Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 158 Filed 12/01/23 Page 1 of 21 PageID #: 14753
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA
`INC.,
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`§
`
`§
`Case No. 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP
`§
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`§
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`PLAINTIFF AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC’S
`RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S
`MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ANSWER TO ADD ISSUE
`PRECLUSION AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES (DKT. 155)
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 158 Filed 12/01/23 Page 2 of 21 PageID #: 14754
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND.........................................................2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`AGIS’s Infringement Allegations Against Non-Party Google ................................2
`
`AGIS’s Infringement Allegations Against Samsung in This Case ..........................4
`
`
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS .......................................................................................................5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Motions for Leave to Amend Answer .....................................................................5
`
`Issue Preclusion .......................................................................................................6
`
`
`
`
`
`GOOD CAUSE DOES NOT EXIST TO GRANT LEAVE TO AMEND ..........................7
`
`SAMSUNG’S PROPOSED ISSUE PRECLUSION DEFENSE IS FUTILE ...................11
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Samsung’s Proposed Issue Preclusion Defense Is Futile Because the
`NDCA SJ Order is Not a Final Judgment ..............................................................11
`
`Samsung’s Arguments that the NDCA SJ Order as to Google Extends to
`Itself Are Futile Because the Accused Products Are Not Identical .......................13
`
`
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................15
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 158 Filed 12/01/23 Page 3 of 21 PageID #: 14755
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp.,
`525 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................15
`
`Adrian v. Vigilant Video, Inc.,
`No. 2:10-cv-173-JRG, 2013 WL 1984369 (E.D. Tex. May 13, 2013) ......................................8
`
`AGIS Dev. Software Dev. LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`No. 5:22-cv-04825-BLF, Dkt. No. 166 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2023) ............................................2
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Google LLC,
`No. 2:19-cv-00361-JRG, Dkt. No. 1 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2019) ...........................................2, 13
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`No. 2:19-cv-00362, Dkt. No. 1 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2019) ...................................................2, 13
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Waze Mobile, Ltd.,
`No. 2:19-cv-00359-JRG, Dkt. No. 1 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2019) .................................................2
`
`ArcelorMittal Atlantique et Lorraine v. AK Steel Corp.,
`908 F.3d 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2018)....................................................................................10, 14, 15
`
`Avondale Shipyards, Inc. v. Insured Lloyd’s,
`786 F.2d 1265 (5th Cir. 1986) .............................................................................................7, 12
`
`Colida v. Qualcomm Inc.,
`128 F. App’x 765 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ......................................................................................9, 13
`
`Estech Sys., Inc. v. Target Corp.,
`No. 2:20-CV-00122-JRG-RSP, 2021 WL 2187978 (E.D. Tex. May 28, 2021) ........................5
`
`In re Google LLC,
`No. 2022-140-42, 2022 WL 1613192 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2022) ...............................................2
`
`Gree, Inc. v. Supercell Oy,
`No. 2:19-CV-00200-JRG, 2021 WL 1160413 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 9, 2021) ..............................6, 8
`
`GREE, Inc. v. Supercell Oy,
`No. 2:19-cv-00310-JRG-RSP, 2021 WL 1626740 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 26, 2021) ..........................8
`
`Martinez v. Nueces Cnty., Tex.,
`71 F.4th 385 (5th Cir. 2023) ......................................................................................................6
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 158 Filed 12/01/23 Page 4 of 21 PageID #: 14756
`
`Pace v. Bogalusa City Sch. Bd.,
`403 F.3d 272 (5th Cir. 2005) (en banc) .....................................................................................6
`
`Papst Licensing v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`No. 6:18-cv-00388-RWS, Dkt. 399 (E.D. Tex., March 12, 2020) ............................................6
`
`Phil-Insul Corp. v. Airlite Plastics Co.,
`854 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................................................6
`
`Taylor v. Sturgell,
`554 U.S. 880 (2008) ...................................................................................................................6
`
`TQ Delta, LLC v. CommScope Holding Co.,
`No. 2:21-CV-00310-JRG, 2023 WL 2145502 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 21, 2023) ...................... passim
`
`Wimm v. Jack Eckerd Corp.,
`3 F.3d 137 (5th Cir. 1993) .........................................................................................................5
`
`Winters v. Diamond Shamrock Chem. Co.,
`149 F.3d 387 (5th Cir. 1998) .....................................................................................................6
`
`Young Eng’rs, Inc. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`721 F.2d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1983)................................................................................................10
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1291 ............................................................................................................................12
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Certain Location-Sharing Sys., Related Software, Components Thereof, & Prods.
