IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC D/B/A 

BRAZOS LICENSING AND 

DEVELOPMENT,

 Plaintiff,

v. 

ZTE CORPORATION, ZTE (USA) INC. 

AND ZTE (TX), INC.,

 Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00487-ADA

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00488-ADA

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00489-ADA

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00490-ADA

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00491-ADA

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00492-ADA

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00493-ADA

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00494-ADA

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00495-ADA

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00496-ADA

C.A. NO. 6:20-cv-00497-ADA

NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY

Defendants ZTE (USA) Inc., ZTE (TX), Inc., and ZTE Corp (collectively “ZTE”) submit 

this Notice of Supplemental Authority to notify the Court of new and precedential Federal Circuit 

authority that affects ZTE’s Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue (Dkt. No. 47).

1 ZTE has 

attached to this Notice for the Court’s convenience a copy of the Federal Circuit’s slip opinion

issued on August 3, 2021. See Ex. A.

This new decision—In re Andra Group LLP, Case 20-2009 (Dkt. No. 41, Order) (Fed. Cir. 

Aug. 3, 2021) (appeal of Eastern District of Texas No. 4:19-cv-00288-ALM-KPJ) (“In re 

Andra”)—issued on August 3, 2021, which was after briefing and after the July 19, 2021, Oral 

Hearing (Dkt. No. 99). This new and controlling authority directly addresses several issues raised 

in conjunction with ZTE’s pending motion and related briefing. ZTE is prepared to address this 

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

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

Case 6:20-cv-00487-ADA Document 102 Filed 08/04/21 Page 1 of 6
2

new authority in any manner that may be warranted, whether at a hearing or through additional 

briefing at the Court’s request.

In the underlying district court, plaintiff Andra Group LP (“Andra”) filed suit against 

Victoria’s Secret Stores, LLC (“Stores”), its parent L Brands Inc. (“LBI”), and two subsidiaries

Victoria’s Secret Direct Brand Management, LLC (“Direct”) and Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand 

Management, Inc. (“Brand”). The district court ruled that, (1) even though Direct manages the 

Victoria’s Secret online website and mobile application, (2) even though Brand creates the intimate 

apparel and beauty products, and (3) even though LBI is the parent for all entities; venue was 

improper for each entity because neither entity had employees, stores, or any other physical 

presence in the district. Exhibit A, *1.

On appeal, Andra argued that all the entities were “highly intertwined” and all belonged 

under the “corporate umbrella” of LBI—as such, the physical locations of Stores in the district 

qualified as “regular and established” places of business for all entities. The Federal Circuit 

nevertheless disagreed and affirmed the district court’s dismissal.

In affirming, the Federal Circuit in In re Andra ruled on two arguments with respect to the 

§1400 second prong venue analysis factors. First, with respect to agency, the Federal Circuit found 

that “none of the facts alleged by Andra are sufficient to prove that Stores employees are agents 

of LBI, because LBI does not have ‘the right to direct or control’ Stores employees, an essential 

element of an agency relationship.” Exhibit A, *8. Second, with respect to ratification, the Federal 

Circuit found that “where related companies have maintained corporate separateness, the place of 

one corporation is not imputed to the other for venue purposes.” Exhibit A, *8.

The Federal Circuit offered additional guidance on several factors:

On Agency

• “Because there is no dispute that the Non-Store Defendants lack employees in the District, 

Case 6:20-cv-00487-ADA Document 102 Filed 08/04/21 Page 2 of 6
3

Andra argues that Stores employees are agents of LBI, Direct, and Brand.” Exhibit A, *5.

• “Andra argues that LBI “controls store location workers by dictating store operations, 

hiring, and conduct.” Appellant’s Br. 16. Andra points to various public filings by LBI that 

speak in broad terms about real estate holdings and investments, contends that LBI controls 

the hiring and firing of employees, and argues that because LBI requires Stores associates 

to sign and follow LBI’s Code of Conduct, this indicates control over the employees. Andra 

argues that Direct “controls store location workers by dictating their handling of returns of 

merchandise purchased on the [Victoria’s Secret] website.” Id. at 18. Finally, Andra argues 

that Stores employees are agents of Brand because Brand “‘closely controls the distribution 

and sales of its products’ exclusively available through store locations and the [w]ebsite.” 

