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. 

ZTE CORPORATION, 

Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-00487-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-00488-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-00489-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-00490-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-00491-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-00493-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-00494-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-00495-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-00496-ADA 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-00497-ADA 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE 

PLAINTIFF’S FINAL INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS 

PUBLIC VERSION

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA-DTG Document 255 Filed 11/17/22 Page 1 of 27
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 3 

III. LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................................................................ 5 

IV. ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 6 

A. Brazos Properly Charted Its Infringement Theories and Accused Products.......... 7 

1. The -488 Chart ........................................................................................... 8 

2. The -491 Chart ........................................................................................... 9 

3. The -494 Chart ......................................................................................... 12 

4. The -490 Chart ......................................................................................... 12 

B. Brazos’s Doctrine of Equivalents Theory Should Not Be Stricken ..................... 13 

C. Means-Plus-Function Claims ............................................................................... 15 

D. To the Extent There are Deficiencies, Brazos Should be Granted Leave to 

Amend .................................................................................................................. 16 

E. This Court Did Not Reject Brazos’s Contentions in OnePlus and the Facts 

in OnePlus Are Different ..................................................................................... 19 

V. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 19 

 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA-DTG Document 255 Filed 11/17/22 Page 2 of 27
ii 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

 Page(s) 

Cases 

ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’n, Inc., 

No. 2:10-cv-248, 2011 WL 7036048 (E.D. Va. July 5, 2011).................................................16 

Alacritech, Inc. v. Centurylink, Inc., 

No. 2:16-CV-00693-RWS-RSP, 2017 WL 3593787 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 2017) ....................18 

ASUS Comput. Int’l v. Round Rock Rsch., LLC, 

No. 12 Civ. 2099, 2013 WL 5545276 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2013) ..............................................10 

BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Corp., 

No. 3:14-CV-3942-M, 2017 WL 11678910 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 17, 2017) .....................12, 13, 15 

Blue Spike, LLC v. Texas Instruments, Inc., 

No. 6:12-cv-499, 2015 WL 11199194 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2015) .........................................5, 6 

Comput. Acceleration Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 

503 F. Supp. 2d 819 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 24, 2007) ........................................................................6 

Creagri, Inc. v. Pinnaclife Inc., LLC, 

No. 11-CV-06635-LHK-PSG, 2012 WL 5389775 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2012) .........................10 

Dynamic Digital Depth Rsch. Pty. Ltd. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 

No. CV 15-5578-GW(EX), 2016 WL 7444567 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2016) ..............................9 

Endo Pharms. Inc. v. Amneal Pharms., LLC, 

No. 12 Civ. 8060, 2015 WL 9459823 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2015), amended in 

part, No. 12 Civ. 8060, 2016 WL 1732751 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2016) ...................................10 

Eolas Techs. Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 

No. 6:15-CV-01038, 2016 WL 7666160 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 2016) ..................................13, 15 

EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLC v. Sensus USA Inc., 

No. 6:09–cv–116, 2010 WL 346218 (E.D.Tex. Jan. 21, 2010) ...............................................14 

Escort, Inc. v. Uniden Am. Corp. 

No. 3:18-CV-0161-N, 2019 WL 7900789 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 7, 2019) .....................................16 

FA Sys., LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 

No. 6:11-CV-052-LED, 2013 WL 12147666 (E.D. Tex. June 19, 2013) ...............................18 

Fenner Invs., Ltd. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 

No. CIV.A. 6:08-CV-273, 2010 WL 786606 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2010) ................................14 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA-DTG Document 255 Filed 11/17/22 Page 3 of 27
iii 

Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., 

No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2015 WL 1517920 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2015) ...................................15 

Hid Glob. Corp. v. Farpointe Data, Inc., 

No. SACV101954JVSRNBX, 2012 WL 13018341 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2012) ......................11 

Implicit Networks Inc. v. Hewlett–Packard Co., 

No. 10-CV-3746 SI, 2011 WL 3954809 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2011).......................................7, 8 

Kaist IP US LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd., 

No. 2:16-CV-01314-JRG-RSP, 2018 WL 1806765 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 17, 2018) ......................18 

Kenexa Brassring, Inc. v. Taleo Corp., 

751 F. Supp. 2d 735 (D. Del. 2010) .........................................................................................10 

Network Prot. Scis., LLC v. Fortinet, Inc., 

No. 12 Civ. 1106, 2013 WL 5402089 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2013)...........................................11 

Orchestratehr, Inc. v. Trombetta, 

No. 3:13-CV-2110-KS-BH, 2016 WL 4563348 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 1, 2016) ..............................6 

Parkervision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., 

No. 14 Civ. 687, 2015 WL 4751354 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 11, 2015).............................................10 

Saxon Innovations, LLC v. Nokia Corp., 

No. 6:07-CV-490, 2009 WL 10676646 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 9, 2009) ............................................9 

Silicon Lab’y Inc. v. Cresta Tech Corp., 

No. 5:14-CV-03227-PSG, 2015 WL 846679 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ..............................................11 

Stored Energy Sys., LLC v. Brunswick Corp., 

No. 20-cv-06389, 2021 WL 4978448 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 19, 2021) ...............................................6 

Sycamore IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Corp., 

No. 2:16-CV-588-WCB, 2017 WL 4517953 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 10, 2017) .................................14 

Team Worldwide Corp. v. Academy, Ltd., 

No. 2:19-cv-00092-JRG-RSP, 2020 WL 4601635 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 11, 2020) .................5, 7, 9 

Texas Instruments Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp., 

90 F.3d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1996)..................................................................................................15 

WSOU Invs. LLC v. OnePlus Tech. (Shenzhen) Co., 

No. W-20-CV-00952-ADA, 2022 WL 174517 

(W.D. Tex. Jan. 18, 2022) ........................................................................................................19 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA-DTG Document 255 Filed 11/17/22 Page 4 of 27
Plaintiff WSOU Investments, LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development (“Brazos”) 

files this opposition to Defendant ZTE Corporation’s (“ZTE”) Motion (“Motion” or “Mot.”) to 

