IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC d/b/a 

BRAZOS LICENSING & DEVELOPMENT,

Plaintiff,

v.

GOOGLE LLC,

Defendant.

)

)

)

) Case No. 6:20-cv-00572-ADA

)

)

) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

)

)

)

)

)

JOINT MOTION FOR FINAL JUDGMENT AND TO EXTEND TIME FOR THE

PREVAILING PARTY TO SEEK COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEES

Plaintiff WSOU Investments d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development and Defendant 

Google LLC respectfully file this Joint Motion for Final Judgment and to Extend Time for the 

Prevailing Party to Seek Costs and Attorney Fees.

On June 29, 2020, Brazos asserted claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 8,041,806, titled 

“Targeted Electronic Content Delivery Control Systems and Methods,” against Google. Dkt. 1. 

On August 27, 2021, Google moved for summary judgment that, applying the two-step framework 

from Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), all asserted claims are invalid 

under 35 U.S.C. § 101, arguing that they are directed to the abstract idea of collecting information, 

analyzing that information, and delivering targeted content based on that information and do not 

disclose an inventive concept. Dkt. 48; see also Dkt. 50 (Brazos’s opposition); Dkt. 55 (Google’s 

reply). After, Brazos narrowed the asserted claims to claims 2, 3, 5, and 7, which all depend on 

claim 1. See Dkt. 118 at 1 n.1; see also Dkt. 104-2 (Ex. 3). While Google’s motion was pending, 

Brazos moved for summary judgment that claim 3 is patent eligible, while maintaining its position 

Case 6:20-cv-00572-ADA Document 248 Filed 09/12/24 Page 1 of 5
2

that claims 2, 5, and 7 “are valid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 or at least raise factual issues that cannot 

be resolved on summary judgment.” Dkt. 118 at 1 n.1; see also Dkt. 127 (Google’s opposition); 

Dkt. 129 (Brazos’s reply); Dkt. 131 (Brazos’s notice of supplemental authority); Dkt. 132 

(Google’s response).

On February 16, 2023, the Court heard argument on the parties’ motions. At the hearing, 

the Court held that claims 1, 2, 5, and 7 are patent ineligible. Dkt. 144 at 41:7-15. The Court

denied both Google’s and Brazos’s motions as to claim 3, determining that step two of the 

ineligibility inquiry should proceed to trial. Dkt. 144 at 41:7-15.

On June 28, 2023, Google moved for reconsideration of the Court’s ruling regarding 

claim 3. Dkt. 161; see also Dkt. 179 (Brazos’s opposition); Dkt. 201 (Google’s reply). The Court 

heard argument on that motion at a November 13, 2023 pretrial conference. On reconsideration, 

the Court held that claim 3 is patent ineligible. Dkt. 247 at 17:6-23. With that, the Court 

determined that all Brazos’s asserted claims were directed to patent ineligible subject matter, see 

Dkt. 247 at 17:6-10, and then issued a pretrial conference order reflecting its grant of Google’s 

motion. Dkt. 245 at 2.

Brazos respectfully disagrees with the Court’s patent-ineligibility holdings and seeks to 

appeal the Court’s judgment as to claim 3. To aid in any appeal, the parties jointly emailed the 

Court on September 12, 2024, noting that, in other cases between these parties, the Court has 

indicated that it intended to provide additional analysis for the Federal Circuit. The parties now 

request that the Court enter final judgment to permit an appeal.

The parties also jointly move the Court for an extension of time for the prevailing party to 

seek costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 and attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Specifically, the 

parties request that the Court defer the deadline for the prevailing party to seek costs and attorney 

Case 6:20-cv-00572-ADA Document 248 Filed 09/12/24 Page 2 of 5
3

fees until thirty (30) days after the expiration of the time allowed for appeal of the Court’s final 

judgment or, if there is an appeal, until thirty (30) days after issuance of a mandate by the appellate 

court. Deferring the time for the prevailing party to seek costs and attorney fees should conserve 

judicial and party resources and provide adequate time for the parties (1) to meet and confer prior 

to submitting a bill of costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) and Local Rule CV-54; 

and (2) to meet and confer prior to seeking attorney fees under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

54(d)(2) and Local Rule CV-7(j).

