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-00486-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

PUBLIC VERSION

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS 

FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 

UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(B)(1) 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 197 Filed 06/14/22 Page 1 of 30
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................1

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND.........................................................................................3

A. The ’360 Patent Was Never Assigned to Alcatel Lucent........................................3

B.

.............4

C.

...................................................................................................................6

D. .........................................7

III. WSOU BEARS THE BURDEN TO PROVE STANDING.............................................8

IV. ALCATEL LUCENT NEVER HAD THE RIGHTS TO THE ’360 PATENT

AND COULD NOT HAVE ASSIGNED THEM TO ANYONE, INCLUDING

WADE ........................................................................................................................10

V. WADE NEVER ASSIGNED THE ’360 PATENT TO WSOU .....................................12

A. ............................................12

B. ......................................13

VI. WSOU LACKS STANDING TO SUE FOR PRE-ASSIGNMENT DAMAGES ...........16

A. ................................16

B.

..........................................................17

1.

........................................................................................17

2. ..........19

3. The USPTO Assignment Records Confirm 

................................................................ 20

VII. CONCLUSION ...........................................................................................................20

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 197 Filed 06/14/22 Page 2 of 30
ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

CASES

Abbott Point of Care Inc. v. Epocal, Inc., 

666 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2012)......................................................................................8, 11

Abraxis Bioscience, Inc. v. Navinta LLC, 

625 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................ 8, 10, 14

Advanced Video Techs. LLC v. HTC Corp., 

2019 WL 4198769 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 2019).....................................................................11

Arachnid, Inc. v. Merit Indus.,

939 F.2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1991)................................................................................ 9, 16, 17

Barlow & Haun, Inc. v. United States, 

805 F.3d 1049 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..........................................................................................10

Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., 

583 F.3d 832 (Fed. Cir. 2009), aff’d, 563 U.S. 776 (2011)...................................... 17, 18, 19

Bowmer v. Bowmer, 

50 N.Y.2d 288 (N.Y. 1980) ...............................................................................................20

Campbell v. Thomas, 

897 N.Y.S.2d 460 (2010)...................................................................................................15

DDB Techs., L.L.C. v. MLB Advanced Media, L.P., 

517 F.3d 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..........................................................................................18

Enzo APA & Son, Inc. v. Geapag A.G., 

134 F.3d 1090 (Fed. Cir. 1998)............................................................................................3

Epistar Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 

566 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..........................................................................................13

F.D.I.C. v. McFarland,

243 F.3d 876 (5th Cir. 2001)..............................................................................................13

Faison v. Lewis, 

25 N.Y.3d 220 (N.Y. 2015) ...............................................................................................14

FluorDx LLC v. Quidel Corp.,

2019 WL 4599842 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2019)............................................................... 11, 12

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 197 Filed 06/14/22 Page 3 of 30
iii

Gellman v. Telular Corp., 

2010 WL 5173213 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 14, 2010) ....................................................................18

Green Tech. Lighting Corp. v. Liberty Surplus Ins. Corp., 

No. 1:18-CV-01799 (PAC), 2020 WL 2036705 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2020)..........................19

LNV Corp. v. Sorrento, 

31 N.Y.S.3d 922, 2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 50250(U), (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Feb. 29, 

2016) ................................................................................................................................14

Lone Star Silicon Innovations LLC v. Nanya Tech. Corp.,

925 F.3d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2019)......................................................................................9, 10

Mas-Hamilton Grp. v. LaGard, Inc., 

156 F.3d 1206 (Fed. Cir. 1998)..........................................................................................10

Minco, Inc. v. Combustion Eng’g, Inc.,

95 F.3d 1109 (Fed. Cir. 1996)............................................................................................16

Moore v. Marsh, 

74 U.S. 515 (1868)...................................................................................................... 10, 16

Morrow v. Microsoft Corp., 

499 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2007)......................................................................................9, 12

Muzak Corp. v. Hotel Taft Corp., 

1 N.Y.2d 42 (N.Y. 1956) ...................................................................................................20

Nat’l Org. for Women, Inc. v. Scheidler, 

510 U.S. 249 (1994)..........................................................................................................10