Strike Plaintiff’s Final Infringement Contentions (the “FICs”).1

I. INTRODUCTION 

ZTE’s Motion is merely a distraction from Brazos’s motion to amend its 

contentions. Indeed, Brazos’s First Amended Final Infringement Contentions (“First Amended 

FICs”) resolve or moot many of the purported deficiencies that ZTE complains of, and ZTE’s 

arguments as to the remainder are baseless. ZTE was apparently so wed to its motion to strike 

Brazos’s FICs that it basically ignores the actual content of the First Amended FICs and seeks 

desperately to prevent Brazos from amending at all. ZTE cannot on the one hand attack the 

sufficiency of the FICs in its Motion and oppose Brazos’s amendments in its opposition to Brazos’s 

Motion to Amend (Dkt. 274).2

ZTE’s purported bases for the relief it seeks are in fact nonexistent. ZTE contends that 

seventy of the Accused Products are purportedly “uncharted,” but seeks to strike all of Brazos 

current contentions “in full”.3 (Mot. at 1, 3.)4 And while ZTE contends that many of the Accused 

Products are “uncharted,” its argument is undermined by its own reference to thousands of pages 

of infringement contentions with detailed claim charts (ZTE Exs. 15-24, 26-35). ZTE bizarrely 

 

1

 Capitalized terms used but not defined shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Motion. 

2

 All docket cites are to the 20-cv-00487-ADA case unless otherwise noted. 

3

 Brazos disagrees with ZTE’s characterization of the Accused Products. (Mot. at 5-6). ZTE fails 

to list all Accused Products and fails to identify which products are accused of infringing which 

patent. (Id.). However, for purposes of this Motion, Brazos addresses the specific products ZTE 

seeks to exclude. Brazos does not concede that ZTE’s constricted list of products represents all of 

the Accused Products. 

4

 Separately pending is Brazos’s Motion to Amend its Contentions. (Dkt. 264). In an effort to 

distract, ZTE attempts to conflate that motion with the instant motion. The instant motion relates 

only to ZTE’s baseless request to strike the FICs. 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA-DTG Document 255 Filed 11/17/22 Page 5 of 27
2 

admits that at least four groups of products are charted yet nonetheless seeks to exclude those 

groups in their totality. (Mot. at 5 (showing groups of products that ZTE admits were charted).) 

While ZTE claims that seventy products are “uncharted” and supposedly only four “lone” 

products are mapped to the claims (Mot. at 1-3), that is simply wrong. As shown below, each of 

the products are either: (1) charted (and simply misrepresented by ZTE as being uncharted); 

(2) part of a charted series (which ZTE admits to be properly charted); (3) represented by 

analogous products that work identically; or (4) have become moot because either the patents have 

been invalidated or the products are no longer being asserted against the particular patent. 

Similarly untrue is ZTE’s repeated contention that Brazos is adding 450+ Accused 

Products in the First Amended FICs. (Mot. at 13). As a preliminary matter, the First Amended 

FICs do not add claims, nor do they change the underlying infringement theories. This is false and 

a correct read of the FICs demonstrate that the vast majority of the Accused Products that Brazos 

seeks to “add” fall into one or more of the following four categories: (1) products that were already 

accused in the FICs under the “Series” name, (2) versions of a same Accused Product that ZTE 

has improperly withheld discovery on, (3) Accused Products subject to the May 12, 2022 Order of 

the Court requiring ZTE to produce discovery on reasonably similar products; or (4) Accused 

Products that were already identified in the claim charts, but not listed in the cover pages. 

Ultimately, Brazos is only adding 93 products that were not already accused or part of discovery. 

(See Dkt. 288 at Exs. 7-8.) 

The rest of ZTE’s arguments are an exercise in revisionist history; it blames Brazos for 

delays occasioned by ZTE’s own malfeasance, including its extensive and unreasonable discovery 

abuses. As shown below, any delay in Brazos amending its infringement contentions stems from 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA-DTG Document 255 Filed 11/17/22 Page 6 of 27
3 

that misconduct, and ZTE’s attempted misdirection should be rejected. At bottom, ZTE cannot 

meet its heavy burden to strike Brazos’s contentions. 

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

On June 3, 2020, Brazos filed the aforementioned cases against ZTE. After a full year of 

disputes regarding venue, Brazos timely served its FICs on July 16, 2021, as required by the then 

current scheduling order. (See Ex. 1 (July 17, 2021 email from L. Lavenue email to R. Loveless 

referring to FICs that were served “last night,” i.e., on July 16).)5 

The FICs were served well in advance of the March 3, 2022 claim construction hearing 

(Dkt. No. 181), and without the benefit of fact discovery. Indeed, Brazos was given access to 

source code for the first time in April 2022, which ZTE supplemented through August 2022, 

pursuant to the Court’s June 7, 2022 order, which instructed ZTE to remediate its deficient source 

code production. (Dkt. No. 232.) In fact, ZTE’s production of source code and technical 

documents remain incomplete. Brazos estimates that 90% of the production, despite being 

designated “Attorneys Eyes Only,” stems from public sources. Out of the roughly 100,000 

irrelevant pages produced, Brazos lacks ZTE internal documents showing how the Accused 

Products operate. ZTE again supplemented its source code production in November 2022 and 

ZTE’s witnesses are to be tendered for the first time for deposition in late December 2022 (only 

after ZTE was repeatedly ordered to do so). Despite ZTE’s obstructions, Brazos adequately 

identified the Accused Products and infringement theories to ZTE in the Complaint, Preliminary 

Infringement Contentions, FICs, and multiple discovery requests regarding products infringing on 

accused functionalities. (See e.g., ZTE Exs. 1-12, 26-35, and Ex. 2.) ZTE did not object to the 

 

5

 Submitted herewith and relied upon is the Declaration of Jonathan K. Waldrop, dated 

November 11, 2022 (“Waldrop Declaration” or “Waldrop Decl.”). “Ex.” refers to exhibits 

attached to the Waldrop Declaration. 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA-DTG Document 255 Filed 11/17/22 Page 7 of 27
4 

definition of Accused Products or Accused Instrumentalities of the asserted claims up until now. 

(See e.g., ZTE’s Responses and Objections to Brazos Requests for Productions and Interrogatories, 

Ex 3.) 

