Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 01/10/23 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1207
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`§
`
`§
`Case No. 2:22-cv-00263-JRG
`§
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`§
`§
`
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC’S RESPONSE
`IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. AND
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.’S MOTION TO STAY (DKT. 40)
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 01/10/23 Page 2 of 13 PageID #: 1208
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1
`
`BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................. 2
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ....................................................................................................... 4
`
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................... 5
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`A Stay Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659 is Not Warranted ....................................... 6
`
`The Court Should Decline to Stay the Case Pursuant to its Inherent
`Power .................................................................................................................... 7
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 8
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 01/10/23 Page 3 of 13 PageID #: 1209
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Samsung Elec. Co.,
`No. 2:19-cv-00362-JRG, Dkt. 1 (E.D. Tex. Nov 4, 2019) .....................................................5, 6
`
`Clinton v. Jones,
`520 U.S. 681 (1997) ...................................................................................................................7
`
`Datatreasury Corp. v. Wells Fargo & Co.,
`490 F. Supp. 2d 749 (E.D. Tex. 2006) .......................................................................................7
`
`In re Davis,
`730 F.2d 176 (5th Cir. 1984) .....................................................................................................7
`
`In re Google LLC,
`No. 2022-0126, Dkt. 2-1 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 23, 2022) ...................................................................5
`
`In re Google LLC,
`No. 2022-0140, Dkt. 2-1 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 4, 2022) .....................................................................5
`
`Landis v. N. Am. Co.,
`299 U.S. 248 (1936) ...................................................................................................................7
`
`In re Ramu Corp.,
`903 F.2d 312 (5th Cir. 1990) .....................................................................................................7
`
`Saxon Innovations, LLC v. Palm, Inc.,
`No. 6:09-CV-272, 2009 WL 3755041 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2009) ..............................................9
`
`Soverain Software LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`356 F. Supp. 2d 660 (E.D. Tex. 2005) .......................................................................................7
`
`Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp.,
`90 F.3d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1996)..................................................................................................10
`
`In re Waze Mobile Ltd.,
`No. 2022-0141, Dkt. 7 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2022) ......................................................................6
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 01/10/23 Page 4 of 13 PageID #: 1210
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1659 ......................................................................................................................7, 8, 9
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1659(a) .........................................................................................................................8
`
`Tariff Act of 1930 Section 337 ....................................................................................................6, 7
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 01/10/23 Page 5 of 13 PageID #: 1211
`
`Plaintiff AGIS Software Development LLC (“AGIS” or “Plaintiff”), by and through its
`
`undersigned counsel, respectfully submits this Response in Opposition to Defendants Samsung
`
`Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.’s (collectively, “Defendants” or
`
`“Samsung”) Motion to Stay (Dkt. 40, the “Motion”). The Court should deny Samsung’s Motion
`
`for the reasons set forth below.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Court should deny Samsung’s Motion because the AGIS-Samsung II case involves
`
`different issues (including different accused functionalities, different accused products, and
`
`additional patents) than the issues presented in the AGIS-Samsung I and AGIS ITC litigations.1 The
`
`instant AGIS-Samsung II case involves the Samsung Knox and Tactical applications and software,
`
`as well as non-Google situational awareness applications. AGIS-Samsung II does not involve any
`
`Google applications or Google software.
`
`The AGIS-Samsung I and AGIS ITC litigations involve different issues because, unlike
`
`here, they concern Google applications. Samsung admitted so in its repeated attempts to transfer
`
`AGIS-Samsung I to NDCA. For example, in its motion to transfer, Samsung represented to this
`
`Court that the issues centered around “the Accused Google Applications” which included the
`
`Google Maps for Mobile and Google Find My Device applications. See AGIS-Samsung I, Dkt. 46
`
`at 2 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 9, 2020). In its petition for a writ of mandamus to direct this Court to stay the
`
`AGIS-Samsung I case, Samsung represented to the Federal Circuit that “AGIS’s allegations of
`
`infringement against Samsung center around the same Accused Google Applications [Google
`
`
`1 Hereinafter, “AGIS-Samsung I” refers to AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2:19-cv-
`00361-JRG (E.D. Tex.),”AGIS-Samsung II” refers to AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Samsung Elecs.
`Co., Ltd., No. 2:22-cv-0263-JRG (E.D. Tex.), and “AGIS ITC” refers to In re Certain Location-
`Sharing Systems, Related Software, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, No.
