IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

SOCIAL POSITIONING INPUT SYSTEMS, LLC

Plaintiff,

v.

VALVE CORPORATION, 

GEARBOX SOFTWARE, LLC

Defendants

Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-422-JRG-RSP

DEFENDANT VALVE CORPORATION’S MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER 

FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(b)(3) FOR IMPROPER VENUE

Case 2:23-cv-00422-JRG-RSP Document 11 Filed 12/13/23 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 100
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................1

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND............................................................................................2

III. LEGAL STANDARDS .....................................................................................................3

IV. ARGUMENT.....................................................................................................................4

A. Venue Is Improper in the Eastern District of Texas Because Valve Has 

No Physical Place in This District .........................................................................4

1. Valve Has No Office Space or Real Property in This District ..................4

2. Valve Has No Employees in This District.................................................4

B. The Court Should Disregard SPIS’s Remaining Irrelevant Venue 

Allegations.............................................................................................................5

1. SPIS’s Reliance on Out-of-District Former Employees and 

Independent Contractors............................................................................5

2. Valve’s Decades-Old Collaboration with Gearbox ...................................7

3. Valve’s Texas Taxpayer Number Is Irrelevant to the Venue 

Analysis......................................................................................................9

4. Neither Valve’s Intervention in a 2013 Lawsuit Nor Its Consent 

to Venue in a 2015 Lawsuit Confer Venue in 2023...................................9

5. Valve’s Sale of Gift Cards in this District Is Irrelevant to the 

Venue Analysis........................................................................................11

C. The Court Should Dismiss the Case ....................................................................12

V. CONCLUSION................................................................................................................13

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................ ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

Case 2:23-cv-00422-JRG-RSP Document 11 Filed 12/13/23 Page 2 of 18 PageID #: 101
ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Cases

Akurate Dynamics, LLC v. Carlisle Luid Tech., Inc.,

No. 6:20-cv-00606-ADA, 2021 WL 860006 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 8, 2021).................................12

Alexsam, Inc. v. Simon Prop. Grp. (Texas), L.P.,

No. 2:19-CV-00331-JRG, 2021 WL 8441707 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 3, 2021) ...............................12

AptusTech LLC v. Trimfoot Co., LLC,

No. 4:19-cv-00133-ALM, 2020 WL 1190070 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 12, 2020)................................3

C.R. Bard, Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc.,

No. 2:12-cv-00035-RJS-DAO, 2020 WL 6710423 (D. Utah Nov. 16, 2020).........................11

In re Cordis Corp.,

769 F.2d 733 (Fed. Cir. 1985)....................................................................................................3

In re Cray Inc.,

871 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2017)......................................................................................3, 4, 5, 7

Display Technologies, LLC v. Nvida Corp.,

No. 2:15-cv-00998-JRG-RSP, Dkt. 41 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 28, 2015) ....................................10, 11

Display Techs. LLC v. Valve Corp.,

No. 2:22-cv-01365 (W.D. Wash.)............................................................................................13

Koss Corp. v. Skullcandy, Inc.,

No. 6:20-cv-00664-ADA, 2021 WL 1226775 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2021).............................12

In re Micron Tech., Inc.,

875 F.3d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................11

Optic153 LLC v. ThorLabs, Inc.,

No. 6:19-cv-0067-ADA, 2020 WL 3403076 (W.D. Tex. Jun. 19, 2020)................................12

Pers. Audio, LLC v. Google, Inc.,

280 F. Supp. 3d 922 (E.D. Tex. 2017).......................................................................................5

Social Positioning Input Sys., LLC v. Valve Corp.,

2:22-cv-01366 (W.D. Wash.)...................................................................................................13

TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Grp. Brands LLC,

581 U.S. 258 (2017).........................................................................................................3, 9, 11

Case 2:23-cv-00422-JRG-RSP Document 11 Filed 12/13/23 Page 3 of 18 PageID #: 102
iii

Toshiba Int’l Corp. v. Fritz,

993 F. Supp. 571 (S.D. Tex. 1998)..........................................................................................10

Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Nutanix, Inc.,

No. 2:17-CV-00174-JRG, 2017 WL 11527109 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 6, 2017)..............................12

Uniloc v. Activision Blizzard, Inc.,

No. 6:13-cv-00256-LED, Dkt. 1 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 21, 2013)...............................................9, 10

Unity Opto Tech. Co. v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC,

No. 18-cv-27-JDP, 2018 WL 2087250 (W.D. Wis. May 4, 2018)........................................8, 9

V&A Collection, LLC v. Guzzini Props. Ltd.,

46 F.4th 127 (2d Cir. 2022) ...............................................................................................10, 11

Valve Corporation v. Rothschild et al.,

No. 2:23-cv-01016 (W.D. Wash.)..............................................................................................1

Statutes

28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).................................................................................................................3, 4, 5

Other Authorities

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3)..............................................................................................................2, 13

Case 2:23-cv-00422-JRG-RSP Document 11 Filed 12/13/23 Page 4 of 18 PageID #: 103
1

I. INTRODUCTION 

Earlier this year, Valve Corporation (“Valve”) sued Social Positioning Input Systems, 

LLC’s (“SPIS”) owner, Leigh Rothschild, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of 

Washington.1 Valve’s lawsuit accuses Rothschild and several of his other companies of violating 

Washington state’s Anti-Troll Statute due to their repeated and improper accusations of patent 

infringement against Valve based on patents to which Valve is already licensed. Not content with 

litigating that dispute on the merits, Rothschild—through SPIS—filed this patent infringement 

suit far away from Valve’s headquarters in Washington.2 In doing so, however, SPIS and 

Rothschild have chosen the wrong venue to file their retaliatory suit. Rothschild, through its 

corporate entities, previously sued Valve in Washington, and Rothschild’s choice to now sue 

Valve in the Eastern District of Texas is nothing but a conspicuous effort to drive up Valve’s 

costs by requiring it to defend itself in a far-away forum. 

Valve has no meaningful connection to this District. Neither party disputes that Valve is 

incorporated and headquartered in Washington and does not have a regular and established place 

of business in this District. Valve does not own any office space, operate any stores, lease any 

storage space, or have any physical presence in the Eastern District of Texas. Nor does Valve 

have any employees in this District. This should end the inquiry.

In an attempt to manufacture a connection to the Eastern District of Texas where none 

exists, SPIS alleges a series of irrelevant and misleading facts. Indeed, SPIS’s own purported 

1 See Valve Corporation v. Rothschild et al., No. 2:23-cv-01016 (W.D. Wash.). 

2 Rothschild has filed two other retaliatory lawsuits against Valve. Symbology Innovations, LLC

v. Valve Corp. et al, Case No. 2:23-cv-419 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 15, 2023); Quantum Techs. 

Innovations, LLC, v. Valve Corp. et al, Case No. 2:23-cv-425 (E.D. Tex Sept. 18, 2023). Valve 

has moved to dismiss both cases under Rule 12(b)(3) for improper venue.

Case 2:23-cv-00422-JRG-RSP Document 11 Filed 12/13/23 Page 5 of 18 PageID #: 104
2

evidence contradicts its venue allegations. Accordingly, Valve respectfully moves under Rule 

12(b)(3) to dismiss for improper venue.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

As SPIS admits, Valve is incorporated and has its principal place of business in 

Washington state. Dkt. 3, ¶ 2. Valve does not own any real property, rent any office space, or 

possess or control any “shelf space” in the Eastern District of Texas. See Declaration of 

Christopher Schenck (“Schenck Decl.”), ¶ 6. Nor did SPIS identify any physical presence of 

Valve in its Complaint. 

Instead, SPIS attempts only to identify five purported employees that allegedly have 

relevant information to this lawsuit. Dkt. 3, ¶ 7. The LinkedIn profiles SPIS relies on indicate

that four of those five people do not reside in this District. Dkt. 3, ¶ 7 (listing Mitchell Ludolf 

(Kendalia, TX), Bradon Reinhart (Las Vegas, NV), Helen Pope (San Antonio, TX), and Jenni 

Jacobi (Austin, TX)). Furthermore, none of these four individuals are current employees of 

Valve (Schenck Decl., ¶ 11), confirming their irrelevance to the question of venue. 