Having sat on its hands and allowed litigation to proceed for nearly one and a half years 

since Brazos’s FICs were served, ZTE belatedly moves to strike them. During that time, ZTE 

actively litigated these cases and challenged Brazos’s choice of venue, standing, and the Court’s 

jurisdiction, but not its contentions. Only on May 23, 2022, did ZTE’s counsel allege that the FICs 

were inadequate, going so far as to say that it was “troubling that—despite Brazos’s numerous 

amendment opportunities—these deficiencies yet remain.” (Mot. Ex. 13.) That awakening by 

ZTE came only in response to this Court order on May 12, 2022 (the “May 12 Hearing”) 

compelling ZTE to produce discovery on products reasonably similar to the Accused Products. 

(Dkt. 222.) During that hearing, Brazos’s counsel pointed out that ZTE had never moved to strike 

any infringement contentions, an observation which clearly triggered ZTE’s counsel to make its 

untimely complaints regarding the sufficiency of the FICs. (Mot. Ex. 14, Tr. at 34:13-17.) On 

June 20, 2022, Brazos responded to ZTE’s May 23 letter, reminding ZTE of its obligations to cure 

discovery deficiencies pursuant to multiple orders of the Court. (Ex. 4.) Brazos’s June 20, 2022 

letter also responded to each of ZTE’s deficiency allegations and demonstrated that the Claims to 

all Accused Products were appropriately mapped and tethered to the Accused Products. (Id.) 

After completing its review of the (deficient) source code production in August, Brazos 

served its First Amended FICs on September 27, 2022 (Ex. 5; Mot. Exs. 1-10.) The First Amended 

FICs clarify the universe of the products accused after months of discovery disputes, requiring no 

fewer than ten discovery dispute hearings before the Court, during which ZTE attempted to limit 

the scope of the Accused Products to evade its discovery obligations. For instance, ZTE has 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA-DTG Document 255 Filed 11/17/22 Page 8 of 27
5 

consistently refused to provide discovery on iterations of the same Accused Product. (See e.g., 

Ex. 6 (ZTE declining to provide discovery on Axon 30, arguing that only the Axon 30 5G is 

accused.)) The First Amended FICs also incorporate additional similar products, including the 

products identified by Brazos and this Court as reasonably similar at the May 12 Hearing, as well 

as products indicated by source code that had only been produced in April through August (in a 

severely deficient form). In doing so, the First Amended FICs cure any purported deficiencies 

alleged by ZTE. Having unreasonably delayed challenging the FICs, ZTE now seeks to use 

purported deficiencies in them as a sword to cut off Brazos’s claims while shielding itself from 

amendment of those FICs. (Mot.) Indeed, ZTE sought to strike the FICs just a day after Brazos 

sought leave to amend its FICs (Dkt. 264), yet waited more than a year and a half to complain 

about them. ZTE’s obvious litigation tactics should be seen for what they are—yet another tactic 

in a long line of attempts to delay the resolution of these cases. 

III. LEGAL STANDARD 

Motions to strike infringement contentions are viewed unfavorably: “Striking 

infringement contentions is an extreme decision comparable to determining ‘whether evidence 

should be excluded for discovery violations.’ . . . Courts are thus hesitant to strike contentions 

without evidence of unreasonable delay and prejudice.” Team Worldwide Corp. v. Academy, Ltd., 

No. 2:19-cv-00092-JRG-RSP, 2020 WL 4601635, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 11, 2020). As the court 

noted in Blue Spike, LLC v. Texas Instruments, Inc., No. 6:12-cv-499, 2015 WL 11199194 (E.D. 

Tex. Jan. 12, 2015): “[Striking infringement contentions] is a request so severe that when a plaintiff 

timely provides infringement contentions and ‘attempts to address any deficiencies through 

supplemental infringement contentions,’ granting a motion to strike ‘would amount to a deathpenalty sanction.’ . . . Therefore, courts are hesitant to strike contentions absent evidence of 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA-DTG Document 255 Filed 11/17/22 Page 9 of 27
6 

unreasonable delay and prejudice.” Id. at *2 (denying motion to strike infringement contentions). 

See also Stored Energy Sys., LLC v. Brunswick Corp., No. 20-cv-06389, 2021 WL 4978448, at *2 

(N.D. Ill. Aug. 19, 2021) (“Striking a patentee’s infringement contentions ‘is a severe sanction that 

should be used sparingly and only for good cause.’”). 

In considering motions to strike, courts consider: “(1) the reason for the delay and whether 

the party has been diligent; (2) the importance of what the court is excluding and the availability 

of lesser sanctions; (3) the danger of unfair prejudice; and (4) the availability of a continuance and 

the potential impact of a delay on judicial proceedings.” Comput. Acceleration Corp. v. Microsoft 

Corp., 503 F. Supp. 2d 819, 822 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 24, 2007). Courts further consider whether “the 

offending party was diligent in seeking an extension of time, or in supplementing contentions, after 

an alleged need to disclose the new matter became apparent.” Id. 

ZTE bears the burden of showing that exclusion is proper. Orchestratehr, Inc. v. 

Trombetta, No. 3:13-CV-2110-KS-BH, 2016 WL 4563348, at *15 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 1, 2016). It 

cannot meet that burden. 

IV. ARGUMENT 

ZTE’s Motion grossly misrepresents the record and is inherently inconsistent in that the 

very products ZTE complains purportedly are uncharted appear repeatedly throughout Brazos’s 

FICs appended to ZTE’s own Motion. Moreover, ZTE admits that Brazos charted series of ZTE 

products, but complains that models within those series remain uncharted. For those reasons, 

among others, and as shown below, ZTE fails to meet its heavy burden to strike any of Brazos’s 

contentions. 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA-DTG Document 255 Filed 11/17/22 Page 10 of 27
7 

Brazos Properly Charted Its Infringement Theories and Accused Products 

ZTE seeks to exclude all Accused Products because it baselessly claims seventy Accused 

Products were “uncharted” or that Brazos failed to show that these products are represented by 

other charted products. Mot. at 7-8. ZTE also misquotes Brazos’s contentions and artificially 

attempts to limit Brazos’s contentions to “four lone” charts. ZTE’s arguments fail. In fact, a 

simple—and accurate—review of Brazos’s infringement charts shows that Brazos adequately 

disclosed all of the products about which ZTE complains. 

