EXHIBIT A

Case 6:20-cv-00487-ADA Document 108-1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 1 of 14
1875 EXPLORER STREET | SUITE 800 | RESTON, VA 20190-6023

PHONE: +1 571 203 2700 | FAX: +1 202 408 4400

LIONEL M. LAVENUE

571.203.2750

lionel.lavenue@finnegan.com

January 6, 2021

via electronic mail

Mark Siegmund, Esq.

Walt Fair, PLLC

1508 North Valley Mills Drive

Waco, Texas 76710-4462

WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development v. ZTE Corp., et al.

C.A. No. 6:20-cv-00487, -488, -489, -490, -491, -492, -493, -494, -495, -496, -497-ADA

Dear Mark:

On behalf of ZTE Corp., ZTE (USA) Inc., and ZTE (TX) Inc. (“ZTE”), I write in response 

to your December 17, 2020 venue discovery requests. Per the normal 30-day timeline for 

objections and responses, we plan to provide formal objections and responses by January 18, 2021. 

However, we provide ZTE’s initial objections, if WSOU wishes to have an early meet-and-confer.

Regarding the venue discovery at large, we wish to clarify the scope of such discovery at 

the outset. As you know, WSOU carries the burden of demonstrating venue is proper in the 

WDTX—not any other district in Texas at this time. As such, the scope of this venue discovery is 

limited to the WDTX. Indeed, WSOU previously stated that the discovery relates to just “ZTE’s 

business[es] and employees in the WDTX.” See December 9, 2020 e-mail communication from

WSOU. This means that any discovery requests for documents, identifications, etc. directed 

outside the WDTX are too broad in scope. Thus, ZTE’s responses will be limited to the WDTX. 

WSOU also carries the burden of proving venue was appropriate, as of the time the action 

was filed (i.e., this action was initially filed on June 3, 2020). As the relevant timeframe for 

establishing venue is June 3, 2020, any discovery for general documents, identifications, etc. 

outside of this timeframe and not relevant to establishing venue on June 3, 2020 are too broad in 

scope. We will work with WSOU on certain exceptions, such as information pertaining to former 

offices in the WDTX, prior to June 3, 2020, but general discovery before that time is too broad. 

Finally, we note that only ZTE USA and ZTE TX challenged venue in the renewed Motion 

to Dismiss. Thus, ZTE’s responses will generally be limited to ZTE USA and ZTE TX, as to 

general venue discovery demands, but ZTE’s responses will certainly be limited to the WDTX.

If WSOU disagrees, under Judge Albright’s Standing Order Regarding Venue and 

Jurisdictional Discovery Limits for Patent Cases, WSOU is directed to raise this issue with the 

Court, as necessary, after we have had a meet-and-confer on any issues that WSOU may still have.

Case 6:20-cv-00487-ADA Document 108-1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 2 of 14
Mark Siegmund, Esq.

January 6, 2021

Page 2

FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP

For your reference, we provide our early responses/objections to the venue RFPs, as 

follows:

RFP No. 1:

“Documents and communications identifying the number of ZTE employees and 

contractors located in the State of Texas as listed by either place of business, 

temporary residence, or permanent residence.”

This request seeks information related to ZTE employees and contractors located 

in the State of Texas.

As explained above, the scope of these requests is to be limited geographically to 

the WDTX and temporally to June 3, 2020. ZTE USA and ZTE TX do not have employees 

located in the WDTX nor did either entity have employees in the WDTX on June 3, 2020.

RFP No. 2

“Documents and communications identifying the number of ZTE employees and

contractors located in the WDTX as listed by either place of business, temporary 

residence, or permanent residence.”

The information sought by this request is entirely encompassed by, and is, thus, 

duplicative of, RFP No. 1.

As explained above, the scope of these requests is to be limited geographically to 

the WDTX and temporally to June 3, 2020. ZTE USA and ZTE TX do not have employees 

located in the WDTX nor did either entity have employees in the WDTX on June 3, 2020.

RFP No. 3

“Documents and communications identifying the number, contact information, and 

job responsibilities for ZTE employees and contractors located in the State of Texas 

working with the instrumentalities identified in WSOU’ s infringement contentions –

broken out by each specific case.”

This request seeks information related to ZTE employees and contractors located 

in the State of Texas.

Case 6:20-cv-00487-ADA Document 108-1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 3 of 14
Mark Siegmund, Esq.

January 6, 2021

Page 3

FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP

As explained above, the scope of these requests is to be limited geographically to 

the WDTX and temporally to June 3, 2020. ZTE USA and ZTE TX do not have employees 

located in the WDTX nor did either entity have employees in the WDTX on June 3, 2020.

