PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY PAGE 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

CYWEE GROUP LTD.,

Plaintiff,

v.

GOOGLE LLC,

Defendant.

CASE NO. 6:20-cv-00128-ADA-JCM

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JURISDICTIONAL 

DISCOVERY

Defendant Google LLC’s (“Defendant” or “Google”) Response (Dkt. No. 18) 

highlights the multiple factual disputes between the parties that support the 

appropriateness of jurisdictional discovery. Given the factual disputes regarding 

Plaintiff’s bases for jurisdiction, the Court should permit focused jurisdictional 

discovery.

I. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

A. CYWEE MADE A PRELIMINARY SHOWING OF JURISDICTION

To be entitled to jurisdictional discovery, a plaintiff need only make a 

preliminary showing of jurisdiction—that is CyWee “need only present ‘factual 

allegations that suggest with reasonable particularity the possible existence of the 

requisite contacts.’” Corder v. BBG Commc’ns, Inc., No. CIV.A. W-11-CA-00264, 2012

WL 3843691, at *10 (W.D. Tex. July 30, 2012) (Smith, J.) (emphasis added) (quoting 

Fielding v. Hubert Burda Media, Inc., 415 F.3d 419, 429 (5th Cir. 2005)). CyWee has 

pled three theories supporting the existence of jurisdiction: “[Google] (i) direct[ed] its 

Case 6:20-cv-00128-ADA-JCM Document 19 Filed 05/22/20 Page 1 of 6
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY PAGE 2

fraudulent misrepresentations to Texas, (ii) knowingly and intentionally inject[ed]

itself into litigation pending in the State of Texas, and (iii) conspir[ed] with Texas 

based entities Huawei and ZTE.” See Dkt. No. 4 (“First Amended Complaint”) ¶¶ 5–

6.

In February 2017, CyWee filed a lawsuit against Samsung in the Eastern 

District of Texas (the “EDTX Litigation”)—its first lawsuit against a maker of 

Android devices. First Amended Complaint ¶34. Shortly thereafter, CyWee filed suit 

against other makers of Android devices, including LG, Huawei, and ZTE. Id. at ¶ 35. 

Early in the EDTX Litigation, around September 2017, Samsung first identified U.S. 

Patent No. 7,089,148 (“Bachmann”) as a potentially invalidating prior art reference. 

Id. at ¶ 48. At that point, CyWee had not yet sued Google, or even accused it or placed 

it on notice of patent infringement. Nonetheless, unbeknownst to CyWee, Google 

worked behind the scenes to form a joint defense agreement (“JDA”) that included all 

of the Android device manufacturers CyWee had sued—including Samsung, LG, 

Huawei, HTC and ZTE (the “Android Defendants”)—with the express purpose of 

working together to invalidate CyWee’s Patents. Id. at ¶ 37. Through this JDA

organized by Google, Google led and conspired with the Android Defendants to 

invalidate CyWee’s Patents, including by fraudulent means. Many of the Android 

Defendants have North American headquarters in Texas and/or counsel in Texas who 

actively participated in this conspiracy—accordingly, CyWee has a good faith belief 

that meetings relating to this conspiracy occurred in Texas, particularly given the 

fact that CyWee’s lawsuits against Samsung and Huawei were pending in Texas.

Case 6:20-cv-00128-ADA-JCM Document 19 Filed 05/22/20 Page 2 of 6
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY PAGE 3

Moreover, CyWee has pled that Google, through the JDA it formed, purposely 

injected itself into the EDTX Litigation. In furtherance of its conspiracy to invalidate 

CyWee’s Patents, Google filed an IPR petition, which primarily relied upon the 

Bachmann reference. Id. at ¶¶ 44–49. In that IPR petition, Google also fraudulently

failed to disclose the other JDA parties or the JDA itself. Id. Google realized that 

honestly disclosing all real parties-in-interest would make its IPR petition time 

barred and therefore prevent its institution. To ensure its IPR petition was instituted

and assertion of the Bachmann reference in the IPR would not be preempted or 

compromised by an earlier ruling in the fast approaching EDTX Litigation, Google 

and Samsung agreed and conspired that Samsung would drop the Bachmann

reference as prior art, so that the reference could be addressed solely in the IPR.1 Id.