Neutron Depot, LLC v. All Web Leads, Inc.,

No. AU-16-CA-00901-SS, 2017 WL 9538893 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2017)...........................3

S.O.T.A.T., Inc. v. Frank’s Int’l, Inc., 

No. 2:06 CV 523, 2008 WL 4093599 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 28, 2008)........................................16

Script Sec. Sol., LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 

No. 2:15-CV-1030-WCB, 2016 WL 6433776 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 31, 2016)...............................9

Sicom Sys., Ltd. v. Agilent Techs., Inc., 

427 F.3d 971 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ..........................................................................................3, 8

Speedplay, Inc. v. Bebop, Inc., 

211 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2000).................................................................................... 12, 17

Sphere Drake Insurance Ltd. v. Clarendon National Insurance Co., 

263 F.3d 26 (2d Cir. 2001)................................................................................................. 16

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 197 Filed 06/14/22 Page 4 of 30
iv

Spota v. Jackson, 

10 N.Y.3d 46 (2008)..........................................................................................................15

Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Google LLC, 

508 F. Supp. 3d 556 (N.D. Cal. 2020)................................................................................10

Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 

2020 WL 7122617 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2020) ......................................................................10

Wacoh Co. v. Chrysler LLC, 

No. 08-cv-456-slc, 2009 WL 36666 (W.D. Wis. Dec. 1, 2008).............................................9

WiAV Sols. LLC v. Motorola, Inc., 

631 F.3d 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2010)............................................................................................9

Zeroclick, LLC v. Apple Inc.,

2020 WL 1955735 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2020).....................................................................11

OTHER AUTHORITIES

MPEP, §301 (June 2020).........................................................................................................20

TREATISES

BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (11th ed. 2019) .............................................................................14

Restatement (Second) of Contracts §203(c) (Am. L. Inst. 1981)...............................................20

Restatement (Second) of Contracts §328 (Am. L. Inst. 1981) ...................................................13

5B Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure §1350 (3d ed. 2004)...................................9

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 197 Filed 06/14/22 Page 5 of 30
v 

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviation Term

’360 patent U.S. Patent No. 7,092,360 

Dell Dell Technologies Inc., Dell Inc., EMC Corporation, and VMware, Inc. 

NPE Non-practicing entity

Amended PPA Amended Patent Purchase Agreement 

PPA Patent Purchase Agreement

Wade Wade and Company 

WSOU WSOU Investments, LLC 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 197 Filed 06/14/22 Page 6 of 30
vi

TABLE OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit Document

A USPTO Reel 012412 Frame 0469

B USPTO Reel 022162 Frame 0730

C USPTO Reel 018904 Frame 0422

D USPTO Reel 021138 Frame 0032

E USPTO Reel 044000 Frame 0053

F

G

H

I USPTO Reel 042153 Frame 0314

J USPTO Assignment History of ’360 Patent

K Letter from B. Rosenthal to J. Etheridge (November 25, 2020)

L Letter from B. Rosenthal to J. Etheridge (April 16, 2021)

M Email from A. Kathir to J. Etheridge (March 29, 2021)

N

Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (example provided under definition of 

“VOID”) 

O

P

2020 Patent Dispute Report: Year in Review, available at 

https://www.unifiedpatents.com/insights/2020-patent-dispute-report-year-inreview

Q

Analytics: The Most Litigious District Court Patent Plaintiffs, available at 

https://lawstreetmedia.com/news/tech/analytics-the-most-litigious-districtcourt-patent-plaintiffs

R Etchegoyen Deposition Exhibit 8 (BRAZOS-GOOALL-0002132)

S Etchegoyen Deposition Exhibit 9 (BRAZOS-GOOALL-0007904)

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 197 Filed 06/14/22 Page 7 of 30
vii

T

U Excerpt from Deposition Transcript of Stuart Shanus, dated April 12, 2022

V

Federal Trade Commission, Patent Assertion Entity Activity: An FTC Study 

(2016), available at 

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/patent-assertion-entityactivity-ftcstudy/p131203_patent_assertion_entity_activity_an_ftc_study_0.pdf

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 197 Filed 06/14/22 Page 8 of 30
1 

I. INTRODUCTION

WSOU lacks standing for multiple independent reasons. By way of background, WSOU

is an NPE founded by Craig Etchegoyen. Its primary business is threatening and filing lawsuits 

based on patents that it purportedly acquired from Nokia and related entities such as Alcatel Lucent. 

