Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 304 Filed 01/07/22 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 19813
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`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
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`T-MOBILE USA, INC. and T-MOBILE US,
`INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`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 MOTION TO DISMISS U.S. PATENT NO. 8,213,970 (DKT. 248)
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 304 Filed 01/07/22 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 19814
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 1
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ...................................................................................................... 3
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 4
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 10
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 304 Filed 01/07/22 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 19815
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Bloom Eng’g Co. v. N. Am. Mfg. Co.,
`129 F.3d 1247 (Fed. Cir. 1997)..................................................................................................3
`
`Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc.,
`721 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..................................................................................................4
`
`Laitram Corp. v. NEC Corp.,
`952 F.2d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1991)..........................................................................................3, 4, 5
`
`Mygo, LLC v. Mission Beach Indus., LLC,
`No. 16-cv-2350-GPC-RBB, 2018 WL 3438650 (S.D .Cal. July 17, 2018)...............................9
`
`R&L Carriers, Inc. v. Qualcomm, Inc.,
`801 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..................................................................................................3
`
`Seattle Box Co. v. Indus. Crating & Packing, Inc.,
`731 F.2d 818 (Fed. Cir. 1984)....................................................................................................4
`
`SHFL Entm’t, Inc. v. DigiDeal Corp.,
`729 F. App’x 931 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ........................................................................................3, 4
`
`Slimfold Mfg. Co. v. Kinkead Indus., Inc.,
`810 F.2d 1113 (Fed. Cir. 1987)..................................................................................................5
`
`Tennant Co. v. Hako Minuteman, Inc.,
`878 F.2d 1413 (Fed. Cir. 1989)..................................................................................................5
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 252 ........................................................................................................................3, 4, 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 307(b) ...........................................................................................................................3
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 304 Filed 01/07/22 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 19816
`
`
`
`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”) Motion to Dismiss U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970 (Dkt.
`
`248) (the “Motion”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Uber’s Motion seeks to dismiss the asserted claims of the ’970 Patent because the claims
`
`were amended following reexamination. However, Uber submits a non-technical analysis, relying
`
`only on the addition of words to the claim to argue that the claims have substantially changed.
`
`However, such an analysis fails to demonstrate that the claims are not substantially identical such
`
`that dismissal is warranted.
`
`The amendments to the claims merely encompassed disclosures in the specification, which
`
`did not change the scope of the claims. Accordingly, Uber’s Motion should be denied.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970 (the “’970 Patent”), entitled “METHOD OF UTILIZING
`
`FORCED ALERTS FOR INTERATIVE REMOTE COMMUNICATIONS,” issued on July 3,
`
`2012. Claim 10 is an independent method claim and claims 11, 12, and 13 are dependent method
`
`claims. Claim 2, which is a dependent apparatus claim, has been withdrawn as per the December
`
`21, 2021 AGIS’s Motion for Leave to Serve Supplemental Expert Report of Joseph McAlexander
`
`Regarding Infringement. Dkt. 264; Dkt. 264-3, Supplemental McAlexander Expert Report.
`
`On May 15, 2021, Google LLC filed a request for ex parte reexamination of the ’970
`
`Patent. The USPTO issued a reexamination certificate on December 9, 2021, determining Claims
`
`2 and 10 to be patentable as amended, and Claims 11-13, dependent on the amended claims, to be
`
`patentable. Ex. A.
