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. 

MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 

Defendant. 

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-454 

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-461 

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-465 

PUBLIC VERSION

MICROSOFT CORPORATION’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THE MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF PATENT INELIGIBILITY OF THE ASSERTED 

CLAIMS IN U.S. PATENT NOS. 7,366,160, 8,274,902, AND 7,106,702 

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 162 Filed 05/10/22 Page 1 of 16
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1

THE ’160 PATENT’S CLAIMS ARE NOT PATENT ELIGIBLE. .................................. 1

A. The ’160 Patent Claims an Abstract Idea. .............................................................. 1

B. The ’160 Patent Claims Do Not Include an Inventive Concept.............................. 4

THE ’902 PATENT’S CLAIMS ARE NOT PATENT ELIGIBLE. .................................. 5

A. The ’902 Patent Claims an Abstract Idea. .............................................................. 5

B. The ’902 Patent Does Not Describe an Inventive Concept. ................................... 7

THE ’702 PATENT’S CLAIMS ARE NOT PATENT ELIGIBLE. .................................. 8

A. The ’702 Patent Claims an Abstract Idea. .............................................................. 8

B. The ’702 Patent Does Not Describe an Inventive Concept. ................................... 9

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 10

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 162 Filed 05/10/22 Page 2 of 16
ii 

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Decl. Ex. Document Name Abbreviation 

Chen Decl. Ex. A 

(Dkt. No. 138-2, 

454 Case) 

U.S. Patent No. 7,366,160 ’160 Patent 

Chen Decl. Ex. B 

(Dkt. No. 138-3, 

454 Case) 

Response to February 12, 2007 

Office Action (June 12, 2007) 

Resp. to 1st Office Action 

Chen Decl. Ex. C 

(Dkt. No. 138-4, 

454 Case) 

Response to July 19, 2007 Office 

Action (Nov. 19, 2007) 

Resp. to 2d Office Action 

Chen Decl. Ex. G 

(Dkt. No. 138-8, 

454 Case) 

U.S. Patent No. 8,274,902 ’902 Patent 

Chen Decl. Ex. H 

(Dkt. No. 138-9, 

454 Case) 

U.S. Patent No. 7,106,702 ’702 Patent 

Second Chen 

Decl. Ex. M 

Additional Excerpts of the Expert 

Report of Dr. Stan McClellan - 

Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 

7,366,160 By Microsoft 

Corporation (Feb. 1, 2022) 

McClellan 160 Inf. Rept. 

Second Chen 

Decl. Ex. N 

Additional excerpts of the Expert 

Report of Mark Coates Ph.D. 

Regarding the Invalidity of U.S. 

Patent Nos. 7,366,160 (Feb. 1, 

2022) 

Coates 160 Invalid. Rept. 

Second Chen 

Decl. Ex. O 

Excerpts of the Expert Report of 

Mark Coates Ph.D. Regarding the 

Invalidity of U.S. Patent Nos. 

8,274,902 (Feb. 1, 2022) 

Coates 902 Invalid. Rept. 

Second Chen 

Decl. Ex. P 

Excerpts of the Expert Report of 

Dr. Stan McClellan Regarding 

Validity of U.S. Patent 8,274,902 

(Feb. 1, 2022) 

McClellan 902 Valid. Rept. 

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 162 Filed 05/10/22 Page 3 of 16
iii 

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS 

Dkt. No. Document Name Document Abbreviation 

Dkt. No. 138 (454 

Case) 

Microsoft’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment of Patent Ineligibility of 

the Asserted Claims in U.S. Patent 

Nos. 7,366,160, 8,274,902, and 

7,106,702 

MS Br. 

Dkt. No. 157 (454 

Case) 

WSOU’s Opposition to Defendant 

Microsoft Corporation’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment of Patent 

Ineligibility of the Asserted Claims 

of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,366,160, 

8,274,902, and 7,106,702 

Opp. 

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 162 Filed 05/10/22 Page 4 of 16
1 

INTRODUCTION 

The asserted claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,366,160 and 8,274,902 are patent ineligible. 

