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-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

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ZTE CORPORATION’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 

AMEND ITS FINAL INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA-DTG Document 249 Filed 11/09/22 Page 1 of 16
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION: WSOU SEEKS EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF OF 

EXPANDING THE NUMBER OF NAMED DEVICES NEARLY TEN-FOLD ............. 1

II. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 1

A. WSOU Missed the Deadline to Serve Its Final Infringement Contentions ............ 1

B. WSOU Now Seeks to Add Almost 400 New Devices in Yet Another Set 

of Untimely Infringement Contentions ................................................................... 2

C. WSOU Now Burdens the Court with Duplicative Briefing After Making 

Inaccurate Certifications to The Court .................................................................... 3

III. ARGUMENT: THE COURT SHOULD DENY WSOU’S MOTION FOR 

LEAVE ............................................................................................................................... 4

A. Legal Standard ........................................................................................................ 4

B. WSOU Fails to Satisfy the Standard For “Good Cause” ........................................ 5

1. Factor 1: WSOU Has No Reasonable Explanation for Its Failure to 

Meet the July 16, 2021, Deadline ............................................................... 5

2. Factor 2: If WSOU Truly Believes These Amendments are 

Important, WSOU Should Have Included Them in Earlier 

Infringement Contentions ........................................................................... 7

3. Factor 3: Granting WSOU’s Motion for Leave to Amend Would 

Effectively Reset the Case and Prejudice ZTE ........................................... 9

4. Factor 4: The Only Cure to the Prejudice is an Extension of Fact 

Discovery and Reconsideration of a Stay Pending the Resolution 

of Post-Grant Proceedings ........................................................................ 10

IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 10

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA-DTG Document 249 Filed 11/09/22 Page 2 of 16
ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Alexsam Inc. v. IDT Corp., 

 2011 WL 108725, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2011) ................................................................... 7 

Allvoice Developments US, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 

 612 Fed. Appx. 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ...................................................................................... 7

Am. Video Graphics, L.P. v. Elec. Arts, Inc., 

 359 F. Supp. 2d 558, 560 (E.D. Tex. 2005) .............................................................................. 8 

Keranos, LLC v. Silicon Storage Tech., 

 797 F.3d 1025, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 2015)....................................................................................... 4 

Keranos, LLC v. Silicon Storage Technology, Inc., 

 2013 WL 5763738 (E.D. Tex. 2013) ........................................................................................ 7 

Mediostream, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 

 2010 WL 4118589, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 18, 2010) ................................................................ 4 

Papst Licensing GmBH & Co., KG v. Apple, Inc., 

 2020 WL 11613777 (E.D. Tex.) ............................................................................................... 4 

S&W Enters., L.L.C. v. Southtrust Bank of Ala., 

 315 F.3d 533, 535 (5th Cir. 2003) ............................................................................................ 4 

SSMiller IP LLC v. Sugar Beets LLC, 

 2-22-cv-02576 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2022) ................................................................................. 3 

WSOU Investments LLC v. OnePlus Tech., 

 6:20-cv-00952, Dkt. 77 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 18, 2022) .................................................................. 2 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA-DTG Document 249 Filed 11/09/22 Page 3 of 16
iii

TABLE OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit Document

1 Exhibit C: Brazos Proposed Preliminary List - Reasonably Similar Products 

as of April 28, 2022 

2 Email Thread Regarding ZTE’s Intent to File a Motion to Strike WSOU’s 

Infringement Contentions Served After July 16, 2022

3 Email Thread with the Court Regarding WSOU’s Improper Attempts at a 

Meet-and-Confer 

4 September 19, 2022 Sealed Motion and Discovery Hearing Transcript

5 Letter from ZTE to WSOU Regarding Infringement Contentions

6 May 27, 2022 Order Regarding Discovery Disputes

7 Brazos’ First Amended Final Infringement Contentions -490

8 WSOU Investments, LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing & Development v. Google

LLC, 6:20-cv-00572; -00580; -00584; -00585 (W.D. Tex.), Joint Motion to 

Enter Disputed Scheduling Order, Dkt. 121 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA-DTG Document 249 Filed 11/09/22 Page 4 of 16
1 

