Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG Document 43 Filed 05/07/21 Page 1 of 36 PageID #: 609
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`T-MOBILE USA, INC. and T-MOBILE US,
`INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00026-JRG
`(MEMBER CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`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.
`
`PLAINTIFF AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC’S RESPONSE
`IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`D/B/A UBER’S MOTION TO DISMISS (DKT. 24)
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG Document 43 Filed 05/07/21 Page 2 of 36 PageID #: 610
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`RESPONSE TO STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED ...................................... 2
`
`BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 2
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Improper Venue ...................................................................................................... 3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ....................................................................................................... 3
`
`Rule 12(b)(6) ........................................................................................................... 5
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Venue is Proper in This District.............................................................................. 7
`
`The ’728 Patent is Not Directed to Patent-Ineligible Subject Matter and
`Any Arguments Propounded by Defendant are Premature................................... 11
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant’s Section 101 Arguments Are Premature ................................ 11
`
`Alice Step One........................................................................................... 13
`
`Alice Step Two .......................................................................................... 19
`
`C.
`
`AGIS Has Provided Sufficient Allegations of Direct, Indirect, and
`Willful Infringement ............................................................................................. 21
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Direct Infringement ................................................................................... 21
`
`Indirect Infringement ................................................................................ 27
`
`Willful Infringement ................................................................................. 28
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 28
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG Document 43 Filed 05/07/21 Page 3 of 36 PageID #: 611
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Actus, LLC v. Bank of Am. Corp.,
`2010 WL 547183 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 10, 2010) ...............................................................26, 27, 31
`
`Advanced Ground Information Sys., Inc. v. Life360, Inc.,
`No. 9:14-cv-80651, Dkt. 167 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 16, 2015)..........................................................25
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Uber Techs. Inc., d/b/a Uber,
`No. 2:21-cv-00026-JRG, Dkt. No. 1 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 29, 2021) ................................................8
`
`Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.,
`797 F.3d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................10
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern.,
`573 U.S. 208, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ............................................................................9, 18, 24
`
`Andra Grp., LP v. Victoria’s Secret Stores, LLC,
`2020 WL 2478546 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 24, 2020) ...........................................................................8
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .................................................................................................................11
`
`Autumn Cloud LLC v. Tripadvisor, Inc.,
`2017 WL 1856232 (E.D .Tex. Apr. 3, 2017) .....................................................................10, 16
`
`Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.),
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012)............................................................................................9, 16
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..........................................................................................10, 22
`
`In re Bill of Lading Transmission & Processing Sys. Patent Litig.,
`681 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..........................................................................................11, 32
`
`Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc.,
`2016 WL 4778699 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2016) ..................................................................29, 30
`
`Certified Measurement, LLC v. CenterPoint Energy Houston Elec. LLC,
`2015 WL 1432324 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2015) ........................................................................18
`
`Chapterhouse, LLC v. Shopify, Inc.,
`2018 WL 6981828 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 11, 2018) ...................................................................29, 31
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG Document 43 Filed 05/07/21 Page 4 of 36 PageID #: 612
`
`Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter,
`224 F.3d 496 (5th Cir. 2000) ...................................................................................................12
`
`In re Comiskey,
`554 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 2009)....................................................................................................9
`
`Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`575 U.S. 632 (2015) .................................................................................................................11
`
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................9
`
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018)....................................................................................22, 23, 24
`
`CXT Sys., Inc. v. Academy, Ltd.,
`2019 WL 1237148 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 12, 2019) ................................................................ passim
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`954 F. Supp. 2d 509 (E.D. Tex. 2013) .....................................................................................20
`
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..........................................................................................22, 23
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................9, 18, 19, 23
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc.,
`879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................20
`
`Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) ..............................................................................................22
`
`Gree, Inc. v. Supercell Oy,
`2020 WL 4931398 (E.D. Tex. July 18, 2020) .........................................................................27
`
`Infernal Tech., LLC v. Sony Interactive Entm’t LLC,
`2020 WL 6797026 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2020) ............................................................27, 28, 31
`
`Integrated Tech. Sys., Inc. v. First Internet Bank of Indiana,
`2017 WL 631195 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 30, 2017) ..............................................................................9
`
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. FedEx Corp.,
`2017 WL 5630023 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 22, 2017) ..................................................................15, 19
`
`Lifetime Indus., Inc. v. Trim-Lok, Inc.,
`869 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................11
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG Document 43 Filed 05/07/21 Page 5 of 36 PageID #: 613
`
`Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp.,
`379 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................11
`
`Lochner Techs., LLC v. AT Labs Inc.,
`2012 WL 2595288 (E.D. Tex. Jul. 5, 2012) ............................................................................33
`
`McZeal v. Sprint Nextel Corp.,
`501 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................12
`
`Mondis Tech. Ltd. v. Top Victory Elecs. (Taiwan) Co.,
`2010 WL 3025243 (E.D. Tex. July 29, 2010) .........................................................................27
`
`Move, Inc. v. Real Estate All. Ltd.,
`721 F. App’x 950 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ..........................................................................................22
`
`Nalco Co. v. Chem-Mod LLC,
`883 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2018)........................................................................................ passim
`
`Norman IP Holdings, LLC v. Chrysler Grp. LLC,
`2014 WL 12789842 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 5, 2014) ........................................................................27
`
`OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................25
`
`Presqriber, LLC v. Advanced Data Sys. Advanced Corp.,
`2015 WL 11170154 (E.D. Tex. June 29, 2015) .......................................................................21
`
`Qcue, Inc. v. Digonex Techs., Inc.,
`2013 WL 12121443 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2013) ......................................................................17
`
`Qwikcash, LLC v. Blackhawk Network Holdings, Inc.,
`2020 WL 6781566 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 27, 2020) ........................................................................29
`
`Ruby Sands LLC v. Am. Nat’l Bank of Texas,
`2016 WL 3542430 (E.D. Tex. Jun. 28, 2016)..........................................................................29
`
`Secured Structures, LLC v. Alarm Sec. Grp., LLC,
`2016 WL 1253688 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 10, 2016) ..................................................................25, 26
`
`Seven Networks, LLC v. Google LLC,
`315 F. Supp. 3d 933 (E.D. Tex. Jul. 19, 2018) ............................................................12, 14, 15
`
`Soverain IP, LLC v. AT&T, Inc.,
`2017 WL 5126158 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 31, 2017) .........................................................................15
`
`TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC,
`137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017) ...............................................................................................................8
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG Document 43 Filed 05/07/21 Page 6 of 36 PageID #: 614
`
`Titanide Ventures, LLC v. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp.,
`2012 WL 5507327 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 18, 2012) .........................................................................32
`
`TPQ Dev., LLC v. Intuit Inc.,
`2014 WL 2809841 (E.D. Tex. Jun. 20, 2014)..........................................................................27
`
`TQP Dev., LLC v. Ticketmaster Entm’t, Inc.,
`2010 WL 1740927 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 29, 2010) ...................................................................27, 32
`
`Ultramercial, LLC v. Hulu, LLC,
`657 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..................................................................................................9
`
`Voxathon LLC v. Alpine Elecs. of Am., Inc.,
`2016 WL 260350 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 20, 2016) ............................................................................21
`
`Wetro Lan LLC v. Phoenix Contact USA Inc.,
`2016 WL 1228746 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 29, 2016) ........................................................................17
`
`Wooten v. McDonald Transit Assoc., Inc.,
`788 F.3d 490 (5th Cir. 2015) ...................................................................................................32
`
`Statutes
`28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) ............................................................................................................... passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ...................................................................................................................... passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(b) .........................................................................................................................10
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(c) .........................................................................................................................11
`
`Other Authorities
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)......................................................................................................... passim
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG Document 43 Filed 05/07/21 Page 7 of 36 PageID #: 615
`
`
`
`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 (Dkt. 24) (the “Motion”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Defendant asks this Court to dismiss this action based on three separate grounds:
`
`(1) improper venue based on U.S. Patent No. 10,341,838 (the “’838 Patent”); (2) the claims of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,031,728 (the “’728 Patent”) are directed to ineligible subject matter; and (3) the
`
`Complaint fails to state a claim of joint infringement, direct infringement, indirect infringement,
`
`and willful infringement. However, all three grounds fail. Defendant’s disputes do not lie with the
`
`sufficiency of the pleadings, but instead take issue with AGIS’s infringement theories. At this
`
`stage, AGIS’s pleadings are sufficient and withstand Defendant’s Motion.
