i 

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 MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S FINAL 

INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS1

1 It is noted that WSOU insisted on double briefing of these issues pertaining to WSOU’s Final 

Infringement Contentions. ZTE Corporation followed the local procedures and requested a 

meeting with WSOU in good faith to resolve the underlying issues pertaining to ZTE 

Corporation’s Motion to Strike WSOU’s Final Infringement Contentions, but WSOU refused to 

act in accordance with the local rules. ZTE Corporation, on Monday, October 17, 2022, first 

requested a meeting by Wednesday October 19, 2022. WSOU failed to respond to that meeting 

request. ZTE Corporation then again requested on Tuesday, October 18, 2022, for a meeting,

where upon WSOU insisted on delaying the meeting until Friday, October 21, 2022 (the filing date 

of this motion). In the meantime, however, WSOU unilaterally filed on Thursday, October 20, 

2022, its own Motion for Leave to Amend its Final Infringement Contentions without meeting or 

offering to meet with ZTE Corporation before filing. WSOU further improperly and erroneously 

stated that it met and conferred with ZTE Corporation before filing its Thursday motion (Dkt. 

264)—WSOU never even attempted to meet with ZTE Corporation first (instead it insisted on 

delaying ZTE Corporation’s own motion until after it filed its own motion). The respective parties’ 

motions both pertain to WSOU’s Final Infringement Contentions, however, the issues here differ 

from WSOU’s motion in that this motion addresses the substance and deficiencies of WSOU’s 

Final Infringement Contentions in-whole warranting striking them in whole, as well as addresses 

WSOU’s dilatory tactics and improper attempts to expand the number of Named Devices in these 

cases from approximately 75 devices to over 475 devices. 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00488-ADA-DTG Document 249 Filed 11/02/22 Page 1 of 23
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION: THE INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS ARE DEFICIENT .......... 1

II. BACKGROUND: WSOU HAD NEARLY TWO YEARS TO CURE 

DEFICIENCIES WITHIN ITS INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS, YET 

FAILED .............................................................................................................................. 3

A. Procedural Background ........................................................................................... 3

B. Overview of WSOU’s Deficient Final Infringement Contentions ......................... 4

III. LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................... 6

IV. ARGUMENT: THE COURT SHOULD STRIKE WSOU’S INFRINGEMENT 

CONTENTIONS................................................................................................................. 7

A. WSOU Failed to Fairly Disclose its Infringement Theories and Should be 

Precluded from Accusing Any Products That Have Not Been Charted. ................ 7

B. WSOU’s Infringement Contentions Under the Doctrine of Equivalents 

Should be Struck with Prejudice ........................................................................... 10

C. WSOU’s Infringement Contentions Related to Means-Plus-Function 

Limitations Should be Struck with Prejudice ....................................................... 11

D. WSOU Should Not be Granted Leave to Amend ................................................. 12

E. This Court Previously Rejected WSOU’s Infringement Contentions With 

Similar Deficiencies, and Should Also Reject WSOU’s Infringement 

Contentions Here .................................................................................................. 14

V. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 15

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00488-ADA-DTG Document 249 Filed 11/02/22 Page 2 of 23
iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Mobile Telecomms. Techs., LLC v. Blackberry Corp., No. 3:12-CV-1652, 2016 WL 

2907735, at *1 (N.D. Tex. May 17, 2016). ............................................................................... 6 

Computer Acceleration Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 503 F. Supp. 2d 819, 822 (E.D. Tex. 

Aug. 24, 2007). ......................................................................................................................... 7 

Davis-Lynch, Inc. v. Weatherford Int'l, Inc., 2009 WL 81874 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2009). ....... 7, 14 

Silicon Labs. Inc. v. Cresta Tech. Corp., Case No. 5:14-cv-03227, 2015 WL 846679, at 

*2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2015)..................................................................................................... 8 

Sycamore IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Corp., No. 2:16-CV-588-WCB, 2017 WL 4517953, 

at *3 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 10, 2017) ................................................................................................. 9 

Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint, Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2015 WL 1517920, at *10 (N.D. 

