Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 163 Filed 12/19/23 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 16176
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-00263-JRG
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
`AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`PLAINTIFF AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC’S
`OPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO REQUEST
`SUPPLEMENTAL CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 163 Filed 12/19/23 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 16177
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`EnerPol, LLC v. Schlumberger Tech. Corp.,
`No. 2:17-cv-00394-JRG, Dkt. No. 99 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 2018) ..........................................2, 3
`
`O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co.,
`521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir 2008)...................................................................................................2
`
`S&W Enters., L.L.C. v. S, Tr. Bank of Ala., NA,
`315 F.3d 533 (5th Cir. 2003) .....................................................................................................2
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 163 Filed 12/19/23 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 16178
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff AGIS Software Development LLC (“AGIS” or “Plaintiff”) respectfully moves
`
`this Court for leave for supplemental claim construction addressing the term “remote control” of
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,749,829 (the “’829 Patent”). Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“SEC”)
`
`and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.’s (“SEA”) (collectively, “Samsung” or “Defendants”)
`
`oppose this request.
`
`Counsel for Defendants also represent third-party Google LLC (“Google”) in the instant
`
`action and in AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Google LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-04826-BLF (N.D. Cal.)
`
`(the “NDCA action”), where they requested and received supplemental proceedings on the claim
`
`term “remote control” of the ’829 Patent.1 See Exhibit A. The NDCA court has set a hearing date
`
`for this claim term on May 10, 2024. Id.
`
`On Friday, December 15, 2023, counsel for AGIS and Defendants exchanged proposed
`
`constructions for the term “remote control” confirming the claim construction dispute. See Exhibits
`
`B, C. The dispute comprises at least whether to introduce a negative limitation to exclude the action
`
`of causing another device to report location from the scope of remote-control actions. Id.
`
`Regarding scheduling, AGIS proposes the following deadlines: (1) Plaintiff’s ten-page
`
`supplemental opening brief due within a week of the Court’s order granting leave, (2) Defendants’
`
`ten-page responsive brief due 14 days after service of Plaintiff’s opening brief, and (3) Plaintiff’s
`
`five-page reply brief due seven days after service of Defendants’ responsive brief.
`
`Plaintiff submits that good cause exists to grant leave for supplemental claim construction
`
`on the term “remote control” of the ’829 Patent.
`
`
`1 The NDCA further ordered supplemental claim construction proceedings on the construction
`word “participant” within the agreed construction of the term “group” of the ’829 Patent. This
`Court has already addressed this term in its November 27, 2023 Claim Construction Order. Dkt.
`156.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 163 Filed 12/19/23 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 16179
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`The Court considers four factors in determining whether good cause is shown: (1) the
`
`reason for the delay and whether the party has been diligent, (2) the importance of what the Court
`
`is excluding, (3) the danger of unfair prejudice, and (4) the availability of a continuance and the
`
`potential impact of a delay on judicial proceedings. S&W Enters., L.L.C. v. S, Tr. Bank of Ala.,
`
`NA, 315 F.3d 533, 536 (5th Cir. 2003).
`
`“When the parties present a fundamental dispute regarding the scope of a claim term, it is
`
`the court’s duty to resolve it.” O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351,
`
`1362 (Fed. Cir 2008)). “If the Court fails to adjudicate the Parties’ dispute regarding the proper
`
`scope of [a claim term], the Parties would ultimately be required to present these arguments to the
`
`jury. In this case . . . months before [expert discovery and] trial, the Court is in the best position to
`
`determine the proper construction of this claim term.” EnerPol, LLC v. Schlumberger Tech. Corp.,
`
`No. 2:17-cv-00394-JRG, Dkt. No. 99, at *6 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 2018) (citations omitted).
`
`III. DISCUSSION
`
`The good cause factors weigh in favor of granting Plaintiff AGIS’s motion for leave. First,
`
`AGIS has been diligent in identifying a real dispute for resolution, and there has been no delay in
`
`seeking leave. After receiving the NDCA court’s November 27, 2023 scheduling order, AGIS
`
`promptly sought Defendants’ position in requesting similar proceedings before this Court. See
`
`Exhibit D. Then, AGIS promptly filed this Motion the next business day after confirming the
`
`parties’ dispute on Friday, December 15, 2023, when counsel for AGIS and Defendants exchanged
`
`competing proposals before the NDCA court. See Exhibits B, C.
`
`Second, addressing this fundamental dispute is important to resolving the scope of the
`
`terms. Pursuant to the NDCA court’s scheduling order, the parties exchanged proposed
`
`constructions for the term “remote control” on Friday, December 15, 2023. Counsel for Defendants
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 163 Filed 12/19/23 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 16180
`
`proposed that the term “remote control” mean “control of another device to perform a selected
`
`action without any action by that other device’s operator, where the ‘selected action’ cannot be
`
`sharing device location information.” See Exhibit B. AGIS proposed that the term “remote control”
`
`receive its plain and ordinary meaning with an example of “caus[e/ing] one or more other devices
`
`to perform an action.” See Exhibit C. AGIS also provided “[n]on-limiting examples of said action
`
`may include: execute or activate software, play audio, vibrate, change sound level, display
`
`information, report location, and report status.” Id. At a minimum, there is a clear, substantive
`
`dispute regarding whether to introduce a negative limitation to exclude causing one or more other
`
`devices to report their locations from the scope of the term “remote control.” Counsel for
`
`Defendants seek to exclude this scope to avoid infringement, and the Court should not wait until
`
`after expert reports and motion practice to resolve this dispute.
`
`Third, there is no prejudice to Defendants on resolving a dispute limited to one term.
`
`Counsel for Defendants raised this dispute in the NDCA action, and the parties have already
`
`identified their intrinsic and extrinsic evidence with their December 15, 2023 exchange of
`
`proposals. Construction of this term will not affect the case schedule as briefing will be limited to
`
`one term, and no continuance will be necessary.
`
`Accordingly, AGIS has demonstrated good cause for leave for supplemental claim
`
`construction on the term “remote control” of the ’829 Patent, and respectfully requests the Court
`
`grant its motion.
`
`Dated: December 19, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Vincent J. Rubino, III
`Alfred R. Fabricant
`NY Bar No. 2219392
`Email: ffabricant@fabricantllp.com
`Peter Lambrianakos
`NY Bar No. 2894392
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 163 Filed 12/19/23 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 16181
`
`Email: plambrianakos@fabricantllp.com
`Vincent J. Rubino, III
`NY Bar No. 4557435
`Email: vrubino@fabricantllp.com
`Enrique W. Iturralde
`NY Bar No. 5526280
`Email: eiturralde@ fabricantllp.com
`FABRICANT LLP
`411 Theodore Fremd Avenue
`Suite 206 South
`Rye, New York 10580
`Telephone: (212) 257-5797
`Facsimile: (212) 257-5796
`
`Samuel F. Baxter
`State Bar No. 01938000
`Email: sbaxter@mckoolsmith.com
`Jennifer L. Truelove
`State Bar No. 24012906
`Email: jtruelove@mckoolsmith.com
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`104 E. Houston Street, Suite 300
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`Telephone: (903) 923-9000
`Facsimile: (903) 923-9099
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF AGIS
`SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 163 Filed 12/19/23 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 16182
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on December 19, 2023, all counsel of record who are
`
`deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via
`
`the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Vincent J. Rubino, III
` Vincent J. Rubino, III
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that counsel for Plaintiff has met and conferred with
`
`counsel for Defendants on December 18, 2023, and counsel for Defendants have indicated they
`
`oppose this motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Vincent J. Rubino, III
` Vincent J. Rubino, III
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`