RFP No. 4

“Documents identifying the team (or teams) of which each individual identified in 

Item No. 2 is a part of and a location of other team members by residence.”

This request seeks information related to the ZTE employees identified in RFP No. 

2 and the team to which each employee belongs. 

As explained above, the scope of these requests is to be limited geographically to 

the WDTX and temporally to June 3, 2020. ZTE USA and ZTE TX do not have employees 

located in the WDTX nor did either entity have employees in the WDTX on June 3, 2020.

RFP No. 5

“Documents and communications identifying ZTE’s customers located in the 

Western District of Texas for the last two years where payment to any ZTE entity has 

exceeded $50,000 in any twelve-month period.”

This request seeks information related to ZTE’s customers in the WDTX for the 

last two years whose payment to any ZTE entity has exceeded $50,000 in any 12-month 

period.

This request is related to establishing personal jurisdiction and is not relevant to 

establishing venue. Please provide case law supporting that the location of customers 

establishes venue, so ZTE can properly consider this request.

RFP No. 6

Sealed filings and venue discovery produced in any of the following cases, (including 

a corresponding lead case if filings made there instead of a member case):

• Seven Networks, LLC v. ZTE (USA) Inc. and ZTE Corp., Civil Action No. 3:17-

CV-1495 (N.D. Tex.)

• X-Mobile Technologies LLC v. ZTE Corporation, ZTE (TX) Inc., and ZTE (USA) 

Inc., Civil Action No. 4:17-cv-696 (E.D. Tex.)

Case 6:20-cv-00487-ADA Document 108-1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 4 of 14
Mark Siegmund, Esq.

January 6, 2021

Page 4

FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP

• American Patents LLC v. ZTE Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 4:18-cv-675-ALM 

(E.D. Tex.)

• Am. GNC Corp. v. ZTE Corp., Civil Action No. 4:17-CV-620, (E.D. Tex. Nov. 7, 

2017)

• In re ZTE (USA) Inc., 890 F.3d 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2018)

• AGIS Software Dev., LLC v. ZTE Corp., Civil Action No. 2:17-CV-00517-JRG 

(E.D. Tex.)

• Fractus, S.A. v. ZTE Corporation et al., Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-00561-JRG 

(E.D. Tex.)

This request seeks sealed filings and venue discovery produced in the above-listed 

7 cases. 

As explained above, the scope of these requests is to be limited geographically to 

the WDTX and temporally to June 3, 2020. None of these cases are in the WDTX, so venue 

discovery produced in these cases is likely irrelevant. These cases were filed in 2017 and 

2018. Any venue discovery produced in the above cases would be irrelevant to establishing 

venue on June 3, 2020.

Also, to the extent the venue disputes in the above cases depend on third-party facts, 

ZTE cannot produce any third-party confidential or sealed documents.

RFP No. 7

“Deposition transcripts concerning venue issues as it relates to ZTE in any of the cases

identified in Item No. 6.”

This request seeks deposition transcripts concerning venue issues in the cases 

identified under RFP No. 6.

As explained above, the scope of these requests is to be limited geographically to 

the WDTX and temporally to June 3, 2020. None of these cases are in the WDTX, so venue 

discovery produced in these cases is likely irrelevant. These cases were filed in 2017 and 

2018. Any venue discovery produced in the above cases would be irrelevant to establishing 

venue on June 3, 2020.

Also, to the extent the venue disputes in the above cases depend on third-party facts, 

ZTE cannot produce any third-party confidential or sealed documents.

Case 6:20-cv-00487-ADA Document 108-1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 5 of 14
Mark Siegmund, Esq.

January 6, 2021

Page 5

FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP

RFP No. 8

“Communications and venue subpoena responses concerning venue issues as it 

relates to ZTE in any of the cases identified in Item No. 6.”

This request seeks communications and venue subpoena responses concerning 

venue issues in the cases identified under RFP No. 6.

As explained above, the scope of these requests is to be limited geographically to 

the WDTX and temporally to June 3, 2020. None of these cases are in the WDTX, so venue 

discovery produced in these cases is likely irrelevant. These cases were filed in 2017 and 

2018. Any venue discovery produced in the above cases would be irrelevant to establishing 

venue on June 3, 2020.

Also, to the extent the venue disputes in the above cases depend on third-party facts, 

ZTE cannot produce any third-party confidential or sealed documents.

RFP No. 9

“Documents and communications concerning equipment located in the Western 

District of Texas for which ZTE asserts or has asserted any type of control or ability 

to configure.”

