1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

SYMBOLOGY INNOVATIONS, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DEXCOM, INC., 

Defendant. 

CASE NO. 2:23-CV-00473-JRG 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

THE DEXCOM INC.’S ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, AND 

COUNTERCLAIMS TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

The DexCom, Inc. (“Defendant” or “DexCom”) files this Answer, Affirmative Defenses, 

and Counterclaims to Plaintiff Symbology Innovations LLC’s (“Plaintiff” or “Symbology”) First 

Amended Complaint filed on February 2, 2024 (Dkt. No. 18) (“First Amended Complaint”). 

DexCom denies the allegations and characterizations in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint 

unless expressly admitted in the following paragraphs. 

PARTIES 

1. DexCom is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in Paragraph 1 of the First Amended Complaint. 

2. DexCom admits that it is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business 

at 6340 Sequence Drive, San Diego, CA 92121. DexCom denies any remaining allegations in 

Paragraph 2 of the First Amended Complaint. 

Case 2:23-cv-00473-JRG Document 26 Filed 02/16/24 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 638
2 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

3. DexCom admits that the First Amended Complaint purports to set forth an action 

for patent infringement under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 271. DexCom 

denies it has committed and/or is committing acts of infringement in the U.S., within the State of 

Texas, or in this District and, on that basis, denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 3 of the 

First Amended Complaint. 

4. DexCom admits this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a) because Plaintiff has alleged infringement of patents, but 

DexCom denies it has committed or is committing acts of infringement and denies Plaintiff is 

entitled to any relief. DexCom denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 4 of the First 

Amended Complaint. 

5. DexCom does not contest that venue may be proper in this District in this action, 

but denies venue is convenient. DexCom denies it has committed or is committing acts of 

infringement in the U.S., within the State of Texas, or in this District and, on that basis, denies the 

remaining allegations in Paragraph 5 of the First Amended Complaint. 

6. DexCom does not contest whether personal jurisdiction over it properly lies in this 

District in this action, or that it conducts business in the State of Texas. DexCom denies it has 

committed and/or is committing acts of infringement in the U.S., within the State of Texas, or in 

this District and, on that basis, denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 6 of the First 

Amended Complaint. 

PATENTS-IN-SUIT 

7. DexCom admits that purported copies of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,992,773 (the “’773 

Patent), 8,424,752 (the “’752 Patent”), 8,651,369 (“the ’369 Patent”), and 8,936,190 (the “’190 

Case 2:23-cv-00473-JRG Document 26 Filed 02/16/24 Page 2 of 18 PageID #: 639
3 

Patent”) (collectively the “Patents-in-Suit”) are attached to the First Amended Complaint as 

Exhibits A through D. DexCom is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as 

to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 7 of the First Amended Complaint and, on 

that basis, denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 7 of the First Amended Complaint. 

8. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 8 of the First Amended Complaint. 

9. DexCom is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in Paragraph 9 of the First Amended Complaint and, on that basis, denies 

the allegations in Paragraph 9 of the First Amended Complaint. 

10. The allegations in Paragraph 10 of the First Amended Complaint do not require an 

answer from DexCom. 

11. The allegations in Paragraph 11 of the First Amended Complaint do not require an 

answer from DexCom. 

12. DexCom admits that the ’773 Patent speaks for itself but denies any 

characterizations inconsistent therewith and denies that the ’773 Patent constitutes an invention 

and, on that basis, denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 12 of the First Amended 

Complaint. 

13. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 13 of the First Amended Complaint. 

14. The allegations in Paragraph 14 of the First Amended Complaint do not require an 

answer from DexCom. 

15. DexCom admits that the ’752 Patent speaks for itself but denies any 

characterizations inconsistent therewith and denies that the ’752 Patent constitutes an invention 

and, on that basis, denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 15 of the First Amended 

Complaint. 

Case 2:23-cv-00473-JRG Document 26 Filed 02/16/24 Page 3 of 18 PageID #: 640
4 

16. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 16 of the First Amended Complaint. 

17. The allegation in Paragraph 17 of the First Amended Complaint do not require an 

answer from DexCom. 

18. DexCom admits that the ’369 Patent speaks for itself but denies any 

characterizations inconsistent therewith and denies that the ’369 Patent constitutes an invention 

and, on that basis, denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 18 of the First Amended 

Complaint. 

19. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 19 of the First Amended Complaint. 

20. The allegations in Paragraph 20 of the First Amended Complaint do not require an 

answer from DexCom. 

21. DexCom admits that the Patents-in-Suit speak for themselves. DexCom denies any 

characterizations inconsistent therewith and denies that the Patents-in-Suit constitute an invention 

and, on that basis, denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 21 of the First Amended 

Complaint. 

22. DexCom admits that the Patents-in-Suit speak for themselves. DexCom denies any 

characterizations inconsistent therewith and denies that the Patents-in-Suit constitute an invention 

and, on that basis, denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 22 of the First Amended 

Complaint. 

23. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 23 of the First Amended Complaint. 

24. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 24 of the First Amended Complaint. 

25. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 25 of the First Amended Complaint. 

Case 2:23-cv-00473-JRG Document 26 Filed 02/16/24 Page 4 of 18 PageID #: 641
5 

26. DexCom is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in Paragraph 26 of the First Amended Complaint and, on that basis, denies 

the allegations in Paragraph 26 of the First Amended Complaint. 

27. DexCom is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in Paragraph 27 of the First Amended Complaint and, on that basis, denies 

the allegations in Paragraph 27 of the First Amended Complaint. 

28. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 28 of the First Amended Complaint. 

29. DexCom admits that the ’773 Patent speaks for itself. DexCom denies any 

characterizations inconsistent therewith and denies that the ’773 Patent constitutes an invention 

and, on that basis, denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 29 of the First Amended 

Complaint. 

30. DexCom is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in Paragraph 30 of the First Amended Complaint and, on that basis, denies 

the allegations in Paragraph 30 of the First Amended Complaint. 

31. DexCom is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in Paragraph 31 of the First Amended Complaint and, on that basis, denies 

the allegations in Paragraph 31 of the First Amended Complaint. 

32. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 32 of the First Amended Complaint. 

33. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 33 of the First Amended Complaint. 

34. DexCom is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in Paragraph 34 of the First Amended Complaint and, on that basis, denies 

the allegations in Paragraph 34 of the First Amended Complaint. 

Case 2:23-cv-00473-JRG Document 26 Filed 02/16/24 Page 5 of 18 PageID #: 642
6 

35. DexCom is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations in Paragraph 35 of the First Amended Complaint and, on that basis, denies 

the allegations in Paragraph 36 of the First Amended Complaint. 

36. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 36 of the First Amended Complaint. 

37. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 37 of the First Amended Complaint. 

ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITIES 

38. DexCom denies it has committed and/or is committing acts of infringement in the 

U.S., within the State of Texas, or in this District and, on that basis, denies the allegations of 

Paragraph 38 of the First Amended Complaint. 

[ALLEGED] SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILTY 

39. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 39 of the First Amended Complaint. 

40. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 40 of the First Amended Complaint. 

COUNT ONE 

([Alleged] Infringement of United States Patent No. 8,424,752) 

41. Dexcom incorporates paragraphs 1 through 40 by reference. 

42. DexCom admits that the First Amended Complaint purports to set forth an action 

for patent infringement under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 271. DexCom 

denies it has committed and/or is committing acts of infringement in the U.S., within the State of 

Texas, or in this District and, on that basis, denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 42 of the 

First Amended Complaint. 

43. DexCom denies it has committed and/or is committing acts of infringement within 

the in the U.S., within the State of Texas, or in this District and, on that basis, denies the allegations 

of Paragraph 43 of the First Amended Complaint. 

Case 2:23-cv-00473-JRG Document 26 Filed 02/16/24 Page 6 of 18 PageID #: 643
7 

44. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 44 of the First Amended Complaint. 

45. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 45 of the First Amended Complaint. 

46. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 46 of the First Amended Complaint. 

47. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 47 of the First Amended Complaint. 

48. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 48 of the First Amended Complaint. 

49. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 49 of the First Amended Complaint. 

50. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 50 of the First Amended Complaint. 

51. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 51 of the First Amended Complaint. 

52. DexCom admits that a purported copy of the ’752 Patent is attached to the First 

Amended Complaint as Exhibit B and it is titled “System and method for presenting information 

about an object on a portable electronic device.” 

53. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 53 of the First Amended Complaint. 

54. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 54 of the First Amended Complaint. 

55. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 55 of the First Amended Complaint. 

56. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 56 of the First Amended Complaint. 

57. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 57 of the First Amended Complaint. 

COUNT TWO 

([Alleged] Infringement of United States Patent No. 8,651,369) 

58. DexCom incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1–57 above. 

59. DexCom admits that the First Amended Complaint purports to set forth an action 

for patent infringement under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 271. DexCom 

denies it has committed and/or is committing acts of infringement in the U.S., within the State of 

Case 2:23-cv-00473-JRG Document 26 Filed 02/16/24 Page 7 of 18 PageID #: 644
8 

Texas, or in this District and, on that basis, denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 59 of the 

First Amended Complaint. 

60. DexCom denies it has committed and/or is committing acts of infringement in the 

U.S., within the State of Texas, or in this District and, on that basis, denies the allegations of 

Paragraph 60 of the First Amended Complaint. 

61. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 61 of the First Amended Complaint. 

62. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 62 of the First Amended Complaint. 

63. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 63 of the First Amended Complaint. 

64. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 64 of the First Amended Complaint. 

65. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 65 of the First Amended Complaint. 

66. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 66 of the First Amended Complaint. 

67. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 67 of the First Amended Complaint. 

68. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 68 of the First Amended Complaint. 

69. DexCom admits that a purported copy of the ’369 Patent is attached to the First 

Amended Complaint as Exhibit C and it is titled “System and method for presenting information 

about an object on a portable electronic device.” 

70. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 70 of the First Amended Complaint. 

71. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 71 of the First Amended Complaint. 

72. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 72 of the First Amended Complaint. 

73. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 73 of the First Amended Complaint. 

74. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 74 of the First Amended Complaint. 

Case 2:23-cv-00473-JRG Document 26 Filed 02/16/24 Page 8 of 18 PageID #: 645
9 

COUNT THREE 

([Alleged] Infringement of United States Patent No. 8,936,190) 

75. DexCom incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1–74 above. 

76. DexCom admits that the First Amended Complaint purports to set forth an action 

for patent infringement under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 271. DexCom 

denies it has committed and/or is committing acts of infringement in the U.S., within the State of 

Texas, or in this District and, on that basis, denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 76 of the 

First Amended Complaint. 

77. DexCom denies it has committed and/or is committing acts of infringement in the 

U.S., within the State of Texas, or in this District and, on that basis, denies the allegations of 

Paragraph 77 of the First Amended Complaint. 

78. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 78 of the First Amended Complaint. 

79. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 79 of the First Amended Complaint. 

80. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 80 of the First Amended Complaint. 

81. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 81 of the First Amended Complaint. 

82. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 82 of the First Amended Complaint. 

83. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 83 of the First Amended Complaint. 

84. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 84 of the First Amended Complaint. 

85. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 85 of the First Amended Complaint. 

86. DexCom admits that a purported copy of the ’190 Patent is attached to the First 

Amended Complaint as Exhibit D and it is titled “System and method for presenting information 

about an object on a portable electronic device.” 

87. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 87 of the First Amended Complaint. 

Case 2:23-cv-00473-JRG Document 26 Filed 02/16/24 Page 9 of 18 PageID #: 646
10 

88. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 88 of the First Amended Complaint. 

89. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 89 of the First Amended Complaint. 

90. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 90 of the First Amended Complaint. 

91. DexCom denies the allegations in Paragraph 91 of the First Amended Complaint. 

[PLAINTIFF’S] DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

92. DexCom is not required to provide a response to Plaintiff’s demand for a jury trial. 

[PLAINTIFF’S] PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

DexCom denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief from DexCom and denies all the 

allegations contained in Paragraphs (a)-(d) of Plaintiff’s Prayer for Relief. 

 

Case 2:23-cv-00473-JRG Document 26 Filed 02/16/24 Page 10 of 18 PageID #: 647
11 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 

DexCom’s Affirmative Defenses are listed below. DexCom reserves the right to amend its 

answer to add additional Affirmative Defenses consistent with the facts discovered in this action. 

