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.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 6:20-cv-475-ADA

Case No. 6:20-cv-477-ADA

Case No. 6:20-cv-478-ADA

Case No. 6:20-cv-479-ADA

NOTICE OF SUBPOENA DIRECTED TO THIRD-PARTY BASEPOINT 

ADMINISTRATIVE, LLC

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, Defendants intend to serve the attached subpoena on Basepoint Administrative, LLC

on or after August 20, 2021. The subpoena requests that Basepoint Administrative, LLC produce 

all documents and things requested in Appendix A to the attached subpoena. The documents and 

things are to be produced on or before 5:00 p.m. on September 10, 2021, or on another mutually 

agreeable date, at the offices of Shelton Coburn LLP, 311 Ranch Road 620 S, Suite 205, Austin, 

Texas 78734-4775 USA, or at another mutually agreeable location. The deposition shall be upon

oral examination before an officer authorized to administer oaths and shall be recorded by audio,

videographic, and/or stenographic means. The deposition will take place on one day. Defendants

will take up to 7 hours of deposition testimony.

Dated: August 20, 2021 By: /s/ Barry K. Shelton

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 1 of 78
2

Barry K. Shelton

Texas State Bar No. 24055029

bshelton@sheltoncoburn.com

SHELTON COBURN LLP

311 RR 620, Suite 205

Austin, TX 78734-4775

Telephone: 512.263.2165

Facsimile: 512.263.2166

Attorney for Defendants

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 2 of 78
AO 88A (Rev. / ) Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Civil Action 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant

SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION IN A CIVIL ACTION

To:

(Name of person to whom this subpoena is directed)

Place: Date and Time:

The deposition will be recorded by this method:

Production: You, or your representatives, must also bring with you to the deposition the following documents, 

electronically stored information, or objects, and must permit inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the

material:

The following provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 are attached – Rule 45(c), relating to the place of compliance;

Rule 45(d), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena; and Rule 45(e) and (g), relating to your duty to

respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so.

Date:

CLERK OF COURT

OR

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk Attorney’s signature

The name, address, e-mail address, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name of party)

, who issues or requests this subpoena, are:

Notice to the person who issues or requests this subpoena

If this subpoena commands the production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things before

trial, a notice and a copy of the subpoena must be served on each party in this case before it is served on the person to

whom it is directed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(4).

 Western District of Texas

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 3 of 78
AO 88A (Rev. 2/ ) Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE

(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.)

I received this subpoena for (name of individual and title, if any)

on (date) .

I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named individual as follows:

on (date) ; or

I returned the subpoena unexecuted because:

.

Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also

tendered to the witness the fees for one day’s attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of

$ .

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ .

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature

Printed name and title

Server’s address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc.:

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 4 of 78
AO 88A (Rev. 2/ ) Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Civil Action (Page 3)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (c), (d), (e), and (g) (Effective 12/1/13)

(c) Place of Compliance.

(1) For a Trial, Hearing, or Deposition. A subpoena may command a

person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition only as follows:

(A) within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or

regularly transacts business in person; or

(B) within the state where the person resides, is employed, or regularly

transacts business in person, if the person

(i) is a party or a party’s officer; or

(ii) is commanded to attend a trial and would not incur substantial

expense.

(2) For Other Discovery. A subpoena may command:

(A) production of documents, electronically stored information, or

tangible things at a place within 100 miles of where the person resides, is

employed, or regularly transacts business in person; and

(B) inspection of premises at the premises to be inspected.

(d) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena; Enforcement.

(1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A party or attorney

responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps

to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the

subpoena. The court for the district where compliance is required must

enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanction—which may include

lost earnings and reasonable attorney’s fees—on a party or attorney who

fails to comply.

(2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection.

(A) Appearance Not Required. A person commanded to produce

documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or to

permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in person at the place of

production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a deposition,

hearing, or trial.

(B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or tangible

things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated

in the subpoena a written objection to inspecting, copying, testing, or

sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting the premises—or to

producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested.

The objection must be served before the earlier of the time specified for

compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made,

the following rules apply:

(i) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party

may move the court for the district where compliance is required for an

order compelling production or inspection.

(ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the

order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a party’s officer from

significant expense resulting from compliance.

(3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena.

(A) When Required. On timely motion, the court for the district where

compliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena that:

(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;

(ii) requires a person to comply beyond the geographical limits

specified in Rule 45(c);

(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no

exception or waiver applies; or

(iv) subjects a person to undue burden.

(B) When Permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by a

subpoena, the court for the district where compliance is required may, on

motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires:

(i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, development,

or commercial information; or

(ii) disclosing an unretained expert’s opinion or information that does

not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from the expert’s

study that was not requested by a party.

(C) Specifying Conditions as an Alternative. In the circumstances

described in Rule 45(d)(3)(B), the court may, instead of quashing or

modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under specified

conditions if the serving party:

(i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be

otherwise met without undue hardship; and

(ii) ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated.

(e) Duties in Responding to a Subpoena.

(1) Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information. These

procedures apply to producing documents or electronically stored

information:

(A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents

must produce them as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or

must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the demand.

(B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information Not Specified.

If a subpoena does not specify a form for producing electronically stored

information, the person responding must produce it in a form or forms in

which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms.

(C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One Form. The

person responding need not produce the same electronically stored

information in more than one form.

(D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information. The person

responding need not provide discovery of electronically stored information

from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably accessible because

of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a protective

order, the person responding must show that the information is not

reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is

made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the

requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations of Rule

26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify conditions for the discovery.

(2) Claiming Privilege or Protection.

(A) Information Withheld. A person withholding subpoenaed information

under a claim that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation

material must:

(i) expressly make the claim; and

(ii) describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or

tangible things in a manner that, without revealing information itself

privileged or protected, will enable the parties to assess the claim.

(B) Information Produced. If information produced in response to a

subpoena is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as

trial-preparation material, the person making the claim may notify any party

that received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being

notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified

information and any copies it has; must not use or disclose the information

until the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps to retrieve the

information if the party disclosed it before being notified; and may promptly

present the information under seal to the court for the district where

compliance is required for a determination of the claim. The person who

produced the information must preserve the information until the claim is

resolved.

(g) Contempt.

The court for the district where compliance is required—and also, after a

motion is transferred, the issuing court—may hold in contempt a person

who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the

subpoena or an order related to it.

For access to subpoena materials, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a) Committee Note (2013).

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 5 of 78
APPENDIX A

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 6 of 78
EXHIBIT 1

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 7 of 78
2

DOCUMENTS REQUESTED

Defendants Dell Technologies Inc., Dell Inc., and EMC Corporation (collectively, 

“Defendants”) request the production of the documents described below.

DEFINITIONS

The following definitions are applicable to terms employed in responding to this request:

1. “Accused Product” or “Accused Products” shall refer to any device, product, or other thing 

that Plaintiff is permitted to accuse of infringing the Asserted Patent in this Action. A copy 

of the Complaint in case numbers 6:20-cv-00475-ADA, 6:20-cv-00477-ADA, 6:20-cv00478-ADA, 6:20-cv-00479-ADA is attached as Exhibit 3. In referring to any device, 

product, or other thing as an “Accused Product,” Defendants in no way communicate their 

agreement that it infringes the Asserted Patent.

