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-DTG 

Case No. 6:20-cv-00481-ADA-DTG 

Case No. 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN PORTIONS OF DR. STAN 

MCCLELLAN’S EXPERT REPORT REGARDING INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 278 Filed 12/28/22 Page 1 of 11
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page

I. LEGAL STANDARD ..........................................................................................................1

II. DR. MCCLELLAN’S INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT OPINIONS SHOULD BE 

EXCLUDED BECAUSE THEY ARE IRRELEVANT AND UNRELIABLE ..................1

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 278 Filed 12/28/22 Page 2 of 11
ii 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

Page(s) 

CASES

CQ, Inc. v. TXU Min. Co., L.P., 

565 F.3d 268 (5th Cir. 2009) .....................................................................................................3 

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 

509 U.S. 579 (1993) ...................................................................................................................1 

Filgueira v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n, 

734 F.3d 420 (5th Cir. 2013) .....................................................................................................2 

Finalrod IP, LLC v. Endurance Lift Solutions, Inc., 

2021 WL 4906217 (E.D. Tex. 2021) .........................................................................................1 

Klebe v. Univ. of Texas Sys., 

2009 WL 10669561 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 25, 2009) ........................................................................3 

Magnetar Techs. Corp. v. Six Flags Theme Parks Inc., 

2014 WL 529983 (D. Del. Feb. 7, 2014) ...................................................................................3 

Magnetar Techs. Corp. v. Six Flags Theme Parks, Inc., 

61 F. Supp. 3d 437 (D. Del. 2014) .............................................................................................3 

Moore v. Ashland Chem. Inc., 

151 F.3d 269 (5th Cir. 1998) .....................................................................................................1 

Pisony v. Commando Constructions, Inc., 

2020 WL 4934463 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 24, 2020) ....................................................................1, 3 

RULES

Fed. R. Evid. 401 .........................................................................................................................1, 3 

Fed. R. Evid. 702 .............................................................................................................................1 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 278 Filed 12/28/22 Page 3 of 11
iii 

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS 

Abbreviation Term 

’133 Patent U.S. Patent No. 7,539,133 

’360 Patent U.S. Patent No. 7,092,360 

’800 Patent U.S. Patent No. 9,164,800 

’133 Infringement 

Report 

Infringement Report for the ’133 Patent 

’360 Infringement 

Report 

Infringement Report for the ’360 Patent 

’800 Infringement 

Report 

Infringement Report for the ’800 Patent 

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

and VMware, Inc. 

Final Infringement 

Contentions 

WSOU’s Final Infringement Contentions for the ’133, ’360, and 

’800 Patent, all served on June 25, 2021 

Patents-in-Suit ’133 Patent, ’360 Patent, and ’800 Patent, collectively 

VMware VMware, Inc. 

WSOU WSOU Investments, LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and 

Development 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 278 Filed 12/28/22 Page 4 of 11
iv 

TABLE OF EXHIBITS 

Exhibit Document 

A December 21, 2020 Hearing Transcript (“12/21/20 Hearing Tr.”) 

B April 2021 Email Exchange with WSOU (“4/2/21 E-mail Exchange with 

WSOU”) 

C Infringement Report for the ’133 Patent (“’133 Inf. Report”) 

D Infringement Report for the ’360 Patent (“’360 Inf. Report”) 

E Infringement Report for the ’800 Patent (“’800 Inf. Report”) 

F Excerpts from the Deposition of Dr. McClellan, dated 11/23/2022 

(“McClellan Nov. Tr.”) 

G Excerpts from the Deposition of Dr. McClellan, dated 12/12/2022 

(“McClellan Dec. Tr.”) 

