Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG Document 24 Filed 04/23/21 Page 1 of 40 PageID #: 262
`
`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)
`
`CASE NO. 2:21-cv-00029-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,
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`v.
`
`WHATSAPP, INC.
`
`DEFENDANT UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG Document 24 Filed 04/23/21 Page 2 of 40 PageID #: 263
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1
`I.
`II. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES TO BE DECIDED............................................................. 3
`III.
`BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 3
`IV.
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 5
`A. Venue Is Improper for the ’838 Patent. .............................................................................. 5
`B. The ’728 Patent Should Be Dismissed as Patent Ineligible. ............................................... 6
`1. The History and Summary of the ’728 Patent ................................................................ 7
`a) AGIS, Inc.’s Failed Litigation in the Southern District of Florida. .............................. 7
`b) The ’728 Patent Discloses and Claims Speed Dial Using a Graphical Display. .......... 8
`2. The ’728 Patent Fails the Alice Two-Step Eligibility Test. .......................................... 10
`a) Alice Step One: The Claims Are Directed to an Abstract Idea of Storing, Organizing
`and Displaying Information. ....................................................................................... 10
`i.
`Abstract Idea of Collecting, Organizing and Displaying Information. .................. 11
`ii. Placing a Call by Pressing a Symbol on a Display Is a Routine Task That Could Be
`Performed by a Human. .......................................................................................... 12
`b) Alice Step Two: The Asserted Claims Do Not Include an Inventive Concept. ......... 14
`i. Viewed Individually, the Elements of Claim 7 Recite Only Conventional Subject
`Matter. .................................................................................................................... 14
`ii. Viewed Collectively, the Elements of Claim 7 Still Recite Only Conventional
`Subject Matter. ....................................................................................................... 16
`C. AGIS Fails to Present Plausible Claims of Direct, Indirect and Willful Infringement. .... 17
`1. For the ’970, ’728, and ’724 Patents, AGIS Fails to Plausibly Plead Direct
`Infringement Under a Joint Infringement Theory. ....................................................... 18
`2. AGIS Fails to Plead Facts to Plausibly Support Its Direct Infringement Allegations for
`All Patents. ................................................................................................................... 20
`a) AGIS Nonsensically Cuts and Pastes the Same Conclusory Allegations Across
`Different Patents ......................................................................................................... 21
`b) AGIS’s Complaint Contains Irreconcilable Internal Inconsistencies. ........................ 22
`i. For the ’970 Patent, the Allegations and Factual Support Are Irreconcilable. ...... 23
`ii. For the ’724 and ’728 Patents, the Allegations and Factual Support Are
`Irreconcilable. ......................................................................................................... 24
`c) AGIS’s Other Direct Infringement Allegations Are Insufficient. .............................. 25
`3. AGIS’s Indirect Infringement Claims for All Patents Fail. .......................................... 27
`
`Initiating a Call By Touching the Symbol on a Map Display Merely Involves the
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG Document 24 Filed 04/23/21 Page 3 of 40 PageID #: 264
`
`
`
`a) Lacking Plausible Claims of Direct Infringement, the Complaint Cannot Allege
`Plausible Claims of Indirect Infringement. ................................................................. 27
`b) For the ’838 Patent, AGIS Fails to Allege Direct Infringement by Another. ............. 28
`B. AGIS’s Claims of Willful Infringement Should Be Dismissed. ....................................... 29
`II. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 30
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG Document 24 Filed 04/23/21 Page 4 of 40 PageID #: 265
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS
`
`Meaning
`Abbreviation
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970 (Dkt. No. 1-1)
`’970 Patent
`U.S. Patent No. 7,630,724 (Dkt. No. 1-2)
`’724 Patent
`U.S. Patent No. 7,031,728 (Dkt. No. 1-3)
`’728 Patent
`U.S. Patent No. 10,299,100 (Dkt. No. 1-4)
`’100 Patent
`U.S. Patent No. 10,341,838 (Dkt. No. 1-5)
`’838 Patent
`Complaint/Compl. Complaint for Patent Infringement (Dkt. No. 1) (Jan. 29, 2021)
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG Document 24 Filed 04/23/21 Page 5 of 40 PageID #: 266
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`Achates Reference Publ'g, Inc. v. Symantec Corp.,
`2013 WL 693955 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 10, 2013) ............................................................................29
`
`PAGE(S)
`
`Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc. v. Life360, Inc.,
`830 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................8
`
`Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc. v. Life360, Inc.,
`No. 14-80651, 2014 WL 12652322 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 21, 2014) .................................................8
`
`Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc. v. Life360, Inc.,
`No. 14-80651, Dkt. 48 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 17, 2014) .....................................................................8
`
`Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC,
`838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................16
`
`Aftechmobile Inc. v. Salesforce.com, Inc.,
`2020 WL 6129139 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2020) ..........................................................................26
`
`Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.,
`797 F.3d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................18
`
`Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`573 U.S. 208 (2014) .............................................................................................................6, 14
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .................................................................................................................20
`
`Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) .................................................................................................................29
`
`BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc.,
`899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..............................................................................13, 14, 16, 17
`
`Chapterhouse, LLC v. Shopify, Inc.,
`2018 WL 6981828 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 11, 2018) .............................................................21, 26, 27
`
`ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc.,
`920 F.3d 759 (Fed. Cir. 2019)....................................................................................................6
`
`Cleveland Clinic Found. v. True Health Diagnostics LLC,
`859 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................................................7
`
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Ass’n,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..........................................................................................13, 15
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG Document 24 Filed 04/23/21 Page 6 of 40 PageID #: 267
`
`
`
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc.,
`2015 WL 12850550 (E.D. Tex. July 15, 2015), report and recommendation adopted, 2015
`WL 4910427 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 14, 2015) .................................................................................30
`
`Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp.,
`951 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................................................................................................13
`
`cXLoyalty, Inc. v. Martiz Holdings Inc.,
`986 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2021)................................................................................................13
`
`Data Scape Limited v. Western Digital Corp.,
`816 F. App’x. 461 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .......................................................................................6, 7
`
`Datascope Corp. v. SMEC, Inc.,
`561 F. Supp. 787 (D.N.J. 1983) .................................................................................................5
`
`De La Vega v. Microsoft Corp.,
`2020 WL 3528411 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 11, 2020) ........................................................................26
`
`Digit. Equip. Corp. v. Elec. Memories & Magnetics Corp.,
`452 F. Supp. 1262 (D. Mass. 1978) ...........................................................................................5
`
`Disc Disease Sols. Inc. v. VGH Sols., Inc.,
`888 F.3d 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................27
`
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Techs., Inc.,
`815 F. App’x 529 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ..........................................................................................15
`
`DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co., Ltd.,
`471 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................27
`
`Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..............................................................................11, 12, 14, 16
`
`FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc.,
`839 F.3d 1089 (2016) ...............................................................................................................15
`
`Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.,
`136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016) .............................................................................................................29
`
`iLife Techs., Inc. v. Nintendo of Am., Inc.,
`839 F. App’x 534 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ..........................................................................................15
`
`In re ZTE (USA) Inc..,
`890 F.3d 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................5
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG Document 24 Filed 04/23/21 Page 7 of 40 PageID #: 268
`
`
`
`InMotion Imagery Tech. v. Brain Damage Films,
`2012 WL 3283371 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 10, 2012) ........................................................................29
`
`Int’l. Bus. Machines Corp. v. Bookings Holdings Inc.,
`775 F. App’x. 674 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .........................................................................................18
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp.,
`850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..........................................................................................13, 16
`
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC,
`870 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................27
`
`Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.,
`790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................11
`
`Laitram Corp. v. Rexnord, Inc.,
`939 F.2d 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1991)................................................................................................26
`
`Lyda v. CBS Corp.,
`838 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..........................................................................................19, 20
`
`Move, Inc. v. Real Estate Alliance Ltd.,
`721 F. App’x. 950 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .........................................................................................11
`
`N. Star Innovations, Inc. v. Micron Tech., Inc.,
`2017 WL 5501489 (D. Del. Nov. 16, 2017), adopted by No. 1:17-cv-506 (D. Del. Jan. 3,
`2018) ........................................................................................................................................26
`
`Nalco Co. v. Chem-Mod, LLC,
`883 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................30
`
`Network Architecture Innovations LLC v. CC Network Inc.,
