FILED UNDER SEAL

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., 

AND EMC CORPORATION, 

Defendants.

Case No. 6:20-cv-00477-ADA-DTG

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

FILED UNDER SEAL

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL 

INFORMATION

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS 

FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 

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

Case 6:20-cv-00477-ADA-DTG Document 222 Filed 07/25/22 Page 1 of 17
Case 6:20-cv-00477-ADA-DTG Document 222 Filed 07/25/22 Page 2 of 17
FILED UNDER SEAL

ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

CASES

Bittaker v. Woodford, 

331 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 2003)................................................................................................3

Cofimco USA, Inc. v. Mosiewicz, 

2016 WL 1070854 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2016).......................................................................4

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

517 F.3d 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2008)............................................................................................8

Dutschmann v. City of Waco, 

2022 WL 837500 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 23, 2022) .......................................................................4

EMA Electromechanics, Inc. v. Siemens Corp.,

2022 WL 2759094 (W.D. Tex. July 13, 2022)..................................................................4, 5

Hoeg Corp. v. Peebles Corp., 

60 N.Y.S.3d 259 (2017)...................................................................................................5, 8

Hometown Fin., Inc. v. U.S., 

409 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2005)............................................................................................7

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

925 F.3d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2019)............................................................................................6

MBIA Ins. Corp. v. Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC, 

58 N.Y.S.3d 874 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2017) .............................................................................5, 8

McCall v. Dretke, 

390 F.3d 358 (5th Cir. 2004)................................................................................................6

Schwendimann v. Arkwright Advanced Coating, Inc.,

959 F.3d 1065 (Fed. Cir. 2020)............................................................................................6

In re Spinnaker Indus., Inc., 

313 F. App’x 749 (6th Cir. 2008).....................................................................................5, 8

W. C. Chapman, L.P. v. Cavazos, 

2022 WL 1558502 (E.D. Tex. May 17, 2022) ......................................................................4

WiAV Sols. LLC v. Motorola, Inc., 

631 F.3d 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2010)............................................................................................7

Case 6:20-cv-00477-ADA-DTG Document 222 Filed 07/25/22 Page 3 of 17
FILED UNDER SEAL

iii

Willy v. Admin. Review Bd.,

423 F.3d 483 (5th Cir. 2005)................................................................................................3

OTHER AUTHORITIES

MPEP, §301, Part V(A) (June 2020)..........................................................................................7

Case 6:20-cv-00477-ADA-DTG Document 222 Filed 07/25/22 Page 4 of 17
Case 6:20-cv-00477-ADA-DTG Document 222 Filed 07/25/22 Page 5 of 17
Case 6:20-cv-00477-ADA-DTG Document 222 Filed 07/25/22 Page 6 of 17
FILED UNDER SEAL

vi

Q 

Matt Hogan, LinkedIn, https://www.linkedin.com/in/matthew-hogan76155b23/ 

R 

S https://www.brazoslicensing.com/about (last visited on July 7, 2022)

Case 6:20-cv-00477-ADA-DTG Document 222 Filed 07/25/22 Page 7 of 17
FILED UNDER SEAL

1 

Defendants’ motion demonstrated that WSOU lacks constitutional standing to assert 

the ’489 patent because of two independent fatal deficiencies: (1) 

; and (2) the lack of any exclusionary rights before August 21, 2017. Each 

deficiency deprives WSOU of constitutional standing, which was required to exist when the 

lawsuit was brought. As a consequence, this lawsuit must be dismissed.

WSOU incorrectly argues that all of Defendants’ arguments implicate only statutory 

standing, and thus that they are not properly raised under Rule 12(b)(1). WSOU is wrong—the 

question of whether any exclusionary rights exist is squarely an issue of constitutional standing. 

 And, 

contrary to WSOU’s argument, lack of such right is a constitutional standing issue.