Timothee Yeramian is the only Valve employee who SPIS claims resides in this District. 

Mr. Yeramian, however, actually lives in Washington. See Ex. 1 (Declaration of Timothee 

Yeramian filed in Symbology Innovation Techs. v. Valve Corp. et. al, No. 23-419, Dkt. 11-2 

(E.D. Tex. Nov. 6, 2023)), ¶ 6. He has worked for Valve for less than a year and moved from 

Texas to Washington in 2022. Id., ¶ 7. SPIS’s reliance on Mr. Yeramian’s previous Texas 

connection stems from an outdated LinkedIn page. Id., ¶ 8.

SPIS also attempts to bootstrap allegations relating only to co-defendant Gearbox 

Software LLC (“Gearbox”) to Valve. See, e.g., Dkt. 3, ¶ 7. But Valve is not related to Gearbox 

and does not exercise control over Gearbox. Schenck Decl., ¶ 14. In 2001, after Gearbox 

developed two expansions to Valve’s popular “Half-Life” video game franchise, Valve entered 

Case 2:23-cv-00422-JRG-RSP Document 11 Filed 12/13/23 Page 6 of 18 PageID #: 105
3

into a contractual agreement with Gearbox to do additional video game development work. Id., 

¶¶ 15-17. In 2002, Valve terminated that contract. Id., ¶ 18. Since 2002, Valve has not 

collaborated with Gearbox to develop any products.3 Id., ¶ 19. More particularly, Valve and 

Gearbox did not work together to develop the HTC Vive VR4 platform that SPIS accuses of 

infringement. Id., ¶ 20.

III. LEGAL STANDARDS

SPIS “bears the burden of establishing proper venue.” AptusTech LLC v. Trimfoot Co., 

LLC, No. 4:19-cv-00133-ALM, 2020 WL 1190070, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 12, 2020) (quoting In 

re ZTE (USA), Inc., 890 F.3d 1008, 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Because Valve is incorporated in the 

United States, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) is the “sole and exclusive” provision controlling venue. TC 

Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Grp. Brands LLC, 581 U.S. 258, 265-66 (2017). Under Section 

1400(b), SPIS can only establish venue in a district where a corporate defendant “resides” (i.e., is 

incorporated) or “where the defendant has committed acts of infringement5 and has a regular and 

established place of business.” Id. 

3 Gearbox is one of thousands of game developers that sell their products on Valve’s Steam 

platform. Schenck Decl., ¶ 22.

4 Though not the subject of this motion, Valve avers that it sells the product alleged by SPIS to 

infringe the asserted patent. The accused HTC Vive product is sold by High Tech Company, a 

Tawainese-based technology company. The HTC Vive is not available for sale on Valve’s 

website, and the website link provided in SPIS’s infringement contentions (e.g., Dkt. 3-2 at 1) 

explicitly lists HTC as the manufacturer of the HTC Vive product. See Vive Cosmos Elite, 

https://store.steampowered.com/app/358040/VIVE_Cosmos_Elite/ (last accessed Dec. 12, 2023)

(“MANUFACTURER: HTC).

5 “The issue of infringement is not reached on the merits in considering venue requirements.” In 

re Cordis Corp., 769 F.2d 733, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citation omitted). Accordingly, Valve does 

not address the sufficiency of the infringement allegations made in SPIS’s complaint for the 

purposes of this Motion. For the avoidance of doubt, however, Valve denies all allegations of 

patent infringement.

Case 2:23-cv-00422-JRG-RSP Document 11 Filed 12/13/23 Page 7 of 18 PageID #: 106
4

To find that Valve has a regular and established place of business, “(1) there must be a 

physical place in the district; (2) it must be a regular and established place of business; and (3) it 

must be the place of the defendant.” In re Cray Inc., 871 F.3d 1355, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017). 

“[V]enue is improper under § 1400(b)” if just one of these three requirements is missing. Id. 

To establish that Valve has a “regular and established place of business” in this District, 

“[r]elevant considerations include whether the defendant owns or leases the place, or exercises 

other attributes of possession or control over the place.” Id. at 1363. 

