Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 118 Filed 09/05/23 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 8482
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:22-cv-263-JRG
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR
`LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWER TO ADD CLAIM PRECLUSION
`AND KESSLER DOCTRINE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 118 Filed 09/05/23 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 8483
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`THE GOOGLE I DISMISSAL WAS ON THE MERITS FOR THE SAME
`CLAIM ............................................................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`AGIS’S DISMISSALS HAVE PRECLUSIVE EFFECT ................................................. 3
`
`III.
`
`PRECLUSION EXTENDS TO SAMSUNG AS A CUSTOMER OF GOOGLE ............ 3
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 118 Filed 09/05/23 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 8484
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`Page
`
`CASES
`
`Adaptix, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
`2015 WL 12696204 (E.D. Tex. May 12, 2015) ........................................................................ 5
`
`Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc.,
`672 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................. 2
`
`Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc.,
`721 F.3d 1330 ........................................................................................................................... 2
`
`In re PersonalWeb Techs. LLC,
`961 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................................................................................................. 3
`
`Levi Strauss & Co. & Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co.,
`719 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2013)................................................................................................. 2
`
`Mars Inc. v. Nippon Conlux Kabushiki-Kaisha,
`58 F.3d 616 (Fed. Cir. 1995)..................................................................................................... 5
`
`Pactiv Corp. v. Dow Chem. Co.,
`449 F.3d 1227 (Fed. Cir. 2006)............................................................................................. 1, 3
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Netflix, Inc.,
`2020 WL 7889048 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2020) .......................................................................... 1
`
`Senju Pharm. Co. v. Apotex Inc.,
`746 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................. 2
`
`SpeedTrack, Inc. v. Off. Depot, Inc.,
`791 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................. 4
`
`Stragent, LLC v. BMW of N. Am., LLC,
`2021 WL 1147468 (D. Del. Mar. 25, 2021) ............................................................................. 1
`
`Target Training Int’l v. Extended Disc N. Am.,
`645 F. App’x 1018 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ......................................................................................... 2
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 118 Filed 09/05/23 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 8485
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`
`M (Dkt. 101-
`14)
`
`Document
`Ex. Number
`Defendants’ Exhibits Filed With Defendants’ Opening Brief (Dkt. 101)
`A (Dkt. 101-2)
`Samsung’s Proposed Amended Answer
`B (Dkt. 101-3) Redline of Samsung’s Proposed Amended Answer Against Its June 30,
`2023 Answer
`C (Dkt. 101-4) Google Webpage Titled “Find, lock or erase a lost Android device”
`D (Dkt. 101-5) AGIS’s 2017 Complaint Against ZTE
`E (Dkt. 101-6) AGIS’s 2017 Complaint Against LG
`F (Dkt. 101-7) AGIS’s 2017 Complaint Against HTC
`G (Dkt. 101-8) AGIS’s 2017 Complaint Against Huawei
`H (Dkt. 101-9) AGIS’s 2019 Complaint Against Google (Google I)
`I (Dkt. 101-10) AGIS’s 2019 Complaint Against Samsung (Samsung I)
`J (Dkt. 101-11) May 15, 2020 Request for Ex Parte Reexamination of U.S. Patent No.
`8,213,970
`K (Dkt. 101-12) October 19, 2021 Amendment and Reply to a Final Office Action in the Ex
`Parte Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970
`L (Dkt. 101-13) December 9, 2021 Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate for U.S. Patent No.
`8,213,970
`Google’s Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970 from
`AGIS Software Development LLC v. Google LLC, Waze Mobile Limited,
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in
`the Eastern District of Texas (Case Nos. 2:19-CV-00359JRG-00362-JRG,
`Dkt. 249)
`N (Dkt. 101-15) Google’s Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970 from
`AGIS Software Development LLC v. Google LLC in the Northern District of
`California (Case No. 5:22-CV04826-BLF, Dkt. 425)
`O (Dkt. 101-16) Joint Motion and Stipulation for Dismissal of Claims 2 and 10-13 of U.S.
