IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

SYMBOLOGY INNOVATIONS, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

KEURIG DR. PEPPER, INC., 

Defendant. 

CASE NO. 2:23-CV-00249-JRG 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

KEURIG DR PEPPER INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS RULE 

12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM 

 

Case 2:23-cv-00249-JRG Document 21 Filed 08/28/23 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 806
ii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. THE ASSERTED PATENTS ARE INVALID ................................................................... 2

A. Claim 1 of the ’752 patent is representative .................................................................... 2 

B. Alice Step One: the asserted claims are directed to an abstract idea ............................ 3 

C. Alice Step Two: the claims recite no inventive concept .................................................. 6 

D. There are no factual disputes preventing a ruling at the Rule 12 stage........................ 8 

E. There are no claim construction disputes preventing a ruling at the Rule 12 stage .... 9 

II. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 10

 

Case 2:23-cv-00249-JRG Document 21 Filed 08/28/23 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 807
iii 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

 Page(s) 

Cases 

Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 

134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) ..................................................................................................... passim

Boom! Payments, Inc. v. Stripe, Inc., 

839 F. App’x 528 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................................8

BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 

899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..............................................................................................2, 8 

Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 

830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................7 

Emerson Elec. Co. v. SIPCO, LLC, 

141 S. Ct. 106, 207 L. Ed. 1049 (2020) .....................................................................................4 

Idexx Labs., Inc. v. Charles River Labs., Inc., 

CV 15-668-RGA, 2016 WL 3647971 (D. Del. July 7, 2016) ....................................................4 

Jedi Techs., Inc. v. Spark Networks, Inc., 

No. CV 1:16-1055-GMS, 2017 WL 3315279 (D. Del. Aug. 3, 2017) ..................................1, 9 

Monument Peak Ventures, LLC v. Toshiba Am. Bus. Sols., Inc., 

No. SA CV 19-02181-DOC-DFM, 2020 WL 6050597 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2020) ..................3 

MyMail, Ltd. v. ooVoo, LLC, 

934 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2019)..................................................................................................9 

Nexrf Corp. v. Playtika Ltd., 

No. 320CV00603MMDCLB, 2021 WL 2874114 (D. Nev. July 7, 2021) ................................5 

PPS Data, LLC v. Jack Henry Assocs., Inc., 

No. 2:18-cv-00007-JRG, 2019 WL 1317286 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 21, 2019) ..................................3 

Secured Mail Solutions LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc., 

873 F.3d 905 (Fed. Cir. 2017)........................................................................................1, 5, 6, 7

Simio, LLC v. FlexSim Software Products, Inc., 

983 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2020)..................................................................................................8 

SIPCO, LLC v. Emerson Elec. Co., 

939 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2019)..................................................................................................4 

Case 2:23-cv-00249-JRG Document 21 Filed 08/28/23 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 808
iv 

Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc., 

72 F.4th 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ..........................................................................................3, 8, 9 

Other Authorities 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 .........................................................................................................................8, 9 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)................................................................................................................2, 8 

Case 2:23-cv-00249-JRG Document 21 Filed 08/28/23 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 809
1 

 Symbology has filed over 220 lawsuits asserting claims of the same asserted patents1

 here 

or of other patents in the same family. In many of those lawsuits, faced with similar § 101 

arguments as those presented by KDP here, Symbology walked away and dismissed its claims 

with prejudice rather than defend its allegations on the merits. This time, Symbology is attempting 

to delay the Court’s determination by purporting to make up a claim construction issue that 

prevents the Court from ruling on § 101 on the pleadings. Importantly, however, Symbology has 

failed to propose any constructions for its allegedly disputed terms. (See Dkt. No. 16-1.) 

Regardless, any proposed construction could not alter the patent-ineligibility analysis, nor does 

Symbology explain how one might, which is fatal to its attempt to oppose a ruling on the pleadings. 

See, e.g., Jedi Techs., Inc. v. Spark Networks, Inc., No. CV 1:16-1055-GMS, 2017 WL 3315279, 

at *6 (D. Del. Aug. 3, 2017) (“Here, [plaintiff] failed to identify any specific claims which, if 

scrutinized during claim construction, could impact the [§ 101] analysis. Thus, the court considers 

it appropriate to analyze patent eligibility at this stage in the present case.”) (citations omitted). 

Consequently, this motion is ripe for the Court’s consideration. 