`
`First, in contravention of longstanding case law, Defendant argues that Plaintiff must allege
`
`that one Uber server must directly infringe in this District in order to meet the requirement that it
`
`has allegedly committed an act of infringement under the venue statute. However, this Court has
`
`found (1) not all of the alleged infringing activity needs to have occurred in the District so long as
`
`some act of infringement took place there; (2) the acts of infringement required to support venue
`
`need not be acts of direct infringement alone. The Court should reject Defendant’s allegation that
`
`venue is improper because (1) Defendant’s Motion is based on the incorrect legal standard; (2)
`
`Defendant effectively concedes that at least one step of the ’838 Patent is performed in the District;
`
`(3) Defendant ignores that Plaintiff has alleged indirect infringement in the form of induced
`
`infringement and contributory infringement in the count for the ’838 Patent; and (4) Defendant’s
`
`dispute amounts to an attack on the sufficiency of AGIS’s infringement contentions against the
`
`’838 Patent. Accordingly, there remain a number of disputes regarding factual allegations, when
`
`taken as true, that require resolution which preclude a motion to dismiss.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG Document 43 Filed 05/07/21 Page 8 of 36 PageID #: 616
`
`
`
`Second, Defendant’s allegations that the claims of the ’728 Patent are directed to ineligible
`
`subject matter are without merit. Defendant’s arguments are directed to factual and claim
`
`construction disputes rendering Defendant’s Motion premature. Nonetheless, Defendant makes
`
`conclusory accusations that are unsupported.
`
`Third, Defendant’s arguments regarding direct, indirect, and willful infringement
`
`misrepresent AGIS’s pleadings. By arguing for dismissal, Defendant omits several specific factual
`
`allegations regarding Defendant’s Accused Products and how they meet the limitations of the
`
`Accused Patents and broadly asserts that AGIS’s pleadings must fail.
`
`Defendant’s Motion is based on unsupported premises and, therefore, should be denied in
`
`its entirety.
`
`II.
`
`RESPONSE TO STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`
`1. Improper Venue: The Court should decline to dismiss the allegations as to the ’838 Patent
`
`for improper venue because infringing activity occurs in the District as required by 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1400(b).
`
`2. Ineligible Subject Matter: The Court should decline to dismiss the Complaint for failure to
`
`state a claim because claim 7 (and its dependents) of the ’728 Patent are directed to patent-eligible
`
`subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`3. Inadequate Pleading: The Court should decline to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state
`
`a claim of (1) joint infringement, (2) direct infringement, (3) indirect infringement, and (4) willful
`
`infringement because AGIS’s pleadings are sufficient.
`
`III. BACKGROUND
`
`On January 29, 2021, AGIS filed three patent infringement actions, including an action
`
`against Uber alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,031,728 (the “’728 Patent”); 7,630,724
`
`(the “’724 Patent”); 8,213,970 (the “’970 Patent”); 10,299,100 (the “’100 Patent”); and 10,341,838
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG Document 43 Filed 05/07/21 Page 9 of 36 PageID #: 617
`
`
`
`(the “’838 Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Uber Techs.
`
`Inc., d/b/a Uber, No. 2:21-cv-00026-JRG, Dkt. No. 1 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 29, 2021).
`
`On April 23, 2021, Uber filed two motions: the present motion to dismiss (see AGIS
`
`Software Dev. LLC, No. 2:21-cv-00072-JRG, Dkt. No. 24 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 2021)) and a motion
`
`to stay (see id., Dkt. No. 25 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 2021)).
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A.
