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., 

EMC CORPORATION, AND VMWARE, 

INC.,

Defendants.

Case No. 6:20-cv-00473-ADA

Case No. 6:20-cv-00474-ADA

Case No. 6:20-cv-00475-ADA

Case No. 6:20-cv-00476-ADA

Case No. 6:20-cv-00477-ADA

Case No. 6:20-cv-00478-ADA

Case No. 6:20-cv-00479-ADA

Case No. 6:20-cv-00480-ADA

Case No. 6:20-cv-00481-ADA

Case No. 6:20-cv-00482-ADA

Case No. 6:20-cv-00485-ADA

Case No. 6:20-cv-00486-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

JOINT MOTION TO ENTER SCHEDULING ORDER

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

Pursuant to the Court’s Order to meet and confer in advance of the Rule 16 Case 

Management Conference and the Court’s Order Governing Proceedings (“OGP”), the parties have 

conferred on a proposed scheduling order. 

The parties agree on a case schedule through the Markman hearing in this matter, which is 

scheduled for April 29-30, 2021. The parties have agreed that, for the purposes of claim 

construction, the asserted patents will be separated into the following four groups (identified by 

case number): 

Group 1: Case Nos. -480, -481, -485, -486

Group 2: Case Nos. -473, -478

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 41 Filed 11/04/20 Page 1 of 24
2

Group 3: Case Nos. -477, -482

Group 4: Case Nos. -474, -475, -476, -479

Subject to approval of the Court, the presumed Markman claim term limits and other Markman 

restrictions will apply separately for each of these four groups. The parties have not yet exchanged 

proposed terms for construction, and therefore either party may seek leave to modify those limits 

if necessary. Subject to approval of the Court, the parties have agreed that oral argument on each 

group will be heard during a session in the two days scheduled for the Markman hearing.

The parties disagree on the following two issues: (1) whether a post-Markman schedule 

and trial date should be entered at this time; and (2) discovery limits.

As such, and pursuant to the OGP, the Parties set forth their competing positions on a postMarkman schedule for the cases referenced above. Plaintiff’s Proposed Scheduling order is 

attached as Exhibit A. Defendants’ Proposed Scheduling Order is attached as Exhibit B. The 

only difference between the parties’ respective proposed scheduling orders is that Defendants’ 

Proposed Scheduling Order does not propose any post-Markman dates.

Plaintiffs’ Positions:

Post-Markman Schedule and Trial Date. Plaintiff has agreed to use the Court’s default 

schedule set forth in this Court’s Order Governing Proceedings, which is fair. Plaintiff has also 

agreed to accommodate slight adjustments to the default schedule to consider deadlines falling 

around holidays. See Plaintiff’s Exhibit C, which tracks the default deadline versus each party’s 

proposal. As seen, Plaintiff’s proposal closely tracks the Court’s default. Far North Patents, LLC 

v. NXP USA, Inc., 1-20-cv-00397 (WDTX) (8/1/2020 text-only docket entry) (“After careful 

review, the Court adopts Plaintiff’s version given that it more closely tracts the Court’s default 

schedule and Defendants have not provided sufficient reasons to depart from that.”). 

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 41 Filed 11/04/20 Page 2 of 24
3

Defendants first proposal is to avoid entry of a schedule post Markman. This approach has 

already been rejected by the Court in WSOU Investments LLC v. Huawei Technologies Co, Ltd et 

al., Case Nos. 6:20-cv-533 through -544. Such a delay tactic is designed to enhance Defendants’ 

likely pending IPR challenge. In particular, the Patent Trial and Appeals Board considers the 

relative trial schedule against the IPR schedule when determining whether to institute trial. See 

e.g., NHK Spring Co., Ltd. v. Intri-plex Technologies, IPR2018-00752, Paper No. 8 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 

12, 2018)(precedential)(the Board denied institution under § 314(a) where the parallel district court 

proceeding was scheduled to finish six months before the Board would have reached a final 

decision in an IPR if one were instituted) and Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 

at 2–3 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (informative) (“NHK applies to the situation where the district court 

has set a trial date to occur earlier than the Board’s deadline to issue a final written decision in an 

instituted proceeding.”). Without the existence of a trial schedule, the Defendants would be 

allowed to argue to the PTAB that there is no trial scheduled and that the IPR should proceed 

accordingly. 

