`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT
`LLC,
` Plaintiff,
`v.
`
`T-MOBILE USA, INC. and T-MOBILE
`US, INC.,
`
`UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., d/b/a
`UBER,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP
` (LEAD CASE)
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00026-JRG-RSP
` (MEMBER CASE)
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`ORDER
`
`
`Before the Court are seven motions:
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`• Motion to Compel and Renewed Motion to Stay (“Uber’s First Motion to Compel”) filed
`by Uber Technologies, Inc., d/b/a Uber (Dkt. No. 117);
`• Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 11 and 12 (“Uber’s Second Motion to
`Compel”) filed by Uber (Dkt. No. 193);
`• Motion to Compel Additional Deposition Time for Malcom Beyer Jr. filed by Uber
`(“Uber’s Third Motion to Compel”) (Dkt. No. 194);
`• Motion to Compel Prior Litigation Documents filed by Uber (“Uber’s Fourth Motion to
`Compel”) (Dkt. No. 196);
`• Motion to Compel Uber to Provide Discovery filed by AGIS Software Development LLC
`(Dkt. No. 200);
`• Motion for Leave to File Motion for Summary Judgment of No Invalidity filed by AGIS
`(Dkt. No. 262); and
`• Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of No Invalidity Over the FBCB2 System filed by
`AGIS (Dkt. No. 263).
`
`Motions to Compel
`
`Beginning with Uber’s First Motion to Compel, the Court DENIES this motion (Dkt. No.
`
`117). AGIS has supplemented its response to Uber’s interrogatory thereby satisfying its discovery
`
`obligations. Additionally, because there is no discovery issue, Uber’s renewed request for a stay
`
`is denied.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 286 Filed 01/04/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 17564
`
`Next, the Court DENIES Uber’s Second Motion to Compel (Dkt. No. 193). The Court
`
`finds that Uber’s Interrogatory Nos. 11 and 12 are overly broad.
`
`Next, the Court DENIES Uber’s Third Motion to Compel (Dkt. No. 194). Based on the
`
`briefing, Uber has failed to demonstrate good cause for an additional five hours of deposition time,
`
`especially given that Uber has already deposed Mr. Beyer for a total of ten hours.
`
`Next, the Court DENIES Uber’s Fourth Motion to Compel (Dkt. No. 196). The Court finds
`
`that AGIS’s production of documents within its possession, custody, or control satisfies its
`
`discovery obligations.
`
`Finally, the Court DENIES AGIS’s Motion to Compel Uber to Provide Discovery (Dkt.
`
`No. 200). In its motion, AGIS seeks foreign ride information that is routed through servers in the
`
`United States. This foreign ride information is not relevant to AGIS’s claims of infringement
`
`because a process cannot infringe a method patent “unless each of the steps is performed within
`
`[the United States].” NTP, Inc. v. Rsch. In Motion, Ltd, 418 F.3d 1282, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`Thus, AGIS has failed to demonstrate that the requested information is relevant to its claims of
`
`infringement, and therefore the Court denies the motion.
`
`II. Motion for Leave and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
`
`The Court DENIES AGIS’ Motion for Leave (Dkt. No. 262) because AGIS has failed to
`
`demonstrate good cause. Therefore, AGIS’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. No.
`
`263) is untimely and the Court DENIES that motion as well.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