H WSOU’s Final Infringement Contentions for the ’133 Patent, served on 

June 25, 2021 (collectively, “Final Infringement Contentions”) 

I WSOU’s Final Infringement Contentions for the ’360, served on June 25, 

2021 (collectively, “Final Infringement Contentions”) 

J WSOU’s Final Infringement Contentions for ’800, served on June 25, 

2021 (collectively, “Final Infringement Contentions”) 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 278 Filed 12/28/22 Page 5 of 11
1 

The indirect infringement opinions of WSOU’s technical expert, Dr. McClellan, should be 

excluded. At the outset of this litigation, the Court dismissed WSOU’s indirect infringement 

claims as to all three Asserted Patents. Ex. A (12/21/20 Hearing Tr.) at 76:16–17. As WSOU 

failed to timely replead the indirect infringement claims, any expert opinion on such claims is 

irrelevant. Dr. McClellan himself confirmed at deposition that he had no opinion on indirect 

infringement. Yet, he asserts in all three of his infringement reports that VMware indirectly 

infringes the Asserted Patents. The Court should exclude these conclusory assertions about 

indirect infringement because they are irrelevant and unreliable. They should also be stricken as 

WSOU failed to disclose any theory of indirect infringement in its Final Infringement Contentions. 

I. LEGAL STANDARD 

Under Daubert and Rule 702, expert opinion evidence must be both reliable and relevant 

to the issue before the trial court. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 594-95 

(1993); Fed. R. Evid. 702; Finalrod IP, LLC v. Endurance Lift Solutions, Inc., 2021 WL 4906217, 

*1 (E.D. Tex. 2021). Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less 

probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining 

the action. Fed. R. Evid. 401. The offering party bears the burden of demonstrating that it is 

reliable and relevant. Moore v. Ashland Chem. Inc., 151 F.3d 269, 276 (5th Cir. 1998). 

Further, “expert infringement reports may not introduce theories not previously set forth in 

infringement contentions.” Pisony v. Commando Constructions, Inc., 2020 WL 4934463, at *1 

(W.D. Tex. Aug. 24, 2020). 

II. DR. MCCLELLAN’S INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT OPINIONS SHOULD BE 

EXCLUDED BECAUSE THEY ARE IRRELEVANT AND UNRELIABLE 

Dr. McClellan’s assertions of indirect infringement should be excluded because WSOU’s 

indirect infringement claims have been dismissed from this litigation, because they lack any 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 278 Filed 12/28/22 Page 6 of 11
2 

analysis at all, and because WSOU failed to disclose them in its Final Infringement Contentions. 

The Indirect Infringement Claims Were Dismissed and WSOU Failed to Replead 

Them. At the December 21, 2020 hearing on Defendants’ motions to dismiss, the Court dismissed 

WSOU’s indirect infringement claims as to the Asserted Patents. Ex. A (12/21/20 Tr.) at 76:16–

17. The Court provided that WSOU would have three months after the claim construction hearing 

to replead those claims, if applicable. Id. at 76:18–77:02. WSOU even agreed to this on the record 

and later confirmed its understanding that “the Court dismissed the indirect infringement . . . claims 

without prejudice” in writing. Ex. A at 76:12-13; Ex. B (4/2/21 E-mail Exchange with WSOU). 

The Scheduling Order also reflected the deadline. D.I. 54 at 3. The claim construction hearing 

occurred on May 26, 2021, and WSOU never tried to replead indirect infringement during the 

three-month period that followed. Thus, WSOU is foreclosed from pursuing indirect infringement. 

See Filgueira v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n, 734 F.3d 420, 422 (5th Cir. 2013). 

WSOU’s Final Infringement Contentions. On June 26, 2021, WSOU served its Final 

Infringement Contentions for the Asserted Patents. See generally Exs. H; I; J. None disclosed any 

theory of indirect infringement, or even mention indirect infringement. 

Dr. McClellan’s Belated and Cursory Indirect Infringement Opinions. Although 

WSOU’s indirect infringement claims were laid to rest more than a year ago, 

. Exs. C (’133 Inf. Report) ¶ 26; D (’360 Inf. 

Report) ¶ 27; E (’800 Inf. Report) ¶ 27. 

