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.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No.: 6:20-cv-00480-ADA-DTG

Civil Action No.: 6:20-cv-00481-ADA-DTG

Civil Action No.: 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PUBLIC VERSION

PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO AND APPEAL FROM MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION GRANTING IN PART 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF 

NON-INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT 9,164,800

Plaintiff respectfully objects to and appeals Magistrate Judge Gilliland’s Report and 

Recommendation (“R&R”) denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Certain Portions of Defendants’ 

Expert Reports and Rule 26(a)(2)(C) Disclosure (the “Motion”), as Magistrate Judge Gilliland 

incorrectly found that Brazos was put on sufficient notice regarding vSphere 5.0, that the case law 

supported Defendants’ theory on the use of prior art, and that certain witnesses should be allowed 

to testify. See, e.g., Baylor Health Care Sys. v. Equitable Plan Servs., 955 F. Supp. 2d 678, 689 

(N.D. Tex. 2013); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (“The district judge in the case must consider 

timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is 

contrary to law.”).

A. Defendants Did Not Provide Sufficient Notice for vSphere 5.0

The R&R is incorrect, as Defendants themselves admitted 

Defendants’ 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 389 Filed 02/17/23 Page 1 of 8
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

PUBLIC VERSION

2

Defendants had over 17 months to 

prepare and serve their invalidity chart and failed to do so—even though they were required to 

make the chart by Court order. 

Further, contrary to Defendants’ assertion, Defendants’ experts 

Additionally, Brazos was not required, as Defendants suggest, to review 

Indeed, 

Defendants violated the Court’s OGP,

and Defendants’ excuse is insufficient because 

1

 

1 Contrary to Defendants’ contention, 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 389 Filed 02/17/23 Page 2 of 8
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

PUBLIC VERSION

3

B. Defendants’ Experts’ Opinions on Unelected Prior Art Should be Excluded

Defendants agreed to 

Defendants 

now argue that 

 

Accordingly, 

the Court should preclude Defendants’ experts from 

 

2

In Brazos’s Reply to Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Certain Portions of 

Defendants’ Expert Reports and Rule 26(a)(2)(C) Disclosure, Brazos 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 389 Filed 02/17/23 Page 3 of 8
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

PUBLIC VERSION

4

C. Defendants Should Not Be Permitted to Call Messrs. Colbert As Witnesses, Nor 

Should Mssrs Colbert, Connors and Turner be Permitted to Testify as Experts, and 

Defendants’ Rule 26(a)(2)(C) Should Be Stricken

Defendants failed to disclose Mr. Colbert in their Initial Disclosures before the December 

2021 deadline.

3

 See Case No. -480, Dkt. No. 125 at 3. Defendants attempt to excuse their violation 

by arguing that 

 But the Scheduling Order includes no such 

limitations. Brazos’s reliance on the Scheduling Order should not be penalized. Accentra Inc. v. 

Staples, Inc., No. CV 07-5862 ABC RZX, 2010 WL 8450890, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2010); 

Agere Sys., Inc. v. Atmel Corp., No. 02-CV-864, 2005 WL 6728523, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 23, 2005). 

Defendants’ purported justification is insufficient. Nosewicz v. Janosko, No.16-cv-00447-PABKLM, 2019 WL 4248895, at *4 (D. Colo. Aug. 19, 2019). 

Moreover, to the extent that Defendants seek to offer 

 

Defendants’ Rule 26(a)(2)(C) makes clear that 

Indeed, Defendants do not deny 

 

3

In a January 31, 2023 email, Defendants’ counsel stated Defendants would not be bringing 

Dr. Varghese to trial, and he is no longer a witness. See Ex. 1.

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 389 Filed 02/17/23 Page 4 of 8
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

PUBLIC VERSION

5

This is nothing more than trial 

by ambush, which is exactly the type of conduct that Rule 26 was intended to prevent. Avnet, Inc.

v. Motio, Inc., No. 12 CV 2100, 2016 WL 927194, at *4-5 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 4, 2016).

For these reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court sustain Plaintiff’s 

objections and vacate Magistrate Judge Gilliland’s Report and Recommendation denying 

Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Certain Portions of Defendants’ Expert reports and Rule 26(a)(2)(C) 

Disclosure.

Dated: February 13, 2023 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

By: /s/ Jonathan K. Waldrop

Jonathan K. Waldrop (CA Bar No. 297903) 

(Admitted in this District)

jwaldrop@kasowitz.com

Darcy L. Jones (CA Bar No. 309474) 

(Admitted in this District)

djones@kasowitz.com

Marcus A. Barber (CA Bar No. 307361)

(Admitted in this District)

mbarber@kasowitz.com

John W. Downing (CA Bar No. 252850) 

(Admitted in this District)

jdowning@kasowitz.com

Heather S. Kim (CA Bar No. 277686)

(Admitted in this District)

hkim@kasowitz.com

ThucMinh Nguyen (CA Bar No. 304382)

(Admitted in this District)

tnguyen@kasowitz.com

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 389 Filed 02/17/23 Page 5 of 8
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

PUBLIC VERSION

6

Chen Jia (CA Bar No. 281470)

(Admitted in this District)

cjia@kasowitz.com

KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP

333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 200

Redwood Shores, California 94065

Telephone: (650) 453-5170

Facsimile: (650) 453-5171

Paul G. Williams (GA Bar No. 764925)

(Admitted in this District)

pwilliams@kasowitz.com

KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP

1230 Peachtree Street N.E., Suite 2445

Atlanta, Georgia 30309

Telephone: (404) 260-6080

Facsimile: (404) 260-6081

Hershy Stern (NY Bar No. 4631024)

(Admitted pro hac vice)

hstern@kasowitz.com

Howard L. Bressler (NY Bar No. 2487379)

(Admitted pro hac vice)

hbressler@kasowitz.com

Joshua A. Whitehill (NY Bar No. 4766473)

(Admitted pro hac vice)

jwhitehill@kasowitz.com

Julianne Laporte (NY Bar No. 5547906)

(Admitted pro hac vice)

jlaporte@kasowitz.com

Noah P. Dorman (DC Bar No. 1779821)

(Admitted pro hac vice)

ndorman@kasowitz.com

KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP

1633 Broadway

New York, NY 10019

Telephone: (212) 506-1700

Facsimile: (212) 506-1800

Mark D. Siegmund (TX Bar No. 24117055)

mark@swclaw.com

Craig D. Cherry (TX Bar No. 24012419)

craig@swclaw.com

Justin W. Allen (TX Bar No. 24081977)

justin@swclaw.com 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 389 Filed 02/17/23 Page 6 of 8
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

PUBLIC VERSION

7

Melissa S. Ruiz (TX Bar No. 24128097)

melissa@swclaw.com

STECKLER WAYNE CHERRY & LOVE 

PLLC

8416 Old McGregor Road 

Waco, TX 76712

Telephone: (254) 651-3690

Facsimile: (254) 651-3689

Gregory P. Love (TX Bar No. 24013060)

greg@swclaw.com

STECKLER WAYNE CHERRY & LOVE 

PLLC

107 East Main Street

Henderson, TX 75652

Telephone: (903) 212-4444

Facsimile: (903) 392-2267

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC d/b/a

BRAZOS LICENSING AND

DEVELOPMENT

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 389 Filed 02/17/23 Page 7 of 8
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY

PUBLIC VERSION

8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served or 

delivered electronically via email to all counsel of record, on this 13th day of February, 2023.

/s/ Jonathan K. Waldrop

Jonathan K. Waldrop

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 389 Filed 02/17/23 Page 8 of 8