Opposition to Motion to Dismiss i

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

SYMBOLOGY INNOVATIONS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

VALVE CORPORATION,

GEARBOX SOFTWARE, L.L.C.,

Defendants.

 CASE NO. 2:23-cv-419-JRG

 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

OPPOSITION TO VALVE CORPORATION’S MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER 

RULE 12(B)(3) 

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 63 Filed 04/22/24 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1510
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. PERSONAL JURISDICTION IS PROPER OVER DEFENDANT VALVE 

CORPORATION.....................................................................................................................1

A. Valve Corporation Contractually Personal Jurisdiction is Proper In This District. ..1

1. The Forum Selection Clause is Reasonable. ...................................................................6

B. General and Specific Jurisdiction Are Both Proper Over Valve Corporation............7

II. VENUE IS PROPER OVER VALVE CORPORATION ......................................................7

A. Valve Corporation Waived Any Objection to Venue.......................................................7

B. Venue is Proper Under § 1391(c)(2).................................................................................8

C. Venue is Proper Under § 1400(b).....................................................................................8

III. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................9

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 63 Filed 04/22/24 Page 2 of 13 PageID #: 1511
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

5 Annot. Patent Digest (Matthews)..................................................................................................2

Display Technologies, LLC v. Valve Corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-00998 (E.D. Tex. June 8, 

2015)............................................................................................................................................8

Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 497 (2000)............................................................6

M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 407 U.S. 1, 10 (1972).....................................................2, 7

Manetti-Farrow, Inc. v. Gucci Am. Inc., 858 F.2d 509, 513 (9th Cir. 1988) ..................................2

Nat’l Equip. Rental, Ltd. v. Szukhent, 375 U.S. 311, 316 (1964)....................................................2

Plesha v. Ferguson, 2009 WL 8729579, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2009)....................................7

Sundesa, LLC v. IQ Formulations, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-06467-AB-MAA, 2020 WL 8125541, 

at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2020)...................................................................................................2

Statutes

28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).................................................................................................................2, 7, 8

§ 36:152.40 (2020) ..........................................................................................................................2

28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(2) ................................................................................................................7, 8

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 63 Filed 04/22/24 Page 3 of 13 PageID #: 1512
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss 1

Plaintiff files this opposition to Valve Corporation’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(3). 

The operative complaint is the Third Amended Complaint filed on or about March 22, 2024.

1 Dkt. 

52 (The Operative Complaint or “Complaint” hereinafter). As the Complaint explains in detail 

venue is proper over Defendant Valve Corporation in this District for at least three separate and 

independent reasons. In short, venue is proper over Defendant Valve Corporation because personal 

jurisdiction is proper over it in this District. 

The analysis of venue starts with a determination of whether personal jurisdiction is proper.

I. PERSONAL JURISDICTION IS PROPER OVER DEFENDANT VALVE 

CORPORATION

The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Valve Corporation under three

theories: (1) waiver, (2) general personal jurisdiction, and (3) specific personal jurisdiction. Under

the Texas Long-Arm Statue, personal jurisdiction exists over Defendant Valve Corporation. Dkt. 

52 at ¶ 8.

A. Valve Corporation Contractually Personal Jurisdiction is Proper In This 

District.

Valve Corporation agreed that personal jurisdiction is proper in this Court and waived any 

objection to Venue in this District. Exhibit 1 at ¶11 (Dkt. 52 at Exhibit 2). 

Figure 1 – Excerpt from Global Settlement and License Agreement (“GSALA”) (involving Valve 

Corporation and the parent company of plaintiff and a sister company named Display 

Technologies, LLC and lastly Leigh Rothschild as a named inventor and director).

1 Plaintiff herein incorporates by reference the facts and arguments contained within its Third 

Amended Complaint. Dkt. 52. It contains material Defendant Valve Corporation has designated 

as protected material and thus is filed under seal. 

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 63 Filed 04/22/24 Page 4 of 13 PageID #: 1513
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss 2

Enforcing freely negotiated forum selection clauses that are not unreasonable and unjust 

“does not offend due process”); see also Nat’l Equip. Rental, Ltd. v. Szukhent, 375 U.S. 311, 316 

(1964) (“parties to a contract may agree in advance to submit to the jurisdiction of a given court”). 

