Filed Under Seal

Page | 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC d/b/a 

BRAZOS LICENSING AND 

DEVELOPMENT,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Filed Under Seal

CIV. ACTION NO. 6:20-CV-00454-ADA

CIV. ACTION NO. 6:20-CV-00455-ADA

CIV. ACTION NO. 6:20-CV-00456-ADA

CIV. ACTION NO. 6:20-CV-00458-ADA

CIV. ACTION NO. 6:20-CV-00459-ADA

CIV. ACTION NO. 6:20-CV-00460-ADA

CIV. ACTION NO. 6:20-CV-00461-ADA

CIV. ACTION NO. 6:20-CV-00462-ADA

CIV. ACTION NO. 6:20-CV-00463-ADA

CIV. ACTION NO. 6:20-CV-00464-ADA

CORRECTED1 RULE 26 MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER BY NON-PARTY WADE & 

COMPANY (USA), INC. AND BY WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC

Nonparty Wade & Company (USA), Inc. (“Wade and Company”) and Plaintiff WSOU 

Investments, LLC request a protective order prohibiting Microsoft from taking further attempts to 

enforce its subpoenas against Wade and Company. This motion is filed pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 26 (c)(1).

BACKGROUND

A. Procedural Background. 

On April 6, 2021, Microsoft issued broad subpoenas on Wade seeking documents and 

deposition testimony (the “Subpoenas”). The document subpoena broadly requests documents on 

fourteen categories of documents. The deposition subpoena includes topics that are essentially 

identical to the document requests. Wade and Company served objections on April 23, 2021 and 

supplemental responses on June 1, 2021. The parties have met and conferred by telephone twice. 

During phone conferences and through written correspondence, Wade and Company has 

repeatedly explained to Microsoft that: (1) Wade and Company has conducted a reasonable search 

1 This motion was corrected to include the certificate of conference. 

Case 6:20-cv-00454-ADA Document 89 Filed 09/08/21 Page 1 of 6
Filed Under Seal

Page | 2 

and does not have documents responsive to Microsoft’s subpoena; and (2) no person currently at 

Wade and Company has knowledge of the topics in Microsoft’s subpoena. Wade and Company

has also repeatedly offered a signed declaration and requested that Microsoft accept a declaration 

of these facts in lieu of a deposition. Microsoft refuses, insisting that it must depose Wade and 

Company to confirm that it has no documents or knowledge responsive to Microsoft’s responses. 

Microsoft has now threatened to file a motion to compel against Wade and Company in the 

Central District of California (by way of a “joint stipulation” under the applicable local rules). On 

August 26, 2021, Microsoft sent Wade and Company the “joint stipulation.” Under the local rules 

of the Central District of California, Wade and Company must add its “response” to the joint 

stipulation and return it to Microsoft by September 2, 2021. In its “response,” Wade and Company 

will request that Microsoft’s motion be transferred here pursuant to Federal Rule 45(f), as this 

Court is better suited to resolve the dispute between Wade and Microsoft. 

B. Wade and Company has no relevant documents or knowledge. 

Approximately four or five years ago, Wade and Company briefly explored the possibility

of purchasing some patents from Nokia. See Marc Wade Decl. ¶ 3.2 Because Wade and Company 

is not in the patent business, it ultimately decided not to participate in the purchase any patents 

from Nokia. Id. Wade and Company does not own and has not invested in the “Patents-in-Suit”

mentioned in Microsoft’s Subpoenas. Id. It has no interest, ownership, or rights in the “Patents-inSuit” listed in Microsoft’s subpoena. Id. ¶ 6. Mr. Wade has no recollection regarding the details of 

the potential purchase from Nokia. Id. ¶4. 

No other person at Wade and Company had any knowledge regarding the 

details of the potential purchase from Nokia. Id. 

Wade and Company signed a few documents while exploring the possible purchase from 

2 For efficiency, the Wade Declaration is being filed only in the -454 case. 

Case 6:20-cv-00454-ADA Document 89 Filed 09/08/21 Page 2 of 6
Filed Under Seal

Page | 3 

Nokia. Id. ¶5. Mr. Wade does not recall exactly how many documents Wade and Company signed 

or exactly when they were signed. Id. He believes they were signed years ago. Id. He conducted 

a reasonable search for the documents and did not locate them. Id. He does not believe Wade and 

Company kept them. Id. Because Wade and Company decided not to purchase patents from Nokia, 

Mr. Wade was not concerned about keeping the documents. Id. 

Mr. Wade is aware that WSOU ultimately purchased the patents from Nokia and 

“assume[s] WSOU has documents relating to the purchase, including the few documents signed 

by Wade and Company, but [he has] no personal knowledge concerning what documents WSOU 

has.” Id. ¶ 7.3

Microsoft’s subpoenas request documents and testimony about agreements between Wade 

and Company and the inventors of the patents in suit. Wade and Company is not in the patent 

business and has never done business with or had had any communications with the inventors. Id. 

¶8. Although Wade and Company has repeatedly informed Microsoft of this fact, Microsoft 

refuses to withdraw even this topic. 