For example, as shown below: (1) several of the products ZTE argues are purportedly 

“uncharted” altogether are actually described in Brazos’s claim charts; (2) Brazos properly 

grouped ZTE’s series products together (ZTE admits as much but argues inconsistently that 

members of those same series are “uncharted.” (Mot. at 5-6)); and (3) analogous products that 

function identically are grouped together and represented by one or more products.6 See infra

§§ IV.A.1-IV.A.4. Following the Court’s guidance from recent rulings, Brazos identified the 

reasons for the product similarity in the contentions. (See e.g., Mot. Exs. 15 at 2, 16 at 1-2, 17 at 

1, 18 at 1, 19 at 1, 20 at 1, 21 at 1, 22 at 1, 23 at 2-3, 24 at 1-3.) Moreover, Brazos included several 

of those analogous products in the actual claim charts to provide a fulsome disclosure. (See 

generally Mot. Exs. 15-24.) Finally, other products on which ZTE bases its arguments are simply 

no longer in play, such as ZTE smartphones in the -488 case. (Compare Mot. Ex. 16 at 1-2 with

 

6

 Courts do not require that each and every instrumentality be charted. Team Worldwide Corp., 

2020 WL 4601635, at *2 (citing cases) (“Courts have excused plaintiffs from charting each 

instrumentality if the charts would be identical or if one instrumentality is sufficiently 

representative of others.”). For example, courts have approved using a single claim chart to 

represent 120 products where the patentee “relied primarily on citations to manuals and other 

documentation to explain characteristics of other accused products.” Id. citing Implicit Networks 

Inc. v. Hewlett–Packard Co., No. 10-CV-3746 SI, 2011 WL 3954809 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2011). 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA-DTG Document 255 Filed 11/17/22 Page 11 of 27
8 

Mot. Ex. 27 at 1.) Had ZTE accurately reviewed/honestly represented the claim charts, it could 

not in good faith have brought the instant motion. 

ZTE bases its argument exclusively on the -490, -488, -491, and -494 charts.7 ZTE 

baselessly asserts that Brazos’s contentions show nothing more than an Android 10 Operating 

system or an industry standard (Mot. at 8-10), but that argument is belied by the hundreds of pages 

of charts provided by Brazos describing the products and functionalities accused (Mot. Exs. 29, 

27, 30, 32). A cursory review of those charts show far more detail than ZTE asserts. A review of 

each of those charts wholly eviscerates ZTE’s arguments. 

1. The -488 Chart 

ZTE’s complaints regarding the -488 Chart (Mot. at 8, n. 4) are simply unfounded. First, 

ZTE ignores that Brazos significantly narrowed the case and reduced the number of Accused 

Products in its First Amended FICs for this patent. For example, Brazos removed all accused 

smartphones from its contentions in its Amendment. (Compare Mot. Ex. 16 at 1-2 with Mot. 

Ex. 27 at 1.) Thus, issues ZTE complains about have already been addressed. Second, several 

examples of the purportedly “uncharted” products about which ZTE complains are specifically 

referenced in the charts. (E.g., Mot. Ex. 27 at 5-7 (specifically describing BS8800, BS8900A, and 

8900B, which ZTE claims are “uncharted”).) Third, ZTE itself groups the accused base station 

products together and even describes them in a single manual. (Id. at 1, 5-7 (citing Exhibit D, 

ZTE’s Macro Base Station Manual)); see also Implicit Networks Inc., 2011 WL 3954809, at *2 

(finding adequate disclosure of multiple products where the patentee cited to “HP manuals”). 

Fourth, the Accused Products for this specific patent are all ZTE base stations—which ZTE does 

 

7

 ZTE fails to address any other Brazos claim chart, and with good reason; it has no valid basis to 

attack them. 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA-DTG Document 255 Filed 11/17/22 Page 12 of 27
9 

not dispute—that provide the same accused functionality and function identically. (Mot. Ex. 16 

at 1-2.) It is entirely proper for Brazos to group those products together in its claim charts. Team 

Worldwide Corp., 2020 WL 4601635, at *2 (“Courts have excused plaintiffs from charting each 

instrumentality if the charts would be identical or if one instrumentality is sufficiently 

representative of others”). 

2. The -491 Chart 

ZTE complains similarly that not all Accused Products are charted in the -491 Chart. (Mot. 

at 8, n. 4.) Again, ZTE is wrong. For example, ZTE erroneously contends that the AT&T Velocity 

2 is “uncharted.” (Mot. Ex. 25 at 2.) In fact, AT&T Velocity 2 is specifically identified and 

described throughout Brazos’s contentions. (See e.g., Mot. Ex. 30 at 3, 19, 27, 45, 88, 101, 140, 

153, 263, 276, 288, 300, 344, 357, 396, 408, 421, 434, 551, 576, 588, 600, 618, 648, 661, and 674 

(describing AT&T Velocity 2).) Moreover, the claim charts are representative of analogous 

products as those products are all ZTE smartphones, ZTE hotspots, and ZTE routers which contain 

hardware components and software modules that provide Wi-Fi connectivity in the very same way. 

And ZTE does not—because it cannot—assert that any of the grouped Accused Products work 

differently than other products in that same group. (See, e.g., Mot. Ex. 19 at 1-6, 17-20, 31-33, 

36-38, 48-51, 88-95;) see also Saxon Innovations, LLC v. Nokia Corp., No. 6:07-CV-490, 2009 

WL 10676646, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 9, 2009) (“the Court finds that other products utilizing the 

same chipsets, or chipsets that possess the same capabilities and functionalities, i.e. phones, are 

reasonably similar to the accused products, i.e. mobile computers, for the purposes of obtaining 

discovery”); Dynamic Digital Depth Rsch. Pty. Ltd. v. LG Elecs., Inc., No. CV 15-5578-GW(EX), 

2016 WL 7444567, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2016) (denying defendant’s motion to strike and 

noting that “[c]ombination claim charts (whereby the party asserting infringement describes how 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA-DTG Document 255 Filed 11/17/22 Page 13 of 27
10 

multiple products infringe the asserted patent(s) in a single chart) can provide the required 

specificity . . . if each accused product allegedly infringes in the same way”) (emphasis in original); 

Creagri, Inc. v. Pinnaclife Inc., LLC, No. 11-CV-06635-LHK-PSG, 2012 WL 5389775, at *3 

(N.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2012) (allowing grouping of products that contain the same accused feature). 

