Case 2:22-cv-00441-JRG Document 11 Filed 01/23/23 Page 1 of 153 PageID #: 172
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-00441-JRG
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`BLU PRODUCTS,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO STAY ACTION
`PENDING ITC DETERMINATION
`
`
`Defendant BLU Products (“BLU”) appears specially to move this Court pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1659 to stay all proceedings in the above-captioned case until the determination of the
`
`United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) in the parallel proceeding titled In the
`
`Matter of Certain Location-Sharing Systems, Related Software Components Thereof, and Products
`
`Containing Same, Investigation No. 337-TA-1347 becomes final, including during any appeals
`
`and until the Commission proceedings are no longer subject to judicial review. Counsel for BLU
`
`contacted counsel for Plaintiff AGIS Software Development LLC (“AGIS”), who indicated that
`
`AGIS did not oppose the stay request.
`
`On November 18, 2022, AGIS filed the Complaint in this action against BLU alleging
`
`infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,213,970 (the “’970 patent”), 9,445,251 (the “’251 patent”),
`
`9,467,838 (the “’838 patent”), 9,749,829 (the “’829 patent”), and 9,820,123 (the “’123 patent”).
`
`(Dkt. No. 1). On November 16, 2022, AGIS had filed a complaint with the ITC under Section 337
`
`of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, against BLU and several other respondents, requesting that
`
`the ITC institute an investigation based on alleged infringement of the same five patents. (See Ex.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00441-JRG Document 11 Filed 01/23/23 Page 2 of 153 PageID #: 173
`
`
`
`A, ITC Complaint, Public Version). AGIS’s ITC complaint alleges that BLU infringes the same
`
`’970, ’251, ’838, ’829, and ’123 patents. (See id. at ¶¶ 62-101, 121-123). On December 22, 2022,
`
`the ITC instituted an investigation based on AGIS’s complaint, naming BLU as among the
`
`respondents to the proceeding titled In the Matter of Certain Location-Sharing Systems, Related
`
`Software Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, Investigation No. 337-TA-1347
`
`(See Ex. B, Notice of Institution of Inv. No. 337-TA-1347).
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a), District Court claims that involve the same issues as a
`
`parallel ITC proceeding are subject to a mandatory stay. Specifically, the statute provides:
`
`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 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) 30 days after the party is named as a respondent in the proceeding before
`the Commission, or
`
`(2) 30 days after the district court action is filed, whichever is later.
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1659(a). A stay issued under this statute must remain in effect during any appeal(s)
`
`and must continue “until the Commission proceedings are no longer subject to judicial review.”
`
`In re Princo Corp., 478 F.3d 1345, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
`
`The requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1659 are satisfied here. BLU “[is] also [party] to a
`
`proceeding before the United States International Trade Commission under section 337” because
`
`they are respondent in the ITC investigation. The claims asserted in this action also involve the
`
`same issues as the claims in the ITC investigation. Indeed, in both, AGIS asserts the same patents
`
`and alleges infringement of many of the same patent claims. (See Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 8-13, 19-83; Ex.
`
`A ¶¶ 62-101, 121-123). This motion is timely under 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a)(1) because it was filed
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00441-JRG Document 11 Filed 01/23/23 Page 3 of 153 PageID #: 174
`
`
`
`within 30 days after BLU was named as respondent in the ITC Investigation pursuant to the
`
`Commission’s December 22, 2022 notice of institution. See, e.g., Evolved Wireless, LLC v.
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 21-033, 2021 WL 7161368, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 10, 2021) (deadline
`
`for filing motion to stay occurs thirty days after ITC’s notice of institution). A stay is, therefore,
`
`mandatory under § 1659(a).
`
`For the foregoing reasons, BLU respectfully requests that the Court enter the attached
`
`proposed order staying all proceedings in this action until the determination of the 337-TA-1347
`
`Investigation becomes final, including any appeals and until the ITC proceedings are no longer
`
`subject to judicial review.
`
`BLU appears specially to make this motion because AGIS has not yet served process on
`
`BLU.
