`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 SUR-REPLY
`IN FURTHER 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 335 Filed 01/20/22 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 22167
`
`
`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
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 335 Filed 01/20/22 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 22168
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc.,
`No. 15-218-JFB-SRF, 2019 WL 1996022 (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2019) ...........................................4
`
`Bloom Eng’g Co. v. N. Am. Mfg. Co.,
`129 F.3d 1247 (Fed. Cir. 1997)..................................................................................................4
`
`Fresenius USA Inc. v. Baxter Intern., Inc.,
`721 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..................................................................................................2
`
`Laitram Corp. v. NEC Corp.,
`163 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 1998)..................................................................................................3
`
`Laitram Corp. v. NEC Corp.,
`952 F.2d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 1991)..........................................................................................2, 3, 4
`
`Slimfold Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Kinkead Indus., Inc.,
`810 F.2d 1113 (Fed. Cir. 1987)..................................................................................................3
`
`Tennant Co. v. Hako Minuteman, Inc.,
`878 F.2d 1413 (Fed. Cir. 1989)..................................................................................................3
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 335 Filed 01/20/22 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 22169
`
`
`
`Plaintiff AGIS Software Development LLC (“AGIS” or “Plaintiff”), by and through its
`
`undersigned counsel, hereby submits this sur-reply in further 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”).
`
`The amended Claims 10, 12, and 13 of the ’970 Patent are “substantially identical” to the
`
`original claims because the amendments did not substantially alter the scope of the claimed
`
`inventions. The amended claims added map location features which were already part of the
`
`“forced message alert software application program,” as described in the ’970 Patent specification.
`
`The ’970 Patent specification expressly describes and depicts a “forced message alert software”
`
`with locations displayed on a map, and Uber acknowledged the inclusion of these map location
`
`features in the “forced message alert software application program” when it created mock-up
`
`demonstratives for claim construction. See Dkt. 248-1, ’970 at Fig. 1a and Ex. F, Dkt. 175-2 at 24
`
`(respectively reproduced below).
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 335 Filed 01/20/22 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 22170
`
`
`
`It would be legal error to dismiss the ’970 Patent without a factual determination regarding
`
`the absence of a substantial change in scope of the claimed invention. Uber’s request to dismiss
`
`without this factual determination is legally unsupportable, and Uber’s reliance on case law for
`
`cancelled (rather than amended) claims is an attempt to mislead the Court to commit legal error.
`
`Contrary to Uber’s allegations, the reexamination of the ’970 Patent did not result in
`
`cancelled claims. See Reply at 1. Because the reexamination resulted in amended claims only (no
`
`cancelled claims), Uber’s reliance on Fresenius is misplaced. In Fresenius, the Court reviewed
`
`cancelled claims only, not amended claims. See Fresenius USA Inc. v. Baxter Intern., Inc., 721
`
`F.3d 1330, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2013), (“In light of the cancellation of Baxter’s remaining claims,
`
`Baxter no longer has a viable cause of action against Fresenius.”). Accordingly, Uber’s reliance
`
`on Fresenius to allege that an amendment to the claims alone extinguishes AGIS’s cause of action
`
`are incorrect. As submitted by Uber itself, Fresenius acknowledges that where there has been an
`
`amendment of the claims requires an analysis to determine whether the amendment resulted in a
`
`substantial change in scope of the claimed invention. See Fresenius USA, Inc., 721 F.3d at 1337-
`
`38. Accordingly, amendments on reexamination cannot result in automatic dismissal.
`
`Uber’s contention that an amendment is a cancellation is frivolous and unwarranted by
`
`law. The law is set forth clearly in Laitram Corp. v. NEC Corp., 952 F.2d 1357, 1362 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1991), where the Federal Circuit held that a claim amendment made during reexamination is not
`
`per se a substantive change. Rather, “[t]o determine whether a claim change is substantive 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.” Id. at 1362-63.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 335 Filed 01/20/22 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 22171
`
`
`
`In Laitram Corp. v. NEC Corp., 163 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1998), the Court
`
`determined that the original claims covered “a printer or method of printing which generates any
`
`quality of alphanumeric characters” where the amended claims “seem to cover only a printing
`
`apparatus or method of printing which generates ‘type quality’ alphanumeric characters.” The
`
`Court’s decision came “in light of an overall examination of the written description, the
`
`prosecution history and the language of the respective claims.” Id. at 1348. Specifically, it is
`
`notable that the “type quality” found in the amended claims does not appear in the written
`
`description. Id. at 1347. Unlike Laitram, the amendment of the claims of the ’970 Patent did not
`
`involve amendment to include terms or limitations that are not in the written description. To the
`
`contrary, AGIS has pointed to specific disclosures in the specification for the additional
`
`limitations. See Resp. at 6-9. Further, the “forced message alert software application program”
`
`described in the ’970 Patent already included the additional features found in the amended claims.
`
`Such disclosures demonstrate that AGIS did not substantively change the scope of the claimed
`
`inventions because the ’970 Patent already included the features as part of the original scope. See
`
`Resp. at 5 (citing to Tennant Co. v. Hako Minuteman, Inc., 878 F.2d 1413, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 1989)).
`
`Uber’s allegations that AGIS conflates the written description requirement with the
`
`analysis of whether an amended claim is “substantially identical” misconstrues AGIS’s arguments.
`
`AGIS submitted that the amended claims are “without substantive change,” as “[c]laims are not
`
`interpreted in a vacuum, but are part of and read in light of the specification.” Tennant Co., 878
`
`F.2d at 1417 (“The addition of the word ‘bottom’ does not substantively change the scope of the
`
`original claim 2, but merely makes the claim more definite. The ’070 specification makes
`
`numerous references to a movable bottom wall.”); Slimfold Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Kinkead Indus., Inc.,
`
`810 F.2d 1113, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (“[I]t is the scope of the claim that must be identical, not that
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 335 Filed 01/20/22 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 22172
`
`
`
`identical words must be used.”); Bloom Eng’g Co. v. N. Am. Mfg. Co., 129 F.3d 1247, 1250 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1997) (“There is no absolute rule for determining whether an amended claim is legally
`
`identical to the original claim.”); Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc., No. 15-
`
`218-JFB-SRF, 2019 WL 1996022, at *8 (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2019) (“[T]he Federal Circuit held that
`
`adding limitations to the claim language did not materially narrow the scope of the claims if the
`
`additions brought the claims in line with the intrinsic record and made explicit an implicit
`
`limitation that was always present.”).
`
`Finally, the Court’s analysis should be made “in light of the particular facts” of this case,
`
`including “any other pertinent information. Laitram Corp. v. NEC Corp., 952 F.2d 1357, 1362
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1991). Here, the Court should also account for the similarity of the asserted claim
`
`limitations, including limitations for displaying maps and presenting location and status
`
`information on the maps, across the other, related Asserted Patents. See Dkt. 304. The Court
`
`cannot dismiss the ’970 Patent without making a factual determination on the genuine dispute over
`
`whether the amendment to Claims 10, 12, and 13 of the ’970 Patent substantively changed the
`
`scope of the claimed inventions. Respectfully, the Court should find that the record before it
`
`demonstrates that the amendments did not substantially change the scope of the claimed invention
`
`and deny Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970 (Dkt. 248) in its entirety.
`
`Dated: January 20, 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
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 335 Filed 01/20/22 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 22173
`
`
`
`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
`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 335 Filed 01/20/22 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 22174
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that, on January 20, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`