`No. 2:16-cv-914, 2017 WL 1398276 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 18, 2017) ............................................16
`
`NovaPlast Corp. v. Inplant, LLC,
`2021 WL 389386 (D.N.J. Feb. 3, 2021) ..................................................................................26
`
`Quartz Auto Techs. LLC v. Lyft, Inc.,
`2021 WL 1177886 (W.D. Tex. March 29, 2021) ......................................................................5
`
`Qwikcash, LLC v. Blackhawk Network Holdings, Inc.,
`2020 WL 6781566 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 17, 2020) ......................................................21, 23, 27, 28
`
`Realtime Data LLC v. EchoStar Corp.,
`2017 WL 4693512 (E.D. Tex. July 19, 2017), report and recommendation adopted, 2017
`WL 3599537 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 21, 2017) .................................................................................29
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG Document 24 Filed 04/23/21 Page 8 of 40 PageID #: 269
`
`
`
`Ruby Sands LLC v. Am. Nat’l Bank of Tex.,
`2016 WL 3542430 (E.D. Tex. Jun. 28, 2016)....................................................................20, 23
`
`Simio, LLC v. FlexSim Software Products, Inc.,
`983 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2020)..........................................................................................13, 15
`
`TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC,
`137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017) ...............................................................................................................5
`
`Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC,
`921 F3d 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2019)...........................................................................................13, 15
`
`Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns,
`874 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................14
`
`Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
`772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................14
`
`Valeant Pharm. North America LLC v. Mylan Pharm. Inc.,
`978 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2020)..................................................................................................5
`
`Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,
`793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................16
`
`Voxathon LLC v. Alpine Elecs. of Am., Inc.,
`2016 WL 260350 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 20, 2016) ............................................................7, 12, 14, 16
`
`Westech Aerosol Corp. v. 3M Co.,
`927 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2019)..................................................................................................5
`
`STATUTES
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) .........................................................................................................................5
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG Document 24 Filed 04/23/21 Page 9 of 40 PageID #: 270
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`There is a story here. Not an invention story, and certainly not a story of infringement, but,
`
`perhaps a story. In the Complaint, the story is told with words, and some facts, designed to
`
`intimidate Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”). But complaints are not storybooks; there
`
`are rules that dictate their form and content. Plaintiff AGIS Software Development LLC (“AGIS”)
`
`ignores those rules, and it leaves out the content. AGIS’s Complaint must be dismissed.
`
`According to the Complaint, the story begins “shortly after” September 11, 2001. The
`
`Complaint contends that one of the inventors, Mr. Beyer, allegedly envisioned that he could
`
`develop a new communications system that would save military and first responder lives.
`
`Compl. ¶ 23. Based on that vision, the Complaint continues, Mr. Beyer developed a system called
`
`“LifeRing,” which, allegedly, “provides first responders, law enforcement, and military personnel
`
`with what is essentially a tactical operations center built into hand-held mobile devices.”
`
`Compl. ¶ 24. From here, the story line starts down another track.
`
`Three years after September 11th, Mr. Beyer filed his first patent application, which issued
`
`as U.S. Patent No. 7,031,728 (“the ’728 Patent)” on April 18, 2006. Based on the stated inspiration
`
`for the patent, the patent should disclose and claim an invention that provides first responders, law
`
`enforcement and the military with a tactical operations center—far from it. The ’728 Patent makes
`
`no reference to first responders or law enforcement or military tactical operations. Instead, the
`
`patent discloses and claims speed dialing from an image of a map displayed on a conventional cell
`
`phone. The patent admits that it relies on conventional technologies to do so: Mr. Beyer does not
`
`take credit for inventing GPS, touch screens or cellular telephony. As explained below, the patent
`
`does not satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101, and that shortcoming compels its dismissal
`
`from this case.
`
`No longer tied to the first responder/military vision, Mr. Beyer, together with a co-inventor,
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG Document 24 Filed 04/23/21 Page 10 of 40 PageID #: 271
`
`
`
`Christopher R. Rice, filed numerous continuation and continuation in part applications that caused
`
`Mr. Beyer’s original concept to explode. Far from a tactical operations center built into hand-held
`
`mobile devices, these new applications strayed into backend, server technologies. U.S. Patent
`
`10,341,838 (“the ’838 Patent”) is one example. The two independent claims of that patent are
`
`directed to a “method performed by one or more servers” and a “system comprising one or more
`
`servers.” Infringement thus depends on operating or providing servers. And for venue in this
`
`patent infringement case to be proper in this District, those servers must be located in this District;
`
`absent the servers, there is no act of infringement. Uber has no servers in the District—or the State
`
`of Texas. AGIS has failed to allege any facts in its Complaint to the contrary, and AGIS’s claims
`
`of infringement of the ’838 Patent must be dismissed.