This request seeks information related to equipment located in the WDTX for 

which ZTE asserts or has asserted control or ability to configure.

As explained above, the scope of these requests is to be limited temporally to June 

3, 2020, the relevant date for establishing venue. ZTE USA and ZTE TX did not have an 

office or physical location in the WDTX on June 3, 2020, and as such, no equipment 

located in the WDTX.

RFP No. 10

“Contracts governing the equipment in Item No. 9 and related communications.”

This request seeks contracts governing the equipment referred to in RFP No. 9.

As explained above, the scope of these requests is to be limited temporally to June 

3, 2020, the relevant date for establishing venue. ZTE USA and ZTE TX did not have an 

office or physical location in the WDTX on June 3, 2020, and as such, no equipment 

located in the WDTX.

Case 6:20-cv-00487-ADA Document 108-1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 6 of 14
Mark Siegmund, Esq.

January 6, 2021

Page 6

FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP

RFP No. 11

“Documents and communications concerning the provisioning of the equipment in 

Item No. 9.”

This request seeks information relating to the provisioning of the equipment 

referred to in RFP No. 9.

As explained above, the scope of these requests is to be limited temporally to June 

3, 2020, the relevant date for establishing venue. ZTE USA and ZTE TX did not have an 

office or physical location in the WDTX on June 3, 2020, and as such, no equipment 

located in the WDTX.

RFP No. 12

“Documents and communications used in preparing any of the declarations 

submitted by ZTE in this case.”

This request seeks information used in preparing any declarations submitted by 

ZTE in this case.

This request is improper to the extent it seeks information protected under attorneyclient privilege, work product doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege or immunity.

As explained above, only ZTE USA and ZTE TX challenged venue in the renewed 

Motion to Dismiss (“MTD”). ZTE Corp. submitted a declaration in the first MTD on the 

grounds of improper personal jurisdiction. ZTE Corp. did not submit a declaration in the 

renewed MTD for improper venue. Therefore, since the ZTE Corp. declaration is not part 

of the venue discovery, ZTE objects to the request to the extent it seeks documents and 

communications used in preparing the ZTE Corp. declaration submitted in these cases.

RFP No. 13

“Documents and communications relating to ZTE’s ownership or other rights in the 

property located at River Place Corporate Park, Building I, 6500 River Place 

Boulevard, Austin, Texas 78730 (the “River Place Property”), including any lease 

agreements, communications concerning any lease agreements, and documents and 

communications relating to personal property of ZTE’s stored at the River Place 

Property.”

Case 6:20-cv-00487-ADA Document 108-1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 7 of 14
Mark Siegmund, Esq.

January 6, 2021

Page 7

FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP

This request seeks information relating to ZTE’s ownership or other rights in the 

River Place Property in Austin. TX.

Such non-immune and/or non-privileged documents, as found and within 

reasonable scope, will be provided. 

RFP No. 14

“Documents and communications concerning ZTE’s payment of taxes relating to the 

River Place Property and any personal property of ZTE’s relating to the River Place 

Property.”

This request seeks information related to ZTE’s tax payments and personal property 

relating to the River Place Property.

Such non-immune and/or non-privileged documents, as found and within 

reasonable scope, will be provided. 

RFP No. 15

“Documents or communications sufficient to identify all ZTE employees or 

contractors who are or were assigned to work at the River Place Property.”

This request seeks information sufficient to identify all ZTE employees or 

contractors assigned to work at the River Place Property.

This request is duplicative of at least RFP Nos. 2, 3, and 4. 

Such non-immune and/or non-privileged documents, as found and within 

reasonable scope, will be provided.

RFP No. 16

“Documents or communications sufficient to identify the nature of ZTE activities 

performed at the River Place Property.”

This request seeks information sufficient to identify the nature of ZTE activities 

performed at the River Place Property.

This request is duplicative of at least RFP Nos. 2, 3, and 4. 

Case 6:20-cv-00487-ADA Document 108-1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 8 of 14
Mark Siegmund, Esq.

January 6, 2021

Page 8

FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP

Such non-immune and/or non-privileged documents, as found and within 

reasonable scope, will be provided.

RFP No. 17

“Documents and communications relating to ZTE’s ownership or other rights in the 

property located at Plaza 7000, 7000 Mopac Expressway, 2nd Floor, Austin, Texas 

(the “Plaza Property”), including any lease agreements, communications concerning 

any lease agreements, and documents and communications relating to personal 

property of ZTE’s stored at the River Place Property.”

