APPENDIX A
- 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.

DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC., DELL INC., 

EMC CORPORATION, AND VMWARE, 

INC.,

Defendants.

Case No. 6:20-cv-00480-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

LETTER OF REQUEST: REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE 

PURSUANT TO THE HAGUE CONVENTION OF 18 MARCH 1970 ON THE TAKING 

OF EVIDENCE ABROAD IN CIVIL OR COMMERCIAL MATTERS

GREETINGS:

1. Sender The Honorable Judge Alan D Albright, District Judge

United States District Court for the Western District 

of Texas, Waco Division

800 Franklin Avenue Room 301

Waco, Texas 76701

USA

2. Central Authority of the 

Requested State

Rechtbank Den Haag

Sector Civiel & Algemene Zaken

Postbus 20302

2500 EH THE HAGUE

The Netherlands 

evidence.convention.rb.den.haag@rechtspraak.nl

3. Person to whom the executed 

request is to be returned

This Court; representatives of the parties as indicated 

below; the witnesses from whom evidence is 

requested as indicated below.
- 2 -

4. Specification of the date by 

which the requesting authority 

requires receipt of the response 

to the Letter of Request

June 1, 2021

In conformity with Article 1 of the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad 

in Civil or Commercial Matters (the “Convention”), the undersigned has the honor to submit the 

following request. This Court respectfully requests that the District court of The Hague, the 

Netherlands, which has been designated pursuant to the Convention as the Dutch Central 

Authority, through your usual and proper process, compel the appearance of the Dutch individual 

Arie Johannes de Heer to give evidence for use at the trial of the above-captioned matters. In 

addition, this Court requests that the Court of The Hague requires Arie Johannes de Heer to 

produce copies of specific documents in his possession, or which he has at his disposal, for 

inspection. Since, according to Dutch case law, the Convention cannot provide more possibilities 

than national law, the undersigned emphasizes that this Letter of Request seeks the use of the 

Dutch national procedures relating to document production in conformity with Article 843a of the 

Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (“DCCP”).

Article 843a DCCP requires that the applicant has a legitimate interest in the production of 

such documents, and also that the requested documents are related to a legal relationship to which 

the applicant or its legal predecessor is a party. It is not required that the person who has to produce 

documents is a party to the aforementioned legal relationship.1

 Furthermore, the application 

should pertain to specific documents, in which context it is noted that the documents need not be 

designated individually: a general description of documents pertaining to a specific subject matter 

 1 See Supreme Court of the Netherlands 10 July 2015, RvdW 2015/1410.
- 3 -

regarding a certain time frame2 or a file and the involved persons and/or authorities may qualify 

as sufficiently specific.3

Regarding the first requirement, the applicant Defendants have a legitimate interest in the 

requested documents because these documents are necessary for a full and fair determination of 

the validity and enforceability of the Patents in Suit. In this context, the undersigned also refers to 

section 8 (subsection and b) from this Request for additional information on the interest of 

applicant Defendants in the production of the relevant documents. Applicant Defendants are 

parties to legal proceedings alleging patent infringement pending in the United States. According 

to article 1019a DCCP, unlawful acts such as an alleged patent infringement are considered to be 

a legal relationship within the meaning of Article 843a DCCP. Under Article 843a DCCP 

documents can also be requested with a view to foreign legal proceedings.4 Finally, applicant 

Defendants request access to specific documents, as listed in Exhibit A1.

For reasons of completeness, it should be noted that section 4(a) of article 843a DCCP 

provides that a party controlling documents that should be produced shall not be obliged to do so 

if there are overriding interests not to do so or if it can be assumed that justice can be properly 

administered without the requested documents. However, in the context of intellectual property 

disputes, Article 1019a section (3) provides that section (4) of Article 843a DCCP is not applicable. 

At the same time, Article 1019a (3) DCCP provides that the application shall be refused if the 

confidentiality of any confidential information is not safeguarded. In this context it is noted that 

the Defendants shall not use the documents for any purpose other than the present litigation, and 

 2 See, e.g., District Court Rotterdam 1 April 2009, BI1747. 3 See Supreme Court of the Netherlands 26 October 2012, NJ 2013/220 (Theodoor Gillissen 

Bankiers N.V.). 4 Supreme Court of the Netherlands 8 June 2012 (Abu Dhabi Islamic Bank vs. ABN AMRO), 

ECLI:NL:HR:2012:BV8510.
- 4 -

are prepared to give further undertakings if the Dutch Court deems necessary in the interests of the 

parties involved. 

This request is in the interests of justice, as the requested deposition and documents are 

necessary for a full and fair determination of the matters in issue between the parties in the 

proceeding pending in this Court.

5. a. Requesting Judicial 

Authority (Article 3, a)

The Honorable Judge Alan D Albright, District Judge

United States District Court for the Western District 

of Texas, Waco Division

800 Franklin Avenue Room 301

Waco, Texas 76701

USA

b. To the competent Authority 

of (Article 3, a)

The Netherlands

c. Names of the case and any 

identifying number

WSOU Investments LLC v. Dell Technologies Inc.

Case No. 6:20-cv-00480-ADA, United States District 

Court for the Western District of Texas

6. Names and addresses of the parties and their representative (including representatives in 

the requested State) (Article 3, b)

a. Plaintiffs WSOU Investments LLC

Representatives WSOU is represented by:

Brett Aaron Mangrum

Etheridge Law Group

2600 East Southlake Blvd., Suite 120-324

Southlake, TX 76092

469-401-2659

Fax: 817-887-5950

Email: brett@etheridgelaw.com

Jeffrey Huang

Etheridge Law Group PLLC

2600 East Southlake Blvd
- 5 -

Suite 120-324

Southlake, TX 76092

408-797-9059

Fax: 817-887-5950

Email: jhuang@etheridgelaw.com

Ryan Scott Loveless

Etheridge Law Group PLLC

2600 E Southlake Blvd

Suite 120-324

Southlake, TX 76092

972-292-8303

Fax: 817-887-5950

Email: ryan@etheridgelaw.com

James L. Etheridge

Etheridge Law Group, PLLC

2600 E. Southlake Blvd., Suite 120-324

Southlake, TX 76092

817-470-7249

Fax: 817-887-5950

Email: jim@etheridgelaw.com

b. Defendants Dell Technologies Inc., Dell Inc., EMC Corporation, 

and VMware Inc. (collectively “Defendants”)

Representatives Dell Technologies Inc., Dell Inc., EMC Corporation, 

and VMware Inc. are represented by:

Shelton Coburn LLP:

Barry K. Shelton

Shelton Coburn LLP

311 RR 620 S

Suite 205

Austin, TX 78734-4775

512-263-2165

Fax: 512-263-2166

Email: bshelton@sheltoncoburn.com

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP:

 Benjamin Hershkowitz 

Brian A. Rosenthal

Allen Kathir
- 6 -

Kyanna Sabanoglu

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

200 Park Avenue

New York, NY 20036-5306

Telephone: (212) 351-2410 

Email: BHershkowitz@gibsondunn.com

 BRosenthal@gibsondunn.com

 AKathir@gibsondunn.com

KSabanoglu@gibsondunn.com

Y. Ernest Hsin

Jaysen S. Chung

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

555 Mission St., Ste. 3000

San Francisco, CA 94105-0921

Telephone: (415) 393-8200

Email: EHsin@gibsondunn.com

 JSChung@gibsondunn.com

Ryan K. Iwahashi

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

1881 Page Mill Rd.

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1211

Telephone: (650) 849-5300

Email: RIwahashi@gibsondunn.com

The Defendant has appointed legal counsel in the 

Netherlands to pursue and assist with the commission 

to take evidence. The details of the Defendant’s legal 

counsel in the Netherlands are:

Barbara F.H. Rumora-Scheltema 

NautaDutilh N.V. 

Beethovenstraat 400

1082 PR Amsterdam

The Netherlands

Tel: +31 20 71 71 449 |Fax: +31 20 71 71 361 

Email: barbara.rumora-scheltema@nautadutilh.com

Anne Marie E. Verschuur 

NautaDutilh N.V. 

Beethovenstraat 400

1082 PR Amsterdam

The Netherlands

Tel: +31 20 71 71 821 |Fax: +31 20 71 71 335

Email: annemarie.verschuur@nautadutilh.com
- 7 -

c. Other parties N/A

Representatives N/A

7. a. Nature of the proceedings 

(divorce, paternity, breach of 

contract, product liability, etc.) 

(Article 3, c)

Civil action alleging patent infringement under the 

patent laws of the United States.

b. Summary of complaint Plaintiff alleges that it is the sole owner of all rights, 

title, and interest in, inter alia, the following United 

States patent: U.S. Patent No. 7,539,133 (the “’133 

patent”), titled Method and Apparatus For Preventing 

Congestion in Load-Balancing Networks, which issued 

on May 26, 2009.

Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants infringe the ’133 

patent and seeks money damages.

Discovery sought in this Letter of Request is relevant 

in Case No. 6:20-cv-00480-ADA.

c. Summary of defense and 

counterclaim

In defense against WSOU’s claims of patent 

infringement of the ’133 patent, Defendants assert, 

inter alia, that they do not infringe any of claims of the 

’133 patent, directly or indirectly, and that the claims 

of the ’133 patent are invalid unenforceable. 

Arie Johannes de Heer has knowledge of the facts

relevant to Defendants’ defenses. Arie Johannes de 

Heer is relevant to the action by virtue of being an 

inventor of the ’133 patent. Arie Johannes de Heer

holds critical facts to this case, including facts relevant 

to a number of defenses raised by Defendants and any 

potential damages, including information related to the 

prosecution of the ’133 patent; prior uses and/or sales 

or products and services incorporating the ’133 patent, 

publications related to the concepts claimed in the ’133

patent; commercialization, production and/or 

commercial embodiments related to the ’133 patent; 

the state of the art at the time of the alleged invention 

and/or filing of the applications related to the ’133
- 8 -

patent; the ownership and financial interests in the ’133

patent; conception, diligence and/or reduction to 

practice of the concepts claimed in the ’133 patent; and 

the disclosure of the claimed invention of the asserted 

patent. As well as licensing of and/or agreements 

covering the ’133 patent. And, financial knowledge 

including valuation and royalties associated with the 

’133 patent or any license and/or agreement covering 

the ’133 patent; and other financial interests (including 

revenue, costs, expenses and profits) as well as 

financial interests and information related to the ’133

patent. 

d. Other necessary information 

or documents

Arie Johannes de Heer, a resident of the Netherlands, 

is one of the inventors on the ’133 patent.

Because the validity of the ’133 patent is a critical issue 

in this proceeding, this Court is endorsing Defendants’ 

request to take the deposition testimony of Arie 

Johannes de Heer and require Arie Johannes de Heer to 

produce specific documents in his possession, or which 

he has at his disposal.

Arie Johannes de Heer resides in the municipality of 

Woerden, The Netherlands.

Arie Johannes de Heer previously resided at 

Brederostraat 278, 7552 KL Hengelo, The 

Netherlands.

8. a. Evidence to be obtained or 

other judicial act to be 

performed (Article 3d),

In order to present their defenses that the ’133 patent

is not infringed, invalid, and unenforceable, 

Defendants require access to highly relevant evidence 

in the possession of Arie Johannes de Heer regarding 

the conception and reduction to practice of the 

invention claimed in the ’133 patent. In particular, 

Defendants have a reasonable interest in determining 

when the claimed inventions were conceived and 

reduced to practice. Finally, it is important for the 

position of Defendants that the roles and contributions 

of Arie Johannes de Heer, and any others to the 

conception and/or reduction to practice of the 

invention claimed in the ’133 patent are clarified.

Defendants request the production of certain relevant 

documents that are, or most likely are, in the 
- 9 -

possession Arie Johannes de Heer, or which he most 

likely has at his disposal. A list of the requested 

documents is attached as Exhibit A1.

To further clarify the evidence sought, attached as 

Exhibit A2 is an outline of the topics and issues about 

which counsel for Defendants intends to inquire of Arie 

Johannes de Heer.

b. Purpose of the evidence or 

judicial act sought

With respect to the ’133 patent, Arie Johannes de 

Heer has information and knowledge relating to the 

prosecution of the ’133 patent; prior uses and/or sales 

or products and services incorporating the ’133 patent, 

publications related to the concepts claimed in the 

’133 patent; commercialization, production and/or 

commercial embodiments related to the ’133 patent; 

the state of the art at the time of the alleged invention 

and/or filing of the applications related to the ’133 

patent; the ownership and financial interests in the 

’133 patent; conception, diligence and/or reduction to 

practice of the concepts claimed in the ’133 patent; 

and the disclosure of the claimed invention of the 

asserted patent. As well as licensing of and/or 

agreements covering the ’133 patent. And, financial 

knowledge including valuation and royalties 

associated with the ’133 patent or any license and/or 

agreement covering the ’133 patent; and other 

financial interests (including revenue, costs, expenses 

and profits) as well as financial interests and 

information related to the ’133 patent. 

