Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 83 Filed 06/08/21 Page 1 of 32 PageID #: 2148
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`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
`§
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`T-MOBILE USA, INC. and T-MOBILE US,
`INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`PLAINTIFF AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC’S RESPONSE
`IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS T-MOBILE USA, INC. AND
`T-MOBILE US, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS (DKT. 46)
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 83 Filed 06/08/21 Page 2 of 32 PageID #: 2149
`
`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.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ....................................................................................................3
`
`Rule 12(b)(6) .......................................................................................................5
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................7
`
`A.
`
`The ’728 Patent is Not Directed to Patent-Ineligible Subject Matter and
`Any Arguments Propounded by Defendants are Premature ..................................7
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`T-Mobile’s Section 101 Arguments Are Premature...................................7
`
`Alice Step One ..........................................................................................9
`
`Alice Step Two ....................................................................................... 15
`
`B.
`
`AGIS Has Provided Sufficient Allegations of Direct, Indirect, and
`Willful Infringement .......................................................................................... 17
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Joint and Direct Infringement ................................................................. 18
`
`Indirect Infringement .............................................................................. 24
`
`Willful Infringement ............................................................................... 25
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 25
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 83 Filed 06/08/21 Page 3 of 32 PageID #: 2150
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Actus, LLC v. Bank of Am. Corp.,
`No. 2-09-cv-102-TJW, 2010 WL 547183 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 10, 2010) .............................. 18, 22
`
`Advanced Ground Information Sys., Inc. v. Life360, Inc.,
`No. 9:14-cv-80651, Dkt. 167 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 16, 2015) ....................................................... 16
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. and T-Mobile US, Inc.,
`No. 2:21-cv-000072-JRG, Dkt. No. 1 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 3, 2021) ............................................. 3
`
`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) .......................................... 2, 3
`
`Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.,
`797 F.3d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 2015) .............................................................................................. 5
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern.,
`573 U.S. 208, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ........................................................................... passim
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .............................................................................................................. 6
`
`Autumn Cloud LLC v. Tripadvisor, Inc.,
`No. 2:16-CV-853-JRG-RSP, 2017 WL 1856232 (E.D .Tex. Apr. 3, 2017) .................... 4, 5, 8
`
`Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.),
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................................... 4, 8
`
`Bascom Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ...................................................................................... 13, 17
`
`Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007) .................................................................................. 23
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ........................................................................................ 5, 14
`
`In re Bill of Lading Transmission and Processing Sys. Patent Litig.,
`681 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................................... 1, 6, 24
`
`Blitzsafe Texas, LLC v. Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc.,
`No. 2:15-cv-1274-JRG-RSP, 2016 WL 4778699 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2016) .................. 21, 22
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 83 Filed 06/08/21 Page 4 of 32 PageID #: 2151
`
`Certified Measurement, LLC v. CenterPoint Energy Hous. Elec. LLC,
`No. 2:14-CV-627-RSP, 2015 WL 1432324 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2015) .................................. 9
`
`Chapterhouse, LLC v. Shopify, Inc.,
`2:18-CV-00300, 2018 WL 6981828 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 11, 2018) ........................................... 21
`
`Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter,
`224 F.3d 496 (5th Cir. 2000) ................................................................................................. 6
