” Lyft admits that the face
`
`of the ’838 patent indicates that it was issued on July 2, 2019. Lyft admits that a copy of the ’838
`
`Patent is attached as Exhibit E to AGIS’s Complaint. Lyft denies any remaining allegations in this
`
`Paragraph.
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 205 Filed 11/04/21 Page 5 of 23 PageID #: 7255
`
`
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`20.
`
`Lyft is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore denies them.
`
`21.
`
`Lyft is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore denies them.
`
`22.
`
`Lyft admits AGIS purports to have licensed some patents in its patent portfolio.
`
`Lyft is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of any remaining
`
`allegations in this Paragraph and therefore denies them.
`
`23.
`
`24.
`
`Denied.
`
`The allegations of this Paragraph are based on interpretations of claim language
`
`and legal conclusions to which no response is necessary, and Lyft denies any allegation of
`
`infringement.
`
`COUNT I
`(Infringement of the ’970 Patent)
`
`25.
`
`This paragraph incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1–24 of Plaintiff’s Complaint
`
`and no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Lyft incorporates by reference
`
`each response contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 of this Answer as though fully set forth herein.
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`31.
`
`32.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 205 Filed 11/04/21 Page 6 of 23 PageID #: 7256
`
`
`
`33.
`
`34.
`
`35.
`
`36.
`
`37.
`
`38.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`COUNT II
`(Infringement of the ’724 Patent)
`
`39.
`
`This paragraph incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1–24 of Plaintiff’s Complaint
`
`and no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Lyft incorporates by reference
`
`each response contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 of this Answer as though fully set forth herein.
`
`40.
`
`41.
`
`42.
`
`43.
`
`44.
`
`45.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`The allegations of this Paragraph are based on interpretations of claim language
`
`and legal conclusions to which no response is necessary, and Lyft denies any allegation of
`
`infringement. Lyft admits that it develops an application available for download onto smartphones
`
`that may be used to provide a peer-to-peer marketplace for on-demand ridesharing. Lyft denies
`
`any remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`46.
`
`The allegations of this Paragraph are based on interpretations of claim language
`
`and legal conclusions to which no response is necessary, and Lyft denies any allegation of
`
`infringement. Lyft admits that it develops an application available for download onto smartphones
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 205 Filed 11/04/21 Page 7 of 23 PageID #: 7257
`
`
`
`that may be used to provide a peer-to-peer marketplace for on-demand ridesharing. Lyft denies
`
`any remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`47.
`
`The allegations of this Paragraph are based on interpretations of claim language
`
`and legal conclusions to which no response is necessary, and Lyft denies any allegation of
`
`infringement. Lyft denies any remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`48.
`
`The allegations of this Paragraph are based on interpretations of claim language
`
`and legal conclusions to which no response is necessary, and Lyft denies any allegation of
`
`infringement. Lyft denies any remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`49.
`
`50.
`
`51.
`
`52.
`
`53.
`
`Lyft admits that the ’724 Patent was identified in Plaintiff’s Complaint.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`COUNT III
`(Infringement of the ’728 Patent)
`
`54.
`
`This paragraph incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1–24 of Plaintiff’s Complaint
`
`and no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Lyft incorporates by reference
`
`each response contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 of this Answer as though fully set forth herein.
`
`55.
`
`56.
`
`57.
`
`58.
`
`59.
`
`60.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 205 Filed 11/04/21 Page 8 of 23 PageID #: 7258
`
`
`
`61.
`
`The allegations of this Paragraph are based on interpretations of claim language
`
`and legal conclusions to which no response is necessary, and Lyft denies any allegation of
`
`infringement. Lyft admits that it develops an application available for download onto smartphones
`
`that may be used to provide a peer-to-peer marketplace for on-demand ridesharing. Lyft denies
`
`any remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`62.
`
`The allegations of this Paragraph are based on interpretations of claim language
`
`and legal conclusions to which no response is necessary, and Lyft denies any allegation of
`
`infringement. Lyft denies any remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`63.
`
`The allegations of this Paragraph are based on interpretations of claim language
`
`and legal conclusions to which no response is necessary, and Lyft denies any allegation of
`
`infringement. Lyft denies any remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`64.
`
`65.
`
`66.
`
`67.
`
`68.
`
`Lyft admits that the ’728 Patent was identified in Plaintiff’s Complaint.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`COUNT IV
`(Infringement of the ’838 Patent)
`
`69.