This evidence is directly relevant to Defendants’ claims 

that the ’133 patent is not infringed, invalid, and 

unenforceable and to determine any alleged damages 

under United States patent law.

9. Identity and address of any 

person to be examined (Article 

3, e)

Arie Johannes de Heer

Address details: 

Unlisted address in the municipality of Woerden

The Netherlands

Previous known address details: 

Brederostraat 278, 7552 KL 

Hengelo, The Netherlands
- 10 -

10. Questions to be put to the 

persons to be examined or 

statement of the subject matter 

about which they are to be 

examined (Article 3, f)

See Exhibit A2

11. Documents or other property to 

be inspected (Article 3, g)

See Exhibit A1

12. Any requirement that the 

evidence be given on oath or 

affirmation and any special form 

to be used (Article 3, h)

We respectfully request that the testimony be taken 

under oath.

13. Special methods or procedure to 

be followed (e.g. oral or in 

writing, verbatim, transcript or 

summary, cross-examination, 

etc.) (Article 3, i) and 9)

This Court respectfully requests that Arie Johannes de 

Heer be summoned by the executing court to appear 

in court to be heard.

This Court respectfully requests that the executing 

authority commission one of the United States Counsel 

for Defendants as a private examiner to ask questions 

about the topics laid down in Exhibit A2, under 

supervision of a Dutch magistrate judge, and to pose 

such further questions as may be warranted by the 

answers given by Arie Johannes de Heer. The Court 

further requests that the judge presiding over the 

questioning of Arie Johannes de Heer permit 

representatives of the parties listed above in Section 6 

to attend and to ask follow-up questions and crossexamine Arie Johannes de Heer at the culmination of 

the initial examination, as may be warranted by the 

answers given during the initial examination. 

This Court respectfully requests that the testimony be 

taken in English, and that if needed, a translator be 

permitted to attend and translate any questions asked or 
- 11 -

testimony elicited by the examiner(s) during the 

deposition. 

This Court respectfully requests that the examination 

be (partially) conducted via video conference to allow 

U.S. counsel to join the hearing.

This Court further requests that the testimony be 

recorded on videotape, and that a court reporter be 

permitted to attend the deposition and create a verbatim 

written transcript of the proceedings.

This Court further requests that Arie Johannes de Heer

be directed to produce the documents identified in the 

attached Exhibit A1 not later than three weeks before 

the date of the examination. 

This Court further requests that all books, papers, and 

other documents or articles that Arie Johannes de Heer

identifies at the oral examination be marked as exhibits 

and attested. We respectfully request that you return 

all such materials under cover duly sealed and 

addressed to the Netherland counsel:

Barbara F.H. Rumora-Scheltema 

NautaDutilh N.V. 

Beethovenstraat 400

1082 PR Amsterdam

The Netherlands

Tel: +31 20 71 71 449 |Fax: +31 20 71 71 361 

Email: barbara.rumora-scheltema@nautadutilh.com

Anne Marie E. Verschuur 

NautaDutilh N.V. 

Beethovenstraat 400

1082 PR Amsterdam

The Netherlands

Tel: +31 20 71 71 821 |Fax: +31 20 71 71 335

Email: annemarie.verschuur@nautadutilh.com

Given the complexity of the case, the Court 

respectfully requests not to impose any time limits for 

the deposition of Arie Johannes de Heer.

In the event that the evidence cannot be taken in the 

manner requested, the Court requests that the evidence 
- 12 -

be taken in accordance with the directions of the 

presiding judge, taking into account the relevant 

provisions of the DCCP.

14. Request for notification of the 

time and place for the execution 

of the Request and identity and 

address of any person to be 

notified (Article 7)

This Court respectfully requests that you notify this 

Court; the representatives of the parties as indicated 

above; the witness from whom evidence is requested as 

indicated above; and such other person(s) that you 

deem proper.

15. Request for attendance or 

participation of judicial 

personnel of the requesting 

authority at the execution of the 

Letter of Request (Article 8)

No judicial personnel of the requesting authority will 

attend or participate.

16. Specification of privilege or 

duty to refuse to give evidence 

under the law of the State of 

origin (Article 11, b)

Defendants believe that Arie Johannes de Heer does not 

benefit from any privilege, and does not endorse the 

assertion of any such privilege or duty.

17. The fees and costs incurred 

which are reimbursable under 

the second paragraph of Article 

14 or under Article 26 of the 

Convention will be borne by

Defendants will bear the reimbursable costs associated 

with this request in accordance with the provisions of 

the Hague Convention.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this ____ day of ______________, 2020.

The Honorable Alan D Albright

U.S. District Court Judge
EXHIBIT A1
2

DOCUMENTS REQUESTED

Defendants Dell Technologies Inc., Dell Inc., EMC Corporation, and VMware, Inc. 

(collectively, “Defendants”) request the production of the documents described below.

DEFINITIONS

The following definitions are applicable to terms employed in responding to this request:

1. “Accused Product” or “Accused Products” shall refer to any device, product, or other thing 

that Plaintiff is permitted to accuse of infringing the Asserted Patent in this Action. A copy 

of the Complaint in case number 6:20-cv-00480-ADA is attached as Exhibit A3. In 

referring to any device, product, or other thing as an “Accused Product,” Defendants in no 

way communicate their agreement that it infringes the Asserted Patent.

2. “Action” shall refer to the above-captioned proceeding in the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas, with case number 6:20-cv-00480-ADA.

3. “Asserted Claim” shall refer to each claim of the Asserted Patent that Plaintiff contends 

Defendants infringe. 

4. “Asserted Patent” shall refer to U.S. Patent No. 7,539,133 and any patent applications 

related thereto. 

5. “Communication” shall mean, without limitation, any written, oral, or other transmission 

of information, including but not limited to emails.

6. “Complaint” shall refer to the Complaint (including exhibits) that Plaintiff filed on June 2, 

2020 as docket number 1 in this Action, as may be amended. 

7. “Concerning,” “refer(s) to,” “related to,” “reflecting,” and “relating to” shall mean directly 

or indirectly relating to, referring to, mentioning, reflecting, pertaining to, evidencing, 

illustrating, involving, describing, discussing, commenting on, embodying, responding to, 
3

supporting, contradicting, or constituting (in whole or in part), as the context makes 

appropriate.

8. “Defendants” or “Defendant” shall refer to Dell Technologies Inc., Dell Inc., EMC 

Corporation, and VMware, Inc., and any and all of their then-current or prior subsidiaries, 

parents, affiliates, divisions, successors, predecessors, agents, employees, representatives, 

directors, officers, trustees, and attorneys, or any other person or entity acting in whole or 

in part in concert with any of the foregoing, directly or indirectly. 

9. “Document” shall include, without limitation, all documents, electronically stored 

information, and tangible things within the scope of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

including Rule 34. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 34 permits discovery of: “(A) 

documents or electronically stored information—including writings, drawings, graphs, 

charts, photographs, sound recordings, images, and other data or data compilations—stored 

in any medium from which information can be obtained either directly or, if necessary, 

after translation by the responding party into a reasonably usable form; or (B) any 

designated tangible things.” 

10. “Employee” shall refer to any officer, director, partner, employee, representative, or agent.

11. “Licensee(s)” shall refer to any entity having a license, assignment, covenant not to sue, or 

other understanding, written, oral or implied, that the entity has any rights to the Asserted 

Patent, any Related Patents, or any Related Applications, may practice one or more claims 

of the Asserted Patent and/or that Plaintiff will not file suit or otherwise enforce against 

that entity one or more claims of the Asserted Patent or any Related Patent or Related 

Application.
4

12. “Named Inventor” shall refer to any individual who is listed as an inventor on the Asserted 

Patent or any Related Patent or Related Application thereof.

13. “Person” shall refer to any natural person, firm, association, partnership, government 

agency, corporation, proprietorship, or other entity and its officers, directors, partners, 

employee, representatives, and agents.

14. The terms “Plaintiff,” and/or “WSOU” shall refer to the responding Plaintiff WSOU 

Investments, LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development, and any and all of its thencurrent or prior subsidiaries, parents, affiliates, divisions, successors, predecessors, agents, 

employees, representatives, directors, officers, trustees, and attorneys, or any other person 

or entity acting in whole or in part in concert with any of the foregoing, directly or 

indirectly.

15. “Prior Art” encompasses, without limitation, the subject matter described in each and every 

subdivision of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, and includes, but is not limited to, memoranda, 

notes, manuals, interviews, testing data, disclosures, prototypes, correspondence, 

drawings, papers, articles, patents, printed publications, public uses, demonstrations, offers 

for sale or license, and sales.

16. “Related Application(s)” means any and all applications related to the Asserted Patent, 

including any provisional or non-provisional applications, continuations, continuations- inpart, divisions, interferences, reexaminations, re-issues, parents, foreign counterpart 

applications, and any other applications disclosing, describing or claiming any invention 

disclosed, described or claimed in the Asserted Patent, or claiming the benefit of the filing 

date of any application whose benefit is claimed in the Asserted Patent, whether or not 

abandoned and whether or not issued.
5

17. “Related Patent(s)” means any and all U.S. or foreign patents based upon or related to any 

Related Application(s) or Asserted Patent, including any patents or applications that may 

have been opposed, reexamined, re-issued or subjected to any validity or nullity 

proceeding.

18. “Third Party” shall refer to any person other than Plaintiff or Defendants.

19. “You,” “Your,” “Yours” shall refer to Arie Johannes de Heer, and any and all of its thencurrent or prior subsidiaries, parents, affiliates, divisions, successors, predecessors, agents, 

employees, representatives, directors, officers, trustees, and attorneys, or any other person 

or entity acting in whole or in part in concert with any of the foregoing, directly or 

indirectly.

20. “Product(s)” means a machine, manufacture, apparatus, device, instrument, mechanism, 

appliance, software, service, process, or an assemblage of components/parts (either

individually or collectively) that are designed to function together electronically, 

mechanically, or otherwise, including any offered for sale or under development. 

21. Any pronouns shall be construed to refer to the masculine, feminine, or neutral gender, in 

singular or plural, as in each case is most appropriate.

22. The singular form of any word shall be construed to also include the plural, and vice-versa.

23. The word “each” shall be construed to mean “each and every.”

24. The words “and” and “or” shall be construed conjunctively or disjunctively, whichever 

makes the request more inclusive.

25. The words “any” and “all” shall be construed to mean “any and all.”

INSTRUCTIONS

1. In responding to the document requests set forth below, please furnish all responsive and 

non-privileged information that is available to You.
6

2. If production of any responsive Documents are being withheld on the ground of the 

attorney-client privilege, attorney work product, or any other privilege, immunity, or 

protection, please provide a privilege log with the following information for each such 

Document: (a) the name of the Document; (b) the name of the person(s) who prepared the 

Document; (c) the name of the person(s) to whom the Document was directed or circulated; 

(d) the date(s) on which the Document was prepared or transmitted; (e) the name of the 

person(s) now in possession of the Document; (f) a description of the subject matter of the 

Document; and (g) the specific nature of the privilege or protection claimed with respect 

to the Document.

3. The Court’s interim protective order in the Order Governing Proceedings entered in this 

manner shall govern the disclosure of confidential information in this Action. See Exhibit 

A4 at pp. 3–4.

4. Upon entry of a final protective order in this manner that protective order shall govern the 

disclosure of confidential information in this Action.

DOCUMENT REQUESTS

1. Documents and Communications concerning the preparation, filing, or 

prosecution of any of the patent applications related to the Asserted Patent.1

 This includes, but 

is not limited to:

a. A complete copy of the prosecution history and prosecution files for the 

 1 Such materials will be relevant to determining the scope of the patents in claim construction 

and to defenses, such as prosecution history estoppel, non-infringement, invalidity (including 

obviousness, secondary considerations regarding obviousness, anticipation, patent-eligibility, 

written description, indefiniteness, and enablement), and inequitable conduct. Such materials 

will also be relevant to defenses relating to damages, including the availability of noninfringing alternatives.
7

Asserted Patent;

b. Drafts of the patent applications, drawings, and documents in the 

possession, custody, or control of You or any attorney or agent involved 

in the prosecution of the Asserted Patent, except to the extent these 

documents are entitled to attorney-client privilege or work product 

protection;

c. Patents, patent applications, or other publications reviewed in connection 

with the prosecution by anyone who participated in the prosecution of the 

Asserted Patent; 

d. Prior Art cited or considered in connection with the prosecution of the 

Asserted Patent;

e. Memoranda and Communications regarding the prosecution of the 

Asserted Patent; and

f. Documents referring or relating to or evidencing any decision by You, on 

Your behalf, or that you are aware of regarding what documents 

(including without limitation patents or printed publications) to cite 

during prosecution of the Asserted Patent.