`
`Improper Venue
`
`“Any civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the
`
`defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular
`
`and established place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b); see also TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods
`
`Grp. Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514, 1519 (2017). A defendant is deemed to reside where (1) it is
`
`incorporated; or (2) commits acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of
`
`business. TC Heartland, 137 S. Ct. at 1519.
`
`If Defendant raises improper venue by motion, Plaintiff carries the burden of establishing
`
`facts that, if taken to be true, establish proper venue. See Andra Grp., LP v. Victoria’s Secret
`
`Stores, LLC, 2020 WL 2478546, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 24, 2020) (citation omitted). The Court
`
`“must accept as true all allegations in the complaint and resolve all conflicts in favor of the
`
`plaintiff.” Id.
`
`B.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`Section 101 of the Patent Act defines patentable subject matter and states that “[w]however
`
`invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter,
`
`or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions
`
`and requirements of this title.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG Document 43 Filed 05/07/21 Page 10 of 36 PageID #: 618
`
`
`
`The Federal Circuit has set forth a two-step framework for analyzing whether claims at
`
`issue claim patent-eligible subject matter. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1334
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2016). First, Courts must determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-
`
`ineligible concept. Id. (quoting Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 573 U.S. 208, 134 S. Ct.
`
`2347, 2355 (2014)). In doing so, the court must be wary not to overgeneralize the invention, as
`
`“all inventions . . . embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or
`
`abstract ideas.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354. If the first step is satisfied, courts move to the second
`
`step of the inquiry and consider the elements of each claim both individually and as an ordered
`
`combination to determine whether the additional elements transform the nature of the claim into a
`
`patent-eligible application. Id. (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355). This step is satisfied when the
`
`claim limitations “involve more than performance of ‘well-understood, routine, [and] conventional
`
`activities previously known to the industry.’” Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells
`
`Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347-48 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`While the Federal Circuit “has never set forth a bright line rule requiring district courts to
`
`construe claims before determining subject matter eligibility,” Ultramercial, LLC v. Hulu, LLC,
`
`657 F.3d 1323, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2011), it has also cautioned “it will ordinarily be desirable—and
`
`often necessary—to resolve claim construction disputes prior to a § 101 analysis, for the
`
`determination of patent eligibility requires a full understanding of the basic character of the
`
`claimed subject matter.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d
`
`1266, 1273-74 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In addition, “there may be cases in which the legal question as to
`
`patentable subject matter may turn on subsidiary factual issues.” In re Comiskey, 554 F.3d 967,
`
`975 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “Invalidity under § 101 can be declared at the pleading stage if patent
`
`eligibility can be determined on the basis of materials properly considered on a motion to dismiss,
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG Document 43 Filed 05/07/21 Page 11 of 36 PageID #: 619
`
`
`
`purely as a matter of law, when claim construction is unnecessary.” Integrated Tech. Sys., Inc. v.
`
`First Internet Bank of Indiana, 2017 WL 631195, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 30, 2017). However, at the
`
`pleading stage, it is “generally only appropriate to conclude that a patent claim is ineligible under
`
`Section 101 when there are no bona fide disputes over claim terms or when the Court has a definite
`
`and firm conviction regarding patent ineligibility, even after all claim terms are construed in favor
`
`of the non-movant.” Autumn Cloud LLC v. Tripadvisor, Inc., 2017 WL 1856232, at *2 (E.D .Tex.
`
`Apr. 3, 2017) (emphasis added). To invalidate a patent under § 101, a challenger must provide
`
`clear and convincing evidence. CXT Sys., Inc. v. Academy, Ltd., 2019 WL 1237148, at *2 (E.D.
`
`Tex. Mar. 12, 2019) (citing Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). “If the
`
`Court has any reasonable doubts, then denial without prejudice is the more prudent course.”
`
`Autumn Cloud, 2017 WL 1856232, at *2.
`
`C.
