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.M,

 Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

6:20-CV-00486-ADA-DTG

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge 

Dereck T. Gilliland. ECF No. 346. The Report recommends that this Court: (1) deny Plaintiff’s 

Daubert Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions In the Expert Report of Stephen L. Becker, Ph.D. 

Or In The Alternative Strike Portions of the Expert Report of Stephen L. Becker, Ph.D. (ECF 

No. 257); (2) deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Certain Portions of Defendants’ Expert Reports 

and Rule 26(a)(2)(C) Disclosure (ECF No. 258); (3) deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Exclude Certain 

Opinions In the Expert Reports of Benjamin F. Goldberg, Ph.D. And Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D. 

Regarding Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 9,164,800 And Licensing Opinions of Tajana Rosing, 

Ph.D. and Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D. (ECF No. 259); (4) deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary 

Judgment For Validity of U.S. Patent No. 9,164,800 (ECF No. 260); (5) grant as unopposed 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Supplemental Motion in Limine (ECF No. 

297); (6) deny Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint for Failure to State a 

Claim (ECF No. 38); (7) deny Defendants’ Opposed Motion for Intra-District Transfer of Venue 

to the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas (ECF No. 43); (8) deny Defendants’ 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 411 Filed 03/30/23 Page 1 of 4
Opposed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under Federal Rule of Civil 

Case Procedure 12(B)(1) (ECF No. 195); (9) deny-in-part and grant-in-part Defendants’ Motion 

to Exclude Certain Portions of Mr. Roy Weinstein’s Expert Report (ECF No. 249); (10) grant 

Defendants’ Motion to Strike Certain Portions of Mr. Roy Weinstein’s Expert Report (ECF No. 

253); (11) deny Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions of Stan McClellan, Ph.D. (ECF 

No. 251); (12) grant as unopposed Defendants’ Motion to Strike Certain Portions of Dr. Stan 

McClellan’s Expert Report Regarding Indirect Infringement (ECF No. 255); (13) deny 

Defendants’ Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Basis of Ineligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 

of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,360 (ECF No. 172); (14) deny Defendants’ Daubert Motion and Motion 

to Exclude Certain Opinions of Dr. Stan McClellan as to U.S. Patent No. 7,092,360 (ECF No. 

245); and (15) grant-in-part as to “current pointer,” “next pointer,” and “selector;” and deny-inpart as to “computer generated model” and “monitor” Defendants’ Motion for Summary 

Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,360 (ECF No. 247). ECF No. 346. The 

Report and Recommendation was filed on January 30, 2023. Id.

A party may file specific, written objections to the proposed findings and 

recommendations of the magistrate judge within fourteen days after being served with a copy of 

the report and recommendation, thereby securing de novo review by the district court. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A district court need not consider “[f]rivolous, conclusive, or 

general objections.” Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987) (quoting 

Nettles v. Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc), overruled on other 

grounds by Douglass v. United States Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996)). 

Defendants’ filed objections on February 10, 2023. ECF No. 358. Specifically, Defendant 

objects to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to (1) deny-in-part and grant-in-part 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 411 Filed 03/30/23 Page 2 of 4
Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Certain Portions of Mr. Roy Weinstein’s Expert Report (ECF 

No. 249); (2) deny Defendants’ Daubert Motion and Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions of Dr. 

Stan McClellan as to U.S. Patent No. 7,092,360 (ECF No. 245); (3) deny-in-part as to “computer 

generated model” and “monitor” Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of NonInfringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,360 (ECF No. 247); (4) deny Defendants’ Opposed 

Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under Federal Rule of Civil Case 

6:20-cv-00481-ADA-DTG Document 411 Filed 03/27/2023 Page 1 of 4 Procedure 12(B)(1) 

(ECF No. 195); (5) deny Defendants’ Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Basis of 

Ineligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,360 (ECF No. 172); and (6) deny 

Defendants’ Opposed Motion for Intra-District Transfer of Venue to the Austin Division of the 

Western District of Texas (ECF No. 43). Plaintiff filed a response to Defendants’ objections on 

February 17, 2023. ECF No. 392. Defendants’ filed a reply on February 20, 2023. ECF No. 393. 

Plaintiff filed objections on February 10 and 13, 2023. ECF No. 359-367. Specifically, 

Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to (1) deny Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Exclude Certain Opinions In the Expert Reports of Benjamin F. Goldberg, Ph.D. And Kevin 

Jeffay, Ph.D. Regarding Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 9,164,800 And Licensing Opinions of 

Tajana Rosing, Ph.D. and Kevin Jeffay, Ph.D. (ECF No. 259); (2) deny Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Partial Summary Judgment For Validity of U.S. Patent No. 9,164,800 (ECF No. 260); (3) grantin-part as to “current pointer,” “next pointer,” and “selector;” and deny-in-part as to “computer 

generated model” and “monitor” Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of NonInfringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,092,360 (ECF No. 247); (4) grant-in-part Defendants’ Motion 

to Exclude Certain Portions of Mr. Roy Weinstein’s Expert Report (ECF No. 249); (5) deny 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment For Validity of U.S. Patent No. 9,164,800

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 411 Filed 03/30/23 Page 3 of 4
(ECF No. 260); (6) grant Defendants’ Motion to Strike Certain Portions of Mr. Roy Weinstein’s 

Expert Report (ECF No. 253); and (7) deny Plaintiff’s Daubert Motion to Exclude Certain 

Opinions In the Expert Report of Stephen L. Becker, Ph.D. Or In The Alternative Strike Portions 

of the Expert Report of Stephen L. Becker, Ph.D (ECF No. 257). 

The Court has conducted a de novo review of the motion to dismiss, the responses, the 

report and recommendation, the objections and responses to the report and recommendation, and 

the applicable laws. After that thorough review, the Court is persuaded that the Magistrate 

Judge’s findings and recommendation should be adopted.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of United 

States Magistrate Judge Gilliland, ECF No. 346, is ADOPTED in its entirety. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ and Plaintiff’s objections are 

OVERRULED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motions listed above are ruled on in accordance 

with the Report and Recommendation.

SIGNED this 30th day of March, 2023.

ALAN D ALBRIGHT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 411 Filed 03/30/23 Page 4 of 4