Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 375-2 Filed 04/15/22 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:
`23723
`
`Exhibit 2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 375-2 Filed 04/15/22 Page 2 of 13 PageID #:
`23724
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`T-MOBILE USA, INC. and T-MOBILE US,
`INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`LYFT, INC.,
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00072-JRG
`(LEAD CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00024-JRG
`(MEMBER CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S INITIAL DISCLOSURES
`TO DEFENDANT LYFT, INC.
`
`Pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Agreed
`
`Discovery Order filed by the parties in this matter, Plaintiff AGIS Software Development LLC
`
`(“AGIS” or “Plaintiff”), hereby makes the following initial disclosures to Defendant Lyft, Inc.
`
`(“Lyft” or “Defendant”). AGIS makes these initial disclosures based on information obtained to
`
`date and available to AGIS and without the full benefit of any discovery or disclosures from
`
`Defendant or any potentially relevant third party. Moreover, AGIS has not had the opportunity
`
`to fully investigate all possible claims as discovery for AGIS has only just begun, and therefore,
`
`AGIS reserves the right to amend and/or supplement these disclosures, pursuant to Rule 26(e) of
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 375-2 Filed 04/15/22 Page 3 of 13 PageID #:
`23725
`
`the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as additional information becomes available during the
`
`course of this lawsuit.
`
`AGIS’s initial disclosures are made without, in any way, waiving (i) the right to object to
`
`any discovery requests or to the admissibility of any evidence on the grounds of privilege, work
`
`product immunity, relevance, competency, materiality, hearsay, or any other proper ground in
`
`this action or in any other action; (ii) the right to object to the use of any such information, for
`
`any purpose, in whole or in part, in any proceeding in this action or in any other action; or
`
`(iii) the right to object to any and all grounds to any other discovery request or proceeding
`
`involving or relating to the subject matter of these disclosures in any proceeding in this action or
`
`in any other action.
`
`AGIS submits, based on information reasonably available to it at this time, and subject to
`
`the limitations set forth above, the following initial disclosures:
`
`(a)
`
`The Correct Name of the Parties to the Lawsuit
`
`AGIS believes that the correct entities have been named as the Plaintiff and as the
`
`Defendant in this lawsuit.
`
`(b)
`
`The Names, Address, and Telephone Number of Any Potential Parties
`
`AGIS is continuing its investigation into this issue and reserves the right to supplement
`
`this response and identify additional parties to the lawsuit. AGIS is not presently aware of any
`
`potential parties.
`
`(c)
`
`Legal Theories and, in General, the Factual Bases of AGIS’s Claims or
`
`Defenses
`
`AGIS has identified its current legal theories in its Complaint (Dkt. 1) and Plaintiff’s
`
`Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions (“PICS”) served in accordance
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 375-2 Filed 04/15/22 Page 4 of 13 PageID #:
`23726
`
`with P.R. 3-1, accompanied by claim charts, which AGIS hereby incorporates by reference.
`
`AGIS reserves the right to raise additional claims as discovery progresses and as the law in this
`
`area is developed further during the pendency of this litigation.
`
`Plaintiff’s PICS identify that the Lyft Accused Products, as defined therein, infringe at
`
`least each of claims 2 and 10-13 of U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970 (the “ʼ970 Patent”); claims 9, 12-
`
`16 of U.S. Patent No. 7,630,724 (the “ʼ724 Patent”); claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 7,031,728 (the
`
`“ʼ728 Patent”); claims 1-31 of U.S. Patent No. 10,299,100 (the “ʼ100 Patent”); and claims 1-26
`
`of U.S. Patent No. 10,341,838 (the “ʼ838 Patent”). Plaintiff’s PICS also identify the Lyft
`
`Accused Products including, but not limited to, the Lyft and Lyft Driver applications and the
`
`related services and/or servers for the applications.