`
`Rule 12(b)(6)
`
`“Direct infringement under § 271(a) occurs where all steps of a claimed method are
`
`performed by or attributable to a single entity.” Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.,
`
`797 F.3d 1020, 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “[T]he key inquiry, ‘[w]here more than one actor is involved
`
`in practicing the steps,’ is whether ‘the acts of one are attributable to the other such that a single
`
`entity is responsible for the infringement.” Nalco Co. v. Chem-Mod LLC, 883 F.3d 1337, 1351
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing Akamai, 797 F.3d at 1022). An entity would be held responsible for the
`
`performance of method steps by others “where that entity directs or controls others’ performance,”
`
`or “where the actors form a joint enterprise.” Id. “[N]o matter the relationship between the parties:
`
`we look for ‘evidence that a third party hoping to obtain access to certain benefits can only do so
`
`if it performs certain steps identified by the defendant, and does so under the terms prescribed by
`
`the defendant.’” Id. at 1352 (citation omitted) (emphasis added).
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG Document 43 Filed 05/07/21 Page 12 of 36 PageID #: 620
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), “[w]hoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall
`
`be liable as an infringer.” “For an allegation of induced infringement to survive a motion to
`
`dismiss, a complaint must plead facts plausibly showing that the accused infringer ‘specifically
`
`intended [another party] to infringe [the patent] and knew that the [other party]’s acts constituted
`
`infringement.’” Lifetime Indus., Inc. v. Trim-Lok, Inc., 869 F.3d 1372, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`However, the plaintiff need not prove intent, but merely provide enough facts from which intent
`
`can be reasonably inferred. In re Bill of Lading Transmission & Processing Sys. Patent Litig., 681
`
`F.3d 1323, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “It is axiomatic that ‘[t]here can be no inducement or
`
`contributory infringement without an underlying act of direct infringement.’” Id. at 1333 (quoting
`
`Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp., 379 F.3d 1311, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), contributory infringement occurs if a party sells, or offers to
`
`sell, “a component of a patented . . . combination, . . . or a material . . . for use in practicing a
`
`patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially
`
`made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or
`
`commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use.” “Contributory infringement
`
`requires knowledge of the patent in suit and knowledge of patent infringement.” Commil USA,
`
`LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 575 U.S. 632, 639 (2015). “[C]ontributory infringement requires ‘only
`
`proof of a defendant’s knowledge, not intent, that his activity cause[s] infringement.’” Lifetime,
`
`869 F.3d at 1381.
`
`Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a defendant may move to dismiss a complaint for “failure to
`
`state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To survive a motion to
`
`dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true,
`
`to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Nalco, 883 F.3d at 1347 (citing Ashcroft v.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG Document 43 Filed 05/07/21 Page 13 of 36 PageID #: 621
`
`
`
`Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). To meet this requirement, the plaintiff must plead “factual
`
`content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
`
`misconduct alleged.” Id. When ruling on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court accepts
`
`all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and construes all reasonable inferences in favor of the
`
`plaintiff. Id. A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) “is viewed with disfavor and is rarely
`
`granted.” Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 224 F.3d 496, 498 (5th Cir. 2000). To state a
`
`claim for patent infringement, “a patentee need only plead facts sufficient to place the alleged
`
`infringer on notice as to what he must defend.” McZeal v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 501 F.3d 1354,
`
`1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Venue is Proper in This District
`
`Defendant does not dispute that venue exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) and is properly
`
`alleged as to the causes of action with regard to the ’724, ’728, ’970, and ’100 Patents. See Dkt.
`
`24 at 5-6. Further, Defendant does not dispute that it has a regular and established place of business
`
`in this Judicial District. Defendant’s sole venue allegation is with regard to the ’838 Patent and a
`
`dispute regarding allegations of infringement of that patent. Defendant focuses on the limitations
`
`of the claims of the ’838 Patent that recite a “server” and improperly disputes venue because it
`
`contends that its servers are not within the physical bounds of the District. However, AGIS’s
`
`infringement allegations are tied to acts of infringement (both direct and indirect) that take place
`
`within this District and Defendant’s venue challenge must fail.