2. Documents and Communications concerning the preparation, filing, or 

prosecution of any of the patent applications related to Related Patents and Related Applications.2

 

 2 Such materials will be relevant to determining the scope of the patents in claim construction 

and to defenses, such as prosecution history estoppel, non-infringement, invalidity (including 

obviousness, secondary considerations regarding obviousness, anticipation, patent-eligibility, 

written description, indefiniteness, and enablement), and inequitable conduct. Such materials 

will also be relevant to defenses relating to damages, including the availability of noninfringing alternatives.
8

This includes, but is not limited to:

a. A complete copy of the prosecution histories and prosecution files for 

any Related Patents and Related Applications;

b. Drafts of patent applications, drawings, and documents in the possession, 

custody, or control of You or any attorney or agent involved in the 

prosecution of any Related Patents or Related Applications, except to the 

extent these documents are entitled to attorney-client privilege or work 

product protection;

c. Patents, patent applications, or other publications reviewed in connection 

with the prosecution by anyone who participated in the prosecution of 

any Related Patents or Related Applications; 

d. Prior Art cited or considered in connection with the prosecution of any 

Related Patents or Related Applications;

e. Memoranda and Communications regarding the prosecution of any 

Related Patents or Related Applications; and

f. Documents referring or relating to or evidencing any decision by You, on 

Your behalf, or that you are aware of regarding what documents 

(including without limitation patents or printed publications) to cite 

during prosecution of any Related Patents or Related Applications.

3. Documents and Communications related to each effort by You, on Your behalf, 

or that you are aware of to obtain patent protection in the United States or in the countries 

designated in the PCT application for the Asserted Patent, for the subject matter described and/or 

claimed in the Asserted Patent, covering the period from March 23, 2006 through the last action 
9

taken by or on behalf of the inventor or any assignee in connection with the prosecution of the 

Asserted Patent or any Related Patent or Related Application.3

4. Communications, studies, comparisons, reports, surveys, evaluations, opinions, or 

memorandums regarding the conception of the subject matter described and/or claimed in the 

Asserted Patent, prior to March 23, 2006.

4

5. Communications, studies, comparisons, reports, surveys, evaluations, opinions, or 

memorandums regarding the testing, design, and development of the subject matter described 

and/or claimed in the Asserted Patent, prior to August 2, 2017.5

6. Communications, studies, comparisons, reports, surveys, evaluations, opinions, or 

memorandums regarding the reduction to practice of the subject matter described and/or claimed 

in the Asserted Patent, prior to August 2, 2017.6

7. Statements, articles, abstracts, publications, and Product literature made by, or 

 3 Such materials will be relevant to determining the scope of the patents in claim construction 

and to defenses, such as non-infringement, and invalidity (including obviousness, secondary 

considerations regarding obviousness, anticipation, patent-eligibility, written description, 

indefiniteness, and enablement). 4 Such materials will be relevant to determining the scope of the patents in claim construction 

and to defenses, such as non-infringement and invalidity (including obviousness, secondary 

considerations regarding obviousness, anticipation, patent-eligibility, written description, 

indefiniteness, and enablement). Such materials will also be relevant to defenses, such as 

improper inventorship, derivation, and inequitable conduct. 5 Such materials will be relevant to determining the scope of the patents in claim construction 

and to defenses, such as non-infringement and invalidity (including obviousness, secondary 

considerations regarding obviousness, anticipation, patent-eligibility, written description, 

indefiniteness, and enablement). Such materials will also be relevant to defenses, such as 

improper inventorship, derivation, and inequitable conduct. 6 Such materials will be relevant to determining the scope of the patents in claim construction 

and to defenses, such as non-infringement and invalidity (including obviousness, secondary 

considerations regarding obviousness, anticipation, patent-eligibility, written description, 

indefiniteness, and enablement). Such materials will also be relevant to defenses, such as 

improper inventorship, derivation, and inequitable conduct. 
10

under the direction of, any of the Named Inventors concerning the subject matter described and/or 

claimed in the Asserted Patent, prior to August 2, 2017.7

8. Laboratory notebooks, technical memoranda, technical files, diaries, appointment 

calendars, and trip reports, in complete unredacted form, of the Named Inventors, or made under 

the direction of the Named Inventors, concerning the subject matter described and/or claimed in 

the Asserted Patent, prior to August 2, 2017.8

9. Documents sufficient to identify any Person (whether or not named as an inventor) 

involved in the conception, research, testing, design, development, and reduction to practice of 

any element of any of the inventions described and/or claimed in the Asserted Patent, and to 

understand their role, prior to August 2, 2017.9

10. Communications, studies, comparisons, reports, surveys, evaluations, opinions, or 

memorandums regarding the conception of the subject matter described and/or claimed in Related 

Patents or Related Applications, prior to March 23, 2006.

10

 7 Such materials will be relevant to determining the scope of the patents in claim construction 

and to defenses, such as non-infringement and invalidity (including obviousness, secondary 

considerations regarding obviousness, anticipation, patent-eligibility, written description, 

indefiniteness, and enablement). Such materials will also be relevant to defenses, such as 

improper inventorship, derivation, and inequitable conduct. 8 Such materials will be relevant to determining the scope of the patents in claim construction 

and to defenses, such as non-infringement and invalidity (including obviousness, secondary 

considerations regarding obviousness, anticipation, patent-eligibility, written description, 

indefiniteness, and enablement). Such materials will also be relevant to defenses, such as 

improper inventorship, derivation, and inequitable conduct. 9 Such materials will be relevant to determining the scope of the patents in claim construction 

and to defenses, such as non-infringement and invalidity (including obviousness, secondary 

considerations regarding obviousness, anticipation, patent-eligibility, written description, 

indefiniteness, and enablement). Such materials will also be relevant to defenses, such as 

improper inventorship, derivation, and inequitable conduct. 10 Such materials will be relevant to determining the scope of the patents in claim construction 

and to defenses, such as non-infringement and invalidity (including obviousness, secondary 

considerations regarding obviousness, anticipation, patent-eligibility, written description, 
11

11. Communications, studies, comparisons, reports, surveys, evaluations, opinions, or 

memorandums regarding the testing, design, and development of the subject matter described 

and/or claimed in Related Patents or Related Applications, prior to August 2, 2017.11

12. Communications, studies, comparisons, reports, surveys, evaluations, opinions, or 

memorandums regarding the reduction to practice of the subject matter described and/or claimed 

in Related Patents or Related Applications, prior to August 2, 2017.12

13. Statements, articles, abstracts, publications, and Product literature made by, or 

under the direction of, any of the Named Inventors concerning the subject matter described and/or 

claimed in Related Patents or Related Applications, prior to August 2, 2017.13

14. Laboratory notebooks, technical memoranda, technical files, diaries, appointment 

calendars, and trip reports, in complete unredacted form, of the Named Inventors, or made under 

the direction of the Named Inventors, concerning the subject matter described and/or claimed in 

Related Patents or Related Applications, prior to August 2, 2017.14

 

indefiniteness, and enablement). Such materials will also be relevant to defenses, such as 

improper inventorship, derivation, and inequitable conduct. 11 Such materials will be relevant to determining the scope of the patents in claim construction 

and to defenses, such as non-infringement and invalidity (including obviousness, secondary 

considerations regarding obviousness, anticipation, patent-eligibility, written description, 

indefiniteness, and enablement). Such materials will also be relevant to defenses, such as 

improper inventorship, derivation, and inequitable conduct. 12 Such materials will be relevant to determining the scope of the patents in claim construction 

and to defenses, such as non-infringement and invalidity (including obviousness, secondary 

considerations regarding obviousness, anticipation, patent-eligibility, written description, 

indefiniteness, and enablement). Such materials will also be relevant to defenses, such as 

improper inventorship, derivation, and inequitable conduct. 13 Such materials will be relevant to determining the scope of the patents in claim construction 

and to defenses, such as non-infringement and invalidity (including obviousness, secondary 

considerations regarding obviousness, anticipation, patent-eligibility, written description, 

indefiniteness, and enablement). Such materials will also be relevant to defenses, such as 

improper inventorship, derivation, and inequitable conduct. 14 Such materials will be relevant to determining the scope of the patents in claim construction 

and to defenses, such as non-infringement and invalidity (including obviousness, secondary 
12

15. Documents sufficient to identify any Person (whether or not named as an inventor) 

involved in the conception, research, testing, design, and reduction to practice (actual or 

constructive), or other development of any aspect (for example, any element and/or limitation) of 

any of the inventions described and/or claimed in Related Patents or Related Applications, and 

to understand their role, prior to August 2, 2017.15

16. Communications, studies, comparisons, reports, surveys, evaluations, opinions, or 

memorandums that concern or show the structure, functions, or operation of, or that constitute 

embodiments of, any invention disclosed or claimed in the Asserted Patent, regardless of whether 

such embodiment was commercialized, and regardless of whether or not it worked properly, from 

March 23, 2006 to August 2, 2017.16

17. Documents and Communications relating to Your assignment policies with 

inventors applicable to the invention described and/or claimed in the Asserted Patent.17 This 

 

considerations regarding obviousness, anticipation, patent-eligibility, written description, 

indefiniteness, and enablement). Such materials will also be relevant to defenses, such as 

improper inventorship, derivation, and inequitable conduct. 15 Such materials will be relevant to determining the scope of the patents in claim construction 

and to defenses, such as non-infringement and invalidity (including obviousness, secondary 

considerations regarding obviousness, anticipation, patent-eligibility, written description, 

indefiniteness, and enablement). Such materials will also be relevant to defenses, such as 

improper inventorship, derivation, and inequitable conduct. 16 Such materials will be relevant to determining the scope of the patents in claim construction 

and to defenses, such as non-infringement, and invalidity (including obviousness, secondary 

considerations regarding obviousness, anticipation, patent-eligibility, written description, 

indefiniteness, and enablement). Such materials will also be relevant to defenses relating to 

damages, including the availability of non-infringing alternatives and failure to mark. 17 Such materials will be relevant to issue regarding Plaintiffs standing to bring the current suit 

and joinder of the proper parties. Such materials will also be relevant to quantifying any 

alleged damages pursuant the Georgia-Pacific factors, which require consideration of the: 

“established profitability of the product made under the patent”; “the character of the 

commercial embodiment of it as owned and produced by the licensor”; and “portion of the 

realizable profit that should be credited to the invention”; among others things. GeorgiaPacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116, 1119–20 (S.D.N.Y. 1970). 

Courts in the United States consider these Georgia-Pacific factors when determining a 
13

includes but is not limited to:

a. Assignment agreements with the inventors of the inventions described 

and/or claimed in the Asserted Patent;

b. Cost-sharing or profit-sharing agreements with the inventors of the 

inventions described and/or claimed in the Asserted Patent; and

c. Remuneration agreements with inventors of the inventions described 

and/or claimed in the Asserted Patent.

18. Communications, studies, comparisons, reports, surveys, evaluations, opinions, or 

memorandums concerning any of the following activities with regard to the subject matter 

described and/or claimed in the Asserted Patent:

a. First written description and/or drawing of such subject matter;

b. First publication of such subject matter;

c. First promotion of such subject matter;

d. First advertisement of such subject matter;

e. First offer for sale of such subject matter;

f. First sale of such subject matter;

g. First public disclosure of such subject matter; and

h. First public use of such subject matter.18

19. Documents concerning the making, using, testing, selling, or disclosure of any 

 

reasonable royalty for patent infringement damages. See, e.g., Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. 

