Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 137 Filed 10/02/23 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 12818
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:22-cv-263-JRG
`
`
`
`
`
` JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`SAMSUNG’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO SEVER
`AND TRANSFER TO THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
`CALIFORNIA CLAIMS AGAINST GOOGLE FIND MY DEVICE
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 137 Filed 10/02/23 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 12819
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`SEVERANCE IS NECESSARY TO FACILITATE TRANSFER ................................... 1
`THE PRIVATE INTEREST FACTORS FAVOR TRANSFER ....................................... 2
`THE PUBLIC INTEREST FACTORS FAVOR TRANSFER .......................................... 5
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 137 Filed 10/02/23 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 12820
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`Page
`
`CASES
`In re Amazon,
`2022 WL 17688072 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 15, 2022) ......................................................................... 2
`In re Google,
`2022 WL 1613192 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2022) ................................................................... 3, 4, 5
`In re Hulu,
`2021 WL 3278194, (Fed. Cir. Aug. 2, 2021) ............................................................................ 3
`In re Nintendo Co.,
`544 F. App’x 934 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ........................................................................................... 2
`In re Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`2 F.4th 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ................................................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 137 Filed 10/02/23 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 12821
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`
`
`Document
`Ex. Number
`Defendants’ Exhibits Filed With Defendants’ Opening Brief (Dkt. 117)
`A
`AGIS’s 2019 Complaint Against Samsung (Samsung I)
`B
`AGIS’s 2019 Complaint Against Google (Google I)
`C
`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)
`Google and Waze’s Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment
`from AGIS Software Development LLC v. Google LLC in the Northern
`District of California (Case No. 5:22-CV-04826-BLF, Dkt. 434)
`AGIS’s December 1, 2022 Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement
`Contentions served in this case, AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Samsung Elecs.
`Co., Ltd., and Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., in the Eastern District of Texas
`(Case No. 2:22-CV-00263-JRG-RSP)
`AGIS’s 2022 ITC Complaint against Google, Samsung, and 11 Other
`Respondents
`June 20, 2023 Initial Determination on AGIS’s June 15, 2023 Motion to
`Terminate ITC Investigation (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1347, Order No. 26)
`AGIS Email Chain Noticing Samsung of its Intention to File its Motion for
`Leave to Amend its Infringement Contentions to Add FMD to the Case
`(Dkt. No. 72)
`AGIS’s 2023 Complaint Against Google (Google II)
`Google’s Unopposed Motion to Stay the Google II Case
`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)
`Google’s 2023 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Against AGIS
`AGIS’s December 8, 2022 Initial Disclosures to Defendants Samsung
`Electronics, Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., served in
`this case, AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., And
`Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:22-
`CV-00263-JRG-RSP)
`Public Exhibit 144C to AGIS’s 2022 ITC Complaint against Google,
`Samsung, and 11 Other Respondents
`Redacted version of the Declaration of Shannon Shaper, which was filed in
`support of motions to transfer in AGIS Software Development LLC v. Waze
`Mobile Limited, Google LLC, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., and Samsung
`Electronics America, Inc., Nos. 2:19-CV-00359-JRG, 2:19-CV-00361-JRG,
`2:19-CV-00362-JRG (E.D. Tex.), with cited sections highlighted. This
`copy was filed in support of Samsung’s motion at Dkt. 46-3 in No. 2:19-
`CV-00361-JRG (lead case).
`Excerpts from the deposition transcript of the June 15, 2023 deposition of
`Sorin Dinu in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1347
`
`I
`J
`K
`
`D
`
`E
`
`F
`
`G
`
`H
`
`L
`M
`
`N
`
`O
`
`P
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 137 Filed 10/02/23 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 12822
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`Q
`
`R
`
`S
`
`T
`
`U
`
`V
`
`W
`
`Excerpts from an idiCore Comprehensive Report for Neil Gilbert Seigel,
`prepared on July 18, 2023
`An Accurint for Legal Professionals Comprehensive Report for Richard
`Dayton Haney, prepared on July 17, 2023
`An Accurint for Legal Professionals Comprehensive Report for Stephen G
`Petilli, prepared on July 17, 2023
`A Copy of a Search on Kayak.com for Nonstop Flights from Incheon
`International Airport (“ICN”) in Seoul, South Korea, to Dallas/Fort Worth
`International Airport (“DFW”)
`A Copy of a Search on Kayak.com for Nonstop Flights from Incheon
`International Airport (“ICN”) in Seoul, South Korea, to San Francisco
`International Airport (“SFO”)
`A Copy of a Search on Google Maps for Driving Time from DFW to the
`U.S. District Court in Marshall, Texas
`Complainants’ Tentative Witness List filed in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1347
`on April 18, 2023
`Plaintiff’s Additional Exhibits Filed With Plaintiff’s Response Brief (Dkt. 128)
`1
`The Deposition Transcript of the June 15, 2023 Deposition of Sorin Dinu in
`ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1347
`Exhibit 1 from the June 15, 2023 Deposition of Sorin Dinu in ITC Inv. No.