`
`Claim 10 was amended during reexamination to read, as follows (amendments italicized):
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 304 Filed 01/07/22 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 19817
`
`
`
`A method of receiving, acknowledging, and responding to a forced message alert
`from a sender PDA/cell phone to a recipient PDA/cell phone, wherein the receipt,
`acknowledgement, and response to said forced message alert is forced by a forced
`message alert software application program, said method comprising the steps of:
`
`receiving an electronically transmitted electronic message; identifying said
`electronic message as a forced message alert, wherein said forced message alert
`comprises of a voice or text message and a forced message alert application
`software packet, which triggers the activation of the forced message alert software
`application program within the recipient PDA/cell phone;
`
`transmitting an automatic acknowledgement of receipt to the sender PDA/cell
`phone, which triggers the forced message alert software application program to take
`control of the recipient PDA/cell phone and show the content of the text message
`and a required response list on the display recipient PDA/cell phone or to repeat
`audibly the content of the voice message on the speakers of the recipient PDA/cell
`phone and show the required response list on the display recipient PDA/cell phone;
`and
`
`transmitting a selected required response from the response list in order to allow
`the message required response list to be cleared from the recipient’s cell phone
`display, whether said selected response is a chosen option from the response list,
`causing the forced message alert software to release control of the recipient
`PDA/cell phone and stop showing the content of the text message and a response
`list on the display recipient PDA/cell phone and or stop repeating the content of the
`voice message on the speakers of the recipient PDA/ cell phone;
`
`displaying the response received from the PDA cell phone that transmitted the
`response on the sender of the forced alert PDA/cell phone; and
`
`providing a list of the recipient PDA/cell phones have automatically acknowledged
`receipt of a forced alert message and their response to the forced alert message; and
`displaying a geographical map with georeferenced entities on the display of the
`sender PDA/cellphone; obtaining location and status data associated with the
`recipient FDA/cellphone; and presenting a recipient symbol on the geographical
`map corresponding to a correct geographical location of the recipient PDA
`cellphone based on at least the location data.
`
`AGIS filed the present suit against Uber on January 29, 2021, asserting infringement of the
`
`’970 Patent. See Dkt. 1. On May 19, 2021 AGIS served its Disclosure of Asserted Claims and
`
`Infringement Contentions on Uber, asserting Claims 2, 10-13 of the ’970 Patent. Ex. B, PICs
`
`Cover. On November 1, 2021, AGIS withdrew Claim 11 of the ’970 Patent. See Dkt. 187. On
`
`December 21, 2021, AGIS filed a Motion for Leave to Serve the Supplemental Expert Report of
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 304 Filed 01/07/22 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 19818
`
`
`
`Joseph C. McAlexander Regarding Infringement, in which it notified the Court that it is no longer
`
`asserting Claim 2 of the ’970 Patent. Dkt. 264.
`
`On December 13, 2021, Uber filed the present motion to dismiss, arguing that the ’970
`
`Patent should be dismissed due to reexamination. Dkt. 248.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`Section 307(b) makes clear that ”[a]ny proposed amended or new claim determined to be
`
`patentable and incorporated into a patent following a reexamination proceeding will have the same
`
`effect as that specified in section 252 for reissued patents on the right of any person who made,
`
`purchased, or used within the United States, anything patented by such proposed amended or new
`
`claim. . . .” 35 U.S.C. § 307(b). Section 252 in turn provides that ”in so far as the claims of the
`
`original and reissued patents are substantially identical, such [reissue of the original patent] shall
`
`not affect any action then pending nor abate any cause of action then existing . . .” 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 252.
`
`As such, “amended or new claims incorporated into reexamined patents do not
`
`automatically abate—let alone moot—any pending action against the accused infringer based on
`
`the patents if the amended or new claims are ‘substantially identical’ to the original claims.” SHFL
`
`Entm’t, Inc. v. DigiDeal Corp., 729 F. App’x 931, 935 (Fed. Cir. 2018); see also Bloom Eng’g Co.
`
`v. N. Am. Mfg. Co., 129 F.3d 1247, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
`
`To determine whether a claim change is “substantially identical,” “it is necessary to analyze
`
`the claims of the original and the reexamined patents in light of the particular facts, including the
`
`prior art, the prosecution history, other claims, and any other pertinent information.” Laitram
`
`Corp. v. NEC Corp., 952 F.2d 1357, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also R&L Carriers, Inc. v.
`
`Qualcomm, Inc., 801 F.3d 1346, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 304 Filed 01/07/22 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 19819
`
`
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`Uber fails to establish that dismissal is warranted. As a preliminary matter, AGIS has
`
`withdrawn Claim 2 of the ’970 Patent against Uber, as per the December 21, 2021 Supplemental
`
`Expert Report of Joseph McAlexander. Claims 10, 12, and 13 are the only claims at issue. See
`
`Dkt. 264.
