1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

SYMBOLOGY INNOVATIONS, LLC

Plaintiff,

v.

VALVE CORPORATION, 

GEARBOX SOFTWARE, LLC

Defendant.

Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-419-JRG-RSP

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DEFENDANT VALVE CORPORATION’S SUR-SUR-REPLY 

IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FEDERAL 

RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(B)(3) FOR IMPROPER VENUE

Valve files this response to Plaintiffs’ corrected sur-reply (Dkt. 75) to correct several 

material misrepresentations made in Plaintiffs’ brief. 

First, Plaintiffs state that Valve filed “a barrage of motions on this Court without 

complying with Rule 7(h).” Dkt. 75 at 1 n. 1. Yet counsel for Plaintiffs stated in an email “we 

confirm via this email that Valve has met and conferred under Rule 7(h), so Valve can proceed to 

file its motions opposed. Plaintiffs are not going to claim lack of a meet and confer as an 

opposition to any of these motions.” Ex. 1 (Apr. 4, 2024, Email from R. Garteiser to Counsel for

Valve).

Second, Plaintiffs state, “Valve’s HTC Vive VR headset” “does overlap completely with 

the Display Technology accused instrumentalities.” Dkt. 75 at 1. This cannot be the case. The 

HTC Vive VR headset was released in 20161, a year after the Display Technologies lawsuit was 

1 Valve does not manufacture, sell, or distribute the HTC Vive VR. See Ex. 2 (listing the 

manufacturer as HTC).

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 76 Filed 05/16/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 1647
2

filed. Compare Ex. 2 (release date announcement of HTC Vive headset); with Display 

Technologies, LLC v. Valve Corporation, 2-15-cv-00999, Dkt. 1 (E.D. Tex. June 8, 2015).

Third, Plaintiffs argue “Valve told a court in the Western District of Washington that a 

non-signatory was bound by the GSALA by a later assignment.” Dkt. 75 at 4. This misrepresents

Valve’s position. Valve alleged in the Washington case that Rothschild-controlled entity RBDS 

was bound by the GSALA “as if it was a party hereto” under § 7.2 of the agreement because the 

patent RBDS asserted against Valve was listed as a licensed patent under the GSALA. Here in 

the Rothchild plaintiffs’ EDTX cases against Valve, there is no dispute that none of the Asserted 

Patents are listed in the GSALA. Therefore, under the plain language of § 7.2, Symbology, QTI, 

and SPIS are not “part[ies]” to the GSALA. Plaintiffs’ sur-reply demonstrates only that Valve’s 

Washington case arises out of the GSALA while Plaintiffs’ Texas cases do not.

Fourth, Plaintiffs include an excerpt of Dkt. 66-2 (an email from R. Garteiser to counsel 

for Valve) in their sur-reply and argue “[t]he entire context [of the email] was about the Global 

Settlement and License Agreement.” Dkt. 75 at 5. Plaintiffs excerpted only the portion that 

references Valve’s hypothetical license defense. Plaintiffs omit the rest of the email, which 

references a stay of litigation, the parties’ other motions, and Plaintiffs’ demand that Valve waive 

its right to seek fees. Dkt. 66-2. 

Fifth, Plaintiffs purport to quote a sentence from Valve’s reply. Dkt 75 at 5 (“Valve’s 

Reply argues that plaintiff contradicts itself by saying the ‘GSALA is the same nexus of 

operative facts yet claiming the Patents-in-Suit now were not licensed under the GSALA’”). 

Valve did not make this quoted statement in its Reply brief (Dkt. 66), and the statement does not 

appear in any of Valve’s briefing on the motion to dismiss.

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 76 Filed 05/16/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 1648
Dated: May 16, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Shaun W. Hassett

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

Dario A. Machleidt

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 

DMachleidt@kilpatricktownsend.com

KGeyer@kilpatricktownsend.com 

CDamitio@kilpatricktownsend.com 

Attorneys for Defendant

Valve Corp.

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 76 Filed 05/16/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 1649