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.

ZTE CORPORATION

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00487-ADA

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00488-ADA

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00489-ADA

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00490-ADA

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00491-ADA

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00492-ADA

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00493-ADA

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00494-ADA

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00495-ADA

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00496-ADA

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00497-ADA

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S 

NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY

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

submits this Response to the Notice of Supplemental Authority (Dkt. No. 128)

1 (the “Notice”) 

filed by Defendant ZTE Corporation (“ZTE”), in which ZTE claims that the Federal Circuit’s slip 

opinion issued on October 26, 2021—In re Netflix, Inc., Case 21-190, 2021 WL 4944826 (Fed. 

Cir. Oct. 26, 2021) (appeal of Eastern District of Texas No. 2:21-cv-00080-JRG-RSP) 

(“Netflix”)—affects (A) ZTE’s September 16, 2021, Supplemental Briefing on Transfer Under § 

1404(a) (Dkt. No. 118), and (B) ZTE’s December 30, 2020, Motion to Stay, Other than Venue 

Proceedings (Dkt. No. 49). ZTE’s Notice may be disregarded because Netflix has no bearing on 

this case, and, regardless, ZTE has no live request before this Court for a stay pending resolution 

of venue proceedings in this matter.

First, ZTE’s December 30, 2020, Motion to Stay was based on ZTE’s Motion to Dismiss 

1 Citations herein refer to WDTX Case Nos. -00487 through -00497, and specific citations

reference to the docket for WDTX Case No. -00487.

Case 6:20-cv-00497-ADA Document 123 Filed 11/02/21 Page 1 of 4
2

or in the Alternative Transfer Venue (Dkt. No. 47), which the Court denied as to ZTE on August 

6, 2021 (Dkt. No. 105) and again upon reconsideration on September 3, 2021 (Dkt. No. 116). 

ZTE’s December 30, 2020, Motion to Stay based on its denied venue motion is therefore moot.

Further, ZTE has never requested a stay pending resolution of its Supplemental Briefing 

on Transfer Under § 1404(a). ZTE’s Supplemental Briefing on Transfer instead seeks, in the 

alternative, a stay pending resolution of parallel litigation in the NDTX. See Dkt. No. 118 at 5 

(“Alternatively, the Court should stay these matters pending the resolution of the parallel litigation 

in the NDTX.”). Netflix does not address a stay pending parallel litigation and, therefore, is 

irrelevant to the relief sought by ZTE’s Supplemental Briefing on Transfer Under § 1404(a).

Even if ZTE had properly raised the issue of a stay pending resolution of its Supplemental 

Briefing on Transfer, Netflix is inapplicable here and ZTE misconstrues the authority’s effect on 

this case. The Federal Circuit in Netflix denied Netflix’s request for mandamus relief seeking to 

stay all proceedings pending resolution of its motion to dismiss or transfer because Netflix failed 

to show any delay by the district court in addressing its venue motion. See Dkt. No. 128-1, *2.

Similarly, in the instant case, the Court timely addressed ZTE’s original venue motion by denying 

the same, both on its first hearing (Dkt. No. 105) and again upon reconsideration (Dkt. No. 116).

Furthermore, there is nothing to suggest the Court will not dispose of ZTE’s Supplemental Briefing 

on Transfer with similar promptness. Moreover, ZTE’s specific citations to the Netflix opinion in 

its Notice do not constitute “new authority” as the language quoted therein comes from prior 

Federal Circuit and 5th Circuit opinions that predate ZTE’s Supplemental Briefing on Transfer. If 

ZTE is concerned about the pending motion to transfer, the proper course is to jointly request a 

hearing on its Supplemental Briefing on Transfer rather than request a stay with the obvious 

implication being to support ZTE’s PTAB proceedings against WSOU.

Case 6:20-cv-00497-ADA Document 123 Filed 11/02/21 Page 2 of 4
3

Dated: November 2, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Mark D. Siegmund

James L. Etheridge

Texas Bar No. 24059147

Ryan S. Loveless

Texas Bar No. 24036997

Travis L. Richins

Texas State Bar No. 24061296 

Brett A. Mangrum

Texas State Bar No. 24065671 

Etheridge Law Group, PLLC

2600 E. Southlake Blvd., Suite 120 / 324

Southlake, TX 76092

Tel.: (817) 470-7249

Fax: (817) 887-5950

Jim@EtheridgeLaw.com

Ryan@EtheridgeLaw.com

Travis@etheridgelaw.com

Brett@etheridgelaw.com

Craig D. Cherry

State Bar No. 24012419

Mark D. Siegmund 

State Bar No. 24117055

Justin Allen

State Bar No. 24081977

STECKLER WAYNE COCHRAN CHERRY, PLLC 

8416 Old McGregor Rd. 

Waco, Texas 76712 

Telephone: (254) 651-3690 

Facsimile: (254) 651-3689 

Craig@swclaw.com

Mark@swclaw.com

Justin@swclaw.com

Counsel for Plaintiff WSOU Investments, LLC

Case 6:20-cv-00497-ADA Document 123 Filed 11/02/21 Page 3 of 4
4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served or delivered electronically 

via the U.S. District Court [LIVE]-Document Filing System to all counsel of record November 2, 

2021. 

/s/ Mark D. Siegmund

Mark D. Siegmund

Case 6:20-cv-00497-ADA Document 123 Filed 11/02/21 Page 4 of 4