Page | 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC D/B/A 

BRAZOS LICENSING AND 

DEVELOPMENT,

Plaintiff,

v. 

HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO.,

LTD. and HUAWEI 

TECHNOLOGIES USA INC.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00533-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00534-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00535-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00536-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00537-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00538-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00539-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00540-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00541-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00542-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00543-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-cv-00544-ADA

JOINT MOTION TO ENTER SCHEDULING ORDER

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

Pursuant to the Court’s Order to meet and confer in advance of the Rule 16 case 

management conference and the Court’s Order Governing Proceedings (“OGP”), the Parties have 

conferred on a proposed scheduling order, modifications to the discovery limitations set forth in 

the OGP, and patent “groupings” for the Markman proceedings. The Parties have agreed on a 

proposed scheduling order pre-Markman, on modified discovery limitations across the twelve 

cases referenced above, and patent groupings relating to the Markman proceedings. The Parties 

have been unable to come to agreement on the need to set trial dates and schedules post-Markman. 

As such, and pursuant to the OGP, the Parties set forth their competing positions on a postMarkman schedule for the twelve cases referenced above. 

Plaintiff’s Proposed Scheduling order is attached as Exhibit A. Defendants’ Proposed 

Scheduling Order is attached as Exhibit B. The Parties’ Jointly Proposed Discovery Order is 

Case 6:20-cv-00543-ADA Document 31 Filed 10/30/20 Page 1 of 6
Page | 2

attached as Exhibit C. The Parties’ Jointly Proposed Markman Procedure is attached as Exhibit 

D. The Parties respectfully request entry of Exhibits C and D.

The parties agree on the dates for all deadlines before the Markman hearings set for April 

15-16, 2021. In accordance with the OGP, the Parties briefly set forth below their respective 

positions on the case deadlines following the Markman hearings. 

Plaintiff’s Position:

Plaintiff’s Proposed Scheduling Order (Exhibit A) adopts the Court’s Default Schedule and 

includes dates based on the Court’s Default Schedule post Markman. Defendant contends 

proposing dates past the Markman hearing is improper and instead requests a status conference 

with the Court after the Markman to determine the balance of case deadlines. Not only is 

Defendants’ proposal inefficient and wasteful of the Court’s time, but also a delay tactic designed 

to enhance Defendants’ likely pending IPR challenge. In particular, the Patent Trial and Appeals 

Board considers the relative trial schedule against the IPR schedule when determining whether to 

institute trial. See e.g., NHK Spring Co., Ltd. v. Intri-plex Technologies, IPR2018-00752, Paper 

No. 8 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 12, 2018)(precedential)(the Board denied institution under § 314(a) where 

the parallel district court proceeding was scheduled to finish six months before the Board would 

have reached a final decision in an IPR if one were instituted) and Apple Inc. v. Fintiv, Inc., 

IPR2020-00019, Paper 11 at 2–3 (PTAB Mar. 20, 2020) (informative) (“NHK applies to the 

situation where the district court has set a trial date to occur earlier than the Board’s deadline to 

issue a final written decision in an instituted proceeding.”). Without the existence of a trial 

schedule, the Defendants would be allowed to argue to the PTAB that there is no trial scheduled 

and that the IPR should proceed accordingly. 

Case 6:20-cv-00543-ADA Document 31 Filed 10/30/20 Page 2 of 6
Page | 3

Moreover, the Court has already addressed a similar issue in WSOU v. Microsoft, 6:20-cv00454, in which the Court adopted WSOU’s proposed schedule across all related cases. See also 

Far North Patents, LLC v. NXP USA, Inc., 1-20-cv-00397 (WDTX) (8/1/2020 text-only docket 

entry) (“After careful review, the Court adopts Plaintiff’s version given that it more closely tracts 

the Court’s default schedule and Defendants have not provided sufficient reasons to depart from 

that.”). 

Defendants’ Position:

Defendants propose that the post-Markman schedule (or schedules) for the twelve separate 

cases brought by Plaintiff against Defendants be determined at the conclusion of the Markman

hearings (currently set for April 15-16, 2021), or at a status conference to be held soon after the 

conclusion of the Markman hearings. Such an approach provides flexibility and addresses the 

plain fact that twelve separate cases – involving twelve unrelated patents asserted against scores 

of unrelated (and non-overlapping) products – cannot be tried on the same days. Thus, an 

evaluation of the viability, scope, and needs of the individual cases post-Markman will allow the 

parties to propose and the Court to set a consolidated schedule, semi-consolidated schedules, or 

individualized schedules for the cases going forward, including for trial.

