United States District Court, N.D. California
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT RECORD; DENYING
MOTION TO DISMISS; AND DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS RE: DKT.
NOS. 41, 48, 107
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court is Defendant AGIS Software Development
LLC's (“AGIS Software”) motion to dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) for lack of
personal jurisdiction and Defendant's motion for
sanctions. See Dkt. Nos. 41, 48. The Court held a
hearing on the motions and took them under submission on June
14, 2019. See Dkt. No. 85. Plaintiff subsequently
filed a motion to supplement the record. See Dkt.
No. 107. The Court finds this motion appropriate for
disposition without oral argument and the matter is deemed
submitted. See Civil L.R. 7-1(b).
carefully considered the parties' arguments, the Court
DENIES Plaintiff's motion to supplement the record,
DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendant's motion to dismiss,
and DENIES Defendant's motion for sanctions.
21, 2017, AGIS Software filed a patent infringement action in
the Eastern District of Texas against ZTE (USA) Inc., as well
as ZTE Corporation and ZTE (TX) Inc. See AGIS Software
Dev. LLC v. ZTE Corp., No. 2:17-cv-517 (E.D. Tex. June
21, 2017) (“AGIS I”), ECF No. 1. Over
AGIS Software's objections, the Texas court granted the
ZTE entities' motion to dismiss for improper venue and
transferred the action to the Northern District of
California. See AGIS I, ECF No. 85. In doing so, the
district court reasoned that ZTE (USA) did not have a regular
and established place of business in the Eastern District of
Texas. Id. at 3-7. ZTE (USA) requested that the case
be transferred to the Northern District of California, and
the district court noted that AGIS Software did not proffer
an alternative. Id. at 7. AGIS Software subsequently
filed a voluntary dismissal, and the district court dismissed
the patent infringement action without prejudice. See
id., ECF Nos. 86, 87.
day of the dismissal, October 9, 2018, Plaintiff filed this
declaratory judgment action in the Northern District of
California, initially naming three defendants: (1) AGIS
Software; (2) AGIS Holdings, Inc. (“AGIS
Holdings”); and (3) Advanced Ground Information
Systems, Inc. (“AGIS Inc.”). See Dkt.
No. 1. Plaintiff later amended the complaint, removing AGIS
Holdings and AGIS Inc. as defendants. See Dkt. No.
18. In the operative Second Amended Complaint
(“SAC”), Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment
of non-infringement or unenforceability against Defendant
AGIS Software as to five patents. See Dkt. No. 39.
alleges that Defendant AGIS Software is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of AGIS Holdings. See SAC ¶ 3. AGIS
Software, for its part, is a Texas limited liability company
with its principal place of business in Texas. See
Id. ¶ 7. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant asserted
the same patents-in-suit in other patent infringement
actions; some of these actions were against
California-based companies; and as part of these cases,
Defendant “conducted meaningful enforcement activities
in California, ” including traveling to and deposing
witnesses there. Id. ¶¶ 8-10.
now moves to dismiss the complaint, contending that
notwithstanding Plaintiff's allegations, the Court lacks
personal jurisdiction over AGIS Software. See Dkt.
No. 41; see also SAC ¶ 3. Defendant also seeks
monetary sanctions against Plaintiff for filing this action
in the Northern District of California without a proper basis
for exercising personal jurisdiction. See Dkt. No.
48. In support of its motion to dismiss, Defendant has filed
a declaration from Malcolm K. Beyer, Jr., Defendant's
Chief Executive Officer, stating that Mr. Beyer resides in
Florida and that AGIS Software:
• is the “sole and exclusive owner” of the
• is not registered to do business in California;
• does not have a registered agent for service of
process in California;
• does not have “offices, employees, equipment,
bank accounts or other assets in California”;
• does not pay taxes in California;
• does not manufacture or sell products in California;
• does not solicit or engage in business in California;
• does not recruit employees in California;
• does not own, rent, or lease any property in
• has not filed a lawsuit in California; and
• has not retained counsel in California related to
enforcing the ...