`
`The claim charts annexed to Plaintiff’s PICS show where each element of the asserted
`
`claims is present in the Lyft Accused Products. AGIS believes that the Lyft Accused Products
`
`cited in the claim charts are representative of the Lyft Accused Products (i.e., the above-
`
`identified applications). To the extent Lyft alleges that any limitations are not met literally, the
`
`Lyft Accused Products infringe the Asserted Patents under the doctrine of equivalents because
`
`the differences between the claimed inventions and the Lyft Accused Products, if any, are
`
`insubstantial, and directly infringe the Asserted Patents because they make, use, offer for sale,
`
`sell, and import into the United States the Lyft Accused Products, as well as indirectly infringe
`
`by contributing to and/or inducing others (e.g., Lyft’s drivers, Lyft’s customers or their
`
`customers’ customers) to directly infringe those claims by making, using, offering for sale, or
`
`selling the Lyft Accused Products.
`
`In general, the Lyft Accused Products infringe the ʼ970 Patent because they include,
`
`among other things, at least the features implemented in the Lyft applications that among other
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 375-2 Filed 04/15/22 Page 5 of 13 PageID #:
`23727
`
`applications and/or features relevant to the claims of the Asserted Patents in accordance with
`
`Lyft’s instructions and thereby directly infringe at least one claim of the ʼ970 Patent. The Lyft
`
`Accused Products are programmed to facilitate the communication of location information. The
`
`Lyft Accused Products include software, including but not limited to the above-listed
`
`applications and/or features, in the Lyft Accused Products, which contain code for providing
`
`device-location tracking features. For example, the Lyft Accused Products run and comprise
`
`applications and/or software that run and include components to provide device-location tracking
`
`features and are further programmed to permit users to specify additional locations and to
`
`communicate those user-specified locations to other users via symbols on an interactive display.
`
`In general, the Lyft Accused Products infringe the ’724 Patent because they include,
`
`among other things, at least the features implemented in the Lyft Accused Products relevant to
`
`the claims of the ’724 Patent in accordance with Lyft’s instructions and thereby directly infringe
`
`at least one claim of the ’724 Patent. Additionally, the Lyft Accused Products allow users to
`
`share their location and view other users’ locations on a map and to communicate with those
`
`users via the app. The Lyft Accused Products are further programmed to generate symbols
`
`representative of one or more users, including drivers and riders. The Lyft Accused Products are
`
`further programmed, to facilitate the communication of location information. This location
`
`information is presented on interactive displays on the Lyft Accused Products which include
`
`interactive maps and a plurality of user-selectable symbols corresponding to other devices. These
`
`symbols are positioned on the map at positions corresponding to the locations of the other
`
`devices. The Lyft Accused Products are further programmed to permit interaction with the
`
`display where a user may select one or more symbols and where the Lyft Accused Products
`
`further permit data to be sent to other devices based on that interaction. The Lyft Accused
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 375-2 Filed 04/15/22 Page 6 of 13 PageID #:
`23728
`
`Products are further programmed to permit users to specify additional locations and to
`
`communicate those user-specified locations to other users via symbols on an interactive display.
`
`In general, the Lyft Accused Products infringe the ’728 Patent because they include,
`
`among other things, at least the features implemented in the Lyft Accused Products relevant to
`
`claim 7 of the ’728 Patent in accordance with Lyft’s instructions and thereby directly infringe at
`
`least claim 7 of the ’728 Patent. The Lyft Accused Products include functionality such that users
`
`may view each other’s locations on a map and engage in communication including text, voice,
`
`and multimedia-based communication. For example, the Lyft Accused Products allow users to
`
`share their location and view other users’ locations on a map and to communicate with those
`
`users via the app. The exemplary Lyft Accused Products are programmed to obtain contact
`
`information from other users’ devices, where that contact information includes phone numbers.
`
`The Lyft Accused Products are further programmed, to facilitate the communication of location
`
`information. This location information is presented on interactive displays on the Lyft Accused
`
`Products which include interactive maps and a plurality of user-selectable symbols
`
`corresponding to other devices. These symbols are positioned on the map at positions
`
`corresponding to the locations of the other devices. The Lyft Accused Products are further
`
`programmed to permit interaction with the display where a user may select one or more symbols
`
`and whereupon selection of the symbol, a user may initiate a phone call using the stored cellular
`
`phone number.
