Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG Document 25-8 Filed 04/23/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 428
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG Document 25-8 Filed 04/23/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 428
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 7
`
`EXHIBIT 7
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG Document 25-8 Filed 04/23/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 429
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`April 21, 2021
`
`VIA EMAIL (mreiter@gibsondunn.com)
`
`Mark Reiter, Esq.
`Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
`2001 Ross Avenue
`Dallas, Texas 75201-2911
`
`
`
`
`Dear Mark:
`
`Re:
`
`
`AGIS Software Development LLC v. Uber Technologies, d/b/a Uber
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00026-JRG (E.D. Tex.)
`
` I
`
` write on behalf of AGIS Software Development LLC (“AGIS”) in response to your letter dated
`April 2, 2021 relative to the above-referenced matter. Your April 2 letter makes frivolous
`arguments based on either incongruous assumptions or no evidentiary support, and AGIS will
`seek the appropriate relief for responding to these contentions.
`
`AGIS disagrees with Uber’s contention that the claims of the ’724, ’100, and ’838 patents must
`be dismissed. While Uber states that an investigation “has revealed facts,” Uber identifies no
`facts to support its allegation that Microsoft is a co-owner of the Asserted Patents. Uber’s
`assertions are not based on any facts relevant to AGIS or Mr. Rice. Rather, Uber relies on
`excerpts of what it alleges is a 2005 Microsoft Employment Agreement, a copy of such
`agreement not being provided. Uber does not show that any of the cited provisions were
`excerpted from Mr. Rice’s agreement with Microsoft. The April 2 letter excerpts a number of
`provisions, but Uber intentionally withheld identification of the parties, if any, to the purported
`2005 Microsoft Employment Agreement. Instead, the portions of the purported 2005 Microsoft
`Employment Agreement in Uber’s letter appear to be excerpted from a different unrelated case
`concerning unrelated parties or a generic template of an agreement. Uber does not, and cannot,
`establish that this 2005 Microsoft Employment Agreement is the employment agreement
`executed between Mr. Rice and Microsoft. Uber does not cite to any authority regarding the
`applicability of an unrelated agreement that was not signed by the inventor as proof of prior
`assignment or lack of inventorship. It is clear from the language of the letter that Uber has no
`information about any of Mr. Rice’s employment agreements. Uber’s frivolous contentions are
`thus factually unsupportable and legally unwarranted.
`
`In your April 2 letter, the only facts relevant to Mr. Rice’s inventorship are the duly executed
`inventor declarations and assignment agreements by Mr. Rice. The rest of your letter relies on
`pure conjecture based tenuously on irrelevant information concerning unrelated parties. Uber
`cannot rely on the provisions of a completely unrelated agreement or generic template to support
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG Document 25-8 Filed 04/23/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 430
`
`
`
`Mark Reiter, Esq.
`April 21, 2021
`Page 2
`
`a contention to dismiss AGIS’s claims. In the course of fact discovery, Uber may subpoena
`Mr. Rice and take discovery related to its defenses. Indeed, any such investigation into the terms
`of Mr. Rice’s agreement with Microsoft would require a fact-intensive inquiry that Uber has not
`executed here.
`
`Accordingly, AGIS disagrees with Uber’s frivolous arguments, and AGIS reserves the right to
`seek from the Court the appropriate relief for any efforts and expenses related to responding to
`the frivolous contentions stated its April 2nd Letter.
`
`Sincerely,
`
`FABRICANT LLP
`
`/s/ Vincent J. Rubino, III
`
`Vincent J. Rubino, III
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`