`Patent No. 8,213,970 from AGIS Software Development LLC v. Google
`LLC in the Northern District of California (Case No. 5:22CV-04826-BLF,
`Dkt. 437)
`Joint Motion and Stipulation for Dismissal of Claims 2 and 10-13 of U.S.
`Patent No. 8,213,970 and Order from AGIS Software Development LLC v.
`Google LLC in the Northern District of California (Case No. 5:22-CV-
`04826-BLF, Dkt. 438)
`Q (Dkt. 101-18) AGIS’s 2023 Complaint Against Google (Google II)
`R (Dkt. 101-19) AGIS’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice of Google II in
`the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:23-CV-00160-DC-DTG, Dkt. 12)
`S (Dkt. 101-20) Google’s 2023 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Against AGIS
`Plaintiff’s Additional Exhibits Filed With Plaintiff’s Response Brief (Dkt. 116)
`1 (Dkt. 116-2)
`Exhibit C2 to AGIS’s Second Amended Disclosure of Asserted Claims and
`Infringement Contentions, served July 21, 2023
`Defendants’ Additional Exhibits Filed With Defendants’ Reply Brief
`Final Judgment entered in Target Training Intern, Ltd. v. Extended Disc N.
`T
`Am., Inc., No. 4:10-CV-03350, Dkt. 268 (S.D. Tex. June 1, 2015)
`
`P (Dkt. 101-17)
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 118 Filed 09/05/23 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 8486
`
`
`
`U
`
`V
`
`W
`
`X
`
`Y
`
`Z
`
`AA
`
`BB
`
`CC
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`AGIS’s Infringement Contention Chart Against Google for U.S. Patent No.
`8,213,970, filed as Exhibit 6 to AGIS’s November 2022 ITC complaint
`against Google, Samsung, OnePlus, TCL, Lenovo, Motorola, HMD, Sony,
`ASUS, Caterpillar, BLU, Panasonic, Kyocera, and Xiaomi (Inv. No. 337-
`TA-1347)
`AGIS’s Infringement Contention Chart Against Samsung for U.S. Patent
`No. 8,213,970, filed as Exhibit 11 to AGIS’s November 2022 ITC
`complaint against Google, Samsung, OnePlus, TCL, Lenovo, Motorola,
`HMD, Sony, ASUS, Caterpillar, BLU, Panasonic, Kyocera, and Xiaomi
`(Inv. No. 337-TA-1347)
`AGIS’s Infringement Contention Chart Against OnePlus for U.S. Patent
`No. 8,213,970, filed as Exhibit 16 to AGIS’s November 2022 ITC
`complaint against Google, Samsung, OnePlus, TCL, Lenovo, Motorola,
`HMD, Sony, ASUS, Caterpillar, BLU, Panasonic, Kyocera, and Xiaomi
`(Inv. No. 337-TA-1347)
`AGIS’s Infringement Contention Chart Against TCL for U.S. Patent No.
`8,213,970, filed as Exhibit 21 to AGIS’s November 2022 ITC complaint
`against Google, Samsung, OnePlus, TCL, Lenovo, Motorola, HMD, Sony,
`ASUS, Caterpillar, BLU, Panasonic, Kyocera, and Xiaomi (Inv. No. 337-
`TA-1347)
`AGIS’s Infringement Contention Chart Against Lenovo for U.S. Patent No.
`8,213,970, filed as Exhibit 26 to AGIS’s November 2022 ITC complaint
`against Google, Samsung, OnePlus, TCL, Lenovo, Motorola, HMD, Sony,
`ASUS, Caterpillar, BLU, Panasonic, Kyocera, and Xiaomi (Inv. No. 337-
`TA-1347)
`AGIS’s Infringement Contention Chart Against HMD for U.S. Patent No.
`8,213,970, filed as Exhibit 31 to AGIS’s November 2022 ITC complaint
`against Google, Samsung, OnePlus, TCL, Lenovo, Motorola, HMD, Sony,
`ASUS, Caterpillar, BLU, Panasonic, Kyocera, and Xiaomi (Inv. No. 337-
`TA-1347)
`AGIS’s Infringement Contention Chart Against Sony for U.S. Patent No.