This request seeks information relating to ZTE’s ownership or other rights in the 

Plaza Property in Austin. TX.

Such non-immune and/or non-privileged documents, as found and within 

reasonable scope, will be provided.

RFP No. 18

“Documents and communications concerning ZTE’s payment of taxes relating to the 

Plaza Property and any personal property of ZTE’s relating to the Plaza Property.”

This request seeks information related to ZTE’s tax payments and personal property 

relating to the Plaza Property.

Such non-immune and/or non-privileged documents, as found and within 

reasonable scope, will be provided.

RFP No. 19

“Documents or communications sufficient to identify all ZTE employees or 

contractors who are or were assigned to work at the Plaza Property.”

This request seeks information sufficient to identify all ZTE employees or 

contractors assigned to work at the Plaza Property.

This request is duplicative of at least RFP Nos. 2, 3, and 4. 

Such non-immune and/or non-privileged documents, as found and within 

reasonable scope, will be provided.

Case 6:20-cv-00487-ADA Document 108-1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 9 of 14
Mark Siegmund, Esq.

January 6, 2021

Page 9

FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP

RFP No. 20

“Documents or communications sufficient to identify the nature of ZTE activities 

performed at the Plaza Property.”

This request seeks information sufficient to identify the nature of ZTE activities 

performed at the Plaza Property.

This request is duplicative of at least RFP Nos. 2, 3, and 4. 

Such non-immune and/or non-privileged documents, as found and within 

reasonable scope, will be provided.

RFP No. 21

“All documents and communications used in preparing the December 3, 2020 

declaration of James Ray Wood.”

This request seeks information used to prepare Ray’s declaration submitted with 

the renewed Motion to Dismiss, filed December 4, 2020.

This request is duplicative of RFP No. 12, which broadly seeks information used to 

prepare any declaration submitted in this case. As such, ZTE holds the same position as for 

RFP No. 12. 

This request is also improper to the extent it seeks information protected under 

attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege or 

immunity.

Non-immune and/or non-privileged documents, as found and within reasonable 

scope, will be provided.

RFP No. 22

“All documents and communications used in preparing the December 3, 2020 

declaration of Chao Shan.”

This request seeks information used to prepare Chao’s declaration submitted with 

the renewed Motion to Dismiss, filed December 4, 2020.

Case 6:20-cv-00487-ADA Document 108-1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 10 of 14
Mark Siegmund, Esq.

January 6, 2021

Page 10

FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP

This request is duplicative of RFP No. 12, which broadly seeks information used to 

prepare any declaration submitted in this case. As such, ZTE holds the same position as for 

RFP No. 12. 

This request is also improper to the extent it seeks information protected under 

attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege or 

immunity.

Non-immune and/or non-privileged documents, as found and within reasonable 

scope, will be provided.

RFP No. 23

“All documents and communications used in preparing the October 2012 declaration 

of Du Jin, legal director of Division 4.”

Please clarify to which case this declaration is related. Please also provide an 

explanation as to the relevance of an October 2012 declaration to the current venue dispute.

RFP No. 24

“Copies of all agreements between ZTE and another party concerning the River 

Place Property and the Plaza Property.”

This request seeks information concerning agreements between ZTE and other 

parties concerning the River Place Property.

This request is duplicative of at least RFP Nos. 13 and 17. 

Such non-immune and/or non-privileged documents, as found and within 

reasonable scope, will be provided.

RFP No. 25

“Documents and communications sufficient to show the actual location of ZTE 

employees, by city of residence, who are allegedly assigned to the ZTE’s office in 

Richardson, Texas.”

This request seeks information relating to the residence of employees assigned to 

ZTE’s office in Richardson, Texas.

Case 6:20-cv-00487-ADA Document 108-1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 11 of 14
Mark Siegmund, Esq.

January 6, 2021

Page 11

FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP

Please clarify the relevance of the location and/or residence of ZTE employees to 

establishing venue. Please also provide supporting case law, so ZTE can properly consider 

this request. 

RFP No. 26

“Documents and communications relating to all shipments of ZTE products from 

China to the United States during the past three years.”

This request seeks information relating to shipments of ZTE products from China 

to the United States in the last three years.

ZTE’s renewed Motion to Dismiss only challenges venue for ZTE USA and ZTE 

TX. To the extent this request seeks information related to ZTE Corp., ZTE objects to this 

request as improper. ZTE further objects to this request because it seeks information related 

to personal jurisdiction, not venue. 

Furthermore, as explained above, the relevant timeframe for establishing venue is 

the time the complaint was filed, which in this case, is June 3, 2020. This request is 

improper to the extent it seeks information outside of the relevant timeframe for 

establishing venue, which is at the time the complaint was filed (i.e. June 3, 2020). 

