1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC d/b/a 

BRAZOS LICENSING AND 

DEVELOPMENT,

Plaintiff,

v.

DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC., DELL 

INC., AND EMC CORPORATION,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

NO. 6:20-cv-475-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Plaintiff WSOU Investments, LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development (“Brazos” or 

“Plaintiff”), by and through its attorneys, files this First Amended Complaint (“Amended 

Complaint” or “Complaint”) for Patent Infringement against Dell Technologies Inc., Dell Inc., and 

EMC Corporation (collectively, “Defendants”) and alleges:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is a civil action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Laws of the 

United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1, et seq., including §§ 271, 281, 284, and 285.

THE PARTIES

2. Brazos is a limited liability corporation organized and existing under the laws of 

Delaware, with its principal place of business at 605 Austin Avenue, Suite 6, Waco, Texas 76701.

3. On information and belief, defendant Dell Technologies Inc. is a Delaware 

corporation with a principal place of business at One Dell Way, Round Rock, Texas 78682.
2

4. On information and belief, defendant Dell Inc. is a Delaware corporation with a 

principal place of business at One Dell Way, Round Rock, Texas 78682. Dell Inc. is wholly owned 

by its corporate parent, Dell Technologies Inc. 

5. On information and belief, defendant EMC Corporation is a Massachusetts 

corporation with a principal place of business at One Dell Way, Round Rock, Texas 78682. EMC 

Corporation is wholly owned by its corporate parent, Dell Technologies Inc.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. This is an action for patent infringement which arises under the Patent Laws of the 

United States, in particular, 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 281, 284, and 285.

7. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1331 and 1338(a).

8. This Court has specific and general personal jurisdiction over each defendant

pursuant to due process and/or the Texas Long Arm Statute, because each defendant has committed 

acts giving rise to this action within Texas and within this judicial district. The Court’s exercise of 

jurisdiction over each defendant would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial 

justice because each defendant has established minimum contacts with the forum. For example, 

on information and belief, each defendant has committed acts of infringement in this judicial 

district, by among other things, selling and offering for sale products that infringe the asserted 

patent, directly or through intermediaries, as alleged herein.

9. Venue in the Western District of Texas is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1391

and/or 1400(b). Each defendant has established places of business in the Western District of Texas. 

Each defendant is registered to do business in Texas. Upon information and belief, each defendant 

has transacted business in this District and has committed acts of infringement in this District. 
3

COUNT ONE - INFRINGEMENT OF 

U.S. PATENT NO. 7,453,888

10. Brazos re-alleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of this 

Complaint.

11. On November 18, 2008, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and 

legally issued U.S. Patent No. 7,453,888 (“the ‘888 Patent”), entitled “Stackable Virtual Local 

Area Network Provisioning in Bridged Networks.” A true and correct copy of the ‘888 Patent is 

attached as Exhibit A to this Complaint.

12. Brazos is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in and to the ‘888 Patent, 

including the right to assert all causes of action arising under the ‘888 Patent and the right to any 

remedies for the infringement of the ‘888 Patent.

13. Defendants make, use, sell, offer for sale, import, and/or distribute in the United 

States, including within this judicial district, products such as, but not limited to, networking 

switches, including but not limited to, Force 10 MXL switches (collectively, the “Accused 

Products”).

14. The Accused Products may be deployed in environments with Virtual Local Area 

Network (VLAN) applications and virtualization hosts and can provide VLAN double tagging, 

frame extensions for VLAN tagging, and native VLAN features, among other features. Force 10 

MXL switches, for example, may enhance bandwidth and performance, as well as provide 
4

flexibility to satisfy changing demands of data centers embracing virtualization, network 

convergence, and other I/O-intensive applications or workloads. 

https://i.dell.com/sites/csdocuments/Shared-Content_dataSheets_Documents/en/SS804_Dell_Force10_MXL.pdf

15. The Accused Products may configure a trunk port so that a numbered tag is inserted 

in each ethernet frame to keep the traffic of different VLANs from mixing. Accused Products

running Per-VLAN Spanning Tree (PVST) configure their trunk ports appropriately.

http://bladesmadesimple.com/wpcontent/uploads/2017/05/Deploying_the_Dell_Force10_MXL_on_a_Cisco_Nexus_Network_v1

_1.pdf
5

http://bladesmadesimple.com/wpcontent/uploads/2017/05/Deploying_the_Dell_Force10_MXL_on_a_Cisco_Nexus_Network_v1

_1.pdf
6

16. Trunk ports in the accused products can participate in multiple VLANs over an 

ethernet interface carrying multiple tagged VLANs and/or a single untagged VLAN.

http://bladesmadesimple.com/wpcontent/uploads/2017/05/Deploying_the_Dell_Force10_MXL_on_a_Cisco_Nexus_Network_v1

_1.pdf

17. The Accused Products may configure all the trunk ports participating in VLANs

when the port is in a standby state. The configured trunk port may be enabled to begin forwarding 

traffic as soon as its link is active. 

http://bladesmadesimple.com/wpcontent/uploads/2017/05/Deploying_the_Dell_Force10_MXL_on_a_Cisco_Nexus_Network_v1

_1.pdf

18. In view of preceding paragraphs, each and every element of at least claim 1 of the 

‘888 Patent is found in the Accused Products. And upon information and belief, each and every

element of at least claim 1 of the ’888 Patent is performed or practiced by Defendants at least 

through Defendants’ own use and configuration of its own Accused Products, and/or through 
7

Defendants’ own testing and configuration of its own Accused Products, and/or through 

Defendants’ providing services for its Accused Products, including but not limited to providing 

installation, deployment, support, and configuration of its Accused Products.