2. “Action” shall refer to the above-captioned proceeding in the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas, with case numbers: 6:20-cv-00475-ADA, 6:20-cv00477-ADA, 6:20-cv-00478-ADA, 6:20-cv-00479-ADA.

3. “Alcatel” shall mean Alcatel-Lucent International and all parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, 

predecessors, successors, including but not limited to Alcatel and Lucent Technologies.

4. “Asserted Claim” shall refer to each claim of the Asserted Patent that Plaintiff contends 

Defendants infringe. 

5. “Asserted Patent(s)” shall refer to U.S. Patent Nos. 7,126,921; 7,453,888; 8,402,129; 

8,913,489 and any patent applications related thereto. 

6. “Communication” shall mean, without limitation, any written, oral, or other transmission 

of information, including but not limited to emails.

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 8 of 78
3

7. “Complaint” shall refer to the Complaint (including exhibits) that Plaintiff filed on June 2, 

2020 as docket number 1 in this Action, the Amended Complaint filed on October 19, 

2020, and any other amended complaints thereafter. 

8. “Concerning,” “refer(s) to,” “related to,” “reflecting,” “regarding,” and “relating to” shall 

mean directly or indirectly relating to, referring to, regarding, mentioning, reflecting, 

pertaining to, evidencing, illustrating, involving, describing, discussing, commenting on, 

embodying, responding to, supporting, contradicting, or constituting (in whole or in part), 

as the context makes appropriate.

9. “Defendants” or “Defendant” shall refer to Dell Technologies Inc., Dell Inc., and EMC 

Corporation, and any and all of their then-current or prior subsidiaries, parents, affiliates, 

divisions, successors, predecessors, agents, employees, representatives, directors, officers, 

trustees, and attorneys, or any other person or entity acting in whole or in part in concert 

with any of the foregoing, directly or indirectly.

10. “Document” shall include, without limitation, all documents, electronically stored 

information, and tangible things within the scope of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

including Rule 34. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 34 permits discovery of: “(A) 

documents or electronically stored information—including writings, drawings, graphs, 

charts, photographs, sound recordings, images, and other data or data compilations—stored 

in any medium from which information can be obtained either directly or, if necessary, 

after translation by the responding party into a reasonably usable form; or (B) any 

designated tangible things.” 

11. “Employee” shall refer to any officer, director, partner, employee, representative, or agent.

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 9 of 78
4

12. “Licensee(s)” shall refer to any entity having a license, assignment, covenant not to sue, or 

other understanding, written, oral or implied, that the entity has any rights to the Asserted 

Patent, any Related Patents, or any Related Applications, may practice one or more claims 

of the Asserted Patent and/or that Plaintiff will not file suit or otherwise enforce against 

that entity one or more claims of the Asserted Patent or any Related Patent or Related 

Application.

13. “Nokia” shall mean Nokia Corporation and all parents, subsidiaries, affiliates,

predecessors, including but not limited to Nokia Technologies Oy and Nokia Solutions and

Networks BV.

14. “Other Action Defendants” shall refer to any of the entities that Plaintiff has accused of 

patent infringement (including but not limited to, Huawei, ZTE, Microsoft, Google, HP, 

Juniper, F5, Xilinx, NEC, Oneplus, Canon, TP-Link, Arista Networks, Salesforce, Cisco, 

and NetGear).

15. “Other Action Patents” shall refer to any patent that was asserted against any of the Other 

Action Defendants.

16. “Person” shall refer to any natural person, firm, association, partnership, government 

agency, corporation, proprietorship, or other entity and its officers, directors, partners, 

employee, representatives, and agents.

17. The terms “Plaintiff,” and/or “WSOU” shall refer to the responding Plaintiff WSOU 

Investments, LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development, and any and all of its thencurrent or prior subsidiaries, parents, affiliates, divisions, successors, predecessors, agents, 

employees, representatives, directors, officers, trustees, and attorneys, or any other person 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 10 of 78
5

or entity acting in whole or in part in concert with any of the foregoing, directly or 

indirectly.

18. “Prior Art” encompasses, without limitation, the subject matter described in each and every 

subdivision of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, and includes, but is not limited to, memoranda, 

notes, manuals, interviews, testing data, disclosures, prototypes, correspondence, 

drawings, papers, articles, patents, printed publications, public uses, demonstrations, offers 

for sale or license, and sales.

19. “Product(s)” means a machine, manufacture, apparatus, device, instrument, mechanism, 

appliance, software, service, process, or an assemblage of components/parts (either 

individually or collectively) that are designed to function together electronically, 

mechanically, or otherwise, including any offered for sale or under development.

20. “Related Application(s)” means any and all applications related to the Asserted Patent, 

including any provisional or non-provisional applications, continuations, continuations- inpart, divisions, interferences, reexaminations, re-issues, parents, foreign counterpart 

applications, and any other applications disclosing, describing or claiming any invention 

disclosed, described or claimed in the Asserted Patent, or claiming the benefit of the filing 

date of any application whose benefit is claimed in the Asserted Patent, whether or not 

abandoned and whether or not issued.

21. “Related Patent(s)” means any and all U.S. or foreign patents based upon or related to any 

Related Application(s) or Asserted Patent, including any patents or applications that may 

have been opposed, reexamined, re-issued or subjected to any validity or nullity 

proceeding.

22. “Third Party” shall refer to any person other than Plaintiff or Defendants.

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 11 of 78
6

23. “You,” “Your,” “Yours” shall refer to Basepoint Administrative, LLC (BP Funding Trust, 

Series SPL-VI), and any and all of its then-current or prior subsidiaries, parents, affiliates, 

divisions, successors, predecessors, agents, employees, representatives, directors, officers, 

trustees, and attorneys, or any other person or entity acting in whole or in part in concert 

with any of the foregoing, directly or indirectly.

24. Any pronouns shall be construed to refer to the masculine, feminine, or neutral gender, in 

singular or plural, as in each case is most appropriate.

25. The singular form of any word shall be construed to also include the plural, and vice-versa.

26. The word “each” shall be construed to mean “each and every.”

27. The words “and” and “or” shall be construed conjunctively or disjunctively, whichever 

makes the request more inclusive.

28. The words “any” and “all” shall be construed to mean “any and all.”

INSTRUCTIONS

1. This request seeks disclosure to the full extent of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 

shall be interpreted as inclusive rather than exclusive.

2. In responding to the Document requests set forth below, please furnish all responsive and 

non-privileged information that is available to You. 