However, WSOU never actually acquired the ’360 patent. This is not the first time Mr. Etchegoyen 

failed to acquire sufficient rights to patents before asserting them. In just the last two years, 

Uniloc0 F

1

—another NPE founded by Mr. Etchegoyen—has had lawsuits against Apple and Google

dismissed because it did not have exclusionary rights in the asserted patents. In light of this and 

other evidence casting doubt on WSOU’s rights in the asserted patent, Defendants repeatedly 

pressed WSOU for information related to its ability to institute and maintain this lawsuit. However, 

WSOU never produced any evidence substantiating its claims of standing. With fact discovery 

now closed and all fact depositions completed, it is clear that WSOU does not have any rights—

let alone exclusionary rights—to the ’360 patent for several reasons.

First, WSOU purports to have acquired the ’360 patent from Alcatel Lucent. But Alcatel

Lucent never had the rights to the ’360 patent and therefore could not have transferred any rights 

to that patent. Instead, the ’360 patent was assigned to Alcatel-Lucent Canada Inc. There is no 

recorded assignment to Alcatel Lucent, which is a different entity located in France. As a result, 

Alcatel Lucent did not have the rights in the ’360 patent to transfer in the first place. 

1

 

Defendants move under FRCP 12(b)(1) to dismiss WSOU’s lawsuit for lack of subject 

matter jurisdiction. WSOU does not own the ’360 patent (the sole asserted patent in this action) 

and thus lacks standing to bring this lawsuit. 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 197 Filed 06/14/22 Page 9 of 30
2 

2

Finally, even if WSOU’s standing as to the ’360 patent did not suffer from the previous 

fatal deficiencies, 

2

 

 

Second, even if the foregoing fatal flaw did not exist, WSOU still could not maintain this 

case. The ’360 patent was never assigned to WSOU, period. Instead, assuming, arguendo, that 

Alcatel Lucent, the French entity, had valid rights in the ’360 patent to transfer, 

.

2

1 F

. 

No interest in that patent was ever assigned to WSOU.

Third, even if there were some purported assignment to WSOU of some interest in the ’360 

patent—and there was not—WSOU still has a fatal standing problem. 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 197 Filed 06/14/22 Page 10 of 30
3 

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. The ’360 Patent Was Never Assigned to Alcatel Lucent

On December 21, 2001, the ’360 patent’s named inventors assigned to Tropic Networks 

Inc. the “entire right, title and interest in” the patent application that ultimately issued as the ’360 

patent. Ex. A (USPTO Reel 012412 Frame 0469), at 2. The assignment was recorded with the 

USPTO on December 28, 2001. Id. at 1. Tropic Networks Inc. then assigned the ’360 patent to 

6467253 Canada Inc. Ex. B (USPTO Reel 022162 Frame 0730). After that assignment, 6467253 

Canada Inc. changed its name to Tropic Networks Inc. Ex. C (USPTO Reel 018904 Frame 0422).

Then, Tropic Networks Inc. assigned the ’360 patent to Alcatel-Lucent Canada Inc. Ex. D 

(USPTO Reel 021138 Frame 0032). This was recorded at the USPTO on June 23, 2008. Id. at 1. 

On September 25, 2017, WSOU recorded, at the Patent Office, several documents 

purporting to relate to the ’360 patent. WSOU recorded an assignment of assignor’s interest from 

Alcatel Lucent (not Alcatel-Lucent Canada) to Wade. Ex. E (USPTO Reel 044000 Frame 0053). 

