Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 348 Filed 01/25/22 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 22921
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`T-MOBILE USA, INC. and T-MOBILE US,
`INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`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
`§
`§
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`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 FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF
`NO WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT, NO INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, NO PRE-SUIT
`INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT, AND NO COPYING (DKT. 253)
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 348 Filed 01/25/22 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 22922
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT, NO
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND NO COPYING IS NOT WARRANTED .......................... 1
`
`THERE ARE GENUINE DISPUTES OF MATERIAL FACT PRECLUDING A
`FINDING OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO PRE-SUIT INDIRECT
`INFRINGEMENT............................................................................................................... 2
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 348 Filed 01/25/22 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 22923
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
`477 U.S. 242 (1986) ...............................................................................................................2, 3
`
`Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm, Inc.,
`543 F.3d 683 (Fed. Cir. 2008)....................................................................................................3
`
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`No. 2:14-cv-911-JRG-RSP, 2016 WL 1106442 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 20, 2016) .............................1
`
`Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co.,
`449 F.3d 1209 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..................................................................................................2
`
`Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.,
`580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................................................................................................3
`
`Rolls-Royce Ltd. v. GTE Valeron Corp.,
`800 F.2d 1101 (Fed. Cir. 1986)..................................................................................................2
`
`SanDisk Corp. v. Kingston Tech. Co., Inc.,
`695 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................1
`
`Teva Pharm. Indus., Ltd. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs., Ltd.,
`No. 07-2894 (GEB) (JJH), 2008 WL 630050 (D.N.J. Mar. 5, 2008) ........................................1
`
`VirnetX, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`925 F. Supp. 2d 816 (E.D. Tex. 2013), rev’d on other grounds, VirtnetX, Inc.
`v. Cisco Sys., Inc, 767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................1, 2, 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 348 Filed 01/25/22 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 22924
`
`
`
`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 for Summary Judgment of No
`
`Willful Infringement, No Injunctive Relief, No Pre-Suit Indirect Infringement, and No Copying
`
`(Dkt. 253) (the “Motion”).
`
`I.
`
`SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT, NO
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND NO COPYING IS NOT WARRANTED
`
`As submitted in response to Uber’s Motion, AGIS has stated that it will not allege at trial
`
`that Uber willfully infringes any claim of the ’100 Patent, that AGIS is entitled to injunctive relief,
`
`and that Uber has copied any practicing products. Accordingly, summary judgment is not
`
`warranted on these grounds. See, e.g., VirnetX, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 925 F. Supp. 2d 816, 849 (E.D.
`
`Tex. 2013), rev’d on other grounds, VirtnetX, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc, 767 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2014) (“The Court encourages and requires the parties to narrow their case for trial. Accordingly,
`
`the Court will not penalize such attempts to narrow issues by entering judgment on issues not
`
`presented at trial.”). AGIS has agreed to not allege claims for willful infringement, injunctive
`
`relief, or copying. See Teva Pharm. Indus., Ltd. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs., Ltd., No. 07-2894 (GEB)
`
`(JJH), 2008 WL 630050, at *4 (D.N.J. Mar. 5, 2008) (“The Court will deny DRL’s summary
`
`judgment to the extent it concerns claim 1 of the ’008 patent because there is no case or controversy
`
`as to that claim.”); SanDisk Corp. v. Kingston Tech. Co., Inc., 695 F.3d 1348, 1353 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012) (“Thus, these claims do not present a current infringement controversy before this court.
`
`Without such a controversy, we lack Article III jurisdiction to decide these issues.”); Core Wireless
`
`Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., No. 2:14-cv-911-JRG-RSP, 2016 WL 1106442, at *1 (E.D.
`
`Tex. Mar. 20, 2016). Accordingly, AGIS submits that because it is no longer seeking claims for
`
`willful infringement, injunctive relief, or alleging that Uber copied the practicing products,
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 348 Filed 01/25/22 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 22925
`
`
`
`summary judgment is not warranted.