Cal. Apr. 2, 2015) ................................................................................................................... 10 

Texas Instruments Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp., 90 F.3d 1558, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 

1996) ....................................................................................................................................... 11 

Kearns v. Chrysler Corp., 32 F.3d 1541, 1548 n. 8 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ........................................... 12 

WSOU Investments LLC v. OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., 2022 WL 174517 

(W.D. Tex. 2022) .............................................................................................................. 14, 15 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00488-ADA-DTG Document 249 Filed 11/02/22 Page 3 of 23
iv

TABLE OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit Document

1 WSOU Investments, LLC. d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development v. ZTE 

Corporation, 6:20-cv-487, Complaint, Dkt. 1 

2 WSOU Investments, LLC. d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development v. ZTE 

Corporation, 6:20-cv-488, Complaint, Dkt. 1

3 WSOU Investments, LLC. d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development v. ZTE 

Corporation, 6:20-cv-489, Complaint, Dkt. 1 

4 WSOU Investments, LLC. d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development v. ZTE 

Corporation, 6:20-cv-490, Complaint, Dkt. 1 

5 WSOU Investments, LLC. d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development v. ZTE 

Corporation, 6:20-cv-491, Complaint, Dkt. 1 

6 WSOU Investments, LLC. d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development v. ZTE 

Corporation, 6:20-cv-492, Complaint, Dkt. 1 

7 WSOU Investments, LLC. d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development v. ZTE 

Corporation, 6:20-cv-493, Complaint, Dkt. 1 

8 WSOU Investments, LLC. d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development v. ZTE 

Corporation, 6:20-cv-494, Complaint, Dkt. 1 

9 WSOU Investments, LLC. d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development v. ZTE 

Corporation, 6:20-cv-495, Complaint, Dkt. 1 

10 WSOU Investments, LLC. d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development v. ZTE 

Corporation, 6:20-cv-496, Complaint, Dkt. 1 

11 WSOU Investments, LLC. d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development v. ZTE 

Corporation, 6:20-cv-497, Complaint, Dkt. 1 

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

as of April 28, 2022 

13 May 23, 2022 Letter from ZTE to Brazos RE Infringement Contentions

14 May 12, 2022 Discovery Hearing Transcript

15 Brazos’ First Amended Final Infringement Contentions -487

16 Brazos’ First Amended Final Infringement Contentions -488

17 Brazos’ First Amended Final Infringement Contentions -489

18 Brazos’ First Amended Final Infringement Contentions -490

19 Brazos’ First Amended Final Infringement Contentions -491

20 Brazos’ First Amended Final Infringement Contentions -493

21 Brazos’ First Amended Final Infringement Contentions -494

22 Brazos’ First Amended Final Infringement Contentions -495

23 Brazos’ First Amended Final Infringement Contentions -496

24 Brazos’ First Amended Final Infringement Contentions -497

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00488-ADA-DTG Document 249 Filed 11/02/22 Page 4 of 23
v 

25 Detailed Table of WSOU’s Newly Added Accused Devices

26 Brazos’ Final Infringement Contentions -487

27 Brazos’ Final Infringement Contentions -488

28 Brazos’ Final Infringement Contentions -489

29 Brazos’ Final Infringement Contentions -490

30 Brazos’ Final Infringement Contentions -491

31 Brazos’ Final Infringement Contentions -493

32 Brazos’ Final Infringement Contentions -494

33 Brazos’ Final Infringement Contentions -495

34 Brazos’ Final Infringement Contentions -496

35 Brazos’ Final Infringement Contentions -497

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00488-ADA-DTG Document 249 Filed 11/02/22 Page 5 of 23
1 

I. INTRODUCTION: THE INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS ARE DEFICIENT

Defendant ZTE Corporation (“ZTE”) respectfully moves to strike Plaintiff WSOU 

Investments, LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development’s (“WSOU”) Final Infringement 

Contentions (served July 17, 2021), and any amendments thereafter, as untimely and deficient.

WSOU’s Final Infringement Contentions do not provide fair notice as to how and why WSOU 

contends all of the accused products infringe the asserted products. Furthermore, WSOU fails to 

provide contentions for all of the accused products. In sum, WSOU’s Final Infringement 

Contentions continue to fail to satisfy the Court’s requirements—warranting striking in full.

In all but one case, each of WSOU’s infringement claim charts accuse multiple products. 