ZTE also argues that Brazos relies on “standards in lieu of charting” to support its 

contention that Brazos has not properly charted all Accused Products. (Mot. at 9.) According to 

ZTE, the only way analogous products may be grouped together in a single chart is if the patent is 

standard essential, i.e., that each and every limitation reads solely and exclusively on mandatory 

portions of a standard. (Mot. at 2, 9, 14.) But that is incorrect. Analogous products may be 

grouped together for a number of reasons, including, inter alia, where the products are be part of 

the same series or product line, work the same way, contain the same software components or 

utilize the same operating system, or contain the same active ingredients. See, e.g., Kenexa 

Brassring, Inc. v. Taleo Corp., 751 F. Supp. 2d 735, 747 (D. Del. 2010) (finding plaintiff products 

within product lines “function the same way for purposes of patent infringement within their 

respective product lines”); Parkervision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 14 Civ. 687, 2015 WL 

4751354, at *4 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 11, 2015) (denying motion to strike after finding it adequate that 

plaintiff’s infringement contentions “accuse[] a large number of products and assert[] that each 

accused product infringes the asserted technology in the same way”); Endo Pharms. Inc. v. Amneal 

Pharms., LLC, No. 12 Civ. 8060, 2015 WL 9459823, at *36-37 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2015), 

amended in part, No. 12 Civ. 8060, 2016 WL 1732751 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 29, 2016) (finding that 

defendants infringed on patent claims because their products all contained an active ingredient 

which overlapped with claim limitations); ASUS Comput. Int’l v. Round Rock Rsch., LLC, No. 12 

Civ. 2099, 2013 WL 5545276, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2013) (collecting cases where courts 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA-DTG Document 255 Filed 11/17/22 Page 14 of 27
11 

approved of infringement contentions alleging that all accused products infringe in the same way 

“by containing components that infringe in the same manner as the representative, charted 

product”); Network Prot. Scis., LLC v. Fortinet, Inc., No. 12 Civ. 1106, 2013 WL 5402089, at *3 

(N.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2013) (denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment and finding it 

sufficient that plaintiff in its claim charts “listed all of the accused products individually and used 

the FortiOS 4.0 MR2 product as a representative example”); Hid Glob. Corp. v. Farpointe Data, 

Inc., No. SACV101954JVSRNBX, 2012 WL 13018341, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2012) (grouping 

products by series and explaining, “the properties of the accused devices by product series because 

the hardware and software relevant to the patent claims at issue are substantively the same among 

the individual products within a product series”).8

Indeed, the weakness of ZTE’s argument is evident from the fact that, to support its 

position, it cites a single page of Brazos -491 Chart, a 704-page document. (Mot. at 10 citing Mot. 

Ex. 30.) Again, unable to address the dozens of pages in the chart specifically describing the 

products ZTE claims are “uncharted,” ZTE simply ignores them, apparently hoping the Court will 

do the same. ZTE claims that Brazos’s contentions merely recite standard IEEE 802.11ac, but 

again that is wrong. (Id.) Brazos’s claim charts not only point out where accused products read 

on certain industry standards, but also provide an in-depth discussion of how the products meet 

 

8

 ZTE’s reliance on Silicon Laboratories Inc. v. Cresta Technology Corporation, No. 5:14-CV03227-PSG, 2015 WL 846679, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 2015) is misguided. Unlike defendant in that case, 

ZTE has never asserted that any of the accused instrumentalities work differently with respect to 

the accused functionality. (Mot. at 9-10.) And the defendant in Silicon Laboratories specifically 

asserted that analogous products used “different wireless communication systems.” Silicon 

Laboratories, No. 5:14-CV-03227-PSG, 2015 WL 846679, at *2. ZTE makes no such claim here. 

In any event, the court in Silicon Laboratories refused to strike infringement contentions, granting 

leave to amend them instead. Id. at *3. 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA-DTG Document 255 Filed 11/17/22 Page 15 of 27
12 

each limitation. (See, e.g., Mot. Ex. 30 at 2, 14, 26-27, and 44 (citing ZTE Axon 10 technical 

document); see also id. at 3, 15, 27, and 45 (citing Velocity 2 technical document).) 

3. The -494 Chart 

ZTE argues that not all products are charted in the -494 Chart. (Mot. at 8-9, n. 4 n. 5.) 

That is wrong for the same reasons described above. In fact, ZTE concedes that the “5960 series” 

was properly charted (Mot. Ex. 25 at 2), but then complains incongruously that individual products 

within that 5960 series remain uncharted. A product in a series can be representative of the other 

accused products “in the same product series” and there is no dispute that ZTE’s 5960 products 

are all part of the same series. 

In yet another misrepresentation, ZTE complains that ZXR10 5960-H Series is uncharted 

where the applicable claim chart (appended to ZTE’s own Motion) specifically references and 

describes that product (Mot. Ex. 32 at 1-2, 4, 66, 121, 125, 145, and 148) and specifically cites to 

that particular product’s manual. (Id. at 1-2 (referencing Ex. D, ZXR10 5960-H Series Switch Data 

Sheet).) Moreover, each of the Accused Products are reasonably similar to the charted products 

because all analogous products are ZTE Switches that contain hardware components and software 

modules that are configured to offer the Quantized Congestion Notification (QCN) protocol. (Mot. 

Ex. 32.) Put simply, the products ZTE alleges are “uncharted” are: (1) in the charts, (2) part of the 

same series, and/or (3) all part of the same group that work the same way with respect to the 

accused functionality. 