The Subpoenas request information about the “preparation, drafting, filing, or prosecution 

of each of the Patents-in-Suit.” Wade and Company is not in the patent business. Id. ¶9. Wade and 

Company did not prepare, draft, file, or prosecute any of the Patents-in-Suit. Id. Mr. Wade does 

not know who did. Id. Although Wade and Company has repeatedly informed Microsoft of this 

fact, Microsoft refuses to withdraw even this topic. 

The Subpoenas request information about Wade and Company’s relationship with “any 

entity” 

3 Counsel for WSOU can confirm that WSOU has the few documents signed by Wade and 

Company – 

– and has produced them to 

Microsoft. Those documents were in the possession of WSOU, not Wade and Company, and were 

produced by WSOU, not Wade and Company.

Case 6:20-cv-00454-ADA Document 89 Filed 09/08/21 Page 3 of 6
Filed Under Seal

Page | 4 

. If any of those persons 

or entities are mentioned in the few documents Wade and Company signed when exploring the 

potential purchase from Nokia, those documents represent the full extent of any dealings Wade 

and Company has had with them. Id. Although Wade and Company has repeatedly informed 

Microsoft of this fact, Microsoft refuses to withdraw even this topic.

The Subpoenas request information about Wade and Company’s communications with 

WSOU about “This Litigation,” Microsoft, or the Patents-in-Suit. Wade and Company has not had 

communication with WSOU regarding “This Litigation” or Microsoft. Id. ¶12. Although Wade 

and Company has repeatedly informed Microsoft of this fact, Microsoft refuses to withdraw even 

this topic.

The Subpoenas ask for information about “Other WSOU Defendants,” which the 

Subpoenas define as “any and all companies that WSOU has sued in patent litigation matters,” 

including companies such as Dell and Huawei. Wade and Company is not in the patent business 

and is not, and has never been, involved in any lawsuits against the “Other WSOU Defendants.”

Id. ¶13. Wade and Company does not have information relating to “Other WSOU Defendants” 

that is related to the lawsuits or the Patents-in-Suit (other than perhaps a user manual or agreement 

for a Dell product etc.). 

Wade and Company likewise has no knowledge of other topics in Microsoft’s Subpoenas, 

such as topics seeking information about the “subject matter described in each of the Patents-inSuit” or the “conception, reduction to practice, and diligence in the reduction to practice of any 

alleged invention of the Patents-in-Suit.” Indeed, without making assumptions about legal matters 

beyond his expertise, Mr. Wade does not know what the Subpoena means by these terms. Id. ¶14. 

Case 6:20-cv-00454-ADA Document 89 Filed 09/08/21 Page 4 of 6
Filed Under Seal

Page | 5 

C. Relevant information regarding Wade and Company, if any, can be obtained from 

WSOU.

 One of the topics in Microsoft’s 

Rule 30(b)(6) notice on WSOU is WSOU’s relationship or interactions with Wade and Company. 

 

WSOU has conducted a reasonable search for documents and has produced documents to 

Microsoft that relate to Wade and Company, including early versions of the Patent Purchase 

Agreement with Nokia, which Wade and Company assigned to WSOU. 

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

A court “may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, 

embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense ...” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(c)(1). Whether a 

subpoena imposes an undue burden is a question of reasonableness determined by balancing the 

benefits and burdens of the deposition and whether the information is obtainable from an 

alternative source. MetroPCS v. Thomas, 327 F.R.D. 600, 609 (N.D. Tex. 2018). 

Here, there is good cause to enter a protective order to protect Wade and Company from

the annoyance and undue burden or expense of a deposition because Wade and Company has no 

knowledge or documents responsive to Microsoft’s Subpoenas. See Wade Declaration. If there is

any information about Wade and Company relevant to this case, it would be information obtainable 

from WSOU, not Wade and Company. 

Therefore, Wade and Company and WSOU respectfully request a protective order

forbidding Microsoft from further attempts to depose Wade and Company. 

Case 6:20-cv-00454-ADA Document 89 Filed 09/08/21 Page 5 of 6
Filed Under Seal

Page | 6

Dated: September 1, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Ryan Loveless 

James L. Etheridge 

Texas Bar No. 24059147 

Ryan S. Loveless 

Texas Bar No. 24036997 

Brett A. Mangrum 

Texas Bar No. 24065671 

Travis L. Richins 

Texas Bar No. 24061296 

Jeffrey Huang

Brian M. Koide

Etheridge Law Group, PLLC 

2600 E. Southlake Blvd., Suite 120 / 324 

Southlake, TX 76092 

Tel.: (817) 470-7249 

Fax: (817) 887-5950 

Jim@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Ryan@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Brett@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Travis@EtheridgeLaw.com 

JHuang@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Brian@EtheridgeLaw.com

Counsel for Wade & Company

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served or delivered electronically via email 

to all counsel of record on September 1, 2021.

/s/ Ryan Loveless 

Ryan S. Loveless

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

Counsel for Wade and Company and WSOU conferred multiple times with Microsoft, 

including by phone on August 25, 2021. Microsoft is opposed to the relief requested. 

/s/ Ryan Loveless 

Ryan S. Loveless

Case 6:20-cv-00454-ADA Document 89 Filed 09/08/21 Page 6 of 6