Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 221 Filed 11/17/21 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 7573
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`T-MOBILE USA, INC. and T-MOBILE US,
`INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`§
`
`§
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00072-JRG
`(LEAD CASE)
`§
`§
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`§
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., d/b/a
`UBER,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00026-JRG
`(MEMBER CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`PLAINTIFF AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC’S RESPONSE
`IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`D/B/A UBER’S OPPOSED MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES
`TO INTERROGATORY NOS. 11 AND 12 (DKT. 193)
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 221 Filed 11/17/21 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 7574
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`AGIS Has Already Supplemented Its Interrogatory Responses and
`Uber’s Requests Are Moot...................................................................................... 2
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 221 Filed 11/17/21 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 7575
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Beckman Coulter, Inc. v. Sysmex Am., Inc.,
`No. 18-cv-6563, 2019 WL 10250941 (N.D. .Ill. Aug. 12, 2019) ..............................................3
`
`Ecolab USA Inc. v. Diversey, Inc.,
`No. 12-cv-1984, 2015 WL 2353018 (D. Minn. May 15, 2015) ................................................3
`
`Herbert v. Lando,
`441 U.S. 153 (1979) ...................................................................................................................1
`
`Leader Techs. Inc. v. Facebook Inc.,
`No. CIV 08-862-JJF-LPS, 2009 WL 3021168 (D. Del. Sept. 4, 2009) .....................................4
`
`Morpho Detection, Inc. v. Smiths Detection, Inc.,
`957 F. Supp. 2d 655 (E.D. Va. 2013) ........................................................................................3
`
`Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders,
`437 U.S. 340 (1978) ...................................................................................................................1
`
`ORIX USA Corp. v. Armentrout,
`No. 3:16-mc-63-N-BN, 2016 WL 4095603 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 1, 2016) .....................................1
`
`RTC Indus., Inc. v. Fasteners for Retail, Inc.,
`No. 1:17-cv-03595, Dkt. 188 (N.D. Ill. June 18, 2019) .............................................................3
`
`Sonix Tech. Co. v. Yoshida,
`No. 12CV380-CAB (DHB), 2014 WL 11878354, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 5,
`2014) ..........................................................................................................................................3
`
`Van Dyke v. Retzlaff,
`No. 4:18—247, 2020 WL 1866075 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 14, 2020) .................................................2
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)...............................................................................................................1, 2
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 221 Filed 11/17/21 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 7576
`
`
`
`Plaintiff AGIS Software Development LLC (“AGIS” or “Plaintiff”), by and through its
`
`undersigned counsel, hereby submits this response in opposition to Defendant Uber Technologies,
`
`Inc., d/b/a Uber’s (“Defendant” or “Uber”) Opposed Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatory
`
`Nos. 11 and 12 (Dkt. 193) (the “Motion”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Uber seeks additional responses to two interrogatories. However, AGIS has provided
`
`supplemental responses to these interrogatories. On the meet and confer between the parties prior
`
`to the filing of the instant Motion, AGIS indicated that it would supplement its interrogatory
`
`responses and asked for clarification regarding certain interrogatories which were either vague or
`
`burdensome to the extent they were impermissibly broad. Nonetheless, to the extent AGIS was
`
`able to ascertain the bounds of Uber’s interrogatories, it provided responses or provided a basis by
`
`which it objected. AGIS has satisfied its discovery obligations and in good faith, served
`
`supplemental interrogatory responses. Accordingly, Uber’s Motion should be denied.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that “[p]arties may obtain
`
`discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense . . .”
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). While “discovery rules are to be accorded a broad and liberal treatment
`
`to effect their purpose of adequately informing the litigants in civil trials” (Herbert v. Lando, 441
`
`U.S. 153, 176 (1979)), discovery does have “ultimate and necessary boundaries.” Oppenheimer
`
`Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). Courts “cannot compel [a party or non-party] to
`
`produce non-existent documents” because a party “cannot produce what it does not have.” ORIX
`
`USA Corp. v. Armentrout, No. 3:16-mc-63-N-BN, 2016 WL 4095603, at *5 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 1,
`
`2016).
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 221 Filed 11/17/21 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 7577
`
`
`
`On a motion to compel, “[t]he moving party bears the burden of showing that the materials
`
`and information sought are relevant to the action or will lead to the discovery of admissible
`
`evidence.” Van Dyke v. Retzlaff, No. 4:18—247, 2020 WL 1866075, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 14,
`
`2020). “The federal rules follow a proportionality standard for discovery.” Id. Under this
`
`standard, “the burden falls on both parties and the Court to consider the proportionality of all
`
`discovery in resolving discovery disputes.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), advisory committee note
`
`(2015).