3. Please produce the requested Documents as they are kept in the ordinary course of business.

4. If production of any responsive Documents are being withheld on the ground of the 

attorney-client privilege, attorney work product, or any other privilege, immunity, or 

protection, please provide a privilege log with the following information for each such 

Document: (a) the name of the Document; (b) the name of the person(s) who prepared the 

Document; (c) the name of the person(s) to whom the Document was directed or circulated; 

(d) the date(s) on which the Document was prepared or transmitted; (e) the name of the 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 12 of 78
7

person(s) now in possession of the Document; (f) a description of the subject matter of the 

Document; and (g) the specific nature of the privilege or protection claimed with respect 

to the Document.

5. The Court’s interim protective order in the Order Governing Proceedings shall govern the 

disclosure of confidential information in this Action:

Pending entry of the final Protective Order, the Court issues the following 

interim Protective Order to govern the disclosure of confidential 

information in this matter:

If any document or information produced in this matter is 

deemed confidential by the producing party and if the Court 

has not entered a protective order, until a protective order is 

issued by the Court, the document shall be marked 

“confidential” or with some other confidential designation 

(such as “Confidential – Outside Attorneys Eyes Only”) by 

the disclosing party and disclosure of the confidential 

document or information shall be limited to each party’s 

outside attorney(s) of record and the employees of such 

outside attorney(s). 

If a party is not represented by an outside attorney, 

disclosure of the confidential document or information shall 

be limited to one designated “in house” attorney, whose 

identity and job functions shall be disclosed to the producing 

party 5 days prior to any such disclosure, in order to permit 

any motion for protective order or other relief regarding such 

disclosure. The person(s) to whom disclosure of a 

confidential document or information is made under this 

local rule shall keep it confidential and use it only for 

purposes of litigating the case.

6. Upon entry of a final protective order in this matter that protective order shall govern the 

disclosure of confidential information in this Action.

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 13 of 78
8

DOCUMENT REQUESTS

1. Documents regarding the Asserted Patent, any Related Patents, or Related 

Applications, including any alleged infringement of such patents.

2. Documents relating to any Prior Art search performed by You, on Your behalf, or 

that You are aware of, relating to the Asserted Patent, any Related Patent, or Related Application

(including, but not limited to, any search methodology, results and any policies regarding Prior 

Art searches).

3. Documents regarding whether any claim in the Asserted Patent is invalid, valid, 

enforceable, or unenforceable (including any Prior Art or alleged Prior Art).

4. Documents sufficient to identify all products of which you are/were aware that 

practiced or currently practice any claim of the Asserted Patent, Related Patents, or Related 

Applications and all allegations of which you are/were aware that products practiced or currently 

practice any claim of the Asserted Patent, Related Patents, or Related Applications.

5. Documents and Communications concerning any evaluation or analysis of the 

Asserted Patent, Related Patents, or Related Applications, whether individually or in combination 

with any other patents or applications, including any evaluation or analysis of infringement, 

validity, or commercialization.

6. Documents and Communications concerning any ranking (in terms of strength, 

value, or otherwise) or rating of, or attempts to rank or rate the Asserted Patent, Related Patents, 

or Related Applications, whether individually or in combination with any other patents or 

applications, or any portfolio containing the Asserted Patent, Related Patents, or Related 

Applications.

7. Documents and Communications concerning each proposal, offer or other 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 14 of 78
9

discussions by you or your predecessors in interest, regarding actual or potential agreements with 

Allied Security Trust, or WSOU regarding any asserted patent including communications 

regarding such a proposal, draft agreements, and executed agreements.

8. Communications (or Documents relating thereto) with Alcatel or Nokia regarding 

the Asserted Patent, Related Patents, or Related Applications. 

9. Communications (or Documents relating thereto) between You and Plaintiff 

relating to a) the Asserted Patent, Related Patents, Related Applications, or Other Action Patents;

b) this Action (including the initiation of or projected outcomes from this Action); c) any 

Defendant or its products; and d) any portfolio of which the Asserted Patent, Related Patents, 

Related Applications were a part.

10. Documents and Communications concerning any decision to pursue or not to 

pursue any claim of infringement of the Asserted Patent of any Related Patent against any 

Defendant.

11. Documents and Communications concerning any decision to pursue or not to 

pursue any claim of infringement against any of the Other Action Defendants.

12. Documents regarding ownership, assignment, licenses, royalties, covenants, 

standstills, settlements, acquisition, financial interest, security interest, sale, transfer of rights (in 

whole or in part), or any other disposition of, or any offers to buy, sell, or license the Asserted 

Patent, Related Patents, Related Applications or Other Action Patents. This includes, but is not 

limited to:

a. Offers to buy, sell, or license, agreements granting rights, assignments, 

licenses, covenants, royalties, settlements, agreements releasing any third 

party from liability for infringement, and covenants not to sue, involving 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 15 of 78
10

or concerning the Asserted Patent, Related Patents, Related Applications, 

or Other Action Patents;

b. Negotiations, discussions, or other Communications relating to the 

Documents referenced in sub-paragraph (a); and

c. Communications (or documents relating thereto) between You and any 

potential Licensee or purchaser of the Asserted Patent, Related Patents, 

Related Applications, or Other Action Patents. 

13. Documents and Communications concerning any right, title, or interest in any 

litigation or action involving any of the Asserted Patent, Related Patents, or Other Action 

Defendants.

14. Documents and Communications concerning any business plans, marketing plans, 

marketing efforts, advertising plans, advertising efforts, promotional programs, involving or 

concerning the Asserted Patent, Related Patents, Related Applications or Other Action Patents. 

15. Documents and Communications concerning any budgets, forecasts, revenues, 

projections, costs, sales, expenses, margins, profits, or any other means for generating revenue 

from any Product, process, equipment, or service that allegedly embodies any claim of the 

Asserted Patent or any Other Action Patents.

16. Valuations of the Asserted Patent, Related Patents, Related Applications or Other 

Action Patents, either alone, or together with other patents or consideration, including as part of 

an intellectual property portfolio, and including any appraisals or valuations for tax purposes.

17. Documents (or Communications relating thereto) concerning any licensing policy 

that You may have, including without limitation policies and practices relating to taking or 

granting licenses, relating to any of the Asserted Patent, Related Patents, Related Applications, 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 16 of 78
11

or Other Action Patents.

18. Documents and Communications concerning whether all of the Licensees of the 

Asserted Patent have complied with the marking or notice provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 287(a) with 

respect to the Asserted Patent.

19. Documents sufficient to identify the nature and scope of any rights in the Asserted 

Patent that You have obtained and/or retained at any time, including, without limitation, any right 

to control litigation, future royalties, payments for licenses, or payments relating to or resulting 

from the outcome of any litigation involving the Asserted Patent, Related Patents, or Other Action 

Patents.

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 17 of 78
EXHIBIT 2

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 18 of 78
2

ORAL EXAMINATION TOPICS REQUESTED

Defendants Dell Technologies Inc., Dell Inc., and EMC Corporation (collectively, 

“Defendants”) seek to ask questions on topics described below.

DEFINITIONS

The following definitions are applicable to terms employed in responding to this request:

1. “Accused Product” or “Accused Products” shall refer to any device, product, or other thing 

that Plaintiff is permitted to accuse of infringing the Asserted Patent in this Action. A copy 

of the Complaint in case numbers 6:20-cv-00475-ADA, 6:20-cv-00477-ADA, 6:20-cv00478-ADA, 6:20-cv-00479-ADA is attached as Exhibit 3. In referring to any device, 

product, or other thing as an “Accused Product,” Defendants in no way communicate their 

agreement that it infringes the Asserted Patent.

2. “Action” shall refer to the above-captioned proceeding in the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas, with case numbers: 6:20-cv-00475-ADA, 6:20-cv00477-ADA, 6:20-cv-00478-ADA, 6:20-cv-00479-ADA.

3. “Alcatel” shall mean Alcatel-Lucent International and all parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, 

predecessors, successors, including but not limited to Alcatel and Lucent Technologies.

4. “Asserted Claim” shall refer to each claim of the Asserted Patent that Plaintiff contends 

Defendants infringe. 

5. “Asserted Patent(s)” shall refer to U.S. Patent Nos. 7,126,921; 7,453,888; 8,402,129; 

8,913,489 and any patent applications related thereto. 

6. “Communication” shall mean, without limitation, any written, oral, or other transmission 

of information, including but not limited to emails.

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 19 of 78
3

7. “Complaint” shall refer to the Complaint (including exhibits) that Plaintiff filed on June 2, 

2020 as docket number 1 in this Action, the Amended Complaint filed on October 19, 

2020, and any other amended complaints thereafter. 

8. “Concerning,” “refer(s) to,” “related to,” “reflecting,” “regarding,” and “relating to” shall 

mean directly or indirectly relating to, referring to, regarding, mentioning, reflecting, 

pertaining to, evidencing, illustrating, involving, describing, discussing, commenting on, 

embodying, responding to, supporting, contradicting, or constituting (in whole or in part), 

as the context makes appropriate. 

9. “Defendants” or “Defendant” shall refer to Dell Technologies Inc., Dell Inc., and EMC 

Corporation, and any and all of their then-current or prior subsidiaries, parents, affiliates, 

divisions, successors, predecessors, agents, employees, representatives, directors, officers, 

trustees, and attorneys, or any other person or entity acting in whole or in part in concert 

with any of the foregoing, directly or indirectly. 

10. “Document” shall include, without limitation, all documents, electronically stored 

information, and tangible things within the scope of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

including Rule 34. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 34 permits discovery of: “(A) 

documents or electronically stored information—including writings, drawings, graphs, 

charts, photographs, sound recordings, images, and other data or data compilations—stored 

in any medium from which information can be obtained either directly or, if necessary, 

after translation by the responding party into a reasonably usable form; or (B) any 

designated tangible things.” 

11. “Employee” shall refer to any officer, director, partner, employee, representative, or agent.

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 20 of 78
4

12. “Licensee(s)” shall refer to any entity having a license, assignment, covenant not to sue, or 

other understanding, written, oral or implied, that the entity has any rights to the Asserted 

Patent, any Related Patents, or any Related Applications, may practice one or more claims 

of the Asserted Patent and/or that Plaintiff will not file suit or otherwise enforce against 

that entity one or more claims of the Asserted Patent or any Related Patent or Related 

Application.

13. “Nokia” shall mean Nokia Corporation and all parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, 

predecessors, including but not limited to Nokia Technologies Oy and Nokia Solutions and 

Networks BV.

14. “Person” shall refer to any natural person, firm, association, partnership, government 

agency, corporation, proprietorship, or other entity and its officers, directors, partners, 

employee, representatives, and agents.

15. The terms “Plaintiff,” and/or “WSOU” shall refer to the responding Plaintiff WSOU 

Investments, LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development, and any and all of its thencurrent or prior subsidiaries, parents, affiliates, divisions, successors, predecessors, agents, 

employees, representatives, directors, officers, trustees, and attorneys, or any other person 

or entity acting in whole or in part in concert with any of the foregoing, directly or 

indirectly.

16. “Prior Art” encompasses, without limitation, the subject matter described in each and every 

subdivision of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, and includes, but is not limited to, memoranda, 

notes, manuals, interviews, testing data, disclosures, prototypes, correspondence, 

drawings, papers, articles, patents, printed publications, public uses, demonstrations, offers 

for sale or license, and sales.

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 21 of 78
5

17. “Product(s)” means a machine, manufacture, apparatus, device, instrument, mechanism, 

appliance, software, service, process, or an assemblage of components/parts (either 

individually or collectively) that are designed to function together electronically, 

mechanically, or otherwise, including any offered for sale or under development.

18. “Related Application(s)” means any and all applications related to the Asserted Patent, 

including any provisional or non-provisional applications, continuations, continuations- inpart, divisions, interferences, reexaminations, re-issues, parents, foreign counterpart 

applications, and any other applications disclosing, describing or claiming any invention 

disclosed, described or claimed in the Asserted Patent, or claiming the benefit of the filing 

date of any application whose benefit is claimed in the Asserted Patent, whether or not 

abandoned and whether or not issued.

19. “Related Patent(s)” means any and all U.S. or foreign patents based upon or related to any 

Related Application(s) or Asserted Patent, including any patents or applications that may 

have been opposed, reexamined, re-issued or subjected to any validity or nullity 

proceeding.

20. “Third Party” shall refer to any person other than Plaintiff or Defendants.

21. “You,” “Your,” “Yours” shall refer to Basepoint Administrative, LLC (BP Funding Trust, 

Series SPL-VI), and any and all of its then-current or prior subsidiaries, parents, affiliates, 

divisions, successors, predecessors, agents, employees, representatives, directors, officers, 

trustees, and attorneys, or any other person or entity acting in whole or in part in concert 

with any of the foregoing, directly or indirectly.

22. Any pronouns shall be construed to refer to the masculine, feminine, or neutral gender, in 

singular or plural, as in each case is most appropriate.

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 22 of 78
6

23. The singular form of any word shall be construed to also include the plural, and vice-versa.

24. The word “each” shall be construed to mean “each and every.”

25. The words “and” and “or” shall be construed conjunctively or disjunctively, whichever 

makes the request more inclusive.

26. The words “any” and “all” shall be construed to mean “any and all.”

INSTRUCTIONS

1. This request seeks disclosure to the full extent of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 

shall be interpreted as inclusive rather than exclusive.

2. It is Your duty in responding to this request to designate one or more officers, directors, 

managing agents, or other Persons who are the most knowledgeable with respect to the 

topics identified below.

DEPOSITION TOPICS

1. The past and current ownership of the Asserted Patent, including its chain of 

title.

2. Any facts, studies, investigations, information, documents (including Prior Art), 

and analyses You identified, received, or knew at any time relating to the alleged validity, 

enforceability, infringement, valuation, or priority dates of the Asserted Patent, Related Patents, 

Related Applications, or patents and applications incorporated by reference into the Asserted 

Patent, including any Communications with third parties relating to the foregoing.

3. Any attempts to sell or otherwise transfer financial interests in the Asserted 

Patent, any portfolio of patents containing the Asserted Patent, any patents related to the subject 

matter of the Asserted Claims, and any patent that was asserted against any of the entities that 

Plaintiff has accused of patent infringement (including but not limited to, Huawei, ZTE, 

Microsoft, Google, HP, Juniper, F5, Xilinx, NEC, Oneplus, Canon, TP-Link, Arista Networks, 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 23 of 78
7

Salesforce, Cisco, and NetGear).

4. The timing and circumstances related to Your first knowledge or awareness of 

any alleged infringement of the Asserted Patent by each of the Defendants.

5. Any evaluation or analysis of the Asserted Patent, Related Patents, or Related 

Applications, whether individually or in combination with any other patents or applications, 

including any evaluation or analysis of infringement, validity, or commercialization.

6. All products of which you are/were aware that practiced or currently practice 

any claim of the Asserted Patent, Related Patents, or Related Applications and all allegations 

of which you are/were aware that products practiced or currently practice any claim of the 

Asserted Patent, Related Patents, or Related Applications.

7. Any ranking (in terms of strength, value, or otherwise) or rating of, or attempts 

to rank or rate the Asserted Patent, Related Patents, or Related Applications, whether 

individually or in combination with any other patents or applications, or any portfolio 

containing the Asserted Patent, Related Patents, or Related Applications.

8. Each proposal, offer or other discussions by you or your predecessors in interest, 

regarding actual or potential agreements with Allied Security Trust, or WSOU regarding any 

asserted patent including communications regarding such a proposal, draft agreements, and 

executed agreements.

9. Any Communications with Alcatel or Nokia regarding the Asserted Patent, 

Related Patents, or Related Applications. 

10. Any decision to pursue or not to pursue any claim of infringement of any of the 

claims of the Asserted Patent against any Defendant or any of the entities that Plaintiff has 

accused of patent infringement (including but not limited to, Huawei, ZTE, Microsoft, Google, 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 24 of 78
8

HP, Juniper, F5, Xilinx, NEC, Oneplus, Canon, TP-Link, Arista Networks, Salesforce, Cisco, 

and NetGear).

11. Any efforts by You, any predecessor-in-interest of the Asserted Patent, or any 

other Person to enforce or license the Asserted Patent, or any portfolio of patents containing the 

Asserted Patent, any patents related to the subject matter of the Asserted Claims, or any patent 

that was asserted against any of the entities that Plaintiff has accused of patent infringement 

(including but not limited to, Huawei, ZTE, Microsoft, Google, HP, Juniper, F5, Xilinx, NEC, 

Oneplus, Canon, TP-Link, Arista Networks, Salesforce, Cisco, and NetGear).

12. Your policies and practices concerning patent agreements (including licensing), 

including:

a. any written licensing policies or best practices;

b. any most favored Licensee;

c. the economic and technical factors considered by You in drafting and 

entering into any license, royalty, standstill, partnership, joint venture, 

vendor, or settlement agreements;

d. any standard or preferred terms for license, royalty, standstill or settlement 

agreements;

e. the process by which You determine the nature, scope and terms of license 

agreements in which You are a licensor; and

f. any circumstance in which You deviated from such policies.

13. Your knowledge of, and participation in, any Communications between 

Plaintiff and Defendants prior to the filing of the Action.

14. Any Communications related to Plaintiff, including communications related to 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 25 of 78
9

licensing of any of the Asserted Patent, Related Patents, Related Applications, or any patent that 

was asserted against any of the entities that Plaintiff has accused of patent infringement 

(including but not limited to, Huawei, ZTE, Microsoft, Google, HP, Juniper, F5, Xilinx, NEC, 

Oneplus, Canon, TP-Link, Arista Networks, Salesforce, Cisco, and NetGear), and any

compensation, license rates, royalties related thereto, agreements with Plaintiff, Defendants, the 

Action, the decision to file the Action, requests or offers to provide assistance, witnesses and/or 

documents for use in the Lawsuit, and any discussion about standing of Plaintiff to bring the 

Action.

15. Your relationship with all potential Licensees, including all agreements, 

assurances, covenants not to sue, and understandings not to assert patents against such potential 

Licensees, including but not limited to Communications and agreements relating to the Asserted 

Patent, Related Patents, Related Applications, any patent that was asserted against any of the 

entities that Plaintiff has accused of patent infringement (including but not limited to, Huawei, 

ZTE, Microsoft, Google, HP, Juniper, F5, Xilinx, NEC, Oneplus, Canon, TP-Link, Arista 

Networks, Salesforce, Cisco, and NetGear), and the circumstances relating to such activity.

16. Your relationship with any entity associated with Stuart A. Shanus, Marc Wade, 

and/or Craig Etchegoyen, including without limitation Wade and Company, Orange Holdings, 

WSOU, and/or Uniloc USA, Inc.,1 including any patent license agreements with any such entity 

that relate to patents or patent applications that claim subject matter related to the subject matter 

of the Asserted Claims.

17. Any Communication You engaged in regarding each Defendant and its 

 1 Stuart A. Shanus and Craig Etchegoyen are the Chairman and President of WSOU. Mark 

Wade, Wade and Company, Orange Holdings, and/or Uniloc USA, Inc. are all related 

persons or entities of WSOU. 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 26 of 78
10

respective Products or services, and any analysis You performed of each Defendant and each 

entity that Plaintiff has accused of patent infringement (including but not limited to, Huawei, 

ZTE, Microsoft, Google, HP, Juniper, F5, Xilinx, NEC, Oneplus, Canon, TP-Link, Arista 

Networks, Salesforce, Cisco, and NetGear) and its respective Products and services related to 

the Asserted Patent, Related Patents, Related Applications, and the patents asserted against any 

of the entities that Plaintiff has accused of patent infringement.

18. Any valuations of the Asserted Patent, any portfolio of patents that includes the

Asserted Patent, any patent that was asserted against any of the entities that Plaintiff has accused 

of patent infringement (including but not limited to, Huawei, ZTE, Microsoft, Google, HP, 

Juniper, F5, Xilinx, NEC, Oneplus, Canon, TP-Link, Arista Networks, Salesforce, Cisco, and 

NetGear), or any portfolio of patents that includes those patents.

19. Any licenses, assignments, conveyances, security interests, or other agreements 

relating to the Asserted Patent, or any portfolio of patents that includes or included the Asserted 

Patent, and offers and negotiations leading to and circumstances surrounding such agreement.

20. Any revenues and profits received by You for any Products practicing the 

alleged invention of the Asserted Patent.

21. Revenues, costs, expenses, and profits (including gross and net profits) 

generated in connection with the Asserted Patent, and the methodology used to calculate or 

otherwise determine revenues, costs, expenses, and/or profits.

22. Any licensing fees and rates paid for each portfolio that includes the Asserted 

Patent.

23. The rates paid by any Licensee for the use of other patents comparable to the 

Asserted Patent.

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 27 of 78
11

24. Any financial interests that You may have in the Asserted Patent, including but 

not limited to royalties and the outcome of the Action.

25. Your collection, retention and production of documents and information relevant 

to the Action.

26. The subject matter, content, and authenticity of all Documents and 

Communications identified and/or produced in response to the above requests.

27. All Documents reviewed by You in connection with the deposition on these topics.

28. For each of the topics set forth in this request, the identity and location of Your 

employee, agent, representative, independent contractor, or other partner, affiliate, or business 

associate, with the most knowledge concerning that topic.

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 28 of 78
EXHIBIT 3A

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 29 of 78
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.

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 30 of 78 Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 34 Filed 10/19/20 Page 1 of 10
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. 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 31 of 78 Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 34 Filed 10/19/20 Page 2 of 10
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 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 32 of 78 Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 34 Filed 10/19/20 Page 3 of 10
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

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 33 of 78 Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 34 Filed 10/19/20 Page 4 of 10
5

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

_1.pdf

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 34 of 78 Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 34 Filed 10/19/20 Page 5 of 10
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 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 35 of 78 Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 34 Filed 10/19/20 Page 6 of 10
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 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 36 of 78 Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 34 Filed 10/19/20 Page 7 of 10
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.”).

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 37 of 78 Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 34 Filed 10/19/20 Page 8 of 10
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.

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 38 of 78 Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 34 Filed 10/19/20 Page 9 of 10
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

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 39 of 78 Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 34 Filed 10/19/20 Page 10 of 10
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

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 40 of 78 Case 6:20-cv-00482-ADA Document 36 Filed 10/19/20 Page 15 of 15
EXHIBIT 3B

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 41 of 78
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-477-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.

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 42 of 78 Case 6:20-cv-00477-ADA Document 33 Filed 10/19/20 Page 1 of 13
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. 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 43 of 78 Case 6:20-cv-00477-ADA Document 33 Filed 10/19/20 Page 2 of 13
3

COUNT ONE - INFRINGEMENT OF 

U.S. PATENT NO. 8,913,489

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

Complaint.

11. On December 16, 2014, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and 

legally issued U.S. Patent No. 8,913,489 (“the ‘489 Patent”), entitled “System and Method for

Virtual Fabric Link Failure Recovery.” A true and correct copy of the ‘489 Patent is attached as 

Exhibit A to this Complaint.

12. Brazos is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in and to the ‘489 Patent, 

including the right to assert all causes of action arising under the ‘489 Patent and the right to any 

remedies for the infringement of the ‘489 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 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 44 of 78 Case 6:20-cv-00477-ADA Document 33 Filed 10/19/20 Page 3 of 13
4

switches with Virtual Link Trunking (VLT), including but not limited to, C9000 series switches

(collectively, the “Accused Products”).

14. The Accused Products provide multi-rate, modular switching platforms, which can 

be used for campus, mid-market, and large-enterprise networks and support Layer 2 multipath 

using VLT.

...

https://www.dell.com/en-us/work/shop/povw/networking-c9000-series

15. The Accused Products operate based on Dell Networking OS (DNOS), which 

incorporates features from Force10 Networks’s Force10 Operating System (FTOS), including 

VLT. VLT allows two physical switches to be represented as a single logical switch, which can be 

regarded as a part of a multi-chassis link aggregation group (MC-LAG). With physical links as a 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 45 of 78 Case 6:20-cv-00477-ADA Document 33 Filed 10/19/20 Page 4 of 13
5

port-channel, connecting two individual switches configured with VLT would logically group it 

as a single entity only for the access switches which connect to the VLT domain. 

https://topics-cdn.dell.com/pdf/networking-c9000-series_users-guide_en-us.pdf

16. For example, a VLT topology may include two switches, including an Accused 

Product, in a VLT Domain that communicates with servers by forming a multi-chassis link 

aggregation group over port interfaces of the switches.

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 46 of 78 Case 6:20-cv-00477-ADA Document 33 Filed 10/19/20 Page 5 of 13
6

https://downloads.dell.com/solutions/networking-solutionresources/Virtual%20Link%20Trunking-Reference%20Architecture%202%200_External.pdf

17. Further, as shown in the example above, switches in the VLT Domain may be 

considered VTI peer devices and connected using a VLTi interconnect port-channel, which acts a 

virtual fiber link. The VLT interconnect (VLTi) carries MAC, ARP Tables, and IGMP State 

information between the VLT peer switches in a VLT topology.

...

...

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 47 of 78 Case 6:20-cv-00477-ADA Document 33 Filed 10/19/20 Page 6 of 13
7

https://topics-cdn.dell.com/pdf/networking-c9000-series_users-guide_en-us.pdf

https://downloads.dell.com/solutions/networking-solutionresources/Virtual%20Link%20Trunking-Reference%20Architecture%202%200_External.pdf

18. The Accused Products can determine a connection failure of the VLTi

interconnect.

https://downloads.dell.com/solutions/networking-solutionresources/Virtual%20Link%20Trunking-Reference%20Architecture%202%200_External.pdf

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 48 of 78 Case 6:20-cv-00477-ADA Document 33 Filed 10/19/20 Page 7 of 13
8

...

...

https://topics-cdn.dell.com/pdf/networking-c9000-series_users-guide_en-us.pdf

19. When the MC-LAG is disrupted (e.g., after the Accused Products determines VLTi 

and back uplink failure between VLT peer switches), the MC-LAG can be reconfigured into two 

link aggregates associated with each VLT peer switch to take the primary role and continue to 

communicate traffic over link aggregates to the end node. In the Accused Products, the VLT 

backup link can be configurable. If a VLT backup link is not enabled, then during VLTi failure, 

both VLT peer switches may take primary roles to form link aggregates. 

...

https://downloads.dell.com/solutions/networking-solutionresources/Virtual%20Link%20Trunking-Reference%20Architecture%202%200_External.pdf

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 49 of 78 Case 6:20-cv-00477-ADA Document 33 Filed 10/19/20 Page 8 of 13
9

https://topics-cdn.dell.com/pdf/networking-c9000-series_users-guide_en-us.pdf

20. In the event of VLTi failure causing disruption of the MC-LAG, the spanning tree 

protocol (STP) may be initiated in the first set of port interfaces to avoid a traffic loop. 

https://www.dell.com/community/s/vjauj58549/attachments/vjauj58549/Network/35449/1/Route

d%20VLT%20v1.2.pdf

21. In view of preceding paragraphs, each and every element of at least claim 8 of the 

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

element of at least claim 8 of the ’489 Patent is performed or practiced by Defendants at least 

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

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

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 50 of 78 Case 6:20-cv-00477-ADA Document 33 Filed 10/19/20 Page 9 of 13
10

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

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

22. Defendants continue to directly infringe at least one claim of the ‘489 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.

23. 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.

24. 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

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, 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 51 of 78 Case 6:20-cv-00477-ADA Document 33 Filed 10/19/20 Page 10 of 13
11

‘489 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:

• https://www.dell.com/en-us/work/shop/povw/networking-c9000-series

• https://www.dell.com/en-us/work/shop/productdetailstxn/force10-ftos

• https://topics-cdn.dell.com/pdf/networking-c9000-series_users-guide_en-us.pdf

• https://downloads.dell.com/solutions/networking-solutionresources/Virtual%20Link%20TrunkingReference%20Architecture%202%200_External.pdf

• https://www.dell.com/community/s/vjauj58549/attachments/vjauj58549/Network/35449

/1/Routed%20VLT%20v1.2.pdf

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

infringement of the ‘489 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 ‘489 Patent. The Accused Products are especially made or adapted 

for infringing the ‘489 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 ‘489 Patent.