Accordingly, a forum selection clause can operate as a waiver of § 1400(b) because it 

shows that the parties consented to litigate in a particular forum. See 5 Annot. Patent Digest 

(Matthews), § 36:152.40 (2020)); Sundesa, LLC v. IQ Formulations, LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv06467-AB-MAA, 2020 WL 8125541, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2020) (Court held that “a forum 

selection clause can operate as a waiver of § 1400(b).”).

Federal law governs the enforceability of forum selection clauses. Dkt. 52 at ¶ 10 (citing 

Manetti-Farrow, Inc. v. Gucci Am. Inc., 858 F.2d 509, 513 (9th Cir. 1988). Forum selection clauses 

are “prima facie valid” and should be enforced unless the challenging party demonstrates 

enforcement is unreasonable under the circumstances. See M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 

407 U.S. 1, 10 (1972). Here, Valve Corporation makes the forum selection clause controlling

because it is part of the nexus of operative facts. Valve Corporation refuses to stipulate to not 

raising a licensing defense in this case based on this prior GSALA entered into by the parties. 

Exhibit 1.2 Counsel for Patent Asset Management, LLC subsidiaries asked Valve Corporation’s 

Counsel if it would agree to not assert a licensing defense in this case due to the definition of Valve 

Products in the GSALA. Garteiser Declaration, ¶ 2. Valve Corporation refused to stipulate that it 

would not raise a licensing defense in March 2024, thus forcing Plaintiff to amend to add this 

waiver argument as yet another basis for venue being proper in this district along with personal 

jurisdiction. 

2 Exhibit 1 is a redacted, complete version of Exhibit 2 to the operative complaint, where the latter 

just contains excerpts. Dkt. 52 at Ex. 2. Parties including Valve Corporation, Patent Asset 

Management, Inc, Leigh Rothschild and others to the lawsuit Valve Corporation filed in the 

Western District of Washington this Exhibit with just the amount paid redacted as Exhibit 1 to the 

Complaint. As such, Plaintiff is not going to file it under seal in this litigation as it was not filed 

by Valve Corporation under seal in that prior litigation except for the amount paid under the 

GSALA to Display Technologies, LLC and Patent Asset Management, LLC.

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 63 Filed 04/22/24 Page 5 of 13 PageID #: 1514
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss 3

15. The GSALA is a bargained for exchange between two sophisticated parties for fully 

paidup

lump sum license for a patent license to some of the patents owned by PAM subsidiaries. 

The

licensed patents were selected by Valve Corporation. The patent numbers are identified in 

the

GSALA at Exhibit C. (Exhibit 2). For a patent license to some of the available patents but

importantly not all of the additional patents owned by the Patent Asset Management, LLC

subsidiaries. Indeed, Valve Corporation paid a lower amount than it would have paid for a 

license

to all of the patents. (Exhibit 2).

16. In the GSALA, the parties, including Valve Corporation, stipulated to a forum selection

clause indicating personal jurisdiction is proper over the parties in Texas and that the parties all

agreed to not object to venue in Texas state or federal courts. Dkt. 52 at ¶ 16(citing Exhibit 2, ¶ 

11.1). Under the definition of “Affiliates” the GSALA defines as a party Patent Asset 

Management, LLC and all of its subsidiaries including Display Technologies, LLC; Symbology 

Innovations, LLC; Quantum Technologies Innovations, LLC; and Social Positioning Input 

Systems, LLC. Exhibit 1 at 1.1 (“1.1. “Affiliate” means, in relation to any Party hereto, any and 

all “Persons” (as hereinafter defined) now, at any time since the filing of the Pending Litigation, 

or in the future “Controlled” (the term “Control” and correlatives thereof shall have the meaning 

more particularly set forth herein) by, Controlling, or under common Control with that Party or 

any parent company of a Party and any subsidiary thereto.”).