 The asserted patents describe the concept of data recognition and retrieval, which is an 

abstract idea ineligible for patenting. Moreover, neither the specification nor any claim identifies 

a specific way of implementing this concept. Tellingly, Symbology’s Opposition does not 

meaningfully address KDP’s recited legal authority that upheld the ineligibility of claims similar 

to those in the asserted patents. See Secured Mail Solutions LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc., 873 F.3d 

1

 The asserted patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,992,773, 8,424,752, 8,651,369, and 8,936,190. 

Symbology oddly refers to an “’863 Patent” and a “’930 Patent,” but these are not patents asserted 

in this litigation. (See Opp. at 14.) 

Case 2:23-cv-00249-JRG Document 21 Filed 08/28/23 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 810
2 

905, 912 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (affirming district court’s grant of motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 

12(b)(6) for patent ineligibility of patents directed to decoding barcodes).

 To the extent the claims of the asserted patents capture any purported improvements, those 

improvements are to the abstract idea itself. The Federal Circuit has held that “[a]s a matter of law, 

narrowing or reformulating an abstract idea does not add ‘significantly more’ to it.” BSG Tech 

LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290-91 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“If a claim’s only ‘inventive 

concept’ is the application of an abstract idea using conventional and well-understood techniques, 

the claim has not been transformed into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea.”). That 

holding applies here. 

The claims’ recitation of non-specific limitations makes clear that the patentee intended to 

lay claim to any action whatsoever resulting in practice of the general abstract idea. Such claims 

are precisely the type of claims that courts have repeatedly found ineligible. When there is no 

plausible reading of a patent that would enable it to satisfy the threshold inquiry under § 101, an 

early Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal is appropriate. 

To avoid waste of judicial and party resources further litigating invalid patents, KDP 

requests the Court dismiss Symbology’s Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

I. THE ASSERTED PATENTS ARE INVALID

A. Claim 1 of the ’752 patent is representative

Symbology contends that KDP fails to demonstrate that Claim 1 is representative for the 

purposes of the § 101 analysis. (Opp. at 1-5.) Symbology’s only rationale is that KDP’s analysis 

was incomplete and, essentially, that other claims exist. (See id. at 2-5.) Symbology merely lists 

the dependent claims of the ’752 Patent, without any analysis, and concludes that there are “nonrepresentative differences.” (See id.) This is insufficient. 

Case 2:23-cv-00249-JRG Document 21 Filed 08/28/23 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 811
3 

KDP met its burden by analyzing all the remaining claims and demonstrating those claims 

were similarly directed to the same abstract idea as representative Claim 1. (See Dkt. 6 (“Mot.”) 

at 7-8.) This shifted the burden to Symbology to demonstrate a material difference between the 

claims. See PPS Data, LLC v. Jack Henry Assocs., Inc., No. 2:18-cv-00007-JRG, 2019 WL 

1317286, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 21, 2019) (articulating that defendants first bear the burden of 

demonstrating a claim is representative, which then shifts to the plaintiff to identify a difference 

material to the § 101 analysis). Merely listing dependent claims and concluding that Claim 1 is not 

representative does not meet this burden. Even taking the dependent claims into account, they do 

not constitute “a difference material to the § 101 analysis.” PPS Data, 2019 WL 1317286, at *5. 

As addressed in KDP’s Motion, these dependent claims merely disclose token pre- and postsolution activities, and nothing about these limitations elevates them above the abstract idea of 

data recognition and retrieval. (See Mot. at 7-8.); see also Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, 

Inc., 72 F.4th 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“[T]he remaining dependent claims merely add trivial 

variations of the abstract idea—performing matches based on gender, varying the number of 

questions asked, and/or displaying other users’ answers—that do not change the focus of the 

asserted claims.”). Symbology’s “conclusory arguments against the representative nature of the 

claims” should be rejected. Monument Peak Ventures, LLC v. Toshiba Am. Bus. Sols., Inc., No. 

SA CV 19-02181-DOC-DFM, 2020 WL 6050597, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2020). 

B. Alice Step One: the asserted claims are directed to an abstract idea 

The claims of the asserted patents are directed to an unpatentable abstract idea because the 

claims cover nothing more than the concept of data recognition and retrial. The breadth of the idea 

comes not from an over-generalization or over-simplification on the part of KDP, as Symbology 

contends (see, e.g., Opp. at 11), but from the very breadth of the claims, as “the ‘level of 

abstraction’ employed . . . in describing the claims must be consonant with the level of abstraction 

Case 2:23-cv-00249-JRG Document 21 Filed 08/28/23 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 812
4 

expressed in the claims themselves.” Idexx Labs., Inc. v. Charles River Labs., Inc., CV 15-668-

RGA, 2016 WL 3647971 at *4 (D. Del. July 7, 2016) (citing Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 

F.3d 1327, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). KDP’s characterization is at an appropriate level of abstraction 

derived from the claims themselves. The abstract idea is broad, sure, but that is the quintessential 

characteristic of abstract ideas and highlights the “pre-emption concern that undergirds [the] § 101 

jurisprudence.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358 (2014). Accordingly, 

it is enough for KDP to identify the abstract idea to which the claims are directed, which it has 

done. See id. 