IV. ARGUMENT

Neither party disputes that Valve is incorporated in Washington state, and accordingly, it 

does not “reside” in Texas. Therefore, to demonstrate that venue is proper, SPIS must show that 

Valve has a physical place in this District and that the place is a “regular and established place of 

business.” In re Cray, 871 F.3d at 1360. SPIS does not plausibly allege facts to meet this burden. 

A. Venue Is Improper in the Eastern District of Texas Because Valve Has No 

Physical Place in This District

1. Valve Has No Office Space or Real Property in This District

SPIS does not allege that Valve owns or leases any real property or maintains any office 

space in the Eastern District of Texas. Nor does SPIS allege that Valve operates any stores, 

warehouses, or fulfillment centers to sell its products. Indeed, it cannot, as Valve does not have 

any physical presence here, let alone a presence that could be considered “a regular and 

established place of business.” Schenck Decl., ¶¶ 5-6. Accordingly, neither prong of 28 U.S.C. 

§1400(b) is satisfied, and venue is improper. In re Cray Inc., 871 F.3d at 1360.

2. Valve Has No Employees in This District

SPIS also alleges that venue is allegedly proper because five of Valve’s alleged 

employees “reside in the state” of Texas. Dkt. 3, ¶ 7. Yet none of these alleged employees live in 

Case 2:23-cv-00422-JRG-RSP Document 11 Filed 12/13/23 Page 8 of 18 PageID #: 107
5

this District. On the face of the LinkedIn profiles in the complaint, four alleged employees do 

not reside in this District: Mitchell Ludolf (Kendalia, TX), Bradon Reinhart (Las Vegas, NV), 

Helen Pope (San Antonio, TX), and Jenni Jacobi (Austin, TX). Only Timothee Yeramian

potentially had a connection to this District. Yet Mr. Yeramian no longer lives in this District and 

has not done so since 2022. Ex. 1., ¶ 7. Indeed, Mr. Yeramian now resides in Washington. Id.

Even when he lived in Texas, he did not work for Valve. Id., ¶¶ 6-7.

6 Therefore, any connection 

he once had to this District a year ago, before working for Valve and well before this suit, does 

not make venue proper. Pers. Audio, LLC v. Google, Inc., 280 F. Supp. 3d 922, 930 (E.D. Tex. 

2017) (“[V]enue under § 1400(b) should be analyzed based on the facts and circumstance that 

exist on the date suit is filed.”). 

Because SPIS has not identified any physical place or employees in this District, SPIS

cannot meet any of the factors in In re Cray and the Court should dismiss this suit.

B. The Court Should Disregard SPIS’s Remaining Irrelevant Venue Allegations

Recognizing that it cannot plausibly allege that Valve has any physical place in this 

District, SPIS turns to a series of legally irrelevant allegations in an attempt to circumvent the 

Supreme Court’s venue requirements. None of these allegations, individually or collectively, 

support a finding that venue is proper in this District.

1. SPIS’s Reliance on Out-of-District Former Employees and 

Independent Contractors 

None of SPIS’s allegations regarding out-of-District alleged employees Mitchell Ludolf, 

Bradon Reinhart, Helen Pope, and Jenni Jacobi support SPIS’s allegations that venue is proper in 

this District. In re Cray Inc., 871 F.3d at 1360 (holding that a regular and established place of 

6 Moreover, Mr. Yeramian is a technical artist with no connection to the Accused Products or 

any other aspect of this case. 

Case 2:23-cv-00422-JRG-RSP Document 11 Filed 12/13/23 Page 9 of 18 PageID #: 108
6

business requires “a physical place in the district” (emphasis added)). While not relevant under 

In re Cray, SPIS nevertheless alleges that these employees “have relevant information related to 

this patent infringement lawsuit.” Dkt. 3, ¶ 7. SPIS does not explain how each employee has 

allegedly relevant information, and even a cursory review of these four individuals’ LinkedIn 

profiles cited in the complaint belies this unsupported allegation.