As to any potential relevance to venue, WSOU may inquire with corporate 

representatives of ZTE USA and ZTE TX on issues as to the WDTX, but general 

documents and communications of this nature are too broad. 

RFP No. 27

“Documents and communications sufficient show how ZTE products are delivered to 

ZTE customers in Texas.”

This request seeks information related to how ZTE products are delivered to ZTE 

customers in Texas.

ZTE’s renewed Motion to Dismiss only challenges venue for ZTE USA and ZTE 

TX. To the extent this request seeks information related to ZTE Corp., ZTE objects to this 

request as improper and not venue discovery. ZTE further objects to this request because 

it seeks information related to personal jurisdiction (e.g. stream of commerce), not venue. 

Case 6:20-cv-00487-ADA Document 108-1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 12 of 14
Mark Siegmund, Esq.

January 6, 2021

Page 12

FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP

As to any potential relevance to venue, WSOU may inquire with corporate 

representatives of ZTE USA and ZTE TX on issues at to the WDTX, but general documents 

and communications of this nature are too broad. 

For your reference, we provide our early responses/objections to the venue interrogatories, 

as follows:

Interrogatory No. 1

“Describe the each [sic] channel by which ZTE products are delivered from the 

manufacturer to end users and consumers in the State of Texas.”

This interrogatory seeks information relating to each channel by which ZTE 

products are delivered from the manufacturer to end users and consumers in the State of 

Texas.

As explained above, WSOU has the burden of proving that the WDTX is the proper 

venue for these cases. Thus, ZTE’s response will be limited to the WDTX. Should WSOU 

disagree, WSOU is directed to raise the issue with the Court.

Further, ZTE’s renewed Motion to Dismiss only challenges venue for ZTE USA 

and ZTE TX. To the extent this request seeks information related to ZTE Corp., ZTE 

objects to this request as improper. ZTE further objects to this request because it seeks 

information related to personal jurisdiction (e.g. stream of commerce), not venue. 

As to any potential relevance to venue, WSOU may inquire with corporate 

representatives of ZTE USA and ZTE TX on issues at to the WDTX, but general documents 

and communications of this nature are too broad. 

Nonetheless, a general response to this interrogatory will be provided on January 

18, 2021. 

Interrogatory No. 2

“Identify each ZTE employee and contractor located in the State of Texas and for 

each: (1) identify their residence by city or zip code; and (2) identify where they 

actually work (including where they actually have an office, and whether they work 

remotely or work from home).”

This interrogatory seeks information related to the residence of ZTE employees and 

contractors located in the State of Texas.

Case 6:20-cv-00487-ADA Document 108-1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 13 of 14
Mark Siegmund, Esq.

January 6, 2021

Page 13

FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP

As explained above, WSOU has the burden of proving that the WDTX is the proper 

venue for these cases. Thus, ZTE’s response will be limited to the WDTX. Should WSOU 

disagree, WSOU is directed to raise the issue with the Court.

Additionally, ZTE’s renewed Motion to Dismiss only challenges venue for ZTE 

USA and ZTE TX. To the extent this request seeks information related to ZTE Corp., ZTE 

objects to this request as improper. ZTE further objects to this request because it seeks 

information related to personal jurisdiction (e.g. stream of commerce), not venue. 

Further, in In re Cray, an employee working from home in the district did not 

establish a place of business for venue under TC Heartland. 

As to any potential relevance to venue, WSOU may inquire with corporate 

representatives of ZTE USA and ZTE TX on issues at to the WDTX, but general documents 

and communications of this nature are too broad. 

Nonetheless, a general response to this interrogatory will be provided on January 

18, 2021. 

For your reference, we provide our early responses/objections as to depositions, as follows:

30(b)(6) Depositions

As we confirmed in our email correspondence of December 31, 2020, ZTE will 

agree to the 30(b)(6) depositions of James Ray Wood, for ZTE USA, and Chao Shan, for 

ZTE TX, limited to the issue of venue only. We will provide formal objections and 

responses by January 18, 2021.

As for the requested deposition of Ivette Tipton, she is not an employee of either 

ZTE entity challenging venue—ZTE USA or ZTE TX, so a meet-and-confer will be 

needed. 

If you have any questions, please let us know. 

With regards,

 /s/ Lionel M. Lavenue 

 Lionel M. Lavenue

Case 6:20-cv-00487-ADA Document 108-1 Filed 08/18/21 Page 14 of 14