Gateway, Inc., 580 F. 3d 1301, 1324–37 (Fed. Cir. 2009). 18 Such materials will be relevant to defenses, such as invalidity (including obviousness, 

secondary considerations regarding obviousness, and anticipation) and inequitable conduct. 
14

embodiment described and/or claimed in the Asserted Patent, or any Product, process, equipment, 

or service embodying or using such invention, prior to March 23, 2006.19

20. Documents relating to any Prior Art search performed by You, on Your behalf, or 

that you are aware of, relating to the Asserted Patent, including, but not limited to, any search 

methodology or results, prior to August 2, 2017.20

21. Documents relating to any Prior Art search performed by You, on Your behalf, or 

that you are aware of, relating to any Related Patent or Related Application, including, but not 

limited to, any search methodology or results, from November 8, 2006 to August 2, 2017.21

22. Communications, studies, comparisons, reports, surveys, evaluations, opinions, or 

memorandums regarding whether any claim in the Asserted Patent is invalid, valid, enforceable, 

or unenforceable (including any Prior Art or alleged Prior Art), prior to August 2, 2017.22

23. Documents that concern the commercial success (a secondary consideration 

regarding obviousness of the Asserted Patent as considered under 35 U.S.C. § 103) of any 

Product, process, equipment, or service that has a nexus to any invention claimed in the Asserted 

Patent (i.e., the Product, process, equipment, or service is “essentially the claimed invention”23), 

 19 Such materials will be relevant to defenses, such as invalidity (including obviousness, 

secondary considerations regarding obviousness, and anticipation) and inequitable conduct. 20 Such materials will be relevant to defenses, such as invalidity (including obviousness, 

secondary considerations regarding obviousness, and anticipation) and inequitable conduct. 21 Such materials will be relevant to defenses, such as invalidity (including obviousness, 

secondary considerations regarding obviousness, and anticipation) and inequitable conduct. 22 Such materials will be relevant to determining the scope of the patents in claim construction 

and to defenses, such as invalidity (including obviousness, secondary considerations 

regarding obviousness, anticipation, patent-eligibility, written description, indefiniteness, and 

enablement) and inequitable conduct. 23 Fox Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC, 944 F. 3d 1366, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
15

from March 23, 2006 to August 2, 2017.24 

24. Documents that concern any copying by others (a secondary consideration 

regarding obviousness of the Asserted Patent as considered under 35 U.S.C. § 103) of any 

invention claimed in the Asserted Patent, or of any Product, process, equipment, or service that 

embodies or uses such invention, from March 23, 2006 to August 2, 2017.25

25. Documents that concern any third party’s praise, criticism, acknowledgments, 

awards, or discussion of the significance (a secondary consideration regarding obviousness of the 

Asserted Patent as considered under 35 U.S.C. § 103) of any invention claimed in the Asserted 

Patent, or of any Product, process, equipment, or service that embodies or uses such invention, 

from March 23, 2006 to August 2, 2017.26 

26. Communications (or Documents relating thereto) between You and Plaintiff, from 

November 8, 2006 to the present, relating to:

a. The Asserted Patent or any inventions disclosed therein;

b. This Action (including, without limitation, the initiation of this Action 

and the actual or anticipated costs, profits, and outcome of this Action); 

 24 Such materials will be relevant to defenses, such as invalidity (including obviousness and 

secondary considerations regarding obviousness). Such materials will also be relevant to 

quantifying any alleged damages pursuant the Georgia-Pacific factors, which require 

consideration of the: “established profitability of the product made under the patent”; “the 

character of the commercial embodiment of it as owned and produced by the licensor”; and 

“portion of the realizable profit that should be credited to the invention”; among others 

things. Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116, 1119–20 

(S.D.N.Y. 1970). Courts in the United States consider these Georgia-Pacific factors when

determining a reasonable royalty for patent infringement damages. See, e.g., Lucent 

Technologies, Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F. 3d 1301, 1324–37 (Fed. Cir. 2009). 25 Such materials will be relevant to defenses, such as invalidity (including obviousness and 

secondary considerations regarding obviousness). 26 Such materials will be relevant to defenses, such as invalidity (including obviousness and 

secondary considerations regarding obviousness). 
16

and

c. Any Defendant, any of Defendants’ technology, or any of the Accused 

Products.27 

27. Communications (or Documents relating thereto) between You and any of the 

Named Inventors, from November 8, 2006 to the present, relating to:

a. The Asserted Patent or any inventions disclosed therein;

b. This Action (including, without limitation, the initiation of this Action 

and the actual or anticipated costs, profits, and outcome of this Action); 

and

c. Any Defendant, any of Defendants’ technology, or any of the Accused 

Products.28

28. Negotiations, agreements, draft agreements between You and Plaintiff, from 

November 8, 2006 to the present, relating to:

a. The Asserted Patent or any inventions disclosed therein;

b. This Action (including, the initiation of this Action and the actual or 

anticipated costs, profits, and outcome of this Action); or

c. Any Defendant, any of Defendants’ technology, or any of the Accused 

 27 Such materials will be relevant to quantifying any alleged damages. Such materials will also 

be relevant to defenses, such as non-infringement and invalidity (including obviousness, 

secondary considerations regarding obviousness, anticipation, patent-eligibility, written 

description, indefiniteness, and enablement). 28 Such materials will be relevant to quantifying any alleged damages. Such materials will also 

be relevant to defenses, such as non-infringement and invalidity (including obviousness, 

secondary considerations regarding obviousness, anticipation, patent-eligibility, written 

description, indefiniteness, and enablement). 
17

Products.29 

29. Negotiations, agreements, draft agreements between You and any Named 

Inventor, from November 8, 2006 to the present, relating to:

a. The Asserted Patent or any inventions disclosed therein;

b. This Action (including the initiation of this Action and the actual or 

anticipated costs, profits, and outcome of this Action); or

c. Any Defendant, any of Defendants’ technology, or any of the Accused 

Products.30

30. Documents and Communications concerning any statement, concern, or 

contention by You, any Named Inventor, counsel responsible for prosecuting the patent 

application and their agents, regarding the scope of any of the claims or the interpretation or 

construction of any term or phrase in the claims of the Asserted Patent, prior to August 2, 2017.31

31. Documents concerning the alleged infringement of any of the claims of the 

Asserted Patent, including studies, comparisons, reports, surveys, and any evaluation, opinion, 

memorandum, or report, comparing any of the Accused Products or any portion, feature, and/or 

 29 Such materials will be relevant to quantifying any alleged damages. Such materials will also 

be relevant to defenses, such as non-infringement and invalidity (including obviousness, 

secondary considerations regarding obviousness, anticipation, patent-eligibility, written 

description, indefiniteness, and enablement). 30 Such materials will be relevant to quantifying any alleged damages. Such materials will also 

be relevant to defenses, such as non-infringement and invalidity (including obviousness, 

secondary considerations regarding obviousness, anticipation, patent-eligibility, written 

description, indefiniteness, and enablement). 31 Such materials will be relevant to determining the scope of the patents in claim construction 

and to defenses, such as non-infringement and invalidity (including obviousness, secondary 

considerations regarding obviousness, anticipation, patent-eligibility, written description, 

indefiniteness, and enablement) and inequitable conduct. 
18

aspect thereof to any limitation in any claim of the Asserted Patent, prior to.32 

32. Documents and Communications concerning any decision to pursue or not to 

pursue a claim infringement of the Asserted Patent against any Defendant, from November 8, 

2006 to August 2, 2017.33 

33. Documents and Communications concerning any decision to pursue or not to 

pursue a claim infringement of any Related Patent against any Defendant, from November 8, 

2006 to August 2, 2017.34 

34. Documents comprising or memorializing any sworn statements, including 

affidavits, declarations, trial and deposition testimony concerning the subject matter of the 

Asserted Patent, by any of the Named Inventors, counsel responsible for prosecuting the patent 

application and their agents.t.35 

35. Documents comprising or memorializing any sworn statements, including 

affidavits, declarations, trial and deposition testimony concerning the subject matter of any 

Related Patents or Related Applications, by any of the Named Inventors or any person involved 

in the prosecution of the Asserted Patent.36 

 32 Such materials will be relevant to determining the scope of the patents in claim construction 

and to defenses, such as non-infringement. 33 Such materials will be relevant to quantifying any alleged damages pursuant the GeorgiaPacific factors, which require consideration of the “commercial relationship between the 

licensor and licensee”; among others things. Georgia-Pacific, 318 F. Supp. at 1119–20. 34 Such materials will be relevant to quantifying any alleged damages pursuant the GeorgiaPacific factors, which require consideration of the “commercial relationship between the 

licensor and licensee”; among others things. Georgia-Pacific, 318 F. Supp. at 1119–20. 35 Such materials will be relevant to determining the scope of the patents in claim construction 

and to defenses, such as non-infringement and invalidity (including obviousness, secondary 

considerations regarding obviousness, anticipation, patent-eligibility, written description, 

indefiniteness, and enablement) and inequitable conduct. 36 Such materials will be relevant to determining the scope of the patents in claim construction 

and to defenses, such as non-infringement and invalidity (including obviousness, secondary 
19

36. Business plans, marketing plans, marketing materials, advertising plans, 

advertising materials, promotional materials, and offers for sale, involving or concerning the 

Asserted Patent, from November 8, 2006 to August 2, 2017.37 

37. Documents concerning the relationship between You and potential or actual 

Licensees regarding the Asserted Patent, including agreements and draft agreements with such 

potential Licensees, Communications with such potential Licensees, and Documents exchanged 

with such potential Licensees that relate to such patents.38

38. Documents concerning the relationship between You and potential or actual 

Licensees regarding Related Patents or Related Applications, including agreements and draft 

agreements with such potential Licensees, Communications with such potential Licensees, and 

Documents exchanged with such potential Licensees that relate to such patents.39

39. Valuations of the Asserted Patent (either alone, or together with other patents or 

 

considerations regarding obviousness, anticipation, patent-eligibility, written description, 

indefiniteness, and enablement) and inequitable conduct. 37 Such materials will be relevant to quantifying any alleged damages pursuant the GeorgiaPacific factors, which require consideration of the: “established profitability of the product 

made under the patent”; “character of the commercial embodiment of it as owned and 

produced by the licensor”; and “portion of the realizable profit that should be credited to the 

invention”; among others things. Georgia-Pacific, 318 F. Supp. at 1119–20. 38 Such materials will be relevant to patent exhaustion and license defenses, as well as, to 

quantifying any alleged damages pursuant the Georgia-Pacific factors, which require 

consideration of the: “royalties received by the patentee”; “rates paid by the licensee for the 

use of other patents comparable to the patent in suit”; “established profitability of the product 

made under the patent”; “character of the commercial embodiment of it as owned and 

produced by the licensor”; and “portion of the realizable profit that should be credited to the 

invention”; among others things. Georgia-Pacific, 318 F. Supp. at 1119–20. 39 Such materials will be relevant to patent exhaustion and license defenses, as well as, to 

quantifying any alleged damages pursuant the Georgia-Pacific factors, which require 

consideration of the: “royalties received by the patentee”; “rates paid by the licensee for the 

use of other patents comparable to the patent in suit”; “established profitability of the product 

made under the patent”; “character of the commercial embodiment of it as owned and 

produced by the licensor”; and “portion of the realizable profit that should be credited to the 

invention”; among others things. Georgia-Pacific, 318 F. Supp. at 1119–20.
20

consideration, including as part of an intellectual property portfolio) from November 8, 2006 to 

August 2, 2017.40

40. Valuations of Related Patents or Related Applications (either alone, or together 

with other patents or consideration, including as part of an intellectual property portfolio) from 

November 8, 2006 to August 2, 2017.41

41. Documents and Communications concerning the right, title, or interest in any 

litigation or action involving any of the Asserted Patent, Related Patents, or Related Applications, 

including analyses or opinions related thereto, from November 8, 2006 to August 2, 2017.42 

42. Documents sufficient to identify, and to show the design, operation, or functioning 

of, any commercially acceptable, non-infringing (potential or actual) alternative to the subject 

matter claimed in the Asserted Patent, after May 26, 2009.43

 40 Such materials will be relevant to quantifying any alleged damages pursuant the GeorgiaPacific factors, which require consideration of the: “royalties received by the patentee”; 

“rates paid by the licensee for the use of other patents comparable to the patent in suit”; 

“established profitability of the product made under the patent”; “character of the commercial 

embodiment of it as owned and produced by the licensor”; and “portion of the realizable 

profit that should be credited to the invention”; among others things. Georgia-Pacific, 318 F. 

Supp. at 1119–20. 41 Such materials will be relevant to quantifying any alleged damages pursuant the GeorgiaPacific factors, which require consideration of the: “royalties received by the patentee”; 

“rates paid by the licensee for the use of other patents comparable to the patent in suit”; 

“established profitability of the product made under the patent”; “character of the commercial 

embodiment of it as owned and produced by the licensor”; and “portion of the realizable 

profit that should be credited to the invention”; among others things. Georgia-Pacific, 318 F. 

Supp. at 1119–20. 42 Such materials will be relevant to quantifying any alleged damages pursuant the GeorgiaPacific factors, which require consideration of the: “established profitability of the product 

made under the patent”; “character of the commercial embodiment of it as owned and 

produced by the licensor” and “portion of the realizable profit that should be credited to the 

invention”; among others things. Georgia-Pacific, 318 F. Supp. at 1119–20. 43 Such materials will be relevant to defenses relating to damages, including the availability of 

non-infringing alternatives.
21

43. Documents sufficient to identify, and to show the design, operation, or functioning 

of any technically acceptable, non-infringing (potential or actual) alternative to the subject 

matter claimed in the Asserted Patent, after May 26, 2009.44

44. Documents sufficient to identify the nature and scope of any rights you retained 

in the Asserted Patent, including any right to control litigation, future royalties, payments for 

licenses of the Asserted Patent, or payments relating to or resulting from the outcome of any 

litigation involving or relating to the Asserted Patent (including without limitation the Action).45

45. Documents and Communications exchanged with trade associations, standards 

setting organizations, or industry working groups, relating to the subject matter of the Asserted 

Patent, or the inventions disclosed therein, from November 8, 2006 to the present.46 This includes 

but is not limited to: 

a. Communications with trade associations, standards setting organizations, 

or industry trade groups relating to the Asserted Patent, or the inventions 

disclosed therein;

 44 Such materials will be relevant to defenses relating to damages, including the availability of 

non-infringing alternatives. 45 Such materials will be relevant to issue regarding Plaintiffs standing to bring the current suit 

and joinder of the proper parties. Such materials will be relevant to patent exhaustion and 

license defenses, as well as, to quantifying any alleged damages pursuant the Georgia-Pacific

factors, which require consideration of the: “royalties received by the patentee”; “rates paid 

by the licensee for the use of other patents comparable to the patent in suit”; “established 

profitability of the product made under the patent”; “character of the commercial 

embodiment of it as owned and produced by the licensor”; and “portion of the realizable 

profit that should be credited to the invention”; among others things. Georgia-Pacific, 318 F. 