I. INTRODUCTION: WSOU SEEKS EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF OF EXPANDING 

THE NUMBER OF NAMED DEVICES NEARLY TEN-FOLD

WSOU initially named forty devices across these cases and now WSOU seeks to expand 

that to more than 475 named devices—with approximately one week of fact discovery

remaining—under the guise of allegedly necessary source code additions, thereby necessitating 

denial of WSOU’s request to Amended its Infringement Contentions. The source code revisions 

are minor after-thoughts sprinkled throughout as a transparent effort to distract from WSOU’s real 

requested relief—adding 400 new named devices. This is improper and illustrate the need to 

preserve party and judicial resources by denying this relief and staying these cases in favor of the 

pending post-grant proceedings. In addition, WSOU pushed the limits when it chose to burden this 

Court with duplicative briefing by filing the current pending Motion just days after being notified 

of ZTE’s intent to file a Motion to Strike WSOU’s Infringement Contentions (detailing the many 

deficiencies within every version and all of WSOU’s infringement contentions)—and then 

strategically disregarding the meet and confer process. Therefore, ZTE respectfully requests the 

Court dismiss WSOU’s request of leave for to amend its infringement contentions in order to 

prohibit WSOU from further unduly prejudicing ZTE with burdensome fact discovery. 

II. BACKGROUND

A. WSOU Missed the Deadline to Serve Its Final Infringement Contentions

WSOU sued ZTE in this Court on June 3, 2020, alleging infringement of eleven different 

patents, in eleven different cases, with each case concerning only one of the asserted patents. One 

case, concerning U.S. Pat. No. 8,147,071, was dismissed on October 3, 2022. See WSOU 

Investments LLC v. ZTE Corporation et al., 6:20-cv-00494-ADA-DTG, Dkt. 230. 

On November 3, 2020, WSOU served ZTE with its Preliminary Infringement Contentions

alleging infringement by approximately forty devices. The Court set July 16, 2021, as the due date 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA-DTG Document 249 Filed 11/09/22 Page 5 of 16
2 

for serving Final Infringement Contentions without leave,1 but WSOU nevertheless untimely 

served its Final Infringement Contentions on July 17, 2021, without leave. Contrary to WSOU’s 

assertion that it “timely served its Final Infringement Contentions in July 2021,” serving a 

document the day after the deadline is not considered “timely.” WSOU’s Final Infringement 

Contentions remained substantially the same as WSOU’s Preliminary Infringement Contentions. 

B. WSOU Now Seeks to Add Almost 400 New Devices in Yet Another Set of 

Untimely Infringement Contentions

Nearly a year after serving its "final” contentions, on April 28, 2022, WSOU requested 

discovery over thirty-four additional products (effectively doubling the number of named devices). 

See Ex. 1. Shortly thereafter, on May 12th, the Court held a hearing in which ZTE reiterated the 

deficiencies of WSOU’s Final Infringement Contentions stated herein, and then further echoed 

those deficiencies in a letter dated May 23rd. See Exs. 13, 14, p. 35-37; see also WSOU Investments 

LLC v. OnePlus Tech., 6:20-cv-00952, Dkt. 77 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 18, 2022). The Court agreed that 

the “more general description of ‘reasonably similar products’” is “unworkable.” May 12, 2022, 

Hr’g. Tr. 49:3-7. 

Now, WSOU seeks to amend its contentions yet again, and seeks to add additional products 

to these cases. Despite the Court’s caution noted above, however, and aside from sprinkling a few 

excerpts of source code throughout, WSOU’s Amended Final Infringement Contentions remain 

substantially the same as WSOU’s Preliminary Infringement Contentions—and are merely a 

transparent attempt to expand discovery in these cases ten-fold with the addition of nearly 400 

previously non-accused ZTE devices. Rather than seek finality, WSOU seeks to set these cases 

1 As provided by the First Amended Scheduling Order and the Standing Order Governing 

Proceedings (OGP) 4.1, after July 16, 2021, “leave of Court is required for any amendment to 

Infringement o [sic] Invalidity contentions.” Dkt. 45. WSOU has not sought leave of Court, nor 

has the Court granted such a request. 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA-DTG Document 249 Filed 11/09/22 Page 6 of 16
3 

into an indefinite cycle of discovery and burdens for ZTE—a tactic this Court cautioned against. 

June 7, 2022, Hr’g. Tr. at 29:3-9 and 30:14-17 (the Court seeking timely resolution of discovery and 

finality of discovery).

C. WSOU Now Burdens the Court with Duplicative Briefing After Making 

Inaccurate Certifications to The Court

On October 17, 2022, ZTE contacted WSOU regarding its intent to move to strike any and 

all of WSOU’s Infringement Contentions served after the July 16, 2022, deadline. See Ex. 2 at 2. 