`
`Uber cannot dispute that these claims have been and continue to be asserted against Uber
`
`since the outset of this case. The reexamination did not cancel these claims. Thus, Uber’s reliance
`
`on Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 721 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2013) is misplaced. See,
`
`e.g., SHFL Entm’t, Inc., 729 F. App’x at 935 (“As an initial matter, the court’s reliance on
`
`Fresenius is misplaced. Fresenius involved only cancelled claims.”). AGIS reiterates that
`
`Fresenius does not apply because Fresenius involved only cancelled claims. See Fresenius, 721
`
`F.3d at 1336. Here, the reexamination certificate involved amended Claim 10. See Ex. A.
`
`“Amended or new claims incorporated into reexamined patents do not automatically abate—let
`
`alone moot—any pending action against the accused infringer based on the patents if the amended
`
`or new claims are ‘substantially identical’ to the original claims.” SHFL, 729 F. App’x at 935.
`
`Accordingly, it would be legal error for the Court to automatically “extinguish” the amended
`
`Claims 10 and 12-13 from this action, and the Court must conduct an analysis of whether amended
`
`Claim 10 is “substantially identical” to the original. See Laitram Corp., 952 F.2d at 1362-63 (“[I]t
`
`is necessary to analyze the claims of the original and the reexamined patents in light of the
`
`particular facts, including the prior art, the prosecution history, other claims, and any other
`
`pertinent information.”).
`
`The word “identical” in § 252 “means, at most, ‘without substantive changes.’” Seattle
`
`Box Co. v. Indus. Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Accordingly,
`
`“identical” does not mean verbatim. See Laitram Corp., 952 F.2d at 1361 (“Referring to the
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 304 Filed 01/07/22 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 19820
`
`
`
`legislative history of reexamination, the court remarked that no more rigorous standard was
`
`intended for reexamined claims than for reissued claims, wherein precedent had established that
`
`‘identical’ in § 252 means without substantive change in the scope of the claims.”).
`
`While AGIS concedes that the amendment to Claim 10 resulted in the addition of
`
`limitations, AGIS disputes that these additional limitations substantively changed the claim scope
`
`such that dismissal of the claims of the ’970 Patent is warranted. The Court in Slimfold Mfg. Co.
`
`v. Kinkead Indus., Inc., 810 F.2d 1113, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1987) stated that “[c]laims are not
`
`interpreted in a vacuum but are part of and are read in light of the specification.”
`
`Contrary to Uber’s non-technical analysis, the addition of limitations from the specification
`
`does not necessarily mean that the scope of the claims has changed. The Court in Tennant Co. v.
`
`Hako Minuteman, Inc., 878 F.2d 1413, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 1989) held that amending claims with
`
`content from the specification, without change in scope, is not substantively changed, and the
`
`claims are “legally identical.” Similar to this case, the scope of the claims was not substantively
`
`changed. Rather, the amendments to the claims merely made explicit certain details that were
`
`inherent in those claims as originally granted. Laitram, 952 F.2d at 1363.
`
`Uber does not submit any technical analysis to support its motion. Rather, Uber relies on
`
`(1) the mere presence of additional words in the claim; and (2) a mischaracterization of the expert
`
`declaration of Dr. Terveen (AGIS’ technical expert in the reexamination of the ’970 Patent). First,
`
`Uber’s comparison of word and verbatim must fail as a matter of law. Uber submits no expert
`
`testimony on the issue of substantial identity. Without any technical analysis to determine whether
`
`the scope of the claims has been changed, Uber’s motion must fail. Second, Uber’s reliance on
`
`Dr. Terveen’s testimony is misplaced. Uber withholds from the Court that Dr. Terveen traversed
`
`the rejection during reexamination, stating that he believed the rejection should be withdrawn and
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 304 Filed 01/07/22 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 19821
`
`
`
`the validity of Claims 2 and 10-13 should be confirmed by the USPTO. See, e.g., Dkt. 248-5, ¶¶
`
`15, 19. With respect to his testimony about the new limitations, Dr. Terveen’s testimony is limited
`
`to comparing the proposed amended claims to the prior art (not the original claims). Id., ¶ 34.