`
`BLU’s special appearance does not waive any of its objections and defenses to AGIS’s
`
`Complaint, including, but not limited to, any defenses based on lack of jurisdiction, improper
`
`venue, inconvenient venue, insufficiency of process, and insufficiency of service of process and
`
`does not waive BLU’s rights to seek appropriate relief, including dismissal of the Complaint or
`
`venue transfer. See, e.g., Mann v. Castiel, 681 F.3d 368, 374 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (holding that a
`
`motion to stay does not waive an objection to sufficiency of service of process); Lane v. XYZ
`
`Venture Partners, L.L.C., 322 F. App’x 675, 678 (11th Cir. 2009) (holding that defendants “did
`
`not waive their defense of lack of personal jurisdiction by moving to stay the proceedings”). Thus,
`
`BLU expressly reserves all objections, defenses, and rights in response to AGIS’s Complaint
`
`allegations. Requesting a stay at this juncture without resolution of such objections and defenses
`
`will conserve judicial resources consistent with FRCP 1.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00441-JRG Document 11 Filed 01/23/23 Page 4 of 153 PageID #: 175
`
`
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For all the foregoing reasons, BLU respectfully requests that the Court enter the attached
`
`proposed order staying all proceedings in this action until the determination of the 337-TA-1347
`
`Investigation becomes final, including any appeals, and until the Commission proceedings are no
`
`longer subject to judicial review.
`
`
`
`Date: January 23, 2023
`
`
`
`/s/ Bernard L. Egozi
`Bernard L. Egozi
`begozi@egozilaw.com
`Joshua S. Olin
`jolin@egozilaw.com
`EGOZI & BENNETT, P.A.
`2999 NE 191st Street, Suite 407
`Aventura, FL 33180
`Telephone: (305) 931-3000
`Facsimile: (305) 931-9343
`
`Counsel for BLU Products.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00441-JRG Document 11 Filed 01/23/23 Page 5 of 153 PageID #: 176
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
`
`The undersigned counsel hereby certifies that, pursuant to Local Court Rule CV-7(i), he
`
`conferred with counsel for Plaintiff AGIS Software Development LLC who confirmed that
`
`Plaintiff is unopposed to the relief requested herein.
`
`
`
`/s/Bernard L. Egozi
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule CV-5, I hereby certify
`
`that, on January 23, 2023, all counsel of record who have appeared in this case are being served
`
`with a copy of the foregoing via the Court’s CM/ECF system.
`
`
`
`Dated: January 23, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Bernard L. Egozi
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00441-JRG Document 11 Filed 01/23/23 Page 6 of 153 PageID #: 177
`Case 2:22-cv-00441-JRG Document11 Filed 01/23/23 Page 6 of 153 PagelD #: 177
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00441-JRG Document 11 Filed 01/23/23 Page 7 of 153 PageID #: 178
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`
`
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-____
`
`In the Matter of:
`
`CERTAIN LOCATION-SHARING
`SYSTEMS, RELATED SOFTWARE,
`COMPONENTS THEREOF, AND
`PRODUCTS CONTAINING SAME
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINANT AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC’S
`STATEMENT REGARDING THE PUBLIC INTEREST
`
`Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.8(b), 19 C.F.R. § 210.8(b), Complainants AGIS
`
`Software Development LLC (“AGIS Software”) and Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc.
`
`(“AGIS, Inc.”) (collectively, “Complainants”) respectfully submit this Statement Regarding the
`
`Public Interest. By filing its Complaint, Complainants seek the Commission’s assistance in
`
`protecting Complainants’ domestic industry and its intellectual property from companies
`
`importing infringing products into the U.S. market that use the technology protected by the
`
`Asserted Patents.
`
`Complainants seek a limited exclusion order directed to each of the proposed Respondents1
`
`excluding from entry into the United States certain location-sharing systems, related software,
`
`components thereof, and products containing same (the “Accused Products”) that infringe certain
`
` 
`1 The proposed Respondents are Google LLC, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and its wholly owned
`subsidiary Samsung Electronics America, Inc., OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd, TCL
`Technology Group Corporation, TCL Communication Technology Holdings Limited, TCL
`Electronics Holdings Limited, TCT Mobile (US) Inc., Lenovo Group Ltd. and its wholly owned
`subsidiaries Lenovo (United States) Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC, HMD Global, HMD Global
`OY, HMD America, Inc., Sony Corporation, Sony Mobile Communications, Inc., ASUSTek
`Computer Inc., ASUS Computer International, Caterpillar Inc., BLU Products, Inc., Panasonic
`Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America, Kyocera Corporation, Xiaomi
`Corporation, Xiaomi H.K. Ltd., Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., and Xiaomi Inc.