`
`In general, the Lyft Accused Products infringe the ’100 Patent because they include,
`
`among other things, at least the features implemented in the Lyft Accused Products relevant to
`
`the claims of the ’100 Patent in accordance with Lyft’s instructions and thereby directly infringe
`
`at least one claim of the ’100 Patent. The Lyft Accused Products include functionality such that
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 375-2 Filed 04/15/22 Page 7 of 13 PageID #:
`23729
`
`users are associated with an identifier and the user’s location corresponds to a geographical
`
`location. Further, the Lyft Accused Products, receive from a server, mapping data which include
`
`data correlating the positions on the interactive map with the corresponding locations of
`
`geographical locations. The Lyft Accused Products also receive from a server the location data
`
`indicating vehicle locations of one or more vehicles, including the location of Lyft drivers and
`
`indicating on the interactive map symbols corresponding to the location of users, locations of
`
`facilities, and location of drivers. The Lyft Accused Products include functionality which allow
`
`users to search for a symbol, such as a symbol of a facility, as the location nearest to the user’s
`
`selected position and transmitting that information to nearby Lyft drivers.
`
`In general, the Lyft Accused Products infringe the ’838 Patent because they include,
`
`among other things, at least the features implemented in the Lyft Accused Products, relevant to
`
`the claims of the ’838 Patent in accordance with Lyft’s instructions and thereby directly infringe
`
`at least one claim of the ’838 Patent. The Lyft Accused Products infringe the ’838 Patent
`
`because they include, among other things, servers programmed to work with the Lyft Accused
`
`Products. For example, the exemplary Lyft Accused Products allow users to join a
`
`communication network and exchange information via interaction with Lyft’s servers which
`
`provide the Lyft services. The Lyft Accused Products include functionality whereby the Lyft
`
`servers obtain and send data corresponding to the location of the riders and drivers and
`
`displaying symbols corresponding to these locations on the display. The Lyft Accused Products
`
`further are further programmed to facilitate communication with one or more servers and
`
`sending and receiving location information, and communication with other users.
`
`Lyft directly infringes by, among other things, making, using, selling, offering to sell, and
`
`importing the Lyft Accused Products or devices incorporating those products. Lyft induces
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 375-2 Filed 04/15/22 Page 8 of 13 PageID #:
`23730
`
`infringe by, among other things, instructing or otherwise inducing end users and/or resellers of
`
`the Lyft Accused Products or products that incorporate the Lyft Accused Products to directly
`
`infringe by using or selling those products or by making, using, or selling products that
`
`incorporate the Lyft Accused Products. Lyft contributorily infringes by, among other things,
`
`making, using, selling, offering to sell, and importing components of the Lyft Accused Products,
`
`including products that incorporate the Lyft Accused Products of those products, which have no
`
`substantial non-infringing uses.
`
`Lyft has not answered the complaint in this case. To the extent that Lyft may contend
`
`that the Asserted Patents are invalid under one or more grounds specified in 35 U.S.C. §§ 101,
`
`102, 103, and/or 112, AGIS denies such contentions. AGIS is not aware of any prior art that
`
`renders the claims of the Asserted Patents invalid by anticipation or obviousness, and the
`
`Asserted Patents cover patentable subject matter and comply with all of the statutory
`
`requirements of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 112. AGIS also denied that Lyft is or will be entitled to
`
`relief under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`(d)
`
`Individuals with Knowledge of Relevant Facts
`
`Based on currently known information, AGIS believes that the following individuals are
`
`likely to have discoverable information regarding the parties’ claims or defenses in this litigation,
`
`unless solely for the purposes of impeachment. These individuals are identified based upon
`
`AGIS’s current understanding of the parties’ claims and defenses, and AGIS expressly reserves
`
`the right to supplement, limit, or otherwise amend the list below as the case progresses. Any
`
`employee of AGIS, who is listed in these disclosures or in any supplement thereto may only be
`
`contacted through AGIS’s counsel of record.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 375-2 Filed 04/15/22 Page 9 of 13 PageID #:
`23731
`
`Name
`Malcolm K. Beyer, Jr.*
`AGIS Software Development LLC,
`Jupiter, Florida
`
`Christopher R. Rice*
`AGIS, Inc.