Plaintiff recognizes the value in “grouping” these twelve cases for certain purposes, as it is 

currently proposing that certain cases (and corresponding patents) be grouped for purposes of the 

identification of claim terms requiring construction, Markman briefing, and Markman hearings. 

See Exhibit D, attached hereto. Plaintiff further recognizes that after Markman is the appropriate 

time to determine the needs and corresponding schedules (and possible groupings) for these dozen 

cases. Specifically, in the Joint Motion to Enter Scheduling Order filed in Plaintiff’s twelve cases 

asserted against Microsoft Corporation, Plaintiff argued that “[a]ny consideration of staggering the 

Case 6:20-cv-00543-ADA Document 31 Filed 10/30/20 Page 3 of 6
Page | 4

case schedules should wait until after Markman and after there has been some discovery, as 

Markman and discovery will inform: (1) whether staggering is necessary or helpful; and if so (2) 

which cases require more or less time to prepare (including time for fact and expert discovery).” 

See, e.g., Case 6:20-cv-00462-ADA, Dkt. 28. Defendants agree fully with Plaintiff’s argument, 

and suggest that the same approach be used in these twelve cases.

Defendants accordingly request that the Court adopt the parties’ jointly-proposed schedule 

for the deadlines up to and including the Markman hearings, and that the parties and the Court 

thereafter determine the balance of the case schedule(s), taking into account the considerations 

outlined by Plaintiff above. Defendants thus request the Court to adopt Exhibit B, attached hereto.

DATED: October 30, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

By: 

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

James L. Etheridge

Texas Bar No. 24059147

Ryan S. Loveless

Texas Bar No. 24036997

Brett A. Mangrum

Texas Bar No. 24065671

Travis L. Richins

Texas Bar No. 24061296

Jeff Huang

Etheridge Law Group

2600 E. Southlake Blvd., Suite 120/324

Southlake, Texas 76092

Tel.: (817) 470-7249 

Fax: (817) 887-5950 

Jim@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Ryan@EtheridgeLaw.com 

/s/ James L. Etheridge

Case 6:20-cv-00543-ADA Document 31 Filed 10/30/20 Page 4 of 6
Page | 5

Brett@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Travis@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Jeff@EtheridgeLaw.com 

Counsel for Plaintiff WSOU Investments, LLC

/s/ Jason W. Cook

Jason W. Cook

Texas Bar No. 24028537

Shaun W. Hassett

Texas Bar No. 24074372

MCGUIREWOODS LLP

2000 McKinney Avenue, Suite 1400 

Dallas, TX 75201 

Telephone: (214) 932-6400 

jcook@mcguirewoods.com

shassett@mcguirewoods.com

Tyler T. VanHoutan

Texas Bar No. 24033290

MCGUIREWOODS LLP

600 Travis St., Suite 7500

Houston, TX 77002

Telephone: (713) 571-9191

tvanhoutan@mcguirewoods.com

J. Mark Mann

Texas Bar No. 12926150

G. Blake Thompson

Texas Bar No. 24042033

MANN | TINDEL | THOMPSON

300 West Main Street

Henderson, Texas 75652

Telephone: (903) 657-8540

mark@themannfirm.com

blake@themannfirm.com

Counsel for Defendants Huawei Technologies Co., 

Ltd., Huawei Technologies USA, Inc., Huawei 

Device Co. Ltd. (f/k/a Huawei Device (Dongguan) 

Co.), Huawei Device (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (f/k/a 

Huawei Device Co. Ltd.) and Huawei Device USA

Case 6:20-cv-00543-ADA Document 31 Filed 10/30/20 Page 5 of 6
Page | 6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served or delivered 

electronically via U.S. District Court [LIVE]- Document Filing System, to all counsel of record, 

on this the 30th day of October 2020.

/s/ James L. Etheridge

James L. Etheridge 

Case 6:20-cv-00543-ADA Document 31 Filed 10/30/20 Page 6 of 6