These facts, at a minimum, show the possible existence of jurisdiction in 

Texas. Accordingly, CyWee has met its burden of establishing entitlement to 

jurisdictional discovery. The jurisdictional discovery sought is not a mere “fishing 

expedition” as Google characterizes. Rather, jurisdictional discovery would allow 

CyWee to gather further evidence that shows substantial portions of Google’s 

fraudulent conspiracy are connected to Texas and were intended to impact the EDTX 

Litigation. Therefore, jurisdictional discovery is proper.

1 Google’s IPR was not filed until June 14, 2018. The EDTX Litigation was set for 

trial on May 13, 2019, and if the EDTX case had not been stayed, the decision on 

whether Bachmann was invalidating art would have been made and reduced to a 

judgment long before the Google IPR was decided, or even tried. To prevent that possibility, Google and Samsung cooperated in removing Bachmann from the EDTX Litigation.

Case 6:20-cv-00128-ADA-JCM Document 19 Filed 05/22/20 Page 3 of 6
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY PAGE 4

B. THE DISCOVERY SOUGHT IS TAILORED AND PROPORTIONAL TO 

THE NEEDS OF THIS CASE

While CyWee seeks leave from the Court to use several forms of discovery, the 

scope of discovery is narrowly tailored. Discovery at this stage is limited to 

jurisdictional issues. For instance, CyWee seeks: (i) e-mails or any other forms of 

communications relating to the EDTX Litigation (including communications between 

Google’s and Samsung’s counsel) and the Google IPR, (ii) communications between 

and among Google, Samsung, Huawei and ZTE relating to CyWee’s Patents and the 

Google IPR, and (iii) communications between the JDA parties related to the 

formation, content and fulfillment of the JDA. The tailored jurisdictional discovery 

sought is proportional to the needs of this case. The burden of the discovery requested 

is minimal (especially for a trillion-dollar company like Google) and goes to the heart 

of the jurisdictional issues in dispute. Furthermore, staying further briefing on 

Google’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 11) until the completion of jurisdictional 

discovery will allow the parties to better focus their briefing for the Court.

II. CONCLUSION

Having established the possible existence of Google’s jurisdictional contacts 

with Texas, CyWee requests this Court grant leave to take jurisdictional discovery

and stay briefing on Google’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 11) pending the completion 

of jurisdictional discovery.

Case 6:20-cv-00128-ADA-JCM Document 19 Filed 05/22/20 Page 4 of 6
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY PAGE 5

Dated: May 22, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Michael W. Shore

Michael W. Shore (Texas 18294915)

mshore@shorechan.com

Alfonso G. Chan (Texas 24012408)

achan@shorechan.com

Ari B. Rafilson (Texas 24060456)

(application pending)

arafilson@shorechan.com

William D. Ellerman (Texas 24007151)

wellerman@shorechan.com

Corey M. Lipschutz (Texas 24099303)

clipschutz@shorechan.com

SHORE CHAN DEPUMPO LLP

901 Main Street, Suite 3300

Dallas, Texas 75202

Tel: (214) 593-9110

Fax: (214) 593-9111

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF 

CYWEE GROUP LTD.

Case 6:20-cv-00128-ADA-JCM Document 19 Filed 05/22/20 Page 5 of 6
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY PAGE 6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 and Local Rule CV-5, I 

hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served on all 

counsel of record via the CM/ECF electronic filing system on May 22, 2020.

 /s/ Michael W. Shore

Michael W. Shore

Case 6:20-cv-00128-ADA-JCM Document 19 Filed 05/22/20 Page 6 of 6