Exhibit 6 

 

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 90-7 Filed 08/06/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 1826
 

 

 1420 Fifth Ave, Suite 3700 

Seattle , WA 98101 

www.kilpatricktownsend.com 

direct dial 206 224 2857 

kgeyer@kilpatricktownsend.com 

Via Email to rgarteiser@ghiplaw.com 

November 15, 2023 

Randall A. Garteiser 

Garteiser Honea, PLLC 

119 W. Ferguson Street 

Tyler, Texas 75702 

Re: Quantum Tech. Innovations, LLC v. Valve Corp., Gearbox Software L.L.C, No. 

2:23-cv-425-JRG-RSP; Social Positioning Input Sys., LLC v. Valve Corp., Gearbox 

Software L.L.C, No. 2:23-cv-422-JRG-RSP; Symbology Innovations v. Valve Corp., 

Gearbox Software, L.L.C, No. 2:23-cv-419-JRG-RSP 

Dear Mr. Garteiser: 

I write to follow up on our October 2, 2023 letter regarding your clients’ deficient venue 

allegations in each of the retaliatory cases reference above. As you know, Valve has moved to 

dismiss the complaint in the Symbology case under Rule 12(b)(3) for lack of venue. Valve will 

file similar motions in the Quantum Tech. and Social Positioning cases if Plaintiffs decide to 

proceed with service. 

As we stated in our October 2 letter, Plaintiffs’ venue allegations in its complaints are 

objectively baseless and cannot support a good faith belief that venue is proper in the Eastern 

District of Texas. Now in light of Valve’s motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs cannot maintain that their 

allegations have any evidentiary support. As Valve’s motion makes clear, the Eastern District of 

Texas is not a proper venue for these cases. 

Plaintiff never identified any physical presence of Valve in the District, let alone a 

“regular and established place of business” as required under TC Heartland. Instead, Plaintiffs’ 

allegations are based on a single employee allegedly residing in the District1

 and a decades-old 

partnership with Gearbox. 

First, as the sworn declarations submitted with Valve’s motion makes clear, Valve has no

employees in the Eastern District of Texas, now or at the time Plaintiffs filed their complaints. 

Second, it is clear from the face of Symbology’s complaint that Gearbox’s inclusion in 

this case is a blatant and improper attempt to manufacture venue over Valve. This is being done 

to drive up Valve’s litigation costs by forcing it to litigate against these retaliatory lawsuits in a 

1

 Plaintiffs attempted sleight of hand identifying four individuals in Texas but not in the District 

is legally irrelevant for proper venue. 

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 90-7 Filed 08/06/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 1827
Randall A. Garteiser 

November 15, 2023 

Page 2 

district which has no connection to Valve. Symbology’s allegations throughout the complaint are 

directed only to a single defendant—Valve. This is confirmed by Symbology’s infringement 

charts that do not contain a single substantive allegation of infringement toward Gearbox or any 

of its products. Moreover, as supported by sworn declarations from Valve in its motion to 

dismiss, Valve and Gearbox had a single development agreement that lasted a year and have not 

had any product development relationship in the two decades since then. 

With no established place of business, no employees residing in the District, and no 

reasonable argument that Gearbox’s contacts with the Eastern District of Texas should be 

imputed to Valve, venue cannot be found to be proper. Symbology’s remaining allegations 

regarding venue are legally irrelevant and frivolous as explained in Valve’s motion to dismiss. 

I am writing to renew Valve’s demand that you dismiss all three cases you have filed 

against Valve. There can be no further dispute that the venue allegations in Plaintiffs’ complaints 

are so frivolous and lacking in merit as to render the three cases you have filed against Valve 

exceptional. Accordingly, Valve intends to seek fees and other relief associated with having to 

file a motion to dismiss a case that should have never been brought in the Eastern District of 

Texas. Failure to promptly dismiss all three cases will result in Valve incurring additional costs 

associated with having to move to dismiss the Quantum Techs. and Social Positioning

complaints, as well as continuing to litigate the Symbology case. See Khan v. Hemosphere Inc., 

825 F. App'x 762, 770-71 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (affirming the imposition of Rule 11 sanctions against 

a Plaintiff for frivolous venue allegations made in the wake of TC Heartland). 

Please let me know by November 20, 2023, if your clients will agree to dismiss their 

complaints. 

Sincerely, 

Kathleen R. Geyer 

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 90-7 Filed 08/06/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 1828