`
`In re Comiskey,
`554 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................ 4
`
`Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`575 U.S. 632 (2015) .............................................................................................................. 6
`
`Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n,
`776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .............................................................................................. 4
`
`Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................................................................ 14, 15, 16
`
`CXT Sys., Inc. v. Academy, Ltd.,
`No. 2:18-CV-00171-RWS-RSP, 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) ................................................................................. 11
`
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................................ 14
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..................................................................................... passim
`
`Estech Sys., Inc. v. Target Corp.,
`No. 2:20-cv-00123-JRG-RSP, 2020 WL 6496425 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 10, 2020) ................ 20, 22
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc.,
`879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................................ 12
`
`Gree, Inc. v. Supercell Oy,
`No. 2:19-cv-00070-JRG-RSP, 2020 WL 4931398 (E.D. Tex. July 18, 2020) ....................... 19
`
`Infernal Tech., LLC v. Sony Interactive Entm’t LLC,
`No. 2:19-cv-00248, 2020 WL 6797026 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2020) ................................ 19, 23
`
`Integrated Tech. Sys., Inc. v. First Internet Bank of Ind.,
`No. 2:16-CV-00417, 2017 WL 631195 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 30, 2017) .......................................... 4
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 83 Filed 06/08/21 Page 5 of 32 PageID #: 2152
`
`Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.,
`790 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................................ 11
`
`Lifetime Indus., Inc. v. Trim-Lok, Inc.,
`869 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................................... 5, 6
`
`Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp.,
`379 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .............................................................................................. 6
`
`Lochner Techs., LLC v. AT Labs Inc.,
`No. 2:11-CV-242-JRG, 2012 WL 2595288 (E.D. Tex. Jul. 5, 2012) .................................... 24
`
`McRO, Inc. v Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc.,
`837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ............................................................................................ 12
`
`McZeal v. Sprint Nextel Corp.,
`501 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2007) .............................................................................................. 7
`
`Mobile Telecomm. Techs., LLC v. Leap Wireless Int’l, Inc.,
`No. 2:13-cv-885-RSP, 2015 WL 5604691 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 23, 2015) ................................. 12
`
`Mondis Tech. Ltd. v. Top Victory Elecs. (Taiwan) Co.,
`No. 2:08-CV-478 (TJW), 2010 WL 3025243 (E.D. Tex. July 29, 2010) .............................. 18
`
`Move, Inc. v. Real Estate All. Ltd.,
`721 F. App’x 950 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ....................................................................................... 14
`
`Nalco Co. v. Chem-Mod LLC,
`883 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .............................................................................. 5, 6, 23, 24
`
`Norman IP Holdings, LLC v. Chrysler Grp. LLC,
`No. 6:13-cv-278-LED-JDL, 2014 WL 12789842 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 5, 2014) ......................... 19
`
`OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ............................................................................................ 17
`
`Presqriber, LLC v. Advanced Data Sys. Advanced Corp.,
`No. 6:14-CV-859, 2015 WL 11170154 (E.D. Tex. June 29, 2015) ....................................... 12
`
`Qcue, Inc. v. Digonex Techs., Inc.,
`No. A-12-CA-484-SS, 2013 WL 12121443 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2013) ............................. 8, 9
`
`Qwikcash, LLC v. Blackhawk Network Holdings, Inc.,
`No. 4:19-CV-876-SDJ, 2020 WL 6781566 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 17, 2020) ................................ 21
`
`Ruby Sands LLC v. Am. Nat’l Bank of Texas,
`No. 2:15-cv-1955-JRG, 2016 WL 3542430(E.D. Tex. Jun. 28, 2016) .................................. 21
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 83 Filed 06/08/21 Page 6 of 32 PageID #: 2153
`
`Secured Structures, LLC v. Alarm Sec. Grp., LLC,
`No. 6:14-CV-930, 2016 WL 1253688 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 10, 2016) ........................................ 17
`
`Titanide Ventures, LLC v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp.,
`No. 4:14-CV-196, 2012 WL 5507327 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 18, 2012) ......................................... 24
`
`TPQ Dev., LLC v. Intuit Inc.,