`
`This paragraph incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1–24 of Plaintiff’s Complaint
`
`and no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Lyft incorporates by reference
`
`each response contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 of this Answer as though fully set forth herein.
`
`70.
`
`71.
`
`72.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 205 Filed 11/04/21 Page 9 of 23 PageID #: 7259
`
`
`
`73.
`
`74.
`
`75.
`
`76.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`The allegations of this Paragraph are based on interpretations of claim language
`
`and legal conclusions to which no response is necessary, and Lyft denies any allegation of
`
`infringement. Lyft denies any remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`77.
`
`The allegations of this Paragraph are based on interpretations of claim language
`
`and legal conclusions to which no response is necessary, and Lyft denies any allegation of
`
`infringement. Lyft denies any remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`78.
`
`The allegations of this Paragraph are based on interpretations of claim language
`
`and legal conclusions to which no response is necessary, and Lyft denies any allegation of
`
`infringement. Lyft admits that it develops an application available for download onto smartphones
`
`that may be used to provide a peer-to-peer marketplace for on-demand ridesharing. Lyft denies
`
`any remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`79.
`
`The allegations of this Paragraph are based on interpretations of claim language
`
`and legal conclusions to which no response is necessary, and Lyft denies any allegation of
`
`infringement. Lyft denies any remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`80.
`
`The allegations of this Paragraph are based on interpretations of claim language
`
`and legal conclusions to which no response is necessary, and Lyft denies any allegation of
`
`infringement. Lyft denies any remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`81.
`
`82.
`
`83.
`
`Lyft admits that the ’838 Patent was identified in Plaintiff’s Complaint.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 205 Filed 11/04/21 Page 10 of 23 PageID #: 7260
`
`
`
`84.
`
`85.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`COUNT V
`(Infringement of the ’100 Patent)
`
`86.
`
`This paragraph incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1–24 of Plaintiff’s Complaint
`
`and no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Lyft incorporates by reference
`
`each response contained in paragraphs 1 through 24 of this Answer as though fully set forth herein.
`
`87.
`
`88.
`
`89.
`
`90.
`
`91.
`
`92.
`
`93.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`The allegations of this Paragraph are based on interpretations of claim language
`
`and legal conclusions to which no response is necessary, and Lyft denies any allegation of
`
`infringement. Lyft denies any remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`94.
`
`The allegations of this Paragraph are based on interpretations of claim language
`
`and legal conclusions to which no response is necessary, and Lyft denies any allegation of
`
`infringement. Lyft denies any remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`95.
`
`The allegations of this Paragraph are based on interpretations of claim language
`
`and legal conclusions to which no response is necessary, and Lyft denies any allegation of
`
`infringement. Lyft admits that it develops an application available for download onto smartphones
`
`that may be used to provide a peer-to-peer marketplace for on-demand ridesharing. Lyft denies
`
`any remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 205 Filed 11/04/21 Page 11 of 23 PageID #: 7261
`
`
`
`96.
`
`The allegations of this Paragraph are based on interpretations of claim language
`
`and legal conclusions to which no response is necessary, and Lyft denies any allegation of
`
`infringement. Lyft denies any remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`97.
`
`The allegations of this Paragraph are based on interpretations of claim language
`
`and legal conclusions to which no response is necessary, and Lyft denies any allegation of
`
`infringement. Lyft denies any remaining allegations in this Paragraph.
`
`98.
`
`99.
`
`Lyft admits that the ’100 Patent was identified in Plaintiff’s Complaint.
`
`Denied.
`
`100. Denied.
`
`101. Denied.
`
`102. Denied.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`Lyft also demands a trial by jury.
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`Lyft’s investigation of its defenses is continuing, and Lyft expressly reserves the right to
`
`assert any additional defenses under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the patent laws of the
`
`United States, and any other defense, at law or in equity, that may now exist or be available in the
`
`future based upon discovery and further investigation in this case. By asserting the following
`
`defenses, the burden of proof has not shifted from Plaintiff for any issue where Plaintiff bears the
`
`burden, including, without limitation, infringement. Lyft reserves the right to amend its response,
`
`including asserting additional affirmative and other defenses as may be discovered or otherwise
`
`become available.
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 205 Filed 11/04/21 Page 12 of 23 PageID #: 7262
`
`
`
`First Affirmative Defense – Non-infringement
`Lyft has not and does not infringe literally, under the doctrine of equivalents,
`1.
`directly, indirectly, contributorily, or by inducement, any valid, enforceable claim of the Asserted
`Patents.