As noted by WSOU in its opening motion, “[t]his would include WSOU’s FICs, which were served 

on July 17, 2021.” See Dkt. 264, p. 8 n. 8. 

ZTE also requested a meet-and-confer with WSOU “before 5PM (CST) Wednesday, 

October 19, 2022.” Id. WSOU stalled over 24 hours before responding to inform ZTE that, despite 

having 31 attorneys-of-record, WSOU was not available to meet-and-confer until Friday afternoon

(i.e. a day before WSOU planned to file the underlying Motion to Amended). See id. at 1. 

Without any advanced notice, nor a single attempt by WSOU to meet-and-confer, WSOU 

rushed in the filing of its Motion for Leave to Amend its Final Infringement Contentions the night 

before the scheduled meet-and-confer regarding ZTE’s Motion to Strike WSOU’s Infringement 

Contentions. Further to ZTE’s surprise, WSOU’s Motion includes a certification that “counsel for 

Plaintiff has conferred with counsel for Defendants regarding the relief requested in this motion.

Specifically, by email dated October 17, 2022, counsel for Plaintiff confirmed that it is opposed to 

this motion and requested relief.” Dkt. 264, p. 14. Despite WSOU’s likely inadvertent assertion 

that WSOU opposes its own Motion, WSOU never conferred with ZTE regarding the relief 

requested in this motion—and was not forthright with the Court about it. 

Upon informing the Court of WSOU’s inaccurate certification, WSOU did not deny its 

failure to satisfy LR CV-7(i). Rather, WSOU simply stated, “[o]bviously ZTE is opposed to the 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA-DTG Document 249 Filed 11/09/22 Page 7 of 16
4 

requested relief” and indicated that it would “address this as well” at the meet-and-confer ZTE 

scheduled to discuss ZTE’s Motion to Strike WSOU’s Infringement Contentions. Ex. 3 at 2. 

Such a failure to meet-and-confer, where a meet-and-confer is required, has recently been 

found sanctionable. In SSMiller IP LLC v. Sugar Beets LLC, the plaintiff filed a motion without 

conducting a meet-and-confer, as was required by the local rules. See SSMiller IP LLC v. Sugar 

Beets LLC, 2-22-cv-02576 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2022) Dkt. 60, at 2. In that case, the plaintiff merely 

notified defense counsel of its intent to file a motion via voicemail, and then filed the motion the 

following day. See id. The Court, in denying the plaintiff’s motion, found that “any future failure 

to engage in the required meet-and-confer process may result in appropriate sanctions.” Id.

ZTE abided by the Court’s rules in preparing to file its Motion to Strike while WSOU 

wastes Court resources in an effort to get the first word, simultaneously duplicating the briefing 

and making inaccurate assertions.

III. ARGUMENT: THE COURT SHOULD DENY WSOU’S MOTION FOR LEAVE

A. Legal Standard 

After the deadline for serving final infringement contentions has passed, “leave of Court is 

required for any amendment to infringement or invalidity concerns.” OGP 4.2 p. 14. Although this 

Court has not adopted patent-specific local rules, sister courts have prohibited amendments to final 

infringement contentions absent a showing of good cause. See, e.g. Papst Licensing GmBH & Co., 

KG v. Apple, Inc., 2020 WL 11613777 (E.D. Tex.); see also Keranos, LLC v. Silicon Storage 

Tech., 797 F.3d 1025, 1037 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (finding that a district court is “well within its 

discretion” to refuse a claimant's motion for leave to amend infringement contentions in the 

absence of diligence). The good cause standard requires the party to show that, despite the exercise 

of diligence, it cannot reasonably meet the court-mandated deadline. S&W Enters., L.L.C. v. 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA-DTG Document 249 Filed 11/09/22 Page 8 of 16
5 

Southtrust Bank of Ala., 315 F.3d 533, 535 (5th Cir. 2003). In deciding whether the good faith 

standard has been satisfied, courts consider the following four factors:

(1) the explanation for the party's failure to meet the deadline, (2) 

the importance of what the Court is excluding, (3) the potential 

prejudice if the Court allows the thing that would be excluded, and 

(4) the availability of a continuance to cure such prejudice. 

Mediostream, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 2010 WL 4118589, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 18, 2010) 

(citations omitted).

B. WSOU Fails to Satisfy the Standard For “Good Cause”

1. Factor 1: WSOU Has No Reasonable Explanation for Its Failure to 

Meet the July 16, 2021, Deadline 

As an initial matter, WSOU admits to serving its Final Infringement Contentions late—late 

is late—yet offers no explanation for its failure to meet Court set deadlines. Sloppy advocacy can 

only be excused so many times before it turns vexatious. 

Next, the blame for the inexcusable delay in WSOU’s First Amendments rests solely on 

WSOU. These First Amended Infringement Contentions contain two main amendments—

additions of source code citations and inclusion of more than 400 newly named devices—and 

WSOU offers no reasonable explanation for the delay of either. First, despite nearly non-stop 

access to the ZTE source code since the opening of fact discovery, WSOU barely revised its 

contentions with source code citations (in fact, WSOU failed to amend its contentions based on 

the claim construction order). Second, WSOU admits that its addition of more than 400 new 

devices is not based in new discovery findings but rather from WSOU’s own public searching, and 

WSOU failed to explain why it was unable to update its contentions before the July 16th deadline 

with this public information. Dkt. 264, p. 4 (estimating that 90% of its Infringement Contentions 

came from public sources). For example, WSOU fails to allege that any of the 400 new devices 

recently issued for the first time after the July 16th deadline—no excuse for the delay. 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA-DTG Document 249 Filed 11/09/22 Page 9 of 16
6 

Instead of reasonable explanations, WSOU turns this briefing into a discovery dispute red 

herring tirade. ZTE fully denies WSOU’s assertions that ZTE’s alleged “delay” justifies WSOU’s 

untimely amendments—when in fact WSOU insisted on proceeding through fact discovery 

through the Markman while many venue issues remained pending. Nevertheless, ZTE also 

addresses each of WSOU’s baseless claims below:

• ZTE’s productions are not severely deficient. As of the date of WSOU’s motion, ZTE 

produced over 12,000 documents containing technical data, source code, and financial 

information related to the accused devices. On the other hand, WSOU has produced only 

315 documents. 

• ZTE complied with all of the Court’s discovery orders regarding production of source code 

and technical documents in a timely manner. WSOU raves about alleged instances of 

ZTE’s alleged discovery deficiencies but fails to mention the Court found ZTE satisfied 

production of technical documents in the September 19, 2022, hearing. In that hearing, the 

Court rejected WSOU’s burdensome discovery requests, asking ZTE to compile its 

production into subcategories, as unwarranted. When asked by the Court, “[a]re those 

[subcategories] a creation of plaintiff’s?” WSOU responded, “I believe they are.” Ex. 4 at

42-43. The Court then stated, “I don’t believe it’s incumbent on ZTE to provide that level 

of granularity” and “I think [ZTE’s] complied with... the requirement to produce technical 

documents.” Id. 50. 

• ZTE did not delay raising issues with WSOU’s FICs. ZTE sent WSOU a letter detailing the 

deficiencies within WSOU’s FICs on May 23, 2022, only a few weeks after learning 

WSOU was expanding the scope of its infringement contentions to add nearly 40 new 

accused devices. See Exs. 1, 5. The actual delay of concern here lies with WSOU, who 

filed Amended FICs adding nearly 400 new accused devices with only a week remaining 

until the close of fact while still opposing any kind of stay. 

WSOU’s repeated ambiguous discovery requests, such as the above, have been the basis 

of much of the delay and additional productions of which WSOU complains. WSOU’s unilateral 

belief that ZTE hasn’t yet satisfied the Court-ordered discovery in full is unfounded. 

Lastly, WSOU points to the May 27, 2022, Order, denying-in-part and granting-in-part 

WSOU’s discovery requests, in which the Court allowed discovery over some “reasonably similar 

products” and provided, “the Court will address additional reasonably similar products to the 

extent they are identified.” Ex. 6 (emphasis added). But there are multiple concerns with WSOU’s 

use of this statement by the Court as support for its proposition that the Court should order 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA-DTG Document 249 Filed 11/09/22 Page 10 of 16
7 

discovery over the 400 new accused devices. Since this hearing over five months ago the Court 

has expressed its unwillingness to expand these cases nor stay the proceedings. It is time to 

acknowledge that WSOU seeks to maintain these actions in an indefinite cycle of discovery to 

burden ZTE with nuances (with multiple invalid patents). 

2. Factor 2: If WSOU Truly Believes These Amendments are Important, 

WSOU Should Have Included Them in Earlier Contentions

WSOU fails to identify specific amendments necessary to its infringement theories. 