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00441-JRG Document 11 Filed 01/23/23 Page 8 of 153 PageID #: 179
`
`claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,213,970 (the “’970 Patent”); 9,445,251 (the “’251 Patent”); 9,467,838
`
`(the “’838 Patent”); 9,749,829 (the “’829 Patent”); and 9,820,123 (the “’123 Patent”) (collectively,
`
`the “Asserted Patents”). Complainants also seek cease and desist orders prohibiting the proposed
`
`Respondents, their subsidiaries, parents, related companies, and agents from engaging in the
`
`importation, sale for importation, marketing and/or advertising, distribution, offer for sale, sale,
`
`use after importation, sale after importation, or other transfer within the United States of certain
`
`location-sharing systems, related software, components thereof, and products containing same,
`
`that infringe one or more claims of the Asserted Patents. Exclusion of such products from the
`
`United States will not have an adverse effect on the public health and welfare in the United States,
`
`competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive
`
`articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
`
`Exclusion of the Proposed Respondents’ infringing certain location-sharing systems,
`
`related software, components thereof, and products containing same, including mobile devices,
`
`tablets, computers, and products containing location-sharing software, would not “deprive the
`
`public of products necessary for some important health or welfare need.” Spansion, Inc. v. U.S.
`
`Int’l Trade Comm’n, 629 F.3d 1331, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Further, because AGIS, Inc. and AGIS
`
`Software’s licensees supply the market for certain location-sharing systems, related software,
`
`components thereof, and products containing same, including mobile devices, tablets, and
`
`computers, consumers would not face any substantial shortage of like or competitive products in
`
`the United States. As described in the Complaint, AGIS, Inc.’s licensees, as well as third-parties,
`
`supply location-sharing systems, related software, products containing same to the U.S. market.
`
`Thus, this Investigation does not present an instance where a compelling public interest would
`
`supersede entry of the requested remedial orders.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00441-JRG Document 11 Filed 01/23/23 Page 9 of 153 PageID #: 180
`
`I.
`
`Explanation of How the Articles Potentially Subject to the Remedial Orders Are
`Used in the United States
`
`The products at issue in this Investigation include location-sharing systems, related
`
`software, and products containing same, including smartphone and tablet devices, and computers,
`
`including notebook and laptop computers. The products at issue in this investigation are generally
`
`used by the end consumers for personal, business, and communication purposes.
`
`II.
`
`The Requested Remedial Orders Do Not Pose Any Public Health, Safety, or Welfare
`Concerns
`
`Issuance of the requested remedial orders would have no adverse effect on the public
`
`health, safety, or welfare in the United States. In general, concerns about a negative impact on
`
`public health, safety, or welfare have arisen in cases involving pharmaceuticals, essential
`
`equipment for medical treatment, or green technology products, such as hybrid cars and solar
`
`panels. See Spansion, 629 F.3d at 1360. For example, the Commission has previously concluded
`
`that access to essential medical equipment used to treat burn victims is a significant public interest
`
`consideration because the equipment “provide[s] benefits unavailable from any other device or
`
`method of treatment.” Certain Fluidized Supporting Apparatus & Components Thereof, Inv. No.
`
`337-TA-182/ 188, USITC Pub. 1667, Comm’n Op. at 23-25 (Oct. 1984). None of these concerns
`
`are present here. And as discussed further below, the requested remedial orders will not
`
`significantly impact the overall market for location-sharing systems, related software, components
`
`thereof, and products containing same in the United States.
