Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 22 Filed 11/21/22 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 310
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Civil Action No. 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP
`
` JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE
`TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER RULE 12(B)(6)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 22 Filed 11/21/22 Page 2 of 13 PageID #: 311
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................. 2
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ...................................................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Motion to Dismiss ................................................................................................... 3
`
`Section 1498(a) ....................................................................................................... 4
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 5
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 8
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 22 Filed 11/21/22 Page 3 of 13 PageID #: 312
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`
`Advanced Software Design Corp. v. Fed. Res. Bank,
`583 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................................................................................................8
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ...................................................................................................................3
`
`Astornet Techs. Inc. v. BAE Sys., Inc.,
`802 F.3d 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..............................................................................................4, 5
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ...................................................................................................................3
`
`Decca Ltd. v. United States,
`640 F.2d 1156 (Ct. Cl. 1980) .....................................................................................................4
`
`FastShip, LLC v. United States,
`131 Fed. Cl. 592, 607 (2017), aff’d as modified, 892 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2018)....................4
`
`Garteiser Honea, P.C. v. Moskowitz,
`No. 2:18-CV-00372-JRG, 2018 WL 6617780 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 18, 2018) ........................4, 6, 7
`
`IRIS Corp. v. Japan Airlines Corp.,
`769 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..............................................................................................4, 5
`
`Kitty Hawk Aircargo, Inc. v. Chao
`418 F.3d 453, 457 (5th Cir. 2005) .............................................................................................6
`
`Madey v. Duke Univ.,
`307 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2002)..................................................................................................4
`
`Richmond Screw Anchor Co. v. United States,
`275 U.S. 331 (1928) ...................................................................................................................8
`
`Swindol v. Aurora Flight Scis. Corp.,
`805 F.3d 516 (5th Cir. 2015) .................................................................................................4, 6
`
`Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd.,
`551 U.S. 308 (2007) ...................................................................................................................3
`
`Zoltek Corp. v. United States,
`672 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................4
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 22 Filed 11/21/22 Page 4 of 13 PageID #: 313
`
`STATUTES
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1498(a) .....................................................................................................................4, 8
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2) ....................................................................................................................4
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 22 Filed 11/21/22 Page 5 of 13 PageID #: 314
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff AGIS Software Development LLC’s (“AGIS’s”) Complaint against Defendants
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, “Samsung”)
`
`sets forth allegations of infringement of four AGIS patents by a collection of apps known as the
`
`Team Awareness Kit, or “TAK,” suite of apps, the Android version of which is ATAK. See Dkt.
`
`1, Case No. 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP, ¶ 16 (hereinafter “Complaint”). As made clear in the below
`
`excerpt from AGIS’s Complaint, TAK was developed and is maintained by the United States
`
`Government, not Samsung:
`
`
`
`Id. at ¶ 17, p. 11. The Complaint also demonstrates U.S. Government ownership and control of
`
`the accused TAK apps. See, e.g., id. (screenshot of TAK video bearing a U.S. Government
`
`confidentiality designation); id. at ¶ 24, p. 19 (describing TAK as a “Government-off-the-shelf
`
`(GOTS) software application,” meaning it is owned and controlled by the U.S. Government). And
`
`the U.S. Government’s TAK website confirms that the accused TAK apps are owned by the U.S.
`
`Government and their use requires proper authorization:
`
`The TAK capability suite is a United States Government (USG)
`owned product. Use of these USG owned products outside of test
`and evaluation require the proper authority to operate (ATO)
`paperwork granted by your organization’s headquarters (HQ).
`Before installing and/or using any of the products, ensure you are
`within the guidelines of your organization.
`
`Ex. A, TAK.gov, https://tak.gov/products (last accessed Nov. 18, 2022) (emphasis added). AGIS’s
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 22 Filed 11/21/22 Page 6 of 13 PageID #: 315
`
`Complaint therefore fails to set forth a plausible claim of infringement against Samsung because,
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a), AGIS’s exclusive remedy for the purported acts of infringement
`
`is an action against the U.S. Government in the United States Court of Federal Claims.