`8,213,970, filed as Exhibit 36 to AGIS’s November 2022 ITC complaint
`against Google, Samsung, OnePlus, TCL, Lenovo, Motorola, HMD, Sony,
`ASUS, Caterpillar, BLU, Panasonic, Kyocera, and Xiaomi (Inv. No. 337-
`TA-1347)
`AGIS’s Infringement Contention Chart Against ASUS for U.S. Patent No.
`8,213,970, filed as Exhibit 41 to AGIS’s November 2022 ITC complaint
`against Google, Samsung, OnePlus, TCL, Lenovo, Motorola, HMD, Sony,
`ASUS, Caterpillar, BLU, Panasonic, Kyocera, and Xiaomi (Inv. No. 337-
`TA-1347)
`AGIS’s Infringement Contention Chart Against Caterpillar for U.S. Patent
`No. 8,213,970, filed as Exhibit 46 to AGIS’s November 2022 ITC
`complaint against Google, Samsung, OnePlus, TCL, Lenovo, Motorola,
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 118 Filed 09/05/23 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 8487
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`HMD, Sony, ASUS, Caterpillar, BLU, Panasonic, Kyocera, and Xiaomi
`(Inv. No. 337-TA-1347)
`AGIS’s Infringement Contention Chart Against BLU for U.S. Patent No.
`8,213,970, filed as Exhibit 51 to AGIS’s November 2022 ITC complaint
`against Google, Samsung, OnePlus, TCL, Lenovo, Motorola, HMD, Sony,
`ASUS, Caterpillar, BLU, Panasonic, Kyocera, and Xiaomi (Inv. No. 337-
`TA-1347)
`AGIS’s Infringement Contention Chart Against Panasonic for U.S. Patent
`No. 8,213,970, filed as Exhibit 56 to AGIS’s November 2022 ITC
`complaint against Google, Samsung, OnePlus, TCL, Lenovo, Motorola,
`HMD, Sony, ASUS, Caterpillar, BLU, Panasonic, Kyocera, and Xiaomi
`(Inv. No. 337-TA-1347)
`AGIS’s Infringement Contention Chart Against Kyocera for U.S. Patent
`No. 8,213,970, filed as Exhibit 61 to AGIS’s November 2022 ITC
`complaint against Google, Samsung, OnePlus, TCL, Lenovo, Motorola,
`HMD, Sony, ASUS, Caterpillar, BLU, Panasonic, Kyocera, and Xiaomi
`(Inv. No. 337-TA-1347)
`AGIS’s Infringement Contention Chart Against Xiaomi for U.S. Patent No.
`8,213,970, filed as Exhibit 66 to AGIS’s November 2022 ITC complaint
`against Google, Samsung, OnePlus, TCL, Lenovo, Motorola, HMD, Sony,
`ASUS, Caterpillar, BLU, Panasonic, Kyocera, and Xiaomi (Inv. No. 337-
`TA-1347)
`
`DD
`
`EE
`
`FF
`
`GG
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 118 Filed 09/05/23 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 8488
`
`
`
`AGIS does not dispute that any of the four good cause factors under Rule 16(b)—diligence,
`
`importance, lack of prejudice, and continuance—favor granting leave. Nor does AGIS contest that
`
`under Rule 15(a), “leave to amend must be ‘freely given,’” and that there is no undue delay, bad
`
`faith, or dilatory motive in Samsung’s amendment. Dkt. 116 at 3. Instead, under the guise of
`
`“futility,” AGIS raises premature challenges to the merits of Samsung’s preclusion defenses,
`
`which Samsung seeks to plead in response to allegations against Google’s Find My Device
`
`(“FMD”) software that AGIS received leave to accuse last week. Dkt. 115.
`
`AGIS’s futility arguments nonetheless fail. First, AGIS mischaracterizes its first dismissal
`
`with prejudice in Google I as not a judgment on the merits and permitting serial litigations asserting
`
`the ’970 Patent against FMD. Second, AGIS relies on the false, disingenuous premise that AGIS’s
`
`infringement theories are specific to Samsung devices, when, in truth, its theories are based entirely
`
`on the same FMD software at issue in its prior dismissed Google I and II cases.