`
`Accordingly, access to the Accused Products does not implicate any meaningful public
`
`health, safety, or welfare concern. Indeed, the requested relief serves the public interest because,
`
`as previously recognized by the Commission, there is a strong public interest in protecting
`
`intellectual property rights. See, e.g., Certain Baseband Processor Chips & Chipsets, Transmitter
`
`& Receiver (Radio) Chips, Power Control Chips, & Prods. Containing Same, Including Cellular
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00441-JRG Document 11 Filed 01/23/23 Page 10 of 153 PageID #: 181
`
`Phone Handsets, Inv. No. 337-TA-543, Comm’n Op. at 136-37 (June 19, 2007). This strong
`
`interest in protecting Complainants’ intellectual property rights and the domestic industry set forth
`
`in the Complaint far outweighs any hypothetical adverse effect on the public.
`
`III. Alternative Competitive Articles that Could Replace the Subject Article if They
`Were to Be Excluded are Readily Available
`
`The consumer electronics market for products similar to the Accused Products is diverse and
`
`highly competitive. For example, location-sharing mobile devices and computers are available
`
`from multiple sources with which Proposed Respondents compete. As an initial matter, AGIS
`
`Software’s licensees, including AGIS, Inc. and others2, adequately supply the market and will
`
`continue to do so irrespective of whether the requested remedial orders are issued. Moreover,
`
`Proposed Respondents are a subset of suppliers of mobile devices and computers with location-
`
`sharing technology in the United States market, and Proposed Respondents’ products do not
`
`contain any unique health or safety-related features. Apple Inc., for example, now accounts for
`
`over 50% of the smartphone market alone, and will not be effected by the requested remedial
`
`orders.3
`
`No public interest concerns exist where the market contains an adequate supply of competitive
`
`or substitute products for those subject to a remedial order. See, e.g., Certain Elec. Digital Media
`
`Devices & Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-796, Comm’n Op. at 119–21 (Sept. 6, 2013)
`
`(finding the availability of adequate competitive products does not warrant denying relief); Certain
`
`Mobile Devices, Associated Software, & Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-744, Comm’n Op.
`
`at 30–31 (June 5, 2012). The location-sharing mobile device and computer market is highly
`
` 
`2 A confidential list of licensees that can adequately supply the market is attached to the Complaint
`as Exhibit 136C.
`3 See https://www.engadget.com/iphone-overtakes-android-us-market-share-223251196.html
`(last visited November 7, 2022; https://hypebeast.com/2022/9/apple-iphone-overtakes-androids-
`us-market-share (last visited November 7, 2022).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00441-JRG Document 11 Filed 01/23/23 Page 11 of 153 PageID #: 182
`
`competitive, and numerous companies, including AGIS Software’s licensees, have the capacity to
`
`replace Proposed Respondents’ volume of production of infringing products for the United States
`
`market without delay.
`
`IV.
`
`The Requested Remedial Order Would Not Adversely Impact U.S. Consumers
`
`Consumers will have available to them in the United States marketplace a wide variety of
`
`mobile devices and computers including those supplied by AGIS, Inc. and AGIS Software’s
`
`licensees, as well as other competitive non-infringing products, if the Accused Products are
`
`excluded from the United States. In view of the availability of commercial alternatives to the
`
`accused products, the exclusion of the infringing location-sharing devices will not negatively
`
`impact consumers in the United States. Rather, the requested relief will serve the public interest
`
`by enforcing United States intellectual-property rights and eliminating the Proposed Respondents’
`
`unfair competition. See Certain Two-Handle Centerset Faucets & Escutcheons & Components
`
`Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-422, Comm’n Op. at 9 (July 21, 2000). Precluding the Proposed
`
`Respondents from importing and selling their infringing location-sharing systems, related
`
`software, components thereof, and products containing same will benefit the public interest by
`
`protecting innovators, such as Complainants and its licensees, who invest domestically to research
`
`and develop new energy-efficient technology. Permitting unlicensed suppliers like the Proposed
`
`Respondents to import and sell infringing location-sharing products would not only devalue the
`
`licenses AGIS Software granted to other companies, but would also undermine future investment
`
`in similar technology. See Certain Display Controllers and Products Containing Same, Inv. No.
`
`337-TA-491/481, Comm’n Op. at 66 (Feb. 2005).