`
`
`
`AGIS’s Complaint contains a broad, unsupported allegation that the manufacture, use, sale,
`
`offer for sale and/or importation of 264 identified Samsung Galaxy devices infringe AGIS’s
`
`patents. Complaint, ¶ 16. But the only factual allegations within the 169-page Complaint relate
`
`to the operation of the U.S. Government’s TAK apps. No other plausible allegation of
`
`infringement for any of AGIS’s asserted patents is made, and not a single plausible allegation of
`
`infringement that can be maintained in this Court is contained in the Complaint. The Complaint
`
`must therefore be dismissed in its entirety (Counts I-IV).
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`In its Complaint, AGIS alleges Samsung infringes claim 10 of the ’970 Patent, claim 54 of
`
`the ’838 Patent, claim 34 of the ’829 Patent, and claim 23 of the ’123 Patent. Complaint, ¶¶ 21,
`
`31, 46, 62. Each of the four asserted patents is directed, generally, to coordinating or managing
`
`two or more people through the use of a communications network. See ’970 Patent, ECF 1-1,
`
`1:15-23; ’838 Patent, ECF 1-2, 1:30-43; ’829 Patent, ECF 1-3, 1:33-46; ’123 Patent, ECF 1-4,
`
`1:33-46.
`
`AGIS’s infringement allegations are based on the alleged “manufacture, use, [sale], offer
`
`for sale, and/or import[ation] into the United States [of] the . . . TAK, ATAK, and CivTAK,
`
`applications, products, and solutions, which also include related servers and services for supporting
`
`. . . TAK, ATAK and CivTAK (‘Accused Products’).” Complaint, ¶ 16.1 AGIS further alleges
`
`
`1 The Complaint also includes allegations of infringement by a purported “Samsung Tactical”
`application and/or service. See, e.g., Complaint, ¶ 16. Samsung is unaware of any such application
`or service, and the Complaint does not include any supporting factual allegations relating to
`footnote continued on next page
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 22 Filed 11/21/22 Page 7 of 13 PageID #: 316
`
`infringement by a long list of Samsung Galaxy devices “all of which are [purportedly] configured
`
`and/or adapted with . . . TAK, ATAK, and CivTAK . . . .” and that “[t]he Accused Products
`
`comprise any and all versions of the . . . TAK, ATAK, and CivTAK solutions, applications, and
`
`services including but not limited to, the ATAK-CIV, ATAK-MIL, and ATAK-MIL versions.”
`
`Id. AGIS’s Complaint also relies extensively on cut-and-pasted pages from an ATAK manual and
`
`certain CivTAK websites describing ATAK capabilities as purported support for the alleged
`
`infringement. See, e.g., id. at pp. 19-29, 37-48, 51-64, 68-70, 73-75, 84-95, 98-110, 114-116, 119-
`
`121, 130-141, 144-155, 159-161, 164-166. The ATAK documentation provides the only factual
`
`allegations in the Complaint in support of AGIS’s infringement claims.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A. Motion to Dismiss
`
`To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient facts, which if accepted
`
`as true, “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
`
`(2009). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
`
`court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.
`
`(citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007)). Conclusory allegations or a
`
`“formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id.
`
`A court “must consider the complaint in its entirety, as well as other sources courts
`
`ordinarily examine when ruling on Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss, in particular, documents
`
`incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial
`
`notice.” Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007). A court may take
`
`judicial notice of facts that “can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy
`
`
`infringement by the purported “Samsung Tactical” application and/or service.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 22 Filed 11/21/22 Page 8 of 13 PageID #: 317
`
`cannot reasonably be questioned,” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2), including government websites.
`
`Swindol v. Aurora Flight Scis. Corp., 805 F.3d 516, 519 (5th Cir. 2015) (taking judicial notice of
`
`records on the Mississippi Secretary of State’s and the Virginia State Corporation Commission’s
`
`websites); see also Garteiser Honea, P.C. v. Moskowitz, No. 2:18-CV-00372-JRG, 2018 WL
`
`6617780, at *2 n.1 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 18, 2018) (explaining that “[i]nformation obtained from online
`
`sources is becoming a frequently used basis for judicial notice” and that “government and
`
`corporate websites . . . are among the most commonly relied upon sources”).