`
`I.
`
`THE GOOGLE I DISMISSAL WAS ON THE MERITS FOR THE SAME CLAIM
`
`“A dismissal with prejudice is a judgment on the merits for purposes of claim preclusion.”
`
`Pactiv Corp. v. Dow Chem. Co., 449 F.3d 1227, 1230 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The decisive factor for
`
`applying preclusion is “the nature of the dismissal (with prejudice) and not the basis for it (lack of
`
`jurisdiction).” Stragent, LLC v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, 2021 WL 1147468, at *4 (D. Del. Mar. 25,
`
`2021). Because AGIS does not and cannot dispute that the nature of its dismissal in Google I was
`
`with prejudice, that dismissal operates as a judgment on the merits that has preclusive effect.1
`
`AGIS’s reliance on Target Training Int’l v. Extended Disc N. Am., 645 F. App’x 1018 (Fed.
`
`
`1 Even if Google I was not a dismissal on the merits, the dismissal of Google II is an adjudication
`on the merits precluding this suit under Rule 41(a)(1)(B). In Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v.
`Netflix, Inc., the court found preclusion under Rule 41(a)(1)(B) was triggered by two successive
`dismissals “without prejudice.” 2020 WL 7889048, at *1-2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2020).
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 118 Filed 09/05/23 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 8489
`
`
`
`Cir. 2016), to argue otherwise fails. In Target, a court dismissed pre-reexamination claims as moot
`
`and did not “specify whether it was dismissing with or without prejudice.” Id. at 1021-22; Ex. T.
`
`In contrast, in Google I, the NDCA court did not dismiss for mootness or state the basis for
`
`dismissal—but it did specify that dismissal was “with prejudice.” Ex. P. Further, the dismissal
`
`followed AGIS’s voluntary concession, thus resulting in preclusion. Levi Strauss & Co. &
`
`Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co., 719 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“a voluntary dismissal
`
`with prejudice . . . constitut[es] an adjudication on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes”).
`
`AGIS is also wrong in arguing that the facts here “mirror Target Training,” as opposed to
`
`Senju and Aspex. The reverse is true. In both Senju Pharm. Co. v. Apotex Inc., 746 F.3d 1344
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2014), and Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2012), the Federal Circuit held reexamination-amended patent claims that only add limitations to
`
`the original claims to overcome prior art are not “materially different,” and thus, an action based
`
`on those amended claims is precluded if the plaintiff lost a prior case based on the original claims.
`
`By contrast, in Target, the court found the reexamination claims were “materially different”
`
`because they were entirely new, and all the original claims were canceled. 645 F. App’x at 1021.
`
`Here, the ’970 Patent has no entirely new claims; instead, the original claims were amended to
`
`add limitations to overcome prior art, just like in Senju and Aspex. Thus, the amended claims are
`
`not “materially different” and claim preclusion applies to bar this suit. Dkt. 101 at 2-4.2
`
`
`2 That Google argued in Google I that the reexamined claims were “substantively different” from
`the original claims for subject matter jurisdiction has no bearing on Samsung’s preclusion
`defenses. This follows from the reexamination statute, which provides that an action filed on an
`original patent can be maintained for an amended reexamined patent only to the extent its claims
`are “substantially identical” to the original claims. Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 721
`F.3d 1330, 1337-40. That statute is inapplicable to claim preclusion. As held in Senju and Aspex,
`narrowing amendments made to overcome prior art are not “material changes” that result in new
`claims for relief and, thus, do not prevent preclusion from applying.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 118 Filed 09/05/23 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 8490
`
`
`
`II.
`
`AGIS’S DISMISSALS HAVE PRECLUSIVE EFFECT
`
`Contrary to AGIS’s argument, the Google I dismissal order did not permit AGIS to assert
`
`the ’970 Patent’s amended claims in future cases against FMD. The order’s footnote cited by
`
`AGIS did not expressly reserve AGIS’s right to assert the amended claims in the future. Ex. P,
`
`n.1. This is critical because under the Federal Circuit’s holding in Pactiv, such an “express
`
`reservation” in a dismissal order is required to overcome normal rules of claim preclusion. 449
`
`F.3d at 1231. Like the plaintiff in Pactiv, AGIS “has the standard backwards.” Id. “The question
`
`is not whether the [Google I dismissal order] precluded [AGIS] from future litigation; the question
`
`is whether the [order] expressly permitted [AGIS] to participate in future litigation.” Id.