`
`Second Affirmative Defense – Invalidity
`One or more claims of each of the Asserted Patents is invalid for failure to satisfy
`2.
`one or more conditions for patentability in 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112, and/or the
`applicable provisions of Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
`
`Third Affirmative Defense – Failure to State a Claim
`AGIS has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted at least because,
`3.
`even assuming all facts recited in its Complaint are true, AGIS’s Complaint fails to show that Lyft
`infringes one or more valid and enforceable claims of the Asserted Patents under any theory.
`
`Fourth Affirmative Defense – Unenforceability
`Lyft reserves the right to assert that the Asserted Patents are unenforceable due to
`4.
`at least unclean hands and/or inequitable conduct.
`Fifth Affirmative Defense – Prosecution History Estoppel
`AGIS is estopped from construing the claims of the Asserted Patents to cover or
`5.
`include either literally or by application of the doctrine of equivalents, methods used or devices
`manufactured, used, imported, sold, or offered for sale by Lyft because of admissions, omissions,
`representations, statements, disclaimers, and/or disavowals made to the United States Patent and
`Trademark Office during prosecution of the applications leading to the issuance of the Asserted
`Patents.
`
`Sixth Affirmative Defense – No Entitlement to Injunctive Relief
`AGIS’s claim for injunctive relief is barred at least because AGIS has not suffered
`6.
`any irreparable injury, has an adequate remedy at law, and cannot satisfy the other requirements
`applicable to its request for injunctive relief.
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 205 Filed 11/04/21 Page 13 of 23 PageID #: 7263
`
`
`
`Seventh Affirmative Defense – Waiver, Acquiescence, Unclean Hands, Estoppel
`7.
`Some or all of AGIS’s claims for relief against Lyft for infringement of the Asserted
`Patents are barred by the doctrines of waiver, acquiescence, unclean hands, and/or estoppel.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Eighth Affirmative Defense – License, Implied License, Covenant Not to Sue, Exhaustion
`8.
`AGIS’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of license, implied
`license, covenant not to sue, and/or exhaustion.
`
`
`
`Ninth Affirmative Defense – Breach of Contract
`AGIS’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, due to breach of contract.
`
`9.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tenth Affirmative Defense – Limitation of Damages
`Upon information and belief, AGIS’s claim for damages for purported
`10.
`infringement of the Asserted Patents is limited under 35 U.S.C. §§ 286, 287, and/or and 288.
`
`Eleventh Affirmative Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
`AGIS cannot show this is an exceptional case, and therefore has no basis to recovery
`11.
`of attorneys’ fees and cannot recover costs as a matter of law.
`
`Eleventh Affirmative Defense – No Willful Infringement
`AGIS is not entitled to enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 because AGIS
`12.
`has failed to meet, and cannot meet as a matter of law, the requirements for willful infringement.
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 205 Filed 11/04/21 Page 14 of 23 PageID #: 7264
`
`
`
`Twelfth Affirmative Defense – Lack of Standing
`AGIS lacks statutory standing because it has failed to join all co-owners of the
`13.
`patents in this infringement case. Three of the five Asserted patents (Patents ’724, ’100, and ’838)
`name Christopher R. Rice as a co-inventor.
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Thus, AGIS lacks statutory standing.
`
`COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`Lyft asserts the following counterclaims against AGIS. Lyft reserves the right to assert
`
`counterclaims as warranted by facts revealed through discovery.
`
`Count I – Breach of Contract
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 205 Filed 11/04/21 Page 15 of 23 PageID #: 7265
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Asserted Patents in This Case
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16.
`
`On information and belief, as of July 3, 2012, U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970 was owned
`
`by, controlled by, or assigned to AGIS.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 205 Filed 11/04/21 Page 16 of 23 PageID #: 7266
`
`
`
`17.
`
`On information and belief, as of December 8, 2009, U.S. Patent No 7,630,724 was
`
`owned by, controlled by, or assigned to AGIS.
`
`18.
`
`On information and belief, as of April 18, 2006, U.S. Patent No 7,031,728 was
`
`owned by, controlled by, or assigned to AGIS.
`
`19.
`
`On information and belief, as of July 2, 2019, U.S. Patent No 10,341,838 was
`
`owned by, controlled by, or assigned to AGIS.
`
`20.