Helen Pope: Valve has no record of ever employing anyone named Helen Pope. Schenck 

Decl., ¶ 7. Ms. Pope, however, claims to be a Senior Software Engineer focusing on “augmented 

reality.” See https://www.linkedin.com/in/helen-pope-3a17111b0/ (last accessed Dec. 12, 2023). 

SPIS’s infringement contentions have nothing to do with augmented reality. See Dkt. 3-2. 

Further, Valve has not focused on the development of augmented reality technology since 2013.

Schenck Decl., ¶ 12; see also Hollister, Sean, “How two Valve engineers walked away with the 

company’s augmented reality glasses,” (May 18, 2013),

https://www.theverge.com/2013/5/18/4343382/technical-illusions-valve-augmented-realityglasses-jeri-ellsworth-rick-johnson (last accessed Dec. 12, 2023) (“Augmented reality simply 

isn’t as suitable for the first-person shooters that Valve has built its reputation on.”). 

Mitchell Ludolf: Valve also has no record of ever employing anyone named Mitchell 

Ludolf. Schenck Decl., ¶ 8. Mr. Ludolf simultaneously claims to be a Valve “Customer Service 

Representative” and also “Unemployed.” See https://www.linkedin.com/in/mitchell-ludolf90b634212/ (last accessed Dec. 12, 2023). SPIS does not explain how someone with such a 

general title has relevant information to this case. 

Brandon Reinhart: Brandon Reinhart is a former Valve employee turned independent 

contractor whose contract with Valve has ended. Schenck Decl., ¶ 9. Mr. Reinhart claims to be a

general “developer” online. See https://www.linkedin.com/in/brandon-reinhart-a26ab8260/ (last 

Case 2:23-cv-00422-JRG-RSP Document 11 Filed 12/13/23 Page 10 of 18 PageID #: 109
7

accessed Dec. 12, 2023). SPIS does not make any connection between Mr. Reinhart’s status as a 

game developer and its infringement allegations, nor is there any as SPIS’s allegations do not 

revolve around any video game. 

Jenni Jacobi: Jenni Jacobi is also an independent contractor hired through a third-party. 

Schenck Decl., ¶ 10. Ms. Jacobi is a “Producer” in “Business Operations.” See

https://www.linkedin.com/in/jennyjacobi/ (last accessed Dec. 12, 2023). Ms. Jacobi works in the 

business and corporate side as a contractor; nothing about her public LinkedIn profile (or actual 

work responsibilities, see Schenck Decl., ¶ 10) supports SPIS’s unfounded allegation that she has 

any relevance to this case.

2. Valve’s Decades-Old Collaboration with Gearbox

SPIS uses Gearbox in a transparent attempt to manufacture venue against Valve by 

imputing Gearbox’s contacts with this District to Valve. SPIS does not accuse Gearbox of 

infringing its patents, and the charts of accused products that SPIS attaches to its complaint do 

not contain a single reference to Gearbox. See Dkt. 3-2. The only reason SPIS dragged Gearbox 

into this suit is because Gearbox’s headquarters are in this District, confirmed by SPIS’s 

voluntary dismissal of Gearbox. Dkt. 5. Moreover, SPIS’s long-shot attempt to allege venue over 

Valve is based only on the allegation that the companies completed a single joint project 20 years 

ago. This is legally insufficient to find venue over Valve in this District. See In re Cray Inc., 871 

F.3d at 1360.

From 2001 to 2002, Gearbox and Valve collaborated to create video game content. 

Schenck Decl., ¶¶ 17-18. Since the project ended in 2002, Valve and Gearbox have had no 

further collaboration on the creation of any product. Id., ¶ 19. Specifically, Valve and Gearbox 

have not collaborated on any product that SPIS accuses of infringement. Nor does SPIS allege as 

much. 