`337-TA-1347 (USITC).
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 01/10/23 Page 6 of 13 PageID #: 1212
`
`Maps and Find My Device], as well as Samsung’s own Find My Mobile application.” Ex. A, In re
`
`Google LLC, No. 2022-0126, Dkt. 2-1 at 14 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 23, 2022). In its successful petition for
`
`a writ of mandamus to vacate this Court’s Order denying transfer and to transfer to NDCA,
`
`Samsung represented to the Federal Circuit that “the accused products in the Samsung case are,
`
`after all, Google products.” Ex. B, In re Google LLC, No. 2022-0140, Dkt. 2-1 at 26 (Fed. Cir.
`
`Apr. 4, 2022). The AGIS ITC proceeding accuses the same Google applications.
`
`The accused products for the instant AGIS-Samsung II case do not concern the Google
`
`applications. Neither the complaint nor the amended complaint refers to any Google applications.
`
`In fact, prior to the filing of Samsung’s Motion, AGIS’s discovery requests expressly stated that
`
`the accused products do not include the Google applications accused before the NDCA and ITC.
`
`Ex. C, AGIS’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendants at 4 (“For the avoidance of doubt, the
`
`term “Accused Products” does not include the Google Find My Device application, the Samsung
`
`Find My Mobile application, and the Google Maps Mobile application with Share Location
`
`feature.”). Instead, AGIS’s Amended Complaint alleges infringement over Samsung Knox and
`
`Tactical applications and software, as well as non-Google situational awareness applications—
`
`none of which are developed by Google.
`
`Accordingly, Samsung’s Motion should be denied because this case involves different
`
`issues than those presented in AGIS-Samsung I and because Samsung’s attempt to draw identity
`
`between the litigations is misleading and incorrect, particularly in view of Samsung’s past
`
`representations to this Court and the Federal Circuit.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`AGIS filed suit against Defendants on November 4, 2019, alleging infringement of U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 9,820,123 (the “’123 Patent”) and 9,749,829 (the “’829 Patent”) by certain Samsung
`
`Android-based smartphones, tablets, and smart watches. See AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Samsung
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 01/10/23 Page 7 of 13 PageID #: 1213
`
`Elec. Co., No. 2:19-cv-00362-JRG, Dkt. 1 (E.D. Tex. Nov 4, 2019) (“AGIS I”). Samsung stated
`
`that “AGIS’s specific allegations of infringement center around the Location Sharing feature of
`
`Google Maps for Mobile (‘GMM’), in conjunction with text messaging functionality found within
`
`other applications” and “Find My Device.” AGIS-Samsung I, Dkt. 46 at 2. Samsung also stated
`
`that “GMM, Android Messages, Google Plus, Google Handouts, and Find My Device
`
`(collectively, the ‘Accused Google Applications’) are all applications designed and developed by
`
`Google.” Id. Samsung filed a motion to transfer to the Northern District of California which was
`
`subsequently denied by this Court on March 21, 2022. AGIS I, Dkt. 73 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 21, 2022).
`
`Samsung submitted a petition for writ of mandamus of the District Court’s denial of Samsung’s
`
`motion to transfer. Id., Dkt. 113 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 4, 2022). The Federal Circuit granted Samsung’s
`
`mandamus petition on May 23, 2022. See, Ex. D, In re Waze Mobile Ltd., No. 2022-0141, Dkt. 7
`
`(Fed. Cir. May 23, 2022).
`
`AGIS filed the present action against Samsung on July 14, 2022, alleging infringement of
`
`the ’123 and ’829 Patents, in addition to U.S. Patent Nos. 8,213,970 (the “’970 Patent”) and
`
`9,467,838 (the “’838 Patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). AGIS-Samsung II, Dkt. 1
`
`(E.D. Tex. July 14, 2022). The original complaint alleged infringement by Samsung of the
`
`“Samsung Tactical, TAK, ATAK, and CivTAK applications, products, and solutions, which also
`
`include related servers and services for supporting Samsung Tactical, TAK, ATAK, and CivTAK.”
`
`Id., ¶ 16. AGIS amended the complaint on December 5, 2022 to further include the Samsung Knox
`
`application, products, and solutions, including related servers and services for Samsung Knox.