Defendants second alternative proposal is to delay the default trial schedule by about a 

month. On October 19, 2020, the Court informed the parties that the estimated trial date based on 

the accepted Markman dates is May 2, 2022. Defendants now seeks to push that date back even 

further – at least into June 2022. However, Defendant has not provided a sufficient reason to do 

so. Ironically, while Defendants want to argue the cases are complex and need the extra time, 

Defendant argues that discovery in those same complex cases should be severely limited as noted 

below. In any event, there is no good reason to artificially extend the trial date by a month. 

Discovery Limits. On discovery limits, Plaintiff has agreed to the same agreements made 

between the parties in WSOU Investments LLC v. Huawei Technologies Co, Ltd et al., Case Nos. 

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 41 Filed 11/04/20 Page 3 of 24
4

6:20-cv-533 through -544 (“WSOU Huawei Case”), which involves eleven different patents 

compared to twelve different patents here. See e.g., Dkt. 29-3 in Case No. 6:20-cv—533, which 

is quoted below. 

Interrogatories: 8 common interrogatories per side (which can be used across all of the

twelve cases above) and 12 case-specific interrogatories (which can be used only for that

specific case);

Requests for Admission: 10 common RFAs (which can be used across all of the twelve

cases above) and 20 case-specific RFAs (which can be used only for that specific case);

Requests for Production: 10 common RFPs (which can be used across all of the twelve

cases above) and 35 case-specific RFPs (which can be used only for that specific case);

Fact (Party) Depositions: 10 common hours per side (which can be used across all of the 

twelve cases above) and 21 case-specific hours (which can be used only for that specific 

case);

Fact (Third-Party) Depositions: 21 case-specific hours (which can be used only for that

specific case);

Expert Depositions: 7 hours per expert/per report (unless the expert is opining in 

numerous cases, in which case expert depositions are limited to 7 hours per expert/per 

report for the first case, and 4 additional hours for each additional case in which the expert 

provides a report). 

Contrary to Defendants’ assertions, the discovery limitation in the WSOU Huawei Case 

provide discovery limits less than both the default amount allowed by the Federal Rules and the 

default amount provided for in the OGP, which are as follows:

1. Interrogatories: 30 per side

2. Requests for Admission: 45 per side

3. Requests for Production: 75 per side

4. Fact Depositions: 70 hours per side (for both party and non-party witnesses combined)

5. Expert Depositions: 7 hours per report

Defendants have acknowledged that the twelve patents in the case are unrelated. Yet, Defendants 

proposal wants to treat them not only as if they were related technology-wise, but also “family” 

related. In particular, Defendant proposes the following limits:

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 41 Filed 11/04/20 Page 4 of 24
5

Interrogatories: 2.5 interrogatories per case.

Requests for Admission: 6.25 requests for admission per case (excluding authenticity).

Requests for Production: 6.25 requests for production per case. 

Fact (Party and Non-Party) Depositions: 10 hours per case (5 hours, respectively, for 

third party and parties) where a deposition counts for no less than 3 hours.

Expert Depositions: If same expert is used across cases, 1.75 hours of deposition per case. 

Defendants’ proposed limits are undeniably workable – given differing issue of infringement and 

damages that Plaintiff must prove for each of cases. 

Ownership of the Asserted Patents. While Defendant wants the parties to include 

positions on such an item, there is nothing to present to the Court. Other than discussing foreign 

discovery at the Case-Management conference, the parties have not discussed such an item prior 

to Defendants introduction of this item today in drafts of this joint submission. 