`
`On information and belief, as of May 21, 2019, U.S. Patent No 10,299,100 was
`
`owned by, controlled by, or assigned to AGIS.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 205 Filed 11/04/21 Page 17 of 23 PageID #: 7267
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 205 Filed 11/04/21 Page 18 of 23 PageID #: 7268
`
`
`
`
`
`The Accused Products are Licensed Products
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AGIS is Causing Injury by Wrongfully Asserting the ’970, ’724, ’728, ’838, and ’100
`
`Patents Against Lyft
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 205 Filed 11/04/21 Page 19 of 23 PageID #: 7269
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RESPONSE TO AGIS’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`Lyft denies any form of infringement and denies that AGIS is entitled to any relief
`
`whatsoever, including all relief requested in AGIS’s “Prayer for Relief” in the Complaint. To the
`
`extent any statement in the Complaint’s Prayer for Relief is deemed factual, it is denied.
`
`Wherefore, Lyft respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor against AGIS,
`
`as follows:
`
`
`
`b.
`
`An award of damages sufficient to compensate Lyft for AGIS’s breach, including
`
`attorneys’ fees and costs incurred as a result of AGIS’s lawsuit;
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`An order dismissing AGIS’s Complaint with prejudice in all respects;
`
`A judgment that Lyft is not infringing and has not infringed, directly and/or
`
`indirectly, any claims of each of the Patents-in-Suit;
`
`e.
`
`A judgment that Lyft is not willfully infringing and has not willfully infringed any
`
`claims of each of the Patents-in-Suit;
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`and costs;
`
`case;
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`An order denying AGIS’s request for a permanent injunction;
`
`An order denying AGIS’s request for any damages including any royalty, interest
`
`An order denying AGIS’s request for attorney’s fees in this action as an exceptional
`
`An order declaring this an exceptional case and that Lyft be awarded its costs,
`
`expenses, and reasonable attorneys’ fees in this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and;
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 205 Filed 11/04/21 Page 20 of 23 PageID #: 7270
`
`
`
`j.
`
`An order awarding Lyft such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate and
`
`just under the circumstances.
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 205 Filed 11/04/21 Page 21 of 23 PageID #: 7271
`
`Date: November 3, 2021
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Jeremy J. Taylor
`
`Jeremy J. Taylor
`Sarah J. Guske
`Arya Moshiri (Pro Hac Vice)
`Baker Botts L.L.P.
`jeremy.taylor@bakerbotts.com
`sarah.guske@bakerbotts.com
`arya.moshiri@bakerbotts.com
`101 California St., Suite 3600
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: (415) 291-6200
`Facsimile: (415) 291-6300
`
`Danny David
`Michelle J. Eber
`Baker Botts L.L.P.
`danny.david@bakerbotts.com
`michelle.eber@bakerbotts.com
`910 Louisiana Street
`Houston, TX 77002
`Telephone: (713) 229-1234
`Facsimile: (713) 229-1522
`
`Kurt Pankratz
`Bethany R. Salpietra
`Megan LaDriere White
`Baker Botts L.L.P.
`kurt.pankratz@bakerbotts.com
`bethany.salpietra@bakerbotts.com
`megan.ladriere@bakerbotts.com
`2001 Ross Ave., Ste. 900
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Telephone: (214) 953-6500
`Facsimile: (214) 953-6503
`
`Jennifer C. Tempesta
`Baker Botts L.L.P.
`jennifer.tempesta@bakerbotts.com
`30 Rockefeller Plaza, 44th Floor
`New York, NY 10112
`Telephone: (212) 408-2571
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 205 Filed 11/04/21 Page 22 of 23 PageID #: 7272
`
`
`
`Facsimile: (212) 259-2571
`
`Lauren J. Dreyer (Pro Hac Vice)
`Baker Botts L.L.P.
`lauren.dreyer@bakerbotts.com
`700 K Street NW
`Washington, DC 2000
`Telephone: (202) 639-7823
`Facsimile: (202) 639-1153
`
`Brianna Potter (Pro Hac Vice)
`Baker Botts L.L.P.
`brianna.potter@bakerbotts.com
`1001 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Telephone: (650) 739-7556
`Facsimile: (650) 739-7656
`
`Deron R. Dacus
`The Dacus Firm, P.C.
`ddacus@dacusfirm.com
`821 ESE Loop 323, Suite 430
`Tyler, Texas 75701
`Telephone: (903) 705-1117
`Facsimile: (903) 581-2543
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Lyft, Inc.
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 205 Filed 11/04/21 Page 23 of 23 PageID #: 7273
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that counsel of record who are deemed to have consented
`
`to electronic services are being served with a copy of this document via email on November 3,
`
`2021.
`
`/s/ Jeremy J. Taylor
`Jeremy J. Taylor
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

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