AGIS Software Development LLC v. Google LLC

On March 1, 2023, AGIS Software Development LLC (“Plaintiff”), represented by Raymond W. Mort, III of The Mort Law Firm, PLLC, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against Google LLC (“Defendant”), seeking injunctive relief and damages for alleged infringement of U.S. patent owned by the plaintiff. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for Western District of Texas.

In the complaint, the plaintiff stated, ”On July 3, 2012, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally issued U.S. Patent No. 8,213,970 (the ‘’970 Patent’) entitled ‘Method of Utilizing Forced Alerts for Interactive Remote Communications.’”

The plaintiff also claimed, “AGIS is the sole and exclusive owner of all right, title, and interest in the Patent--in-Suit, and holds the exclusive right to take all actions necessary to enforce its rights to the Patent-in-Suit, including the filing of this patent infringement lawsuit.”

Plaintiff further claimed, “AGIS Software has not licensed or otherwise authorized Defendant to make, use, offer for sale, sell, or import any Accused Products and/or products that embody the inventions of the ’970 Patent.”

The plaintiff then alleged, “Defendant infringes, contributes to the infringement of, and/or induces infringement of the ’970 Patent by making, using, selling, offering for sale, distributing, exporting from, and/or importing into the United States products and/or methods covered by one or more claims of the ’970 Patent including, but not limited to, the Accused Products.”

The plaintiff also alleged, “Defendant has and continues to directly infringe at least claim 10 of the ’970 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by making, using, selling, offering for sale, distributing, exporting from, and/or importing into the United States the Accused Products without authority and in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a).”

Plaintiff further alleged, “Defendant has and continues to indirectly infringe at least claim 10 of the ’970 Patent by actively, knowingly, and intentionally inducing others to directly infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by making, using, selling, offering for sale, distributing, exporting from, and/or importing into the United States the Accused Products and by instructing users of the Accused Products to perform methods claimed in the ’970 Patent.”

The plaintiff additionally alleged that “Defendant has indirectly infringed and continues to indirectly infringe at least claim 10 of the ’970 Patent in the United States because Defendant’s customers use the Accused Products in accordance with Defendant’s instructions and thereby directly infringe at least claim 10 of the ’970 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271.”

The plaintiff then alleged, “Defendant has committed and continues to commit acts of infringement that Defendant actually knew or should have known constituted an unjustifiably high risk of infringement of at least one valid and enforceable claim of the ’970 Patent. Defendant’s infringement of the ’970 Patent has been and continues to be willful.”

Plaintiff presented one claim for relief for alleged infringement of the ’970 Patent.

In the prayer for relief, the plaintiff requested declaratory and injunctive relief enjoining the defendant from further acts of infringement. The plaintiff also requested an award of damages, lost profits, reasonable royalties along with all ongoing lost profits, royalties, and/or other damages caused by Defendant’s continuing infringement and treble damages.

This is a summary of a legal complaint. All statements, claims, and allegations listed herein reflect the position of the plaintiff only and do not represent the position of UniCourt. Additionally, this case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the current status of this case. To view the latest case updates and court documents, please sign up for a UniCourt account.