`Containing the Same, U.S. International Trade Commission Inv. No. 337-TA-
`1347 (Dec. 30, 2022) .....................................................................................................2, 10, 14
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 ...............................................................................................................................8
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c) ......................................................................................................................7, 8
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c)(1) ..................................................................................................................1, 7
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d)(2)..................................................................................................................7, 8
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) ........................................................................................................................5
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) ..................................................................................................................3, 12
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 158 Filed 12/01/23 Page 5 of 21 PageID #: 14757
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff AGIS Development Software LLC (“AGIS”) respectfully requests that the Court
`
`deny Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.’s
`
`(collectively, “Samsung”) Motion for Leave to Amend Answer to Add Issue Preclusion
`
`Affirmative Defense (“Motion”). See Dkt. 155. Samsung’s Motion should be denied because:
`
`(1) Samsung has failed to satisfy the good cause factors; and (2) Samsung’s proposed issue
`
`preclusion affirmative defense is futile and contrary to governing precedent that renders issue
`
`preclusion inapplicable to non-final partial summary judgment orders under the strict standard of
`
`finality.
`
`First, Samsung’s Motion should be denied as untimely and waived for failure to comply
`
`with the affirmative pleading requirements under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c)(1). There is no dispute that
`
`Samsung’s request for leave to amend its Answer is untimely, well after the deadline to file
`
`amended pleadings following AGIS’s Second Amended Complaint. Samsung failed to plead an
`
`issue preclusion affirmative defense, despite having notice of AGIS’s infringement allegations of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838 (the “’838 Patent”) against non-party Google devices implementing the
`
`Find My Device (“FMD”) application at least as of 2019; receiving two extensions; filing two
`
`Answers; and failing to add such defense in its recent pending motion for leave to add claim
`
`preclusion and Kessler doctrine affirmative defenses.
`
`Second, Samsung erroneously premises its Motion on a non-final partial summary
`
`judgment order (“SJ Order”) issued by the Northern District of California (“NDCA”), which found
`
`that non-party Google’s Accused Products implementing the FMD application do not infringe the
`
`’838 Patent. Several causes of action remain pending before the NDCA case, which is set for trial
`
`in August 2025. Samsung fails to identify any legal authority supporting its novel theory that the
`
`non-final partial SJ Order as to non-party Google can be asserted defensively under the doctrine
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 158 Filed 12/01/23 Page 6 of 21 PageID #: 14758
`
`of issue preclusion in favor of Samsung. Samsung’s Motion ignores: (1) the non-final partial SJ
`
`Order is subject to interlocutory appeal and has no preclusive effect absent a final judgment;
`
`(2) Samsung’s Accused Products in this action are different from non-party Google’s Accused
`
`Products at issue in the NDCA action; and (3) AGIS has accused a new version of FMD in this
`
`action. Under any reading of the law and the facts, Samsung’s Motion should be denied in its
`
`entirety.
`
`
`
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`AGIS’s Infringement Allegations Against Non-Party Google
`
`On November 4, 2019, AGIS filed suit in this Court alleging patent infringement against
`
`non-party Google LLC (“Google”), non-party Waze Mobile Limited (“Waze”), and Samsung.1 As
`
`to non-party Google, AGIS accused Google devices comprising Find My Device (“FMD”) and
`
`Google Maps Mobile (“GMM”) of infringing the ’838 Patent, among others. See AGIS Software
`
`Dev. LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2:19-cv-00361-JRG, Dkt. No. 1 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2019). In 2020,
`
`this Court consolidated the cases, designated the Google case as the Lead Case, and proceeded
`
`through discovery. Id. at Dkt. No. 29. In 2022, the cases were transferred to the Northern District
`
`of California (“NDCA”) whereby the Google and Waze cases were consolidated and proceeded,
`
`but the Samsung case was stayed.2 See In re Google LLC, No. 2022-140-42, 2022 WL 1613192,
`
`
`1 AGIS asserted and accused certain Waze products of infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 9,749,829 (“’829
`Patent”) and 9,820,123 (“’123 Patent”). See AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Waze Mobile, Ltd., No. 2:19-cv-
`00359-JRG, Dkt. No. 1 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2019). AGIS asserted the ’829 and ’123 Patents against Samsung
`and accused certain Samsung products comprising FMD of infringing the ’829 Patent. See AGIS Software
`Dev. LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2:19-cv-00362, Dkt. No. 1 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2019).