Finally, as a last resort, WSOU argues that the Court can reform the contract to effectuate 

the parties’ intent allegedly reflected in a letter agreement signed one year after this lawsuit was 

filed. WSOU’s extraordinary request defies precedent. It is axiomatic that constitutional standing 

cannot be fixed retroactively. Indeed, WSOU cannot cite a single case where a patent assignment 

Case 6:20-cv-00477-ADA-DTG Document 222 Filed 07/25/22 Page 8 of 17
Case 6:20-cv-00477-ADA-DTG Document 222 Filed 07/25/22 Page 9 of 17
Case 6:20-cv-00477-ADA-DTG Document 222 Filed 07/25/22 Page 10 of 17
FILED UNDER SEAL

4 

 EMA Electromechanics, Inc. v. Siemens Corp., 2022 WL 2759094, at *6 (W.D. Tex. July 

13, 2022) (no weight to biased party’s declaration); Dutschmann v. City of Waco, 2022 WL 837500, 

at *3 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 23, 2022) (“[L]egal conclusions” are “inappropriate for inclusion in a sworn 

declaration”); W. C. Chapman, L.P. v. Cavazos, 2022 WL 1558502, at *5 (E.D. Tex. May 17, 

2022) (disregarding conclusions in declaration); Cofimco USA, Inc. v. Mosiewicz, 2016 WL 

1070854, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2016) (giving little weight to “two self-serving declarations 

submitted by [Plaintiff].”). 

 

 

 It is well settled that a void 

ab initio provision automatically renders the assignment invalid (i.e., as if no assignment took 

place to begin with). Br. 13 (citing cases). WSOU fails to respond to this precedent. Opp. 17.

 

2

 

Case 6:20-cv-00477-ADA-DTG Document 222 Filed 07/25/22 Page 11 of 17
Case 6:20-cv-00477-ADA-DTG Document 222 Filed 07/25/22 Page 12 of 17
FILED UNDER SEAL

6 

MBIA Ins. Corp. v. Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC, 58 N.Y.S.3d 874 (N.Y. Sup. 2017) (“[P]arty’s 

own subjective understanding of a contract, even if it makes commercial sense, is irrelevant.”).

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

Contrary to WSOU’s assertion (Opp. 8-11), whether WSOU had any exclusionary rights 

for the pertinent time period (pre-August 21, 2017) raises a question of constitutional standing. As 

constitutional standing “can be raised at any time,” WSOU’s “procedural defects” arguments 

regarding the instant motion are meritless. McCall v. Dretke, 390 F.3d 358, 361 (5th Cir. 2004). 

Specifically, WSOU argues that “past damages” is a question of prudential or “statutory” 

standing. Opp. 9. Notably, WSOU cites not a single case holding that the question of whether 

any rights exist to past damages raises only a statutory standing question. Instead, WSOU

misconstrues the Federal Circuit’s standing cases and insists it must only allege that “(i) Brazos is 

the owner of the asserted patent; (ii) Dell has infringed the asserted patent; (iii) Brazos suffered 

economic injury caused by Dell; and (iv) Brazos is entitled to recover damages.” Opp. 10. If mere 

allegation were sufficient, standing would never be an issue in any case. 4

Rather, in Lone Star Silicon Innovations LLC v. Nanya Tech. Corp., the Federal Circuit 

confirmed that whether a party possesses any exclusionary rights for the pertinent time period is a 

constitutional standing issue, while prudential standing examines the substantiality of those rights. 

925 F.3d 1225, 1234-36 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (plaintiff had exclusionary rights and thus, constitutional

standing—but, constraints on exercise of the rights during pertinent period meant it lacked “all 

 

4

 WSOU asserts Schwendimann supports its argument that standing can be met via boilerplate 

allegations. But that case did not analyze whether a patentee’s lack of rights for the pertinent 

period posed a constitutional standing problem; it analyzed what constitutes a written assignment. 

Schwendimann v. Arkwright Advanced Coating, Inc., 959 F.3d 1065, 1072 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Given 

that the Federal Circuit analyzed the written agreement, WSOU’s assertion that simply alleging 

ownership is sufficient to confer standing is wrong.

Case 6:20-cv-00477-ADA-DTG Document 222 Filed 07/25/22 Page 13 of 17
Case 6:20-cv-00477-ADA-DTG Document 222 Filed 07/25/22 Page 14 of 17
Case 6:20-cv-00477-ADA-DTG Document 222 Filed 07/25/22 Page 15 of 17
FILED UNDER SEAL

9 

own subjective understanding of a contract, even if it makes commercial sense, is irrelevant.”).

Dated: July 18, 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-00477-ADA-DTG Document 222 Filed 07/25/22 Page 16 of 17
FILED UNDER SEAL

10 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that on July 18, 2022, all counsel of record who are deemed to 

have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document by e-mail. 

/s/ Barry K. Shelton

Barry K. Shelton

Case 6:20-cv-00477-ADA-DTG Document 222 Filed 07/25/22 Page 17 of 17