EXHIBIT A

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 36-2 Filed 10/30/20 Page 1 of 17
1

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.

Defendants

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-476-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Plaintiff WSOU Investments, LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development (“Brazos” 

or “Plaintiff”), by and through its attorneys, files this First Amended Complaint (“Amended 

Complaint” or “Complaint”) for Patent Infringement against Dell Technologies Inc., Dell Inc., 

and EMC Corporation (collectively, “Defendants”) and alleges:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is a civil action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Laws of the 

United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1, et seq., including §§ 271, 281, 284, and 285.

THE PARTIES

2. Brazos is a limited liability corporation organized and existing under the laws of 

Delaware, with its principal place of business at 605 Austin Avenue, Suite 6, Waco, Texas 

76701.

3. On information and belief, defendant Dell Technologies Inc. is a Delaware 

corporation with a principal place of business at One Dell Way, Round Rock, Texas 78682.

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 36-2 Filed 10/30/20 Page 2 of 17
2

4. On information and belief, defendant Dell Inc. is a Delaware corporation with a 

principal place of business at One Dell Way, Round Rock, Texas 78682. Dell Inc. is wholly 

owned by its corporate parent, Dell Technologies Inc.

5. On information and belief, defendant EMC Corporation is a Massachusetts 

corporation with a principal place of business at One Dell Way, Round Rock, Texas 78682. 

EMC Corporation is wholly owned by its corporate parent, Dell Technologies Inc.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. This is an action for patent infringement which arises under the Patent Laws of 

the United States, in particular, 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 281, 284, and 285.

7. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1331 and 1338(a).

8. This Court has specific and general personal jurisdiction over each defendant 

pursuant to due process and/or the Texas Long Arm Statute, because each defendant has 

committed acts giving rise to this action within Texas and within this judicial district. The 

Court’s exercise of jurisdiction over each defendant would not offend traditional notions of fair 

play and substantial justice because each defendant has established minimum contacts with the 

forum. For example, on information and belief, each defendant has committed acts of 

infringement in this judicial district, by among other things, selling and offering for sale products 

that infringe the asserted patent, directly or through intermediaries, as alleged herein.

9. Venue in the Western District of Texas is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1391 

and/or 1400(b). Each defendant has established places of business in the Western District of 

Texas. Each defendant is registered to do business in Texas. Upon information and belief, each 

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 36-2 Filed 10/30/20 Page 3 of 17
3

defendant has transacted business in this District and has committed acts of infringement in this 

District.

COUNT ONE - INFRINGEMENT OF

U.S. PATENT NO. 7,565,435

10. Brazos re-alleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of this 

Complaint.

11. On July 21, 2009, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally 

issued U.S. Patent No. 7,565,435 (“the ‘435 Patent”), entitled “Method for Obtaining the Best 

Connectivity Achievable Within Virtual Local Area Networks.” A true and correct copy of the 

‘435 Patent is attached as Exhibit A to this Complaint.

12. Brazos is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in and to the ‘435 Patent, 

including the right to assert all causes of action arising under the ‘435 Patent and the right to any 

remedies for the infringement of the ‘435 Patent.

13. Defendants make, use, sell, offer for sale, import, and/or distribute in the United 

States, including within this judicial district, products such as, but not limited to, networking 

switches, including but not limited to, PowerSwitch N Series switches (collectively, the 

“Accused Products”).

14. The Accused Products support bridging using the Multiple Spanning Tree 

(MSTP) protocol. In an MSTP-based computer network, they may be configured to have bridge 

ports communicating by forwarding data frames to bridge ports found in other network devices.

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 36-2 Filed 10/30/20 Page 4 of 17
4

https://www.dell.com/support/article/us/en/04/sln316270/dell-emc-powerswitch-n-series

https://www.dell.com/support/article/en-us/how10525/how-to-manage-multiple-spanning-treemstp-using-command-line-on-dell-networking-powerconnect-campus-switches?lang=en

https://cc.cnetcontent.com/inlinecontent/mediaserver/len/bf8/bd5/bf8bd5f94d05419098c68e7537 

96699e/original.pdf

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 36-2 Filed 10/30/20 Page 5 of 17
5

https://cc.cnetcontent.com/inlinecontent/mediaserver/len/bf8/bd5/bf8bd5f94d05419098c68e7537 

96699e/original.pdf

15. The Accused Products may be configured with multiple spanning-tree instances 

(MSTIs) having a topology covering the topology of desired virtual local area networks 

(VLANs). 

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 36-2 Filed 10/30/20 Page 6 of 17
6

https://cc.cnetcontent.com/inlinecontent/mediaserver/len/bf8/bd5/bf8bd5f94d05419098c68e7537 

96699e/original.pdf

https://cc.cnetcontent.com/inlinecontent/mediaserver/len/bf8/bd5/bf8bd5f94d05419098c68e7537 

96699e/original.pdf

16. The Accused Products assign a VLAN membership on ports to create a VLAN 

member set which is part of the active spanning tree protocol topology. Further, the active 

VLAN member sets indicate the ports within one of the MTSIs for forwarding data traffic 

destined to members of the associated VLAN.