Thus, EDTX plaintiffs Symbology Innovations, LLC; Quantum Technologies Innovations, 

LLC; and Social Positioning Input Systems, LLC are parties to the GSALA. 

For clarity, they have each had to file a lawsuit against Valve Corporation for patent 

infringement to obtain no less than a reasonable royalty. These cases are as follows:

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 63 Filed 04/22/24 Page 6 of 13 PageID #: 1515
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss 4

1. Social Positioning Input Systems, LLC v Valve Corp., Case No. 2:23-cv-00422-

JRGRSP (E.D. Tex. 2023).

2. Quantum Technology Innovations, LLC v. Valve Corporation, Case 2:23-cv-00425-

JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex. 2023).

3. Symbology Innovations, LLC v. Valve Corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-00419-JRG (E.D. 

Tex. 2023).

17. Again, under the definition of “Affiliate” in the Global Settlement and License 

Agreement (Exhibit 2), Leigh Rothschild and Patent Asset Management, LLC are included as a 

“Party” to the GSALA. Dkt. 52 at ¶ 17. Valve Corporation and its Attorneys, agreed to the 

“Affiliate” definition that includes subsidiaries of Patent Asset Management, LLC, which includes 

Social Positioning Input Systems, LLC; Quantum Technology Innovations, LLC; and Symbology 

Innovations, LLC; and others through the inclusion of specific language in Paragraph 1.1 of the 

GSALA that states “or under common Control with that Party or any parent company of a Party 

and any subsidiary thereto.” Dkt. 52 at ¶ 17 (citing Exhibit 2 at ¶ 1.1).

Figure 2 – Excerpt from Complaint citing Exhibit 2 (the GSALA). 

Under the definition of “Control” in the GSALA, Valve Corporation and its counsel used

language that would include Patent Asset Management, LLC and its subsidiaries, any of them,

including the three subsidiaries that are Plaintiffs in the EDTX – Social Positioning Input Systems,

LLC; Quantum Technology Innovations, LLC; and Symbology Innovations, LLC. Leigh

Rothschild agreed to it so there was a meeting of the minds and consideration provided by the

parties, including Valve Corporation. Dkt. 52 at ¶ 18.

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 63 Filed 04/22/24 Page 7 of 13 PageID #: 1516
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss 5

Figure 3 – Excerpt from Complaint citing Exhibit 2 (the GSALA).

Valve Corporation spent money to have a patent attorney at a top tier law firm review

patents owned by Patent Asset Management, LLC subsidiaries to ascertain patents to be included

in the GSALA. The patents identified are included in the GSALA are listed in the GSALA at

Exhibit C. Dkt. 52 at 19 (citing Exhibit 2 at Exhibit C). Valve Corporation did not pay 

compensation for a license to any of the patents not listed in Exhibit C of the GSALA that are now 

being asserted in the EDTX. Dkt. 52 at 20. Improperly, now Valve Corporation willfully continues 

to infringe the patents-in-suit in three (3) cases pending in the EDTX that contain no patents listed 

in Exhibit C of the GSALA. Valve Corporation does so under a licensing defense. Valve 

Corporation did not enter into a covenant not to sue agreement with Patent Asset Management, 

LLC or its subsidiaries in the GSALA. (Exhibit 2). Dkt. 52 at ¶ 21. 

Indeed, as part of GSALA the parties negotiated and agreed and put into the GSALA that

parties submitted to personal jurisdiction of the “State and Federal court in Texas.” (Exhibit 2 at

¶11.1, shown in Figure below).

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 63 Filed 04/22/24 Page 8 of 13 PageID #: 1517
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss 6

Figure 4 – Excerpt from Complaint citing Exhibit 2 (the GSALA).

The parties made this agreement submitting to personal jurisdiction in any of the “Federal

Courts in Texas” that includes the EDTX. Dkt. 52 at ¶ 23 (citing Exhibit 2 at ¶11.1, shown in 

Figure above).

Thus, the three (3) cases related to this motion to dismiss with plaintiffs Quantum

Technology Innovations, LLC, Social Position Input Systems, LLC, and Symbology Innovations,

LLC, are all parties to the GSALA that controls personal and venue in this litigation because all 

three are owned by Patent Asset Management, LLC.