JURY DEMAND

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 

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

following the filing of the original complaint.”).

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 52 of 78 Case 6:20-cv-00477-ADA Document 33 Filed 10/19/20 Page 11 of 13
12

Brazos hereby demands a jury on all issues so triable.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Brazos respectfully requests that the Court:

(A) Enter judgment that Defendants infringe one or more claims of the ‘489 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 ‘489 Patent;

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

the infringement of one or more claims of the ‘489 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 ‘489 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.

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 53 of 78 Case 6:20-cv-00477-ADA Document 33 Filed 10/19/20 Page 12 of 13
13

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

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 54 of 78 Case 6:20-cv-00477-ADA Document 33 Filed 10/19/20 Page 13 of 13
EXHIBIT 3C

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 55 of 78
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-478-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 

Complain” 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.

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 56 of 78 Case 6:20-cv-00478-ADA Document 34 Filed 10/19/20 Page 1 of 10
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. 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 57 of 78 Case 6:20-cv-00478-ADA Document 34 Filed 10/19/20 Page 2 of 10
COUNT ONE - INFRINGEMENT OF 

U.S. PATENT NO. 7,126,921

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

Complaint.

11. On October 24, 2006, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and 

legally issued U.S. Patent No. 7,126,921 (“the ‘921 Patent”), entitled “Packet Network Providing 

Fast Distribution of Node Related Information and a Method Therefor.” A true and correct copy 

of the ‘921 Patent is attached as Exhibit A to this Complaint.

12. Brazos is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in and to the ‘921 Patent, 

including the right to assert all causes of action arising under the ‘921 Patent and the right to any 

remedies for the infringement of the ‘921 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, controlled 

networking devices, including but not limited to, routers controlled by Dell Network Operating 

System (“DNOS”) incorporating features of Force10 Network’s Force10 Operating System 

(“FTOS”), including but not limited to the Dell Networking S3048-ON, Dell Networking S4048-

ON, Dell Networking S4810-ON, Dell Networking S6000-ON, and E-Series, C-Series, N-Series, 

and S- Series hardware (collectively, the “Accused Products”).

14. The Accused Products operate based on Dell Networking OS (DNOS), which 

incorporates features from FTOS for packet networks having nodes and links. FTOS supports 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 58 of 78 Case 6:20-cv-00478-ADA Document 34 Filed 10/19/20 Page 3 of 10
packet networks, which comprises multiple nodes and links. FTOS is a part of various Dell 

networking devices, including E-Series, C-Series, and S- Series hardware.

https://www.networkworld.com/article/2179414/dell-takes-deeper-dive-into-networking--buysforce10.html

...

https://www.force10networks.com/CSPortal20/KnowledgeBase/DOCUMENTATION/CLIConfi

g/FTOS/All_CONFIG%20Book_8212_13-Oct-09.pdf

15. FTOS can be installed on Dell Open Networking (ON) Switches, including Dell 

Networking S3048-ON, S4048-ON, S4810-ON, and S6000-ON.

https://www.dell.com/support/article/us/en/04/how11548/how-to-install-dell-networking-ftos-ondell-open-networking-on-switches?lang=en

16. The Accused Products implement a control plane to control the nodes and a 

forwarding (data) plane responsive to the control plane. A control plane is a set of protocols that 

determine how the forwarding plane should forward packets, deciding which data packets are 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 59 of 78 Case 6:20-cv-00478-ADA Document 34 Filed 10/19/20 Page 4 of 10
allowed to be forwarded and where they should go. 

https://cdn.competec.ch/documents/3/9/392428/DE_Handbuch_switch.pdf

17. Link State Advertisements (LSAs) help routing network devices forward data 

packets. Link state information provides routing-related information to the nodes in the packet 

network and is provided to the control plane for computing forward routing information.

https://www.force10networks.com/CSPortal20/KnowledgeBase/DOCUMENTATION/CLIConfi

g/FTOS/All_CONFIG%20Book_8212_13-Oct-09.pdf

18. When one of the routing network devices goes down, there is a potential to lose 

access to parts of the network, causing potential packet loss. Therefore, the network will want to 

maintain a stable topology if it is possible for data flow to continue uninterrupted. To facilitate this 

in networks using the Accused Products, the computed forward routing information gets 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 60 of 78 Case 6:20-cv-00478-ADA Document 34 Filed 10/19/20 Page 5 of 10
downloaded into a Forwarding Information Base (FIB) on the line cards (the data plane) of the 

routing network devices. 

https://www.force10networks.com/CSPortal20/KnowledgeBase/DOCUMENTATION/CLIConfi

g/FTOS/All_CONFIG%20Book_8212_13-Oct-09.pdf

19. The data plane provides fast propagation of link state information. For example, 

type 9 link-local opaque grace-LSAs notify the helper neighbors during a restart process. The other 

nodes routers continue to announce information regarding the restarting router if the network 

topology is unchanged. Link state information contains the forward route information for the 

nodes. 

https://www.force10networks.com/CSPortal20/KnowledgeBase/DOCUMENTATION/CLIConfi

g/FTOS/All_CONFIG%20Book_8212_13-Oct-09.pdf

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 61 of 78 Case 6:20-cv-00478-ADA Document 34 Filed 10/19/20 Page 6 of 10
20. Moreover, Fast Convergence allows a user to define the speeds at which link-state 

information originates and accepted to speed up route information propagation.

https://www.force10networks.com/CSPortal20/KnowledgeBase/DOCUMENTATION/CLIConfi

g/FTOS/All_CONFIG%20Book_8212_13-Oct-09.pdf

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

‘921 Patent is found in the Accused Products.

22. Defendants continue to directly infringe at least one claim of the ‘921 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.

23. And upon information and belief, each and every element of at least one claim of 

the patent-in-suit is performed or practiced by Defendants at least through Defendants’ own use 

and configuration of its own Accused Products, and/or through 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.

24. 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 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 62 of 78 Case 6:20-cv-00478-ADA Document 34 Filed 10/19/20 Page 7 of 10
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

25. 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 

‘921 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:

● https://www.networkworld.com/article/2179414/dell-takes-deeper-dive-intonetworking--buys-force10.html

● https://www.force10networks.com/CSPortal20/KnowledgeBase/DOCUMENTATION/

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 

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

following the filing of the original complaint.”).

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 63 of 78 Case 6:20-cv-00478-ADA Document 34 Filed 10/19/20 Page 8 of 10
CLIConfig/FTOS/All_CONFIG%20Book_8212_13-Oct-09.pdf

● https://cdn.competec.ch/documents/3/9/392428/DE_Handbuch_switch.pdf

● https://www.dell.com/support/article/us/en/04/how11548/how-to-install-dellnetworking-ftos-on-dell-open-networking-on-switches?lang=en

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

infringement of the ‘921 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 ‘921 Patent. The Accused Products are especially made or adapted 

for infringing the ‘921 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 ‘921 Patent.