But rather than providing a claim chart in each case for each of the multiple accused products, 

WSOU instead maps only a single product. These charts remain deficient, however, because they 

fail to fully explain within the lone claim chart, how the individual mapped product is 

representative of the entire set—of more than 70 products. 

In lieu of providing infringement contentions for all of the accused products, WSOU 

instead purports that a single lone infringement chart for a single accused product is sufficient in 

each respective case—ten total charts for ten cases with more than seventy total named devices. 

WSOU contends that each of the single charts is representative of all of the accused products, 

without any further analysis of how each single charted product is representative of the uncharted 

products (“Uncharted Accused Products”). WSOU’s only explanation for use of the lone 

“representative chart” is that the accused products allegedly comply with similar standards and/or 

run similar operating systems—many of which are third-party Android OS. 

WSOU failed to provide further reasoning for its “representative chart.” When confronted 

of the deficiencies within WSOU’s Final Infringement Contentions, WSOU doubled down, by 

further relying on alleged similarities across industry standards and stating that the “representative 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00488-ADA-DTG Document 249 Filed 11/02/22 Page 6 of 23
2 

charts” are reasonable because “[e]ach of these [accused products] . . . follow[s] the [respective]

standard.” Discovery Hr’g. Tr. May 12, 2022, 48:18-20. But WSOU further failed to connect each 

of the Uncharted Accused Products to the representative chart beyond implementation of similar 

third-party operating software and alleged compliance with industry standards. 

Despite the prominence of these standards (e.g., IEEE, ETSI, etc.) in its Final Infringement 

Contentions, WSOU’s counsel however refuses to confirm whether its patents are essential to the 

cited standards—underscoring WSOU’s improper reliance on the standards in defining 

“representative charting.” Nor do WSOU’s Final Infringement Contentions provide any further 

clarification of the standard essential status of the asserted patents. If WSOU’s infringement 

contentions are based on a claim that the asserted patents are standard essential, WSOU must 

candidly disclose that this is the basis of its infringement theory, and those asserted patents would 

be subject to FRAND licensing obligations. If this is not its infringement theory, then WSOU’s 

charted accused product lacks any plausible basis to be representative of the uncharted products, 

leaving ZTE without notice as to how the uncharted products allegedly infringe. 

And with respect to the lone mapped claim charts, each of WSOU’s Final Infringement 

Contentions remain deficient with mere empty boilerplate language failing to map every limitation 

to the claim elements. Not every claim element is mapped to a named device component—and in 

many instances the contentions improperly rely on the doctrine of equivalents as a crutch—neither 

properly connecting the infringement theories to the claim elements nor connecting the device 

components to infringing equivalents. WSOU not only fails to properly explain its infringement 

theories for the lone mapped claim chart for each claim element, but further fails to identify basis 

under the doctrine of equivalents. The lone mapped claim charts are further deficient for failing to 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00488-ADA-DTG Document 249 Filed 11/02/22 Page 7 of 23
3 

identify the necessary claimed function and means within the accused product for performing the 

claimed function for the means-plus-function limitations. 

The requested relief—striking WSOU’s Final Infringement Contentions in whole—is 

entirely reasonable given that nearly two full years passed since WSOU first submitted its 

preliminary contentions, and even after WSOU untimely served its Final Infringement Contentions 

after the July 16, 2021 (requiring leave of court thereafter), the Final Infringement Contentions 

remain deficient. Even with over one year of discovery, easy access to the accused products and 

extensive source code inspection, WSOU still failed to prepare sufficient contentions.

WSOU’s failure to provide compliant infringement contentions for each claim element—

even for lone charted “representative products”—warrants striking the Final Infringement 

Contentions for all ten cases and for all Accused Products (both charted and uncharted) to rectify 

prejudice to ZTE. Although redundant, ZTE further requests that the Court strike all contentions 

pertaining to the Uncharted Accused Products (and remove those devices from the cases entirely).

Furthermore (and again redundant), since WSOU has not disclosed a basis to seek relief for alleged 

infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, ZTE respectfully requests that the Court strike 

WSOU’s boilerplate contentions for all ten cases and preclude WSOU from pursuing these 

undisclosed theories. Also redundant, ZTE requests that the Court strike WSOU’s theories 

encapsulating means-plus-function limitations for failure to identify the means and functions. 