Id. at 19 (quoting J.A. 799–801 ¶¶ 11, 13, 15–16). Andra also contends that Brand’s control 

over the Victoria’s Secret website “strengthens the agency relationship with [] Brand.” Id. 

at 19–20.” Exhibit A, *6.

• “Here, as in Google, none of Andra’s arguments are sufficient to show that Stores 

employees are agents of the Non-Store Defendants. None of the public filings cited by 

Andra demonstrate LBI’s control, because they are documents covering all of LBI’s 

brands. The documents’ use of “we” does not convey that “we” means LBI specifically, 

but that “we” could include the individual subsidiary brands, like Stores. See J.A. 452, 846. 

Andra’s contention that LBI controls the hiring and firing of store employees is directly 

contradicted by the testimony of the store manager for the Plano, Texas store . . .” Exhibit 

A, *7.

• “Thus, none of the facts alleged by Andra are sufficient to prove that Stores employees are 

agents of LBI, because LBI does not have “the right to direct or control” Stores employees, 

an essential element of an agency relationship.” Exhibit A, *8.

• “Additionally, while Stores locations accepting returns of Direct merchandise purchased 

on the website is a service that may benefit Direct, Andra has not shown that Direct controls 

this process. This one discrete task is analogous to the ISPs’ installation and maintenance 

of the servers in Google, which we found insufficient to establish an agency relationship. 

Id. at 1346. Finally, Brand’s close control of its products and the website does not equate 

to “the right to direct or control” employees at the physical Stores locations in the District. 

Id. at 1345.” Exhibit A, *8.

Case 6:20-cv-00487-ADA Document 102 Filed 08/04/21 Page 3 of 6
4

On Ratification

• “A threshold inquiry when determining whether the place of business of one company can 

be imputed to another, related company is whether they have maintained corporate 

separateness. If corporate separateness has not been maintained, the place of business of 

one corporation may be imputed to the other for venue purposes. But where related 

companies have maintained corporate separateness, the place of business of one 

corporation is not imputed to the other for venue purposes.” Exhibit A, *8.

• “Andra argues (1) that LBI has ratified store locations through its control over store 

operations and by holding out store locations as its own; (2) that Direct has ratified store 

locations by allowing merchandise purchased online to be returned in stores and by 

directing customers to store locations using the “Find a Store” feature; and (3) that Brand 

has ratified store locations by distributing and selling its merchandise from Store locations 

and because it is listed as the registrant for the Victoria’s Secret website.” Exhibit A, *9.

• “Andra asserts that the Non-Store Defendants maintain a “unified business model” with 

Stores, asserting many of the same facts it set forth in support of its agency theory, but the 

fact that the entities work together in some aspects, as discussed above, is insufficient to 

show ratification.” Exhibit A, *9.

• “And the companies’ shared use of “Victoria’s Secret” in their name does not detract from 

the separateness of their businesses.” Exhibit A, *10

Case 6:20-cv-00487-ADA Document 102 Filed 08/04/21 Page 4 of 6
5

DATED: August 4, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

/s/Lionel M. Lavenue 

Lionel M. Lavenue 

Virginia Bar No. 49,005

lionel.lavenue@finnegan.com 

FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, 

GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP

1875 Explorer Street, Suite 800

Reston, VA 20190

Phone: (571) 203-2700

Fax: (202) 408-4400

Attorney for Defendants, 

ZTE Corporation

ZTE (USA), Inc.

ZTE (TX), Inc.

Case 6:20-cv-00487-ADA Document 102 Filed 08/04/21 Page 5 of 6
6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have 

consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s 

CM/ECF system on August 4, 2021. 

/s/Lionel M. Lavenue 

Lionel M. Lavenue

Case 6:20-cv-00487-ADA Document 102 Filed 08/04/21 Page 6 of 6