`337-TA-1347
`Exhibit 2 from the June 15, 2023 Deposition of Sorin Dinu in ITC Inv. No.
`337-TA-1347
`Exhibit 3 from the June 15, 2023 Deposition of Sorin Dinu in ITC Inv. No.
`337-TA-1347
`Exhibit 4 from the June 15, 2023 Deposition of Sorin Dinu in ITC Inv. No.
`337-TA-1347
`Exhibit 5 from the June 15, 2023 Deposition of Sorin Dinu in ITC Inv. No.
`337-TA-1347
`Exhibit 6 from the June 15, 2023 Deposition of Sorin Dinu in ITC Inv. No.
`337-TA-1347
`Exhibit 7 from the June 15, 2023 Deposition of Sorin Dinu in ITC Inv. No.
`337-TA-1347
`Exhibit 8 from the June 15, 2023 Deposition of Sorin Dinu in ITC Inv. No.
`337-TA-1347
`Exhibit 9 from the June 15, 2023 Deposition of Sorin Dinu in ITC Inv. No.
`337-TA-1347
`Exhibit 10 from the June 15, 2023 Deposition of Sorin Dinu in ITC Inv. No.
`337-TA-1347
`Exhibit 11 from the June 15, 2023 Deposition of Sorin Dinu in ITC Inv. No.
`337-TA-1347
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 137 Filed 10/02/23 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 12823
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`Exhibit 12 from the June 15, 2023 Deposition of Sorin Dinu in ITC Inv. No.
`337-TA-1347
`Exhibit 13 from the June 15, 2023 Deposition of Sorin Dinu in ITC Inv. No.
`337-TA-1347
`Exhibit 14 from the June 15, 2023 Deposition of Sorin Dinu in ITC Inv. No.
`337-TA-1347
`Exhibit 15 from the June 15, 2023 Deposition of Sorin Dinu in ITC Inv. No.
`337-TA-1347
`Exhibit 16 from the June 15, 2023 Deposition of Sorin Dinu in ITC Inv. No.
`337-TA-1347
`Declaration of Malcolm K. Beyer, Jr., in Opposition to Samsung’s Motion
`to Sever and transfer to the Northern District of California Certain Claims
`(Dkt. 117), dated September 15, 2023
`Excerpts from the Transcript of the August 22, 2023 Hearing Held before
`the Honorable Roy S. Payne in this case, AGIS Software Dev. LLC v.
`Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., and Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., in the Eastern
`District of Texas (Case No. 2:22-CV-00263-JRG-RSP)
`Exhibit C2 to AGIS’s July 21, 2023 Initial Disclosures to Defendants
`Samsung Electronics, Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
`served in this case, AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.,
`And Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No.
`2:22-CV-00263-JRG-RSP)
`Email from Mark Liang to AGIS Regarding Google’s Production of
`Documents in Response to AGIS’s Subpoena to Google
`Mr. Joseph C. McAlexander’s Curriculum Vitae
`Document Titled United States District Courts – National Judicial Caseload
`Profile
`Defendants’ Additional Exhibits Filed With Defendants’ Reply Brief
`T
`July 21, 2023 Exhibit C1 for U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970 to AGIS’s
`Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions
`July 21, 2023 Exhibit D1 for U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838 to AGIS’s
`Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions
`July 21, 2023 Exhibit C2 for U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970 to AGIS’s
`Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions
`July 21, 2023 Exhibit D2 for U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838 to AGIS’s
`Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions
`AGIS Infringement Claim Chart from Google I for FMD for the ’970 Patent
`AGIS Infringement Claim Chart from Google I for FMD for the ’838 Patent
`AGIS’s July 7, 2023 Subpoena to Google LLC in this case, AGIS Software
`Dev. LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., and Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., in the
`Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:22-CV-00263-JRG-RSP)
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`23
`
`U
`
`V
`
`W
`
`X
`Y
`Z
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 137 Filed 10/02/23 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 12824
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`AGIS’s July 7, 2023 Subpoena to PAR Government Systems Corporation
`in this case, AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., and
`Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:22-
`CV-00263-JRG-RSP)
`AGIS’s July 7, 2023 Subpoena to Samsung SDS America, Inc., in this case,
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., and Samsung Elecs.