`
`Indeed, Dr. Terveen does not submit any opinions regarding substantial identity between the
`
`original and amended claims. See generally id.. Accordingly, Uber’s motion lacks both legal and
`
`factual support to show that there is no substantial identity.
`
`On the other hand, the evidence of record demonstrates that there is substantial identity
`
`between the original and amended Claims 10 and 12-13 of the ’970 Patent. Both original and
`
`amended Claim 10 recite each of the following limitations:
`
`A method of receiving, acknowledging, and responding to a forced message alert
`from a sender PDA/cell phone to a recipient PDA/cell phone, wherein the receipt,
`acknowledgement, and response to said forced message alert is forced by a forced
`message alert software application program, said method comprising the steps of:
`
`receiving an electronically transmitted electronic message; identifying said
`electronic message as a forced message alert, wherein said forced message alert
`comprises of a voice or text message and a forced message alert application
`software packet, which triggers the activation of the forced message alert software
`application program within the recipient PDA/cell phone;
`
`transmitting an automatic acknowledgement of receipt to the sender PDA/cell
`phone, which triggers the forced message alert software application program to take
`control of the recipient PDA/cell phone and show the content of the text message
`and a required response list on the display recipient PDA/cell phone or to repeat
`audibly the content of the voice message on the speakers of the recipient PDA/cell
`phone and show the required response list on the display recipient PD A/cell phone;
`and
`
`transmitting a selected required response from the response list in order to allow
`the message required response list to be cleared from the recipient’s cell phone
`display, whether said selected response is a chosen option from the response list,
`causing the forced message alert software to release control of the recipient
`PDA/cell phone and stop showing the content of the text message and a response
`list on the display recipient PDA/cell phone and or stop repeating the content of the
`voice message on the speakers of the recipient PDA/ cell phone;
`
`displaying the response received from the PDA cell phone that transmitted the
`response on the sender of the forced alert PDA/cell phone; and
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 304 Filed 01/07/22 Page 10 of 15 PageID #:
`19822
`
`
`
`providing a list of the recipient PDA/cell phones have automatically acknowledged
`receipt of a forced alert message and their response to the forced alert message;
`
`Included in the above limitations is the “forced message alert software application
`
`program” which is loaded and activated. Each of the new limitations were already included as part
`
`of the “forced message alert software application program” of original and amended Claim 10.
`
`For example, the specification of the ’970 Patent depicts the forced message alert software
`
`application program:
`
`
`
`As the ’970 Patent describes “Fig. 1a shows . . . a touch screen that includes forced message
`
`alert software” and “[t]he heart of the invention lies in the forced message alert software
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 304 Filed 01/07/22 Page 11 of 15 PageID #:
`19823
`
`
`
`application program.” ’970 Patent at 2:63-65, 4:47-49. As part of the description for the “forced
`
`message alert software application program,” the ’970 Patent describes displaying a map with at
`
`least one symbol corresponding to the correct geographical location of a user and obtaining
`
`location and status data for that user. ’970 Patent at 6:22-42. These are all features that were
`
`present in the “forced message alert software application program” of the original and amended
`
`Claim 10.
`
`Further, with respect to the limitation “displaying a geographical map with georeferenced
`
`entities on the display of the sender PDA/cell phone,” Figure 1B shows “provide a map for
`
`geographical display in each phone.” ’970 Patent, Fig. 1B. Further, the specification discloses the
`
`invention includes “databases and software application programs that provide for a geographical
`
`map and georeferenced entities that are shown as display portion 16b that includes as part of the
`
`display various areas of interest in the particular local map section.” Id. at 4:55-59.
`
`The “obtaining location and status data associated with the recipient PDA/cellphone”
`
`limitation is further described as part of the “forced message alert software application program”
`
`of the original and amended Claim 10. For example, Figure 1B discloses “provide ACS that causes
`
`the exchange of identity, location and status data between the participants and the exchange of
`
`free text, preformatted text messages, photographs and videos. Id., Fig. 1B. Further, the
`
`specification provides that “[b]ecause this data is of interest to all the network participants, the
`
`server forwards the data received from one participant to all other participants, thus providing the
`
`information necessary for all network participants to know the identity, location and status of all
`
`other network participants.” Id. 3:58-62.
