IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION

MOTION OFFENSE, LLC, 

Plaintiff

v. 

DROPBOX, INC, 

Defendant

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 OBJECTIONS TO 

FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS

Case 6:20-cv-00251-ADA Document 367 Filed 05/18/23 Page 1 of 5
2

Instruction Dropbox Objection1

7.6 Burdens of Proof 

and Standards of Proof

Dropbox objects to this instruction on the basis that the statement that 

“[c]lear and convincing evidence is evidence that produces in your 

mind a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the matter sought to 

be established” is not an accurate statement of Federal Circuit law. 

See 35 U.S.C. § 282; Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Limited Partnership, 564 

U.S. 91 (2011); Schumer v. Lab. Computer Sys., Inc., 308 F.3d 1304, 

1315 (Fed. Cir. 2002).

10.1 Direct 

Infringement -

Generally

Dropbox objects to this instruction on the basis that the statement 

“Direct patent infringement does not require proof that the infringing 

party intended to infringe the patent. A party such as Dropbox can 

directly infringe a patent without knowing of the patent at all, or 

without knowing that what the party was doing or selling infringed 

the patent” is prejudicial and confusing to the extent it imposes a 

negative requirement of what is not required to prove infringement.

11.1 Presumption of 

Validity

Dropbox objects to this proposed instruction regarding the 

“presumption of validity” as prejudicial and unnecessary in view of 

the Court’s instruction regarding the clear-and-convincing-standard 

for invalidity. Chiron Corp. v. Genentech, Inc., 363 F.3d 1247, 1258 

(Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he presumption of validity and heightened 

burden of proving invalidity are static and in reality different 

expressions of the same thing—a single hurdle to be cleared.” 

(citation and punctuation omitted)). 

11.2.3 Prior Art –

Corroboration of Oral 

Testimony

Dropbox objects to the inclusion of an instruction on corroboration. 

Dropbox has offered documentary and physical evidence in support 

of the prior art on which it relies. Accordingly, this instruction is 

unnecessary and likely to confuse the jury. Dropbox further objects to 

the extent this instruction fails to reference the rule of reason and 

includes incorrect propositions of law. See, e.g., Adenta GmbH v. 

OrthoArm, Inc., 501 F.3d 1364, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“Assessing 

the sufficiency of evidence which corroborates a witness’s testimony 

concerning invalidating activities has been analyzed under the ‘rule 

of reason’ test”). Dropbox also specifically objects to the inclusion 

of “If you find that Dropbox has not corroborated oral testimony 

regarding prior art with other evidence, you are not permitted to find 

that the uncorroborated oral testimony alone establishes that a 

reference qualifies as prior art,” on the basis that it is an issue of law 

rather than a question for the jury and because Dropbox has 

submitted ample corroborating evidence.

 

1 Dropbox also reserves the right to orally object to the Court’s instructions before the jury 

charge.

Case 6:20-cv-00251-ADA Document 367 Filed 05/18/23 Page 2 of 5
3

Instruction Dropbox Objection1

11.4 Obviousness Dropbox objects to the exclusion of the nexus requirement for 

secondary considerations. See, e.g., Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 

Ltd., 839 F.3d 1034, 1048, 1052–53 (Fed. Cir. 2016); WBIP, LLC v. 

Kohler Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1329–37 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

Case 6:20-cv-00251-ADA Document 367 Filed 05/18/23 Page 3 of 5
4

May 18, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Gregory H. Lantier

Kelly Ransom

Texas State Bar No. 24109427

KELLY HART & HALLMAN LLP

303 Colorado, Suite 2000

Austin, Texas 78701

Tel: (512) 495-6400

Kelly.ransom@kellyhart.com

Gregory H. Lantier

Amanda L. Major (pro hac vice)

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & 

DORR LLP

2100 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington DC 20037

Tel: (202) 663-6327

Tel: (202) 663-6304

gregory.lantier@wilmerhale.com

amanda.major@wilmerhale.com

Liv Herriot

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & 

DORR LLP

2600 El Camino Real, Suite 400

Palo Alto, California 94306

Tel: (650) 858-6138

liv.herriot@wilmerhale.com

Makenzi G. Herbst (pro hac vice)

Rauvin A. Johl (pro hac vice)

Jeannette Leopold (pro hac vice)

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & 

DORR LLP

60 State Street

Boston, MA 02109 

Tel: (617) 526-6171

Tel: (617) 526-6104

Tel: (617) 526-6109

makenzi.herbst@wilmerhale.com

rauvin.johl@wilmerhale.com

jeannette.leopold@wilmerhale.com 

Attorneys for Dropbox, Inc.

Case 6:20-cv-00251-ADA Document 367 Filed 05/18/23 Page 4 of 5
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 May 18, 2023.

/s/ Kelly Ransom

Case 6:20-cv-00251-ADA Document 367 Filed 05/18/23 Page 5 of 5