Case 2:23-cv-00422-JRG-RSP Document 11 Filed 12/13/23 Page 11 of 18 PageID #: 110
8

Valve and Gearbox are separate entities that do not share any common ownership, 

employees, or office space. Id., ¶ 21. Valve does not have any control or authority over the 

actions of Gearbox. Id., ¶ 14. For such reasons, the presence of Gearbox in this District cannot be 

used to support venue over Valve. See, e.g., Unity Opto Tech. Co. v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC, 

No. 18-cv-27-JDP, 2018 WL 2087250, at *3 (W.D. Wis. May 4, 2018) (“Because there is no 

authority for the view that venue is proper as to one corporation simply because that corporation 

‘works closely’ with another corporation that may be sued in that district, [Plaintiff] has failed to 

meet its burden to show that venue is proper in this district.”). 

The Unity case is instructive as to why SPIS’s bare-bones allegations cannot support 

venue. In Unity, the plaintiff alleged that the presence of brick-and-mortar stores owned and 

operated by defendant Lowe’s Home Goods was sufficient to find venue over co-defendant L G 

Sourcing, which sourced and supplied the products sold in the stores. Id. at *2. Plaintiff also 

included in its complaint allegations that: (1) the defendants are related companies and have the 

same corporate parent; (2) that “Lowe’s Home Stores ‘must work closely with [L G] Sourcing to 

monitor supply chain . . . and address product quality issues so that its warehouse inventory is 

continuously stocked;’” and (3) that “L G Sourcing ‘inspect[s] and test[s] products manufactured 

by global vendors before approving them for shipment to Lowe’s Home stores in the United 

States,’ using standards from Lowe's Home Centers.” Id. (alterations in original). 

The Unity court found that these allegations—which allege a much closer relationship 

than the one alleged to exist between Gearbox and Valve—were insufficient to confer venue 

over L G Sourcing. The court explained that the two defendants being “subsidiaries of the same 

parent company and that they collaborate on matters common to both of them” was “not 

Case 2:23-cv-00422-JRG-RSP Document 11 Filed 12/13/23 Page 12 of 18 PageID #: 111
9

sufficient to treat [them] as interchangeable for the purpose of determining whether each has a 

place of business in this district.” Id. 

SPIS’s allegations are much more lacking here than in Unity. SPIS alleges in a single 

sentence that Gearbox and Valve collaborated “for years starting with Half-Life and CounterStrike video game offerings, that have continuations of these popular offerings through the 

present day.” Dkt. 3, ¶ 7. Mere collaboration is insufficient to treat Gearbox and Valve as 

interchangeable for the purpose of determining whether Valve has a place of business in this 

District.7 

3. Valve’s Texas Taxpayer Number Is Irrelevant to the Venue Analysis

The fact that Valve has a Texas Franchise Tax Account shows only that Valve conducts 

business in Texas, not that venue is proper in this District. “The Texas franchise tax is a privilege 

tax imposed on each taxable entity formed or organized in Texas or doing business in Texas.” 

COMPTROLLER.TEXAS.GOV, Franchise Tax, https://comptroller.texas.gov/taxes/franchise/ (last 

visited November 2, 2023) (emphasis added). Every company that does any business in Texas is 

required by the state to have a Franchise Tax Account and a Texas Taxpayer Number. The fact 

that Valve complies with Texas state regulations does not confer venue in the Eastern District of 

Texas. Indeed, under the Supreme Court’s ruling in TC Heartland, merely conducting business 

in the state, without more, is insufficient to demonstrate that venue is proper in this District. 

4. Neither Valve’s Intervention in a 2013 Lawsuit Nor Its Consent to 

Venue in a 2015 Lawsuit Confer Venue in 2023

Valve’s strategic approach to venue in two unrelated Texas cases filed more than 8 years 

ago does not now mean that venue is forever properly found in this District. 

7 SPIS’s argument is analogous to requesting that the Court treat the Texas Rangers and the 

Houston Astros as one entity, solely on the basis that the two teams collaborated on a community 

engagement project decades ago.

Case 2:23-cv-00422-JRG-RSP Document 11 Filed 12/13/23 Page 13 of 18 PageID #: 112
10

In a case Uniloc filed in 2013, Uniloc alleged that Valve’s customer (Activision) 

infringed its patents through sales of products on Valve’s Steam platform. Uniloc v. Activision 

Blizzard, Inc., No. 6:13-cv-00256-LED, Dkt. 1, ¶ 12(c) (E.D. Tex. Mar. 21, 2013). As SPIS

recognizes in its complaint, when Valve intervened in the 2013 Uniloc case to defend its 

products, Valve specifically stated: “Valve for the purposes of this litigation only, consents to 

venue in this district.” Id. at Dkt. 154-1 (emphasis added). 