`Superior, CO
`
`Margaret Beyer*
`AGIS Software Development LLC,
`Jupiter, Florida
`
`Sandel Blackwell*
`AGIS Software Development LLC,
`Lenexa, Kansas
`Jupiter, Florida
`
`Malcolm K. Beyer, III*
`743 Saint Albans Dr.,
`Boca Raton, FL 33846
`Ronald Wisneski*
`AGIS Software Development LLC
`Jupiter, Florida
`
`Barry L. Haley
`Malin, Haley & DiMaggio, P.A.
`1936 South Andrews Ave.
`Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
`Rebecca Clark*
`AGIS Inc.
`Lenexa, Kansas
`
`Subject
`Mr. Beyer is a named inventor on the ’724, ’728, ’970,
`’100, and ’838 Patents. He holds the position of CEO
`of AGIS Software Development LLC. He possesses
`knowledge regarding the conception and reduction to
`practice of the ’724, ’728, ’970, ’100, and ’838 Patents.
`Mr. Rice is a named inventor on the ’724, ’100, and
`’838 Patents, the former CTO of AGIS, Inc. He is
`currently a third-party consultant to AGIS, Inc. He
`possesses knowledge about the prototyping of the
`inventions described and claimed in the ’724, ’100, and
`’838 Patents, as well as the conception and reduction to
`practice of the ’724, ’100, and ’838 Patents.
`Mrs. Beyer is the Corporate Secretary of AGIS
`Software Development LLC. She possesses knowledge
`regarding AGIS Software Development LLC’s
`business.
`Mr. Blackwell is the President of AGIS Software
`Development LLC. He possesses knowledge regarding
`the technical aspects of the ’724, ’728, ’970, ’100, and
`’838 Patents, including the prototyping and
`implementations of the inventions described and
`claimed in the Asserted Patents. He also possesses
`knowledge regarding AGIS Software Development
`LLC’s business.
`Mr. Beyer is a System Administrator and programmer
`for AGIS, Inc. He has knowledge regarding AGIS
`Inc.’s current and past commercial products.
`Mr. Wisneski is the CFO/Treasurer of AGIS Software
`Development LLC. He possesses knowledge about
`AGIS Software Development LLC’s business and
`financial information.
`Mr. Haley is the patent prosecuting attorney of record
`for the’724, ’728, and ’970 Patents and is believed to
`have knowledge concerning the prosecution of those
`patents.
`Ms. Clark is a quality assurance and customer delivery
`representative who has knowledge regarding the
`development of AGIS Inc. products and knowledge
`related to marking of AGIS Inc. products with the
`patents in suit.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 375-2 Filed 04/15/22 Page 10 of 13 PageID #:
`23732
`
`Name
`Eric Armstrong*
`Allen, Texas
`
`David Sietsema*
`AGIS Inc.
`Austin, TX
`Ronald Wisneski*
`AGIS Inc.
`Jupiter, FL
`
`George Barros*
`AGIS Inc.
`Vienna, VA
`
`Subject
`Mr. Armstrong is a former employee and current third-
`party consultant for AGIS Inc. Mr. Armstrong has
`knowledge regarding the development of AGIS Inc.
`LifeRing and ASSIST products and knowledge related
`to marking of AGIS Inc. products with the patents in
`suit.
`Mr. Sietsema is an employee in AGIS Inc.’s Austin,
`Texas office and has knowledge regarding contracts
`related to AGIS Inc. products.