Instead, WSOU attempts to shoehorn in nearly 400 new devices that it admits it identified by using 

public sources.2 This contradicts the entirety of WSOU’s Motion and moots WSOU’s argument 

that ZTE’s alleged “delay” prevented WSOU from identifying the nearly 400 new accused 

devices—many of which were released in 2007 (bordering as invalidating prior art systems). These 

public sources were available to WSOU long before the present litigation ensued3—and WSOU 

was capable of adding the 400 new accused devices in its Preliminary Infringement Contentions. 

Nevertheless, WSOU failed to exhibit diligence and instead waited until the end of fact discovery. 

As part of the good cause showing, the party must demonstrate that it was diligent in 

discovery of the additional products and in seeking to amend. See Alexsam Inc. v. IDT Corp., 2011 

WL 108725, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2011); see also Keranos, LLC v. Silicon Storage Technology, 

2

 WSOU’s Motion, p. 5 (“Brazos opted to use these same public sources instead of the discovery 

it expected to receive – but never did – in order to determine the scope of ZTE’s products 

infringing on Brazos’s technology.”). 

3 See, e.g. ZTE Launches ZXR10 E Series Ethernet Switch, ZTE (Sept. 27, 2007) 

https://www.zte.com.cn/global/about/news/350890.html (news article discussing the 5928E, 

dated September 27, 2009); ZTE Blade V9 is a Mid-range Smartphone with a Flagship Design, 

Trusted Reviews (Feb. 28, 2018) https://www.trustedreviews.com/news/zte-blade-v9-pricerelease-date-specs-3405619 (news article discussing the Blade V9); ZTE Unveils the Blade V10 

Smartphone, Featuring 32MP AI ‘Smart Selfie’ Technology and Octa-Core Processor, PR 

Newswire (Feb. 25, 2019) https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/zte-unveils-the-bladev10-smartphone-featuring-32mp-ai-smart-selfie-technology-and-octa-core-processor300801131.html (news article describing the ZTE Blade V10).

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA-DTG Document 249 Filed 11/09/22 Page 11 of 16
8 

Inc., 2013 WL 5763738 (E.D. Tex. 2013) (denying leave to amend infringement contentions upon 

a finding that the plaintiff had not shown it diligently search for and identified infringing products 

based on all of the publicly available information). In the case at hand, WSOU waited years to 

amend its infringement contentions to include accused devices that were detailed in publicly 

available sources long before WSOU served its Preliminary Infringement Contentions. WSOU has 

demonstrated neither good cause nor diligence in seeking to amend. 

WSOU states it “has a strong factual basis for its inclusion of the additional products,” but 

fails to state what that basis is. See WSOU’s Motion p. 8-9. Courts typically allow good cause to 

amend to be demonstrated in a variety of ways.4 WSOU, however, demonstrates none of these. 

WSOU does not provide any explicit reason why it only recently decided to amend its FICs despite 

the information used to amend those FICs, and add nearly 400 new devices, having been publicly 

available for years. 

Furthermore, WSOU’s First Amended FICs add the nearly 400 new devices by simply 

listing them in general categories, such as “ZTE Smartphone running Android 4.4 or above,”—i.e. 

without substantiating how the devices are similar. Ex. 7 at 1. WSOU could have identified the 

ZTE devices that fall into this category, and others, with publicly available information.5 And the 

burden is on WSOU, not ZTE, to search for and identify infringing products to the extent possible 

4 See, e.g. Allvoice Developments US, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 612 Fed. Appx. 1009 (Fed. Cir. 

2015) (“Good cause may be demonstrated in various ways, including: (a) a claim construction by 

the Court different from that proposed by the party seeking amendment; (b) recent discovery of 

material prior art despite earlier diligent search; and (c) recent discovery of nonpublic information 

about the Accused Device which was not discovered, despite diligent efforts, before the service of 

the Infringement Contentions.”) (quoting W.D. Wash. Local Patent R. 124). 

5 ZTE Unveils the Blade V10 Smartphone, Featuring 32MP AI ‘Smart Selfie’ Technology and 

Octa-Core Processor, PR Newswire (Feb. 25, 2019) https://www.prnewswire.com/newsreleases/zte-unveils-the-blade-v10-smartphone-featuring-32mp-ai-smart-selfie-technology-andocta-core-processor-300801131.html (specifying the OS capability of the ZTE Blade V10 as 

Android 9.0, also known as “Android P”).

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA-DTG Document 249 Filed 11/09/22 Page 12 of 16
9 

based on publicly available information. See Am. Video Graphics, L.P. v. Elec. Arts, Inc., 359 F.