Defendants’ Positions:

Post-Markman Schedule and Trial Date. Defendants Dell Technologies Inc., Dell Inc., 

EMC Corporation, and VMware, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) respectfully submit that a case 

schedule only through the April 29-30, 2021 Markman hearing date should be entered at this time. 

Setting a trial date and entering a post-Markman schedule at this early stage of the case would be 

premature, particularly given the twelve unrelated patents asserted in these cases and Plaintiff’s 

concession at the October 21, 2020 case management conference that it expects at least some of 

the patents to “fall out” of the case for various reasons. 10/21/20 Scheduling Conference Tr. 

27:17–24. In addition, Plaintiff’s preliminary infringement contentions are entirely deficient

(which is the subject of ongoing correspondence between the parties), and Defendants therefore 

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 41 Filed 11/04/20 Page 5 of 24
6

cannot reasonably determine what Plaintiff’s infringement theories are and whether they raise any

associated claim construction issues.

Accordingly, the parties and the Court will be in a much better position to assess the scope 

of the issues in this litigation and determine an appropriate schedule after the Court makes its 

Markman rulings at the end of April. Defendants believe it would be more efficient to determine 

the post-Markman schedule and trial date at that time, when there more likely will be fewer

unknowns than there are now. Plaintiff contends that the Court has “rejected” such an approach 

in Plaintiff’s litigation against Huawei. See WSOU Investments LLC v. Huawei Technologies Co, 

Ltd et al., Case Nos. 6:20-cv-533 through -544 (W.D. Tex.). Defendants, however, are not aware 

that this particular issue was ever raised and rejected by the Court in those cases. Instead, it is 

Defendants’ understanding that the parties in those cases actually agreed to a post-Markman

schedule—which is not the case here, and not appropriate for the reasons that Defendants have 

explained. See, e.g., Case No. 6:20-cv-533, D.I. 33 (W.D. Tex.) (Joint Motion to Enter Scheduling 

Order).

If, however, the Court decides that a post-Markman schedule should be entered now, 

Defendants respectfully request that the Court set a June 2022 date for the first trial in these related 

cases, in view of the number of patents and issue that may be tried. That date is in generally in 

line with the Court’s norms, with only a slight adjustment to take account of the complexities of 

this case. If the Court orders a trial date now, Defendants propose that they work with Plaintiff on 

a post-Markman schedule that is appropriate for the scope of the issues in the case and that avoids 

scheduling complications due to holidays. The OGP’s default timelines unfortunately would not 

meet those goals in this particular case, and would require some small adjustments.

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 41 Filed 11/04/20 Page 6 of 24
7

Discovery Limits. Defendants propose the following discovery limits, which reasonably 

align with the default limits set forth in the OGP, taking into account the size and scope of these 

related cases:

Interrogatories: 30 total per side.

Requests for Admission: 75 total per side, excluding those regarding public availability 

and authenticity.

Requests for Production: 75 total per side.

Fact Depositions: 120 total hours per side. Of those 120 hours, there can be no more than 

60 hours of depositions of party witnesses. Each deposition counts for a minimum of 3 hours. 

Any translated depositions will count for half the time. 

Expert Depositions: 7 hours per expert report, and 2 hours per expert for each additional 

report. No expert can be deposed for more than a total of 21 hours.

These proposed limits balance the needs of the case against the desire to impose reasonable 

constraints on the parties in their discovery requests. Of course, if there is a particular need to 

exceed these limits Defendants will work with Plaintiff in good faith to resolve any disputes. 

Finally, Plaintiff’s suggestion that these twelve cases will be completely unrelated for purposes of 

discovery simply because the twelve asserted patents are not related is misleading. Defendants 

expect that there undoubtedly will be some overlap in discovery and witnesses across these cases. 

And Defendants’ proposals account for that likely overlap in discovery. 