19. Defendants continue to directly infringe at least one claim of the ‘888 Patent, 

literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing, 

and/or distributing the Accused Products in the United States, including within this judicial district, 

without the authority of Brazos.

20. In May 2020, Plaintiff filed a suit against Defendants asserting infringement of 

the same patent and by the same accused products that are asserted in this case. Plaintiff

dismissed the prior suit before filing this suit. As a result of the prior suit, Defendants had notice 

and actual or constructive knowledge of their infringement of the patent-in-suit since at least May 

2020, before the filing of this case. Further, Defendants had knowledge of their infringement of 

the patent-in-suit before the filing of this Amended Complaint.1

1 Dell filed a motion to dismiss that is mooted by this amended complaint. Dell’s motion cites a 

WDTX case (which relies authority from the District of Delaware) for the proposition that 

knowledge of a plaintiff’s patent after the lawsuit was filed is insufficient to plead the requisite 

knowledge for indirect infringement. See Aguirre v. Powerchute Sports, LLC, No. SA-10-CV0702 XR, 2011 WL 2471299, at *3 (W.D. Tex. June 17, 2011) (citing Xpoint Techs. v. Microsoft 

Corp., 730 F.Supp.2d 349 (D. Del. 2010)). Several Delaware courts have since rejected this rule 

because there is no statutory basis to support it and because there is no purpose served by the 

formality of requiring the plaintiff to file an amended complaint in order to be allowed to assert 

knowledge of the patents during the period following the filing of the original complaint. See 

Walker Digital, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., 852 F. Supp. 2d 559, 566 (D. Del. 2012) (“The court 

acknowledges that this result is inconsistent with its prior decisions in Xpoint Techs. v. Microsoft 

Corp., 730 F.Supp.2d 349 (D.Del.2010), and EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. FLO TV Inc., 802 

F.Supp.2d 527 (D. Del. 2011). Given the ease of amendment, the limitation of damages to postknowledge conduct, and in the interests of judicial economy, the court finds that the better 

reasoning is to allow a complaint that satisfies Rule 8 to proceed to discovery rather than 

dismissing it for lack of pre-filing knowledge when, by the time the motion to dismiss has been 

filed, defendant in fact has the requisite knowledge as pled by plaintiff.”); see also IOENGINE, 

LLC v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., CV 18-452-WCB, 2019 WL 330515, at *4 (D. Del. Jan. 25, 2019) 

(“The Court sees no purpose that would be served by the formality of requiring IOENGINE to file 
8

21. Since at least May 2020, through its actions, Defendants have actively induced 

product makers, distributors, retailers, and/or end users of the Accused Products to infringe the

‘888 Patent throughout the United States, including within this judicial district, by, among other 

things, advertising and promoting the use of the Accused Products in various websites, including 

providing and disseminating product descriptions, operating manuals, and other instructions on 

how to implement and configure the Accused Products. Examples of such advertising, promoting, 

and/or instructing include the documents at:

• http://bladesmadesimple.com/wpcontent/uploads/2017/05/Deploying_the_Dell_Force10_MXL_on_a_Cisco_Nexus_Net

work_v1_1.pdf

• https://i.dell.com/sites/csdocuments/Shared-Content_dataSheets_Documents/en/SS804_Dell_Force10_MXL.pdf

22. Since at least May 2020, through its actions, Defendants have contributed to the 

infringement of the ‘888 Patent by having others sell, offer for sale, or use the Accused Products 

throughout the United States, including within this judicial district, with knowledge that the 

Accused Products infringe the ‘888 Patent. The Accused Products are especially made or adapted 

for infringing the ‘888 Patent and have no substantial non-infringing use. For example, in view of 

the preceding paragraphs, the Accused Products contain functionality which is material to at least 

one claim of the ‘888 Patent.

JURY DEMAND

Brazos hereby demands a jury on all issues so triable.

an amended complaint in order to be allowed to assert knowledge of the patents during the period

following the filing of the original complaint.”).
9

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Brazos respectfully requests that the Court:

(A) Enter judgment that Defendants infringe one or more claims of the ‘888 Patent

literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents;

(B) Enter judgment that Defendants have induced infringement and continue to induce 

infringement of one or more claims of the ‘888 Patent;

(C) Enter judgment that Defendants have contributed to and continue to contribute to 

the infringement of one or more claims of the ‘888 Patent;

(D) Award Brazos damages, to be paid by Defendants in an amount adequate to 

compensate Brazos for such damages, together with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest for 

the infringement by Defendants of the ‘888 Patent through the date such judgment is entered in 

accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 284, and increase such award by up to three times the amount found 

or assessed in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 284;

(E) Declare this case exceptional pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285; and

(F) Award Brazos its costs, disbursements, attorneys’ fees, and such further and 

additional relief as is deemed appropriate by this Court.
10

Dated: October 19, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ James L. Etheridge

James L. Etheridge

Texas State Bar No. 24059147 

Ryan S. Loveless

Texas State Bar No. 24036997 

Travis L. Richins

Texas State Bar No. 24061296

ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP, PLLC

2600 E. Southlake Blvd., Suite 120 / 324

Southlake, Texas 76092

Telephone: (817) 470-7249

Facsimile: (817) 887-5950

Jim@EtheridgeLaw.com

Ryan@EtheridgeLaw.com

Travis@EtheridgeLaw.com

Mark D. Siegmund

State Bar No. 24117055

mark@waltfairpllc.com 

Law Firm of Walt, Fair PLLC.

1508 North Valley Mills Drive

Waco, Texas 76710

Telephone: (254) 772-6400

Facsimile: (254) 772-6432

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF