9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC d/b/a 

BRAZOS LICENSING AND 

DEVELOPMENT,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-461

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

ORIGINAL 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 Complaint for Patent Infringement against 

Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft” or “Defendant”) 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 Microsoft Corporation is incorporated under

the laws of Washington State with its principal place of business at 1 Microsoft Way, Redmond, 

Washington 98052. Microsoft may be served with process through its registered agent Corporation 

Service Company, 211 East 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701.

Case 6:20-cv-00461 Document 1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 1 of 13
9

4. On information and belief, Microsoft has been registered to do business in the state 

of Texas under Texas SOS file number 0010404606 since about March 1987.

5. On information and belief, Microsoft has had regular and established places of 

business in this judicial district since at least 2002.

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 Microsoft pursuant 

to due process and/or the Texas Long Arm Statute, because Microsoft has committed acts giving 

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

over Microsoft would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice because 

Microsoft has established minimum contacts with the forum. For example, on information and 

belief, Microsoft 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). 

10. This district was deemed to be a proper venue for patent cases against Microsoft in 

actions bearing docket numbers: 6-19-cv-00572 (Zeroclick, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation ); 6-19-

cv-00687 (Exafer, Ltd. v. Microsoft Corporation.); and 6-19-cv-00399 (Neodron Ltd. v. Microsoft 

Corporation).

Case 6:20-cv-00461 Document 1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 2 of 13
Case 6:20-cv-00461 Document 1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 3 of 13
Case 6:20-cv-00461 Document 1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 4 of 13
5

17. On information and belief, Microsoft owns and operates multiple datacenters in the 

judicial district, including without limitation data centers located at 5150 Rogers Road, San 

Antonio, Texas 78251; 5200 Rogers Road, San Antonio, Texas 78251; 3823 Weisman Boulevard, 

San Antonio, Texas 78251; and 15000 Lambda Drive, San Antonio, Texas 782245. 

18. On information and belief, Microsoft utilizes its datacenter locationsin this judicial 

district as regular and established places of business. As a non-limiting example, the data centers 

in San Antonio are referred to within Microsoft as “US Gov Texas.” 

19. On information and belief, thousands of customers who rely on the infringing 

datacenter infrastructure that Microsoft’s engineering and operations teams have built, reside in 

this judicial district.

COUNT ONE - INFRINGEMENT OF 

U.S. PATENT NO. 7,106,702

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

Complaint.

21. On September 12, 2006, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and 

legally issued U.S. Patent No. 7,106,702 (“the ’702 Patent”), entitled “On-Demand Dynamically 

Updated User Database and AAA Function for High Reliability Networks.” A true and correct 

copy of the ’702 Patent is attached as Exhibit A to this Complaint.

22. Brazos is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in and to the ’702 Patent, 

including the right to assert all causes of action arising under the ’702 Patent and the right to any 

remedies for the infringement of the ’702 Patent.

Case 6:20-cv-00461 Document 1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 5 of 13
Case 6:20-cv-00461 Document 1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 6 of 13
Case 6:20-cv-00461 Document 1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 7 of 13
Case 6:20-cv-00461 Document 1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 8 of 13
Case 6:20-cv-00461 Document 1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 9 of 13
Case 6:20-cv-00461 Document 1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 10 of 13
11

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/opbuildpdf/networking/TOC.pdf?branch=live

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

’702 Patent is found in the Accused Products.

34. Microsoft has and continues to directly infringe at least one claim of the ’702

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.

35. Microsoft has received notice and actual or constructive knowledge of the ’702

Patent since at least the date of service of this Complaint.

36. Since at least the date of service of this Complaint, through its actions, Microsoft 

has actively induced product makers, distributors, retailers, and/or end users of the Accused 

Products to infringe the ’702 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://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/networking/technologies/nps/nps-top

• https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsserver/opbuildpdf/networking/TOC.pdf?branch=live 

37. Since at least the date of service of this Complaint, through its actions, 

Microsoft has contributed to the infringement of the ’702 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 ’702 Patent. The Accused 

Case 6:20-cv-00461 Document 1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 11 of 13
12

Products are especially made or adapted for infringing the ’702 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 ’702 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 Microsoft infringes one or more claims of the ‘702 Patent 

literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents;

(B) Enter judgment that Microsoft has induced infringement and continues to induce 

infringement of one or more claims of the ‘702 Patent;

(C) Enter judgment that Microsoft has contributed to and continues to contribute to 

the infringement of one or more claims of the ‘702 Patent;

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

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

the infringement by Microsoft of the ‘702 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-00461 Document 1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 12 of 13
13

Dated: June 2, 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

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

Case 6:20-cv-00461 Document 1 Filed 06/02/20 Page 13 of 13