`
`Accordingly, there are no public interest concerns preventing issuance of the requested
`
`remedial orders. The Commission should not direct the Administrative Law Judge to receive
`
`evidence on the impact of those remedial orders on the public interest.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00441-JRG Document 11 Filed 01/23/23 Page 12 of 153 PageID #: 183
`
`Dated: November 16, 2022
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Evan H. Langdon
`FABRICANT LLP
`1101 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 300
`Washington, DC 20004
`Telephone: (646) 797-4277
`E-mail: Agis_ITC@fabricantllp.com
`
`Alfred R. Fabricant
`Peter Lambrianakos
`Vincent J. Rubino, III
`Enrique Iturralde
`Justine Minseon Park
`FABRICANT LLP
`411 Theodore Fremd Avenue, Suite 206
`South Rye, New York 10580
`Telephone: (646) 797-4277
`E-mail: Agis_ITC@fabricantllp.com
`
`Matthew D. Aichele
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`800 Maine Ave. SW, Suite 200
`Washington, DC 20024
`Telephone: (202) 664-0623
`E-mail: maichele@raklaw.com
`
`Counsel for Complainants AGIS Software
`Development LLC and Advanced Ground
`Information Systems, Inc.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00441-JRG Document 11 Filed 01/23/23 Page 13 of 153 PageID #: 184
`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-____
`
`In the Matter of:
`
`CERTAIN LOCATION-SHARING
`SYSTEMS, RELATED SOFTWARE,
`COMPONENTS THEREOF, AND
`PRODUCTS CONTAINING SAME
`
`
`
`
`VERIFIED COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 337
`OF THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930, AS AMENDED
`
`Complainants:
`
`Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc.
`92 Lighthouse Dr.
`Jupiter, FL 33469
`Telephone: (561) 744-3213
`
`AGIS Software Development LLC
`100 West Houston Street
`Marshall, TX 75671
`Telephone: (903) 702-1954
`
`Counsel for Complainant:
`
`Evan H. Langdon
`FABRICANT LLP
`1101 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 300,
`Washington, DC 20004
`Telephone: (646) 797-4277
`E-mail: Agis_ITC@fabricantllp.com
`
`Alfred R. Fabricant
`Peter Lambrianakos
`Vincent J. Rubino, III
`Enrique W. Iturralde
`Justine Minseon Park
`FABRICANT LLP
`411 Theodore Fremd Avenue, Suite 206
`South Rye, New York 10580
`Telephone: (646) 797-4277
`E-mail: Agis_ITC@fabricantllp.com
`
`
`Proposed Respondents:
`
`Google LLC
`1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
`Mountain View, CA 94043
`Telephone: (650) 253-0000
`
`Samsung Electronics, Co., Ltd.
`12 Samsung-Ro
`Maetan-3dong, Yeongtong-gu
`Suwon, 443-742, South Korea
`Telephone: (822) 225-0114
`
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`85 Challenger Rd.
`Ridgefield Park, New Jersey 07660
`Telephone: (201) 229-4000
`
`OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.
`18F, Tairan Building, Block C
`Tairan 8th Road
`Chgongmiao, Futian District
`Shenzhen, Guangdong 518040, China
`
`TCL Technology Group Corporation
`22/F, TCL Technology Building, No. 17
`Huifeng 3rd Road
`Zhongkai High-Tech Development District
`Huizhou, Guangdong, China 516006
`
`TCL Electronics Holdings Limited
`7th Floor, Building 22E
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00441-JRG Document 11 Filed 01/23/23 Page 14 of 153 PageID #: 185
`
`Matthew D. Aichele
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`800 Maine Ave. SW, Suite 200
`Washington, DC 20024
`Telephone: (202) 664-0623
`E-mail: maichele@raklaw.com
`
`
`22 Science Park East Avenue
`Hong Kong Science Park
`Hong Kong
`
`TCL Communication Technology Holdings
`Limited
`5/F, Building 22E,
`22 Science Park East Avenue
`Hong Kong Science Park, Shatin,
`New Territories, Hong Kong
`
`TCT Mobile (US) Inc.
`25 Edelman, Suite 200
`Irvine, CA 92618
`Telephone: (949) 892-2990
`
`Lenovo Group Ltd.