`No. 2:12-CV-180-WCB, 2014 WL 2809841 (E.D. Tex. Jun. 20, 2014) ............................... 19
`
`TQP Dev., LLC v. Ticketmaster Entm’t, Inc.,
`No. 2:09-CV-279-TJW, 2010 WL 1740927 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 29, 2010) .......................... 18, 23
`
`Ultramercial, LLC v. Hulu, LLC,
`657 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .............................................................................................. 4
`
`Voxathon LLC v. Alpine Elecs. of Am., Inc.,
`No. 2:15-cv-562, 2016 WL 260350 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 20, 2016) ....................................... 12, 13
`
`Wetro Lan LLC v. Phoenix Contact USA Inc.,
`No. 2:15-cv-421-RSP, 2016 WL 1228746 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 29, 2016) .................................... 9
`
`Wooten v. McDonald Transit Assoc., Inc.,
`788 F.3d 490 (5th Cir. 2015) ............................................................................................... 24
`
`Statutes
`35 U.S.C. § 101 .................................................................................................................. passim
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(b) ...................................................................................................................... 5
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(c) ...................................................................................................................... 6
`
`Other Authorities
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) ............................................................................................................... 20
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c) .................................................................................................................... 1
`
`Rule 12(b)(6) ..................................................................................................................... passim
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 83 Filed 06/08/21 Page 7 of 32 PageID #: 2154
`
`
`
`Plaintiff AGIS Software Development LLC (“AGIS” or “Plaintiff”), by and through its
`
`undersigned counsel, hereby submits this response in opposition to Defendants T-Mobile USA,
`
`Inc. and T-Mobile US, Inc.’s (collectively, “T-Mobile”) Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 46) (the
`
`“Motion”).1
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Defendants ask this Court to dismiss this action based on Defendant Uber Technologies,
`
`Inc., d/b/a Uber’s (“Uber”) motion to dismiss (Dkt. 24), and the supporting argument and citations
`
`of law. Citing the “interests of judicial economy” and relying on Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c), T-Mobile
`
`alleges that it incorporates by reference Uber’s Motion and supporting papers.2 T-Mobile asserts
`
`that Uber’s arguments apply in the same or analogous ways to the Complaint against T-Mobile,
`
`leading to dismissal for the same reasons. However, the patents asserted against Uber are not the
`
`same patents asserted against T-Mobile and T-Mobile fails to offer any additional arguments with
`
`regard to these additional patents. Moreover, as set forth in AGIS’s response to Uber’s Motion, all
`
`three grounds fail, and T-Mobile’s Motion fails for the same reasons.3 T-Mobile offers no new or
`
`additional evidence or grounds to find that dismissal is required here. Additionally, T-Mobile’s
`
`
`1 Because T-Mobile incorporates by reference Defendant Uber’s Motion, AGIS will refer to T-
`Mobile and Uber collectively, as “Defendants.”
`2 AGIS disagrees that this is a proper method by which T-Mobile may submit its Motion. Fed. R.
`Civ. P. 10(c) provides that “[a] statement in a pleading may be adopted by reference elsewhere in
`the same pleading or in any other pleading or motion.” For example, exhibits attached to a
`complaint or answer may properly be considered by the Court in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, without
`attaching such documents to the motion. See, e.g., In re Bill of Lading Transmission and
`Processing Sys. Patent Litig., 681 F.3d 1323, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Moreover, T-Mobile’s
`incorporation by reference of Uber’s thirty-page motion to dismiss (Dkt. 24) and submission of its
`own six-page brief appears to be an intentional subversion of the Local Rules which limit a
`Defendant’s motion to thirty pages. See L.R. CV-7(a)(1). Nonetheless, AGIS submits its
`opposition in response to T-Mobile’s Motion and, to the extent T-Mobile relies on the same
`arguments and evidence in support of its Motion, AGIS incorporates by reference its opposition in
`response to Defendant Uber’s Motion and its accompanying exhibits. See generally Dkt. 43.
`3 Defendant Uber submitted three grounds for its motion to dismiss.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 83 Filed 06/08/21 Page 8 of 32 PageID #: 2155
`
`
`
`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 T-Mobile’s
`
`Motion.
`
`Defendants’ allegations that the claims of the ’728 Patent are directed to ineligible subject
`
`matter are without merit. Defendants’ arguments are directed to factual and claim construction
`
`disputes rendering Defendants’ Motion premature. Nonetheless, Defendants make conclusory
`
`accusations that are unsupported.
