IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

§

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-460-ADA

v. §

§

MICROSOFT CORPORATION, §

§

Defendant. §

§ 

§

OPPOSED FIRST MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ANSWER

Defendant Microsoft Corporation (“Defendant”) files this Opposed First Motion for 

Extension of Time to File Answer and respectfully shows the following:

Plaintiff WSOU Investments LLC filed the Complaint in this case on June 2, 2020 (Dkt. 

1), one of twelve complaints filed by Plaintiff against Defendant on June 2, 2020, each case

asserting one patent.1 None of the twelve asserted patents are related to one another, and the 

accused Microsoft products and services vary considerably. These accused products and services 

across the twelve cases run the gamut of Microsoft’s diverse business, including Azure, Skype for 

Business, Skype, HoloLens, Windows Server, Xbox, and Xbox Live. 

1 The twelve pending cases and asserted patents are as follows:

6:20-cv-454 (7,366,160) 6:20-cv-458 (7,388,868) 6:20-cv-462 (7,106,727)

6:20-cv-455 (9,814,988) 6:20-cv-459 (7,750,286) 6:20-cv-463 (8,226,241)

6:20-cv-456 (7,676,550) 6:20-cv-460 (8,625,758) 6:20-cv-464 (7,706,519)

6:20-cv-457 (8,965,978) 6:20-cv-461 (7,106,702) 6:20-cv-465 (8,274,902)

These cases were filed after Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its original twelve cases against 

Defendant filed from April 27–29, 2020. See C.A. Nos. 6:20-cv-331, 6:20-cv-332, 6:20-cv-333, 

6:20-cv-334, 6:20-cv-335, 6:20-cv-337, 6:20-cv-340, 6:20-cv-341, 6:20-cv-342, 6:20-cv-344, 

6:20-cv-345, and 6:20-cv-346. Upon inquiry, Plaintiff declined to explain why the original cases 

were dismissed and new cases asserting the same patents were filed.

Case 6:20-cv-00460-ADA Document 13 Filed 07/24/20 Page 1 of 4
OPPOSED FIRST MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ANSWER Page 2

In each case, Defendant filed an executed waiver of the service of summons on June 5, 

2020 (Dkt. 9). Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(3), Defendant’s current response deadline is 

August 4, 2020.

Defendant requests a thirty-day extension of time to Answer or otherwise respond on or 

before September 3, 2020. Starting on July 13, 2020, counsel for Defendant conferred with counsel 

for Plaintiff, who initially responded that Plaintiff opposed an extension because “[a]ny further 

delay will likely prejudice WSOU in the event that Microsoft files petitions for IPRs.” Ex. A. The 

parties met and conferred further, with Defendant having now agreed to respond to four of 

Plaintiff’s complaints by the original date (August 4). Yet the parties remain at an impasse.

Local Rule AT-4 (Standards for Pretrial Conduct) states in relevant part:

(b) Requests for Extensions of Time. The court expects a lawyer to 

grant other lawyers’ requests for reasonable extensions of time to 

respond to discovery, pretrial motions, and other pretrial matters. 

Opposing such requests wastes resources, unless the client’s 

legitimate interests will be adversely affected.

L.R. AT-4(b) (Eff. April 26, 2012). Microsoft’s request for an extension is reasonable given the 

circumstances, and Plaintiff has not identified any viable prejudice to justify its opposition.

This is Microsoft’s first motion for extension of time to Answer or otherwise respond. 

Microsoft requires further time to analyze the allegations in this case before answering or 

otherwise responding given (1) the number of asserted patents across the twelve co-pending 

cases; (2) the lack of similarity among the asserted patents; and (3) the disparate and numerous 

accused products and services. Additionally, Plaintiff’s proffered reason for opposing the 

requested extension (i.e., fear of an IPR) is at best speculation and on its own identifies no clear 

prejudice to Plaintiff from this brief extension. If timing in this matter affects any future IPR 

proceeding, the Patent Office can consider this Court’s case schedule consistent with its own 

Case 6:20-cv-00460-ADA Document 13 Filed 07/24/20 Page 2 of 4
OPPOSED FIRST MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ANSWER Page 3

rules and practices. See, e.g., Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., Case IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 9

(P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2020). In other words, speculative fear of an IPR is not a reasonable 

justification to oppose a first request for a reasonable extension of time. Finally, Microsoft’s 

requested relief is limited to cases like this one where it needs more time to respond because of 

the nature and complexity of the accused Azure, Windows Server, and Skype functionalities, 

which would be challenging even in the absence of Covid-19-related obstacles. At the same time, 

as to Plaintiff’s two complaints directed against Microsoft’s HoloLens products and the two 

complaints directed against Xbox products and services, Microsoft does not seek an extension 

and will file its responsive pleadings by the original deadline (August 4).

Wherefore, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion and enter an 

order extending the deadline for Defendant to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint to 

September 3, 2020.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: July 24, 2020 By: /s/ Barry K. Shelton

Barry K. Shelton

Texas State Bar No. 24055029

SHELTON COBURN LLP

311 RR 620, Suite 205

Austin, TX 78734-4775

bshelton@sheltoncoburn.com

(512) 263-2165 (Telephone)

(512) 263-2166 (Facsimile)

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

MICROSOFT CORPORATION

Case 6:20-cv-00460-ADA Document 13 Filed 07/24/20 Page 3 of 4
OPPOSED FIRST MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ANSWER Page 4

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

Pursuant to Local Rule CV-7-1(i), the undersigned hereby certifies that between July 16

and 23, 2020 he conferred by email and telephone with counsel for Plaintiff, Mr. James 

Etheridge, who stated that Plaintiff is opposed to the relief requested herein. 

/s/ Barry K. Shelton

Barry K. Shelton

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing 

document has been served on all counsel of record via the Court’s ECF system.

/s/ Barry K. Shelton

Barry K. Shelton

Case 6:20-cv-00460-ADA Document 13 Filed 07/24/20 Page 4 of 4