. 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 278 Filed 12/28/22 Page 7 of 11
3 

 (

); Ex. G (McClellan Dec. Tr.) 535:18–536:10. 

Dr. McClellan’s Indirect Infringement Opinions Should Be Excluded and Stricken. 

Because WSOU’s indirect infringement claims have been dismissed, Dr. McClellan’s conclusory 

assertions of indirect infringement have no tendency to make a fact “of consequence in determining 

the action” more or less probable. His indirect infringement opinions therefore should be excluded 

as irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 401; CQ, Inc. v. TXU Min. Co., L.P., 565 F.3d 268, 277 (5th Cir. 2009) 

(affirming, as irrelevant, exclusion of expert report that was based on previously dismissed claims); 

see also Klebe v. Univ. of Texas Sys., 2009 WL 10669561, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 25, 2009). 

Dr. McClellan’s opinions also should be excluded as unreliable legal conclusions. He 

offers only a conclusory statement asserting indirect infringement for each patent. Exs. C (’133 

Inf. Report) ¶26; D (’360 Inf. Report) ¶ 27; E (’800 Inf. Report) ¶ 27. Expert opinions must identify 

the specific, testable bases for any conclusion. Magnetar Techs. Corp. v. Six Flags Theme Parks 

Inc., 2014 WL 529983 (D. Del. Feb. 7, 2014), adopted by Magnetar Techs. Corp. v. Six Flags 

Theme Parks, Inc., 61 F. Supp. 3d 437, 441-42 (D. Del. 2014). Because he offers no relevant 

analysis for his assertions, they must be excluded as unsupported legal conclusions. 

Finally, Dr. McClellan’s indirect infringement opinions should be excluded because 

WSOU failed to disclose any indirect infringement theory in its Final Infringement Contentions. 

See generally Exs. H, I, J; Pisony, 2020 WL 4934463, at *1. 

Thus, the Court should strike ’133 Infringement Report ¶¶ 26 and 41; ’360 Infringement 

Report ¶¶ 27, 41, and 197; and ’800 Infringement Report ¶¶ 27–41, and preclude Dr. McClellan 

from providing any testimony with respect to indirect infringement at trial. 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 278 Filed 12/28/22 Page 8 of 11
4 

Dated: December 19, 2022 By: /s/ Brian A. Rosenthal________

Barry K. Shelton

Texas State Bar No. 24055029 

bshelton@winston.com 

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 

2121 North Pearl Street, Suite 900 

Dallas, TX 75201 

Telephone: 214.453.6407 

Facsimile: 214.453.6400 

Benjamin Hershkowitz 

bhershkowitz@gibsondunn.com 

Brian A. Rosenthal 

brosenthal@gibsondunn.com 

Allen Kathir 

akathir@gibsondunn.com 

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 

200 Park Avenue 

New York, NY 10166-0193 

Telephone: 212.351.4000 

Facsimile: 212.351.4035 

Y. Ernest Hsin

ehsin@gibsondunn.com

Jaysen S. Chung

jschung@gibsondunn.com

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

555 Mission Street, Suite 3000

San Francisco, CA 94105-0921

Telephone: 415.393.8200

Facsimile: 415.393.8306

Ryan K. Iwahashi 

riwahashi@gibsondunn.com 

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

1881 Page Mill Road 

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1211 

Telephone: 650.849.5300 

Facsimile: 650.849.5333 

Nathaniel R. Scharn 

nscharn@gibsondunn.com 

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 

3161 Michelson Drive 

Irvine, CA 92612-4412 

Telephone: 949.451.3800 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 278 Filed 12/28/22 Page 9 of 11
5 

Facsimile: 949.451.4220 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 278 Filed 12/28/22 Page 10 of 11
6 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that on December 19, 2022, all counsel of record who are 

deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document 

(which is filed under seal) through email. 

/s/ Brian A. Rosenthal 

Brian A. Rosenthal

Case 6:20-cv-00486-ADA-DTG Document 278 Filed 12/28/22 Page 11 of 11