`
`The dicta that AGIS cites from In re PersonalWeb Techs. LLC did not suggest otherwise
`
`or overrule Pactiv’s “expressly permitted” requirement for overcoming claim preclusion. Instead,
`
`PersonalWeb held that Kessler applied to preclude plaintiff’s claims, while commenting that
`
`“settling parties” can, in theory, limit the scope of any dismissal. 961 F.3d 1365, 1379 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2020). Thus, the Google I dismissal order precluded AGIS from reasserting the ’970 Patent against
`
`FMD again in this case, as did AGIS’s second dismissal in Google II that, despite being labeled
`
`“without prejudice,” operated as a judgment on the merits under Rule 41(a)(1)(B).3
`
`III.
`
`PRECLUSION EXTENDS TO SAMSUNG AS A CUSTOMER OF GOOGLE
`
`Kessler Doctrine Applies: To avoid the clear application of the Kessler doctrine, AGIS
`
`argues that its theories are somehow specific to Samsung devices. That is irrefutably false. AGIS’s
`
`own infringement chart demonstrates that its theories are based entirely on FMD and are device-
`
`agnostic. Indeed, FMD is accused for every limitation and is the only accused functionality for
`
`
`3 AGIS’s attempt to distinguish Realtime on the basis that the two dismissals in that case concerned
`patents with “identical” claims fails—as discussed, the ’970 Patent’s amended claims are not
`“materially different” from the original claims under Aspex and Senju. Dkt. 116 at 7.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 118 Filed 09/05/23 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 8491
`
`
`
`most limitations. Dkt. 116-2 at 6, 10-12, 15-34, 37-47, 49-90. Further, AGIS’s contentions appear
`
`identical to those it filed in the ITC against thirteen different manufacturers, including Google.
`
`Compare Ex. 1, with Exs. U-GG. While AGIS argues that its contentions address generic
`
`hardware recited in the claims, like “cell phone,” “CPU,” “touch screen” and “memory,” AGIS’s
`
`theories do not depend on any specific features of these components. Rather, these components
`
`must merely exist, so they can run the FMD software that AGIS is actually accusing.
`
`Because FMD forms the entire basis for AGIS’s allegations for the ’970 Patent, there is no
`
`merit to AGIS’s invocation of the Rubber Tire exception to Kessler to argue that FMD does not
`
`constitute the entire accused system, which AGIS contends is FMD combined with Samsung
`
`hardware. The Federal Circuit rejected the same argument on similar facts in SpeedTrack, Inc. v.
`
`Off. Depot, Inc., 791 F.3d 1317, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2015). There, plaintiff argued for the Rubber Tire
`
`exception, but the Federal Circuit disagreed because plaintiff’s allegations “were directed
`
`specifically to [defendants’] use of the IAP software,” and “not to any other components or any
`
`other activities,” and defendants “are invoking Kessler with respect to the same IAP software that
`
`acquired noninfringing status in [a prior lawsuit], not as to other aspects of their computer
`
`systems.” Id. Similarly here, AGIS accuses FMD software running on Samsung devices, just as
`
`AGIS accused FMD running on Google devices in the dismissed Google I and Google II cases.
`
`Based on AGIS’s prior dismissals, FMD is the “particular thing” that has “noninfringing status,”
`
`and thus the Kessler doctrine applies to preclude this suit based on FMD.
`
`Claim Preclusion Applies: AGIS disputes the first element (privity or equivalent) and
`
`fourth element (same cause of action) of claim preclusion on grounds that misstate the law and
`
`facts. For the first element, Samsung’s motion cited three exemplary cases (Uniloc, Seven, Trs.