`Am., Inc., in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:22-CV-00263-JRG-
`RSP)
`AGIS Software Development LLC’s Response in Opposition to Samsung
`Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America’s Motion to
`Transfer Venue in AGIS Software Development LLC v. Google LLC,
`Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
`Nos. 2:19-CV-00361-JRG (Lead Case), 2:19-CV-00362-JRG (Consolidated
`Case), Dkt. 35 (E.D. Tex.)
`Declaration of Malcolm K. Beyer, Jr., Filed in Opposition to Samsung
`Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America’s Motion to
`Transfer Venue in AGIS Software Development LLC v. Google LLC,
`Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
`Nos. 2:19-CV-00361-JRG (Lead Case), 2:19-CV-00362-JRG (Consolidated
`Case), Dkt. 35 Ex. 1 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`
`
`AA
`
`BB
`
`CC
`
`DD
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 137 Filed 10/02/23 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 12825
`
`
`
`AGIS’s opposition does not acknowledge, let alone distinguish, the Federal Circuit’s
`
`decision ordering transfer of the AGIS I cases, which concern materially identical allegations
`
`against Samsung and FMD and materially identical convenience considerations. Flouting that
`
`decision, AGIS repeats, at times verbatim, the same arguments it made in AGIS I, which the
`
`Federal Circuit rejected. Indeed, AGIS relies on the same alleged ties it has to Texas, all of which
`
`the Federal Circuit dismissed as contrived for litigation. The sole putative new fact on which
`
`AGIS relies—Google’s London FMD team—is neither new nor material. Samsung and Google
`
`expressly disclosed that team when moving to transfer in AGIS I. While AGIS cites Mr. Dinu’s
`
`ITC testimony to overstate the London team’s role, Mr. Dinu, in fact, testified
`
`
`
` AGIS
`
`does not seriously contest these facts, the continuing presence of relevant FMD witnesses in the
`
`NDCA, or the efficiency of litigating its FMD claims in the NDCA where AGIS I has been pending
`
`for over a year. AGIS’s FMD claims should be severed and transferred to the NDCA.
`
`I.
`
`SEVERANCE IS NECESSARY TO FACILITATE TRANSFER
`
`Severance is appropriate because, as AGIS repeatedly represented before FMD was added
`
`to the case, its claims against U.S. government and Samsung software are unrelated to and do “not
`
`involve any Google applications or Google software,” such as FMD. Dkt. 41 at 5; Dkts. 42, 69.
`
`Contradicting its prior representations, AGIS now asserts that its FMD, U.S. government,
`
`and Samsung software claims are all intertwined because they all depend on specific Samsung
`
`device hardware features. But AGIS’s assertion is further belied by its own infringement
`
`contentions, which have separate claim charts for (1) FMD versus (2) U.S. government and
`
`Samsung software. Exs. T, U, V, W. Further, AGIS’s FMD charts accuse FMD functionality for
`
`every claim limitation, and for most limitations, FMD is the only accused functionality, while no
`
`features unique to Samsung devices are accused. Ex. V at 6, 10-12, 15-34, 37-47, 49-90; see
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 137 Filed 10/02/23 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 12826
`
`
`
`generally Ex. W. In fact, AGIS’s FMD contentions against Samsung devices are materially
`
`identical to its AGIS I contentions against Google devices. Compare Exs. V, W, with Exs. X, Y.
`
`And AGIS’s assertion that its FMD allegations implicate “Defendants’ [Samsung’s] servers”
`
`(Opp. at 2, 8) is misguided because all servers supporting FMD are
`
`
`
` Dinu Decl. ¶ 3. AGIS’s claims against FMD thus depend on only
`
`FMD—not Samsung devices or servers—and are independent of its other non-FMD claims.