`
`Defendant does not dispute that it has regular and established places of business in this
`
`District including, but not limited to, an Uber Greenlight Hub in this District or the vehicles of
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG Document 43 Filed 05/07/21 Page 14 of 36 PageID #: 622
`
`
`
`Uber Drivers in this District. Dkt. 1 at ¶¶ 6-17.1 Rather, Defendant disputes the second prong of
`
`the § 1400(b) analysis: there are no “acts of infringement” committed within this District with
`
`regard to only the ’838 Patent. In support, Defendant relies on a single paragraph from the
`
`declaration of one of its senior technical program managers who states that “[n]one of the servers
`
`that Uber uses for its ride-sharing, food delivery, and freight brokerage technology are located in
`
`Texas.” Dkt. 24-2 at ¶ 2. (emphasis added). However, neither Mr. Rapipong nor Defendant make
`
`any mention of the specific Accused Products nor disclaim that any servers used, for example, for
`
`Uber, Uber Driver, Uber Eats, Uber Fleet, and Uber Freight are located in this District.
`
`Defendant has publicly disclosed that it engages in a “classic hybrid cloud approach” which
`
`utilizes co-located data centers located in the United States and multiple third-party cloud
`
`computing services. See Exhibit A, 2020 Uber Annual Report; Exhibit B, Data Center Knowledge
`
`Article. In fact, Uber’s own admissions in its S-1 filing with the SEC disclose that its “massive
`
`network” consists of “tens of millions of Drivers, consumers, restaurants, shippers, carriers, and
`
`dockless e-bikes and e-scooters, as well as underlying data, technology, and shared infrastructure.”
`
`Exhibit C, S-1 Filing, p.1. Moreover, Uber discloses that it “collect[s], use[s], and process[es] a
`
`variety of personal data, such as email addresses, mobile phone numbers, profile photos, location
`
`information,” and it relies on “third-party service providers to host or otherwise process some of
`
`our data and that of platform users.” Id. at p.41. Accordingly, the physical server infrastructure
`
`used by Defendant appears to be much broader than just the “servers,” as submitted by Mr.
`
`Rapipong and Defendant.
`
`
`1 See Seven Networks, LLC v. Google LLC, 315 F. Supp. 3d 933, 945 (E.D. Tex. Jul. 19, 2018) (“It
`is not ‘unfair’ to require a defendant to answer suit in a district wherein a defendant has a regular
`and established place of business and is alleged to have committed acts of infringement.”).
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG Document 43 Filed 05/07/21 Page 15 of 36 PageID #: 623
`
`
`
`Moreover, AGIS has pled allegations of both direct and indirect infringement of the ’838
`
`Patent. Defendant does not dispute that customers and end-users of Uber’s Accused Products can
`
`access the Uber servers from this District including, but not limited to, receiving data and
`
`information, sending data and information, and communicating with the servers. Like Defendant
`
`here, Google argued in Seven Networks, that (1) direct infringement of a method claim by Google
`
`alone and entirely within the District was required to meet the requirement that it has committed
`
`an act of infringement under the venue statute. 315 F. Supp. 3d at 943. Citing to another case, the
`
`Court rejected this argument and held that it was not required to show that all steps of a method
`
`claim occur within the District in order to show infringement. Id. (citation omitted). Additionally,
`
`the Court held that “the acts of infringement required to support venue in a patent infringement
`
`action need not be acts of direct infringement, and venue does lie if the defendant only induced the
`
`infringement or contributed to the infringement in the forum. Id. Like the plaintiff in Seven
`
`Networks, AGIS has adequately pled acts of infringement within this District as to the claims
`
`related to the ’838 Patent sufficient to meet the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). Id. at 946.
`
`Defendant induces customers to connect to, send the data to, and use Uber’s servers in connection
`
`with the Uber Accused Products. See Dkt. 1, ¶¶ 79, 81 (“Defendant has and continues to indirectly
`
`infringe at least claim 1 of the ’838 Patent by actively, knowingly, and intentionally inducing
`
`others to directly infringe . . . and by instructing users of the Accused Products to perform at least
`
`the method of claim 1 in the ’838 Patent. . . . For example, Uber directly and/or indirectly
`
`intentionally instructs its customers to infringe through training videos, demonstrations, brochures,
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG Document 43 Filed 05/07/21 Page 16 of 36 PageID #: 624
`
`
`
`installations, and/or user