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 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

MOTION OFFENSE, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DROPBOX, INC., 

Defendant. 

 

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

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

DROPBOX INC.’S RESPONSE TO MOTION OFFENSE’S OPPOSED MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSES AND REPLIES TO SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT AND DAUBERT MOTIONS 

Case 6:20-cv-00251-ADA Document 220 Filed 03/09/23 Page 1 of 6
Motion Offense’s request to extend the deadlines for responses to the pending summary 

judgment and Daubert motions is just the latest in a long line of delays introduced by Motion 

Offense. See, e.g., D.I. 132; D.I. 140; D.I. 150 at 5-7 (detailing the discovery history of the case); 

D.I. 187 at 1-2 (requesting an order extending the deadline to serve rebuttal reports). Consistent 

with its conduct throughout the pretrial disclosure process, Motion Offense now seeks to further 

prejudice Dropbox, Inc. (“Dropbox”) by delaying resolution of important motions that may 

significantly impact the scope of the upcoming trial. Dropbox respectfully opposes Motion 

Offense’s request for an extension beyond Monday, March 13, as there is no good cause for Motion 

Offense’s request. Indeed, Motion Offense’s decision to hide the ball and require Dropbox and 

the Court to spend time addressing Motion Offense’s failure to provide the required pretrial 

disclosures is not an excuse to delay other case deadlines. 

Motion Offense’s latest attempt to place blame on Dropbox is both improper and 

misleading. When it first asked for an extension on March 7, Motion Offense articulated no

reason for its extension request. Nonetheless, Dropbox was willing to agree to extend the deadlines 

for responses to summary judgment motions by three days from March 10 to March 13 and the 

deadlines for replies by two days, to March 22, as an accommodation to counsel as a matter of 

courtesy. Motion Offense refused. After Motion Offense pivoted on March 8 to the position that 

it needed an extension due to a team member contracting COVID, Dropbox offered a longer 

extension for any briefs for which that team member was responsible. Motion Offense likewise 

declined that offer entirely. Instead, Motion Offense demanded that the deadline for all summary 

judgment responses be extended to March 17 but refused to provide any additional time for 

Case 6:20-cv-00251-ADA Document 220 Filed 03/09/23 Page 2 of 6
2 

preparing reply briefing.1 

Motion Offense’s proposed extension of the deadline for responses would significantly 

prejudice Dropbox given Motion Offense’s repeated delays in providing timely and adequate 

pretrial disclosures. On March 1, Motion Offense served wholly inadequate pretrial disclosures 

and failed to serve jury instructions at all.2 For example, with but a single exception, Motion 

Offense served deposition designations designating all testimony for all Dropbox employees and 

Dropbox former employees, which in no way reflects a good-faith attempt to disclose the evidence 

that Motion Offense seeks to introduce at trial. And it was not until March 7—one week after the 

Pretrial Order deadline—that Motion Offense first provided Dropbox with proposed jury 

instructions and a revised exhibit list addressing some, but not all, of Dropbox’s concerns. 

Although Dropbox is working diligently to review and respond to these belated disclosures, if 

Motion Offense’s motion for an extension is granted, Dropbox will be in the position of having to 

simultaneously prepare objections to Motion Offense’s pretrial disclosures, responsive Daubert 

and summary judgment briefing, and motions in limine (which are due March 28, just one business 

day after the reply deadline if Motion Offense were granted an extension). 

 

1

 For fairness, if the deadline for filing responses is extended, then the time period for preparing 

replies should also be extended so that it is longer than seven days. 

2

 Motion Offense’s suggestion that Dropbox “refus[ed]” to provide jury instructions is inaccurate. 

Consistent with counsel for Dropbox’s experience in other cases before this Court, on February 14 

– two weeks before the initial exchange of pretrial disclosures – Dropbox wrote Motion Offense 

asking that it confirm it “will be providing proposed jury instructions and proposed voir dire 

questions as part of its February 28 exchange” and (2) confirming “Dropbox will provide its 

proposed revisions as part of the rebuttal disclosures on March 14.” Motion Offense requested 

extensions and Dropbox agreed it could serve the jury instructions on March 2. On March 2, rather 

than serving jury instructions, Motion Offense instead insisted on a simultaneous exchange of jury 

instructions, which is inconsistent with the parties’ prior communications, inefficient, and contrary 

to this Court’s Standing Order. See Sept. 16, 2022 Pretrial Standing Order at 3. Motion Offense 

then failed to provide any jury instructions—despite the parties’ prior communications and its 

agreement to do so on March 2—until March 7. 

Case 6:20-cv-00251-ADA Document 220 Filed 03/09/23 Page 3 of 6
3 

Nor does Motion Offense’s failure to comply with the Court’s Pretrial Order and service 

of utterly inadequate pretrial disclosures justify its extension request. Motion Offense’s refusal to 

take its required pretrial disclosures seriously is not an excuse to delay other case deadlines, which 

will only serve to further prejudice Dropbox in the short time remaining before trial. 

Moreover, Motion Offense’s requested extension will delay resolution of Dropbox’s 

pending motions, which may have a significant impact on the scope of trial. For example, Dropbox 

seeks summary judgment of non-infringement as to all asserted claims and summary judgment of 

lack of patent eligibility. See D.I. 196; D.I. 193. As explained in Dropbox’s motions, Motion 

Offense’s direct infringement allegations fail as a matter of law because Dropbox does not supply 

any of its users with the hardware and software components required by the claims. See D.I. 196. 

There is also no sufficient basis upon which the jury could find that Dropbox infringes indirectly 

or under the doctrine of equivalents. See id. Further, the asserted patents all implement the longstanding activity of sharing data without attaching specific files using computer software and 

hardware conventionally over the Internet. D.I. 193. Dropbox also seeks to exclude the testimony 

of both of Motion Offense’s expert witnesses. D.I. 197; D.I. 195. If granted, these motions may 

significantly impact the scope of the upcoming trial. Thus, the Court should have sufficient time 

to fully consider and address each of these important issues before trial, and the time for the Court 

to do so will be shortened if Motion Offense’s extension request is granted. 

Given Motion Offense’s repeated failure to provide adequate pretrial disclosures and the 

prejudice it has already caused Dropbox, Dropbox respectfully requests that the Court deny Motion 

Offense’s request for an extension beyond Monday, March 13. 

 

Case 6:20-cv-00251-ADA Document 220 Filed 03/09/23 Page 4 of 6
4 

March 9, 2023 

 /s/ Gregory H. Lantier 

J. Stephen Ravel 

Texas State Bar No. 16584975 

Kelly Ransom 

Texas State Bar No. 24109427 

KELLY HART & HALLMAN LLP 

303 Colorado, Suite 2000 

Austin, Texas 78701 

Tel: (512) 495-6429 

Tel: (512) 495-6464 

Steve.ravel@kellyhart.com 

Kelly.ransom@kellyhart.com 

Gregory H. Lantier (pro hac vice) 

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE 

& DORR LLP 

2100 Pennsylvania Avenue 

Washington DC 20037 

Tel: (202) 663-6327 

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 

liv.herriot@wilmerhale.com 

Attorneys for Dropbox, Inc. 

Case 6:20-cv-00251-ADA Document 220 Filed 03/09/23 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 system on March 9, 2023. 

 /s/ Kelly Ransom 

 Kelly Ransom 

Case 6:20-cv-00251-ADA Document 220 Filed 03/09/23 Page 6 of 6