WSOU, however, did not record any assignment of the ’360 patent from Alcatel-Lucent Canada 

All of these defects are jurisdictional and cannot retroactively be cured because “[s]tanding 

must be present at the time the suit is brought.” Sicom Sys., Ltd. v. Agilent Techs., Inc., 427 F.3d 

971, 975–76 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also Enzo APA & Son, Inc. v. Geapag A.G., 134 F.3d 1090, 

1093 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“[N]unc pro tunc assignments are not sufficient to confer retroactive 

standing.”); Neutron Depot, LLC v. All Web Leads, Inc., No. AU-16-CA-00901-SS, 2017 WL 

9538893, at *2, n.3 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2017) (rejecting argument that after suit was filed Plaintiff 

gained the retroactive right to sue for past infringement). As a result, the case must be dismissed. 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 197 Filed 06/14/22 Page 11 of 30
4 

Date of Ownership Change ’360 Patent Assignment

Dec. 21, 2001 Named inventors  Tropic Networks, Inc. 

Jan. 5, 2006 Tropic Networks, Inc.  6467253 Canada Inc. 

Jan. 6, 2006 6467253 Canada Inc.  Tropic Networks, Inc. 

Apr. 13, 2007 Tropic Networks, Inc.  Alcatel-Lucent Canada Inc. 

? 

Aug. 2, 2017 Alcatel Lucent  Wade and Co. 3 F

4

B.

. 

 

4

 Although WSOU recorded this assignment as purporting to be from Alcatel Lucent to WSOU, 

the included documentation reflects that the patents were assigned from Alcatel Lucent to Wade. 

 See infra Section II.D. Moreover, WSOU recorded this assignment at the Patent Office 

as having an “[e]xecution date” of July 22, 2017. 

Inc. to Alcatel Lucent. The Patent Office does not have any record of an assignment from AlcatelLucent Canada Inc. to Alcatel Lucent. This gap in title is shown below.

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 197 Filed 06/14/22 Page 12 of 30
5 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 197 Filed 06/14/22 Page 13 of 30
6 

 

C.

 Id. 

 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 197 Filed 06/14/22 Page 14 of 30
7 

D.

 See infra Section IV. 

See infra Section VI. 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 197 Filed 06/14/22 Page 15 of 30
8 

.

 Thus, WSOU never obtained rights to the ’360 patent from Wade.

III. WSOU BEARS THE BURDEN TO PROVE STANDING

“Standing to sue is a threshold requirement in every federal action.” Sicom Sys., Ltd. v.

Agilent Techs., Inc., 427 F.3d 971, 975 (Fed. Cir. 2005). As the plaintiff, WSOU bears “the burden 

to show necessary ownership rights to support standing to sue.” Abbott Point of Care Inc. v. 

Epocal, Inc., 666 F.3d 1299, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012). To meet its burden, WSOU “must demonstrate

that it held enforceable title to the patent at the inception of the lawsuit” or else its infringement 

claims must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Abraxis Bioscience, Inc. v. Navinta LLC, 625 

F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2010).4F

5

 These standards apply to “each claim [a plaintiff] seeks to 

5

 Where, as here, the standing challenge is “factual” rather than “facial,” the Court “does not 

assume the correctness of the factual allegations in the complaint. Rather, in the case of a 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 197 Filed 06/14/22 Page 16 of 30
9 

factual challenge to jurisdiction, the question is whether the facts actually establish that the 

court has jurisdiction over the matter. In that setting, the burden is on the plaintiff to show

jurisdiction, and parties may offer factual evidence bearing on that question.” Script Sec. 

Sol., LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:15-CV-1030-WCB, 2016 WL 6433776, at *2 (E.D. Tex.

Oct. 31, 2016) (citing 5B Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1350, at 154–80 

(3d ed. 2004)). In a factual 12(b)(1) challenge, it is appropriate to consider documentary 

evidence produced in the litigation, such as the agreements referenced herein. Script Sec., 

2016 WL 6433776, at *2.

press,” including for past infringement. Wacoh Co. v. Chrysler LLC, No. 08-cv-456-slc, 2009 WL 

36666, at *9 (W.D. Wis. Dec. 1, 2008). 