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 36-2 Filed 10/30/20 Page 7 of 17
7

https://cc.cnetcontent.com/inlinecontent/mediaserver/len/bf8/bd5/bf8bd5f94d05419098c68e7537 

96699e/original.pdf

https://cc.cnetcontent.com/inlinecontent/mediaserver/len/bf8/bd5/bf8bd5f94d05419098c68e7537 

96699e/original.pdf

17. The Accused Products may be configured to set a relatively higher path cost of 

one of the ports of a device within the MSTI (for example when the port is not part of a member 

set or so as to discourage data frames from forwarding on the non-VLAN membership ports) and 

set a relatively low path cost(for example, to promote forwarding of traffic data from designated 

or active ports).

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 36-2 Filed 10/30/20 Page 8 of 17
8

https://cc.cnetcontent.com/inlinecontent/mediaserver/len/bf8/bd5/bf8bd5f94d05419098c68e7537 

96699e/original.pdf

https://cc.cnetcontent.com/inlinecontent/mediaserver/len/bf8/bd5/bf8bd5f94d05419098c68e7537 

96699e/original.pdf

https://cc.cnetcontent.com/inlinecontent/mediaserver/len/bf8/bd5/bf8bd5f94d05419098c68e7537

96699e/original.pdf

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 36-2 Filed 10/30/20 Page 9 of 17
9

https://cc.cnetcontent.com/inlinecontent/mediaserver/len/bf8/bd5/bf8bd5f94d05419098c68e7537

96699e/original.pdf

18. The Accused Products may set a path cost for a forwarding port based on port 

speed.

https://cc.cnetcontent.com/inlinecontent/mediaserver/len/bf8/bd5/bf8bd5f94d05419098c68e7537 

96699e/original.pdf

19. The Accused Products support a DirectLink Rapid Convergence feature, which 

reestablishes connectivity in one of the MSTIs experiencing failure by activating links which 

ensure that the connectivity within the VLAN mapped in a MSTI is not lost.

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 36-2 Filed 10/30/20 Page 10 of 17
10

https://cc.cnetcontent.com/inlinecontent/mediaserver/len/bf8/bd5/bf8bd5f94d05419098c68e7537 

96699e/original.pdf

https://cc.cnetcontent.com/inlinecontent/mediaserver/len/bf8/bd5/bf8bd5f94d05419098c68e7537 

96699e/original.pdf

20. In view of preceding paragraphs, each and every element of at least claim 1 of the 

‘435 Patent is found in the Accused Products. And upon information and belief, each and every 

element of at least claim 1 of the ‘435 Patent is performed or practiced by Defendants at least 

through Defendants’ own use and configuration of its own Accused Products, and/or through 

Defendants’ own testing and configuration of its own Accused Products, and/or through 

Defendants’ providing services for its Accused Products, including but not limited to providing 

installation, deployment, support and configuration of its Accused Products.

21. Defendants continue to directly infringe at least one claim of the ‘435 Patent, 

literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by making, using, selling, offering for sale, 

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 36-2 Filed 10/30/20 Page 11 of 17
11

importing, and/or distributing the Accused Products in the United States, including within this 

judicial district, without the authority of Brazos.

22. Defendants have receivedIn May 2020, Plaintiff filed a suit against Defendants 

asserting infringement of the same patent and by the same accused products that are asserted in 

this case. Plaintiff dismissed the prior suit before filing this suit. As a result of the prior suit, 

Defendants had notice and actual or constructive knowledge of their infringement of the ‘435 

Patent since at least the date of service of this Complaint.patent-in-suit since at least May 2020, 

before the filing of this case. Further, Defendants had knowledge of their infringement of the 

patent-in-suit before the filing of this Amended Complaint.1

23. Since at least the date of service of this ComplaintMay 2020, through its actions, 

Defendants have actively induced product makers, distributors, retailers, and/or end users of the 

Accused Products to infringe the ‘435 Patent throughout the United States, including within this 

judicial district, by, among other things, advertising and promoting the use of the Accused 

Products in various websites, including providing and disseminating product descriptions, 

 

1 Dell filed a motion to dismiss that is mooted by this amended complaint. Dell’s motion cites a WDTX case 

(which relies authority from the District of Delaware) for the proposition that knowledge of a plaintiff’s patent 

after the lawsuit was filed is insufficient to plead the requisite knowledge for indirect infringement. See Aguirre 

v. Powerchute Sports, LLC, No. SA-10-CV-0702 XR, 2011 WL 2471299, at *3 (W.D. Tex. June 17, 2011) 

(citing Xpoint Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 730 F.Supp.2d 349 (D. Del. 2010)). Several Delaware courts have 

since rejected this rule because there is no statutory basis to support it and because there is no purpose served by 

the formality of requiring the plaintiff to file an amended complaint in order to be allowed to assert knowledge

of the patents during the period following the filing of the original complaint. See Walker Digital, LLC v. 