The claims, even as recast in WSOU’s opposition, involve nothing more than collecting data, 

performing mathematical operations using the data, and producing more data. WSOU repeatedly 

calls the claims “technological,” but labels do not change their fundamental nature. “A process 

that started with data, added an algorithm, and ended with a new form of data [is] directed to an 

abstract idea.” RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017). 

Similarly, the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,106,702 are directed to implementing a backup system and claim the abstract idea of using some (but not all) of a network’s devices as 

backups. As to all three patents, WSOU notes that the claims are limited to particular “network” 

or “computer” environments (see Opp., 6-7, 13-14, 19-21), but it has long been settled that 

abstract concepts do not become patent-eligible merely because they are deployed only in 

particular contexts. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 

1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2015); SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168-69 (Fed. Cir. 

2018). As the intrinsic records of the patents demonstrate, the claims do not require 

“significantly more” than the abstract ideas. This Court should grant summary judgment that all 

asserted claims are patent-ineligible. 

THE ’160 PATENT’S CLAIMS ARE NOT PATENT ELIGIBLE. 

A. The ’160 Patent Claims an Abstract Idea.

The asserted claims of the ’160 Patent are directed to abstract mathematical operations 

and data analyses. That is clear from WSOU’s own characterization of the invention: per 

WSOU, the patent provides “tools for accurately forecasting performance of a network service 

based on service trends” (Opp., 1, 5, 9), and the patent explains that its claimed advance is based 

on the ability to perform a trend “calculation” (’160 Patent, 1:16-17). The prosecution history 

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 162 Filed 05/10/22 Page 5 of 16
2 

highlights the abstract nature of the claims—the patentee distinguished the invention from the 

prior art based on the determination of data as a function of a trend.1

 WSOU cannot and does not 

dispute that determining a trend and determining data as a function of a trend are abstract 

mathematical operations. See Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 585-86, 594-95 (1978) (holding a 

method of updating “alarm limits” with an algorithm abstract); see also FairWarning IP v. Iatric 

Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-95 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (collecting and analyzing information to 

determine a result is abstract). 

WSOU contends that the asserted claims improve the functioning of a network or 

computer hardware (Opp., 2, 8), but the claims say nothing of the kind, and WSOU itself admits 

that the claims simply provide a “framework by which data and parameters are formulated into 

model-based service indicators” (id., 3). That is, the claims provide for collecting data and 

manipulating that data using mathematical operations—for example, “calculating” or 

“extrapolating”—to produce more data. The patent makes that clear. (See, e.g., ’160 Patent, 

2:60-61 (“One or more trends extrapolated from measurements of a parameter can also be used 

in the definition of the indicator.”); 3:3-4 (“Parameters that have been calculated or extrapolated

from measurements can therefore be used.”) (emphases added).) Whether or not the resulting 

data are “required by a service provider” (Opp., 3) or can be used to improve a network is 

irrelevant because the claims say nothing about the use to which the data are put (see MS Br., 2-

3). The ’160 Patent does not claim a method for determining the “strategic effectiveness” of a 

service, nor does it provide “a specific improvement in the functioning of computer networks.” 

1

 See, e.g., Resp. to 2nd Office Action, 3-4. The prosecution history focuses on Claim 1, the 

sole independent claim. As explained in Microsoft’s opening brief (MS Br., 8-9) and below, the 

remaining asserted claims simply apply the abstract idea of Claim 1 in a specific technological 

context or describe additional mathematical operations or generic computer components. 

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 162 Filed 05/10/22 Page 6 of 16
3 

(Opp., 3-4.) It provides for nothing more than manipulating data to produce more data, and that 

is abstract and not patentable. See RecogniCorp, LLC, 855 F.3d at 1327. 

The intrinsic record makes clear that this data manipulation is the key to the claimed 

invention. During prosecution, the patentee admitted that the prior art disclosed all of the 

limitations of Claim 1 except those that involved determining, and using, a mathematical trend. 

