Case 2:22-cv-00443-JRG Document 42 Filed 01/16/24 Page 1 of 58 PageID #: 349
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`v.
`
`HMD GLOBAL, et al.
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`v.
`
`SONY CORPORATION, et al.
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-00443-JRG
`(Lead Case)
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:22-cv-00448-JRG
`(Member Case)
`
`
`DEFENDANT SONY CORPORATION’S RESPONSE TO
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC’S COMPLAINT
`
`Defendant Sony Corporation (hereinafter “Sony”), by and through its undersigned counsel,
`
`hereby answers the Complaint filed by Plaintiff AGIS Software Development LLC (“Plaintiff” or
`
`“AGIS”) as follows:
`
`GENERAL DENIAL
`
` Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(3), Sony denies all allegations in AGIS’s Complaint,
`
`except those expressly admitted below.
`
`THE PARTIES1
`
`1.
`
`Sony is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations and characterizations contained in Paragraph 1 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies them.
`
`
`1 For ease of reference, Sony responds to AGIS’s allegations using the outline headings used in
`AGIS’s Complaint. Sony does not admit any of the allegations contained in AGIS’s outline
`headings. Sony’s responses to AGIS’s allegations correspond to the numbered paragraphs in the
`Complaint. Unless otherwise stated, to the extent any outline heading can be construed as an
`allegation, Sony specifically denies all such allegations.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00443-JRG Document 42 Filed 01/16/24 Page 2 of 58 PageID #: 350
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Sony admits that Sony is a Japanese corporation with its principal place of business
`
`and headquarters at 1-7-1 Konan Minato-ku, Tokyo, 108-0075, Japan. To the extent paragraph 2
`
`of the Complaint contains conclusions of law, no response is necessary. Sony denies the remaining
`
`allegations and characterizations contained in Paragraph 2 of the Complaint. In particular, and
`
`without limitation, Sony specifically denies that Sony was served pursuant to the provisions of the
`
`Hague Convention. Sony also specifically denies that it manufactures smartphones and tablets.
`
`Sony further specifically denies that it sells smartphones and tablets in the United States. Sony
`
`further specifically denies that it does business in Texas and in the Eastern District of Texas (i.e.,
`
`“this District”).
`
`3.
`
` Sony denies all allegations in this paragraph insofar as the paragraph refers to
`
`“Sony Mobile Communications, Inc.,” as “Sony Mobile Communications, Inc.” did not exist at
`
`the time of AGIS’s Complaint and likewise does not exist today. Sony Mobile Communications,
`
`Inc. and other Sony entities were integrated into one company named “Sony Corporation” as of
`
`April 1, 2021.
`
`4.
`
`Sony is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations and characterizations contained in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint, and therefore
`
`denies them.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`5.
`
`Sony admits that that 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) grant this Court subject matter
`
`jurisdiction to hear allegations of patent infringement, but Sony denies the legal and factual
`
`sufficiency of AGIS’s claims and allegations.
`
`6.
`
` For the purpose of this action only, Sony does not contest (but does not admit) that
`
`this Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Sony Corporation. Sony specifically denies
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00443-JRG Document 42 Filed 01/16/24 Page 3 of 58 PageID #: 351
`
`
`
`that it has committed or induced acts of patent infringement in this District or any other Judicial
`
`District. Sony denies the remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`7.
`
`For purposes of this action only, Sony does not contest (but does not admit) that
`
`venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400(b). For the purpose of this
`
`action only, Sony does not contest (but does not admit) that this Court has personal jurisdiction
`
`over the Defendant. Sony denies the remaining allegations in this paragraph. In particular, and
`
`without limitation, Sony specifically denies that it has committed acts of patent infringement in
`
`this District or any other Judicial District. Sony also specifically denies that it has a regular and
`
`established place of business in this District. Sony further specifically denies that venue in this
`
`District would be convenient for the parties or witnesses. The Federal Circuit’s decision in In re
`
`Google LLC et al., Nos. 2022-140, -141, -142, 2022 WL 1613192 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2022)
`
`confirms that the Northern District of California is a “clearly more convenient forum” for
`
`adjudicating AGIS’s claims related to Google’s Find My Device and Google Maps functionalities,
`
`which are the only functionalities identified in AGIS’s Complaint.
`
`PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`8.