`2 The Samsung case was stayed pending final resolution of Certain Location-Sharing Sys., Related
`Software, Components Thereof, & Prods. Containing the Same, U.S. International Trade Commission Inv.
`No. 337-TA-1347 (Dec. 30, 2022) (“ITC Investigation”), which involved the respective asserted patents,
`as well as both Samsung and Google. See AGIS Dev. Software Dev. LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 5:22-
`cv-04825-BLF, Dkt. No. 166 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2023).
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 158 Filed 12/01/23 Page 7 of 21 PageID #: 14759
`
`at *1 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2022); see also AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Google LLC, No. 5:22-cv-
`
`04826-BLF (N.D. Cal.) (collectively, the “Google I” cases).
`
`On April 3, 2023, non-party Google filed a consolidated summary judgment motion before
`
`the NDCA as to, inter alia, non-infringement of the ’838 Patent. See Google I, Dkt. No. 434. On
`
`October 10, 2023, the NDCA issued a partial SJ Order, finding that non-party Google’s Accused
`
`Products comprising FMD and GMM do not infringe the ’838 Patent. See Google I, Dkt. No. 470
`
`at 29 ¶ 1. No final judgment has been issued in the NDCA case, including at least because several
`
`claims of patents infringement of the ’829 Patent remain pending against Google and Waze
`
`Accused Products. See id. at 29 ¶ 2 (denying summary judgment that FMD, GMM, and Waze App
`
`do not infringe the ’829 Patent).
`
`On November 10, 2023, non-party Google filed a motion requesting the entry of a partial
`
`final judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) based on the SJ Order, which AGIS opposed and
`
`remains pending before the NDCA. See Google I, at Dkt. Nos. 480, 485.
`
`On November 27, 2023, the NDCA entered a schedule of deadlines related to non-party
`
`Google’s November 2, 2023 request for supplemental claim construction proceedings to address
`
`the term “remote control” of the ’829 Patent. See Google I, at Dkt. Nos. 477, 484. In this case, the
`
`parties are proceeding with the understanding that the term “remote control” of the ’829 Patent
`
`shall receive its plain meaning. However, based on non-party Google’s3 identification of the
`
`additional claim construction dispute, AGIS requests supplemental claim construction proceedings
`
`in this case for the term “remote control” of the ’829 Patent. AGIS will confer with Samsung on a
`
`proposed schedule.
`
`
`3 Samsung and Google are represented by the same counsel across all proceedings involving AGIS.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 158 Filed 12/01/23 Page 8 of 21 PageID #: 14760
`
`B.
`
`AGIS’s Infringement Allegations Against Samsung in This Case
`
`On July 14, 2022, AGIS filed the initial Complaint in this action against Samsung alleging
`
`Samsung devices comprising Samsung Tactical, TAK, ATAK, and CivTAK applications,
`
`products, and solutions, including related servers and services infringe the ’838 Patent along with
`
`three other patents. See Dkt. No. 1. AGIS filed a First Amended Complaint on December 5, 2022,
`
`adding infringement allegations against Samsung Knox (Dkt. No. 29) for which Samsung filed an
`
`Answer on May 31, 2023 after receiving two extensions from the Court. See Dkt. Nos. 14, 38, 64.
`
`AGIS filed a Second Amended Complaint on June 16, 2023, adding infringement allegations
`
`against Samsung devices comprising FMD (Dkt. No. 69) for which Samsung filed an Answer on
`
`June 30, 2023. See Dkt. No. 80. Samsung did not plead or assert an issue preclusion affirmative
`
`defense in either of its Answers.