`
`Of Bos. Univ.) holding that privity is not required when claim preclusion is applied defensively
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 118 Filed 09/05/23 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 8492
`
`
`
`against a losing plaintiff and applying that principle in similar contexts where later-filed actions
`
`are against customers for products that the plaintiff unsuccessfully accused in a prior supplier
`
`action. Mot. 13-15. AGIS does nothing to distinguish any of these factually identical cases.
`
`Instead, AGIS cherry-picks one case, Mars Inc. v. Nippon Conlux Kabushiki-Kaisha, 58 F.3d 616
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1995), to distinguish on the basis that the defendants sued in two successive cases had a
`
`subsidiary-parent relationship, not a customer-supplier relationship as in this case. But AGIS’s
`
`distinction misses the broader legal proposition for which Samsung cited Mars (which AGIS does
`
`not dispute): claim preclusion may apply absent privity, based on “a close and significant
`
`relationship between the parties,” which exists here because Samsung is Google’s customer. Id.
`
`For the fourth element, AGIS resorts to the same flawed argument that Google I and Google
`
`II involved Google devices while this suit involves Samsung devices. AGIS’s own contentions
`
`demonstrate that its allegations are based solely on FMD and are entirely agnostic as to any specific
`
`hardware of the device that runs FMD. Thus, contrary to AGIS’s argument, the Adaptix, Inc. v.
`
`AT&T Mobility LLC, 2015 WL 12696204 (E.D. Tex. May 12, 2015) case is not distinguishable.
`
`Just as in Adaptix, the Samsung and Google devices are “essentially the same” for infringement
`
`purposes because AGIS’s theory turns entirely on the “same functionality” of FMD, and not on
`
`specifics of the Samsung and Google devices. Id. at *13. Indeed, in Adaptix, the Texas court
`
`applied preclusion against plaintiff’s claims because its “infringement contentions are the same in
`
`both sets of case[s],” relying on the “same theory of direct infringement,” even if the “accused
`
`devices” were different. Id. Further, AGIS does nothing to distinguish the several other cases
`
`cited in Samsung’s motion (Uniloc, Seven, Trs. Of Bos. Univ.) applying preclusion in similar
`
`contexts where, as here, the supplied technology forming the basis for the plaintiff’s infringement
`
`theory is deemed non-infringing in an earlier action and is accused later in a customer case.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 118 Filed 09/05/23 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 8493
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: September 5, 2023
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Melissa R. Smith
`Melissa R. Smith
`Texas State Bar No. 24001351
`melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`GILLAM & SMITH, LLP
`303 South Washington Avenue
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`Phone: (903) 934-8450
`Fax: (903) 934-9257
`
`Gregory Blake Thompson
`Texas State Bar No. 24042033
`MANN | TINDEL | THOMPSON
`112 E. Line Street, Suite 304
`Tyler, Texas 75702
`(903) 657-8540
`(903) 657-6003 (fax)
`
`Darin W. Snyder (pro hac vice)
`dsnyder@omm.com
`Mark Liang (pro hac vice)
`mliang@omm.com
`Bill Trac
`btrac@omm.com
`Sorin Zaharia
`szaharia@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: (415) 984-8700
`Facsimile: (415) 984-8701
`
`Stacy Yae (pro hac vice)
`syae@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: (213) 430-6000
`Facsimile: (213) 430-6407
`
`Grant Gibson
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 118 Filed 09/05/23 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 8494
`
`
`
`Texas State Bar No. 24117859
`ggibson@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`2501 North Harwood Street, Suite 1700
`Dallas, TX 75201-1663
`Telephone: (972) 360-1900
`Facsimile: (972) 360-1901
`
`Neil P. Sirota
`neil.sirota@bakerbotts.com
`Margaret M. Welsh
`margaret.welsh@bakerbotts.com
`BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
`30 Rockefeller Plaza
`New York, NY 10112-4498
`Phone: (212) 408-2500
`Fax: (212) 408-2501
`
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 118 Filed 09/05/23 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 8495
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic
`
`service are being served with a copy of this document via electronic mail.
`
`Dated: September 5, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Melissa R. Smith
`Melissa R. Smith
`
`
`
`8
`
`