In contrast, Plaintiff seeks to take advantage of its strategic decision to file 12 separate 

cases, one for each of the twelve asserted patents, and demands hundreds of discovery requests 

and hundreds of hours of fact and expert depositions per side, specifically: 

152 interrogatories; 

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 41 Filed 11/04/20 Page 7 of 24
8

250 requests for admission; 

430 requests for production; 

514 fact deposition hours (including party and third-party depositions); and 

up to 51 expert deposition hours per expert. 

Plaintiff’s proposals unreasonably and grossly expand the scope of discovery contemplated by the 

OGP and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and should be rejected.

Ownership of the Asserted Patents. The majority of the cases in this litigation are refilings of allegations from cases that Plaintiff previously filed and unilaterally dismissed. Compare 

Case Nos. 20-cv-473, -474, -475, -476, -477, -478, -479, -480, -481, -482,

-485, and -486, with Case Nos. 20-cv-403, -404, -406, -407, -408, -409, -410, -412, -417, and -

418, respectively. Plaintiff has not explained the reason for these dismissals and re-filings. 

Defendants intend to work with Plaintiff to obtain information, such as agreements, concerning 

the ownership or control of the asserted patents that may have a bearing on the subject matter 

jurisdiction due to standing. If a dispute as to this information arises, Defendants expect that they 

may need to request the Court’s intervention.

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 41 Filed 11/04/20 Page 8 of 24
9

Dated: November 4, 2020

By: /s/ Ryan S. Loveless

/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

Attorneys for Plaintiff

By: /s/ Barry K. Shelton

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 

Benjamin Hershkowitz

bhershkowitz@gibsondunn.com

Brian A. Rosenthal

brosenthal@gibsondunn.com 

Allen Kathir

akathir@gibsondunn.com

Kyanna Sabanoglu

ksabanoglu@gibsondunn.com

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

200 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10166-0193 

Telephone: 212.351.4000

Facsimile: 212.351.4035 

Y. Ernest Hsin

ehsin@gibsondunn.com

Jaysen S. Chung

jschung@gibsondunn.com

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

555 Mission Street, Suite 3000

San Francisco, CA 94105-0921

Telephone: 415.393.8200

Facsimile: 415.393.8306

Ryan K. Iwahashi

riwahashi@gibsondunn.com

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

1881 Page Mill Road

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1211

Telephone: 650.849.5300

Facsimile: 650.849.5333

Attorneys for Defendants

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 41 Filed 11/04/20 Page 9 of 24
10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that on November 4, 2020, all counsel of record who are deemed 

to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document through the 

Court’s CM/ECF system under Local Rule CV-5(b)(1). 

/s/ Barry K. Shelton 

Barry K. Shelton

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 41 Filed 11/04/20 Page 10 of 24
11

Exhibit A

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 41 Filed 11/04/20 Page 11 of 24
12

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. ET 

AL,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00473-486-ADA

PLAINTIFF’S [DRAFT] SCHEDULING ORDER

Date Item

October 21, 2020 Case Management Conference

November 4, 2020 Deadline for Motions to Transfer

December 9, 2020 Defendant serves preliminary1 invalidity contentions in the form 

of (1) a chart setting forth where in the prior art references each 

element of the asserted claim(s) are found, (2) an identification 

of any limitations the Defendant contends are indefinite or lack 

written description under section 112, and (3) an identification 

of any claims the Defendant contends are directed to ineligible 

subject matter under section 101. Defendant shall also produce 

(1) all prior art referenced in the invalidity contentions, (2) 

technical documents, including software where applicable, 

sufficient to show the operation of the accused product(s), and 

(3) summary, annual sales information for the accused 

product(s) for the two years preceding the filing of the 

Complaint, unless the parties agree to some other timeframe.

January 6, 2021 Parties exchange claim terms for construction.

1 The parties may amend preliminary infringement contentions and preliminary invalidity 

contentions without leave of court so long as counsel certifies that it undertook reasonable efforts 

to prepare its preliminary contentions and the amendment is based on material identified after those 

preliminary contentions were served and should do so seasonably upon identifying any such 

material. Any amendment to add claims requires leave of court so that the Court can address any 

scheduling issues.