`
`AGIS’s own discovery conduct confirms that, similar to the Vantage cases cited in the
`
`Motion, it is accusing two sets of unrelated features, (1) FMD versus (2) U.S. government and
`
`Samsung software, and the FMD accusations require separate discovery that would be more
`
`efficiently handled in the NDCA. Specifically, AGIS has served separate subpoenas on (1) Google
`
`for FMD discovery and (2) Samsung SDS and PAR Government Systems for discovery on the
`
`non-FMD software. Exs. Z, AA, BB. And the FMD subpoenas ask Google to reproduce discovery
`
`from prior cases, including AGIS I in the NDCA. “[F]airness and efficiency” thus dictate severing
`
`the FMD claims to facilitate their transfer to the NDCA where AGIS is asserting infringement by
`
`FMD in multiple cases, including against Samsung, and where that discovery has already occurred.
`
`In re Nintendo Co., 544 F. App’x 934, 942 (Fed. Cir. 2013); In re Amazon,
`
`2022 WL 17688072 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 15, 2022) (ordering district court to sever and transfer claims).
`
`II.
`
`THE PRIVATE INTEREST FACTORS FAVOR TRANSFER
`
`Compulsory Process And Sources Of Proof (FMD And Prior Art): The only alleged
`
`change that AGIS identifies from AGIS I is the existence of a London FMD team. But the London
`
`team is neither new nor material, as its existence is neutral to the transfer analysis. First, in its
`
`2020 motion to transfer in AGIS I, Samsung disclosed that a Google team in London was working
`
`on FMD and thus did not misrepresent or omit anything about the FMD team as AGIS alleges.
`
`Ex. O ¶ 9. Yet, the Federal Circuit found that the presence of Google employees in the NDCA
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 137 Filed 10/02/23 Page 10 of 15 PageID #:
`12827
`
`
`
`clearly favored transfer. In re Google, 2022 WL 1613192, at *1 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2022).
`
`Second, the facts have not materially changed. Google employees in the NDCA have
`
`continued to work on FMD since 2020, including product managers Ms. Krishnamurthi and Mr.
`
`Ho, who have overseen FMD’s overall development, and former FMD engineer Mr. Luh remains
`
`in the NDCA.1 Google Decl. ¶¶ 2, 3a. AGIS implies that Google “manufactured” these witnesses,
`
`but provides no basis for that charge. Opp. at 11. While AGIS notes that Mr. Dinu did not identify
`
`the NDCA witnesses in his deposition, that is only because AGIS strategically avoided specifically
`
`asking about them or any current FMD team members in the NDCA during the deposition. See
`
`Ex. 1 at 70:10-76:2. And since AGIS I, the NDCA-based employees have continued to create and
`
`maintain documents about their work on FMD in the NDCA. Google Decl. ¶ 4.
`
`Third, citing snippets of Mr. Dinu’s deposition out of context, AGIS overstates the size and
`
`role of the London FMD team. AGIS identifies
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 There is no merit to AGIS’s complaint that Samsung has not stated whether the three Google
`witnesses “will actually testify” and are “unwilling.” Opp. at 10. The Federal Circuit has held
`that third-party witnesses should not be discounted based on the assumption that few are likely to
`testify at trial and are presumed to be unwilling. E.g., In re Samsung Elecs. Co., 2 F.4th 1371,
`1379 (Fed. Cir. 2021); In re Hulu, 2021 WL 3278194, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 2, 2021).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 137 Filed 10/02/23 Page 11 of 15 PageID #:
`12828
`
`
`
` And as the Motion explained—and AGIS does not contest—AGIS’s infringement theories
`
`are unrelated to the backend and focus on the “frontend” user interface for FMD. Mot. at 10-11.
`
`Finally, AGIS does not even address the three California-based prior art witnesses
`
`identified in the Motion who are subject to the NDCA’s subpoena power, just as in AGIS I. Id.
`
`Because six relevant, non-party witnesses are in California and none are in Texas, the compulsory
`
`process and sources of proof factors strongly favor transfer.
`
`Willing Witnesses And Sources Of Proof (AGIS And Samsung): AGIS’s purported ties to
`
`Texas—its formation in Texas in 2017 (just before filing its first lawsuits in this District), its
`
`Marshall office located at a local counsel’s address, its Marshall “data center,” and the occasional
`
`travel of its witnesses through the state—were all dismissed by the Federal Circuit in AGIS I as
`
`“serv[ing] no meaningful purpose . . . except to attempt to establish a presence for forum selection
`
`for patent cases.” In re Google, 2022 WL 1613192, at *4. Nothing has changed since AGIS I. In
`
`fact, in recounting its alleged Texas ties, AGIS copies verbatim its opposition from AGIS I.