(MS Br., 5.) The patentee further explained that the distinction between the prior art and the 

invention—a distinction that highlights the subject matter of the claims—was the mathematical 

operation of “determining as a function of the trend of the indicator a time of the service 

indicator crossing a defined threshold.” (Resp. to 1st Office Action, 6-7 (emphasis added); see 

also Resp. to 2d Office Action, 4 (“Clark [(the prior art)] does not disclose determining a time 

that a service indicator will cross a defined threshold as a function of the trend of the indicator.” 

(emphasis omitted)).) That the claims are directed to mathematical operations and data analyses 

is, therefore, unsurprising—it is what patentee told the PTO he invented. WSOU’s expert, Dr. 

McClellan, agrees that the claims are directed to abstract data analyses. He opines that the ’160 

Patent describes the “conceptual approach” of using data “in determining inferences and trends 

related to abstract functions of data.” (McClellan 160 Inf. Rept., ¶25 (emphasis added).) 

WSOU argues that the ’160 Patent is analogous to the patent at issue in Amdocs. (Opp., 

7.) But although those claims deployed some generic components, they required that those 

“components operate in an unconventional manner,” and that they be used “in an unconventional 

distributed fashion to solve a particular technological problem.” Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet 

Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1300-301 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In contrast, here, there is no 

“unconventional” use of anything. There are only generic components used in an entirely 

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 162 Filed 05/10/22 Page 7 of 16
4 

conventional manner to gather data for mathematical operations and data analyses. There is no

technological solution, conventional or otherwise. 

Finally, WSOU’s reliance on Microsoft’s expert is also misplaced. (Opp., 5.) Dr. Coates 

opined that the asserted claims would have been obvious, and therefore not an improvement as of 

the date of the invention. (See Coates 160 Invalid. Rept., ¶¶14-15 (concluding obviousness 

based on the motivations to combine cited in WSOU’s opposition).) Dr. Coates did not “agree” 

that the asserted claims were directed to “improve[d] network management” by the invention 

date (Opp., 5); if anything, his opinion shows that they were entirely conventional. 

B. The ’160 Patent Claims Do Not Include an Inventive Concept. 

The asserted claims also do not disclose an inventive concept. The patentee admitted that 

the limitations of Claim 1 that do not involve abstract mathematical operations—(1) “selecting 

two or more parameters,” (2) “measuring and/or calculating” the values of the parameters at 

multiple times, (3) “determining” a “service indicator” value based on the parameter values—

were all known in the prior art. (MS Br., 5, 9.) Specifically, the patentee explained during 

prosecution that the prior art Clark reference taught all of the non-mathematical claim limitations 

in their claimed order, namely (1) “a quality of service monitor . . . which selects at least two 

parameters,” (2) that “[t]he parameters are measured at regular and frequent intervals,” and (3) 

that “[a] service indicator (voice quality) is estimated at regular intervals based on the 

determined parameters.” (Resp. to 1st Office Action, 6.) There is no “micharacteriz[ation]” of 

the prosecution history here (Opp., 10)—the patentee admitted a “service indicator” was prior 

art, and it is undisputed that steps required for the “collection[] of those [network] parameters 

into service indicators” were routine and known by the time the ’160 Patent was filed (Opp. 11). 

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 162 Filed 05/10/22 Page 8 of 16
5 

Indeed, WSOU’s Dr. McClellan even opines2 that no distinction exists between a “service 

indicator” and the admittedly-conventional “network parameters.” The dependent claims do 

nothing more than apply mathematical operations in a particular field (Claim 2) or describe 

additional mathematical operations (Claims 4-5, 10-11) or generic components (Claim 12), none 

of which makes the claims non-abstract. See Intellectual Ventures I, 792 F.3d at 1366 (field 

limitations cannot salvage abstract claims); PersonalWeb Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 8 F.4th 

1310, 1317-18 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (adding one abstract idea to another is not patentable); In re TLI 

Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 612 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (reciting generic physical 

components is not sufficient). 

The asserted claims are not patent eligible. They are directed to abstract mathematical 

operations and data analyses, and when considered as a whole they do not disclose “significantly 

more.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18 (2014). 

THE ’902 PATENT’S CLAIMS ARE NOT PATENT ELIGIBLE. 