The parties have agreed to a proposed form of final judgment, granting the above requested 

relief, which is attached as Exhibit A.

Case 6:20-cv-00572-ADA Document 248 Filed 09/12/24 Page 3 of 5
4

Dated: September 12, 2024 

/s/ Joseph M. Abraham

Joseph M. Abraham, TX Bar No. 24088879

Timothy Dewberry, TX Bar No. 24090074

FOLIO LAW GROUP PLLC

13492 Research Blvd., Suite 120, No. 177

Austin, TX 78750

Tel: (737) 234-0201

Email: joseph.abraham@foliolaw.com

timothy.dewberry@foliolaw.com

Cliff Win, CA Bar No. 270517

Alexandra Fellowes, CA Bar No. 261929

C. Maclain Wells, CA Bar No. 221609

Moses Xie, CA Bar No. 343007

Alden K. Lee, CA Bar No. 257973

FOLIO LAW GROUP PLLC

1200 Westlake Ave N., Ste. 809

Seattle, WA 98109

Tel: (206) 880-1802

Email: cliff.win@foliolaw.com

alexandra.fellowes@foliolaw.com

maclain@foliolaw.com

moses.xie@foliolaw.com

alden.lee@foliolaw.com

Gregory P. Love

State Bar No. 24013060

Mark D. Siegmund

State Bar No. 24117055

Cherry Johnson Siegmund James

400 Austin Ave., Ste. 9th Floor

Waco, TX 76701

Tel: (254) 732-2242

Email: glove@cjsjlaw.com

msiegmund@cjsjlaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff WSOU Investments 

d/b/a Brazos Licensing & Development

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ T. Gregory Lanier

Michael E. Jones (State Bar No. 10929400)

mikejones@potterminton.com

Shaun W. Hassett (State Bar No. 24074372)

shaunhassett@potterminton.com

POTTER MINTON, P.C.

102 North College, Suite 900

Tyler, Texas, 75702

(903) 597-8311

(903) 593-0846 facsimile

T. Gregory Lanier

(California Bar No. 138784) (pro hac vice)

tglanier@jonesday.com

Walter Mostowy

(California Bar No. 341454) (pro hac vice)

wmostowy@jonesday.com

JONES DAY

1755 Embarcadero Road

Palo Alto, California, 94303

(650) 739-3939

(650) 739-3900 facsimile

Sasha Mayergoyz

(Illinois Bar No. 6271800) (pro hac vice)

smayergoyz@jonesday.com

JONES DAY

110 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 4800

Chicago, Illinois 60606

(312) 782-3939

(312) 782-8585 facsimile

Tracy A. Stitt

(D.C. Bar No. 1015680) (pro hac vice)

tastitt@jonesday.com

Jennifer L. Swize

(D.C. Bar No. 490988) (pro hac vice)

jswize@jonesday.com

Edwin O. Garcia

(Texas Bar No. 24097726) (pro hac vice)

edwingarcia@jonesday.com

JONES DAY

51 Louisiana Avenue, NW

Case 6:20-cv-00572-ADA Document 248 Filed 09/12/24 Page 4 of 5
5

Washington, D.C. 20001

(202) 879-3939

(202) 626-1700 facsimile

Rita J. Yoon

(Illinois Bar No. 6298019) (pro hac vice)

ryoon@jonesday.com

Michael A. Lavine

(California Bar No. 321727) (pro hac vice)

mlavine@jonesday.com

JONES DAY

555 California Street, 26th Floor

San Francisco, California 94104

(415) 626-3939

(415) 875-5700 facsimile

John R. Boulé III

(California Bar No. 322929) (pro hac vice)

jboule@jonesday.com

JONES DAY

555 South Flower Street, Fiftieth Floor

Los Angeles, California 90071

(213) 489-3939

(213) 243-2539 facsimile

Daniele San Román

(D.C. Bar No. 1673021) (pro hac vice)

dsanroman@jonesday.com

JONES DAY

4655 Executive Drive, Suite 1500

San Diego, California 92121

(858) 314-1200

(844) 345-3178 facsimile

Attorneys for Defendant Google LLC

Case 6:20-cv-00572-ADA Document 248 Filed 09/12/24 Page 5 of 5