`
`AGIS subsequently requested leave to amend its Disclosures of Asserted Claims and
`
`Infringement as well as its P.R. 4-3 disclosures to accuse Samsung devices comprising a new
`
`version of FMD based on information discovered during the ITC Investigation, which the Court
`
`granted on August 24, 2023. See Dkt. Nos. 72, 82, 115; see also Dkt. No. 112 (Hr’g Tr. at 29:15-
`
`30:14 (discussing new FMD version)). Samsung also requested leave to amend its Answer to add
`
`claim preclusion and Kessler doctrine affirmative defenses on August 11, 2023—Samsung again
`
`failed to plead or add an issue preclusion affirmative defense. See Dkt. No. 101.4
`
`
`
`On November 2, 2023, Samsung filed a Notice regarding the NDCA’s non-final partial SJ
`
`Order, which was discussed during this Court’s Markman hearing and considered by the Court in
`
`
`4 Samsung also filed a motion to sever and transfer the new FMD claims to the NDCA on September 1,
`2023 (Dkt. No. 117), a motion to stay pending resolution of the motion to sever and transfer on September
`7, 2023 (Dkt. No. 124), and a motion for reconsideration granting leave to add FMD on September 7, 2023
`(Dkt. No. 125). Those motions remain pending before the Court.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 158 Filed 12/01/23 Page 9 of 21 PageID #: 14761
`
`its Claim Construction Order. See Dkt. No. 148 (“Notice”); Dkt. No. 156 at 25-26 (“Claim
`
`Construction Order”) (“As a threshold matter, the parties discussed at the November 3, 2023
`
`hearing a recent summary judgment ruling by the [NDCA] in a case involving some of the same
`
`patents . . . [g]iven that the [NDCA] expressly limited its discussion as being ‘for summary
`
`judgment only,’ the summary judgment ruling does not significantly affect the Court’s claim
`
`construction analysis in this case.”).
`
`Samsung filed the instant Motion on November 17, 2023, requesting leave to amend its
`
`proposed pending Answer to add an issue preclusion affirmative defense. See Mot. at 2, n.1
`
`(“Samsung previously moved to amend its answer to include preclusion defenses based on claim
`
`preclusion and the Kessler doctrine. Dkt. 101. Although that motion for leave is still pending,
`
`Samsung moves to amend its proposed answer submitted with respect to that motion.”).
`
` LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A. Motions for Leave to Amend Answer
`
`“After a Docket Control Order has been entered, Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) governs the decision
`
`whether to permit a post-deadline amendment,” which may only be modified for good cause and
`
`with the judge’s consent. Estech Sys., Inc. v. Target Corp., No. 2:20-CV-00122-JRG-RSP, 2021
`
`WL 2187978, at *2 (E.D. Tex. May 28, 2021) (denying leave to amend answer). “Courts should
`
`consider (1) the explanation for the party’s failure to [timely move for leave to amend]; (2) the
`
`importance of the [amendment]; (3) potential prejudice in allowing the [amendment]; and (4) the
`
`availability of a continuance to cure such prejudice.” Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted).
`
`“In deciding whether to grant leave to file an amended pleading, the district court may
`
`consider such factors as undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant,
`
`repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the
`
`opposing party, and futility of amendment.” Id. (quoting Wimm v. Jack Eckerd Corp., 3 F.3d 137,
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 158 Filed 12/01/23 Page 10 of 21 PageID #:
`14762
`
`139 (5th Cir. 1993)). Amendments that fail to plead sufficient facts upon which relief can be
`
`granted or “would be subject to dismissal, then the amendment[s] [are] futile and the district court
`
`[i]s within its discretion to deny leave to amend.” See Papst Licensing v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No.
`
`6:18-cv-00388-RWS, Dkt. 399 at 10 (E.D. Tex., March 12, 2020) (“Samsung has failed to plead
`
`facts sufficient to plausibly allege that collateral estoppel applied to Papst’s reexamination
`
`arguments and therefore that Papst’s statements/omissions are misrepresentations. Papst’s
`
`supplemental pleading fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”); Martinez v. Nueces
`
`Cnty., Tex., 71 F.4th 385, 391-2 (5th Cir. 2023) (affirming district court’s denial of leave as futile).
`
`B.
`
`Issue Preclusion
`
`“Issue preclusion . . . bars successive litigation of an issue of fact or law actually litigated
`
`and resolved in a valid court determination essential to the prior judgment, even if the issue recurs
`
`in the context of a different claim.” TQ Delta, LLC v. CommScope Holding Co., No. 2:21-CV-
`
`00310-JRG, 2023 WL 2145502, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 21, 2023) (quoting Taylor v. Sturgell, 554
`
`U.S. 880, 892 (2008)). “Courts must apply the law of the circuit in which they are located when
`
`applying general issue preclusion principles.” Id. (citing Phil-Insul Corp. v. Airlite Plastics Co.,
`
`854 F.3d 1344, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2017)) (emphasis added).