A. The ’902 Patent Claims an Abstract Idea. 

The asserted claims of the ’902 Patent are directed to the abstract idea of using an 

algorithm to estimate packet loss rates. (MS Br., 14.) Asserted Claim 1 (an independent claim) 

contains two steps. As WSOU admits, the first step calls for “collecting data on downstream 

packet losses at a single collection point.” (Opp., 14.) This is conventional, as the patent 

explains, because “[m]onitoring devices that can gather information from diverted packets . . . 

are well known and need not be described here in detail. ” (’902 Patent, 2:55-59 (emphasis 

2

 McClellan 160 Inf. Rept., ¶72 (“In addition, the Court declined to adopt Microsoft’s alternative 

interpretation that whatever is identified as satisfying the ‘network parameters’ term cannot also 

satisfy the ‘service indicator’ element. I note that in certain disclosed embodiments of the ’160 

patent, a ‘service indicator’ may simply be a collection of ‘network parameters.’”). 

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 162 Filed 05/10/22 Page 9 of 16
6 

added).) It is also abstract. See, e.g., TDE Petroleum Data Sols., Inc. v. AKM Enters., Inc., 657 

Fed. App’x 991, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (data gathering and processing is an abstract idea). The 

second step requires “estimating packet loss rates” on downstream portions of the network 

(Opp., 14) using a mathematical algorithm (see MS Br., 15). Claim 6, the other independent 

claim, and Claim 2, which depends on Claim 1, simply describe performing the steps of Claim 1 

on generic hardware (e.g., a “circuit”). Each of these claims is thus directed to the same abstract 

idea—an algorithm for estimating packet loss rates. 

WSOU contends that the “collecting” and “estimating” steps when read as a whole 

describe a technological solution to a technological problem. (See Opp., 14; see also id., 12-13, 

15.) But reading the claims as a whole only highlights that they are directed to nothing more 

than an abstract idea. As noted above, Claim 1’s first step requires collecting data, and the 

second step requires inputting the data into estimation algorithms (including, but not limited to, 

those described in the specification). Applying estimation algorithms to collected data is an 

unpatentable abstract idea, and WSOU does not contend otherwise. Indeed, the fact that the 

claims require the result of “estimation,” without describing a technological process for 

achieving that result, confirms they are directed to an abstract idea. See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, 

Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claims abstract because “[t]hey do not claim a 

particular way of programming or designing the software” “but instead merely claim the 

resulting systems”); SAP, 898 F.3d at 1168 (describing abstract claims as “claiming only a 

result”); Free Stream Media Corp. v. Alphonso Inc., 996 F.3d 1355, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2021) 

(claims abstract because they “do not at all describe how [a] result is achieved”). 

The results-based nature of the claims distinguishes them from the patent-eligible claims 

in Enfish and Finjan. (Opp., 16.) In Enfish, the claims did not simply claim a better database. 

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 162 Filed 05/10/22 Page 10 of 16
7 

They claimed a non-conventional, self-referential table which improved database performance. 

See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1330, 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 

Similarly, in Finjan, the claims did not simply claim the result of improved computer virus 

detection. They claimed a specific, non-conventional “behavior-based” approach to virus 

detection. See Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1304-305 (Fed. Cir. 2018). 

Here, unlike Enfish and Finjan, no limitation (conventional or otherwise) describes the 

implementation of the “estimating” step. 

Finally, it is WSOU, not Microsoft, who improperly “dissect[s] the claims.” (Opp., 15.) 

Contrary to what WSOU contends, the ’902 Patent does not assert that a “single collection point” 

or monitoring “specific data paths” is inventive. (Id.) Instead, these steps simply gather data for 

the estimation algorithms. (See, e.g., ’902 Patent, Figs. 4 & 6; 2:10-17.) As patent’s title makes 

clear, the invention is to an “Estimation Method for Loss Rates in a Packetized Network” (id., 

Title), and not to methods of data collection or monitoring. The claims reflect that focus. 

B. The ’902 Patent Does Not Describe an Inventive Concept. 

Beyond their “estimating” step, the ’902 Patent’s asserted claims recite only using known 

devices for collecting packet loss data on a conventional network. (See MS Br., 16-17.) 