`6 Chuang ye Road, Haidian District
`Beijing 100085, China
`Telephone: (852) 2590-0228
`
`Lenovo (United States) Inc.
`1009 Think Place, Building One
`Morrisville, NC 27560
`Telephone: (855) 253-6686
`
`Motorola Mobility LLC
`222 W Merchandise Mart Plaza, Suite 1800
`Chicago, IL 60654
`Telephone: (800) 668-6765
`
`HMD Global
`Karaportti 2, FIN-02610
`Espoo, Finland
`
`HMD Global OY
`Bertel Jungin aukio 9, 02600
`Espoo, Finland
`
`HMD America, Inc.
`1200 Brickell Ave., Suite 510
`Miami, FL 33131
`
`Sony Corporation
`1-7-1 Konan Minato-ku
`Tokyo, 108-0075, Japan
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00441-JRG Document 11 Filed 01/23/23 Page 15 of 153 PageID #: 186
`
`Telephone: 81-3-6748-2111
`
`Sony Mobile Communications, Inc.
`4-12-3 Higashi-Shinagawa, Shinagawa-ku
`Tokyo, 140-0002, Japan
`Telephone: (855) 806-8464
`
`ASUSTek Computer Inc.
`No. 15, Li-Te Rd.
`Beitou Dist., Taipei 112, Taiwan
`Telephone: (866) 2-2894-3447
`
`ASUS Computer International
`48720 Kato Rd.
`Fremont, CA 94538
`Telephone: (510) 739-3777
`
`Caterpillar Inc.
`100 NE Adams St.
`Peoria, IL 61629
`Telephone: (309) 675-2337
`
`BLU Products
`10814 NW 33rd Street
`Doral, FL 33172
`Telephone: (877) 639-6393
`
`Panasonic Corporation
`1006 Oaza Kadoma-shi
`Kadoma 571-8501
`Osaka, Japan
`Phone: +81-6-6908-1121
`Fax: +81-6-6908-2351
`
`Panasonic Corporation of North America
`1 Panasonic Way
`Secaucus, New Jersey 07094
`Phone: (201) 348-7000
`Fax: (201) 348-7016
`
`Kyocera Corporation
`6 Takeda Tobadono-cho, Fushmi-ku
`Kyoto, Japan 612-8501
`
`Xiaomi Corporation
`Maples Corporate Services Limited
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00441-JRG Document 11 Filed 01/23/23 Page 16 of 153 PageID #: 187
`
`P.O. Box 309
`Ugland House
`Grand Cayman, KY1-1104, Cayman Islands
`
`68 Qinghe Middle Street
`Haidian District
`Beijing, China 100085
`
`Xiaomi H.K. Ltd.
`Unit 806, Tower 2 8/F
`Cheung Sha Wan Plaza
`833 Cheung Sha Wan Road
`Kowloon City, Hong Kong
`
`Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd.
`Xiaomi Office Building
`68 Qinghe Middle Street
`Haidian District
`Beijing, China 100085
`
`Xiaomi Inc.
`Xiaomi Office Building
`68 Qinghe Middle Street
`Haidian District
`Beijing, China 100085
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00441-JRG Document 11 Filed 01/23/23 Page 17 of 153 PageID #: 188
`
`
`I. 
`
`II. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 16 
`
`THE PARTIES.................................................................................................................. 18 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`The Complainant ................................................................................................... 18 
`
`The Proposed Respondents ................................................................................... 20 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`5. 
`
`6. 
`
`7. 
`
`8. 
`
`9. 
`
`10. 
`
`11. 
`
`12. 
`
`13. 