The plaintiff must also satisfy the requirements of both Article III of the U.S. Constitution 

(constitutional standing) and 35 U.S.C. § 281 (statutory standing). See, e.g., Lone Star Silicon 

Innovations LLC v. Nanya Tech. Corp., 925 F.3d 1225, 1234–36 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Constitutional 

standing determines whether a plaintiff “may invoke the judicial power” at all, while statutory 

standing “establish[es] when a party may obtain relief under the patent laws.” Id. at 1235. To

meet the “injury in fact” requirement for constitutional standing, the plaintiff must possess 

exclusionary rights in the patent. Id. at 1234 (citing WiAV Sols. LLC v. Motorola, Inc., 631 F.3d 

1257, 1264 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). “Exclusionary rights” are “the ability to exclude others from 

practicing an invention or ‘to forgive activities that would normally be prohibited under the patent 

statutes.’” Id. (quoting Morrow v. Microsoft Corp., 499 F.3d 1332, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). A 

plaintiff lacking exclusionary rights cannot have constitutional standing because no injury in fact 

can occur. Morrow, 499 F.3d at 1340–41.

Further, “the general rule is that one seeking to recover money damages for infringement 

of a United States patent (an action ‘at law’) must have held the legal title to the patent during the 

time of the infringement.” Arachnid, Inc. v. Merit Indus., 939 F.2d 1574, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1991). 

The mere reference in an assignment to all right, title, and interest in the patent does not transfer 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 197 Filed 06/14/22 Page 17 of 30
10 

IV. ALCATEL LUCENT NEVER HAD THE RIGHTS TO THE ’360 PATENT AND

COULD NOT HAVE ASSIGNED THEM TO ANYONE, INCLUDING WADE

The absence of any assignment from Alcatel-Lucent Canada Inc. to Alcatel Lucent (a

French entity) is fatal to WSOU’s standing. WSOU has the burden of establishing standing by 

6

 

the right to sue for past infringement. Moore v. Marsh, 74 U.S. 515, 522 (1868). “A party may 

sue for past infringement transpiring before it acquired legal title to a patent if a written assignment 

expressly grants the party a right to do so.” Abraxis, 625 F.3d at 1367 (emphasis added). Standing

to sue for past infringement cannot be cured. See Mas-Hamilton Grp. v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 

1206, 1211 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (explaining that a nunc pro tunc assignment cannot cure a standing 

defect existing at the time the suit was filed).

The right to sue for damages predating patent assignment is an exclusionary right because 

it provides the plaintiff with the right to exclude others from practicing the invention during that 

period (which is the legally protected interest that is harmed by an alleged infringement). Lone 

Star, 925 F.3d at 1234; WiAV Sol., 631 F.3d at 1264–65. Whether the plaintiff holds the right to 

sue for alleged infringement during that pre-assignment period is therefore a constitutional 

standing issue. Lone Star, 925 F.3d at 1234–35. A challenge to a plaintiff’s constitutional 

standing is properly raised under FRCP 12(b)(1). Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Google LLC, 508 F. Supp. 

3d 556, 564 (N.D. Cal. 2020); see also Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., 2020 WL 7122617 (N.D. 

Cal. Dec. 4, 2020) (dismissing case for lack of standing).

6 The plaintiff’s lack of constitutional

5 F

standing can be raised at any time by a defendant, or sua sponte by the Court. Nat’l Org. for 

Women, Inc. v. Scheidler, 510 U.S. 249, 255 (1994); Barlow & Haun, Inc. v. United States, 805 

F.3d 1049, 1060 n.5 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 197 Filed 06/14/22 Page 18 of 30
11 

showing “necessary ownership rights to support standing to sue.” Abbott Point of Care Inc. v. 

Epocal, Inc., 666 F.3d 1299, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012). When there is a gap in the chain of title—as 

there is here—a party cannot have standing to pursue a patent infringement claim. See Zeroclick, 

LLC v. Apple Inc., 2020 WL 1955735, at *5–6 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2020). In order to overcome 

such gap, the plaintiff must “produce the written agreements necessary to show it was assigned the 

rights [to assert the patent].” FluorDx LLC v. Quidel Corp., 2019 WL 4599842, at *3 (S.D. Cal. 