4. The -490 Chart 

The -490 Chart (Mot. at 8, n. 4) is also sufficient for the reasons forth above. Any lack of 

detail in that chart is purely a result of ZTE’s unrelenting, improper discovery stonewalling. The 

Court should not reward that naked gamesmanship. See BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA-DTG Document 255 Filed 11/17/22 Page 16 of 27
13 

AT&T Corp., No. 3:14-CV-3942-M, 2017 WL 11678910 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 17, 2017) (denying 

defendant’s motion to strike the plaintiff’s infringement contentions where defendant had refused 

to allow plaintiff to obtain necessary discovery); Eolas Techs. Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 6:15-

CV-01038, 2016 WL 7666160, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 2016) (“given Plaintiff’s assertion that 

Defendants have not produced all documents and code reflecting their server architectures, it is 

unreasonable to expect Plaintiff to draft ICs in great detail.”). 

Moreover, ZTE’s entire argument regarding the -490 Chart is moot given that the PTAB 

invalidated the asserted claims in that case. (Ex. 7 (IPR2021-00696 Final Written Decision 

(Oct. 13, 2022)).) ZTE knew this more than a week before filing the instant motion, yet brought 

this frivolous motion complaining about the sufficiency of the charts for the very same patent. 

ZTE’s complaints are nothing more than an irrelevant distraction. 

ZTE has not shown any cognizable deficiency in Brazos’s infringement contentions. To 

the extent the Court finds any of Brazos’s contentions deficient—which they are not—such 

deficiency is purely a result of ZTE’s unrelenting, improper discovery stonewalling, which it now 

seeks to use as a basis for precluding Brazos’s amendment of its FICs. The Court should not 

reward that naked gamesmanship. See BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., 2017 WL 11678910; Eolas 

Techs., 2016 WL 7666160, at *2. 

Brazos’s Doctrine of Equivalents Theory Should Not Be Stricken 

Equally meritless is ZTE’s premature request that the Court strike Brazos’s doctrine of 

equivalents theory (“DOE”) for lack of specificity. (Mot. at 10-11.) No expert discovery has yet 

taken place, and this Court has already noted that the basis for infringement allegations would be 

submitted as part of expert reports: 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA-DTG Document 255 Filed 11/17/22 Page 17 of 27
14 

MS. KIM: The basis of our infringement allegations, to the extent there are 

more, will be forthcoming in our expert reports when those are 

due. 

THE COURT: I agree with that. I think that’s the way it’s done in my court. 

(Ex. 8 (March 3, 2022 Hr’g Tr.) at 17:18-24.) As the Court explained, Brazos’s contentions serve 

to put ZTE on notice of its theories, whereas the basis of those theories will be further developed 

as part of expert reports. See also Fenner Invs., Ltd. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. CIV.A. 6:08-

CV-273, 2010 WL 786606, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2010) (“The scope of infringement 

contentions and expert reports are not, however, coextensive. Infringement contentions need not 

disclose ‘specific evidence nor do they require a plaintiff to prove its infringement case,’ [...] 

whereas expert reports must include a complete statement of the expert’s opinions, the basis and 

reasons for them, and any data or other information considered when forming them”) (quoting 

EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLC v. Sensus USA Inc., No. 6:09–cv–116, 2010 WL 346218, at *2 

(E.D.Tex. Jan. 21, 2010)). ZTE is essentially seeking to leap-frog past expert discovery. 

ZTE’s Motion is also simply unsupported factually and legally. The sole example of DOE 

ZTE provides is an excerpt from the claim chart referencing the preamble of a single claim. (Mot. 

at 11.) ZTE has not asserted that this preamble is limiting, so the cited example is irrelevant. 

Similarly, the case law cited by ZTE does not support its position. For example, Sycamore 

IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Corp., No. 2:16-CV-588-WCB, 2017 WL 4517953, at *2 (E.D. Tex. 

Oct. 10, 2017) is inapplicable because there the patentee delayed nine months before disclosing 

their DOE theories, should have known of those theories from prior litigation, and failed “to seek 

leave of court to amend its infringement contentions.” Here, other than erroneously claiming that 

Brazos’s FICs were a day late, ZTE is not asserting that there was any delay or prior litigation as 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA-DTG Document 255 Filed 11/17/22 Page 18 of 27
15 

a basis of striking Brazos’s FICs. Moreover, in this case ZTE has timely amended its contentions 

and sought leave to further amend them. (Dkt. 264.) 

Texas Instruments Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp., 90 F.3d 1558, 1560 (Fed. Cir. 

1996) is similarly inapposite because it is an appeal from a judgement as a matter of law, not a 

motion to strike. Nowhere did the court address the sufficiency of infringement contentions. Id. 

Finally, Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2015 WL 1517920, at *10 (N.D. 

Cal. Apr. 2, 2015) supports Brazos, not ZTE, as the court specifically allowed amendment to the 

contentions if discovery provided a basis for such amendment. That is exactly the case here, as 

Brazos showed in its motion to amend. (Dkt. 264 at 7-10); see also BASCOM Glob. Internet 

Servs., Inc. , supra at 13; Eolas Techs. Inc., supra at 13. 

Means-Plus-Function Claims 

ZTE’s request that the Court strike infringement contentions related to means-plusfunction claims related to the ’534 patent (Mot. at 11-12) is not only moot, but also baseless. 

The only means-plus-function claims ZTE complains of relate to the ’534 patent. Those 

claim charts are sufficient. (See Mot. Ex. 34.) Any lack of detail in that claim chart is purely a 

result of ZTE’s unrelenting, improper discovery stonewalling. The Court should not reward that 

naked gamesmanship. See BASCOM, 2017 WL 11678910 (denying defendant’s motion to strike 

the plaintiff’s infringement contentions where defendant had refused to allow plaintiff to obtain 

necessary discovery); Eolas, 2016 WL 7666160, at *2. 

Moreover, ZTE’s entire argument regarding the ’534 Patent is moot given that the PTAB 

invalidated the asserted claims in that case an entire week before ZTE brought the instant motion. 

(Ex. 9 (IPR2021-00699 Final Written Decision (Oct. 14, 2022)) at 84.) ZTE knew this a week 

before filing the instant motion, yet brought this frivolous motion complaining about the 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA-DTG Document 255 Filed 11/17/22 Page 19 of 27
16 

sufficiency of the charts for the very same patent. ZTE’s complaints are nothing more than an 

irrelevant distraction. 