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

DexCom has not infringed and does not infringe, under any theory of infringement 

(including directly (whether individually or jointly) or indirectly (whether contributorily or by 

inducement)), any valid, enforceable claim of the Patents-in-Suit. 

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Each asserted claim of the Patents-in-Suit is invalid for failure to comply with one or more 

of the requirements of the United States Code, Title 35, including without limitation, 35 U.S.C. §§ 

101, 102, 103, and 112, and the rules, regulations, and laws pertaining thereto. 

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

To the extent that Plaintiff and any predecessors in interest to any of the Patents-in-Suit 

failed to properly mark any of their relevant products or materials as required by 35 U.S.C. § 287, 

or otherwise give proper notice that DexCom’s actions allegedly infringe the Patents-in-Suit, 

DexCom is not liable to Plaintiff for the acts alleged to have been performed before it received 

actual notice that it was allegedly infringing the Patents-in-Suit. 

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

To the extent that Plaintiff asserts that DexCom indirectly infringes, either by contributory 

infringement or inducement of infringement, DexCom is not liable to Plaintiff for the acts alleged 

to have been performed before DexCom knew that its actions would cause indirect infringement. 

Case 2:23-cv-00473-JRG Document 26 Filed 02/16/24 Page 11 of 18 PageID #: 648
12 

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

The claims of the Patents-in-Suit are not entitled to a scope sufficient to encompass any 

system employed or process practiced by DexCom. 

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted 

because, among other things, Plaintiff has not stated a plausible allegation that DexCom makes, 

uses, or sells each claimed element of any asserted claim, or that DexCom directs or controls 

another entity to make, use, or sell any element that is not made, used, or sold by DexCom. 

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

To the extent Plaintiff contends that it alleges a claim for indirect infringement (whether 

by inducement or contributorily), Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted. 

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be 

granted because the Patents-in-Suit do not claim patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 

101. 

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted 

because, among other things, Plaintiff has not stated a plausible allegation that any method 

employed by DexCom: (1) captures a digital image; (2) detects symbology associated with an 

object within the digital image; (3) decodes the symbology to obtain a decode string; (4) sends the 

decode string to a remote server for processing; (5) receives information about the object from the 

Case 2:23-cv-00473-JRG Document 26 Filed 02/16/24 Page 12 of 18 PageID #: 649
13 

remote server wherein the information is based on the decode string of the object; and/or (6) 

displays the information on a display device associated with the portable electronic device. 

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 

To the extent Plaintiff contends that it alleges a claim for willful infringement, Plaintiff has 

failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

 

Case 2:23-cv-00473-JRG Document 26 Filed 02/16/24 Page 13 of 18 PageID #: 650
14 

DEXCOM’S COUNTERCLAIMS 

 For its counterclaims against Plaintiff Symbology Innovations, LLC 

(“Symbology”), Counterclaim Plaintiff DexCom, Inc. (“DexCom”) alleges as follows: 

1. Counterclaim Plaintiff DexCom is a corporation organized and existing under the 

laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business located at 6340 Sequence Drive, 

San Diego, CA 92121. 

2. Upon information and belief based solely on Paragraph 1 of the First Amended 

Complaint as pled by Plaintiff, Counterclaim Defendant Symbology is a limited liability company 

organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida and maintains its principal place of 

business at 1 East Broward Boulevard, Suite 700, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301. 

JURISDICTION 

3. DexCom incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1–2 above. 

4. These counterclaims arise under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35, 

United States Code. The jurisdiction of this Court is proper under at least 35 U.S.C. § 271 et seq., 

and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338, 1367, and 2201–02. 

5. Symbology has consented to the personal jurisdiction of this Court at least by 

commencing its action for patent infringement in this District, as set forth in its First Amended 

Complaint. 

6. Based solely on Symbology’s filing of this action, venue is proper, though not 

necessarily convenient, in this District pursuant to at least 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400. 

Case 2:23-cv-00473-JRG Document 26 Filed 02/16/24 Page 14 of 18 PageID #: 651
15 

COUNT I 

DECLARATION REGARDING NON-INFRINGEMENT AS TO THE PATENTS-INSUIT 

7. DexCom incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1–6 above. 

8. Based on Symbology’s filing of this action and at least DexCom’s First Affirmative 

Defense, an actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties as to whether 

DexCom infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 7,992,773 (the “’773 Patent”), 8,424,752 (the “’752 Patent”), 

8,651,369 (the “’369 Patent”), or 8,936,190 (the “’190 Patent”) (collectively the “Patents-in-Suit”). 