II. BACKGROUND: WSOU HAD NEARLY TWO YEARS TO CURE 

DEFICIENCIES WITHIN ITS INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS, YET FAILED

A. Procedural Background

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. See 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00488-ADA-DTG Document 249 Filed 11/02/22 Page 8 of 23
4 

Exs. 1-11. 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 

for serving Final Infringement Contentions without leave,

2

 but WSOU nevertheless untimely 

served its Final Infringement Contentions on July 17, 2021 without leave. The Final contentions 

remain substantially the same as WSOU’s preliminary 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. 12. Shortly thereafter, on May 12th, the Court held a discovery 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).

After nearly two full years of WSOU presenting deficient infringement contentions, and repeatedly 

being made aware of the deficiencies within the contentions, ZTE now moves for WSOU’s Final 

Infringement Contentions to be struck. 

B. Overview of WSOU’s Deficient Final Infringement Contentions

As stated above, WSOU served its Final Infringement Contentions on July 17, 2021, and 

they contained all of the same deficiencies as WSOU’s preliminary infringement contentions. In 

nine of the remaining ten cases, WSOU charted a lone “representative” accused product for nearly 

seventy uncharted products. Additionally, even the lone “representative” charts with plagued with 

2 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-00488-ADA-DTG Document 249 Filed 11/02/22 Page 9 of 23
5 

further deficiencies and failures to map every claim element, failures to describe Doctrine of 

Equivalent theories, and failures to identify proper means-plus-function components. These 

deficiencies were never resolved. Nonetheless, WSOU proceeded to add further accused products 

on April 28, 2022, and seeks to add more.

3 The below table depicts the large disparity between the 

few products WSOU charted (four for ten cases) and the many products WSOU failed to chart: 

Charted 

Products

Uncharted Accused Products (see also Ex. 25)

Preliminary 

Infringement 

Contentions / 

Complaints

Final Infringement 

Contentions April 28, 2022 Additions 

ZTE ZXR10 5900 

Series

ZTE NetNumen 

U31

ZTE Axon 10 Pro 

ZTE ZXR10 5960 

Series

ZXR10 5916E

5928E-FI

5952E 

ZTE ZXSDR 

BS8800 

ZXSDR 

BS8900A 

ZXSDR 8900B 

ME3630 

ZM8620 

MF279 

Blade 10

Blade 10 Prime 

Blade A7 Prime

Blade Vantage 2

Gabb Z1 

Visible R2

ZFIVE G LTE

Avid 4 

Overture 3

Blade X

Maven 3

Blade Z

Blade X Max

AT&T Velocity 

2 

MF923 

Z915

Axon 30 Ultra NetNumen N31

NetNumen M31 

ZTE MF971

ZTE Falcon Z917

ZTE ZMAX Connect MF928 

ZTE Nubia Z17 miniS 

ZTE Nubia Z17 Lite

Blaze Z Max

Blade Force

ZTE Nubia M2

ZTE Nubia M2 Play

ZTE Nubia Z17

ZTE Max XL

ZTE Nubia Z17 mini 

ZTE Grand X4

ZTE Nubia Z17s

ZXR10 5960X Series Switch 

ZXR10 5250-H Series

ZTE Z291DL

ZTE MF64

ZTE MF920U

ZTE MF920V

ZTE MF980

ZTE MF79

Avid 589 

Axon 30 5G 

Blade X1 5G 

Blade 11 Prime

3 WSOU improperly seeks to add, yet again, almost 400 new products (first 40 products, then 74 

after serving its Final Infringement Contentions, now over 375). See Exs. 12, 15-24.

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00488-ADA-DTG Document 249 Filed 11/02/22 Page 10 of 23
6 

Z700A

ZXWE A5224 

ZXHN F2867S 

Axon M 

Axon 7 

Qualcomm 

Snapdragon X12 

LTE Modem

Qualcomm 

Snapdragon X16 

LTE Modem

Qualcomm 

Snapdragon X20 

LTE Modem

Qualcomm 

Snapdragon X24 

LTE Modem

ZXR10 5960-

32DL 

5960-52TM 

ZXR10 5960-H 

Series

ZXR10 5960-

64DL 

ZXSDR BS8700 

BS8906 

ZTE SyncUP 

DRIVE

ZXR10 5250 

series

ZXR10 2900 

series

Macro Base 

Station

Blade A3 Prime

Axon 20 5G 

Blade A3Y

Quest 5

Avid 559 

Now, more than year after serving its Final Infringement Contentions, WSOU seeks to 

further add nearly 400 new products without leave from the Court. 