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 41 Filed 11/04/20 Page 12 of 24
13

Date Item

January 20, 2021 Parties exchange proposed claim constructions.

January 27, 2021 Parties disclose extrinsic evidence. Parties disclose extrinsic 

evidence. The parties shall disclose any extrinsic evidence, 

including the identity of any expert witness they may rely upon 

with respect to claim construction or indefiniteness. With 

respect to any expert identified, the parties shall identify the 

scope of the topics for the witness’s expected testimony.2 With 

respect to items of extrinsic evidence, the parties shall identify 

each such item by production number or produce a copy of any 

such item if not previously produced. 

February 3, 2021 Deadline to meet and confer to narrow terms in dispute and 

exchange revised list of terms/constructions.

February 17, 2021 Plaintiff files Opening claim construction brief, including any 

arguments that any claim terms are indefinite.

March 17, 2021 Defendant files Responsive claim construction brief. 

March 31, 2021 Plaintiff files Reply claim construction brief.

April 14, 2021 Defendant files Sur-Reply claim construction brief.

April 19, 2021 Parties submit Joint Claim Construction Statement and provide 

copies of briefs to the Court.

See General Issues Note #8 regarding providing copies of the 

briefing to the Court and the technical adviser (if appointed)

April 21, 2021 Parties submit option technical tutorials to the Court and 

technical advisor (if appointed). 

April 29-30, 2021 Markman hearing at 9:00 a.m. 

May 3, 2021 Fact Discovery opens; deadline to serve Initial Disclosures per 

Rule 26(a).

June 11, 2021 Deadline to add parties.

2

Any party may utilize a rebuttal expert in response to a brief where expert testimony is relied upon by the 

other party.

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 41 Filed 11/04/20 Page 13 of 24
14

Date Item

June 25, 2021 Deadline to serve Final Infringement and Invalidity Contentions. 

After this date, leave of Court is required for any amendment to 

Infringement o Invalidity contentions. This deadline does not 

relieve the Parties of their obligation to seasonably amend if new 

information is identified after initial contentions.

August 20, 2021 Deadline to amend pleadings. A motion is not required unless 

the amendment adds patents or patent claims. (Note: This 

includes amendments in response to a 12(c) motion.) 

October 29, 2021 Deadline for the first of two meet and confers to discuss 

significantly narrowing the number of claims asserted and prior 

art references at issue. Unless the parties agree to the narrowing, 

they are ordered to contact the Court’s Law Clerk to arrange a 

teleconference with the Court to resolve the disputed issues. 

December 3, 2021 Close of Fact Discovery.

December 10, 2022 Opening Expert Reports.

January 6, 2022

(35 weeks after Markman)

Rebuttal Expert Reports.

January 28, 2022

(38 weeks after Markman)

Close of Expert Discovery.

January 31, 2022

(39 weeks after Markman)

Deadline for the second of two meet and confers to discuss 

narrowing the number of claims asserted and prior art references 

at issue to triable limits. To the extent it helps the parties 

determine these limits, the parties are encouraged to contact the 

Court’s Law Clerk for an estimate of the amount of trial time 

anticipated per side. The parties shall file a Joint Report within 5 

business days regarding the results of the meet and confer. 

February 4, 2022

(40 weeks after Markman)

Dispositive motion deadline and Daubert motion deadline.

See General Issues Note #8 regarding providing copies of the 

briefing to the Court and the technical adviser (if appointed).

February 18, 2022

(42 weeks after Markman)

Serve Pretrial Disclosures (jury instructions, exhibit lists, 

witness lists, discovery and deposition designations). 

March 4, 2022

(44 weeks after Markman)

Serve objections to pretrial disclosures/rebuttal disclosures.

March 11, 2022

(45 weeks after Markman)

Serve objections to rebuttal disclosures and file motions in 

limine.