9. DexCom does not infringe at least Claim 1 of the Patents-in-Suit because, among 

other things, it does not “use” or “test” any method or system that: (i) captures a digital image, (ii) 

detects symbology associated with an object within the digital image, (iii) decodes the symbology 

to obtain a decode string, (iv) sends the decode string to a remote server for processing, (v) receives 

information about the digital image from the remote server wherein the information is based on 

the decode string, and/or (vi) displays the information on a display device associated with the 

electronic device. 

10. Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., 

DexCom requests a declaration by the Court that DexCom has not infringed and does not infringe 

any claim of the Patents-in-Suit under any theory (including directly (whether individually or 

jointly) or indirectly (whether contributorily or by inducement)). 

COUNT II 

DECLARATION REGARDING INVALIDITY AS TO THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT 

11. DexCom incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1–10 above. 

Case 2:23-cv-00473-JRG Document 26 Filed 02/16/24 Page 15 of 18 PageID #: 652
16 

12. Based on Symbology’s filing of this action and at least DexCom’s Second 

Affirmative Defense, an actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties as to the 

validity of the claims of the Patents-in-Suit. 

13. The asserted claims of the Patents-in-Suit are anticipated and/or rendered obvious 

by, inter alia, BarPoint.com; Neomedia’s Neo Reader; Microsoft’s Smart Tags; Android’s Shop 

Savvy; Red Laser; ScanBuy; U.S. Serial No. 60/118,051; U.S. Serial No. 60/187,646; U.S. Serial 

No. 60/185,546; U.S. Patent Application 2008/0004978; U.S. Patent No. 6,430,554; and/or U.S. 

Patent No. 6,651,053. 

14. Pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 et seq., 

DexCom requests a declaration by the Court that claims of the Patents-in-Suit are invalid for failure 

to comply with one or more of the requirements of United States Code, Title 35, including without 

limitation, 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112, and the rules, regulations, and laws pertaining 

thereto. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, DexCom asks this Court to enter judgment in DexCom’s favor and against 

Symbology by granting the following relief: 

a) a declaration that the Patents-in-Suit are invalid; 

b) a declaration that DexCom does not infringe, under any theory, any valid claim of 

the Patents-in-Suit that may be enforceable; 

c) a declaration that Symbology take nothing by its First Amended Complaint; 

d) judgment against Symbology and in favor of DexCom; 

e) dismissal of the First Amended Complaint with prejudice; 

Case 2:23-cv-00473-JRG Document 26 Filed 02/16/24 Page 16 of 18 PageID #: 653
17 

f) a finding that this action is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and an award 

to DexCom of its costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in this action; and 

g) further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 

JURY DEMAND 

DexCom hereby demands trial by jury on all issues.

Case 2:23-cv-00473-JRG Document 26 Filed 02/16/24 Page 17 of 18 PageID #: 654
18 

Dated: February 16, 2024 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Ricardo J. Bonilla 

Neil J. McNabnay 

Texas Bar No. 24002583 

Ricardo J. Bonilla 

Texas Bar No. 24082704 

Rodeen Talebi 

Texas Bar No. 24103958 

Sarika Patel 

Texas Bar No. 24073520 

Alexander H. Martin 

Texas Bar No. 24091828 

mcnabnay@fr.com 

rbonilla@fr.com 

talebi@fr.com 

patel@fr.com 

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. 

1717 Main Street, Suite 5000 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

(214) 747-5070 (Telephone) 

(214) 747-2091 (Facsimile) 

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT 

DEXCOM, INC. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy has been electronically filed using the CM/ECF 

filing system on February 16, 2024, which automatically sends email notifications to all counsel 

of record and which will permit viewing and downloading of same from the CM/ECF system. 

 /s/ Ricardo J. Bonilla 

 Ricardo J. Bonilla 

Case 2:23-cv-00473-JRG Document 26 Filed 02/16/24 Page 18 of 18 PageID #: 655