Bizarrely, Symbology’s characterization of the claims is not even related to the asserted 

patents in this case: 

“The focus of the claimed advance over the prior art in this case is a system that 

allows for a trading server coupled to a market and currency exchange server, 

wherein the costs and fees associated with the trading server are dynamically 

changed in accordance with the prevailing exchange rate updated constantly. This 

is not an abstract idea.” (Opp. at 11) (emphasis added) 

“[T]he Asserted Claims have a clear, concreate and tangible form in that they are 

direct to providing utilize [sic] an unconventional specialty trading server coupled 

to a market and currency exchange server . . ..” (Id. at 12) (emphasis added). 

There is nothing in the asserted patents that addresses a trading server or market and currency 

exchange server. See, e.g., ’752 Patent; ’773 Patent; ’369 Patent; ’190 Patent. Whatever claims 

Symbology is referencing, they are not at issue in this case. 

 Furthermore, Symbology’s position regarding a “technological invention” is irrelevant. 

The case cited by Symbology was vacated by the Supreme Court and related to whether a patent 

is excluded from a covered business method (“CBM”) review. (Opp. at 11); Emerson Elec. Co. v. 

SIPCO, LLC, 141 S. Ct. 106, 207 L. Ed. 1049 (2020); SIPCO, LLC v. Emerson Elec. Co., 939 F.3d 

1301, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“In determining that the ’842 Patent qualifies for CBM review, the 

Board found that the patent is not excluded from review under the statutory ‘technological 

Case 2:23-cv-00249-JRG Document 21 Filed 08/28/23 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 813
5 

invention’ exception.”). Symbology is relying on overturned case law that is also irrelevant to § 

101. 

 In contrast, KDP cited several cases in which courts have found patents similar to the 

asserted patents to be directed to abstract ideas. (Mot. at 10-13.) Symbology’s Opposition does not 

meaningfully distinguish these cases and given the similarity of these cases to the claims-at-hand, 

Symbology’s reluctance to adequately address these cases speaks volumes. See Nexrf Corp. v. 

Playtika Ltd., No. 320CV00603MMDCLB, 2021 WL 2874114, at *5 (D. Nev. July 7, 2021) (“As 

[defendant] argues, Claim 1 of the ’229 patent is analogous to the claims found abstract in Planet 

Bingo . . . . And Plaintiff’s decision not to address Planet Bingo in response to [defendant]’s motion 

to dismiss indeed suggests that Plaintiff has no convincing response.”) (citation omitted). For 

example, in Secured Mail, the Federal Circuit held claims directed to encoding and decoding a bar 

code invalid under both Alice steps. Secured Mail, 873 F.3d at 907. The claims at issue in Secured 

Mail were “directed to the abstract process of communicating information about a mail object 

using a personalized marking”—i.e., barcodes. See id. at 911. Similarly, here, the claims are 

directed to the abstract concept of data recognition and retrieval using an “object’s symbology, 

e.g., a barcode . . . .” ’752 Patent at Abstract (emphasis added). 

 Similarly, in Recognicorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., the Federal Circuit held the patent 

claim at issue to be directed toward the abstract idea of “encoding and decoding image data.” 855 

F.3d 1322, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The court explained that encoding and decoding data is “an 

abstract concept long utilized to transmit information” and provided several examples of longutilized methods of encoding and decoding of data to transmit information: “Morse code, ordering 

food at a fast food restaurant via a numbering system, and Paul Revere’s ‘one if by land, two if by 

Case 2:23-cv-00249-JRG Document 21 Filed 08/28/23 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 814
6 

sea’ signaling system all exemplify encoding at one end and decoding at the other end.” Id. 

Symbology does not address Secured Mail or Recognicorp in its Opposition. 

