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

DEFENDANT’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO 

NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY

Defendant ZTE Corporation (“ZTE”) submits this Reply to the Response (Dkt. No. 129)1

filed by WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development (“WSOU”) regarding 

the Notice of Supplemental Authority notifying the court of new Federal Circuit authority affecting

(A) ZTE’s September 16, 2021, Supplemental Briefing on Transfer Under § 1404(a) (Dkt. No. 

118), and (B) December 30, 2020, Motion to Stay, Other than Venue Proceedings (Dkt. No. 49).

In its Response, WSOU argues that Federal Circuit guidance from Netflix 2 “may be 

disregarded because [it] has no bearing on this case.” Dkt. No. 129, p. 1. But that is not the case, 

for Federal Circuit guidance should not be disregarded (as WSOU argues). In fact, WSOU is the 

1 Citations throughout here refer to WDTX Case Nos. -00487 through -00497, and specific 

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

2 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”).

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA Document 123 Filed 11/05/21 Page 1 of 5
2

only party that believes that Federal Circuit guidance should be disregarded, as the Court follows 

Federal Circuit guidance to the best of its abilities. And, with respect to the Court’s standing order 

on Motions to Transfer, parties are certainly expected to inform the Court when a stay is 

appropriate so it may handle matters in the most judicially efficient manner (as ZTE attempts to 

do, but WSOU opposes). As such, it is entirely inappropriate for WSOU to suggest that this Court 

should “disregard” the guidance from Netflix—in a Notice Response no less. Dkt. No. 129, p. 1.

WSOU further argues that the Netflix opinion and specific citations do not constitute “new 

authority” because the quoted language—as WSOU argues—“comes from prior Federal Circuit 

and 5th Circuit opinions.” Dkt. No. 129, p. 2. Yet again, WSOU missteps. For instance, the Federal 

Circuit in Netflix finds that “[a] stay of merits proceedings is appropriate relief if the district court 

cannot decide a venue motion quickly enough to avoid burdening the moving party with 

unnecessary expense and prejudice.” Netflix, at *2. The Federal Circuit does not cite any other 

ruling for this language on staying cases—from the Federal or Fifth Circuit, or anywhere. Thus, 

WSOU’s argument that the specific language quoted is not “new authority” falls flat, as it is new.

Next, WSOU erroneously argues that ZTE’s December 30, 2020, Motion to Stay (Dkt. No. 

49) is moot. Dkt. No. 129, p. 2. The Court, however, never ruled on the pending Motion to Stay, 

nor ruled it moot. Dkt. Nos. 105 and 116. In fact, in the Motion to Stay, ZTE “respectfully 

request[ed] [that] all issues unrelated to venue be stayed,” Dkt. No. 49, p. 2, and has continued to

request these cases be stayed until resolution of all venue issues—thereby embodying the very 

relief this Court requests for a stay. The Motion to Stay is alive and this Netflix guidance is very 

much on point.

Lastly, WSOU argues that Netflix is inapplicable because there is an insufficient amount 

of delay in resolving the pending venue issues. And, rather than withdrawing its opposition to a 

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA Document 123 Filed 11/05/21 Page 2 of 5
3

stay, WSOU further argues that “the proper course is to jointly request a hearing . . . rather than 

request a stay,” Dkt. No. 129, which is directly opposite to the findings in Netflix where the Federal 

Circuit clearly states that a “stay of merits proceedings is appropriate relief if the district court 

cannot decide a venue motion quickly enough to avoid burdening the moving party with 

unnecessary expense and prejudice.” Netflix, at *2 (further finding that “delays in resolving 

transfer motions, coupled with ongoing discovery, claim construction, and other proceedings, 

frustrate the purpose of § 1404(a) by forcing defendants ‘to expend resources litigating substantive 

matters in an inconvenient venue while a motion to transfer lingers unnecessarily on the docket.’”).

Venue issues remain pending and unresolved in these cases since December 4, 2020 (Dkt. 47, p. 

7), fact discovery closes in less than a month on December 17, 2021 (over a year later), yet WSOU 

continues to oppose a stay while insisting on proceeding through fact discovery. Under WSOU’s 

understanding of Netflix, no court could ever grant a stay—unfortunately for WSOU, the Federal 

Circuit does not agree. 

ZTE’s Motion to Stay, Other than Venue Proceedings (Dkt. No. 49), has been pending

since December 2020; and ZTE’s Supplemental Briefing on Transfer and the Motion to Stay (Dkt. 

No. 118) which incorporates several venue issues lingering since December 2020, has been 

pending since September 16, 2021. The Federal Circuit guidance from Netflix applies here.

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA Document 123 Filed 11/05/21 Page 3 of 5
4

DATED: November 5, 2021 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

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA Document 123 Filed 11/05/21 Page 4 of 5
5

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 the Court’s 

CM/ECF system on November 5, 2021. 

/s/Lionel M. Lavenue 

Lionel M. Lavenue

Case 6:20-cv-00496-ADA Document 123 Filed 11/05/21 Page 5 of 5