Similarly, Valve stated in response to a 2015 lawsuit brought by a different Rothschildcontrolled entity, Display Technologies, that “Valve does not dispute, for the purposes of this 

action only, that venue is proper in this judicial district. Display Technologies, LLC v. Nvida 

Corp., No. 2:15-cv-00998-JRG-RSP, Dkt. 41, ¶ 4 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 28, 2015) (emphasis added). 

Nothing about these cases support this District exercising venue over Valve. 

Valve’s intervention in 2013 is irrelevant to the question of whether venue is proper as to 

Valve in this case. See Toshiba Int’l Corp. v. Fritz, 993 F. Supp. 571, 573 (S.D. Tex. 1998) 

(“[A]s Fritz points out in his Reply, the Fifth Circuit has held that ‘the filing of a counterclaim, 

cross-claim, or third-party demand does not operate as a waiver of an objection to 

jurisdiction.’”). Taken to its conclusion, SPIS’s allegations amount to arguing that to defend its 

products against an infringement suit in which it was not named as a defendant, Valve must 

make the choice to forever waive its challenges to venue in this District. That is simply not the 

law. See, e.g., V&A Collection, LLC v. Guzzini Props. Ltd., 46 F.4th 127, 132 (2d Cir. 2022) 

(“With a few exceptions, however, ‘[a] party’s consent to jurisdiction in one case [ ] extends to 

that case alone. It in no way opens that party up to other lawsuits in the same jurisdiction in 

which consent was given, where the party does not consent and no other jurisdictional basis is 

Case 2:23-cv-00422-JRG-RSP Document 11 Filed 12/13/23 Page 14 of 18 PageID #: 113
11

available.’” (alteration in original) (quotation omitted)). Valve’s 2013 consent to venue is 

irrelevant to the question of whether venue is proper in this case.

As with Valve’s intervention in the 2013 case, its consent to venue in the 2015 Display 

Technologies case is also insufficient to confer venue now. As discussed above, Valve’s consent 

for the purposes of that case only does not serve to make it forever amenable to venue in this 

District. See V&A Collection, 46 F.4th at 132.

Further, venue law in 2013 and 2015 was very different than the law that the Court must 

now apply in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in TC Heartland. See, e.g., In re Micron 

Tech., Inc., 875 F.3d 1091, 1096, 1099 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[Defendant’s] venue objection was not 

available until the Supreme Court decided TC Heartland because, before then, it would have 

been improper, given controlling precedent, for the district court to dismiss . . .”). Valve’s 

decision not to challenge venue in 2015 cannot be used as a waiver of the present challenge to 

venue. See C.R. Bard, Inc. v. AngioDynamics, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-00035-RJS-DAO, 2020 WL 

6710423, at *4 (D. Utah Nov. 16, 2020) (“As previously explained, a venue objection based on 

[defendant’s] circumstances pre-TC Heartland was not available when the case was filed, and it 

is well established that a defendant is not required to engage in futile gestures solely to avoid a 

claim of waiver.”). Since the Supreme’s Court decision in TC Heartland, Valve has not been 

sued for patent infringement in this District. Neither Valve’s decision in 2013 nor its decision in 

2015 not to challenge venue is relevant to the question of whether venue is proper in this case 

under controlling precedent.

5. Valve’s Sale of Gift Cards in This District Is Irrelevant to the Venue 

Analysis 

Simply alleging that Valve sells products in this District is insufficient to prove proper 

venue over Valve. See supra § IV.B.2. In its complaint, SPIS alleges “Valve sells its Gift Cards 

Case 2:23-cv-00422-JRG-RSP Document 11 Filed 12/13/23 Page 15 of 18 PageID #: 114
12

in this District through prominent brick and mortar retailers including Best Buy, GameStop and 

Walmart.” Dkt. 3, ¶ 7. 