Supp. at 1119–20. 46 Such materials will be relevant to determining the scope of the patents in claim construction 

and to defenses, such as non-infringement, and invalidity (including obviousness, secondary 

considerations regarding obviousness, anticipation, patent-eligibility, written description, 

indefiniteness, and enablement). 
22

b. Technical and non-technical submissions to trade associations, standards 

setting organizations, or industry trade groups relating to the Asserted 

Patent, or the inventions disclosed therein;

c. Intellectual property declarations to any trade associations, standards 

setting organizations, or industry trade groups relating to the Asserted 

Patent, or the inventions disclosed therein; and

d. Documents related to trade associations, standards setting organizations, 

or industry trade groups meetings (including working group meetings) 

where the subject matter described and/or claimed in the Asserted Patent 

was discussed.

46. Documents and Communications exchanged with trade associations, standards 

setting organizations, or industry working groups, relating to the subject matter of Related 

Patents, Related Applications, from November 8, 2006 to the present.47 This includes but is not 

limited to: 

a. Communications with trade associations, standards setting organizations, 

or industry trade groups relating to Related Patents, Related Applications, 

or the inventions disclosed therein;

b. Technical and non-technical submissions to trade associations, standards 

setting organizations, or industry trade groups relating to Related Patents, 

Related Applications, or the inventions disclosed therein;

 47 Such materials will be relevant to determining the scope of the patents in claim construction 

and to defenses, such as non-infringement, and invalidity (including obviousness, secondary 

considerations regarding obviousness, anticipation, patent-eligibility, written description, 

indefiniteness, and enablement). 
23

c. Intellectual property declarations to any trade associations, standards 

setting organizations, or industry trade groups relating to Related Patents, 

Related Applications, or the inventions disclosed therein; ands

d. Documents related to trade associations, standards setting organizations, 

or industry trade groups meetings (including working group meetings)

where the subject matter described and/or claimed in Related Patents was 

discussed.

47. Documents (including without limitation correspondence, notes, meeting minutes, 

proposals, statements, and other Communications) regarding what constitutes Fair Reasonable

and Non-Discriminatory (“FRAND”) or Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (“RAND”) terms 

relating to patent licensing in the technical space related to the subject matter of the Asserted 

Claims.48 

48. Documents concerning all sections and/or subsection of any standard or draft 

standard to which You believe the Asserted Patent are essential.49

 48 Such materials will be relevant to quantifying any alleged damages pursuant the GeorgiaPacific factors, which require consideration of the: “royalties received by the patentee”; 

“rates paid by the licensee for the use of other patents comparable to the patent in suit”; 

“established profitability of the product made under the patent”; “character of the commercial 

embodiment of it as owned and produced by the licensor”; “portion of the profit or of the 

selling price that may be customary in the particular business or in comparable businesses to 

allow for the use of the invention or analogous inventions”; and “portion of the realizable 

profit that should be credited to the invention”; among others things. Georgia-Pacific, 318 F. 

Supp. at 1119–20. 49 Such materials will be relevant to determining the scope of the patents in claim construction 

and to defenses, such as non-infringement, and invalidity (including obviousness, secondary 

considerations regarding obviousness, anticipation, patent-eligibility, written description, 

indefiniteness, and enablement). Such materials will also be relevant to quantifying any 

alleged damages pursuant the Georgia-Pacific factors, which require consideration of the: 

“royalties received by the patentee”; “rates paid by the licensee for the use of other patents 

comparable to the patent in suit”; “established profitability of the product made under the 

patent”; “character of the commercial embodiment of it as owned and produced by the 
24

49. Documents concerning all sections and/or subsection of any standard or draft 

standard to which You believe the Asserted Patent is relevant to.50

50. Documents sufficient to identify patents of which You are aware that have been 

contented to be essential to, or relevant to, standards or draft standard for which the Asserted 

Patent has been contented to be essential to, or relevant to, such as standards maintained by the 

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Internet Engineering Task Force, and the 

European Telecommunications Standards Institute. 

51. Documents sufficient to show Your past and present electronic data and Document 

destruction and retention policies with respect to the Documents produced in response to the 

above requests.

 

licensor”; and “portion of the realizable profit that should be credited to the invention”; 

among others things. Georgia-Pacific, 318 F. Supp. at 1119–20. 50 Such materials will be relevant to determining the scope of the patents in claim construction 

and to defenses, such as non-infringement, and invalidity (including obviousness, secondary 

considerations regarding obviousness, anticipation, patent-eligibility, written description, 

indefiniteness, and enablement). Such materials will also be relevant to quantifying any 

alleged damages pursuant the Georgia-Pacific factors, which require consideration of the: 

“royalties received by the patentee”; “rates paid by the licensee for the use of other patents 

comparable to the patent in suit”; “established profitability of the product made under the 

patent”; “character of the commercial embodiment of it as owned and produced by the 

licensor”; and “portion of the realizable profit that should be credited to the invention”; 

among others things. Georgia-Pacific, 318 F. Supp. at 1119–20.
EXHIBIT A2
2

ORAL EXAMINATION TOPICS REQUESTED

Defendants Dell Technologies Inc., Dell Inc., EMC Corporation, and VMware, Inc.

(collectively, “Defendants”) seek to ask questions on topics described below.

DEFINITIONS

The following definitions are applicable to terms employed in responding to this request:

1. “Accused Product” or “Accused Products” shall refer to any device, product, or other thing 

that Plaintiff is permitted to accuse of infringing the Asserted Patent in this Action. A copy 

of the Complaint in case number 6:20-cv-00480-ADA is attached as Exhibit A3. In 

referring to any device, product, or other thing as an “Accused Product,” Defendants in no 

way communicate their agreement that it infringes the Asserted Patent.

2. “Action” shall refer to the above-captioned proceeding in the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas, with case number 6:20-cv-00480-ADA.

3. “Asserted Claim” shall refer to each claim of the Asserted Patent that Plaintiff contends 

Defendants infringe. 

4. “Asserted Patent” shall refer to U.S. Patent No. 7,539,133; and any patent applications 

related thereto. 

5. “Communication” shall mean, without limitation, any written, oral, or other transmission 

of information, including but not limited to emails.

6. “Complaint” shall refer to the Complaint (including exhibits) that Plaintiff filed on June 2, 

2020 as docket number 1 in this Action, as may be amended. 

7. “Concerning,” “refer(s) to,” “related to,” “reflecting,” and “relating to” shall mean directly 

or indirectly relating to, referring to, mentioning, reflecting, pertaining to, evidencing, 

illustrating, involving, describing, discussing, commenting on, embodying, responding to, 
3

supporting, contradicting, or constituting (in whole or in part), as the context makes 

appropriate.

8. “Defendants” or “Defendant” shall refer to Dell Technologies Inc., Dell Inc., EMC 

Corporation, and VMware, Inc., and any and all of their then-current or prior subsidiaries, 

parents, affiliates, divisions, successors, predecessors, agents, employees, representatives, 

directors, officers, trustees, and attorneys, or any other person or entity acting in whole or 

in part in concert with any of the foregoing, directly or indirectly. 

9. “Document” shall include, without limitation, all documents, electronically stored 

information, and tangible things within the scope of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

including Rule 34. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 34 permits discovery of: “(A) 

documents or electronically stored information—including writings, drawings, graphs, 

charts, photographs, sound recordings, images, and other data or data compilations—stored 

in any medium from which information can be obtained either directly or, if necessary, 

after translation by the responding party into a reasonably usable form; or (B) any 

designated tangible things.” 

10. “Employee” shall refer to any officer, director, partner, employee, representative, or agent.

11. “Licensee(s)” shall refer to any entity having a license, assignment, covenant not to sue, or 

other understanding, written, oral or implied, that the entity has any rights to the Asserted 

Patent, any Related Patents, or any Related Applications, may practice one or more claims 

of the Asserted Patent and/or that Plaintiff will not file suit or otherwise enforce against 

that entity one or more claims of the Asserted Patent or any Related Patent or Related 

Application.
4

12. “Named Inventor” shall refer to any individual who is listed as an inventor on the Asserted 

Patent or any Related Patent or Related Application thereof.

13. “Person” shall refer to any natural person, firm, association, partnership, government 

agency, corporation, proprietorship, or other entity and its officers, directors, partners, 

employee, representatives, and agents.

14. The terms “Plaintiff,” and/or “WSOU” shall refer to the responding Plaintiff WSOU 

Investments, LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development, and any and all of its thencurrent or prior subsidiaries, parents, affiliates, divisions, successors, predecessors, agents, 

employees, representatives, directors, officers, trustees, and attorneys, or any other person 

or entity acting in whole or in part in concert with any of the foregoing, directly or 

indirectly.

15. “Prior Art” encompasses, without limitation, the subject matter described in each and every 

subdivision of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, and includes, but is not limited to, memoranda, 

notes, manuals, interviews, testing data, disclosures, prototypes, correspondence, 

drawings, papers, articles, patents, printed publications, public uses, demonstrations, offers 

for sale or license, and sales.

16. “Related Application(s)” means any and all applications related to the Asserted Patent, 

including any provisional or non-provisional applications, continuations, continuations- inpart, divisions, interferences, reexaminations, re-issues, parents, foreign counterpart 

applications, and any other applications disclosing, describing or claiming any invention 

disclosed, described or claimed in the Asserted Patent, or claiming the benefit of the filing 

date of any application whose benefit is claimed in the Asserted Patent, whether or not 

abandoned and whether or not issued.
5

17. “Related Patent(s)” means any and all U.S. or foreign patents based upon or related to any 

Related Application(s) or Asserted Patent, including any patents or applications that may 

have been opposed, reexamined, re-issued or subjected to any validity or nullity 

proceeding.

18. “Third Party” shall refer to any person other than Plaintiff or Defendants.

19. “You,” “Your,” “Yours” shall refer to Arie Johannes de Heer, and any and all of its thencurrent or prior subsidiaries, parents, affiliates, divisions, successors, predecessors, agents, 

employees, representatives, directors, officers, trustees, and attorneys, or any other person 

or entity acting in whole or in part in concert with any of the foregoing, directly or 

indirectly.

20. “Product(s)” means a machine, manufacture, apparatus, device, instrument, mechanism, 

appliance, software, service, process, or an assemblage of components/parts (either 

individually or collectively) that are designed to function together electronically, 

mechanically, or otherwise, including any offered for sale or under development.

21. Any pronouns shall be construed to refer to the masculine, feminine, or neutral gender, in 

singular or plural, as in each case is most appropriate.

22. The singular form of any word shall be construed to also include the plural, and vice-versa.

23. The word “each” shall be construed to mean “each and every.”

24. The words “and” and “or” shall be construed conjunctively or disjunctively, whichever 

makes the request more inclusive.

25. The words “any” and “all” shall be construed to mean “any and all.”

INSTRUCTIONS

1. This request seeks disclosure to the full extent of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 

shall be interpreted as inclusive rather than exclusive.
6

2. It is Your duty in responding to this request to designate one or more officers, directors, 

managing agents, or other Persons who are the most knowledgeable with respect to the 

topics identified below.

DEPOSITION TOPICS

1. The alleged invention(s) claimed in each Asserted Claim, and the alleged benefits, 

advantages, disadvantages or limitations of those alleged invention(s) as compared to the state 

of the art at the time of filing, and the factual bases thereof.

2. The inventorship of each Asserted Claim, including identification of any 

individuals other than the Named Inventors who aided or participated in the conception, 

reduction to practice, or diligence toward reduction to practice of the subject matter of the 

Asserted Claims.

3. The role of each Named Inventor, as well as any individual identified pursuant to 

Topic No. 2, in the alleged invention of each Asserted Claim, including conception, diligence 

and reduction to practice, and including the subject matter to which each Person contributed, 

and the dates and circumstances in which each Named Inventor, as well as any individual 

identified pursuant to Topic No. 2, made such contributions.

4. The conception, reduction to practice, and diligence toward the reduction to 

practice of each Asserted Claim, and any corroboration thereof.

5. The dates and circumstances concerning any first disclosure, demonstration, sale 

or offer for sale of any prototype or commercial embodiment of any of the inventions claimed 

in the Asserted Claims, and the identification and subject matter of any documents relating to or 

referring to each such activity.