`
`Finally, the filing of this lawsuit demonstrates just how far AGIS has strayed from Mr.
`
`Beyer’s original story. Uber had a different vision than Mr. Beyer. Far from a tactical operations
`
`center for first responders and military personnel, Uber envisioned a transportation marketplace.
`
`Using technology it developed through its own, independent hard work, Uber’s marketplace
`
`would—and today does—connect persons needing a ride with drivers willing to give a ride. The
`
`marketplace thus depends upon three, independent participants—Uber, the driver and the rider.
`
`Without any one of the three, nothing happens. This three-party marketplace is a problem for
`
`AGIS. With the exception of the server-based ’838 Patent, AGIS cannot plausibly allege
`
`infringement without involving all three participants in the marketplace. And that is what AGIS
`
`tries to do. But that alone does not suffice. AGIS must plead facts that plausibly suggest Uber
`
`controls the actions of the driver and rider; no such factual allegations appear in the Complaint,
`
`which warrants dismissal of AGIS’s direct infringement claims. Perhaps recognizing an inability
`
`to plead these facts, AGIS resorts to cutting and pasting allegations from one patent into allegations
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG Document 24 Filed 04/23/21 Page 11 of 40 PageID #: 272
`
`
`
`directed to a different patent with different claims and different requirements. This approach leads
`
`to irreconcilable inconsistencies and, at bottom, fails to provide Uber with the notice it is due.
`
`AGIS’s indifference to that notice warrants dismissal of the Complaint in its entirety.
`
`Twenty years ago Mr. Beyer might have had a story. Whether he actually pursued that
`
`story at the time, Uber does not know. Whether he did or not, what Uber does know from
`
`reviewing the Complaint and haphazard allegations of infringement is that story does not follow
`
`the story that Uber created for itself and its business. Respectfully, for the reasons explained
`
`below, the Court should dismiss this case.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`
`Improper Venue: Whether the allegations as to the ’838 Patent should be dismissed for
`
`improper venue because no infringing activity occurred in the District as required by 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1400(b).
`
`Ineligible Subject Matter: Whether the Complaint should be dismissed for failure to state
`
`a claim because asserted claim 7 (and its dependents) of the ’728 Patent are directed to patent-
`
`ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`Inadequate Pleading: Whether the Complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a
`
`claim of (1) joint infringement, (2) direct infringement, (3) indirect infringement and (4) willful
`
`infringement.
`
`III. BACKGROUND
`
`AGIS’s Complaint alleges infringement of five related patents—U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`7,031,728 (“’728 Patent”), 7,630,724 (“’724 Patent”), 8,213,970 (“’970 Patent”), 10,299,100
`
`(“’100 Patent”), and 10,341,838 (“’838 Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). For each
`
`Asserted Patent, AGIS identifies an exemplary asserted claim, each a method claim. According
`
`to AGIS, the technology that these patents purportedly cover includes a communication system
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG Document 24 Filed 04/23/21 Page 12 of 40 PageID #: 273
`
`
`
`that uses “integrated software and hardware components on mobile devices to give users
`
`situational awareness superior to systems provided by conventional military and first responder
`
`radio systems.” Compl. ¶ 23.
`
`The Asserted Patents all trace their history, directly or indirectly, to the ’728 Patent, which
`
`was filed September 21, 2004 and names Malcolm Beyer as its sole inventor. As explained in
`
`Uber’s Motion to Stay, filed contemporaneously with this Motion to Dismiss, Mr. Beyer expanded
`
`the portfolio of patents beyond the ’728 Patent and, apparently, did so with the help of Christopher
`
`R. Rice, a named co-inventor to the ’724, ’100 and ’838 Patents. As also explained in Uber’s
`
`Motion to Stay, because Mr. Rice had already assigned his invention rights to Microsoft, his
`
`assignments to AGIS were invalid. Microsoft, therefore, is a co-owner of at least the ’724, ’100
`
`and ’838 Patents, and, because Microsoft has not and cannot be forced to join as a co-plaintiff,
`
`AGIS cannot satisfy the statutory requirements to assert infringement of the ’724, ’100 and ’838
`
`Patents. Uber’s Motion to Stay seeks early confirmation of this threshold issue.