`
`AGIS-Samsung II, Dkt. 29 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 2022).
`
`Pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, AGIS requested the U.S. International
`
`Trade Commission (“ITC”) commence an investigation. See AGIS ITC, Public Complaint (Nov.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 01/10/23 Page 8 of 13 PageID #: 1214
`
`16, 2022). The ITC instituted an investigation on December 22, 2022. See id., Notice of Institution
`
`of Investigation (Dec. 22, 2022). The complaint alleged infringement of “certain-location sharing,
`
`related software, components thereof, and products containing same” that infringe one or more
`
`claims of the ’970, ’838, ’829, and ’123 Patents in addition to U.S. Patent No. 9,445,251 (the “’251
`
`Patent”). Public Complaint, ¶¶ 1-2.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Whether to stay a case falls within the Court’s inherent discretional authority. In re Ramu
`
`Corp., 903 F.2d 312, 318 (5th Cir. 1990) (“The stay of a pending matter is ordinarily within the
`
`trial court’s wide discretion to control the course of litigation, which includes authority to control
`
`the scope and pace of discovery.”); see Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). In determining
`
`whether to issue a discretionary stay “calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh
`
`competing interests and maintain an even balance.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55
`
`(1936). “In deciding whether to stay litigation pending reexamination, courts typically consider:
`
`(1) whether a stay will unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical disadvantage to the nonmoving
`
`party, (2) whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and trial of the case, and (3) whether
`
`discovery is complete and whether a trial date has been set.” Soverain Software LLC v.
`
`Amazon.com, Inc., 356 F. Supp. 2d 660, 662 (E.D. Tex. 2005); see also Datatreasury Corp. v.
`
`Wells Fargo & Co., 490 F. Supp. 2d 749, 754 (E.D. Tex. 2006).
`
`The movant has the burden to “make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in being
`
`required to go forward, if there is even a fair possibility that the stay for which he prays will work
`
`damage to someone else.” In re Davis, 730 F.2d 176, 178 (5th Cir. 1984).
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659:
`
`In a civil action involving parties that are also parties to a proceeding
`before the United States International Trade Commission under
`section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, at the request of a party to the
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 01/10/23 Page 9 of 13 PageID #: 1215
`
`civil action that is also a respondent in the proceeding before the
`Commission, the district court shall stay, until the determination of
`the Commission becomes final, proceedings in the civil action with
`respect to any claim that involves the same issues involved in the
`proceeding before the Commission, but only if such request is made
`within—
`
`(1)
`
`(2)
`
`30 days after the party is named as a respondent in the
`proceeding before the Commission, or
`
`30 days after the district court action is filed, whichever is
`later.
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1659(a).
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`Samsung argues that the Court must stay the present case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659 or,
`
`alternatively, that the Court should exercise its discretionary power to stay this case. Mot. at 4-9.
`
`In arguing for a stay, Samsung has conflated the issues and allegations in each of the separate
`
`cases merely because each of the cases involves Samsung devices. Samsung ignores that the
`
`applications at dispute in the present action, AGIS I and the AGIS ITC proceeding are not identical
`
`and, therefore, the issues are not identical. Moreover, the advanced age of 83 years old of AGIS’s
`
`CEO and named inventor on the Asserted Patents, Malcolm K. Beyer, Jr., weighs against a stay.
`
`Samsung’s arguments are based on the pendency of another action against Samsung
`
`involving additional patents and different technology. Specifically, Samsung admits that the prior
`
`litigation against Samsung currently pending in the NDCA alleges infringement of two AGIS
`
`patents, and the present suit against Samsung alleges infringement of four patents. Further, the
`
`AGIS ITC proceeding involves an additional patent that is neither asserted in the NDCA case or
`
`the present action. While Samsung attempts to characterize the allegations of infringement against
`
`the “same Galaxy devices,” Samsung ignores that AGIS’s infringement allegations in the present
`
`suit involve different applications and technology.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 01/10/23 Page 10 of 13 PageID #: 1216
`
`Accordingly, a stay is not warranted and Samsung’s Motion should be denied.
`
`A.
`
`A Stay Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659 is Not Warranted
`
`A stay pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659 is not warranted where the ITC Investigation does not
`
`involve the same applications as the present action.