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 41 Filed 11/04/20 Page 14 of 24
15

Date Item

March 18, 2022

(46 weeks after Markman)

File Joint Pretrial Order and Pretrial Submissions (jury 

instructions, exhibit lists, witness lists, discovery and deposition 

designations); file oppositions to motions in limine. 

March 25, 2022

(47 weeks after Markman)

File Notice of Request for Daily Transcript or Real Time 

Reporting. If a daily transcript or real time reporting of court 

proceedings is requested for trial, the party or parties making 

said request shall file a notice with the Court and e-mail the 

Court Reporter, Kristie Davis at kmdaviscsr@yahoo.com.

Deadline to meet and confer regarding remaining objections and 

disputes on motions in limine. 

April 5, 2022

(3 business days before 

Final Pretrial Conference)

File joint notice identifying remaining objections to pretrial 

disclosures and disputes on motion in limine. 

April 8, 2022

(49 weeks after Markman)

Final Pretrial Conference. The Court expects to set this date at 

the conclusion of the Markman Hearing. 

May 2, 2022

(52 weeks after Markman)

Jury Selection/Trial. The Court expects to set this date at the 

conclusion of the Markman Hearing. 

SIGNED this _____ day of ______________, 2020

____________________________________

ALAN D ALBRIGHT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 41 Filed 11/04/20 Page 15 of 24
16

Exhibit B

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 41 Filed 11/04/20 Page 16 of 24
17

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. ET 

AL,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00473-486-ADA

DEFENDANTS’ [DRAFT] SCHEDULING ORDER

Date Item

October 21, 2020 Case Management Conference

November 4, 2020 Deadline for Motions to Transfer

December 9, 2020 Defendant serves preliminary1 invalidity contentions in the form 

of (1) a chart setting forth where in the prior art references each 

element of the asserted claim(s) are found, (2) an identification 

of any limitations the Defendant contends are indefinite or lack 

written description under section 112, and (3) an identification 

of any claims the Defendant contends are directed to ineligible 

subject matter under section 101. Defendant shall also produce 

(1) all prior art referenced in the invalidity contentions, (2) 

technical documents, including software where applicable, 

sufficient to show the operation of the accused product(s), and 

(3) summary, annual sales information for the accused 

product(s) for the two years preceding the filing of the 

Complaint, unless the parties agree to some other timeframe.

January 6, 2021 Parties exchange claim terms for construction.

January 20, 2021 Parties exchange proposed claim constructions.

1 The parties may amend preliminary infringement contentions and preliminary invalidity 

contentions without leave of court so long as counsel certifies that it undertook reasonable efforts 

to prepare its preliminary contentions and the amendment is based on material identified after those 

preliminary contentions were served and should do so seasonably upon identifying any such 

material. Any amendment to add claims requires leave of court so that the Court can address any 

scheduling issues.

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 41 Filed 11/04/20 Page 17 of 24
2

January 27, 2021 Parties disclose extrinsic evidence. Parties disclose extrinsic 

evidence. The parties shall disclose any extrinsic evidence, 

including the identity of any expert witness they may rely upon 

with respect to claim construction or indefiniteness. With 

respect to any expert identified, the parties shall identify the 

scope of the topics for the witness’s expected testimony.2 With 

respect to items of extrinsic evidence, the parties shall identify 

each such item by production number or produce a copy of any 

such item if not previously produced. 

February 3, 2021 Deadline to meet and confer to narrow terms in dispute and 

exchange revised list of terms/constructions.

February 17, 2021 Plaintiff files Opening claim construction brief, including any 

arguments that any claim terms are indefinite.

March 17, 2021 Defendant files Responsive claim construction brief. 

March 31, 2021 Plaintiff files Reply claim construction brief.

April 14, 2021 Defendant files Sur-Reply claim construction brief.

April 19, 2021 Parties submit Joint Claim Construction Statement and provide 

copies of briefs to the Court.

See General Issues Note #8 regarding providing copies of the 

briefing to the Court and the technical adviser (if appointed)

April 21, 2021 Parties submit option technical tutorials to the Court and 

technical advisor (if appointed). 