To the Extent There are Deficiencies, Brazos Should be Granted Leave to 

Amend 

Brazos should be granted leave to amend for the reasons set forth in its motion to amend. 

(Dkt. 264.) ZTE blatantly mischaracterizes the events leading to that motion. First, ZTE argues 

for the first time that Brazos’s FICs were served late. (Mot. at 12.) But as ZTE knows, Brazos’s 

FICs were timely served on July 16, 2021. Indeed, on July 17, 2021, ZTE’s counsel emailed 

Brazos’s counsel complaining that he was unable to open Brazos’s FICs that were provided “last 

night,” i.e., on July 16. (Ex. 1 (L. Lavenue email to R. Loveless).)9 

ZTE’s argument that Brazos is to blame for any delays in its ability to amend its FICs and 

that “Brazos had ample time to correct its contentions during the six months of source code review” 

(Mot. at 12-13) is a gross reversal of causality. As Brazos showed in its motion to amend its FICs 

and its reply brief in support of that motion (Dkt. No. 264 at 2-5; Dkt. No. 288 at 1-3), ZTE’s 

inexcusable delays in producing responsive documents—including technical documents—and 

concocted excuses to block Brazos’s access to ZTE’s source code prevented Brazos from 

effectively amending its FICs sooner. Thus, while Brazos requested source code access beginning 

with its Request for Production No. 1 in June, 2021, ZTE resisted at every turn, baselessly claiming 

that Brazos’s requests were informal, improper or unreasonable, and was ordered to either 

 

9

 Even had Brazos’s FICs been a day late—which they were not—ZTE has continued to litigate 

this matter for more than a year since those FICs were served without contesting their timeliness 

or moving to strike them until now. It certainly would not be prejudiced by a one-day delay, which 

in any event did not occur. See, e.g., Escort, Inc. v. Uniden Am. Corp. No. 3:18-CV-0161-N, 2019 

WL 7900789, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 7, 2019) (“Courts have broad discretion to grant untimely 

motions to supplement . . . infringement contentions”); ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon 

Commc’n, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-248, 2011 WL 7036048, at *2 (E.D. Va. July 5, 2011) (denying 

motion to exclude untimely contentions where defendant was not prejudiced). 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA-DTG Document 255 Filed 11/17/22 Page 20 of 27
17 

“immediately produce” or supplement source code on several occasions. (See, e.g., Dkts. 185, 

232.) Brazos only—finally—gained access to ZTE’s source code in April 2022. Moreover, ZTE’s 

source code production even then was deficient, and Brazos was forced to move to compel further 

access to it, which ZTE only provided in August 2022, with the latest substantial production in 

November 2022, post close of fact discovery. (Ex. 10.) Indeed, under ZTE’s tortured approach, 

Brazos would have had to repeatedly amend its FICs to accommodate ZTE’s “rolling” trickle of 

document production and strangled source code access. Moreover, ZTE has yet to tender a single 

witness for deposition, despite being ordered to do so many times. The notion that Brazos acted 

laconically here is simply false. 

ZTE also overstates the effect and scope of Brazos’s First Amended FICs. First, the First 

Amended FICs do not add claims, nor do they change the underlying infringement theories. 

Second, contrary to ZTE’s contentions (Mot. at 13), Brazos does not seek to add 400 entirely new 

devices to these cases. Rather, Brazos seeks to: (1) add the Accused Products subject to the May 

12, 2022 Order requiring ZTE to produce discovery on reasonably similar products; (2) explicitly 

list products that were accused in the FICs under the “Series” name but not under each sub-model 

name10; (3) add versions of devices that were improperly withheld from discovery thus far11; 

(4) for clarity, include products that were already identified in the claim charts, but not listed in 

the cover pages12; (5) add Accused Products identified as infringing during discovery; and (6) 

 

10 For instance, Brazos accused, and ZTE admits that Brazos charted, the ZXR10 5900 Series in 

the FICs (Mot. at 5), and the amendments (as well as the FICs) further specify all infringing devices 

in this Series, including ZXR10 5916E, ZXR10 5928E-FI, and ZXR10 5952E. 

11 For example, Brazos accused the Axon 30 Ultra, and the First Amended FICs list the Axon 30 

Pro, Axon 30 5G, and Axon 30 Ultimate. 

12 For example, Brazos accused the Velocity® 2 in the -491 Chart for the Axon 10 Pro; it is 

therefore not an addition. 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA-DTG Document 255 Filed 11/17/22 Page 21 of 27
18 

remove any products for which infringement is no longer being asserted.13 Brazos vigorously 

pursued discovery in the hope that discovery would include production of ZTE’s internal technical 

documents, on which infringement contention amendments could be based. As ZTE’s production 

of such internal documents was anemic at best, and the Court only recently directed that further 

deficiencies in ZTE’s technical document production should be pursued in depositions (Ex. 11 

(Sept. 19, 2022 Hr’g Tr.) at 50:14-20, Dkt. 266), Brazos had to come to terms with relying on 

obscure third-party website technical specifications in order to identify ZTE’s infringing products. 

(See, e.g., Ex.12, ZTE-WSOU-00043575 (relying on https://www.devicespecifications.com/en/

brand/60dd29.) ZTE’s audacious, feigned claim to be either surprised or prejudiced by Brazos’s 

motion to amend its FICs now rings hollow and should be rejected. See, e.g., Kaist IP US LLC v. 

Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd., No. 2:16-CV-01314-JRG-RSP, 2018 WL 1806765, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 

17, 2018) (granting motion to amend infringement contentions adding “over 100 new products” 

where, inter alia, “Plaintiff's infringement theory has not changed”); Alacritech, Inc. v. 

Centurylink, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00693-RWS-RSP, 2017 WL 3593787, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 

2017) (even where plaintiff was late in moving to amend to add “over 400 additional products” to 

infringement contentions, court allowed amendment where defendant “should not be surprised by 

the addition of these products” and court “prefers to resolve the infringement issue concerning as 

many of these additional instrumentalities as possible in one case rather than have [plaintiff] 

initiate a separate action”); FA Sys., LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 6:11-CV-052-LED, 2013 WL 

12147666, at *3 (E.D. Tex. June 19, 2013) (granting motion to amend contentions based on 

publicly available information where defendant knew accused system involved access by other 

 

13 For instance, Brazos removed all accused smartphones from its -488 Chart. 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA-DTG Document 255 Filed 11/17/22 Page 22 of 27
19 

devices being added and denying motion would “unnecessarily waste the Parties’ and the Court’s 

resources, as identical claims would need to be brought against the same accused system”). 