`
`B.
`
`Section 1498(a)
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1498(a) provides, in relevant part:
`
`Whenever an invention described in and covered by a patent of the
`United States is used or manufactured by or for the United States
`without license of the owner thereof or lawful right to use or
`manufacture the same, the owner’s remedy shall be by action against
`the United States in the United States Court of Federal Claims for
`the recovery of his reasonable and entire compensation for such use
`and manufacture.
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1498(a). Accordingly, § 1498(a) waives the U.S. Government’s immunity when there
`
`is an allegation of unauthorized use of a patented invention by or for the United States. See Zoltek
`
`Corp. v. United States, 672 F.3d 1309, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also FastShip, LLC v. United
`
`States, 131 Fed. Cl. 592, 607 (2017), aff'd as modified, 892 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing
`
`Decca Ltd. v. United States, 640 F.2d 1156, 1167 n.15 (Ct. Cl. 1980)) (“The government directly
`
`infringes a patent when it uses or manufactures the patented invention without a license.”).
`
`Application of Section 1498(a) is an affirmative defense. Madey v. Duke Univ., 307 F.3d
`
`1351, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Nevertheless, courts may grant Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss
`
`claims under § 1498(a) in appropriate circumstances. See, e.g., IRIS Corp. v. Japan Airlines Corp.,
`
`769 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (affirming the district court’s decision to grant the
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 22 Filed 11/21/22 Page 9 of 13 PageID #: 318
`
`defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss under § 1498(a)); Astornet Techs. Inc. v. BAE Sys.,
`
`Inc., 802 F.3d 1271, 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`The Court should dismiss Counts I–IV of the Complaint because AGIS fails to allege facts
`
`sufficient to support a claim against Samsung. AGIS’s Complaint alleges in Counts I–IV that
`
`Samsung infringes AGIS’s patents based solely on the operation of the U.S. Government’s TAK
`
`apps. E.g., Complaint, ¶¶ 23, 33, 48, 63. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a), AGIS’s exclusive
`
`remedy for the purported acts of infringement set forth in the Complaint is an action against the
`
`U.S. Government in the United States Court of Federal Claims. The accused apps are not
`
`Samsung-developed apps. Rather, as stated in AGIS’s Complaint, TAK was developed and is
`
`maintained by the U.S. Government:
`
`
`Complaint, ¶ 17, p. 11 (citing https://www.civtak.org/atak-about/); see also id. at ¶ 24, p. 28
`
`(“There are numerous products in the TAK family, all developed at government expense.”).
`
`The Complaint also includes a screenshot of a graphic on the cited www.civtak.org
`
`webpage, shown below, that includes a standard U.S. military distribution statement: “Distribution
`
`Statement A: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.”
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 22 Filed 11/21/22 Page 10 of 13 PageID #: 319
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. at ¶ 17, p. 11 (screenshot annotated and excerpted).
`
`
`
`As explained in a Department of Defense Instruction memorandum, this statement
`
`indicates that U.S. Government approval was required and obtained to distribute the information
`
`publicly: “If public release clearance is obtained, the controlling DoD office shall assign
`
`Distribution Statement A, cancel any other distribution statement, and notify all known holders of
`
`the change.” Ex. B, DoD Instruction No. 5230.24 (August 23, 2012, incorporating Change 3,
`
`October 15, 2018) at 12 (available at https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD
`
`/issuances/dodi/523024p.pdf); see also id. at 14-15 (“This statement may be used only on
`
`unclassified technical documents that have been cleared for public release by competent authority
`
`. . . .”).2
`
`
`2 This Court can, and Samsung respectfully submits should, take judicial notice of the relevant
`information set forth in government websites and documents cited herein. For example, in Kitty
`Hawk Aircargo, Inc. v. Chao, the Fifth Circuit took judicial notice of the National Mediation
`Board’s approval of a transfer of a certification where the approval was available on the agency’s
`government website. 418 F.3d 453, 457 (5th Cir. 2005); see also Swindol, 805 F.3d at 519.