1. The Forum Selection Clause is Reasonable. 

Forum selection clauses are unreasonable, and should be set aside, if (1) the inclusion of

the clause was the product of fraud or overreaching; (2) enforcing the clause would deprive the

challenging party of their day in court; or (3) “enforcement contravenes a strong public policy of

the forum in which suit is brought, whether declared by statute or judicial decision.” Id. at 15–16.

The challenging party bears the “heavy burden” of establishing one of these three grounds. 

Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 497 (2000). Here, Plaintiff contends that the forum 

selection is reasonable. Thus, the burden is on Valve Corporation to meet the heavy burden of 

proving the forum selection clause in the GSALA is not enforceable. Jones, 211 F.3d at 497. 

There is no fraud or overreaching in the forum selection clause. Exhibit 1 at ¶ 11.1. And 

Valve Corporation is not being denied its day in court. Lastly, Valve Corporation fails to identify 

how enforcement of the GSALA personal jurisdiction provision contravenes any public policies, 

because it does not. Thus, the forum selection clause is deemed enforceable.3 Jones, 211 F.3d at 

497.

3 Valve Corporation is presently defending its same position – that the GSALA is not 

enforceable in a lawsuit Valve brought against Patent Asset Management, LLC, among others, in 

the Western District of Washington. Patent Asset Management, LLC has moved to dismiss 

indicating venue is improper their under the Forum Selection Clause. Exhibit 1 at ¶ 11.1. Valve 

Corporation amended its complaint to attempt to overcome the defendants’ motion to dismiss. 

That court presently has the motion to dismiss under submission.

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 63 Filed 04/22/24 Page 9 of 13 PageID #: 1518
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss 7

Absent a strong showing that the forum selection clause should be set aside, the forum

selection clause controls. See M/S Bremen, 407 U.S. at 15. Valve Corporation cannot meet its 

‘heavy’ burden that the forum selection clause is unreasonable, as it is not. See Plesha v. Ferguson, 

2009 WL 8729579, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2009) (citing M/S Bremen, 407 U.S. at 12–13, 15, 

18, 92 S.Ct. 1907).

B. General and Specific Jurisdiction Are Both Proper Over Valve Corporation.

As explained in detail in the operative Complaint and incorporated herein by reference, the 

Court has personal jurisdiction over Valve Corporation both generally and specifically. Dkt. 52 at 

¶¶ 28 – 52. 

II. VENUE IS PROPER OVER VALVE CORPORATION

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the paragraphs above herein to its venue analysis due to

the substantial overlap with personal jurisdiction and Valve’s waiver of its ability object to venue

in the EDTX through its forum selection clause. Venue is proper in this District as to Defendant 

pursuant to at least Valve Corporation prior waiver venue objections in Texas Federal Courts that 

includes the EDTX, and also under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c)(2) and 1400(b).

A. Valve Corporation Waived Any Objection to Venue. 

Courts routinely hold that venue can be waived by the parties. Dkt. 52 at ¶ 9 (citing Leroy 

v. Great W. United Corp., 443 U.S. 173, 180 (1979)). See also Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 

471 U.S. 462, 472 n.14 (1985) (“parties frequently stipulate in advance to submit their 

controversies for resolution within a particular jurisdiction.” 

In prior litigation titled Display Technologies, LLC v. Valve Corporation, Case No. 2:15-

cv-00998 (E.D. Tex. June 8, 2015), a requirement relating to disputes amongst the parties in the 

future requires resolution in this District. Exhibit 1, ¶ 11.1; Dkt 52 at ¶ 57. There is presently a

dispute amongst those parties to the GSALA given the definition of “parties” used in the GSALA 

by Valve Corporation and the parent company of plaintiff. Under the definition of “Affiliate” in 

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 63 Filed 04/22/24 Page 10 of 13 PageID #: 1519
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss 8

the GSALA, here plaintiff is considered a party to the GSALA such that this patent dispute is 

controlled by the forum selection clause. 