`
`AGIS does not dispute that Samsung is a respondent in the ITC Proceeding or that Samsung
`
`has filed its request for a stay within thirty (30) days of the filing of this action. However, “the
`
`present infringement claim does not involve the same issues as the proceeding before the ITC.”
`
`Saxon Innovations, LLC v. Palm, Inc., No. 6:09-CV-272, 2009 WL 3755041, at *2 (E.D. Tex.
`
`Nov. 4, 2009). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1659, a stay is mandatory where “proceedings in the civil action
`
`with respect to any claim that involves the same issues involved in the proceeding before the
`
`Commission.” (emphasis added). Here, the issues are not the same where the accused applications
`
`differ.
`
`By Samsung’s own admission, the ITC Proceeding alleges infringement of “certain Google
`
`apps and/or services.” Mot. at 3. Samsung also admits that the present action includes infringement
`
`allegations for “applications, products and solutions, including a U.S. Government-developed and
`
`owned suite of apps, known as TAK, and a Samsung Knox feature.” Id. at 2. Acknowledging the
`
`differences, Samsung argues that “AGIS has directed its infringement allegations toward different
`
`features of the same products.” Id. at 5. Accordingly, Samsung admits that the accused applications
`
`are not the same. Rather, Samsung appears to rely on the argument that the ITC Proceeding
`
`involves “all 264 products alleged to infringe in the district court.” Id. Nonetheless, the accused
`
`applications are not merely “different features of the same products.” Id. Rather, as shown in
`
`AGIS’s complaint and its infringement contentions, the specific infringement allegations are
`
`against the Samsung Knox application and third-party applications like TAK, which are enabled
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 01/10/23 Page 11 of 13 PageID #: 1217
`
`on Samsung devices. Because the issues are not the same, determinations of the ITC Proceeding
`
`would not be dispositive of the issues in the present action and, accordingly, a stay is not warranted.
`
`B.
`
`The Court Should Decline to Stay the Case Pursuant to its Inherent Power
`
`The Court should decline to institute a discretionary stay.
`
`First, a stay will unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical disadvantage to AGIS, delaying
`
`AGIS’s claim of infringement in the present action by at least 19 months. Samsung’s complaints
`
`that AGIS “should have included all of its infringement allegations against Samsung’s Galaxy
`
`products in that case” are undermined by Samsung’s own failure to identify those Accused
`
`Products in AGIS I. Further, such arguments are weakened by Samsung’s own reliance on the
`
`Google applications and services at issue in AGIS I and the ITC Proceeding in support of its motion
`
`to transfer. See, AGIS-Samsung I, Dkt. 46 at 7. (“The NDCA is clearly a more convenient venue
`
`because it is the home of important third-party witnesses—including Google employees who work
`
`on the Accused Google Applications and prior art inventors. Moreover, Google has filed a motion
`
`to dismiss or transfer for improper venue. Should Google’s motion be granted, judicial economy
`
`supports transfer of all three co-pending AGIS cases to the NDCA.”).
`
`Second, a stay will not simplify the issues in question and trial of the case. As shown above,
`
`the applications and/or services asserted in the present action are not the same as those in the AGIS
`
`ITC proceeding. Accordingly, the ITC will not consider any arguments regarding the accused
`
`applications and services in the present action at the ITC. As such, a stay would not simplify the
`
`issues in this case. Moreover, any determinations by the ITC are not binding on this Court. See
`
`Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp., 90 F.3d 1558, 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
`
`Third, while this case is in its early stages, a trial date has been set. See Dkt. 28 at 1 (setting
`
`trial for March 4, 2024).
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 01/10/23 Page 12 of 13 PageID #: 1218
`
`Accordingly, the Court should decline to exercise its discretion and deny Samsung’s
`
`Motion.
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For all the foregoing reasons, AGIS respectfully requests that the Court deny Samsung’s
`
`Motion in its entirety.
`
`Dated: January 10, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Alfred R. Fabricant
`Alfred R. Fabricant
`NY Bar No. 2219392
`Email: afabricant@fabricantllp.com
`Peter Lambrianakos
`NY Bar No. 2894392
`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
`Texas State Bar No. 01938000
`Email: sbaxter@mckoolsmith.com
`Jennifer L. Truelove
`Texas 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
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 01/10/23 Page 13 of 13 PageID #: 1219
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on January 10, 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/ Alfred R. Fabricant
` Alfred R. Fabricant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`