`
`Under Fifth Circuit law, courts consider four elements to determine whether issue preclusion
`
`applies: “(1) the identical issue was previously adjudicated; (2) the issue was actually litigated; []
`
`(3) the previous determination was necessary to the decision”; and “(4) there are no special
`
`circumstances that would render estoppel inappropriate or unfair.” Id. (quoting Pace v. Bogalusa
`
`City Sch. Bd., 403 F.3d 272, 290 (5th Cir. 2005) (en banc); Gree, Inc. v. Supercell Oy, No. 2:19-
`
`CV-00200-JRG, 2021 WL 1160413, at *6 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 9, 2021); Winters v. Diamond Shamrock
`
`Chem. Co., 149 F.3d 387 (5th Cir. 1998) (citations omitted)) (emphasis added). The “fourth
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 158 Filed 12/01/23 Page 11 of 21 PageID #:
`14763
`
`element ‘applies only to the use of offensive (non-mutual) collateral estoppel by the plaintiff.’” Id.
`
`(citations omitted). Finally, “[t]he Fifth Circuit has observed that ‘the requirement of finality
`
`applies just as strongly to collateral estoppel as it does to res judicata,” and Fifth Circuit precedent
`
`applies a strict standard of finality. Id. at *6-*7 (collecting cases, distinguishing strict and flexible
`
`approaches to finality and concluding partial summary judgment orders were not final and had no
`
`preclusive effect for purposes of collateral estoppel and res judicata) (citations omitted); see also
`
`Avondale Shipyards, Inc. v. Insured Lloyd’s, 786 F.2d 1265, 1271 (5th Cir. 1986) (holding that an
`
`order granting partial summary judgment has no res judicata or collateral estoppel effect).
`
` GOOD CAUSE DOES NOT EXIST TO GRANT LEAVE TO AMEND
`
`Samsung has failed to establish good cause exists to grant leave to amend its pending
`
`proposed Answer to add an issue preclusion affirmative defense. See Mot. at 2, n.1. It is undisputed
`
`that there is no final judgment on the issue—Samsung cannot show the issue has been actually
`
`litigated and resulted in a final judgment. By Samsung’s own admissions, it failed to comply with
`
`the affirmative pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c)(1), (d)(2) despite having ample prior
`
`notice of AGIS’s allegations as to FMD and the ’838 Patent when it filed its 2019 Complaints or
`
`when this Court consolidated, designated the lead case, and transferred the Google I cases to the
`
`NDCA in 2020 and 2022, respectively. C.f. TQ Delta, LLC, 2023 WL 2145502, at *4 (concluding
`
`claim and issue preclusion affirmative defenses were waived because the moving party failed to
`
`comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c), the complaint and answer contained no pleading for claim or
`
`issue preclusion, and the moving party failed to amend pleadings 10 months after the deadline to
`
`file amended pleadings).
`
`Samsung Failed to Show Diligence: There is no dispute that Samsung was not diligent
`
`and failed to timely add an issue preclusion affirmative defense to its pending proposed
`
`amendment. Samsung’s attempt to manufacture diligence and timeliness is belied by its assertion
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 158 Filed 12/01/23 Page 12 of 21 PageID #:
`14764
`
`that “Samsung has moved for leave before the relevant development—an issuance of final
`
`judgment on the SJ Order’s ruling—has even occurred” and prior representations made in its
`
`motions to sever/transfer, to stay, and for reconsideration pending before this Court. See Mot. at
`
`7; see also Dkt. Nos. 117, 124, 125. Yet, Samsung provides no explanation for failing to do the
`
`same in its prior Answers filed in May/June, after the Court granted AGIS leave to amend its
`
`infringement contentions in August, or in its pending motion for leave filed in August. Compare
`
`id. with Dkt. Nos. 64, 80, 101. Indeed, Samsung ignores that a party’s responsive pleading “must
`
`affirmatively state any . . . affirmative defense, including: . . . estoppel . . . [and] res judicata” and
`
`may “set out 2 or more statements of a . . . defense alternatively or hypothetically, either in a single
`
`. . . defense or in separate ones.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(c), 8(d)(2) (emphases added). Furthermore,
`
`Samsung’s authorities are inapposite because they involved previously unavailable information
`
`and neither involve amending an Answer or pleading governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Compare id.