Facebook, Inc., 852 F. Supp. 2d 559, 566 (D. Del. 2012) (“The court acknowledges that this result is 

inconsistent with its prior decisions in Xpoint Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 730 F.Supp.2d 349 (D.Del.2010), and 

EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. FLO TV Inc., 802 F.Supp.2d 527 (D. Del. 2011). Given the ease of amendment, 

the limitation of damages to post-knowledge conduct, and in the interests of judicial economy, the court finds 

that the better reasoning is to allow a complaint that satisfies Rule 8 to proceed to discovery rather than 

dismissing it for lack of pre-filing knowledge when, by the time the motion to dismiss has been filed, defendant 

in fact has the requisite knowledge as pled by plaintiff.”); see also IOENGINE, LLC v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., 

CV 18-452-WCB, 2019 WL 330515, at *4 (D. Del. Jan. 25, 2019) (“The Court sees no purpose that would be 

served by the formality of requiring IOENGINE to file an amended complaint in order to be allowed to assert 

knowledge of the patents during the period following the filing of the original complaint.”).

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 36-2 Filed 10/30/20 Page 12 of 17
12

operating manuals, and other instructions on how to implement and configure the Accused 

Products. Examples of such advertising, promoting, and/or instructing include the documents at:

 https://www.dell.com/support/article/us/en/04/sln316270/dell-emc-powerswitch-n-series 

 https://www.dell.com/support/article/en-us/how10525/how-to-manage-multiplespanning-tree-mstp-using-command-line-on-dell-networking-powerconnect-campusswitches?lang=en

 https://cc.cnetcontent.com/inlinecontent/mediaserver/len/bf8/bd5/bf8bd5f94d05419098c 

68e753796699e/original.pdf

24. Since at least the date of service of this ComplaintMay 2020, through its actions, 

Defendants have contributed to the infringement of the ‘435 Patent by having others sell, offer 

for sale, or use the Accused Products throughout the United States, including within this judicial 

district, with knowledge that the Accused Products infringe the ‘435 Patent. The Accused 

Products are especially made or adapted for infringing the ‘435 Patent and have no substantial 

non-infringing use. For example, in view of the preceding paragraphs, the Accused Products 

contain functionality which is material to at least one claim of the ‘435 Patent.

JURY DEMAND

Brazos hereby demands a jury on all issues so triable.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Brazos respectfully requests that the Court:

(A) Enter judgment that Defendants infringe one or more claims of the ‘435 Patent 

literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents;

(B) Enter judgment that Defendants have induced infringement and continue to 

induce infringement of one or more claims of the ‘435 Patent;

(C) Enter judgment that Defendants have contributed to and continue to contribute to 

the infringement of one or more claims of the ‘435 Patent;

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 36-2 Filed 10/30/20 Page 13 of 17
13

(D) Award Brazos damages, to be paid by Defendants in an amount adequate to 

compensate Brazos for such damages, together with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest for 

the infringement by Defendants of the ‘435 Patent through the date such judgment is entered in 

accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 284, and increase such award by up to three times the amount found 

or assessed in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 284;

(E) Declare this case exceptional pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285; and

(F) Award Brazos its costs, disbursements, attorneys’ fees, and such further and 

additional relief as is deemed appropriate by this Court.

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 36-2 Filed 10/30/20 Page 14 of 17
14

Dated: June 2October 19, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ James L. Etheridge 

James L. Etheridge

Texas State Bar No. 24059147

Ryan S. Loveless

Texas State Bar No. 24036997

Travis L. Richins

Texas State Bar No. 24061296

ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP, PLLC

2600 E. Southlake Blvd., Suite 120 / 324

Southlake, Texas 76092

Telephone: (817) 470-7249

Facsimile: (817) 887-5950

Jim@EtheridgeLaw.com

Ryan@EtheridgeLaw.com

Travis@EtheridgeLaw.com

Mark D. Siegmund

State Bar No. 24117055

mark@waltfairpllc.com

Law Firm of Walt, Fair PLLC.

1508 North Valley Mills Drive

Waco, Texas 76710

Telephone: (254) 772-6400

Facsimile: (254) 772-6432

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 36-2 Filed 10/30/20 Page 15 of 17
Document comparison by Workshare 9.5 on Sunday, October 25, 2020 12:41:42 

PM

Input:

Document 1 ID

file://Z:\Client Files_GDCIP Projects - Phoenix\2020\10 

October\24\B37614\2. DRAFT\Word\2020-06-02 (001-0) 

Original Complaint.docx 

Description 2020-06-02 (001-0) Original Complaint 

Document 2 ID

file://Z:\Client Files_GDCIP Projects - Phoenix\2020\10 

October\24\B37614\2. DRAFT\Word\2020-10-19 (033-0) 

Amended Complaint For Patent Infringement.docx 

Description 2020-10-19 (033-0) Amended Complaint For Patent 

Infringement 

Rendering set Standard

Legend:

Insertion 

Deletion 

Moved from 

Moved to 

Style change 

Format change 

Moved deletion 

Inserted cell

Deleted cell

Moved cell

Split/Merged cell

Padding cell

Statistics:

Count

Insertions 13

Deletions 5

Moved from 3

Moved to 3

Style change 0

Format changed 0

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 36-2 Filed 10/30/20 Page 16 of 17
Total changes 33

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 36-2 Filed 10/30/20 Page 17 of 17