1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC, § 

Plaintiff, § 

§ 

v. § 

§ 

DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC., DELL § 

INC., EMC CORPORATION, and § 

VMWARE, INC., § 

Defendant. 

6:20-CV-00480-ADA

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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

Derek T. Gilliland. ECF No. 345. 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. 

254); (2) deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Certain Portions of Defendants’ Expert Reports and 

Rule 26(a)(2)(C) Disclosure (ECF No. 255); (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. 256); (4) deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary 

Judgment For Validity of U.S. Patent No. 9,164,800 (ECF No. 257); (5) grant as unopposed 

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

294); (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’ 

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

Case 6:20-cv-00480-ADA-DTG Document 408 Filed 03/29/23 Page 1 of 4
2

Procedure 12(b)(1) (ECF No. 196); (9) deny-in-part and grant-in-part Defendants’ Motion to 

Exclude Certain Portions of Mr. Roy Weinstein’s Expert Report (ECF No. 246); (10) grant 

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

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

No. 248); (12) grant as unopposed Defendants’ Motion to Strike Certain Portions of Dr. Stan 

McClellan’s Expert Report Regarding Indirect Infringement (ECF No. 252); (13) deny 

Defendants’ Motion to Strike Certain Opinions of Dr. Stan McClellan Concerning Infringement 

of U.S. Patent No. 7,539,133 (ECF No. 242); and (14) deny Defendants’ Motion for Summary 

Judgment of Non-Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,539,133 (ECF No. 244).

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. 357. Specifically, Defendants 

object to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to (1) deny-in-part Defendants’ Motion to 

Exclude Certain Portions of Mr. Roy Weinstein’s Expert Report (ECF No. 246); (2) deny 

Defendants’ motions to strike or exclude certain opinions of Stan McClellan, Ph.D. (ECF Nos. 

242, 248); (3) deny-in-part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Non-Infringement of

U.S. Patent No. 7,539,133 (ECF No. 244); (4) deny Defendants’ Opposed Motion to Dismiss for 

Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) (ECF No. 

Case 6:20-cv-00480-ADA-DTG Document 408 Filed 03/29/23 Page 2 of 4
3

196); and (5) 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. 385.

Plaintiff also filed objections on February 10 and 13, 2023. ECF Nos. 358−366. 

Specifically, Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judges 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. 256); (2) deny Plaintiff’s Motion

for Partial Summary Judgment For Validity of U.S. Patent No. 9,164,800 (ECF No. 257);

(3) grant Defendants’ Motion to Strike Certain Portions of Mr. Roy Weinstein’s Expert Report

(ECF No. 250); (4) deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Certain Portions of Defendants’ Expert 

Reports and Rule 26(a)(2)(C) Disclosure (ECF No. 255); (5) 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. 254); and (6) grant-inpart Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Certain Portions of Mr. Roy Weinstein’s Expert Report (ECF

No. 246). Id. Defendants filed a response to Plaintiff’s objections on February 20, 2023. ECF No. 

387.

The Court has conducted a de novo review of the briefing, the report and recommendation, 

the objections to the report and recommendation, the response to the objections, 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. 345, is ADOPTED in its entirety.

Case 6:20-cv-00480-ADA-DTG Document 408 Filed 03/29/23 Page 3 of 4
4 

ALAN D ALBRIGHT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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 29th day of March, 2023.

Case 6:20-cv-00480-ADA-DTG Document 408 Filed 03/29/23 Page 4 of 4