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 OPPOSED MOTION TO EXPEDITE BRIEFING 

ON MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(e), Defendant Valve Corporation (“Valve”) respectfully 

moves this Court for an Order expediting the briefing schedule on Valve’s Motion to Dismiss 

Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint for lack of venue under Rule 12(b)(3).

1 (Dkt. 55) 

(“Motion to Dismiss”). Plaintiff Symbology Innovations, LLC (“Symbology”) opposes Valve’s 

Motion to Dismiss as well as this Motion for Expedited Briefing.

Valve filed a Motion to Dismiss on April 8, 2024. Under the Local Rules and the Court’s 

Standing Order, Plaintiff has 14 days to file a response. See Local Rule CV-7(a)(2), (e), (f). 

Under Local Rule CV-7(e), “[a]ny party may separately move for an order of this court 

lengthening or shortening the period within which a response may be filed.” 

Due to the unusual procedural history of this case, Valve believes that expedited briefing 

1 Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint is a violation of the Court’s Order (Dkt. 24) and should 

be stricken. Accordingly, Valve is moving to strike Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint. If the 

Court grants Valve’s forthcoming motion to strike, Valve’s motion to dismiss, and this motion to 

expedite briefing of the motion to dismiss, will be moot.

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 56 Filed 04/08/24 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1428
2

is appropriate. Specifically, Valve moved to dismiss Symbology’s original complaint, First 

Amended Complaint, and Second Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(3) because venue over 

Valve is improper in this District. Dkts. 11, 37, 45. 

After Valve filed its first motion to dismiss, the parties agreed to, and this Court ordered, 

that Symbology could “conduct limited, expedited venue discovery.” Dkt. 24 at 1. This Court 

ordered that, after the close of venue discovery, Symbology’s “response to the Motion to Dismiss 

shall be filed” by March 11, 2024. Dkt. 24, ¶ 7. Valve agreed to extend this deadline to 

March 21. Dkts. 48-49. Instead of complying with the Court’s order to file a response to Valve’s 

motion to dismiss, Plaintiff filed its Third Amended Complaint. Dkt. 52. 

The parties conducted more than three months of venue discovery before Symbology 

filed its Third Amended Complaint. Valve produced numerous documents and answered written 

discovery requests. Symbology deposed Valve under Rule 30(b)(6). Venue discovery has been 

completed for weeks and no additional venue discovery is contemplated or necessary.

Symbology should not be permitted to continuously delay resolution of Valve’s motion to 

dismiss when the question of whether venue against Valve is proper in this District is ripe for 

briefing and adjudication. 

Many of the allegations in Symbology’s Third Amended Complaint are nothing but

statements of law containing dozens of legal citations that are more appropriately made in an

opposition to a motion to dismiss. See, e.g., Dkt. 52, ¶¶ 9-13; see, e.g., Decapolis Sys., LLC v. 

Epic Systems Corp., No. W-21-00434-ADA (W.D. Tex. Dec. 14, 2021) (the court, in another 

case that Symbology’s current counsel filed, explaining that “Decapolis’s amendments to the 

venue allegations in the original complaint are better suited for a response to the Motion to 

Dismiss”). Further, Symbology has been on notice of many of the arguments that Valve makes in 

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 56 Filed 04/08/24 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 1429
3

its motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint, having reviewed Valve’s three 

previous motions to dismiss. Accordingly, Symbology will not experience any prejudice if the 

Court grants Valve’s motion to expedite.

Therefore, Valve respectfully requests the following schedule for the briefing on its 

Motion to Dismiss:

Event Date

Opening Brief April 8, 2024

Opposition Brief April 15, 2024 

Reply Brief April 19, 2024 

Sur-Reply Brief April 22, 2024 

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 56 Filed 04/08/24 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 1430
4

Dated: April 8, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Shaun W. Hassett, with permission for 

Kathleen R. Geyer

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 56 Filed 04/08/24 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 1431
5

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 56 Filed 04/08/24 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 1432