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Proper infringement contentions provide a defendant with notice of plaintiff’s particular 

infringement theories beyond that which is provided by the language of the patent claims

themselves. Mobile Telecomms. Techs., LLC v. Blackberry Corp., No. 3:12-CV-1652, 2016 WL

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00488-ADA-DTG Document 249 Filed 11/02/22 Page 11 of 23
7 

2907735, at *1 (N.D. Tex. May 17, 2016). Judge Albright’s Standing Order Governing

Proceedings regarding Patent Cases requires that the “plaintiff shall serve [a] preliminary 

infringement contentions chart setting forth where in the accused product(s) each element of the

asserted claim(s) are found.” OGP Version 4.1 (April 14, 2022); Dkt No. 193; see also OnePlus 

Tech., 6:20-cv-00952, Dkt. 77, p. 2. 

“Deciding whether infringement contentions should be struck is similar to deciding

whether evidence should be excluded for discovery violations” and is “akin to deciding whether

the pleading deadlines of a scheduling order should be extended.” Computer Acceleration Corp.

v. Microsoft Corp., 503 F. Supp. 2d 819, 822 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 24, 2007). “The tests for determining

whether to allow a party to supplement infringement contentions and for determining whether to

strike infringement contentions are essentially the same.” Davis-Lynch, Inc. v. Weatherford Int'l,

Inc., 2009 WL 81874, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2009). In particular, Courts consider “(1) the reason 

for the delay and whether the party has been diligent; (2) the importance of what the court is 

excluding and the availability of lesser sanctions; (3) the danger of unfair prejudice; and (4) the

availability of a continuance and the potential impact of a delay on judicial proceedings.” Id.

IV. ARGUMENT: THE COURT SHOULD STRIKE WSOU’S INFRINGEMENT 

CONTENTIONS

A. WSOU Failed to Fairly Disclose its Infringement Theories and Should be 

Precluded from Accusing Any Products That Have Not Been Charted. 

WSOU’s Final Infringement Contentions are deficient because the conclusory analysis 

linking the Uncharted Accused Products to the accused product within the “representative chart” 

does not provide ZTE fair notice of WSOU’s particular infringement theories nor does it comply 

with the Court’s Local Patent Rules.

WSOU’s Final Infringement Contentions fail to chart 70 (of the 74) named devices. This 

shortcoming is highlighted by WSOU’s vague and conclusory statements that the charted products 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00488-ADA-DTG Document 249 Filed 11/02/22 Page 12 of 23
8 

somehow represent, or are analogous to, the Uncharted Accused Products. Each Final Infringement 

Contention contains the phrasing, “[t]he contentions below are explained in the context of the 

exemplary product, [name of single charted device]. Analogous contentions apply in general to 

[names of Uncharted Accused Products].” These conclusory allegations are improper. See, e.g., 

Silicon Labs. Inc. v. Cresta Tech. Corp., Case No. 5:14-cv-03227, 2015 WL 846679, at *2 (N.D. 

Cal. Feb. 25, 2015) (“[I]n order to rely on a claim that one accused product represents another... 

a patentee must do more than state as much. A patentee must state how.”) (emphasis in original). 

WSOU’s Final Infringement Contentions overwhelmingly rely on attenuated and strained 

connections between the named devices and the four lone “representative” charts. First, WSOU 

alleges that the devices are similar because several named devices run third-party Android 10 

operating systems—but WSOU fails to address significant differences in those systems 

implemented on the specific named devices (e.g., in many instances, the “similar” devices are 

unable to run the same versions of the operating software).

