MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIMS Page 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.

HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD. 

and HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES USA 

INC.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-533-ADA

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-534-ADA

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-535-ADA

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-536-ADA

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-537-ADA

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-538-ADA

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-539-ADA

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-540-ADA

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-541-ADA

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-542-ADA

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-543-ADA

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-544-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIMS

Defendants filed nearly identical counterclaims for non-infringement and invalidity in each 

of the above-captioned cases. The counterclaims contain no factual allegations to support 

Defendants’ claims. Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff 

WSOU Investments, LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development files this Motion to Dismiss 

Defendants’ counterclaims. 

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

A. Rule 12(b)(6) Standard

To defeat a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, a plaintiff must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its 

face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). 

Case 6:20-cv-00540-ADA Document 23 Filed 10/06/20 Page 1 of 4
MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIMS Page 2

“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to 

draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 

556).

Courts use the same standard in ruling on a motion to dismiss a counterclaim under Rule 

12(b)(6) as they do in assessing a claim in a complaint. Thus, “to survive a motion to dismiss, 

counterclaims for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity must meet the pleading 

requirements set forth in Iqbal and Twombly.” SecurityProfiling, LLC v. Trend Micro Am., Inc., 

616CV01165RWSJDL, 2017 WL 5150682, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 21, 2017), report and 

recommendation adopted, 616CV01165RWSJDL, 2017 WL 1950810 (E.D. Tex. May 11, 2017)

B. Defendants’ declaratory judgment counterclaims fail to state a claim. 

Defendants’ counterclaim for non-infringement contains no supporting facts—much less 

sufficient facts—to plausibly allege a counterclaim for non-infringement. Likewise, Defendants’ 

counterclaim for invalidity merely lists the statutory provisions without providing any facts 

supporting Defendants’ counterclaim for invalidity. Thus, “both the counterclaims of 

non-infringement and invalidity are conclusory and unsupported by any factual allegations” and 

“do not meet the particularized pleading requirements set forth in Iqbal and Twombly to 

sufficiently state a claim for relief.” See SecurityProfiling, LLC, 2017 WL 5150682, at *5 (E.D. 

Tex. Mar. 21, 2017), report and recommendation adopted, 2017 WL 1950810 (E.D. Tex. May 11, 

2017). Defendants’ counterclaims should be dismissed.

If Defendants’ counterclaims are not dismissed, Defendants should be required to amend 

to put Plaintiff on fair notice of the factual allegations supporting Defendants’ claims. e-Watch, 

Inc. v. ACTi Corp. Inc., SA-12-CA-695, 2013 WL 12121105, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 22, 2013)

Case 6:20-cv-00540-ADA Document 23 Filed 10/06/20 Page 2 of 4
MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIMS Page 3

(requiring defendant to amend counterclaim that simply “list[ed] the elements of the claim without 

providing the requisite guidance in identifying the factual basis for each claim of invalidity”). 

Therefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court enter an order dismissing 

Defendants’ counterclaims.

Dated: October 6, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Travis Richins

James L. Etheridge

Texas State Bar No. 24059147

Ryan S. Loveless

Texas State Bar No. 24036997

Brett A. Mangrum

Texas State Bar No. 24065671

Travis Lee Richins

Texas State Bar No. 24061296

ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP, PLLC

2600 E. Southlake Blvd., Suite 120 / 324

Southlake, Texas 76092

Telephone: (817) 470-7249

Facsimile: (817) 887-5950

Jim@EtheridgeLaw.com

Ryan@EtheridgeLaw.com

Brett@EtheridgeLaw.com

Travis@EtheridgeLaw.com

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

Case 6:20-cv-00540-ADA Document 23 Filed 10/06/20 Page 3 of 4
MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTERCLAIMS Page 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on October 6, 2020 the foregoing document was served upon all counsel of 

record via the court’s electronic filing system in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure.

/s/ Travis Richins

Travis Richins

Case 6:20-cv-00540-ADA Document 23 Filed 10/06/20 Page 4 of 4