`
`Sony admits that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) issued
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970 (“the ’970 Patent”), titled “Method of Utilizing Forced Alerts for
`
`Interactive Remote Communications” on July 3, 2012. Sony admits that the USPTO issued an
`
`Inter Partes Review Certificate for the ’970 Patent cancelling claims 1 and 3-9 on September 1,
`
`2021. Sony admits that the USPTO issued an Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate for the ’970
`
`Patent on December 9, 2021. Except as expressly admitted, Sony denies the remaining allegations
`
`in this paragraph.
`
`9.
`
`Sony admits that the USPTO issued U.S. Patent No. 9,445,251 (“the ’251 Patent”),
`
`titled “Method to Provide Ad Hoc and Password Protected Digital and Voice Networks,” on
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00443-JRG Document 42 Filed 01/16/24 Page 4 of 58 PageID #: 352
`
`
`
`September 13, 2016. Sony admits that the USPTO issued an Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate
`
`for the ’251 Patent on June 8, 2021. Except as expressly admitted, Sony denies the remaining
`
`allegations in this paragraph.
`
`10.
`
`Sony admits that the USPTO issued U.S. Patent No. 9,467,838 (the “’838 Patent”),
`
`titled “Method to Provide Ad Hoc and Password Protected Digital and Voice Networks” on
`
`October 11, 2016. Sony admits that the USPTO issued an Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate for
`
`the ’838 Patent on May 27, 2021. Except as expressly admitted, Sony denies the remaining
`
`allegations in this paragraph.
`
`11.
`
`Sony admits that the USPTO issued U.S. Patent No. 9,749,829 (“the ’829 Patent”),
`
`titled “Method to Provide Ad Hoc and Password Protected Digital and Voice Networks” on August
`
`29, 2017. Sony admits that the USPTO issued an Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate for the ’829
`
`Patent on August 16, 2021. Except as expressly admitted, Sony denies the remaining allegations
`
`in this paragraph.
`
`12.
`
`Sony admits that the USPTO issued U.S. Patent No. 9,820,123 (“the ’123 Patent”),
`
`titled “Method to Provide Ad Hoc and Password Protected Digital and Voice Networks” on
`
`November 14, 2017. Sony admits that the USPTO issued an Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate
`
`for the ’123 Patent on September 24, 2021. Except as expressly admitted, Sony denies the
`
`remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`13.
`
`Sony is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations and characterizations contained in this paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`14.
`
`Sony is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations and characterizations contained in this paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00443-JRG Document 42 Filed 01/16/24 Page 5 of 58 PageID #: 353
`
`
`
`15.
`
`Sony is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
`
`of the allegations and characterizations contained in this paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
`16.
`
` To the extent this paragraph contains conclusions of law, no response is necessary.
`
`To the extent this paragraph otherwise contains allegations of fact, Sony is without knowledge or
`
`information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and characterizations
`
`contained in this paragraph, and therefore denies them.
`
`17.
`
`Sony admits that paragraph 17 purports to identify certain Sony mobile devices that
`
`AGIS alleges Sony manufactures, uses, sells, offers for sale, and/or imports into the United States.
`
`Except as expressly admitted, Sony denies all remaining allegations in this paragraph, and Sony
`
`specifically denies that any of the identified products or components infringe any of the Patents-
`
`in-Suit, either directly or indirectly.
`
`18.
`
` Sony admits that its identified products may in certain but not all circumstances
`
`include functionalities designed, developed, and obtained from third parties, such as the “Find My
`
`Device” (“FMD”) and “Google Maps Apps” (“GM”) identified elsewhere in the Complaint. The
`
`allegations and characterizations concerning those functionalities in this paragraph implicate claim
`
`construction and third-party discovery, as Google—not Sony—is the authoritative source
`
`concerning the operation of FMD and GM. As a result, Sony lacks sufficient information at this
`
`time to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and characterizations in this paragraph, and
`
`therefore denies them. Sony specifically denies that any of the identified products infringe,
`
`directly or indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, any valid and enforceable claim
`
`of the “Patents-in-Suit.”2
`
`
`2 Sony mirrors here the language AGIS used in paragraph 1 of its Complaint but will otherwise
`refer to the ’970, ’251, ’838, ’829, and ’123 Patents as the “Asserted Patents.”