`
`with Mot. at 7. Adrain involved amended infringement contentions to add newly-issued claims
`
`after a re-examination certificate issued, whereas GREE involved amended invalidity contentions
`
`and supplemental expert reports after the court granted leave to amend infringement contentions
`
`to address a newly-launched feature. See Adrian v. Vigilant Video, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-173-JRG,
`
`2013 WL 1984369, at *1 (E.D. Tex. May 13, 2013); GREE, Inc. v. Supercell Oy, No. 2:19-cv-
`
`00310-JRG-RSP, 2021 WL 1626740, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 26, 2021). Here, Samsung was not
`
`diligent and unduly delayed affirmatively and/or hypothetically pleading issue preclusion in its
`
`initial Answer, or at minimum, after the Court granted AGIS leave to amend its infringement
`
`contentions, despite having notice of AGIS’s pending infringement allegations against FMD as to
`
`the ’838 Patent. This factor thus disfavors granting leave.
`
`Samsung Failed to Show Importance: Samsung fails to show its proposed issue
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 158 Filed 12/01/23 Page 13 of 21 PageID #:
`14765
`
`preclusion affirmative defense is important because it is premised on a non-final partial SJ Order
`
`that has no preclusive effect and is contrary to governing precedent applying a strict finality
`
`standard. See, supra, § III.B., infra, § V.A. Devoid of any factual or legal support, Samsung asserts
`
`its “issue preclusion defense may dispose of AGIS’s allegations asserting the ’838 Patent against
`
`FMD, narrowing the issues and avoiding the need for the parties to continue to litigate an already-
`
`decided issue.” Mot. at 8. But Samsung ignores the non-final partial SJ Order is subject to
`
`interlocutory appeal and has no preclusive effect absent a final judgment. See TQ Delta, LLC, 2023
`
`WL 2145502, at *7. Samsung’s speculative concern that “Samsung may be unable to raise the
`
`defense later in this case” is contradicted by its own authorities. Mot. at 8. If the SJ Order is
`
`affirmed on appeal and results in a final judgment, Samsung can raise its issue preclusion
`
`affirmative defense through summary judgment. See, e.g., Colida v. Qualcomm Inc., 128 F. App’x
`
`765, 766 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (affirming non-infringement summary judgment cross-motion in
`
`subsequent action because prior appeal affirmed non-infringement). Because Samsung’s issue
`
`preclusion affirmative defense lacks finality, is not dispositive, and can be raised through
`
`alternative means, the importance factor weighs against granting leave.
`
`Samsung’s Proposed Defense Is Prejudicial: Allowing Samsung’s issue preclusion
`
`affirmative defense—its Nineteenth Defense—is prejudicial to AGIS. As a preliminary matter,
`
`the proposed defense is legally unsupportable because there is no final judgment on the issue.
`
`Moreover, as pled, Samsung’s issue preclusion defense requires additional discovery to determine
`
`whether “material differences between the FMD functionality accused in Google I, which is
`
`accused for Google Android devices (e.g., Google Pixel phones), and the FMD functionality
`
`accused in this case, which is accused for Samsung Android products (e.g., Samsung Galaxy
`
`phones)” exist. See Ex. A at 48 ¶ 197. Samsung’s sole basis for alleging “AGIS’s theories in this
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 158 Filed 12/01/23 Page 14 of 21 PageID #:
`14766
`
`case do not depend on any specific features of the accused Samsung device” is attorney argument
`
`premised on one cherry-picked screenshot from several exemplary screenshots. Compare Mot. at
`
`4-5 with Ex. F at 40-45. Samsung also erroneously asserts that “Samsung’s issue preclusion
`
`defense does not require any discovery” and “presents ‘question[s] of law.’” Mot. at 9. Not so.