6. The past and current ownership of the Asserted Patent, including its chain of title.

7. The preparation and prosecution of the applications relating to the Asserted Patent, 
7

any Related Patents, Related Applications, and patents and applications incorporated by 

reference into the Asserted Patent, and any certificates of correction.

8. The state of the art at the time of filing for the Asserted Patent, any Related Patents, 

Related Applications, and patents and applications incorporated by reference into the Asserted 

Patent, and Your knowledge thereof.

9. Any facts, studies, investigations, information, documents (including Prior Art), 

and analyses You identified, received, or knew at any time relating to the alleged validity, 

enforceability, infringement, valuation, or priority dates of the Asserted Patent, Related Patents, 

Related Applications, or patents and applications incorporated by reference into the Asserted 

Patent, including any Communications with third parties relating to the foregoing.

10. Any facts, studies, investigations, information, documents, and analyses regarding 

the structure, functions, development of, or operation of, or that constitute embodiments of, any 

alleged invention disclosed or claimed in the Asserted Patent, regardless of whether such 

embodiment was commercialized, and regardless of whether or not it worked properly.

11. Your knowledge of, and participation in, any Communications between Plaintiff 

and Defendants prior to the filing of the Action.

12. Any Communications related to Plaintiff, including communications related to 

licensing of any patents related the subject matter of the Asserted Claims, including the Asserted 

Patent, Related Patents, and Related Applications, compensation, license rates, royalties related 

thereto, agreements with Plaintiff, Defendants, the Action, the decision to file the Action, 

requests or offers to provide assistance, witnesses and/or documents for use in the Lawsuit, and 

any discussion about standing of Plaintiff to bring the Action. Your relationship with all 

potential Licensees, including all agreements, assurances, covenants not to sue, and 
8

understandings not to assert patents against such potential Licensees, including but not limited 

to Communications and agreements relating to the Asserted Patent, Related Patents or Related 

Applications, and the circumstances relating to such activity.

13. Your relationship with any entity associated with Stuart A. Shanus, Marc Wade, 

and/or Craig Etchegoyen, including without limitation Wade and Company, Orange Holdings, 

WSOU, and/or Uniloc USA, Inc.,1 including any patent license agreements with any such entity 

that relate to patents or patent applications that claim subject matter related to the subject matter 

of the Asserted Claims.

14. Any Communication You engaged in regarding each Defendant and its respective 

products or services, and any analysis You performed of each Defendant and its respective 

products and services related to the Asserted Patent, Related Patents or Related Applications.

15. Any valuations of the Asserted Patent or any portfolio of patents that includes the 

Asserted Patent.

16. Any financial interests that You may have in the Asserted Patent, including but 

not limited to royalties and the outcome of the Action.

17. Any facts, studies, investigations, and analyses relating to any submission of 

intellectual property right declarations with respect to the Asserted Patent to any standard 

maintained by an international and/or domestic trade association or standards setting 

organization, including all analyses or opinions related thereto.

18. Any facts, studies, investigations, and analyses relating to any alleged essentiality 

of the Asserted Patent to any industry standard, including any Communications with third parties 

 1 Stuart A. Shanus and Craig Etchegoyen are the Chairman and President of WSOU. Mark 

Wade, Wade and Company, Orange Holdings, and/or Uniloc USA, Inc. are all related 

persons or entities of WSOU. 
9

relating to the foregoing.

19. Any investigation of the standards activity and intellectual property right 

disclosures of any predecessor-in-interest to the Asserted Patent, including any investigation by 

You into the intellectual property right policies, Fair Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory 

(“FRAND”) obligations, or Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (“RAND”) terms relating to 

patent licensing in the technical space related to the subject matter of the Asserted Claims.

20. The role of You and/or any prior owner of the Asserted Patent, or any affiliates of 

You, or a prior owner of the Asserted Patent, in any standards setting organization from March 

23, 2006 to present.

21. Any Communications that You, any predecessor-in-interest of the Asserted 

Patent, and/or any Named Inventors had with by an international and/or domestic trade 

association or standards setting organizations regarding the subject matter of the Asserted 

Claims.

22. Any disclosures made by or on behalf of You or any predecessor-in-interest of the 

Asserted Patent to an international and/or domestic trade association or standards setting 

organization regarding the existence and/or potential standard essentiality of the Asserted Patent, 

Related Patents, or Related Applications.

23. Your knowledge of, and compliance with, intellectual property right policies of an 

international and/or domestic trade association or standards setting organization related to the 

subject matter of the Asserted Claims.

24. Your knowledge of, and compliance with, FRAND and/or RAND obligations, 

including without limitation any policies, guidelines, or instructions, and any related analysis or 

discussions.
10

25. Your collection, retention and production of documents and information relevant 

to the Action.

26. The subject matter and content of all Documents and Communication identified 

and/or produced in response to the above requests.

27. The authenticity of all Documents identified in response to the requests for 

production.

28. All Documents reviewed by You in connection with the deposition on these topics.
11

EXHIBIT A3
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.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

NO. 6:20-cv-480-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Plaintiff WSOU Investments, LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development (“Brazos” or 

“Plaintiff”), by and through its attorneys, files this First Amended Complaint (“Amended 

Complain” or “Complaint”) for Patent Infringement against Dell Technologies Inc., Dell Inc., 

EMC Corporation, and VMWare, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) and alleges:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is a civil action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Laws of the 

United States, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1, et seq., including §§ 271, 281, 284, and 285.

THE PARTIES

2. Brazos is a limited liability corporation organized and existing under the laws of 

Delaware, with its principal place of business at 605 Austin Avenue, Suite 6, Waco, Texas 76701.

3. On information and belief, defendant Dell Technologies Inc. (“Dell”) is a Delaware 

corporation with a principal place of business at One Dell Way, Round Rock, Texas 78682.

Case 6:20-cv-00480-ADA Document 35 Filed 10/19/20 Page 1 of 11
4. On information and belief, defendant Dell Inc. is a Delaware corporation with a 

principal place of business at One Dell Way, Round Rock, Texas 78682. Dell Inc. is wholly owned 

by its corporate parent, Dell.

5. On information and belief, defendant EMC Corporation (“EMC”) is a 

Massachusetts corporation with a principal place of business at One Dell Way, Round Rock, Texas 

78682. EMC Corporation is wholly owned by its corporate parent, Dell Technologies Inc. 

6. Upon information and belief, VMware, Inc. (“VMWare”) is a Delaware corporation 

with two established places of business in this District, including two in Austin, Texas with over 

700 employees. 

7. Upon information and belief, VMWare was acquired by EMC in 2004 and 

conducted an initial public offering of Class A common stock in August 2007. On or around 

September 2016, Dell acquired by EMC. As a result, EMC became a wholly-owned subsidiary of 

Dell, and VMWare became an indirectly-held, majority-owned subsidiary of Dell. Under the rules 

of the New York Stock Exchange, VMWare is a controlled company. As of January 31, 2020, Dell 

controlled approximately 80.9% of VMWare’s outstanding common stock, including 31 million 

shares of its Class A common stock and all of it Class B common stock.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8. This is an action for patent infringement which arises under the Patent Laws of the 

United States, in particular, 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 281, 284, and 285.

9. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1331 and 1338(a).

10. This Court has specific and general personal jurisdiction over each defendant 

pursuant to due process and/or the Texas Long Arm Statute, because each defendant has committed 

Case 6:20-cv-00480-ADA Document 35 Filed 10/19/20 Page 2 of 11
acts giving rise to this action within Texas and within this judicial district. The Court’s exercise of 

jurisdiction over each defendant would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial 

justice because each defendant has established minimum contacts with the forum. For example, 

on information and belief, each defendant has committed acts of infringement in this judicial 

district, by among other things, selling and offering for sale products that infringe the asserted 

patent, directly or through intermediaries, as alleged herein.

11. Venue in the Western District of Texas is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1391 

and/or 1400(b). Each defendant has established places of business in the Western District of Texas. 

Each defendant is registered to do business in Texas. Upon information and belief, each defendant 

has transacted business in this District and has committed acts of infringement in this District. 

COUNT ONE - INFRINGEMENT OF 

U.S. PATENT NO. 7,539,133

12. Brazos re-alleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of this 

Complaint.

13. On May 26, 2009, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and legally 

issued U.S. Patent No. 7,539,133 (“the ‘133 Patent”), entitled “Method and Apparatus for 

Preventing Congestion in Load-Balancing Networks.” A true and correct copy of the ‘133 Patent 

is attached as Exhibit A to this Complaint.

14. Brazos is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in and to the ‘133 Patent, 

including the right to assert all causes of action arising under the ‘133 Patent and the right to any 

remedies for the infringement of the ‘133 Patent.

15. Defendants make, use, sell, offer for sale, import, and/or distribute in the United 

States, including within this judicial district, products such as, but not limited to, cloud-related 

solutions, including but not limited to, devices incorporating VMware’s VeloCloud solutions and 

Case 6:20-cv-00480-ADA Document 35 Filed 10/19/20 Page 3 of 11
SD-WAN software, such as Dell EMC SD-WAN Edge 600 series products (collectively, the 

“Accused Products”).

https://www.dell.com/learn/us/en/15/solutions/vmware-vcloud

https://www.delltechnologies.com/en-us/networking/sd-wan-solution/index.htm

16. The Accused Products can provide a cloud network service solution enabling sites 

to deploy enterprise-grade access to legacy and cloud applications over both private networks and 

Case 6:20-cv-00480-ADA Document 35 Filed 10/19/20 Page 4 of 11
Internet broadband. Cloud-delivered Software-Defined Wide-Area-Network (SD-WAN) aids 

enterprise and cloud application performance over Internet and hybrid WAN.

https://docs.vmware.com/en/VMware-SD-WAN-by-VeloCloud/3.3/velocloud-admin-guide33.pdf

17. The Accused Products have a variety of features and capabilities including 

Dynamic Multipath Optimization (DMPO) technology. VMware SD-WAN processing of traffic 

flows at a node in a network can provide packet level redirection, which allows one or multiple 

physical WAN links to be abstracted and virtualized packet-by-packet. Path selection and 

remediation techniques can be applied in virtually real-time. Dynamic load-sharing maintains endcustomer application performance quality, regardless of the reliability or consistency of the 

individual physical link. 

https://www.velocloud.com/content/dam/digitalmarketing/velocloud/en/documents/case-studydell-emc.pdf

Case 6:20-cv-00480-ADA Document 35 Filed 10/19/20 Page 5 of 11
https://partners.lantelligence.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/dmpo-brief.pdf

18. VMware DMPO provides automatic link monitoring, auto-detection of provider 

and autoconfiguration of link characteristics, routing, and quality of service (QoS) settings. 

VMware DMPO delivers sub-second blackout and brownout protection to improve application 

availability. VMware DMPO remediates link degradation through forward error correction (FEC), 

jitter buffering activation, and synthetic packet production. 

https://www.velocloud.com/content/dam/digitalmarketing/velocloud/en/documents/briefsolution-overview.pdf

19. DMPO performs per-packet load balancing for SD-WAN networks.

https://partners.lantelligence.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/dmpo-brief.pdf

20. Nodes may have a hub-spoke design with a hub and multiple spokes. Traffic flow 

may be received at the hub and may be transmitted to various spokes. When dynamic edge-to-edge 

is enabled, the hub will not know the traffic between edges and may keep sending low priority 

Case 6:20-cv-00480-ADA Document 35 Filed 10/19/20 Page 6 of 11
traffic until congestion occurs. As congestion conditions are detected at an edge, with multi-source 

inbound QoS enabled, the edge will proactively inform the hub to slow down the low priority 

traffic.

https://partners.lantelligence.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/dmpo-brief.pdf

21. Under congestion, the traffic in the Accused Products will be queued. When the 

queue is full, packets are dropped. This is an example of processing packets such that those 

associated with egress nodes for which the congestion condition does not exist have a different 

queuing priority within the load-balancing network than packets associated with egress nodes for 

which the congestion condition exists.

https://partners.lantelligence.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/dmpo-brief.pdf

22. The Accused Products may also provide an enhanced QoS feature called Business 

Policy. Based on this Business Policy configuration, the Accused Products examine the traffic 

being used (whether congestion condition exists or not) and identify the application behavior and 

the Edge WAN Link conditions. Based on this, the Business Policy optimizes application behavior 

driving queuing, bandwidth utilization, link steering, and the mitigation of network errors. 

https://docs.vmware.com/en/VMware-SD-WAN-by-VeloCloud/3.3/velocloud-admin-guideCase 6:20-cv-00480-ADA Document 35 Filed 10/19/20 Page 7 of 11
33.pdf

https://docs.vmware.com/en/VMware-SD-WAN-by-VeloCloud/3.3/velocloud-admin-guide33.pdf

23. In view of preceding paragraphs, each and every element of at least claim 1 of the 

‘133 Patent is found in the Accused Products.