`
`In 2014-2015, Mr. Beyer, through Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc. (“AGIS,
`
`Inc.”) and AGIS, previously litigated the ’728 Patent (in S.D. Florida) as well as the ’970 Patent
`
`(in this Court). The Florida litigation concluded with the jury finding that the defendant did not
`
`infringe, the court awarding the defendant attorneys’ fees and, after appeal to the Federal Circuit,
`
`many of the claims of the ’728 patent being held invalid. Notably, and relevant to Uber’s § 101
`
`argument below, during those proceedings, which included claim 7 asserted by AGIS in its
`
`Complaint here, AGIS, Inc. did not contend any terms required construction.
`
`Additionally, as this Court is aware from AGIS’s recent litigation against Google which is
`
`currently stayed pending ex parte reexamination (Case No. 2-19-cv-00361-JRG), all claims of
`
`the ’970 Patent were either found unpatentable in a PTAB final written decision or are currently
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG Document 24 Filed 04/23/21 Page 13 of 40 PageID #: 274
`
`
`
`subject to an ex parte reexamination, including claim 10 asserted here.
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Venue Is Improper for the ’838 Patent.
`
`Venue for a domestic corporation accused of patent infringement is proper only where the
`
`defendant either (1) is incorporated, or (2) commits acts of infringement and has a regular and
`
`established place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b); see also TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods
`
`Grp. Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514, 1517 (2017). “For purposes of determining whether venue is
`
`proper in a district other than one in a state in which a defendant is incorporated, a court must
`
`determine, among other things, ‘where the defendant has committed acts of infringement.’”
`
`Valeant Pharm. North America LLC v. Mylan Pharm. Inc., 978 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
`
`Merely parroting the language of § 1400(b) does not satisfy a plaintiff’s burden to plead specific
`
`facts showing that venue is proper. Westech Aerosol Corp. v. 3M Co., 927 F.3d 1378, 1382 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2019). AGIS has the burden to establish proper venue. In re ZTE (USA) Inc., 890 F.3d 1008,
`
`1013 (Fed. Cir. 2018). That burden exists for each patent separately. Quartz Auto Techs. LLC v.
`
`Lyft, Inc., 2021 WL 1177886, at *3 (W.D. Tex. March 29, 2021) (dismissing one of five asserted
`
`patents based on lack of proper venue for that one patent); Digit. Equip. Corp. v. Elec. Memories
`
`& Magnetics Corp., 452 F. Supp. 1262, 1266 (D. Mass. 1978) (“[A plaintiff] must establish proper
`
`venue as to each patent allegedly infringed.”); see also Datascope Corp. v. SMEC, Inc., 561 F.
`
`Supp. 787, 789 (D.N.J. 1983).
`
`Favoring boilerplate allegations over facts or the claim requirements to support venue,
`
`AGIS generically asserts that Uber has “committed acts of direct and indirect infringement” in this
`
`District and therefore venue is proper. Compl. ¶ 5. But this allegation—inadequate for any
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG Document 24 Filed 04/23/21 Page 14 of 40 PageID #: 275
`
`
`
`patent—falls far short for the asserted claim of the ’838 Patent (claim 1),1 which is limited to a
`
`method to be performed “by one or more servers.” Id. ¶¶ 82–87. Thus, for the ’838 Patent, to
`
`establish venue, AGIS must allege that somewhere in this District Uber operates a server according
`
`to the claimed method of the ’838 Patent. However, nowhere does AGIS allege that Uber operates
`
`any servers in this District (id.)—nor can it. In fact, Uber has no servers in this District or Texas
`
`for that matter. Rapipong Decl. ¶ 2. Having failed to plead facts supporting venue for the ’838
`
`Patent, dismissal of the ’838 Patent is required.
`
`B.
`
`The ’728 Patent Should Be Dismissed as Patent Ineligible.
`
`The Supreme Court has established a two-step framework to determine whether claims
`
`cover patent-ineligible subject matter. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
`
`First, the Court must determine whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Id. at 217. If
`
`so, at the second step, the Court must determine whether the claims contain an “inventive
`
`concept—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the patent in
`
`practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [abstract idea] itself.” Id. at 217–18
`
`(internal citations and quotes omitted).