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00443-JRG Document 42 Filed 01/16/24 Page 6 of 58 PageID #: 354
`
`
`
`COUNT I
`(Alleged Infringement of the ’970 Patent)
`
`19.
`
`Sony incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-18 as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`20.
`
`Sony denies that any of its products infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’970 Patent or any other of the
`
`Asserted Patents. As such, while Sony admits that based on its investigation to date, it does not
`
`have a license under the ’970 Patent from AGIS, no such license is necessary. To the extent this
`
`paragraph contains conclusions of law, no response is necessary. Sony denies the remaining
`
`allegations and characterizations in this paragraph.
`
`21.
`
`Sony denies that any of its products infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’970 Patent or any other of the
`
`Asserted Patents. To the extent this paragraph contains conclusions of law, no response is
`
`necessary. Sony denies the remaining allegations and characterizations in this paragraph.
`
`22.
`
`Sony denies that any of its products infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’970 Patent or any other of the
`
`Asserted Patents. To the extent this paragraph contains conclusions of law, no response is
`
`necessary. Sony denies the remaining allegations and characterizations in this paragraph.
`
`23.
`
`Sony denies that any of its products infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’970 Patent or any other of the
`
`Asserted Patents. To the extent this paragraph contains conclusions of law, no response is
`
`necessary. Sony denies the remaining allegations and characterizations in this paragraph.
`
`24.
`
`Sony denies that any of its products infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’970 Patent or any other of the
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00443-JRG Document 42 Filed 01/16/24 Page 7 of 58 PageID #: 355
`
`
`
`Asserted Patents. To the extent this paragraph contains conclusions of law, no response is
`
`necessary. Sony denies the remaining allegations and characterizations in this paragraph.
`
`25.
`
`Sony denies that any of its products infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’970 Patent or any other of the
`
`Asserted Patents. To the extent this paragraph contains conclusions of law, no response is
`
`necessary. Sony denies the remaining allegations and characterizations in this paragraph.
`
`26.
`
`Sony denies that any of its products infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’970 Patent or any other of the
`
`Asserted Patents. To the extent this paragraph contains conclusions of law, no response is
`
`necessary. Sony denies the remaining allegations and characterizations in this paragraph.
`
`27.
`
`Sony denies that any of its products infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’970 Patent or any other of the
`
`Asserted Patents. To the extent this paragraph contains conclusions of law, no response is
`
`necessary. Sony denies the remaining allegations and characterizations in this paragraph.
`
`COUNT II
`(Alleged Infringement of the ’251 Patent3)
`
`28.
`
`Sony incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-27 as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`29.
`
`Sony denies that any of its products infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’251 Patent or any other of the
`
`
`3 Sony notes that AGIS’s infringement contentions under Patent L.R. 3-1 do not reference the ’251
`Patent. Yet, AGIS has refused to enter a stipulation confirming the narrowing of the case. Given
`that AGIS previously identified the ’251 Patent in the Complaint (Dkt. 1) and the earlier
`International Trade Commission (ITC) case against Sony, there is no good cause for AGIS to seek
`to amend its infringement contentions to add the ’251 Patent.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00443-JRG Document 42 Filed 01/16/24 Page 8 of 58 PageID #: 356
`
`
`
`Asserted Patents. As such, while Sony admits that based on its investigation to date, it does not
`
`have a license under the ’251 Patent from AGIS, no such license is necessary. To the extent this
`
`paragraph contains conclusions of law, no response is necessary. Sony denies the remaining
`
`allegations and characterizations in this paragraph.
`
`30.
`
`Sony denies that any of its products infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’251 Patent or any other of the
`
`Asserted Patents. To the extent this paragraph contains conclusions of law, no response is
`
`necessary. Sony denies the remaining allegations and characterizations in this paragraph.
`
`31.
`
`Sony denies that any of its products infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’251 Patent or any other of the
`
`Asserted Patents. To the extent this paragraph contains conclusions of law, no response is
`
`necessary. Sony denies the remaining allegations and characterizations in this paragraph.
`
`32.
`
`Sony denies that any of its products infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’251 Patent or any other of the
`
`Asserted Patents. To the extent this paragraph contains conclusions of law, no response is
`
`necessary. Sony denies the remaining allegations and characterizations in this paragraph.