`
`Whether accused products in a second suit acquire non-infringing status is a question of fact that
`
`applies only to the extent they remain the same, and “‘conduct of a different nature from that
`
`involved in the prior litigation’ will not be given preclusive effect.” ArcelorMittal Atlantique et
`
`Lorraine v. AK Steel Corp., 908 F.3d 1267, 1274 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (vacating and remanding
`
`application of collateral estoppel because evidence showed material differences between accused
`
`products in earlier and subsequent actions) (quoting Young Eng’rs, Inc. v. U.S. Int’l Trade
`
`Comm’n, 721 F.2d 1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Samsung bears the burden of showing the
`
`Samsung devices at issue here are essentially the same as the Google devices in Google I for issue
`
`preclusion to apply. Id. (citations omitted). And here, AGIS’s amended disclosures accuse
`
`Samsung devices comprising a new version of FMD based on information discovered during the
`
`ITC Investigation. See Dkt. Nos. 72, 82, 115; see also Dkt. No. 112 (Hr’g Tr. at 29:15-30:14
`
`(discussing new FMD version)). Samsung’s failure to put AGIS on notice concerning issue
`
`preclusion “to equally ‘understand the application of collateral estoppel’” is prejudicial to AGIS
`
`considering only two months are left in fact discovery. See TQ Delta, 2023 WL 2145502, at *5
`
`(“No party can adequately cultivate a position on an issue that it was never made aware of in the
`
`first place.”). The prejudice factor thus weighs against granting leave.
`
`Continuance Will Not Cure Prejudice: Samsung alleges “a continuance is not
`
`necessary.” Mot. at 9. The Court already amended the Docket Control Order and extended
`
`procedural deadlines based on Samsung’s request for additional time. See Dkt. No. 115. Because
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 158 Filed 12/01/23 Page 15 of 21 PageID #:
`14767
`
`there is no final judgment on the issue, Samsung would need to request an indefinite continuance
`
`of this case until after the August 2025 trial and any subsequent appeals from an actual final
`
`judgment in Google I. This factor weighs strongly against granting leave.
`
`In short, Samsung’s Motion should be denied because the diligence, importance, prejudice,
`
`and continuance factors all weigh against granting leave to add Samsung’s proposed issue
`
`preclusion defense to the pending proposed amendment to add claim preclusion and Kessler
`
`doctrine affirmative defenses.
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG’S PROPOSED ISSUE PRECLUSION DEFENSE IS FUTILE
`
`Samsung’s proposed amendment fails to plead a legally viable issue preclusion affirmative
`
`defense, rendering the proposed amendment futile. Specifically, Samsung fails to plead or identify
`
`a final judgment to apply the doctrine of issue preclusion and fails to plead identical issues were
`
`decided in Google I. Samsung’s arguments regarding the applicability of the non-final partial SJ
`
`Order as to non-party Google to itself lack merit and are futile because: (1) the SJ Order is subject
`
`to interlocutory appeal and has no preclusive effect absent a final judgment; (3) Samsung’s
`
`Accused Products in this action are different from non-party Google’s Accused Products at issue
`
`in the NDCA action; and (4) AGIS has accused a new version of FMD in this action. Samsung’s
`
`Motion should therefore be denied in its entirety.
`
`A.
`
`Samsung’s Proposed Issue Preclusion Defense Is Futile Because the
`NDCA SJ Order is Not a Final Judgment
`
`Issue preclusion does not apply because the NDCA’s partial SJ Order is not a final
`
`judgment, and Samsung fails to plead or identify a final judgment supporting an issue preclusion
`
`affirmative defense. See TQ Delta, LLC, 2023 WL 2145502, at *3-*7 (concluding partial summary
`
`judgment orders were not final for preclusion purposes and subject to interlocutory appeal with no
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 158 Filed 12/01/23 Page 16 of 21 PageID #:
`14768
`
`preclusive effect); Avondale Shipyards, 786 F.2d at 1271 (holding that an order granting partial
`
`summary judgment has no res judicata or collateral estoppel effect).
`
`In TQ Delta, this Court analyzed Fifth Circuit precedent governing the standard of finality
`
`for purposes of claim and issue preclusion to non-final summary judgment orders. See TQ Delta,
`
`LLC, 2023 WL 2145502, at *3-*7. Specifically, the Court considered whether verdicts and partial
`
`summary judgment orders issued by a Delaware district court on the issue of infringement were
`
`final judgments for purposes of preclusion. Id. at *1, *5. The Court held “the Fifth Circuit has
`
`concluded that ‘it has consistently followed the strict approach to finality, linking the availability
`
`of appeal for the prior decision with the finality for collateral-estoppel purposes,’ as opposed to
`
`the flexible interpre