IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

DROPBOX, INC.,

Plaintiff/CounterDefendant,

v.

MOTION OFFENSE, LLC,

Defendant/CounterPlaintiff.

Civil Action No.: 6:20-cv-00251-ADA

MOTION OFFENSE, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

DROPBOX, INC.,

Defendant.

Civil Action No.: 6:21-cv-758-ADA

DROPBOX, INC.’S OPPOSED MOTION TO DETERMINE ITS MOTION TO STRIKE 

IS NOT A DISCOVERY OR CASE MANAGEMENT MOTION UNDER LOCAL RULE 

CV-7 OR ALTERNATIVELY TO EXPAND THE PAGE LIMITS FOR DROPBOX’S 

MOTION TO STRIKE TO 20 PAGES 

Case 6:20-cv-00251-ADA Document 149 Filed 07/13/22 Page 1 of 6
1

Dropbox, Inc. (“Dropbox”) respectfully requests that the Court find its Motion to Strike 

Motion Offense’s July 1, 2022 belated amended infringement contentions (“July 2022 New 

Contentions”) is not a discovery or case management motion under Local Rule CV-7. 

Alternatively, Dropbox respectfully requests that the Court grant it leave to file a 20 page Motion 

to Strike Motion Offense’s July 1, 2022 belated amended infringement contentions (“July 2022 

New Contentions”). As explained in Dropbox’s Motion to Strike, the July 2022 New 

Contentions include multiple new theories of infringement.

Under Local Rule CV-7, any motion that is not a discovery or case management motion 

is limited to 20 pages. Given the substantial expansion of the case that is encompassed by 

Motion Offense’s July 2022 New Contentions, Dropbox’s Motion to Strike Motion Offense’s 

July 2022 New Contentions is akin to a Motion to Strike an expert report or a Daubert motion, 

both of which are limited to 20 pages under the local rules.

Just as with a Daubert Motion or a Motion to Strike an expert report, the Court’s ruling 

on Dropbox’s Motion to Strike Motion Offense’s July 2022 New Contentions will determine the 

scope of opinions that Motion Offense’s expert may offer at trial. This impact is substantially 

greater than a discovery dispute about the scope of documents to be produced or a case 

management motion requesting that the case schedule change. Thus, this Motion is simply not 

the same as a discovery motion or a case management motion. 

That Dropbox’s motion is brought now, rather than during the dispositive motion phase 

of the case, is simply a matter of when the Court needs to decide the issue, not what type of 

motion it is. It simply cannot be the case, as Motion Offense has suggested, that the fact that a 

motion is brought during fact discovery results in a 10-page limit. 

Alternatively, Dropbox respectfully requests that this Court find that the importance of 

Case 6:20-cv-00251-ADA Document 149 Filed 07/13/22 Page 2 of 6
2

these issues and the complexity of these issues establishes good cause to expand the page limit 

from 10 pages to 20 pages. Due to the nature of Motion Offense’s amendments and the 

arguments raised by Dropbox regarding why the infringement allegations are new and the 

substantial prejudice to Dropbox of those new allegations, additional pages are necessary for 

Dropbox to adequately address each new infringement allegation. 

Dropbox understands and appreciates the Court’s desire for a concise and well-organized 

brief. For that reason, Dropbox has taken a proactive approach to editing its Motion to Strike. 

However, Dropbox also understands that the Court ordered written briefing on this issue so that 

it could fully understand the new arguments Motion Offense is making and have all necessary 

information to issue an Order on Dropbox’s Motion to Strike. As set forth in more detail in 

Dropbox’s Motion to Strike, Motion Offense’s July 2022 New Contentions contained multiple 

new arguments and, even after Motion Offense agreed to drop certain of those arguments, 

continues to assert multiple new infringement theories across five different patents. Each new 

infringement theory is different and therefore must be addressed separately.

Patents Original Theory New Theories Addressed in Motion to Strike

’158, ’353, and 

’737 patents

“Website Folder 

Sharing Method #1”

1. “Sharing via Dropbox Desktop Application 

System Tray” 

2. “Website Folder Sharing Method #2”

’215 patent “Website Folder 

Sharing Method #2”

1. “Sharing via Dropbox Desktop Application 

System Tray” 

2. Smart Sync

’052 patent “Dropbox File 

Requests with Email 

Notification”

“Dropbox File Requests with Dropbox Desktop 

Application System Tray Notification”

In total, Dropbox needs to explain three original infringement theories, four new 

infringement theories, why the theories are different and the prejudice to Dropbox from each of 

Case 6:20-cv-00251-ADA Document 149 Filed 07/13/22 Page 3 of 6
3

these theories.1 Dropbox’s Motion also explains why Motion Offense could have included these 

new theories in Motion Offense’s October 2021 Final Infringement Contentions. 

Finally, Dropbox’s Motion to Strike explains why a continuance would not be sufficient to 

remedy to the prejudice to Dropbox. Due to the complexity and importance of these issues, 

Dropbox respectfully suggests that 20 pages are necessary for its Motion to Strike. 

Accordingly, Dropbox respectfully requests that the Court find its Motion to Strike 

Motion Offense’s July 2022 New Contentions is not a discovery or case management motion 

under Local Rule CV-7. Alternatively, Dropbox respectfully requests that the Court grant it 

leave to file a 20-page Motion to Strike July 2022 New Contentions. 

 1 At the hearing, the Court requested redlines showing the changes to Motion Offense’s 

infringement contentions. Dropbox has included these redlines as exhibits to its Motion. 

However, because redlines are not as concise and well-organized as a brief, Dropbox has also 

included figures from Motion Offense’s July 2022 New Contentions which Dropbox believes 

will help illustrate the differences between Motion Offense’s October 2021 Final Contentions 

and Motion Offense’s July 2022 New Contentions.

Case 6:20-cv-00251-ADA Document 149 Filed 07/13/22 Page 4 of 6
4

Dated: July 13, 2022

OF COUNSEL:

Gregory H. Lantier (Pro Hac Vice)

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE

& DORR LLP

1875 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington DC 20006

Tel: (202) 663-6327

Email: gregory.lantier@wilmerhale.com

Liv Herriot (Pro Hac Vice)

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE

& DORR LLP

2600 El Camino Real, Suite 400

Palo Alto, California 94306

Tel: (650) 858-6138

Email: liv.herriot@wilmerhale.com

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ J. Stephen Ravel

J. Stephen Ravel

Texas State Bar No. 16584975

KELLY HART & HALLMAN LLP

303 Colorado, Suite 2000

Austin, Texas 78701

Tel: (512) 495-6429

Email: steve.ravel@kellyhart.com

Attorneys for Dropbox, Inc.

Amanda L. Major (Pro Hac Vice)

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE

& DORR LLP

1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20006

Tel: (202) 663-6000

Fax: (202) 663-6363

Email: Amanda.Major@wilmerhale.com

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

The undersigned certifies counsel have conferred. Motion Offense opposes the relief 

sought. Accordingly, the Motion is presented to the Court for resolution.

/s/ J. Stephen Ravel

J. Stephen Ravel

Case 6:20-cv-00251-ADA Document 149 Filed 07/13/22 Page 5 of 6
5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that all counsel of record are being served with a copy of the foregoing 

document via the Court’s CM/ECF filing system on July 13, 2022.

/s/ J. Stephen Ravel

J. Stephen Ravel

Case 6:20-cv-00251-ADA Document 149 Filed 07/13/22 Page 6 of 6