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 OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE 

OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL REGARDING COSTS, EXPENSES, AND FEES 

Defendant Valve Corporation (“Valve”) opposes Plaintiff’s Notice of Voluntary 

Dismissal with Prejudice (Dkt. 82) because it states that “[e]ach Party will bear its own costs, 

expenses, and attorneys’ fees.” Dkt. 82 at 1. Valve does not agree to this part of Plaintiff’s 

Notice. 

At 10:29 PM CT on July 25, 2024, counsel for Plaintiff asked Valve to “let us know if we 

can agree on a joint dismissal with prejudice each side bear their own costs.” Ex. A at 1. Without 

waiting for a response from Valve, Plaintiff filed its Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with 

Prejudice. 

Valve did not agree, and does not agree, that “[e]ach Party will bear its own costs, 

expenses, and attorneys' fees.” Dkt. 82 at 1. Nor does Rule 41(a) dismissal require each side to 

bear their own costs, expenses, and fees. Instead, the Fifth Circuit is clear that even after a 

voluntary dismissal under Rule 41, Valve may still seek sanctions and fees from Plaintiff. See, 

e.g., Automation Support, Inc. v. Humble Design, L.L.C., 982 F.3d 392, 394 (5th Cir. 2020) 

(“Automation Support’s new attack—that the Rule 41 joint dismissal deprived the district court 

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 83 Filed 07/26/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 1680
2

of jurisdiction to later award fees—is wrong. This latest effort to undo the fee award flies in the 

face of well-established law that a court can award attorney’s fees after a voluntary dismissal.”); 

see also Royal Schnauzers, LLC v. Dukes Royal Schnauzers, No. 1:20-CV-00170-DAK, 2021 

WL 2457654, at *2 (D. Utah June 16, 2021) (“Regarding Rule 11, the Supreme Court held that 

‘nothing in the language of Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Rule 11, or other statute or Federal Rule 

terminates a district court's authority to impose sanctions after such a dismissal.’ (quoting Cooter 

v. Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 398 (1990)). 

Valve therefore reserves its rights to seek its attorney fees and other sanctions from 

Plaintiff in this case. Valve requests that the Court not find that “[e]ach Party will bear its own 

costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.”

In addition, the parties have stipulated that the briefing on Valve’s motion to dismiss 

under Rule 12(b)(3) in this case (Dkts. 55, 63, 66, 69, 76) apply to the co-pending and still active 

cases Social Position Input Systems v. Valve Corp. et al., Case No. 23-425 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 18, 

2023), and Quantum Technology Innovations v. Valve Corp. et al., Case No. 23-422 (E.D. Tex. 

Sept. 18, 2023). Dkt. 23 at 2; Dkt 24 at 2. Therefore, Valve requests that any dismissal of this 

matter not moot Valve’s pending motion to dismiss.

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 83 Filed 07/26/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 1681
3

Dated: July 26, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Shaun W. Hassett, with permission for 

Kathleen R. Geyer

Mike Jones

Potter Minton

102 North College, Ste. 900

Tyler, Texas 75702

903-597-8311 (telephone)

mikejones@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 83 Filed 07/26/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 1682
4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule CV-5, I hereby certify 

that, on April 8, 2024, all counsel of record who have appeared in this case are being served with 

a copy of the foregoing via the Court’s CM/ECF system.

/s/ Shaun W. Hassett

Shaun W. Hassett

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule CV-7(i), I hereby certify 

that, on April 4, 2024, counsel for Valve met and conferred with counsel for Plaintiff regarding 

the subject of the above motion. Plaintiff indicated that they opposed the motion.

/s/ Shaun W. Hassett

Shaun W. Hassett

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 83 Filed 07/26/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 1683