On Tuesday, Google LLC, Waze Mobility Limited, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively defendants) moved for a stay of all litigation pending the resolution of a Federal Circuit mandamus proceeding reviewing a venue decision in Personalized Media Communications v. Google (In re Google).
In the present case, AGIS Software Development LLC (AGIS) sued Google, Waze, and Samsung, accusing them infringing upon its patented integrated communication system, LifeRing, specifically concerning location services and location-based communication on a mobile device. Though each filing was initially separate, the cases have been consolidated before Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas.
In the instant motion, the defendants first noted that the “cases remain in their early stages.” The defendants’ motions for dismissal or transfer for improper venue, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3), are currently pending, the filing explains. The defendants contend that “[b]ased on prior proceedings, a decision is expected from the Federal Circuit in the next few months,” and will be dispositive of the Rule12(b)(3) motions in the present case.
The defendants argue that the application of the three-factor test the judicial district uses to evaluate motions to stay weighs in favor of granting their request. They assert that if granted, AGIS will not be disadvantaged because “[a] short delay alone is insufficient to show prejudice.”
Furthermore, they contend, “AGIS is a patent assertion entity that does not compete with Defendants, and thus will be fully compensated for any alleged harm by monetary damages.” They also claim that AGIS waited over two years before filing the instant action based on the same accusations lodged against other major tech companies in 2017. Thus, “[a]ny claim by AGIS of prejudice is undermined by its own lack of urgency in filing suit.”
According to the motion, the defendants will suffer hardship because if the suits move forward during the pendency of the mandamus proceeding, they will “be[] compelled to engage in expensive and substantive proceedings in possibly the wrong forum.” They argue that venue considerations are a threshold matter that must be dealt with before the substantive allegations.
As to the third factor, the defendants assert that judicial resources would be saved by avoiding duplicative litigation. Specifically, “[a] stay would promote judicial efficiency by allowing the Court to await resolution of In re Google before issuing a ruling that might otherwise be inconsistent with the outcome of that Federal Circuit proceeding addressing the same issue,” the motion states.
Finally, in the alternative, the defendants request, “that the decision on their motions to dismiss or transfer be deferred pending the resolution of In re Google.”
Google LLC, Waze Mobility Limited, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. are represented by the MT2 Law Group and O’Melveny & Myers LLP. AGIS Software Development LLC is represented by McKool Smith, P.C. and Brown Rudnick LLP.