`Mr. Wisneski is the Chief Financial Officer and
`Treasurer of AGIS Inc. and AGIS Software
`Development LLC and has knowledge regarding the
`finances of AGIS, Inc. and AGIS Software
`Development LLC
`Mr. Barros is the Director of Business Development of
`AGIS Inc. and has knowledge regarding AGIS Inc.’s
`sales and marketing efforts, and contract procurement
`for AGIS Inc.’s LifeRing products and solutions.
`The firm is the patent prosecuting firm for the’100 and
`’838 Patents
`
`Goodwin Proctor LLP
`100 Northern Ave.
`Boston, MA 02210
`* indicates that party is to be contacted through counsel for AGIS Software Development,
`LLC.
`
`AGIS reserves the right to supplement this disclosure pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) as
`
`its investigation continues.
`
`(e)
`
`Indemnity and Insurance Agreements
`
`At this time, AGIS is not aware of any indemnity or insuring agreements under which
`
`any person or entity may be liable to satisfy part or all of any judgment entered in this action
`
`against AGIS, or to indemnify or reimburse AGIS for payments made to satisfy any such
`
`judgment.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 375-2 Filed 04/15/22 Page 11 of 13 PageID #:
`23733
`
`(f)
`
`Relevant Settlement Agreements
`
`At this time, AGIS is aware that at least some of the Asserted Patents were subject to
`
`prior litigation, AGIS Software Development LLC v. Huawei Device USA Inc. et al., 2:17-cv-
`
`00513 (E.D. Tex. 2017), which resulted in settlement agreements with Huawei Device USA Inc.,
`
`Huawei Device (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., Huawei Device Co., Ltd., and Apple Inc., AGIS Software
`
`Development LLC v. HTC Corporation, 2:17-cv-00514 (E.D. Tex. 2017), which resulted in
`
`settlement agreements with HTC Corporation and LG Electronics Inc., and ZTE (USA) Inc. v.
`
`AGIS Software Development LLC et al., 5:18-cv-06185 (N.D. Cal. 2018), which resulted in a
`
`settlement agreement with ZTE (USA) Inc.
`
`(g)
`
`Any Statement of Any Party to the Litigation
`
`At this time, AGIS is aware of no statements on behalf of AGIS other than those
`
`disclosed in the pleadings, initial disclosures, or other documents filed with the Court or served
`
`upon counsel of record in this litigation. Statements were made by or on behalf of the inventors
`
`and assignee of the Asserted Patents to the U.S. Patent Office during prosecution of the Asserted
`
`Patents, including statements relevant to patentability and scope of the claimed invention.
`
`(h) Computation of Damages
`
`AGIS will disclose its computation of damages in accordance with the schedule for
`
`expert disclosures.
`
`Dated: June 2, 2021
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/ Alfred R. Fabricant
`Alfred R. Fabricant
`NY Bar No. 2219392
`Email: afabricant@fabricantllp.com
`Peter Lambrianakos
`NY Bar No. 2894392
`Email: plambrianakos@fabricantllp.com
`Vincent J. Rubino, III
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 375-2 Filed 04/15/22 Page 12 of 13 PageID #:
`23734
`
`NY Bar No. 4557435
`Email: vrubino@fabricantllp.com
`Enrique W. Iturralde
`NY Bar No. 5526280
`Email: eiturralde@fabricantllp.com
`FABRICANT LLP
`411 Theodore Fremd Road, Suite 206 South
`Rye, New York 10580
`Telephone: 212-257-5797
`Facsimile: 212-257-5796
`
`Samuel F. Baxter
`Texas State Bar No. 01938000
`Email: sbaxter@mckoolsmith.com
`Jennifer L. Truelove
`Texas 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 375-2 Filed 04/15/22 Page 13 of 13 PageID #:
`23735
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on June 2, 2021 a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
`
`document has been served by email.
`
`/s/ Alfred R. Fabricant
`Alfred R. Fabricant
`
`
`
`
`
`