April 29-30, 2021 Markman hearing at 9:00 a.m. 

SIGNED this _____ day of ______________, 2020

____________________________________

ALAN D ALBRIGHT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Any party may utilize a rebuttal expert in response to a brief where expert testimony is relied upon by the 

other party.

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 41 Filed 11/04/20 Page 18 of 24
3

Exhibit C

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 41 Filed 11/04/20 Page 19 of 24
4

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. ET 

AL,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00473-486-ADA

Plaintiff’s Proposal as Compared to OGP

OGP 3.2 WSOU 

Proposal

Item

October 21, 

2020

October 21, 

2020

Case Management Conference

November 4, 

2020

November 4, 

2020

Deadline for Motions to Transfer

December 9, 

2020

December 9, 

2020

Defendant serves preliminary3 invalidity contentions in 

the form of (1) a chart setting forth where in the prior art 

references each element of the asserted claim(s) are found, 

(2) an identification of any limitations the Defendant 

contends are indefinite or lack written description under 

section 112, and (3) an identification of any claims the 

Defendant contends are directed to ineligible subject 

matter under section 101. Defendant shall also produce 

(1) all prior art referenced in the invalidity contentions, (2) 

technical documents, including software where applicable, 

sufficient to show the operation of the accused product(s), 

and (3) summary, annual sales information for the accused 

product(s) for the two years preceding the filing of the 

Complaint, unless the parties agree to some other 

timeframe.

3 The parties may amend preliminary infringement contentions and preliminary invalidity 

contentions without leave of court so long as counsel certifies that it undertook reasonable efforts 

to prepare its preliminary contentions and the amendment is based on material identified after those 

preliminary contentions were served and should do so seasonably upon identifying any such 

material. Any amendment to add claims requires leave of court so that the Court can address any 

scheduling issues.

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 41 Filed 11/04/20 Page 20 of 24
5

OGP 3.2 WSOU 

Proposal

Item

December 

23, 2020

January 6, 

2021

Parties exchange claim terms for construction.

January 6, 

2021

January 20, 

2021

Parties exchange proposed claim constructions.

January 13, 

2021

January 27, 

2021 Parties disclose extrinsic evidence. Parties disclose 

extrinsic evidence. The parties shall disclose any extrinsic 

evidence, including the identity of any expert witness they 

may rely upon with respect to claim construction or 

indefiniteness. With respect to any expert identified, the 

parties shall identify the scope of the topics for the 

witness’s expected testimony.4 With respect to items of 

extrinsic evidence, the parties shall identify each such item 

by production number or produce a copy of any such item 

if not previously produced. 

January 20, 

2021

February 3, 

2021

Deadline to meet and confer to narrow terms in dispute 

and exchange revised list of terms/constructions.

January 27, 

2021

February 17, 

2021

Plaintiff files Opening claim construction brief, including 

any arguments that any claim terms are indefinite.

N/A N/A The parties shall disclose the identity of any rebuttal 

expert witness they may rely upon in their response brief 

with respect to claim construction or indefiniteness. With 

respect to any expert identified, the parties shall identify 

the scope of the topics for the witness’s expected 

testimony.

February 17, 

2021

March 17, 

2021

Defendant files Responsive claim construction brief. 

March 3, 

2021

March 31, 

2021

Plaintiff files Reply claim construction brief.

March 17, 

2021

April 14, 2021 Defendant files Sur-Reply claim construction brief.

March 22, 

2021

April 19, 2021 Parties submit Joint Claim Construction Statement and 

provide copies of briefs to the Court.

4

Any party may utilize a rebuttal expert in response to a brief where expert testimony is relied upon by the 

other party.

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 41 Filed 11/04/20 Page 21 of 24
6

OGP 3.2 WSOU 

Proposal

Item

See General Issues Note #8 regarding providing copies of 

the briefing to the Court and the technical adviser (if 

appointed)

April 21, 

2021

April 21, 2021 Parties submit option technical tutorials to the Court and 

technical advisor (if appointed). 