`
`33.
`
`Sony denies that any of its products infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’251 Patent or any other of the
`
`Asserted Patents. To the extent this paragraph contains conclusions of law, no response is
`
`necessary. Sony denies the remaining allegations and characterizations in this paragraph.
`
`34.
`
`35.
`
`36.
`
`Sony denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`Sony denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`Sony denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00443-JRG Document 42 Filed 01/16/24 Page 9 of 58 PageID #: 357
`
`
`
`37.
`
`38.
`
`39.
`
`40.
`
`Sony denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`Sony denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`Sony denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`Sony denies that any of its products infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’251 Patent or any other of the
`
`Asserted Patents. To the extent this paragraph contains conclusions of law, no response is
`
`necessary. Sony denies the remaining allegations and characterizations in this paragraph.
`
`41.
`
`Sony denies that any of its products infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’251 Patent or any other of the
`
`Asserted Patents. To the extent this paragraph contains conclusions of law, no response is
`
`necessary. Sony denies the remaining allegations and characterizations in this paragraph.
`
`COUNT III
`(Alleged Infringement of the ’838 Patent4)
`
`42.
`
`Sony incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-41 as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`43.
`
`Sony denies that any of its products infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’838 Patent or any other of the
`
`Asserted Patents. As such, while Sony admits that based on its investigation to date, it does not
`
`have a license under the ’838 Patent from AGIS, no such license is necessary. To the extent this
`
`
`4 Sony notes that AGIS’s infringement contentions under Patent L.R. 3-1 do not reference the ’838
`Patent. Yet, AGIS has refused to enter a stipulation confirming the narrowing of the case. Given
`that AGIS previously identified the ’838 Patent in the Complaint (Dkt. 1) and the earlier
`International Trade Commission (ITC) case against Sony, there is no good cause for AGIS to seek
`to amend its infringement contentions to add the ’838 Patent.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00443-JRG Document 42 Filed 01/16/24 Page 10 of 58 PageID #: 358
`
`
`
`paragraph contains conclusions of law, no response is necessary. Sony denies the remaining
`
`allegations and characterizations in this paragraph.
`
`44.
`
`Sony denies that any of its products infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’838 Patent or any other of the
`
`Asserted Patents. To the extent this paragraph contains conclusions of law, no response is
`
`necessary. Sony denies the remaining allegations and characterizations in this paragraph.
`
`45.
`
`Sony denies that any of its products infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’838 Patent or any other of the
`
`Asserted Patents. To the extent this paragraph contains conclusions of law, no response is
`
`necessary. Sony denies the remaining allegations and characterizations in this paragraph.
`
`46.
`
`Sony denies that any of its products infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’838 Patent or any other of the
`
`Asserted Patents. To the extent this paragraph contains conclusions of law, no response is
`
`necessary. Sony denies the remaining allegations and characterizations in this paragraph.
`
`47.
`
`Sony denies that any of its products infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’838 Patent or any other of the
`
`Asserted Patents. To the extent this paragraph contains conclusions of law, no response is
`
`necessary. Sony denies the remaining allegations and characterizations in this paragraph.
`
`48.
`
`49.
`
`50.
`
`51.
`
`52.
`
`Sony denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`Sony denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`Sony denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`Sony denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`Sony denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00443-JRG Document 42 Filed 01/16/24 Page 11 of 58 PageID #: 359
`
`
`
`53.
`
`54.
`
`Sony denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`Sony denies that any of its products infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’838 Patent or any other of the
`
`Asserted Patents. To the extent this paragraph contains conclusions of law, no response is
`
`necessary. Sony denies the remaining allegations and characterizations in this paragraph.
`
`55.
`
`Sony denies that any of its products infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’838 Patent or any other of the
`
`Asserted Patents. To the extent this paragraph contains conclusions of law, no response is
`
`necessary. Sony denies the remaining allegations and characterizations in this paragraph.
`
`COUNT IV
`(Alleged Infringement of the ’829 Patent5)
`
`56.
`
`Sony incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-55 as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`57.
`
`Sony denies that any of its products infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’829 Patent or any other of the
`
`Asserted Patents. As such, while Sony admits that based on its investigation to date, it does not
`
`have a license under the ’829 Patent from AGIS, no such license is necessary. To the extent this
`
`paragraph contains conclusions of law, no response is necessary. Sony denies the remaining
`
`allegations and characterizations in this paragraph.