Sept. 23, 2019); see also Advanced Video Techs. LLC v. HTC Corp., 2019 WL 4198769, at *2 

(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 2019). WSOU has produced no such documents in this case despite 

Defendants informing WSOU, in writing, about this problem since November 2020 and diligently 

seeking discovery. 

WSOU claims that it “is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in and to the ’360 patent, 

including the right to assert all causes of action arising under the ’360 Patent.” Dkt. 35 ¶ 14. 

According to the USPTO Assignment records, WSOU purports to have obtained the rights to the 

’360 patent from Alcatel Lucent (via Wade). Ex. E (USPTO Reel 044000 Frame 0053). But 

Alcatel Lucent never had the rights to the ’360 patent in the first instance. There is no assignment 

transferring the rights to the ’360 patent from Alcatel-Lucent Canada Inc. (or any other entity) to 

Alcatel Lucent, a French company. Ex. J. Nor is this trivial. Alcatel-Lucent Canada Inc. has 

recorded other assignments from itself to Alcatel Lucent. Ex. I (USPTO Reel 042153 Frame 0314).

Since November 2020, Defendants have repeatedly sought WSOU’s explanation for how 

it could have obtained the rights to the ’360 patent from an entity that never had those rights. See 

Exs. K, L. WSOU’s belated response was mere attorney argument that did nothing to change the 

facts as outlined above. Ex. M. WSOU’s attorney argument is insufficient, and does not meet the 

requirement that patent rights can only be transferred through a written instrument. See Speedplay, 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 197 Filed 06/14/22 Page 19 of 30
12 

V. WADE NEVER ASSIGNED THE ’360 PATENT TO WSOU

WSOU cannot and does not own any rights in the ’360 patent because there has never been

any valid assignment to WSOU of that patent. 

 

 Each of these 

arguments is discussed in turn below. Because WSOU never obtained any rights in the ’360 patent, 

it suffers no injury in fact from alleged infringement, and therefore lacks Article III standing to 

assert the ’360 patent against Defendants. See Morrow, 499 F.3d at 1339. 

A.

WSOU never obtained exclusionary rights to the ’360 patent because 

Inc. v. Bebop, Inc., 211 F.3d 1245, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 2000); see also FluorDx, 2019 WL 4599842, 

at *3 (dismissing case where “Plaintiff failed to produce the written agreements necessary to show 

it was assigned the rights [to asserted patent]”). WSOU’s lack of standing is clear from the Patent 

Office’s Assignment Records, and thus, this case should be dismissed. 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 197 Filed 06/14/22 Page 20 of 30
13 

It is black-letter law that 

Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 328 (Am. L. Inst. 1981). (“[A]ssignment 

in similar general terms is an assignment of the assignor’s rights and a delegation of his 

unperformed duties under the contract.”); Epistar Corp. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 566 F.3d 1321, 

1333 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“Black letter contract law states that the assignment of a contract to an 

assignee . . . only changes the obligated party, not the scope of the obligation.”); see also F.D.I.C.

v. McFarland, 243 F.3d 876, 887 (5th Cir. 2001) (“[A]n assignee takes all of the rights of the

assignor, no greater and no less.”). 

 

B.

Even if Wade had successfully assigned the ’360 patent to WSOU

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 197 Filed 06/14/22 Page 21 of 30
14 

7

 

 

8

 The Federal Trade Commission has referred to NPEs as “Patent Assertion Entities,” (“PAEs”) 

and defined PAEs as businesses that acquire patents from third parties and seek to generate revenue 

by asserting them against alleged infringers. Ex. V (FTC Study), at 1. 

 

The phrase “void ab initio” 

means: “Null from the beginning, as from the first moment when a contract is entered into.”

BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (11th ed. 2019) (example provided under definition of “VOID”) (Ex. 

N); Faison v. Lewis, 25 N.Y.3d 220, 222, 224, 230 (N.Y. 2015) (holding that something void ab 

initio “is never entitled to legal effect” because “[v]oid things are as no things”) (internal citations

omitted); LNV Corp. v. Sorrento, 31 N.Y.S.3d 922, 2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 50250(U), at *3 (Sup. Ct. 