24. And upon information and belief, each and every element of at least one claim of

the patent-in-suit is performed or practiced by Defendants at least through Defendants’ own use

and configuration of its own Accused Products, and/or through Defendants’ own testing and

configuration of its own Accused Products, and/or through Defendants’ providing services for its

Accused Products, including but not limited to providing installation, deployment, support and

configuration of its Accused Products.

25. Defendants continue to directly infringe at least one claim of the ‘133 Patent, 

literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, by making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing, 

and/or distributing the Accused Products in the United States, including within this judicial district, 

without the authority of Brazos.

26. In May 2020, Plaintiff filed a suit against Defendants asserting infringement of 

the same patent and by the same accused products that are asserted in this case. Plaintiff

dismissed the prior suit before filing this suit. As a result of the prior suit, Defendants had notice 

and actual or constructive knowledge of their infringement of the patent-in-suit since at least May 

2020, before the filing of this case. Further, Defendants had knowledge of their infringement of 

Case 6:20-cv-00480-ADA Document 35 Filed 10/19/20 Page 8 of 11
the patent-in-suit before the filing of this Amended Complaint.1

27. Since at least May 2020, through its actions, Defendants have actively induced 

product makers, distributors, retailers, and/or end users of the Accused Products to infringe the 

‘133 Patent throughout the United States, including within this judicial district, by, among other 

things, advertising and promoting the use of the Accused Products in various websites, including 

providing and disseminating product descriptions, operating manuals, and other instructions on 

how to implement and configure the Accused Products. Examples of such advertising, promoting, 

and/or instructing include the documents at:

● https://www.vmware.com/company/acquisitions/velocloud.html

● https://www.dell.com/learn/us/en/15/solutions/vmware-vcloud

● https://www.delltechnologies.com/en-us/networking/sd-wan-solution/index.htm

1 Dell filed a motion to dismiss that is mooted by this amended complaint. Dell’s motion cites a 

WDTX case (which relies authority from the District of Delaware) for the proposition that 

knowledge of a plaintiff’s patent after the lawsuit was filed is insufficient to plead the requisite 

knowledge for indirect infringement. See Aguirre v. Powerchute Sports, LLC, No. SA-10-CV0702 XR, 2011 WL 2471299, at *3 (W.D. Tex. June 17, 2011) (citing Xpoint Techs. v. Microsoft 

Corp., 730 F.Supp.2d 349 (D. Del. 2010)). Several Delaware courts have since rejected this rule 

because there is no statutory basis to support it and because there is no purpose served by the 

formality of requiring the plaintiff to file an amended complaint in order to be allowed to assert 

knowledge of the patents during the period following the filing of the original complaint. See 

Walker Digital, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., 852 F. Supp. 2d 559, 566 (D. Del. 2012) (“The court 

acknowledges that this result is inconsistent with its prior decisions in Xpoint Techs. v. Microsoft 

Corp., 730 F.Supp.2d 349 (D.Del.2010), and EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. FLO TV Inc., 802 

F.Supp.2d 527 (D. Del. 2011). Given the ease of amendment, the limitation of damages to postknowledge conduct, and in the interests of judicial economy, the court finds that the better 

reasoning is to allow a complaint that satisfies Rule 8 to proceed to discovery rather than 

dismissing it for lack of pre-filing knowledge when, by the time the motion to dismiss has been 

filed, defendant in fact has the requisite knowledge as pled by plaintiff.”); see also IOENGINE, 

LLC v. PayPal Holdings, Inc., CV 18-452-WCB, 2019 WL 330515, at *4 (D. Del. Jan. 25, 2019) 

(“The Court sees no purpose that would be served by the formality of requiring IOENGINE to file 

an amended complaint in order to be allowed to assert knowledge of the patents during the period

following the filing of the original complaint.”).

Case 6:20-cv-00480-ADA Document 35 Filed 10/19/20 Page 9 of 11
● https://www.dell.com/en-us/work/shop/povw/sd-wan-edge-600

● https://partners.lantelligence.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/dmpo-brief.pdf

● https://docs.vmware.com/en/VMware-SD-WAN-by-VeloCloud/3.3/velocloud-adminguide-33.pdf

● https://www.velocloud.com/content/dam/digitalmarketing/velocloud/en/documents/brief

-solution-overview.pdf

28. Since at least May 2020, through its actions, Defendants have contributed to the 

infringement of the ‘133 Patent by having others sell, offer for sale, or use the Accused Products 

throughout the United States, including within this judicial district, with knowledge that the 

Accused Products infringe the ‘133 Patent. The Accused Products are especially made or adapted 

for infringing the ‘133 Patent and have no substantial non-infringing use. For example, in view of 

the preceding paragraphs, the Accused Products contain functionality which is material to at least 

one claim of the ‘133 Patent.

JURY DEMAND

Brazos hereby demands a jury on all issues so triable.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Brazos respectfully requests that the Court:

(A) Enter judgment that Defendants infringe one or more claims of the ‘133 Patent 

literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents;

(B) Enter judgment that Defendants have induced infringement and continue to induce 

infringement of one or more claims of the ‘133 Patent;

(C) Enter judgment that Defendants have contributed to and continue to contribute to 

the infringement of one or more claims of the ‘133 Patent;

Case 6:20-cv-00480-ADA Document 35 Filed 10/19/20 Page 10 of 11
(D) Award Brazos damages, to be paid by Defendants in an amount adequate to 

compensate Brazos for such damages, together with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest for 

the infringement by Defendants of the ‘133 Patent through the date such judgment is entered in 

accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 284, and increase such award by up to three times the amount found 

or assessed in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 284;

(E) Declare this case exceptional pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285; and

(F) Award Brazos its costs, disbursements, attorneys’ fees, and such further and 

additional relief as is deemed appropriate by this Court.

Dated: October 19, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ James L. Etheridge

James L. Etheridge

Texas State Bar No. 24059147 

Ryan S. Loveless

Texas State Bar No. 24036997 

Travis L. 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

Travis@EtheridgeLaw.com

Mark D. Siegmund

State Bar No. 24117055

mark@waltfairpllc.com 

Law Firm of Walt, Fair PLLC.

1508 North Valley Mills Drive

Waco, Texas 76710

Telephone: (254) 772-6400

Facsimile: (254) 772-6432

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

Case 6:20-cv-00480-ADA Document 35 Filed 10/19/20 Page 11 of 11
EXHIBIT A4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Western District of Texas

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC

vs.

DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC., DELL INC.,

EMC CORPORATION, VMWARE, INC.

§

§

§

§

§

NO: WA:20-CV-00480-ADA

ORDER GOVERNING PROCEEDINGS – PATENT CASE

This Order shall govern proceedings in this case. The following deadlines are hereby set:

This case is SET for a telephonic Rule 16 Case Management Conference on

Wednesday, October 21, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. Participants shall dial into the following

number 5 minutes before the scheduled time: 866.434.5269; access code 967-8090.

Lead counsel for each party, and all unrepresented parties, shall be present. Client

representatives are welcome to attend, but such attendance is not required. In person

attendance is permitted, but not required. Anyone planning to attend in person should so

inform the Court by contacting chambers not later than two court days before the

scheduled hearing so the Court can evaluate whether to hold the conference in the

courtroom, or in chambers. The Court expects the parties to be prepared to discuss:

a. an overview of the claims and defenses, including any unique issues the

parties believe should be addressed at this stage of the case;

b. issues involving the case schedule and potential amendments to the

Court’s default scheduling order, including the date for the Markman

Hearing;

c. issues relating to claim construction, including whether a live tutorial would be

of benefit to the Court;

d. issues relating to discovery, including potential amendments to the Court’s

default discovery limits or Protective Order; and,

e. any other issues the parties believe would lead to the just, speedy and

inexpensive determination of this action.

2. (Not later than 7 days before the CMC). Plaintiff shall serve preliminary infringement

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

 of the asserted claims(s) are found. Plaintiff shall also identify the priority date (i.c.

Case 6:20-cv-00480-ADA Document 33 Filed 10/05/20 Page 1 of 10
the earliest date of invention) for each asserted claim and produce: (1) all documents 

 evidencing conception and reduction to practice for each claimed invention, and (2) a copy

 of the file history for each patent in suit.

3. (Not later than 3 business days before the CMC). Lead counsel for each party shall meet and 

 confer (either in person or by telephone), to discuss whether they believe the Court’s default

 Scheduling Order and default Discovery Limits are appropriate for this case, and any issues

 relating to the management of this case they intend to raise at the CMC.

4. (Two weeks after the CMC). The Parties shall submit an agreed Scheduling Order. If the

 parties cannot agree, the parties shall submit a separate Joint Motion for entry of each Order

 briefly setting forth their respective positions on items where they cannot agree. Absent

 agreement of the parties, the Plaintiff shall be responsible for the timely submission of this

 and other Joint filings.

5. (Two weeks after the CMC). Deadline for Motions to Transfer. The Court also adopts the

 following page limits and briefing schedule for Motions to Transfer:

 a. Opening – 15 pages

 b. Response – 15 pages, due 14 days after the Opening brief

 c. Reply – 5 pages, due 7 days after the Response brief

6. (Seven weeks after the CMC). Defendant shall serve preliminary invalidity contentions in the

 form of (1) a chart setting forth where in the prior art references each element of the asserted

 claim(s) are found, (2) an identification of any limitations the Defendant contends are

 indefinite or lack written description under section 112, and (3) an identification of any

 claims the Defendant contends are directed to ineligible subject matter under section 101.

 Defendant shall also produce (1) all prior art referenced in the invalidity contentions, (2)

 technical documents, including software where applicable, sufficient to show the operation 

 of the accused product(s), and (3) summary, annual sales information for the accused 

 product(s) for the two years preceding the filing of the Complaint,1 unless the parties agree to

 some other timeframe.

DISCOVERY 

Except with regard to venue, jurisdictional, and claim construction-related discovery, all other

discovery is stayed until after the Markman hearing. Notwithstanding this general stay of discovery,

the Court will permit limited discovery by agreement of the parties, or upon request, where

exceptional circumstances warrant. For example, if discovery outside the United States is

contemplated, the Court will be inclined to allow such discovery to commence before the Markman

hearing.

1 With regard to expired patents, the sales information shall be provided for the two years preceding expiration.

Case 6:20-cv-00480-ADA Document 33 Filed 10/05/20 Page 2 of 10
With respect to venue and jurisdictional discovery, the Court generally grants leave for the parties to

conduct targeted discovery (including, but not limited to requests for production, interrogatories, and

depositions) with regard to motions to transfer venue or motions to dismiss based on lack of

jurisdiction. If the parties disagree as to what reasonable discovery limits are, the Court encourages

the parties to contact the Court to request a telephonic discovery hearing.

Following the Markman hearing, the following discovery limits will apply to this case. The Court

will consider reasonable requests to adjust these limits should circumstances warrant.

 1. Interrogatories: 30 per side2

 2. Requests for Admission: 45 per side

 3. Requests for Production: 75 per side

 4. Fact Depositions: 70 hours per side (for both party and non-party witnesses combined)

 5. Expert Depositions: 7 hours per report3 

Electronically Stored Information. As a preliminary matter, the Court will not require general

search and production of email or other electronically stored information (ESI), absent a showing of

good cause. If a party believes targeted email/ESI discovery is necessary, it shall propose a procedure

identifying custodians and search terms it believes the opposing party should search. The opposing

party can oppose, or propose an alternate plan. If the parties cannot agree, they shall contact

chambers to schedule a call with the Court to discuss their respective positions.

DISCOVERY DISPUTES 

A party may not file a Motion to Compel discovery unless: (1) lead counsel have met and conferred

in good faith to try to resolve the dispute, and (2) the party has contacted the Court’s law clerk (with

opposing counsel) to arrange a telephone conference with the Court to summarize the dispute and the

parties respective positions. After hearing from the parties, the Court will determine if further

briefing is required.

PROTECTIVE ORDER 

Pending entry of the final Protective Order, the Court issues the following interim Protective Order

to govern the disclosure of confidential information in this matter:

 If any document or information produced in this matter is deemed confidential by the 

 producing party and if the Court has not entered a protective order, until a protective 

 order is issued by the Court, the document shall be marked “confidential” or with some

2 A “side” shall mean the plaintiff (or related plaintiffs suing together) on the one hand, and the defendant (or

related defendants sued together) on the other hand. In the event that the Court consolidates related cases for

pretrial purposes, with regard to calculating limits imposed by this Order, a “side” shall be interpreted as if the

cases were proceeding individually. For example, in consolidated cases the plaintiff may serve up to 30

interrogatories on each defendant, and each defendant may serve up to 30 interrogatories on the plaintiff.

3 For example, if a single technical expert submits reports on both infringement and invalidity, he or she may be

deposed for up to 14 hours in total.

Case 6:20-cv-00480-ADA Document 33 Filed 10/05/20 Page 3 of 10
other confidential designation (such as “Confidential – Outside Attorneys Eyes

Only”) by the disclosing party and disclosure of the confidential document or

information shall be limited to each party’s outside attorney(s) of record and the

employees of such outside attorney(s).