JURY DEMAND

Brazos hereby demands a jury on all issues so triable.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Brazos respectfully requests that the Court:

(A) Enter judgment that Defendants infringe one or more claims of the ‘921 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 ‘921 Patent;

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

the infringement of one or more claims of the ‘921 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 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 64 of 78 Case 6:20-cv-00478-ADA Document 34 Filed 10/19/20 Page 9 of 10
the infringement by Defendants of the ‘921 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.

Dated: May 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

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 65 of 78 Case 6:20-cv-00478-ADA Document 34 Filed 10/19/20 Page 10 of 10
EXHIBIT 3D

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 66 of 78
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-479-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.

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 67 of 78 Case 6:20-cv-00479-ADA Document 33 Filed 10/19/20 Page 1 of 12
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. 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 68 of 78 Case 6:20-cv-00479-ADA Document 33 Filed 10/19/20 Page 2 of 12
COUNT ONE - INFRINGEMENT OF 

U.S. PATENT NO. 8,402,129

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

Complaint.

11. On March 19, 2013, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally 

issued U.S. Patent No. 8,402,129 (“the ‘129 Patent”), entitled “Method and Apparatus for Efficient 

Reactive Monitoring.” A true and correct copy of the ‘129 Patent is attached as Exhibit A to this 

Complaint.

12. Brazos is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in and to the ‘129 Patent, 

including the right to assert all causes of action arising under the ‘129 Patent and the right to any 

remedies for the infringement of the ‘129 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, network 

management systems, including but not limited to, Dell EMC OpenManage Enterprise and Dell 

OpenManage Enterprise (OME) and OpenManage Network Manager (OMNM) applications 

(collectively, the “Accused Products”).

14. The Accused Products can provide a console for managing hardware devices, 

including Dell servers, storage arrays, tape libraries, network devices (switches/routers), printers, 

and clients distributed throughout a network. Dell OME can be integrated with OMNM to view 

networking information. From a central console, an administrator can exercise control based on 

proactive alerts and notifications. 

 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 69 of 78 Case 6:20-cv-00479-ADA Document 33 Filed 10/19/20 Page 3 of 12
15. Various devices that can be discovered and monitored by Dell OME.

Product Testing.

16. Dell OME identifies systems experiencing problems and alerts the administrator 

to help reduce the risk of system downtime. Using the web-enabled graphical user interface, one 

can monitor systems within the network. 

https://www.delltechnologies.com/en-us/solutions/openmanage/enterprise.htm

https://topics-cdn.dell.com/pdf/dell-openmanage-enterprise-v32_api-guide2_en-us.pdf

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 70 of 78 Case 6:20-cv-00479-ADA Document 33 Filed 10/19/20 Page 4 of 12
Product Testing

17. Dell OME monitors various resources (e.g. “current” of system board) of nodes 

(i.e. monitored device) within the network. As an example, the alert with MESSAGE ID -

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 71 of 78 Case 6:20-cv-00479-ADA Document 33 Filed 10/19/20 Page 5 of 12
AMP0302 is generated for a monitored device when the system board current of the device (i.e. 

usage of resource) reaches beyond the upper warning threshold.

Product Testing.

18. The Accused Products poll the monitored devices on regular user-defined time 

interval bases irrespective of any alerts received from the monitoring devices. Dell OME 

provides independent settings and functionalities for alert policies and health check polling. 

19. Dell OME provides the ability for a user to define the time interval for the health 

poll recurrence and a Global health task performs the job repeatedly to poll the health of the 

devices in defined time intervals irrespective of the alerts received by Dell OME. When an alert 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 72 of 78 Case 6:20-cv-00479-ADA Document 33 Filed 10/19/20 Page 6 of 12
is received, the polling of the devices may occur independently at the user-defined interval (i.e. 

irrespective of the alert). 

Product Testing.

Product Testing.

 

 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 73 of 78 Case 6:20-cv-00479-ADA Document 33 Filed 10/19/20 Page 7 of 12
20. In view of preceding paragraphs, each and every element of at least claim 3 of the 

‘129 Patent is found in the Accused Products.

21. Defendants continue to directly infringe at least one claim of the ‘129 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.

22. And upon information and belief, each and every element of at least one claim of 

the patent-in-suit is performed or practiced by Defendants at least through Defendants’ own use 

and configuration of its own Accused Products, and/or through 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.

23. 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 

24. 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 

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 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 74 of 78 Case 6:20-cv-00479-ADA Document 33 Filed 10/19/20 Page 8 of 12
‘129 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:

● https://www.delltechnologies.com/en-us/solutions/openmanage/enterprise.htm

● https://topics-cdn.dell.com/pdf/dell-openmanage-enterprise-v32_api-guide2_en-us.pdf

● https://www.dell.com/support/article/en-us/sln312494/support-for-openmanageessentials?lang=en

● https://www.dell.com/support/article/en-us/sln310714/support-for-openmanageenterprise?lang=en

● https://www.dell.com/us/bsd/p/dell-openmanage-networkmanager/pd?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd&redirect=1

● https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNIJNVbeXLE

● https://topics-cdn.dell.com/pdf/openmanage-essentials-v25_users-guide_en-us.pdf

● https://topics-cdn.dell.com/pdf/dell-openmanage-server-administratorbecause 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 

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

following the filing of the original complaint.”).

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 75 of 78 Case 6:20-cv-00479-ADA Document 33 Filed 10/19/20 Page 9 of 12
v8.3_connectivity-guide_en-us.pdf

● http://www.doradosoftware.com/_assets/downloads/omnm/omnmv8userguide.pdf

● https://www.dell.com/support/manuals/us/en/04/dell-openmanage-essentialsv2.2/ome22ug/status-polling-schedule-settings?guid=guid-1a47107a-e2c9-4102-b2e3-

938477093317&lang=en-us

● https://downloads.dell.com/manuals/allproducts/esuprt_ser_stor_net/esuprt_networking/dell-openmanage-networkmanager_owners-manual4_en-us.pdf

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

infringement of the ‘129 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 ‘129 Patent. The Accused Products are especially made or adapted 

for infringing the ‘129 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 ‘129 Patent.

JURY DEMAND

Brazos hereby demands a jury on all issues so triable.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Brazos respectfully requests that the Court:

(A) Enter judgment that Defendants infringe one or more claims of the ‘129 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 ‘129 Patent;

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

the infringement of one or more claims of the ‘129 Patent;

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 76 of 78 Case 6:20-cv-00479-ADA Document 33 Filed 10/19/20 Page 10 of 12
(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 ‘129 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.

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 77 of 78 Case 6:20-cv-00479-ADA Document 33 Filed 10/19/20 Page 11 of 12
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

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA Document 167-2 Filed 03/14/22 Page 78 of 78 Case 6:20-cv-00479-ADA Document 33 Filed 10/19/20 Page 12 of 12