`
`Additionally, Defendants’ arguments regarding direct, indirect, and willful infringement
`
`misrepresent AGIS’s pleadings. By arguing for dismissal, Defendants omit several specific factual
`
`allegations regarding Defendants’ Accused Products and how they meet the limitations of the
`
`Accused Patents and broadly asserts that AGIS’s pleadings must fail. For the reasons set forth in
`
`detail below, T-Mobile’s Motion should be denied in its entirety.
`
`II.
`
`RESPONSE TO STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`
`1.
`
`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.
`
`2.
`
`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; 10,299,100; and 10,341,838. 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).
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 83 Filed 06/08/21 Page 9 of 32 PageID #: 2156
`
`
`
`On March 3, 2021, AGIS filed an action for patent infringement against T-Mobile alleging
`
`infringement of the ’728 Patent, ’724 Patent, and U.S. Patent Nos. 9,408,055 (the “’055 Patent”);
`
`9,445,251 (the “’251 Patent”); 9,467,838 (the “’838 Patent”); and 9,749,829 (the “’829 Patent”)
`
`(collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. and T-
`
`Mobile US, Inc., No. 2:21-cv-000072-JRG, Dkt. No. 1 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 3, 2021) (the “T-Mobile
`
`Case”). The Court consolidated this case with the actions against Defendants Uber, Lyft, Inc., and
`
`WhatsApp, Inc. and designated the T-Mobile Case as the lead case. See T-Mobile Case, No. 2:21-
`
`cv-00072-JRG, Dkt. 14 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 16, 2021).
`
`On April 23, 2021, Uber filed two motions: a 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)). T-Mobile filed the present motion to dismiss on May
`
`11, 2021. See T-Mobile Case, No. 2:21-cv-00072-JRG, Dkt. 46 (E.D. Tex. May 11, 2021).
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A.
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101
`
`Section 101 of the Patent Act defines patentable subject matter and states that “[w]hoever
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 83 Filed 06/08/21 Page 10 of 32 PageID #: 2157
`
`
`
`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. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336 (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, 1325 (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,
`
`purely as a matter of law, when claim construction is unnecessary.” Integrated Tech. Sys., Inc. v.
`
`First Internet Bank of Ind., No. 2:16-CV-00417, 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., No. 2:16-CV-
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 83 Filed 06/08/21 Page 11 of 32 PageID #: 2158
`
`
`
`853-JRG-RSP, 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., No. 2:18-CV-00171-RWS-RSP, 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.
`
`B.
`
`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).
`
`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
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 83 Filed 06/08/21 Page 12 of 32 PageID #: 2159
`
`
`
`can be reasonably inferred. In re Bill of Lading, 681 F.3d at 1339. “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.” “[C]ontributory 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.
`
`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
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 83 Filed 06/08/21 Page 13 of 32 PageID #: 2160
`
`
`
`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.
`
`The ’728 Patent is Not Directed to Patent-Ineligible Subject Matter
`and Any Arguments Propounded by Defendants are Premature
`
`T-Mobile argues that the claims of the ’728 Patent must be dismissed because they are
`
`allegedly directed to ineligible subject matter. In support, Defendants submit that the claims of the
`
`’728 Patent are directed to the “abstract idea of storing, organizing, and displaying information”
`
`and do not “include an inventive concept,” but fail to provide any additional argument. Dkt. 46 at
`
`3. While AGIS disagrees that T-Mobile’s two sentence conclusory arguments are insufficient,
`
`AGIS sets forth the arguments it has made in response to Uber’s Motion below.
`
`Courts are hesitant to resolve patent eligibility on a motion to dismiss yet Defendants
`
`submit that the Court here should resolve this issue because “there are no plausible factual
`
`allegations that, taken as true, would prevent resolution of the eligibility issue.” Dkt. 24 at 6-7.
`
`However, T-Mobile fails to establish the absence of fact and claim construction issues such that
`
`the only plausible conclusion is that the ’728 Patent is directed to ineligible subject matter.
`
`1.