`
`With respect to the limitation, “presenting a recipient symbol on the geographical map
`
`corresponding to a correct geographical location of the recipient PDA cellphone based on at least
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 304 Filed 01/07/22 Page 12 of 15 PageID #:
`19824
`
`
`
`the location data,” the specification further describes as part of the “forced message alert software
`
`application program” of the original and amended Claim 10 that “[a]lso shown on the display
`
`screen 16, specifically the geographical display 16b, is a pair of different looking symbols 30 and
`
`34, a small triangle and a small square, which are not labeled.” Id. at 5:28-31. The symbols “can
`
`represent communication net participants having cellular phones in the displayed geographical
`
`area that are part of the overall cellular phone communications net. . . .” Id. at 5:31-34. In addition,
`
`the specification discloses that “[e]ach symbol is placed at the correct geographical location on
`
`the user display and is correlated with the map on the display.” Id. at 6:25-27. Accordingly, the
`
`specification and disclosures of the ’970 Patent support the additional limitations and demonstrate
`
`that the additional limitations do not substantially change the scope of the claims of the ’970 Patent
`
`because they were already part of a “forced message alert software application program” of the
`
`original and amended Claim 10. Without any expert testimony on this issue, Uber cannot
`
`demonstrate that substantial identity does not exist.
`
`Uber’s reliance on MyGo is unpersuasive. In MyGo, the PTO amended existing claims 3
`
`and 5 as opposed to adding entirely new claims, at no point in the litigation—prior to the recently
`
`set May 1, 2018 deadline—did Plaintiff ever assert infringement of claims 3 and 4.” Mygo, LLC
`
`v. Mission Beach Indus., LLC, No. 16-cv-2350-GPC-RBB, 2018 WL 3438650, at *3 (S.D .Cal.
`
`July 17, 2018) (“Consequently, Plaintiff’s cause of action was based exclusively on ‘cancelled
`
`asserted claims.”). In contrast, AGIS asserted Claims 10, 12, and 13 prior to the reexamination
`
`and from the outset of this case. Similarly, in Target Training Int’l, Ltd. v. Extended Disc North
`
`Am., Inc., all of the original claims were cancelled as a result of the reexamination and new claims
`
`were approved. 646 F. App’x 1018, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[W]e disagree because the newly
`
`added claims were never actually asserted in the existing litigation.”). The court held that
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 304 Filed 01/07/22 Page 13 of 15 PageID #:
`19825
`
`
`
`“[b]ecause TTI failed to assert the newly added claims, despite opportunities to do so, the district
`
`court did not err by dismissing the case as moot.” Id. at 1025. In contrast, AGIS is not asserting
`
`“newly added claims.” Claims 10, 12 and 13 were already asserted against Uber.
`
`Finally, this case is distinguishable because the ’970 Patent is related to the other Asserted
`
`Patents, which contain similar asserted claim limitations for displaying maps and presenting
`
`location and status information on the maps. See Claim 1 of the ’100 Patent. Claim 7 of the ’728
`
`Patent, and Claim 9 of the ’724 Patent. Exs. C-E. Due to the similarity of these asserted claim
`
`limitations across asserted patents, no further discovery or proceedings are necessary in this action.
`
`Accordingly, amended Claim 10 is substantially identical to the original Claim 10, and
`
`Uber fails to demonstrate that the asserted claims of the ’970 Patent should be dismissed.
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, AGIS respectfully requests that the Court deny Defendant’s
`
`Motion to Dismiss U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970 (Dkt. 248) in its entirety.
`
`Dated: January 7, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Samuel F. Baxter
`State Bar No. 01938000
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 304 Filed 01/07/22 Page 14 of 15 PageID #:
`19826
`
`
`
`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
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 304 Filed 01/07/22 Page 15 of 15 PageID #:
`19827
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that, on January 7, 2022, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`