WSOU’s assertion that prior art estimation approaches were limited to “nonstandard 

network deployments” is incorrect. (Opp., 17.) The prior art demonstrates that the known 

techniques were designed for situations in which a private network operator could not monitor all 

portions of the public Internet, and thus would benefit from determining an estimated 

performance of non-monitored portions. (See Coates 902 Invalid. Rept., ¶¶100-103.) 

Finally, WSOU dodges the central tenet of its own expert’s testimony when 

characterizing the supposed advance of the asserted claims. Contrary to WSOU, Dr. McClellan 

does not opine that the claimed techniques differ from the prior art because the prior art functions 

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 162 Filed 05/10/22 Page 11 of 16
8 

only on “mathematical abstractions of the network architecture” or “abstractions” that are “not 

representative of realistic network architectures.” (Opp., 17.) Instead, Dr. McClellan opines that 

the ’902 Patent is broader than (and encompasses) the prior art. As explained in his report, “the 

patented technology is not only broader than the . . . references which are claimed as prior art, it 

is applicable to any network structure” (McClellan 902 Valid. Rept., ¶76 (emphasis added)), 

including those deemed abstract and unrealistic. 

In short, there is no genuine factual dispute between the parties. The asserted claims are 

directed to abstract methods for estimating packet losses, and when considered as a whole, the 

claims do not disclose “significantly more” than—and, in fact, encompass—conventional prior 

art techniques for estimating packet losses. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-18. 

THE ’702 PATENT’S CLAIMS ARE NOT PATENT ELIGIBLE. 

A. The ’702 Patent Claims an Abstract Idea.

The asserted claims of the ’702 Patent are directed to the abstract idea of activating a 

back-up system to perform AAA functions in a wireless network. (MS Br., 17.) Asserted Claim 

1 describes a method for activating a back-up AAA node that involves a series of abstract and 

generic “selecting,” “activating,” “monitoring,” and “informing” steps performed on a 

conventional network with prior art AAA nodes. (Id., 21-22.) Claim 11, the other asserted 

independent claim, recites known and generic hardware configured to perform Claim 1’s method 

on a conventional network. (Id., 23.) The dependent claims describe either additional abstract 

ideas (e.g., monitoring) or the use of additional conventional computer components (e.g., a user 

database). (Id., 22-24.) Each asserted claim is directed to the abstract idea of activating a backup system to perform AAA functions in a wireless network. 

WSOU contends that the ’702 Patent is not abstract because it teaches the “solution” of 

“maintaining high reliability” “so that one or more back-ups may take over when functions 

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 162 Filed 05/10/22 Page 12 of 16
9 

and/or resources are lost due to failure or otherwise.” (Opp., 18.) Common sense shows that this 

is a non-technological solution to an age-old problem—humans have long used the solution 

(“one or more back-ups”) to address the problem (“maintaining high reliability”). For example, 

backup power systems have long been designed to take over when the primary power systems 

fail. (MS Br., 1.) Even if the specification describes a technological problem (Opp., 18-19), the 

abstract idea of using back-ups is not a patent-eligible solution. 

That the asserted claims contain “specific, detailed steps” (Opp., 19) does not save them. 

The problem here is not the use of functional language (see Opp., 8), but rather that the “specific, 

detailed steps” do no more than state “functions in general terms, without limiting them to 

technical means for performing the functions that are arguably an advance over conventional 

computer and network technology.” Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 

1351 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Specifically, WSOU contends that it is “significant” that “nodes are 

monitored, and if an active node becomes ‘disconnected’ from the network, an inactive node is 

selected, activated, and begins providing the AAA function.” (Opp., 20.) But like the patentineligible claims in Electric Power, the asserted claims do not describe how to perform any of 

the “monitoring,” “selecting,” or “activating” steps. See also Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241 

(claiming a feature or function but not a specific way of providing or performing that feature or 

function is an abstract idea); SAP, 898 F.3d at 1168 (same); Free Stream, 996 F.3d at 1363-64 

(same). The asserted claims, in short, are directed to nothing more than the abstract idea of 

activating a back-up system to perform AAA functions in a wireless network. 