4 Second, WSOU alleges that the 

devices are similar because they (as alleged by WSOU) must comply with industry standards, such 

as cellular standards (IEEE standard 802.11ac standard for Wireless Communication).5 WSOU 

fails, however, to explain the similarities across these products beyond mere handwaves 

4 See, e.g. Ex. 29 (-490 chart accusing “mobile devices such as ZTE AXON 10 Pro, which can run 

over the Android 10 operating system”), Ex. 27 (-488 chart accusing “ZTE Instrumentalities... 

that support LTE telecommunication system”), Ex. 30 (-491 chart accusing “mobile devices... 

implementing IEEE standard 802.11ac”), Ex. 32 (-494 accusing devices that “implement the IEE 

802.1Q (Media Access Control (MAC) Bridges and Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks) 

standard for detection and control of a congestion condition in the network.”).

5 See e.g., Ex. 32 (“[c]ertain contentions are described herein in the example context of ZTE 

ZXR10 5960 series switches (e.g., including but not limited to ZXR10 5960, ZXR105960-H). 

However, the relevant ZTE Instrumentalities at least encompass all ZTE products which have

similar functionality. Certain ZTE Instrumentalities implement the IEEE 802.1Q (Media Access 

Control (MAC) Bridges and Virtual Bridged Local Area Networks) standard for detection and 

control of a congestion condition in the network.”). 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00488-ADA-DTG Document 249 Filed 11/02/22 Page 13 of 23
9 

contending that any product complying with these standards or operating systems infringe the 

asserted patents. The infringement contentions contain no substantive analysis of how the charted 

products are “representative” of the Uncharted Accused Products and remain deficient for this 

reason.

In light of WSOU’s dependence on standards in lieu of charting the lone “representative” 

product to the claim elements, WSOU indirectly contends that the asserted patents are essential to, 

or necessary to implement, the cited portions of the standards. Yet, WSOU refuses to identify the

asserted patents as standard essential, and during the May 12, 2022 discovery hearing, WSOU’s 

counsel stated, “in this case, none of the patents... have been declared standard essential.” Ex. 13, 

p. 38, lines 11-13. Thus, if WSOU’s analysis is true, that none of the asserted patents are standard 

essential, then WSOU’s Final Infringement Contentions fail to reasonably inform ZTE as to (1) 

how the charted accused product is “representative” of the Uncharted Accused Products and (2) 

how the Uncharted Accused Products allegedly infringe the asserted patents. See Silicon Labs. 

Inc., 2015 WL 846679, at *2. For example, in the -491 case, WSOU purports to show that its single 

infringement chart for a single product is representative of all the other Uncharted Accused 

Products by merely listing basic properties of the accused products, such as the following: 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00488-ADA-DTG Document 249 Filed 11/02/22 Page 14 of 23
10 

Ex. 30 at 87. This simple recitation of high-level product specifications and various 

standards (e.g. “IEEE 802.11ac”) fails to explain how any one charted product is representative of 

the Uncharted Accused Products. 

B. WSOU’s Infringement Contentions Under the Doctrine of Equivalents 

Should be Struck with Prejudice

The Court should also strike WSOU’s boilerplate and conclusory allegations that the

accused products infringe the asserted patents under the doctrine of equivalents. See Sycamore IP

Holdings LLC v. AT&T Corp., No. 2:16-CV-588-WCB, 2017 WL 4517953, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Oct.

10, 2017) (explaining that courts “have been clear that doctrine of equivalents theories must be

laid out in detail in a party’s infringement contentions and that the type of boilerplate allegations

contained in [Plaintiff’s] infringement contentions are insufficient”); Finjan, Inc. v. Proofpoint,

Inc., No. 13-CV-05808-HSG, 2015 WL 1517920, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2015) (“[i]t is improper

to assert the doctrine of equivalents with generic ‘placeholder’ language on the hope that future

discovery might support such an assertion.”). An example of WSOU’s allegations with respect to

the doctrine of equivalents is below: 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00488-ADA-DTG Document 249 Filed 11/02/22 Page 15 of 23
11 

Ex. 26 at 3 (annotated); see also Exs. 27, 29-32, 34-35 (including the same, or similar, language). 

WSOU fails to state with specificity how the accused products allegedly infringe the 

asserted claims under the doctrine of equivalents and are insufficient to put ZTE on notice of 

WSOU’s theories under this doctrine. Texas Instruments Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp., 90

F.3d 1558, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“evidence must be presented on a limitation-by-limitation basis. 

Generalized testimony as to the overall similarity between the claims and the accused infringer’s 

product or process will not suffice.”). 