N.Y. Feb. 29, 2016) (citing Faison for its explanation of the term “void ab initio”). 

 

WSOU therefore has

not met, and cannot meet, its burden to demonstrate standing. See Abraxis, 625 F.3d at 1364. 

WSOU is an NPE. 

8 Since its inception, WSOU has been an NPE. WSOU has never employed any

7 F

inventors at the time of the purported inventions of their patents, and did not research or develop 

any of the technology claimed by its patents. Rather, WSOU activities to date have consisted of

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 197 Filed 06/14/22 Page 22 of 30
15 

8 F

To the extent WSOU argues that 

 WSOU’s argument is a red herring and wrong. 

 Spota v. Jackson, 10 N.Y.3d 46, 52 (2008) (“This 

conclusion is supported by the clause, present in each version, that ‘[a]ny lease, contract or 

agreement . . . shall be void,’ as such language would be meaningless if the tribe could, by its 

actions, “agree” to accept an outsider and change such person’s status as an ‘intruder.’”) (emphasis 

added); Campbell v. Thomas, 897 N.Y.S.2d 460, 466 (2010) (explaining that “the parties to a void 

marriage (and everyone else) are free to treat the marriage as a nullity without the involvement of 

 

 

monetization of the patents through licensing and filing lawsuits. E.g., ; Ex. P 

(2020 Year Review), at 1 (“WSOU Investments accounted for 5% of all patent litigation in 2020 

and was the most active assertor with 187 cases brought in district court.”); Ex. Q (Analytics), at 

2 (“WSOU Investments averages approximately five new case filings per week.”). Thus, to the 

extent WSOU argues 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 197 Filed 06/14/22 Page 23 of 30
16 

VI. WSOU LACKS STANDING TO SUE FOR PRE-ASSIGNMENT DAMAGES

In addition to the preceding fatal standing problems, WSOU also never obtained the right

to sue for past damages relating to the ’360 patent. 

A. WSOU Never Acquired the Right to Sue for Past Damages

WSOU claims it “is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in and to the ’360 patent, 

including the right to assert all causes of action arising under the ’360 Patent and the right to any 

remedies for the infringement of the ’360 Patent.” Dkt. 35 ¶ 14 (emphasis added). But WSOU 

lacks standing to sue for past infringement of the ’360 patent 

 Moore, 74 

U.S. at 522; Arachnid, 939 F.2d at 1579 & n.7; see also Minco, Inc. v. Combustion Eng’g, Inc., 95 

F.3d 1109, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“As the Supreme Court stated, it is a ‘great mistake’ to ‘suppose’

that the assignment of the patent carries with it the right to sue for past infringement.”); S.O.T.A.T., 

Inc. v. Frank’s Int’l, Inc., No. 2:06 CV 523, 2008 WL 4093599, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 28, 2008) 

a court”); Sphere Drake Insurance Ltd. v. Clarendon National Insurance Co., 263 F.3d 26, 31 (2d 

Cir. 2001) (“[I]f an agreement is void, it cannot be a contract.”). Thus, Defendants are not 

enforcing the terms of a contract, but rather challenging standing (due to the absence of a contract).

Thus, because WSOU never obtained any rights to the ’360 patent from Wade—even if 

Wade had rights to give, which it did not—WSOU lacks standing and its claim for patent 

infringement should be dismissed in its entirety. 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 197 Filed 06/14/22 Page 24 of 30
17 

B.

1.

To the extent WSOU argues that 

 

When a contract’s language is prospective and states that rights “shall be the property of 

the client” and/or that “all rights thereto will be assigned,” the contract is not a present assignment

but an agreement or promise to assign in the future. Speedplay, 211 F.3d at 1253 (emphases added) 

(citing Arachnid, 939 F.2d at 1574, 1576–81). Such a contract does not operate as an immediate 

assignment of legal title. Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Sys., 

(“It is settled law that a transfer of a right of action for past infringement must be express, and 

cannot be inferred from an assignment of the patent itself.”) (internal citation omitted).