`
`T-Mobile’s Section 101 Arguments Are Premature
`
`Defendants assert that, because the ’728 Patent has been subject to prior litigation during
`
`which claim construction was conducted, no claim construction is necessary here.4 There is no
`
`case law to support this assertion. To the contrary, while the Federal Circuit has noted that “claim
`
`construction is not an inviolable prerequisite to a validity determination under § 101,” the court
`
`
`4 AGIS notes that while T-Mobile has submitted its Joint Letter in compliance with this Court’s
`Standing Order (see Dkt. 60), it submits the same letter and arguments submitted by Uber.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 83 Filed 06/08/21 Page 14 of 32 PageID #: 2161
`
`
`
`has nonetheless stated that “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., 687
`
`F.3d at 1273-74. “Courts often choose to deny motions seeking dismissal on the pleadings to obtain
`
`a more complete understanding of the claimed invention, because in many cases, it is not only
`
`more efficient to postpone patent eligibility determinations until after claim construction but,
`
`because the process will give the Court a fuller understanding of the patent, it is also more likely
`
`to lead to the Court to the correct outcome with correct analysis.” Autumn Cloud, 2017 WL
`
`1856232, at *1 (internal citations omitted). Moreover, whether and to what extent the ’728 Patent
`
`discloses “well-understood, routine, conventional activit[ies] already engaged in by the scientific
`
`community” is “therefore highly relevant to the § 101 inquiries.” Qcue, Inc. v. Digonex Techs.,
`
`Inc., No. A-12-CA-484-SS, 2013 WL 12121443, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2013). However, the
`
`parties have not submitted any evidence or engaged in any discovery to provide the Court with
`
`any basis to undergo a § 101 analysis. Id. (“Without any evidentiary record, this Court is simply
`
`in no position to determine whether the processes described by the patents-in-suit claim such
`
`‘routine’ activities.”).
`
`The claim construction brief referenced by Defendants in their Motion was submitted by
`
`nonparty Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc. in a case from another District concerning
`
`different parties. Defendants’ reliance on this nonparty’s brief in an unrelated case is misplaced
`
`because there is no case law to support that Plaintiff must be limited by the nonparty’s counsel’s
`
`arguments (or failure to raise arguments) and Defendants fail to acknowledge that the brief does
`
`not reflect any of the parties’ compromises and/or negotiations regarding terms in that unrelated
`
`case. Dkt. 24 at 15-16. Additionally, Plaintiff should not be limited to the arguments made by the
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP Document 83 Filed 06/08/21 Page 15 of 32 PageID #: 2162
`
`
`
`nonparty in the prior litigation because, during the Florida litigation, patent eligibility in the
`
`context of the ’728 Patent was not raised and the question of construction in view of § 101 was not
`
`at issue. Defendants do not, and cannot, argue that AGIS is estopped from arguing claim
`
`construction, merely because it was not raised by a nonparty during the Florida litigation. “[P]ure
`
`attorney argument is no substitute for the rigorous evidentiary process of claim construction.”
`
`Qcue, Inc., 2013 WL 12121443, at *3. Through claim construction, parties may submit their
`
`understanding of what is being claimed by the ’728 Patent and “precisely how the patented
`
`inventions work.” Id. (“Where ‘the parties have presented fundamentally different pictures of the
`
`subject matter’ of both patents, ‘the more prudent approach is to consider evidentiary submissions
`
`by both sides’ before resolving the § 101 questions.”).5 Nonetheless, Defendants have not met their
`
`burden to show that claim construction is not necessary and therefore, fails to show that the Court
`
`should make a patent eligibility determination at this early stage.
`
`2. Alice Step One
`
`Defendants grossly oversimplify the technology of the ’728 Patent as “nothing more than
`
`speed dial using a geographical display,” “a method for storing and organizing information about
`
`participants to be called and displaying the location of the participants on a digital map from which
`
`the user can place a call,” and “collecting, organizing, and manipulating data.” Dkt. 24 at 18-19.6
`
`The Federal Circuit has cautioned that “describing the claims at such a high level of abstraction
`
`and untethered from the language of the claims all but ensures that the exception