`
`Compare Ex. CC at 7-8, 11-13, with Opp. at 9-10, 12-14. And Mr. Beyer’s supporting declaration
`
`is a complete replica of his declaration from AGIS I—with only one change: the removal of any
`
`reference to a former Austin-based AGIS Inc. employee, David Sietsema. Compare Ex. DD (¶
`
`18), with Ex. 18. AGIS also repeats its reliance on contractor Eric Armstrong and his location in
`
`Allen, Texas (Opp. at 10, 12), even though the Federal Circuit concluded Mr. Armstrong was not
`
`entitled to any weight because he “disclaimed material knowledge” or having any relevant
`
`documents when he was deposed in AGIS I. In re Google, 2022 WL 1613192, at *3-4 n.2.
`
`While AGIS notes the presence of Samsung finance and marketing employees in Texas,
`
`the same was true in AGIS I, yet the Federal Circuit concluded that the NDCA “would be more
`
`convenient for the balance of the witnesses,” In re Google, 2022 WL 1613192, at *3. Thus, facts
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 137 Filed 10/02/23 Page 12 of 15 PageID #:
`12829
`
`
`
`relating to AGIS and Samsung do not tilt any of the transfer factors against transfer.
`
`Judicial Economy Favors Transfer: The only material change from AGIS I is that the
`
`judicial economy factor now strongly favors transfer to the NDCA, because the AGIS I cases
`
`addressing FMD have been pending in the NDCA for almost eighteen months. AGIS scarcely
`
`addresses this development, other than to assert that “Samsung’s presumption that the NDCA will
`
`grant pending [summary judgment] motions in the Google and Waze Cases holds no weight.” Opp.
`
`at 14. AGIS misses the point; regardless of how it rules, the NDCA court is now intimately familiar
`
`with overlapping non-infringement and invalidity issues through ongoing summary judgment
`
`proceedings. See Ex. D. And AGIS does not, and cannot, dispute that transfer to the NDCA would
`
`also (1) promote judicial economy given that the parties have already produced and completed
`
`discovery in AGIS I and (2) avoid inconsistent outcomes.
`
`III. THE PUBLIC INTEREST FACTORS FAVOR TRANSFER
`
`AGIS’s local interest arguments again rely on misrepresentations that: (1) FMD’s
`
`development is now entirely in London and (2) AGIS has substantial, meaningful ties to Texas.
`
`Opp. at 14-15. As in AGIS I, Google’s FMD team remains staffed across offices, with key product
`
`managers based in the NDCA, where FMD was originally developed. AGIS’s presence in Texas
`
`was contrived for litigation, and its affiliate AGIS Inc.’s development of its LifeRing product and
`
`the asserted patents all occurred in Florida, where AGIS Inc. and the inventor Mr. Beyer are based.
`
`Ex. N ¶¶ 3-9. AGIS’s attempt to rely on Samsung’s presence in this District ignores the undisputed
`
`fact that Samsung has no involvement with FMD’s development. SEA Decl. ¶¶ 7-8.
`
`Finally, AGIS’s time-to-trial statistics matter little because, as noted in the Motion, the
`
`court congestion factor is entitled to little weight where, as here, AGIS is a non-practicing entity.
`
`See Mot at 15. In sum, transfer is warranted because four factors (sources of proof, compulsory
`
`process, judicial economy, and local interest) favor transfer while the others are neutral.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 137 Filed 10/02/23 Page 13 of 15 PageID #:
`12830
`
`
`
`Dated: September 25, 2023
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Luann Simmons
`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
`dsnyder@omm.com
`Luann Simmons
`lsimmons@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
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 137 Filed 10/02/23 Page 14 of 15 PageID #:
`12831
`
`
`
`Grant Gibson
`Texas State Bar No. 24117859
`ggibson@omm.com
`Cason G. Cole
`Texas State Bar No. 24109741
`ccole@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 137 Filed 10/02/23 Page 15 of 15 PageID #:
`12832
`
`
`
`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 25, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Melissa R. Smith
`Melissa R. Smith
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`