Since WSOU’s Final Infringement Contentions remain deficient, the Court should strike 

WSOU’s boilerplate contentions alleging infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. 

C. WSOU’s Infringement Contentions Related to Means-Plus-Function 

Limitations Should be Struck with Prejudice

Various claims of the asserted patents include elements in “mean-plus-function” format, and 

WSOU fails to identify how and where those limitations are met in the accused products. The 

Federal Circuit has held that "in order to meet a means-plus-function limitation, an accused device 

must (1) perform the identical function recited in the means limitation and (2) perform that function 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00488-ADA-DTG Document 249 Filed 11/02/22 Page 16 of 23
12 

using the structure disclosed in the specification or an equivalent structure." Kearns v. Chrysler 

Corp., 32 F.3d 1541, 1548 n. 8 (Fed. Cir. 1994). WSOU’s Final Infringement Contentions fail to 

identify when the accused products perform the claimed function, and further fail to identify the 

structure from the patent specification and where it is found in the accused products. For example, 

the Court’s claim construction order of March 3, 2022, confirms that claim 6 of the ’534 patent 

includes means-plus-function language, but WSOU’s Final Infringement Contentions fail to 

identify any particular means or any particular function of an accused device that meet such a 

claim limitation. An example of WSOU’s allegations with respect to means-plus-function 

limitations is below:

Ex. 34 at 44. 

As shown above, WSOU provides no analysis in its allegation that the accused products 

infringe claims of the asserted patents containing means-plus-function language. Indeed, WSOU 

fails to identify any means or any particular function of the accused products that meet the asserted 

patents’ limitations. In view of these deficiencies, the Court should strike WSOU’s boilerplate 

contentions alleging infringement of claims containing means-plus-function limitations.

D. WSOU Should Not be Granted Leave to Amend 

WSOU had nearly two years to cure any deficiencies in its infringement contentions, and 

thus should not be granted leave to amend. WSOU first submitted its preliminary infringement 

contentions on November 3, 2020. WSOU then untimely served without leave its Final 

Infringement Contentions on July 17, 2021. Since that time, WSOU has conducted over six months

of source code review and ZTE completed production of all technical documents. Despite ample 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00488-ADA-DTG Document 249 Filed 11/02/22 Page 17 of 23
13 

time to correct its contentions (and even seek leave to do so)—ZTE notified WSOU, in a letter 

dated May 23, 2022, that WSOU’s infringement contentions were deficient for the reasons listed 

herein (Ex. 13)—WSOU still acted without haste and never sought leave to amend. 

Nevertheless, WSOU failed to provide charts for all of the accused products, failed to 

explain how the allegations in the “representative” charts are actually representative of any of the 

Uncharted Accused Products, failed to identify its basis for its claims of infringement under the 

Doctrine of Equivalents, and failed to identify how the accused products infringe claims of the 

asserted patents containing means-plus-function language. 

In a further egregious shortcoming, WSOU attempts to amend its Final Infringement 

Contentions to add nearly 400 new accused devices that were not mentioned in WSOU’s previous 

infringement contentions. See Exs. 15-25. The addition of hundreds of new accused devices, only 

weeks from the close of fact discovery, is improper. See Sol IP, LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 2020 

WL 1911388, *5 (E.D. Tex. 2020)(refusing to allow the patentee to amend its contentions to 

include hundreds of newly accused products that the patentee had allegedly identified with “catchall” general descriptive phrase in its original contentions). In Sol IP, the Plaintiff used a “catchall” phrase in its early infringement contentions by identifying only a subset of accused products, 

and then followed that with all other devices “configured to communicate in accordance with LTE 

Release 8 (or later).” Id. at *3. WSOU used similar language in its preliminary infringement 

contentions (see Ex. 27 (-488 chart accusing “ZTE Instrumentalities... that support LTE 

telecommunication system”)) and similarly seeks to add hundreds of new accused devices. 

Therefore, WSOU’s Amended Final Infringement Contentions should similarly be stricken. 