`
`
`5 Sony notes that AGIS’s infringement contentions under Patent L.R. 3-1 do not reference the ’829
`Patent. Yet, AGIS has refused to enter a stipulation confirming the narrowing of the case. Given
`that AGIS previously identified the ’829 Patent in the Complaint (Dkt. 1) and the earlier
`International Trade Commission (ITC) case against Sony, there is no good cause for AGIS to seek
`to amend its infringement contentions to add the ’829 Patent.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00443-JRG Document 42 Filed 01/16/24 Page 12 of 58 PageID #: 360
`
`
`
`58.
`
`Sony denies that any of its products infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’829 Patent or any other of the
`
`Asserted Patents. To the extent this paragraph contains conclusions of law, no response is
`
`necessary. Sony denies the remaining allegations and characterizations in this paragraph.
`
`59.
`
`Sony denies that any of its products infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’829 Patent or any other of the
`
`Asserted Patents. To the extent this paragraph contains conclusions of law, no response is
`
`necessary. Sony denies the remaining allegations and characterizations in this paragraph.
`
`60.
`
`Sony denies that any of its products infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’829 Patent or any other of the
`
`Asserted Patents. To the extent this paragraph contains conclusions of law, no response is
`
`necessary. Sony denies the remaining allegations and characterizations in this paragraph.
`
`61.
`
` Sony denies that any of its products infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’829 Patent or any other
`
`of the Asserted Patents. To the extent this paragraph contains conclusions of law, no response is
`
`necessary. Sony denies the remaining allegations and characterizations in this paragraph.
`
`62.
`
`63.
`
`64.
`
`65.
`
`66.
`
`67.
`
`Sony denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`Sony denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`Sony denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`Sony denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`Sony denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`Sony denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00443-JRG Document 42 Filed 01/16/24 Page 13 of 58 PageID #: 361
`
`
`
`68.
`
`Sony denies that any of its products infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’829 Patent or any other of the
`
`Asserted Patents. To the extent this paragraph contains conclusions of law, no response is
`
`necessary. Sony denies the remaining allegations and characterizations in this paragraph.
`
`69.
`
`Sony denies that any of its products infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’829 Patent or any other of the
`
`Asserted Patents. To the extent this paragraph contains conclusions of law, no response is
`
`necessary. Sony denies the remaining allegations and characterizations in this paragraph.
`
`COUNT V
`(Alleged Infringement of the ’123 Patent6)
`
`70.
`
`Sony incorporates by reference its answers to paragraphs 1-69 as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`71.
`
`Sony denies that any of its products infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’123 Patent or any other of the
`
`Asserted Patents. As such, while Sony admits that based on its investigation to date, it does not
`
`have a license under the ’123 Patent from AGIS, no such license is necessary. To the extent this
`
`paragraph contains conclusions of law, no response is necessary. Sony denies the remaining
`
`allegations and characterizations in this paragraph.
`
`72.
`
`Sony denies that any of its products infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’123 Patent or any other of the
`
`
`6 Sony notes that AGIS’s infringement contentions under Patent L.R. 3-1 do not reference the ’123
`Patent. Yet, AGIS has refused to enter a stipulation confirming the narrowing of the case. Given
`that AGIS previously identified the ’123 Patent in the Complaint (Dkt. 1) and the earlier
`International Trade Commission (ITC) case against Sony, there is no good cause for AGIS to seek
`to amend its infringement contentions to add the ’123 Patent.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00443-JRG Document 42 Filed 01/16/24 Page 14 of 58 PageID #: 362
`
`
`
`Asserted Patents. To the extent this paragraph contains conclusions of law, no response is
`
`necessary. Sony denies the remaining allegations and characterizations in this paragraph.
`
`73.
`
`Sony denies that any of its products infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’123 Patent or any other of the
`
`Asserted Patents. To the extent this paragraph contains conclusions of law, no response is
`
`necessary. Sony denies the remaining allegations and characterizations in this paragraph.
`
`74.
`
`Sony denies that any of its products infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’123 Patent or any other of the
`
`Asserted Patents. To the extent this paragraph contains conclusions of law, no response is
`
`necessary. Sony denies the remaining allegations and characterizations in this paragraph.