B. The ’702 Patent Does Not Describe an Inventive Concept. 

As WSOU itself explains, the claims are directed to the common-sense solution of having 

“one or more back-ups [] take over when functions and/or resources are lost due to failure or 

otherwise.” (Opp., 18.) The claims read as a whole do not add “significantly more” to this 

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 162 Filed 05/10/22 Page 13 of 16
10 

abstract idea. Each of the “selecting,” “activating,” “monitoring,” and “informing” limitations in 

the asserted independent claims (Claims 1 and 11) is entirely generic, and when performed 

together their purpose is to implement the abstract idea of activating a back-up system. (MS Br., 

24.) The additional limitations in the dependent claims simply add additional abstract ideas or 

conventional techniques or components (id. at 25), and that does not make them patentable 

(supra, p. 8). 

WSOU attempts to create a factual dispute by dodging the teaching of the ’702 Patent. 

Dr. McClellan, WSOU’s expert, understands there to be something distinct about “the AAA 

function” in the ’702 Patent. (Opp., 22.) But that is not what the patent teaches. The patent 

explains that AAA functionality is prior art, and that the distinction between “the AAA function” 

in the patent and in the prior art is only that, in the ’702 Patent, some (not all) AAA nodes are 

used as active backups. (See ’702 Patent, 3:13-31.) This is exactly the abstract idea. 

Furthermore, an admitted prior art system (where all nodes are active backups) is an AAA 

function-capable system that is an “integrated whole, implemented within a distributed network.” 

(’702 Patent, 1:40-50; Opp., 22.) To the extent the “managing,” “monitoring,” or “provisioning” 

mentioned by Dr. McClellan provides “something more,” it is not recited in the asserted claims. 

The asserted claims are directed to the abstract idea of activating a back-up system to 

perform AAA functions in a wireless network. The claims do not disclose “significantly more” 

than that. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-18. The asserted claims are thus patent ineligible. 

CONCLUSION

Because the asserted claims in the ’160 Patent, ’702 Patent, and ’902 Patent are directed 

to patent-ineligible subject matter, this Court should enter judgment for Microsoft. 

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 162 Filed 05/10/22 Page 14 of 16
11 

DATED: May 3, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 

 

/s/ Richard A. Cederoth (by permission) 

Melissa R. Smith, Bar No. 24001351 

melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com 

James “Travis” Underwood, Bar No. 

24102587 

travis@gillamsmithlaw.com

GILLAM & SMITH, LLP 

303 South Washington Avenue 

Marshall, Texas 75670 

Tel: (903) 934-8450 

Fax: (903) 934-9257 

Michael J. Bettinger

mbettinger@sidley.com 

Irene Yang 

irene.yang@sidley.com 

Brooke S. Boll 

brooke.boll@sidley.com 

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 

555 California Street, Suite 2000 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Tel: (415) 772-1200 

Fax: (415) 772-7400 

Richard A. Cederoth 

rcederoth@sidley.com 

John W. McBride 

jwmcbride@sidley.com 

Richard M. Chen 

rchen@sidley.com 

Kevin Robert Oliver

kevin.oliver@sidley.com 

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 

1 South Dearborn St. 

Chicago, IL 60603 

Tel: (312) 853-7000 

Fax: (312) 853-7036 

ATTORNEYS FOR MICROSOFT 

CORPORATION 

 

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 162 Filed 05/10/22 Page 15 of 16
12 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Richard M. Chen, certify that on May 3, 2022 this document and related exhibits 

(unless previously-filed or non-confidential) were filed under seal with the Clerk of Court via the 

Court’s CM/ECF system. This documents and the applicable exhibits were subsequently served 

on all counsel of record by electronic mail. 

DATED: May 3, 2022 /s/ Richard M. Chen 

Richard M. Chen 

rchen@sidley.com 

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 

1 South Dearborn St. 

Chicago, IL 60603 

Tel: (312) 853-7000 

Fax: (312) 853-7036 

ATTORNEY FOR MICROSOFT 

CORPORATION 

Case 6:20-cv-00461-ADA Document 162 Filed 05/10/22 Page 16 of 16