`Moreover, this Court has previously taken judicial notice of information on websites in ruling on
`footnote continued on next page
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 22 Filed 11/21/22 Page 11 of 13 PageID #: 320
`
`In addition, the Complaint explains that ATAK is a “Government-off-the-Shelf (GOTS)
`
`software application”:
`
`Id. at ¶ 24, p. 19. A “Government off the shelf (GOTS)” product is defined by the U.S.
`
`Government as:
`
`
`
`A software and/or hardware product that is developed by the technical staff of a
`Government organization for use by the U.S. Government. GOTS software and
`hardware may be developed by an external entity, with specification from the
`Government organization to meet a specific Government purpose, and can
`normally be shared among Federal agencies without additional cost. GOTS
`products and systems are not commercially available to the general public. Sales
`and distribution of GOTS products and systems are controlled by the
`Government.
`Source: NSA/CSS Policy 3-14
`
`Ex. C, Committee on National Security Systems (CNSS) Glossary, CNSSI No. 4009 (March 2,
`
`2022) at 96 (available at https://www.niap-ccevs.org/Ref/CNSSI_4009.pdf) (emphasis added).
`
`The U.S. Government’s ownership and control of the TAK apps is also confirmed by the
`
`Government’s TAK website, which states at the bottom of every page:
`
`The TAK capability suite is a United States Government (USG)
`owned product. Use of these USG owned products outside of test
`and evaluation require the proper authority to operate (ATO)
`paperwork granted by your organization’s headquarters (HQ).
`Before installing and/or using any of the products, ensure you are
`within the guidelines of your organization.
`
`
`Rule 12 motions to dismiss. In Garteiser Honea, this Court took judicial notice of information on
`the defendant’s own website and on a third-party real estate website in determining the address
`and property type of the defendant’s principal place of business. 2018 WL 6617780, at *1; see
`also id. at *1 n.1 (citing other examples of courts taking judicial notice of information on websites).
`Samsung submits that the government websites cited here are even more reliable than the private
`websites relied upon in Garteiser Honea.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 22 Filed 11/21/22 Page 12 of 13 PageID #: 321
`
`E.g., Ex. A, TAK.gov, https://tak.gov/products (last accessed Nov. 18, 2022), p. 2 (emphasis
`
`added); see also id. (the “TAK capability suite” is maintained by the TAK Product Center, located
`
`at Fort Belvoir, in Virginia).
`
`The accused TAK apps are indisputably apps that are “used or manufactured by or for the
`
`United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a). Therefore, the exclusive remedy for the alleged infringement
`
`based on the TAK apps set forth in the Complaint is a suit against the United States in the Court
`
`of Federal Claims, and the case should be dismissed. See Advanced Software Design Corp. v. Fed.
`
`Res. Bank, 583 F.3d 1371, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (Section 1498(a) “is more than a waiver of
`
`immunity and effects an assumption of liability by the government.”) (quoting Richmond Screw
`
`Anchor Co. v. United States, 275 U.S. 331, 344 (1928)).
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`AGIS has failed to plead factual allegations sufficient to support an action for patent
`
`infringement against Samsung. Based on the allegations pled in the Complaint, pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1498(a), AGIS’s exclusive remedy for the purported acts of infringement is an action
`
`against the U.S. Government in the United States Court of Federal Claims. Accordingly, Samsung
`
`respectfully requests that the Court dismiss Counts I, II, III, and IV of AGIS’s Complaint with
`
`prejudice.
`
`Dated: November 21, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/Neil P. Sirota
`
` 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
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 22 Filed 11/21/22 Page 13 of 13 PageID #: 322
`
`
` 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
`
`
`Counsel for Defendants Samsung
`Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung
`Electronics America, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`