`
`75.
`
`Sony denies that any of its products infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’123 Patent or any other of the
`
`Asserted Patents. To the extent this paragraph contains conclusions of law, no response is
`
`necessary. Sony denies the remaining allegations and characterizations in this paragraph.
`
`76.
`
`77.
`
`78.
`
`79.
`
`80.
`
`81.
`
`82.
`
`Sony denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`Sony denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`Sony denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`Sony denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`Sony denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`Sony denies the allegations in this paragraph.
`
`Sony denies that any of its products infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’123 Patent or any other of the
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00443-JRG Document 42 Filed 01/16/24 Page 15 of 58 PageID #: 363
`
`
`
`Asserted Patents. To the extent this paragraph contains conclusions of law, no response is
`
`necessary. Sony denies the remaining allegations and characterizations in this paragraph.
`
`83.
`
`Sony denies that any of its products infringe, directly or indirectly, literally or under
`
`the doctrine of equivalents, any valid and enforceable claim of the ’123 Patent or any other of the
`
`Asserted Patents. To the extent this paragraph contains conclusions of law, no response is
`
`necessary. Sony denies the remaining allegations and characterizations in this paragraph.
`
`RESPONSE TO AGIS’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`Sony denies that AGIS is entitled to any of the relief it seeks in its Complaint.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Sony respectfully demands a jury trial on all claims and issues so triable.
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`Sony asserts the following defenses to AGIS’s Complaint and reserves the right to amend
`
`its Answer with additional defenses in light of information obtained through further investigation
`
`and discovery. Nothing herein shall be construed as an admission or acknowledgement that Sony
`
`bears the burden of proof as to any of the following defenses.
`
`FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM)
`
`1.
`
`AGIS has failed to state a claim under 35 U.S.C. § 271 of the Patent Act, on which
`
`relief can be granted.
`
`SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(NON-INFRINGEMENT)
`
`2.
`
`Sony does not directly infringe, indirectly infringe, contribute to infringement, or
`
`induce infringement of any valid and enforceable claim of the Asserted Patents, either literally or
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents, and have not otherwise committed any acts in violation of 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00443-JRG Document 42 Filed 01/16/24 Page 16 of 58 PageID #: 364
`
`
`
`3.
`
`AGIS’s infringement contentions under Patent L.R. 3-1 identify Google LLC’s
`
`(“Google”) Find My Device (“FMD”) application in connection with the ’970 Patent. While
`
`AGIS’s Complaint additionally identified Google’s Google Maps (“GM”) application in
`
`connection with the ’251 Patent, the ’838 Patent, the ’829 Patent, and the ’123 Patent (collectively
`
`the “Group Patents”), its Infringement Contentions do not reference GM or the Group Patents.
`
`AGIS has refused to enter a stipulation confirming the narrowing of the case. Given that AGIS
`
`previously identified GM and the Group Patents in the complaint and the earlier International
`
`Trade Commission (ITC) case against Sony, there is no good cause for AGIS to seek to amend its
`
`infringement contentions to add GM and/or the Group Patents.
`
`4.
`
`None of the mobile devices accused by AGIS of infringement practice, embody, or
`
`otherwise meet the elements of the asserted claims of the ’970 Patent as required for direct
`
`infringement. In addition, any and all Accused Products do not infringe, have substantial uses that
`
`do not infringe, and/or do not induce or contribute to infringement of the ’970 Patent. FMD (i.e.,
`
`the only functionality identified in AGIS’s infringement contentions) and Sony products running
`
`FMD do not include or practice multiple claim limitations of claims 10-13 of the ’970 Patent (i.e.,
`
`the only claims identified in AGIS’s infringement contentions), including but not limited to:
`
`
` “a forced message alert software application program including a list of required
`possible responses to be selected by a participant recipient of a forced message response
`loaded on each participating PDA/cell phone”;
`
` “a sender PDA/cell phone and at least one recipient PDA/cell phone for each electronic
`message; a forced message alert software application”;
`
` “[a] method of receiving, acknowledging and responding to a forced message alert from
`a sender PDA/cell phone to a recipient PDA/cell phone, wherein the receipt,
`acknowledgment, and response to said forced message alert is forced by a for