Supp. 2d 558, 560 (E.D. Tex. 2005). Therefore, ZTE’s claim for additional discovery or source 

code review to identify these new accused devices is unavailing. WSOU should have exercised 

appropriate diligence by searching all of the publicly available information, and included these 

new devices in its earlier infringement contentions. 

3. Factor 3: Granting WSOU’s Motion for Leave to Amend Would 

Effectively Reset the Case and Prejudice ZTE

No reasonable person would agree that the addition of 400 new accused devices, to a case 

that previously concerned less than 100 accused devices, with only a week remaining in fact 

discovery would not constitute prejudice, or “minimal to none,” as WSOU claims. A further 

example of WSOU’s delusion is its comparison of the production of documents relating to the 

Ordered Similar Products (which regarded less than 40 devices) to the possible production of the 

nearly 400 new accused devices. See WSOU’s Motion p. 9. While the production of the Ordered 

Similar Products only took a few months, the production of documents related to ten times the 

number of devices, and the preparation of deposition witnesses regarding ten times the number of 

devices, would take exponentially longer.

This is not the first time WSOU has attempted to “reset” a case that had substantially 

completed fact discovery. In a series of cases WSOU filed against Google, WSOU sought and 

obtained leave to amend its complaint and infringement contentions. See Ex. 8. Despite completing 

parts of both claim construction and fact discovery, WSOU forced both parties to restart the cases 

under a new schedule in accordance with the Court’s default schedule (i.e., WSOU cannot insist 

on discovery for 400 new devices without forcing the restart to the entire fact discovery timeline). 

Id. Here, WSOU seeks to reset the case, which previously concerned less than 100 accused devices, 

to concern almost 500 devices. This would practically reset discovery requirements for ZTE by 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA-DTG Document 249 Filed 11/09/22 Page 13 of 16
10 

introducing new discovery obligations five times greater than the original discovery that ZTE has 

already completed. Moreover, rather than pursuing a fair schedule, WSOU seeks to reset discovery 

for ZTE within a schedule that only benefits WSOU at gross prejudice to ZTE. While WSOU has 

no further discovery obligations as a result of the addition of 400 new product (and WSOU’s 

continued numerous deficient document withholdings, ZTE faces a drastic do-over of discovery. 

WSOU’s claim that completing discovery over 400 new devices would only amount to 

“some additional work” lacks any credibility and is borderline deceptive. Indeed, the addition of 

400 new accused devices to this case would severally prejudice ZTE—thereby necessitating 

reconsideration of staying these cases in view of the growing post-grant proceeding rulings. 

4. Factor 4: The Only Cure to the Prejudice is an Extension of Fact 

Discovery and Reconsideration of a Stay Pending the Resolution of 

Post-Grant Proceedings

Although a continuance and reset of the entire fact discovery schedule could not entirely 

cure the prejudice ZTE would face as a result of the expected increased expense, if the amendment 

is permitted, a continuance would absolutely be necessary. As an alternative, however, the simplest 

remedy to cure the prejudice caused to ZTE is reconsideration of the stay of all ten cases pending 

the post-grant proceedings. Post-grant proceedings have already invalidated 3 of the 11 original 

asserted patents, thereby simplifying the dispute between the parties. A stay pending the resolution 

of the remaining ex parte reviews and § 101 motions could further simplify, if not entirely resolve, 

the present dispute. 

Alternatively, at a minimum, the fact discovery schedule should be reset to allow ZTE 

sufficient time to complete discovery over the hundreds of new accused devices.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, ZTE respectfully request the Court deny WSOU’s Motion for Leave

to Amend its Infringement Contentions. 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA-DTG Document 249 Filed 11/09/22 Page 14 of 16
11 

DATED: October 27, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

/s/Lionel M. Lavenue 

Lionel M. Lavenue 

Virginia Bar No. 49,005 

lionel.lavenue@finnegan.com 

FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, 

GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP

1875 Explorer Street, Suite 800 

Reston, VA 20190 

Phone: (571) 203-2700 

 Fax: (202) 408-4400 

Attorney for Defendant, 

ZTE Corporation 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA-DTG Document 249 Filed 11/09/22 Page 15 of 16
12 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have 

consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via electronic mail

on October 27, 2022. 

/s/Lionel M. Lavenue 

 Lionel M. Lavenue 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA-DTG Document 249 Filed 11/09/22 Page 16 of 16