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`AGIS Has Already Supplemented Its Interrogatory Responses and
`Uber’s Requests Are Moot
`
`AGIS has fully responded to Uber’s Interrogatory Nos. 11 and 12. Interrogatory No. 11
`
`requested an identification of, inter alia, “every AGIS or AGIS Inc. product and versions of such
`
`product that you assert practices the Asserted Claims.” Ex. A. In addition, Uber requested that
`
`AGIS state “for each such product, . . . the complete basis for that assertion, including, but not
`
`limited to, a claim chart showing how each element of each Asserted Claim is met by each AGIS
`
`or AGIS Inc. product, including citations to all source code . . .” Id. Interrogatory No. 12 requested
`
`AGIS identify for each AGIS or AGIS Inc. product identified in response to Interrogatory No. 11
`
`“that is an application on or service for a phone or other mobile device, (i) identification of the
`
`name . . . and platform; (ii) identification of each version and revision; (iii) first and last dates [of]
`
`each version and revision; and (iv) a detailed explanation of the timeline . . . of testing.” It also
`
`requested that each product that is a server in response to Interrogatory No. 11, provide the
`
`(1) internal and external name and model number; (2) the physical location of each server;
`
`(3) identification of each application or service used with or provided by the server; (4) the
`
`identification of each function or service carried out by each server; and (5) the identification of
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 221 Filed 11/17/21 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 7578
`
`
`
`each entity or business unit that “puts into practice each” server. Id. In response, AGIS objected
`
`to these Interrogatories as unclear, vague, and ambiguous with respect to the phrases “AGIS or
`
`AGIS Inc. product and versions of such product,” and also objected that these Interrogatories
`
`contained multiple subparts, with each counting towards the total number of Interrogatories. AGIS
`
`responded that AGIS Software does not sell any commercial products, but AGIS, Inc.’s LifeRing
`
`and ASSIST products practiced the claimed inventions. AGIS Software also identified AGIS, Inc.
`
`as a licensee of the Asserted Patents. In addition, AGIS identified AGIS Inc. documents and the
`
`source code made available to Defendants. Uber did not disagree that AGIS’s objections were
`
`valid.
`
`Nonetheless, requiring AGIS to provide a claim by claim analysis of the AGIS Inc.
`
`products is not proportional to the needs of this case. See Beckman Coulter, Inc. v. Sysmex Am.,
`
`Inc., No. 18-cv-6563, 2019 WL 10250941, at * 2 (N.D. .Ill. Aug. 12, 2019) (“As a general matter,
`
`a patentee is not required to provide a claim by claim analysis of its own products.”) (citing Morpho
`
`Detection, Inc. v. Smiths Detection, Inc., 957 F. Supp. 2d 655, 675 (E.D. Va. 2013); RTC Indus.,
`
`Inc. v. Fasteners for Retail, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-03595, Dkt. 188 (N.D. Ill. June 18, 2019); Ecolab
`
`USA Inc. v. Diversey, Inc., No. 12-cv-1984, 2015 WL 2353018, at *6 (D. Minn. May 15, 2015)
`
`(“The Court agrees with Plaintiffs. Defendant was made aware of Plaintiffs’ belief that the
`
`EnCompass system was covered by the Patents-in-Suit at least through their answer to Defendant’s
`
`interrogatory and, as Plaintiffs have noted, they were not required to provide a claim-by-claim
`
`analysis of the EnCompass system.”). A detailed claim by claim analysis of the AGIS Inc.
`
`products would require “dozens of attorney hours, consultation with [AGIS’s] outside expert, and
`
`numerous pages of dense analysis.” Beckman Coulter, 2019 WL 10250941, at *3; Sonix Tech.
`
`Co. v. Yoshida, No. 12CV380-CAB (DHB), 2014 WL 11878354, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2014)
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 221 Filed 11/17/21 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 7579
`
`
`
`(denying motion to compel, stating it “would create an unnecessary burden to require him to
`
`respond to Interrogatories Nos. 21 and 23 because the interrogatories essentially require an
`
`extensive detailed mapping or infringement analysis.”); Leader Techs. Inc. v. Facebook Inc., No.
`
`CIV 08-862-JJF-LPS, 2009 WL 3021168, at *2 (D. Del. Sept. 4, 2009) (denying motion to compel,
`
`stating it “would be unduly burdensome to require Leader, as the patentee, to produce detailed
`
`claim charts showing precisely how its products practice each of the asserted claims.”).
`
`Nonetheless, AGIS has satisfied its burden in provided responses to Interrogatory Nos. 11
`
`and 12. AGIS identified documents and source code in response to Interrogatory Nos. 11 and 12,
`
`and the source code repository identified by AGIS contained all versions of the LifeRing source
`
`code. Accordingly, Uber’s Motion should be denied.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, AGIS respectfully requests that the Court deny Defendant’s
`
`Motion (Dkt. 193) in its entirety.
`
`Dated: November 17, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Vincent J. Rubino, III
`Alfred R. Fabricant
`NY Bar No. 2219392
`Email: ffabricant@fabricantllp.com
`Peter Lambrianakos
`NY Bar No. 2894392
`Email: plambrianakos@fabricantllp.com
`Vincent J. Rubino, III
`NY Bar No. 4557435
`Email: vrubino@fabricantllp.com
`FABRICANT LLP
`411 Theodore Fremd Avenue,
`Suite 206 South
`Rye, New York 10580
`Telephone: (212) 257-5797
`Facsimile: (212) 257-5796
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 221 Filed 11/17/21 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 7580
`
`
`
`Samuel F. Baxter
`State Bar No. 01938000
`Email: sbaxter@mckoolsmith.com
`Jennifer L. Truelove
`State Bar No. 24012906
`Email: jtruelove@mckoolsmith.com
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`104 E. Houston Street, Suite 300
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`Telephone: (903) 923-9000
`Facsimile: (903) 923-9099
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF AGIS
`SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 221 Filed 11/17/21 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 7581
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that, on November 17, 2021, 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).
`
`/s/ Vincent J. Rubino, III
` Vincent J. Rubino, III
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`