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., 

EMC CORPORATION, AND VMWARE, 

INC.,

Defendants.

Case No. 6:20-cv-00486-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-00486-ADA-DTG Document 213 Filed 07/25/22 Page 1 of 19
Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 213 Filed 07/25/22 Page 2 of 19
FILED UNDER SEAL

ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

CASES

Abraxis Bioscience, Inc. v. Navinta LLC, 

625 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2010)............................................................................................3

Bittaker v. Woodford, 

331 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 2003)................................................................................................5

Cofimco USA, Inc. v. Mosiewicz, 

2016 WL 1070854 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2016).......................................................................6

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

517 F.3d 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..........................................................................................10

Dutschmann v. City of Waco, 

2022 WL 837500 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 23, 2022) .......................................................................6

EMA Electromechanics, Inc. v. Siemens Corp., 

2022 WL 2759094 (W.D. Tex. July 13, 2022).............................................................. 2, 4, 6

Hoeg Corp. v. Peebles Corp., 

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

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

409 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2005)............................................................................................9

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

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

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

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

McCall v. Dretke, 

390 F.3d 358 (5th Cir. 2004) ................................................................................................8

Schwendimann v. Arkwright Advanced Coating, Inc.,

959 F.3d 1065 (Fed. Cir. 2020)............................................................................................9

In re Spinnaker Indus., Inc., 

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

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

2022 WL 1558502 (E.D. Tex. May 17, 2022) ......................................................................6

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 213 Filed 07/25/22 Page 3 of 19
FILED UNDER SEAL

iii

WiAV Sols. LLC v. Motorola, Inc., 

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

Willy v. Admin. Review Bd., 

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

OTHER AUTHORITIES

MPEP, §301, Part V (A) (June 2020).......................................................................................10

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 213 Filed 07/25/22 Page 4 of 19
Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 213 Filed 07/25/22 Page 5 of 19
Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 213 Filed 07/25/22 Page 6 of 19
Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 213 Filed 07/25/22 Page 7 of 19
FILED UNDER SEAL

1 

Defendants’ motion demonstrated that WSOU lacks constitutional standing to assert

the ’360 patent because of three independent fatal deficiencies: (1) a gap in chain of title; (2) t 

; and (3) 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. 

As to the gap in chain of title, WSOU fails to identify any written agreement assigning 

the ’360 patent between Alcatel-Lucent Canada and Alcatel Lucent. WSOU’s attorney arguments 

cannot fill such a void. This gap alone is fatal to WSOU’s 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 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 213 Filed 07/25/22 Page 8 of 19
Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 213 Filed 07/25/22 Page 9 of 19
Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 213 Filed 07/25/22 Page 10 of 19
Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 213 Filed 07/25/22 Page 11 of 19
Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 213 Filed 07/25/22 Page 12 of 19
FILED UNDER SEAL

6 

Cir. 2003) (“[P]arties in litigation may not abuse the privilege by asserting claims the opposing 

party cannot adequately dispute unless it has access to the privileged materials.”). 

.” Opp. 17. But WSOU provides no 

evidence of these other purported activities. 

 

 EMA, 2022 WL 2759094, at *6 (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, 

 

4 WSOU never produced any evidence about activities that do not involve patent “assert[ions] 

and/or filing” infringement lawsuits, despite Defendants’ RFPs. Ex. W (RFPs), RFPs 83, 85.

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 213 Filed 07/25/22 Page 13 of 19
Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 213 Filed 07/25/22 Page 14 of 19
Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 213 Filed 07/25/22 Page 15 of 19
Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 213 Filed 07/25/22 Page 16 of 19
Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 213 Filed 07/25/22 Page 17 of 19
FILED UNDER SEAL

11 

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-00486-ADA-DTG Document 213 Filed 07/25/22 Page 18 of 19
FILED UNDER SEAL

12 

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-00486-ADA-DTG Document 213 Filed 07/25/22 Page 19 of 19