Valve Corporation does not have a license to the patents-in-suit in any of the EDTX cases

involving plaintiffs Symbology, QTI and SPIS and defendant Valve Corporation. All three

plaintiffs are subsidiaries of Patent Asset Management, LLC, the parent company to Plaintiff

Display Technologies, LLC, who is a named party in the GSALA. Exhibit 1. 

Plaintiffs Symbology, QTI and SPIS intend to move to strike any licensing defense Valve 

Corporation raises, including a licensing defense under the GSALA where Valve Corporation 

contends that under the definition of “Licensed Products” it has a license to use the asserted 

patents-in-suit in these three cases even though Valve Corporation did not include these patents as 

“Licensed Patents” in GSALA and furthermore Valve Corporation did not provide any additional 

consideration for any of these additional patents. Exhibit 1 at ¶ 1.5.

B. Venue is Proper Under § 1391(c)(2).

Venue is proper under § 1391(c)(2) when “an entity with the capacity to sue and be sued

in its common name under applicable law, whether or not incorporated, shall be deemed to reside,

if a defendant, in any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court’s personal

jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(2). As established herein, personal jurisdiction is proper over

Defendant Valve Corporation. As such, venue is proper under § 1391(c)(2) because Defendant

Valve Corporation ‘resides’ in the EDTX where the Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant

Valve Corporation. Dkt. 52 at ¶ 55.

C. Venue is Proper Under § 1400(b).

Venue is proper under § 1400(b) for Defendant Valve Corporation. It maintains a regular

and established business presence in this District as established through Valve Corporation’s

ratification two Valve licensed PC Cafés in the EDTX. Dkt. 52 at ¶ 56. These STEAM PC gaming 

Cafés that are both located in this District that advertise Valve’s STEAM gaming platform and 

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 63 Filed 04/22/24 Page 11 of 13 PageID #: 1520
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss 9

that Valve can inspect these locations at any time are sufficient to establish them as being ratified 

by Valve Corporation for purposes of establishing venue.

Additionally, Valve Corp. has agency over employees that reside in this district that 

perform inspections of its dedicated servers that Valve Corporation promotes to provide its user 

the fastest ping times available at its ratified Steam PC Gaming PC Café’s. Dkt 52 at ¶ 59 (citing 

Exhibit 11, Exhibit 14).

III. CONCLUSION

Venue is proper over Valve Corporation. Thus, the Court should deny Valve Corporation’s 

motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(3) filed at Docket No. 56.

April 22, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Randall Garteiser

Christopher A. Honea

 Texas Bar No. 24059967

 chonea@ghiplaw.com

Randall Garteiser

 Texas Bar No. 24038912

 rgarteiser@ghiplaw.com

M. Scott Fuller

 Texas Bar No. 24036607

 rgarteiser@ghiplaw.com

GARTEISER HONEA, PLLC

119 W. Ferguson Street

Tyler, Texas 75702

Telephone: (903) 705-7420

Facsimile: (903) 405-3999

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 63 Filed 04/22/24 Page 12 of 13 PageID #: 1521
Opposition to Motion to Dismiss 10

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

The undersigned certifies that in February and March 2024, counsel for the parties met and 

conferred several times. Counsel for Plaintiff had agreed to provide Defendant extensions to avoid 

it prematurely filing a revised motion to dismiss until Defendant had sufficient time to complete 

its production of relevant and responsive venue discovery agreements that Defendant had with 

third parties, whose names are confidential. Defendant was aware of the August 29, 2024 deadline 

to amend the pleadings without leave of the Court, but took the position that the venue discovery 

order controlled over the Docket Control Order. Regardless, Plaintiff explained that it was going 

to amend so if it wanted to wait to re-file its motion to dismiss Plaintiff would not oppose an 

extension. Defendant refused opting to file its revised motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(3).

/s/ Randall Garteiser

Randall Garteiser

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that on April 22, 2024, the foregoing document was 

electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system and all counsel of record 

will receive an electronic copy via the Court’s CM/ECF system.

/s/ Randall Garteiser

Randall Garteiser

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 63 Filed 04/22/24 Page 13 of 13 PageID #: 1522