`
`Uber acknowledges the hesitancy of courts to resolve patent eligibility on a motion to
`
`dismiss; however, the Federal Circuit has repeatedly confirmed that “[s]ubject matter eligibility
`
`under § 101 may be determined at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage of a case.” ChargePoint, Inc. v.
`
`SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 765 (Fed. Cir. 2019); see also Data Scape Limited v. Western
`
`Digital Corp., 816 F. App’x 461, 463 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Such early determinations are appropriate
`
`when there are no plausible factual allegations that, taken as true, would prevent resolution of the
`
`
`1 The ’838 Patent has only two independent claims: method claim 1 and system claim 14. The
`system claim, like the method claim, relies exclusively on server activity. ’838 Patent, Cl. 14 (“A
`system comprising: one or more servers each have one or more processors, the processors
`configured to execute instructions to perform operations comprising: . . . .”).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG Document 24 Filed 04/23/21 Page 15 of 40 PageID #: 276
`
`
`
`eligibility issue. Id. Here, the Complaint contains no factual allegations directed to the eligibility
`
`of the Asserted Patents generally or, more specifically, the claims asserted from those patents. The
`
`absence of any factual allegations thus supports resolution of Uber’s challenge to patent eligibility
`
`at this early stage of the case.
`
`The Federal Circuit, and this Court, have both confirmed that claim construction is not a
`
`prerequisite to a § 101 analysis. See, e.g., Cleveland Clinic Found. v. True Health Diagnostics
`
`LLC, 859 F.3d 1352, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (affirming district court’s § 101 determination in
`
`motion to dismiss prior to claim construction); Voxathon LLC v. Alpine Elecs. of Am., Inc., 2016
`
`WL 260350, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 20, 2016) (holding claim construction unnecessary to resolve
`
`Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss under § 101). Here, in light of the prior litigation involving the
`
`same asserted claim of the ’728 Patent (claim 7), and AGIS’s position throughout that litigation—
`
`including both trial and appeal—that plain and ordinary meaning applied, AGIS has no basis to
`
`assert that claim construction is now necessary.
`
`As explained below, asserted claim 7 of the ’728 Patent (and its dependent claims 8 and 9)
`
`are all directed to the abstract idea of a method for storing and organizing information about
`
`participants to be called and displaying the location of the participants on a digital map from which
`
`the user can place a call. The patent implements this abstract idea using conventional cell phones.
`
`Thus, the claims fail to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 and Count III of AGIS’s
`
`Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice.
`
`1.
`
`The History and Summary of the ’728 Patent
`
`a)
`
`AGIS, Inc.’s Failed Litigation in the Southern District of
`Florida.
`
`AGIS, Inc. previously asserted the ’728 Patent—including claim 7—against Life360, Inc.
`
`in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. During those proceedings, no party,
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG Document 24 Filed 04/23/21 Page 16 of 40 PageID #: 277
`
`
`
`including AGIS, Inc., argued that any terms from claim 7 required construction. Advanced Ground
`
`Information Systems, Inc. v. Life360, Inc., No. 14-80651, 2014 WL 12652322, at *5, *7 (S.D. Fla.
`
`Nov. 21, 2014) (“Life360 Markman”). The jury found all claims tried not infringed and also not
`
`invalid, which the Federal Circuit affirmed, along with the district court’s pre-trial finding that
`
`claims 3 and 10 were indefinite. Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc. v. Life360, Inc., 830
`
`F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As a result of these prior proceedings, only claims 1, 2, 7-9 remain
`
`extant. Because AGIS has asserted claim 7 here, Uber’s motion is directed to claim 7 and its
`
`dependents.
`
`b)
`
`The ’728 Patent Discloses and Claims Speed Dial Using a
`Graphical Display.
`
`The ’728 Patent is titled “Cellular Phone/PDA Communication System” and is directed to
`
`establishing a cellular phone communication network between one or more participants who each
`
`use conventional cellular phones having touch screens that display the location of each participant
`
`on a map. As AGIS, Inc. (the former patent owner) described in prior litigation, the ’728 Patent
`
`“describes a mobile device with a display screen.” Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc. v.
`
`L