April 29-30, 

2021

April 29-30, 

2021

Markman hearing at 9:00 a.m. 

May 3, 2021 May 3, 2021 Fact Discovery opens; deadline to serve Initial Disclosures 

per Rule 26(a).

June 11, 

2021

June 11, 2021 Deadline to add parties.

June 25, 

2021

June 25, 2021 Deadline to serve Final Infringement and Invalidity 

Contentions. After this date, leave of Court is required for 

any amendment to Infringement o Invalidity contentions. 

This deadline does not relieve the Parties of their 

obligation to seasonably amend if new information is 

identified after initial contentions.

August 20, 

2021

August 20, 

2021

Deadline to amend pleadings. A motion is not required 

unless the amendment adds patents or patent claims. 

(Note: This includes amendments in response to a 12(c) 

motion.) 

October 29, 

2021

October 29, 

2021

Deadline for the first of two meet and confers to discuss 

significantly narrowing the number of claims asserted and 

prior art references at issue. Unless the parties agree to the 

narrowing, they are ordered to contact the Court’s Law 

Clerk to arrange a teleconference with the Court to resolve 

the disputed issues. 

November26, 

2021

December 3, 

2021

Close of Fact Discovery.

December 3, 

2021

December 10, 

2022

Opening Expert Reports.

December 

31, 2021

January 6, 

2022

Rebuttal Expert Reports.

January 21, 

2022

January 28, 

2022

Close of Expert Discovery.

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 41 Filed 11/04/20 Page 22 of 24
7

OGP 3.2 WSOU 

Proposal

Item

January 28, 

2022

January 31, 

2022

Deadline for the second of two meet and confers to discuss 

narrowing the number of claims asserted and prior art 

references at issue to triable limits. To the extent it helps 

the parties determine these limits, the parties are 

encouraged to contact the Court’s Law Clerk for an 

estimate of the amount of trial time anticipated per side. 

The parties shall file a Joint Report within 5 business days 

regarding the results of the meet and confer. 

February 4, 

2022

February 4, 

2022

Dispositive motion deadline and Daubert motion deadline.

See General Issues Note #8 regarding providing copies of 

the briefing to the Court and the technical adviser (if 

appointed).

February 18, 

2022

February 18, 

2022

Serve Pretrial Disclosures (jury instructions, exhibit lists, 

witness lists, discovery and deposition designations). 

March 4, 

2022

March 4, 2022 Serve objections to pretrial disclosures/rebuttal 

disclosures.

March 11, 

2022

March 11, 

2022

Serve objections to rebuttal disclosures and file motions in 

limine.

March 18, 

2022

March 18, 

2022

File Joint Pretrial Order and Pretrial Submissions (jury 

instructions, exhibit lists, witness lists, discovery and 

deposition designations); file oppositions to motions in 

limine. 

March 25, 

2022

March 25, 

2022

File Notice of Request for Daily Transcript or Real Time 

Reporting. If a daily transcript or real time reporting of 

court proceedings is requested for trial, the party or parties 

making said request shall file a notice with the Court and 

e-mail the Court Reporter, Kristie Davis at 

kmdaviscsr@yahoo.com.

Deadline to meet and confer regarding remaining 

objections and disputes on motions in limine. 

April 5, 2022 April 5, 2022 File joint notice identifying remaining objections to 

pretrial disclosures and disputes on motion in limine. 

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 41 Filed 11/04/20 Page 23 of 24
8

OGP 3.2 WSOU 

Proposal

Item

April 8, 2022 April 8, 2022 Final Pretrial Conference. The Court expects to set this 

date at the conclusion of the Markman Hearing. 

April 29, 

2022

May 2, 2022 Jury Selection/Trial. The Court expects to set this date at 

the conclusion of the Markman Hearing. 

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 41 Filed 11/04/20 Page 24 of 24