`
`Google LLC .............................................................................................. 20 
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America,
`Inc. ............................................................................................................ 21 
`
`OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. .............................................. 22 
`
`TCL Technology Group Corporation, TCL Communication
`Technology Holdings Limited, TCL Electronics Holdings Limited,
`and TCT Mobile (US) Inc. ........................................................................ 22 
`
`Lenovo Group Ltd., Lenovo (United States) Inc., and Motorola
`Mobility LLC ............................................................................................ 25 
`
`HMD Global, HMD Global OY, and HMD America, Inc. ...................... 26 
`
`Sony Corporation and Sony Mobile Communications, Inc. ..................... 27 
`
`ASUSTek Computer Inc. and ASUS Computer International .................. 27 
`
`Caterpillar Inc. .......................................................................................... 28 
`
`BLU Products, Inc. ................................................................................... 29 
`
`Panasonic Corporation and Panasonic Corporation of North
`America ..................................................................................................... 29 
`
`Kyocera Corporation ................................................................................. 30 
`
`Xiaomi Corporation, Xiaomi Communications Co., Ltd., Xiaomi
`H.K. Ltd., and Xiaomi Inc. ....................................................................... 30 
`
`III. 
`
`THE TECHNOLOGY AND PRODUCTS AT ISSUE .................................................... 32 
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00441-JRG Document 11 Filed 01/23/23 Page 18 of 153 PageID #: 189
`
`IV. 
`
`THE ASSERTED AGIS PATENTS ................................................................................. 33 
`
`A. 
`
`The ’970 Patent ..................................................................................................... 33 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`Identification of the Patent and Ownership .............................................. 33 
`
`Nontechnical Description of the Patent .................................................... 33 
`
`Foreign Counterparts of the Patent ........................................................... 34 
`
`Licensees ................................................................................................... 34 
`
`B. 
`
`The ’838 Patent ..................................................................................................... 35 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`Identification of the Patent and Ownership .............................................. 35 
`
`Nontechnical Description of the Patent .................................................... 35 
`
`Foreign Counterparts of the Patent ........................................................... 36 
`
`Licensees ................................................................................................... 37 
`
`C. 
`
`The ’251 Patent ..................................................................................................... 37 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`Identification of the Patent and Ownership .............................................. 37 
`
`Nontechnical Description of the Patent .................................................... 38 
`
`Foreign Counterparts of the Patent ........................................................... 38 
`
`Licensees ................................................................................................... 38 
`
`D. 
`
`The ’829 Patent ..................................................................................................... 38 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`Identification of the Patent and Ownership .............................................. 38 
`
`Nontechnical Description of the Patent .................................................... 39 
`
`Foreign Counterparts of the Patent ........................................................... 40 
`
`Licensees ................................................................................................... 40 
`
`E. 
`
`The ’123 Patent ..................................................................................................... 40 
`
`V. 
`
`SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF IMPORTATION AND SALE ........................................... 41 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`Google ................................................................................................................... 42 
`
`Samsung Respondents .......................................................................................... 42 
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00441-JRG Document 11 Filed 01/23/23 Page 19 of 153 PageID #: 190
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`G. 
`
`H. 
`
`I. 
`
`J. 
`
`K. 
`
`L. 
`
`M. 
`
`OnePlus ................................................................................................................. 43 
`
`TCL Respondents.................................................................................................. 43 
`
`Lenovo Respondents ............................................................................................. 44 
`
`HMD Respondents ................................................................................................ 44 
`
`Sony Respondents ................................................................................................. 45 
`
`ASUS Respondents ............................................................................................... 45 
`
`Caterpillar ............................................................................................................. 46 
`
`BLU....................................................................................................................... 46 
`
`Panasonic .............................................................................................................. 47 
`
`Kyocera ................................................................................................................. 47 
`
`Xiaomi................................................................................................................... 48 
`
`VI. 
`
`UNLAWFUL AND UNFAIR ACTS OF THE PROPOSED RESPONDENTS .............. 48 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`G. 
`
`H. 
`
`I. 
`
`J. 
`
`K. 
`
`L. 
`
`M. 
`
`Google ................................................................................................................... 51 
`
`Samsung Respondents .......................................................................................... 53 
`
`OnePlus ................................................................................................................. 56 
`
`TCL ....................................................................................................................... 58 
`
`Lenovo .................................................................................................................. 60 
`
`HMD ..................................................................................................................... 62 
`
`Sony ...................................................................................................................... 64 
`
`ASUS .................................................................................................................... 66 
`
`Caterpillar ............................................................................................................. 68 
`
`BLU....................................................................................................................... 70 
`
`Panasonic .................................................................................................