`
`II.
`
`THERE ARE GENUINE DISPUTES OF MATERIAL FACT
`PRECLUDING A FINDING OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NO PRE-
`SUIT INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT
`
`There are genuine disputes of material fact regarding Uber’s pre-suit knowledge of the
`
`Asserted Patents. AGIS submitted the testimony of Uber’s own witnesses, including Uber’s
`
`Director of Patent Transactions and an Engineer of Uber, who testified that Uber has a policy of
`
`not monitoring or investigating the patents of others. Resp. at 4. A patentee may prove both
`
`indirect infringement and the corresponding direct infringement by circumstantial evidence.
`
`Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co., 449 F.3d 1209, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The “drawing of
`
`inferences, particular in respect of an intent-implicating question . . . is peculiarly within the
`
`province of the fact finder that observed the witnesses.” Rolls-Royce Ltd. v. GTE Valeron Corp.,
`
`800 F.2d 1101, 1110 (Fed. Cir. 1986). That Uber now disputes or attempts to walk back the sworn
`
`testimony of its own employees with irrelevant or conflicting statements is insufficient to warrant
`
`summary judgment and confirms the existence of a genuine dispute. Compare Dkt. 253 SOF with
`
`Dkt. 303, Responses to SOF. To the extent there is any contradictory testimony supporting
`
`competing positions, the jury must determine the credibility of the witnesses and their conflicting
`
`statements. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986) (“Credibility determination,
`
`the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury
`
`functions, not those of a judge, whether he is ruling on a motion for summary judgment or for a
`
`directed verdict. The evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences
`
`are to be drawn in his favor.”).
`
`AGIS presented evidence that Uber understood how its products worked, had notice of the
`
`patents after the suit was filed, and Uber has a clear pattern of behavior of not monitoring or
`
`investigating the patents of others. In VirnetX Inc. v. Apple Inc., the Court held that plaintiff
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 348 Filed 01/25/22 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 22926
`
`
`
`produced substantial evidence that Apple induced its customers’ infringement of the patents-in-
`
`suit where it presented testimony that “Apple believed that there was a high probability that its
`
`customers infringed and took deliberate actions to avoid confirming infringement.” 925 F. Supp.
`
`at 833. Accordingly, the Court stated that “a jury is allowed to draw inferences from the evidence
`
`presented.” Id. The plaintiff had also presented evidence “of a clear pattern of behavior by Apple
`
`employees, which the jury was free to consider when determining whether Apple took deliberate
`
`steps to avoid confirming infringement,” and “a jury is allowed to infer Apple possessed the
`
`requisite intent from all the facts as presented.” Id. Accordingly, AGIS should be permitted to
`
`present evidence from which a jury may infer that Uber possessed the requisite intent from all the
`
`facts as presented. Id.; see also Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm, Inc., 543 F.3d 683, 699 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2008) (holding the requisite intent to induce infringement may be inferred from all of the
`
`circumstances). Further, AGIS has asserted that Uber instructs its customers to use the accused
`
`features in an infringing manner. See VirnetX, 925 F. Supp. 2d at 833; Lucent Techs., Inc. v.
`
`Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1318-19 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Like VirnetX, AGIS should be permitted
`
`to present all evidence to a jury and permit the jury to make a determination. Accordingly, there
`
`are genuine disputes of material fact and, thus, summary judgment in not warranted.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Uber has failed to show that there are no genuine disputes of
`
`material fact and AGIS respectfully requests that the Court deny Uber’s Motion for Summary
`
`Judgment in its entirety.
`
`Dated: January 25, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` /s/ Vincent J. Rubino, III
`Alfred R. Fabricant
`NY Bar No. 2219392
`Email: ffabricant@fabricantllp.com
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 348 Filed 01/25/22 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 22927
`
`
`
`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
`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
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 348 Filed 01/25/22 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 22928
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that, on January 25, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`