Accordingly, the 

Court should dismiss WSOU’s claims for infringement before this date.

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 197 Filed 06/14/22 Page 25 of 30
18 

Inc., 583 F.3d 832, 841–42 (Fed. Cir. 2009), aff’d, 563 U.S. 776 (2011). “To determine whether 

a contractual provision is a present assignment of future rights or a promise to assign rights in the 

future, the language of the contract is dispositive.” Gellman v. Telular Corp., 2010 WL 5173213, 

at *4 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 14, 2010); see also DDB Techs., L.L.C. v. MLB Advanced Media, L.P., 517 

F.3d 1284, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[W]e have held that whether an assignment of patent rights in

an agreement such as the one in this case is automatic, requiring no further act on the part of the 

assignee, or merely a promise to assign depends on the contractual language.”).

 Stanford, 583 F.3d at 841–42; see Gellman v. Telular Corp., 2010 WL 5173213, at 

*3 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 14, 2010), aff’d, 449 F. App’x 941 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Because Plaintiff has not

produced a written assignment of the patent in suit and her alternative theories create an obligation 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 197 Filed 06/14/22 Page 26 of 30
19 

9 F

WSOU would be wrong. Isolating words “flies in the face of the basic principle of New York 

contract interpretation that the Court must read the [contract] as a whole, and not myopically 

scrutinize individual words and provisions in isolation.” Green Tech. Lighting Corp. v. Liberty 

Surplus Ins. Corp., No. 1:18-CV-01799 (PAC), 2020 WL 2036705, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 

2020). 

2.

 

10 State law generally governs who owns patent rights and on what terms. Stanford, 583 F.3d at 

841. However, whether contractual language effects a present assignment of patent rights, or an

agreement to assign rights in the future, is a question of Federal Circuit law. Id.

to assign the patent rather than an actual assignment, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate complete 

legal title to the patent-in-suit.”).

10

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 197 Filed 06/14/22 Page 27 of 30
20 

3. The USPTO Assignment Records Confirm 

Finally, 

 Ex. E (USPTO Reel 044000 Frame 0137). It would make no sense to have a

specific assignment execution document be filed with the USPTO if a different, privately held

document were to override it and impose different terms on the transfer. To do so would impair

the public notice function of the USPTO assignment registration database, cause confusion over 

ownership rights, and prejudice any subsequent defendant who might be subjected to a claim for 

past damages from either or both transacting parties. MPEP, § 301, Part V(A) (June 2020). 

In contract law, a more specific provision controls over a more general one. Bowmer v.

Bowmer, 50 N.Y.2d 288, 294 (N.Y. 1980) (“[T]he specific provisions [of a contract] tend to restrict

the general.”); Muzak Corp. v. Hotel Taft Corp., 1 N.Y.2d 42, 46–47 (N.Y. 1956) (“[T]he specific 

provision controls.”); see also Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 203(c) (Am. L. Inst. 1981)

(“[S]pecific terms and exact terms are given greater weight than general language.”). Thus, 

VII. CONCLUSION

Defendants respectfully request that the Court dismiss with prejudice WSOU’s claims.

Alternatively, WSOU never received the right to assert claims for infringement of the ’360 patent 

and WSOU has no right to relief for any claim before such date. 

 Id. 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 197 Filed 06/14/22 Page 28 of 30
21 

Dated: June 8, 2022 By: /s/ Barry K. Shelton

Barry K. Shelton

Texas State Bar No. 24055029

bshelton@winston.com

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

2121 North Pearl Street, Suite 900

Dallas, TX 75201 

Telephone: 214-453-6407 

Facsimile: 214-453-6400 

Benjamin Hershkowitz 

bhershkowitz@gibsondunn.com 

Brian A. Rosenthal

brosenthal@gibsondunn.com 

Allen Kathir

akathir@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-00486-ADA-DTG Document 197 Filed 06/14/22 Page 29 of 30
22 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that on June 8, 2022, 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(a). 

/s/ Barry K. Shelton

Barry K. Shelton

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 197 Filed 06/14/22 Page 30 of 30