Given WSOU’s lack of diligence the Court should not grant leave for WSOU to amend its 

infringement contentions. WSOU is entitled only to pursue a case on the products for which it has 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00488-ADA-DTG Document 249 Filed 11/02/22 Page 18 of 23
14 

provided proper infringement contentions—which it failed to do for both the four charted products 

and the seventy uncharted products. Furthermore, WSOU will not be unfairly prejudiced by its 

own decision to avoid investigating and properly identifying additional accused devices. See 

Davis-Lynch, Inc. v. Weatherford Int'l, Inc., 2009 WL 81874, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2009)(“the 

relative importance of including these products in its [infringement contentions] should have

generated a commensurate amount of diligence.”). 

E. This Court Previously Rejected WSOU’s Infringement Contentions With 

Similar Deficiencies, and Should Also Reject WSOU’s Infringement 

Contentions Here

This same Court held that this same plaintiff submitted insufficient infringement 

contentions wherein the contentions similarly contained a single charted product that was allegedly 

representative of other accused products. See WSOU Investments LLC v. OnePlus Technology 

(Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., 2022 WL 174517 at *2 (W.D. Tex. 2022) (addressing preliminary 

contentions). In those five cases, regarding five separate patents, WSOU charted one product for 

each case and listed several other accused products and—without any further analysis—simply 

highlighted words or phrases WSOU deemed to be “representative.” See id. Upon finding this 

approach unsatisfactory, the Court stated, “in an effort to provide fair notice and fulsome, albeit 

repetitive responses in WSOU’s eyes, WSOU must more fully explain why the charted product is 

representative of each individual uncharted product or chart each product individually.” Id. The 

Court further declared that WSOU must confirm whether the asserted patents are standard essential 

because “[t]he Court is not persuaded that this is an issue reserved for the experts.” Id. 

In the case at hand, WSOU presents Final Infringement Contentions that were constructed 

in the same deficient fashion. WSOU’s Final Infringement Contentions provide no full explanation 

of why the charted product is representative of each Uncharted Accused Product, nor does WSOU 

chart each product individually. ZTE was not, however, given the benefit of having the 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00488-ADA-DTG Document 249 Filed 11/02/22 Page 19 of 23
15 

“representative” information highlighted for each Uncharted Accused Product, as was done for 

OnePlus—for preliminary contention charting no less. Thus, ZTE was provided even less notice 

of how the single charted product is “representative” of the Uncharted Accused Products. 

One further parallel between the OnePlus case and the case at hand is the deficiencies 

within WSOU’s allegations of infringement under the Doctrine of Equivalents. In OnePlus, 

WSOU’s infringement contentions also used “boilerplate and conclusory allegations that the 

accused products infringe the asserted patents under the doctrine of equivalents.” Defendant 

OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.’s Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Amended Infringement 

Contentions at 14, WSOU Investments LLC v. OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., 6:20-cv00952-ADA (W.D. Tex. 2021), 2022 WL 174517, Dkt. 62. In ruling that WSOU should provide 

final infringement contentions without these deficiencies, the Court noted it “agrees with 

OnePlus’s characterizations regarding the... doctrine of equivalents claims.” Id. at *3. In this case, 

WSOU already served its both its preliminary infringement contentions and Final Infringement 

Contentions, but the allegations of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents remain deficient.

Considering the similar issues that arise in both our case, and that of OnePlus, the Court 

should find WSOU’s Final Infringement Contentions equally deficient.

V. CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, the Uncharted Accused Products and doctrine of equivalents 

allegations should be struck from WSOU’s Final Infringement Contentions with prejudice. 

DATED: October 21, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Lionel M. Lavenue 

Lionel M. Lavenue 

Virginia Bar No. 49,005 

lionel.lavenue@finnegan.com 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00488-ADA-DTG Document 249 Filed 11/02/22 Page 20 of 23
16 

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-00488-ADA-DTG Document 249 Filed 11/02/22 Page 21 of 23
17 

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

The parties complied with Local Rule CV-7(i). On October 21, 2022, Defendant’s counsel 

conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel via telephone, and on Plaintiff’s counsel confirmed that Plaintiff 

opposes the relief sought in this motion. 

/s/Lionel M. Lavenue

Lionel M. Lavenue 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00488-ADA-DTG Document 249 Filed 11/02/22 Page 22 of 23
18 

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 October 21, 2022. 

/s/Lionel M. Lavenue 

 Lionel M. Lavenue 

PUBLIC VERSION

Case 6:20-cv-00488-ADA-DTG Document 249 Filed 11/02/22 Page 23 of 23