 Finally, Symbology concludes that Content Extraction is not applicable because “a symbol

is being detected, not a well-known character that even a human could recognize. There is no way 

a human being can look at a symbol and know where that would send a person that captured a QR 

code . . . .” (Opp. 12-13.) This is a distinction without a difference. Whether defined as a symbol 

or a character, the underlying abstract idea is still data recognition and retrieval. Symbology’s 

attempt to write QR code into the claims, which broadly require “symbology,” does not change 

the nature of the claims from data recognition and retrieval and does not traverse the examples the 

Federal Circuit gave in Recognicorp regarding human implemented methods of “encoding at one 

end and decoding at the other end.” ’752 Patent, Cl. 1; Recognicorp, 855 F.3d at 1324. The claims 

of the asserted patents cannot be meaningfully distinguished from Secured Mail, Recognicorp, or 

Content Extraction. The claims of the asserted patents are thus invalid for the same reasons. 

C. Alice Step Two: the claims recite no inventive concept

The claims of the asserted patents also contain no inventive concept, and Symbology’s 

Opposition does not traverse this issue. First, Symbology’s Opposition does not address the 

asserted patents at all but rather addresses patents relating to a “specialty trading server” and the 

unrelated and unasserted ’863 Patent and ’930 Patent. Second, the claims do not disclose any 

special way to implement the idea of data recognition and retrieval, nor do they require any 

specific, improved hardware or software configuration. To the contrary, neither the claims nor the 

specification describes how to implement the claims in any particular or inventive manner. See 

Secured Mail, 873 F.3d at 911 (“Merely reciting the use of a generic computer or adding the words 

‘apply it with a computer’ cannot convert a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible 

invention.”); see also Coding Techs., 2020 WL 8410430, at *6 (“The Court also notes that ‘[t]he 

Case 2:23-cv-00249-JRG Document 21 Filed 08/28/23 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 815
7 

use of barcodes was commonplace and conventional’ as early as 2001, as was the concept of a 

barcode-encoded URL.”) (quoting Secured Mail, 873 F.3d at 912). The claims are therefore invalid 

under § 101. See Secured Mail, 873 F.3d at 912. “Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the 

specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer . . . technology.” 

Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016). There is thus no 

limitation in the claims that could be considered an inventive concept. 

Symbology makes much ado about the machine-or-transformation test, argues that this 

“confirms the claims are patent-eligible,” and then fails to tie its argument to anything in the 

asserted patents. (See Opp. at 14.) Symbology argues that the asserted claims utilize a “market 

exchange server,” and a “specialty trading server,” where “costs and fees are dynamically changed 

. . . with the prevailing exchange rate.” Id. It cites to an “’863 Patent” and a “’930 Patent” and 

concludes that the “trading server” is not a generic component. Id. As addressed above, the asserted 

patents are devoid of any reference to a specialty trading server, do not include ’863 or ’930 

patents, and do not relate to currency exchange. Symbology has failed to provide any argument 

regarding the patents at issue in this case, and the Court could end its analysis here. 

 Symbology provides only a generic argument regarding the machine-or-transformation 

test, statements that a claim element is not conventional “just because it appears in the prior art,” 

and attorney argument regarding what Alice and Bancorp recite in terms of using a “specialized 

computer.” (Id. at 14-15.) None of this is applicable. The claims of the asserted patents are not tied 

to a particular machine or apparatus and do not transform a particular article into a different state 

or thing, if those are even appropriate tests for determining eligibility after the Supreme Court’s 

opinions in Bilski and Alice. See ’752 Patent, Cl. 1. Furthermore, Symbology’s arguments 

regarding prior art are not relevant to the § 101 analysis. Its uncited interpretations of Alice and 

Case 2:23-cv-00249-JRG Document 21 Filed 08/28/23 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 816
8 

Bancorp are baseless, particularly because there is no “specialized computer” in the asserted 

patents. (See Opp. at 15.) Finally, any purported inventiveness is irrelevant because it improves 

upon only the abstract idea of data recognition and retrieval. “At Alice step two, it is irrelevant 

whether [a particular limitation] may have been non-routine or unconventional as a factual matter.” 

BSG Tech, 899 F.3d at 1290-91. Symbology does not and cannot claim that it invented or improved 

a specific computer, computer module, or other technology. The claims recite the use of existing 

hardware or software components, and thus, to the extent that is any improvement at all, it is an 

improvement to the abstract idea and improper grounds to support eligibility. See id. 

D. There are no factual disputes preventing a ruling at the Rule 12 stage 

The issue of patent eligibility is ready for the Court’s consideration because there are no 

factual or claim construction issues. Symbology contends it made allegations in its Complaint that 

raise genuine issues of material fact. (Opp. at 5.) As KDP explained in its Motion to Dismiss, 

however, the statements in Symbology’s Complaint do not contain factual allegations—they are 

legal conclusions by which Symbology attempts to unilaterally declare that its patents are directed 

to eligible subject matter. (See Mot. at 17-18); see also Simio, LLC v. FlexSim Software Products, 

Inc., 983 F.3d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“A statement that a feature ‘improves the functioning 

and operations of the computer’ is, by itself, conclusory.”). 