If a party is not represented by an outside attorney, disclosure of the confidential

document or information shall be limited to one designated “in house” attorney, whose

identity and job functions shall be disclosed to the producing party 5 days prior to any

such disclosure, in order to permit any motion for protective order or other relief

regarding such disclosure. The person(s) to whom disclosure of a confidential

document or information is made under this local rule shall keep it confidential and

use it only for purposes of litigating the case.

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ISSUES

Terms for Construction. Based on the Court’s experience, the Court believes that it should

have presumed limits on the number of claim terms to be construed. The “presumed limit” is

the maximum number of terms that the parties may request the Court to construe without

further leave of Court. If the Court grants leave for the additional terms to be construed,

depending on the complexity and number of terms, the Court may split the Markman hearing

into two hearings.

The presumed limits based on the number of patents-in-suit are as follows:

Limits for Number of Claim Terms to be Construed

1-2 Patents 3-5 Patents More than 5 Patents

10 terms 12 terms 15 terms

When the parties submit their joint claim construction statement, in addition to the term and

the parties’ proposed constructions, the parties should indicate which party or side proposed

that term, or if that was a joint proposal.

Claim Construction Briefing. The Court will require simultaneous claim construction

briefing with the following default page limits; however, where exceptional circumstances

warrant, the Court will consider reasonable requests to adjust these limits. These page limits

shall also apply collectively for consolidated cases; however, the Court will consider

reasonable requests to adjust page limits in consolidated cases where circumstances warrant.

In addition, the Court is very familiar with the law of claim construction and encourages the

parties to forego lengthy recitations of the underlying legal authorities and instead focus on the

substantive issues unique to each case.

Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, all simultaneous filings will take place at 5:00 p.m. CT.

Case 6:20-cv-00480-ADA Document 33 Filed 10/05/20 Page 4 of 10
Page Limits for Markman Briefs

Brief 1-2 Patents 3-5 Patents More than 5 Patents

Opening 20 pages 30 pages 30 pages, plus 5

additional pages for

each patent over 5 up

to a maximum of 45

pages

Response 20 pages 30 pages 30 pages, plus 5

additional pages for

each patent over 5 up

to a maximum of 45

pages

Reply 10 pages 15 pages 15 pages, plus 2

additional pages for

each patent over 5 up

to a maximum of 21

pages

Conduct of the Markman Hearing.

The Court generally sets aside one half day for the Markman hearing; however, the Court is

open to reserving more or less time, depending on the complexity of the case and input from

the parties. The Court requires submission of technology tutorials in advance of the Markman

hearing when they may be of benefit. The parties may submit tutorials in electronic form not

later than one week before the Markman hearing and the Court encourages the parties to aim

for tutorials with voiceovers in the 15 minute range. If a party intends to present a live tutorial,

the parties should contact the Court to set-up a Zoom or telephonic tutorial to occur at least a

week before the Markman hearing. In general, tutorials should be: (1) directed to the

underlying technology (rather than argument related to infringement or validity), and (2)

limited to 15 minutes per side. For the Court’s convenience, the tutorial may be recorded, but

will not be part of the record. Parties may not rely on or cite to the tutorial in other aspects of the

litigation.

The Court will consider the parties suggestions on the order of argument at the Markman

hearing. However, if the parties do not suggest a different procedure, the Court will allow the

Plaintiff to pick the first term and then alternate by term. As a general rule, if one side

proposes “plain and ordinary meaning” as its construction or asserts that a term is indefinite,

the other party shall go first.

GENERALISSUES

1. The Court does not have a limit on the number of motions for summary judgment (MSJs);

 however, absent leave of Court, the cumulative page limit for Opening Briefs for all MSJs

 is 40 pages per side.

Case 6:20-cv-00480-ADA Document 33 Filed 10/05/20 Page 5 of 10
2. There may be instances where the submission of substantive briefs via audio file will be of

 help to the Court. If a party is contemplating submitting a brief via audio file it should 

 contact the Court for guidance on whether it would be helpful to the Court. However, the

Court has determined that audio recordings of Markman briefs are of limited value and those

 need not be submitted. The recordings shall be made in a neutral fashion, shall be verbatim

 transcriptions without additional colloquy (except that citations and legal authority sections

 need not be included), and each such file shall be served on opposing counsel. The Court

 does not have a preference for the manner of recording and has found automated software

 recordings, as well as attorney recordings, to be more than satisfactory. Audio files shall be

 submitted via USB drive, Box (not another cloud storage), or email to the law clerk (with a

 cc to opposing counsel) and should be submitted in mp3 format.

3. The Court will entertain reasonable requests to streamline the case schedule and 

 discoveryand encourages the parties to contact the Court’s law clerk (with opposing counsel)

 toarrange a call with the Court when such interaction might help streamline the case.

4. The Court is generally willing to extend the response to the Complaint up to 45 days ifagreed

 by the parties. However, longer extensions are disfavored and will require goodcause.

5. For Markman briefs, summary judgment motions, and Daubert motions, each party 

 shalldeliver to Chambers one (1) paper copy of its Opening, Response, and Reply Briefs,

 omittingattachments, no later than one week after the last-filed brief or at least a week before

 the hearing, whichever is earlier.

6. Plaintiff must file a notice informing the Court when an IPR is filed, the expected time for an

 institution decision, and the expected time for a final written decision, within two weeks of

 the filing of the IPR.

7. To the extent the parties need to email the Court, the parties should use the following

 emailaddress: TXWDml_LawClerks_JudgeAlbright@txwd.uscourts.gov.

ORDERED this 5th day of October, 2020.

ALAN D ALBRIGHT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00480-ADA Document 33 Filed 10/05/20 Page 6 of 10
APPENDIX A – DEFAULT SCHEDULE

Deadline Item

7 days before CMC Plaintiff serves preliminary4

infringement contentions in the

form of a chart setting forth where in the accused product(s)

each element of the asserted claim(s) are found. Plaintiff shall

also identify the earliest priority date (i.e. the earliest date of

invention) for each asserted claim and produce: (1) all

documents evidencing conception and reduction to practice

for each claimed invention, and (2) a copy of the file history

for each patent in suit.

2 weeks after CMC Deadline for Motions to Transfer.

7 weeks after CMC Defendant serves preliminary invalidity contentions in the

form of (1) a chart setting forth where in the prior art

references each element of the asserted claim(s) are found, (2)

an identification of any limitations the Defendant contends are

indefinite or lack written description under section 112, and

(3) an identification of any claims the Defendant contends are

directed to ineligible subject matter under section 101.

Defendant shall also produce (1) all prior art referenced in the

invalidity contentions, (2) technical documents, including

software where applicable, sufficient to show the operation of

the accused product(s), and (3) summary, annual sales

information for the accused product(s) for the two years

preceding the filing of the Complaint, unless the parties agree

to some other timeframe.

9 weeks after CMC Parties exchange claim terms for construction.

11 weeks after CMC Parties exchange proposed claim constructions.

12 weeks after CMC Parties disclose extrinsic evidence. The parties shall disclose

any extrinsic evidence, including the identity of any expert

witness they may rely upon with respect to claim construction

or indefiniteness. With respect to any expert identified, the

parties shall also provide a summary of the witness’s expected

testimony including the opinions to be expressed and a

general description of the basis and reasons therefor. A

4 The parties may amend preliminary infringement contentions and preliminary invalidity contentions without

leave of court so long as counsel certifies that it undertook reasonable efforts to prepare its preliminary

contentions and the amendment is based on material identified after those preliminary contentions were served,

and should do so seasonably upon identifying any such material. Any amendment to add patent claims requires

leave of court so that the Court can address any scheduling issues.

7

OGP Version 3.0

Case 6:20-cv-00480-ADA Document 33 Filed 10/05/20 Page 7 of 10
failure to summarize the potential expert testimony in a good

faith, informative fashion may result in the exclusion of the

proffered testimony. With respect to items of extrinsic

evidence, the parties shall identify each such item by

production number or produce a copy of any such item if not

previously produced.

13 weeks after CMC Deadline to meet and confer to narrow terms in dispute and

exchange revised list of terms/constructions.

14 weeks after CMC Parties file Opening claim construction briefs, including any

arguments that any claim terms are indefinite.

17 weeks after CMC Parties file Responsive claim construction briefs.

19 weeks after CMC Parties file Reply claim construction briefs.

20 weeks after CMC Parties submit Joint Claim Construction Statement. In

addition to filing, the parties shall jointly submit, via USB

drive, Box (not another cloud storage),5 or email to the law

clerk, pdf versions of all as-filed briefing and exhibits. Each

party shall deliver to Chambers paper copies of its Opening,

Response , and Reply Markman Briefs, omitting attachments.

Absent agreement of the parties, the Plaintiff shall be

responsible for the timely submission of this and other Joint

filings.

23 weeks after CMC (but

at least 1 week before

Markman hearing)

Parties submit optional technical tutorials. The parties shall

also jointly submit, via USB drive, Box (not another cloud

storage), or email to the law clerk, pdf versions of all as-filed

briefing and exhibits.

24 weeks after CMC (or as

soon as practicable)

Markman Hearing at [9:00 a.m. or 1:00 p.m.]

1 business day after

Markman hearing

Fact Discovery opens; deadline to serve Initial Disclosures per

Rule 26(a).

6 weeks after Markman

hearing

Deadline to add parties.

8 weeks after Markman

hearing

Deadline to serve Final Infringement and Invalidity

Contentions. After this date, leave of Court is required for

any amendment to Infringement or Invalidity contentions.

This deadline does not relieve the Parties of their obligation to

5 To the extent a party wishes to use cloud storage, the parties should contact the law clerk to request a Box link

so that the party can directly upload the file to the Court’s Box account.

8

OGP Version 3.0

Case 6:20-cv-00480-ADA Document 33 Filed 10/05/20 Page 8 of 10
seasonably amend if new information is identified after initial

contentions.

12 weeks after Markman

hearing

Deadline to amend pleadings. A motion is not required unless

the amendment adds patents or patent claims.

26 weeks after Markman Deadline for the first of two meet and confers to discuss

significantly narrowing the number of claims asserted and

prior art references at issue. Unless the parties agree to the

narrowing, they are ordered to contact the Court’s Law Clerk

to arrange a teleconference with the Court to resolve the

disputed issues.

30 weeks after Markman

hearing

Close of Fact Discovery.

31 weeks after Markman

hearing

Opening Expert Reports.

35 weeks after Markman

hearing

Rebuttal Expert Reports.

38 weeks after Markman

hearing

Close of Expert Discovery.

39 weeks after Markman

hearing

Deadline for the second of two meet and confer to discuss

narrowing the number of claims asserted and prior art

references at issue to triable limits. To the extent it helps the

parties determine these limits, the parties are encouraged to

contact the Court’s Law Clerk for an estimate of the amount

of trial time anticipated per side. The parties shall file a Joint

Report within 5 business days regarding the results of the

meet and confer.

40 weeks after Markman

hearing

Dispositive motion deadline and Daubert motion deadline.

42 weeks after Markman

hearing

Serve Pretrial Disclosures (jury instructions, exhibits lists,

witness lists, discovery and deposition designations).

44 weeks after Markman

hearing

Serve objections to pretrial disclosures/rebuttal disclosures.

45 weeks after Markman

hearing

Serve objections to rebuttal disclosures and File Motions in

limine.

9

OGP Version 3.0

Case 6:20-cv-00480-ADA Document 33 Filed 10/05/20 Page 9 of 10
46 weeks after Markman

hearing

File Joint Pretrial Order and Pretrial Submissions (jury

instructions, exhibits lists, witness lists, discovery and

deposition designations); file oppositions to motions in limine

47 weeks after Markman

hearing

File Notice of Request for Daily Transcript or Real Time

Reporting. If a daily transcript or real time reporting of court

proceedings is requested for trial, the party or parties making

said request shall file a notice with the Court and e-mail the

Court Reporter, Kristie Davis at kmdaviscsr@yahoo.com

Deadline to meet and confer regarding remaining objections

and disputes on motions in limine.

3 business days before

Final Pretrial Conference.

File joint notice identifying remaining objections to pretrial

disclosures and disputes on motions in limine.

49 weeks after Markman

hearing (or as soon as

practicable)

Final Pretrial Conference. The Court expects to set this date

at the conclusion of the Markman Hearing.

52 weeks after Markman

hearing (or as soon as

practicable)6

Jury Selection/Trial. The Court expects to set these dates at

the conclusion of the Markman Hearing.

6 If the actual trial date materially differs from the Court’s default schedule, the Court will consider reasonable

amendments to the case schedule post-Markman that are consistent with the Court’s default deadlines in light of

the actual trial date.

OGP Version 3.0

Case 6:20-cv-00480-ADA Document 33 Filed 10/05/20 Page 10 of 10