This Court has already rejected the sufficiency of allegations such as these. In Alexsam, 

the plaintiff also argued that the Eastern District of Texas was a proper venue for its suit against 

AMEX because AMEX sold “prepaid, reloadable gift cards” here through vendors such as 

“Dollar General, CVS, Family Dollar, and Walmart.” Alexsam, Inc. v. Simon Prop. Grp. (Texas), 

L.P., No. 2:19-CV-00331-JRG, 2021 WL 8441707, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 3, 2021). Like SPIS, 

the plaintiff in Alexsam did not include any allegations about the control AMEX had over the 

vendors or the process of selling its products. Id. As this Court explained, “[t]aking Alexsam’s 

argument to its logical end, retailers like CVS would be the ‘regular and established place of 

business’ of numerous brands who merely sell products in CVS’s retail locations. That is not 

consistent with current venue law in patent cases.” Id. (citing In re Google, 949 F.3d at 1338, 

1345 (Fed. Cir. 2020)). 

Moreover, in Alexsam, the gift cards were actually alleged to be an infringing product in 

the case. In contrast, SPIS does not argue that the sale of Valve’s gift cards infringes any claims 

of the asserted patent. This Court’s case law makes clear that the sale of a single unaccused 

product through a general consumer goods retail store is insufficient to support a finding that 

venue is proper in this District.

C. The Court Should Dismiss the Case

Because this District is an improper venue for SPIS’s case against Valve, the Court 

should simply dismiss the case. See Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Nutanix, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00174-JRG, 

Case 2:23-cv-00422-JRG-RSP Document 11 Filed 12/13/23 Page 16 of 18 PageID #: 115
13

2017 WL 11527109, at *4-5 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 6, 2017).8 SPIS has a proper forum for obtaining 

any alleged relief against Valve: Western District of Washington. Indeed, SPIS has previously 

sued Valve in the Western District of Washington. See Social Positioning Input Sys., LLC v. 

Valve Corp., 2:22-cv-01366 (W.D. Wash.). SPIS can simply refile its case there.

V. CONCLUSION

The dispute between Valve, Leigh Rothschild, and Mr. Rothschild’s web of shell 

companies is currently being litigated in the Western District of Washington. That is the proper 

venue for this case as well. Valve has no connection to this District, and SPIS knows it. SPIS’s

facially deficient complaint is nothing more than a tactical decision designed to make Valve 

expend the resources to litigate on two fronts. Under the law, venue is improper in this District. 

Accordingly, Valve respectfully requests the Court dismiss this case under Rule 12(b)(3) for 

improper venue over Valve.

8 See also Koss Corp. v. Skullcandy, Inc., No. 6:20-cv-00664-ADA, 2021 WL 1226775, at *2-4 

(W.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2021); Akurate Dynamics, LLC v. Carlisle Luid Tech., Inc., No. 6:20-cv00606-ADA, 2021 WL 860006, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 8, 2021); Optic153 LLC v. ThorLabs, 

Inc., No. 6:19-cv-0067-ADA, 2020 WL 3403076, at *3-4 (W.D. Tex. Jun. 19, 2020).

Case 2:23-cv-00422-JRG-RSP Document 11 Filed 12/13/23 Page 17 of 18 PageID #: 116
14

Dated: December 13, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Michael E. Jones

Michael E. Jones

SBN: 10929400

Shaun W. Hassett

SBN: 24074372

Potter Minton, PC

102 North College, Ste. 900

Tyler, Texas 75702

903-597-8311 (telephone)

mikejones@potterminton.com

shaunhassett@potterminton.com

Kathleen R. Geyer

Christopher P. Damitio 

Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton

1420 Fifth Avenue Suite 3700 

Seattle, WA 98101 

Telephone: (206) 467-9600 

Facsimile: (206) 623-6793 

KGeyer@kilpatricktownsend.com 

CDamitio@kilpatricktownsend.com 

Attorneys for Defendant

Valve Corp.

Case 2:23-cv-00422-JRG-RSP Document 11 Filed 12/13/23 Page 18 of 18 PageID #: 117