The Federal Circuit consistently rejects this tactic. See Boom! Payments, Inc. v. Stripe, Inc., 

839 F. App’x 528, 533 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“[Plaintiff] makes numerous allegations that the patented 

inventions are not routine or conventional at the time of the invention. But while we are required 

to accept the plaintiff’s allegations as true in reviewing the grant of a motion to dismiss, we 

disregard conclusory statements when evaluating a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).”) (citing Simio 

LLC, 983 F.3d at 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020)) (internal citations omitted); see also Trinity Info Media, 

72 F.4th at 1363 (“Trinity argues that the district court’s analysis at Alice/Mayo step one failed to 

Case 2:23-cv-00249-JRG Document 21 Filed 08/28/23 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 817
9 

appreciate several statements in its amended complaint demonstrating that the patents included an 

advance over the prior art . . . . These statements do not change our analysis at Alice/Mayo step 

one.”). 

E. There are no claim construction disputes preventing a ruling at the Rule 12 

 stage 

With respect to claim construction, Symbology incorrectly contends that “[a] proper 

construction of [certain] terms and phrases are required in order to properly evaluate the merits of 

KDP’s Section 101 motion to dismiss.” (Opp. at 18-19.) Symbology has misunderstood the law. 

As the Federal Circuit explained, “if the parties raise a claim construction dispute at the Rule 

12[] stage, the district court must either adopt the non-moving party’s constructions or resolve the 

dispute to whatever extent is needed to conduct the § 101 analysis.” MyMail, Ltd. v. ooVoo, LLC, 

934 F.3d 1373, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (emphasis added). Here, there are no claim construction 

disputes, as neither KDP nor Symbology has proposed any claim constructions, much less any 

reason why any claim construction would affect the § 101 analysis. Symbology “must propose a 

specific claim construction or identify specific facts that need development and explain why 

those circumstances must be resolved before the scope of the claims can be understood for § 101 

purposes.” Trinity, 72 F.4th at 1361 (emphasis added). Symbology has done neither. See, e.g., Jedi 

Tech., No. 1:16-cv-1055-GMS, 2017 WL 3315279, at *6 (deciding § 101 eligibility without claim 

construction where plaintiff failed to offer any specific claim construction issues that would affect 

the analysis). Simply stating that claim terms should be construed is insufficient for Symbology to 

meet its burden, and there is no claim construction that would affect the Court’s § 101 analysis. 

Consequently, this motion is ripe, and all of Symbology’s arguments to the contrary are incorrect.2

2

 Symbology spends almost 5 pages of its Opposition and includes an affidavit to mischaracterize 

KDP’s position. (See Opp. at 15-19, Ex. A.) As stated in the Joint Letter Regarding Claim 

Case 2:23-cv-00249-JRG Document 21 Filed 08/28/23 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: 818
10 

II. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and the reasons stated in KDP’s Motion to Dismiss, KDP 

respectfully requests this Court dismiss Symbology’s Complaint for failure to state a claim upon 

which relief can be granted. KDP respectfully requests dismissal with prejudice because leave to 

amend would be futile. 

 

Construction, Symbology did not make KDP aware of any claim construction disputes that 

“could affect the Court’s § 101 analysis.” (Dkt. 16-1.) In both its communications and its 

Opposition, Symbology merely lists claim terms and concludes that construction is necessary for 

§ 101 purposes. (See Opp. at 15-19.) 

Case 2:23-cv-00249-JRG Document 21 Filed 08/28/23 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 819
11 

Dated: August 28, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Rodeen Talebi 

Neil J. McNabnay 

Texas Bar No. 24002583 

Ricardo J. Bonilla 

Texas Bar No. 24082704 

Rodeen Talebi 

Texas Bar No. 24103958 

Sarika Patel 

Texas Bar No. 24073520 

mcnabnay@fr.com 

rbonilla@fr.com 

talebi@fr.com 

patel@fr.com 

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 

1717 Main Street, Suite 5000 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

(214) 747-5070 (Telephone) 

(214) 747-2091 (Facsimile) 

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT 

KEURIG DR. PEPPER, INC.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy has been electronically filed using the CM/ECF 

filing system on August 28, 2023 which automatically sends email notifications to all counsel of 

record and which will permit viewing and downloading of same from the CM/ECF system. 

 /s/ Rodeen Talebi 

 Rodeen Talebi 

Case 2:23-cv-00249-JRG Document 21 Filed 08/28/23 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 820