To cover up its own abuses, ZTE again accuses Brazos of failing to provide adequate 

charts. (Mot. at 13.) But that is more smoke and mirrors. As shown above (supra §IV.A), ZTE 

has either failed to read accurately or is blatantly misrepresenting the charts, as the products it 

claims are not properly charted: (1) are in the charts; (2) are part of a series that ZTE admits is 

properly charted; (3) work the same way as the charted products; or (4) are moot. 

This Court Did Not Reject Brazos’s Contentions in OnePlus and the Facts in 

OnePlus Are Different 

In a final, desperate attempt to shift blame to Brazos, ZTE misrepresents and creates a false 

alignment between the instant case and WSOU Invs. LLC v. OnePlus Tech. (Shenzhen) Co., No. W20-CV-00952-ADA, 2022 WL 174517 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 18, 2022). As an initial issue, the Court 

denied OnePlus’s motion to strike and allowed Brazos to amend its infringement contentions. Id. 

at *2-3. Here, as shown, ZTE’s inexcusable discovery obfuscation prevented Brazos from 

amending sooner and, at a minimum, Brazos should be granted leave to amend its FICs, which it 

has moved to do. (See Dkt. 264 at 3-5, 10.) Nor can anyone reasonably dispute that Brazos’s 

claims here are well charted (although ZTE tries, and fails, to do so). As shown, the purportedly 

“uncharted” products: (1) are in the charts; (2) are part of a series ZTE admits as properly charted; 

(3) function identically to other charted products; or (4) are moot. 

V. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, ZTE’s motion to strike should be denied in its entirety. 

 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA-DTG Document 255 Filed 11/17/22 Page 23 of 27
20 

Dated: November 11, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Jonathan K. Waldrop 

Jonathan K. Waldrop (CA Bar No. 297903) 

(Admitted in this District) 

jwaldrop@kasowitz.com 

Darcy L. Jones (CA Bar No. 309474) 

(Admitted in this District) 

djones@kasowitz.com 

Marcus A. Barber (CA Bar No. 307361) 

(Admitted in this District) 

mbarber@kasowitz.com 

John W. Downing (CA Bar No. 252850) 

(Admitted in this District) 

jdowning@kasowitz.com 

Heather S. Kim (CA Bar No. 277686) 

(Admitted in this District) 

hkim@kasowitz.com 

ThucMinh Nguyen (CA Bar No. 304382) 

(Admitted in this District) 

tnguyen@kasowitz.com 

Chen Jia (CA Bar No. 281470) 

(Admitted in this District) 

cjia@kasowitz.com 

KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP 

333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 200 

Redwood Shores, California 94065 

Telephone: (650) 453-5170 

Facsimile: (650) 453-5171 

Paul G. Williams (GA Bar No. 764925) 

(Admitted in this District) 

pwilliams@kasowitz.com 

KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP 

1230 Peachtree Street N.E., Suite 2445 

Atlanta, Georgia 30309 

Telephone: (404) 260-6080 

Facsimile: (404) 260-6081 

Charles A. Naggar (NY Bar No. 5356449) 

(Admitted pro hac vice) 

cnaggar@kasowitz.com 

Hershy Stern (NY Bar No. 4631024) 

(Admitted pro hac vice) 

hstern@kasowitz.com 

Howard L. Bressler (NY Bar No. 2487379) 

(Admitted pro hac vice) 

hbressler@kasowitz.com 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA-DTG Document 255 Filed 11/17/22 Page 24 of 27
21 

Julianne Laporte (NY Bar No. 5547906) 

(Admitted pro hac vice) 

jlaporte@kasowitz.com 

Lea Dartevelle Erhel (NY Bar No. 5172101) 

(Admitted pro hac vice) 

ldartevelle@kasowitz.com 

Joshua A. Whitehill (NY Bar No. 4766473) 

(Admitted pro hac vice) 

jwhitehill@kasowitz.com 

Noah P. Dorman (DC Bar No. 1779821) 

(Admitted pro hac vice) 

ndorman@kasowitz.com 

Jessica C. Sutliff (NY Bar No. 2772150) 

(Admitted pro hac vice) 

jsutliff@kasowitz.com 

Ryan A. Madden (NY Bar No. 5706080) 

(Admitted pro hac vice) 

rmadden@kasowitz.com 

KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP 

1633 Broadway 

New York, NY 10019 

Telephone: (212) 506-1700 

Facsimile: (212) 506-1800 

Mark D. Siegmund (TX Bar No. 24117055) 

mark@swclaw.com 

Craig D. Cherry (TX Bar No. 24012419) 

craig@swclaw.com 

Justin W. Allen (TX Bar No. 24081977) 

justin@swclaw.com 

Melissa S. Ruiz (TX Bar No. 24128097) 

melissa@swclaw.com 

STECKLER WAYNE CHERRY & LOVE PLLC 

8416 Old McGregor Rd. 

Waco, Texas 76712 

Telephone: (254) 651-3690 

Facsimile: (254) 651-3689 

Gregory Phillip Love (TX Bar No. 24013060) 

greg@swclaw.com 

STECKLER WAYNE CHERRY & LOVE PLLC 

107 East Main Street 

Henderson, TX 75652 

Telephone: (903) 212-4444 

Facsimile: (903) 392-2267 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA-DTG Document 255 Filed 11/17/22 Page 25 of 27
22 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC d/b/a 

BRAZOS LICENSING AND 

DEVELOPMENT

 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA-DTG Document 255 Filed 11/17/22 Page 26 of 27
23 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

PUBLIC VERSION

 /s/ Jonathan K. Waldrop

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served or deli

vered electronically to all counsel of record, on this 17th day of November, 2022 via the Court's 

CM/ECF System.

Jonathan K. Waldrop

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA-DTG Document 255 Filed 11/17/22 Page 27 of 27