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 REPLY 

IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER FEDERAL 

RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(B)(3) FOR IMPROPER VENUE

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 66 Filed 04/30/24 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1565
1

Symbology’s Third Amended Complaint, like those before it, fails to articulate a 

plausible theory of venue over Valve. After conducting months’ worth of venue discovery, 

Symbology and the other Rothschild plaintiffs1 do not directly address any of Valve’s arguments

from its various motions to dismiss. Instead, Plaintiffs resort simply to copying and pasting entire 

paragraphs from the complaint (including paragraph numbers). 

Plaintiffs focus their opposition efforts on the recently concocted allegation that the 

Global Settlement and License Agreement (“GSALA”) means Valve waived its venue 

objections. Plaintiffs do not try to defend their transparent attempt to use the agreement as both a 

sword (to keep Valve in this District) and a shield (by threatening to strike any license defense 

Valve might raise).2 Plaintiffs’ arguments are internally contradictory and legally incorrect. The 

few other arguments that Plaintiffs hang on to (like that § 1391 applies here) are frivolous.

The end result of over six months of litigation over venue has led to one, simple 

conclusion: Valve does not belong in this District. 

I. THE GSALA DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS CASE

Despite devoting nine-and-a-half pages to the issue of waiver, Plaintiffs spend almost no 

effort addressing the first step in determining whether the forum selection clause applies here: 

“whether the clause applies to the type of claims asserted in the lawsuit.” Braspetro Oil Servs. 

1 Per the Court’s Order (Dkt. 24), Symbology’s Response and Valve’s Reply “applie[s] with 

equal force to all three cases.” Accordingly, the arguments made in Valve’s Reply apply to the 

operative complaints in the three Rothschild cases: Symbology Innovation, LLC v. Valve Corp. et 

al., No. 2:23-419 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 15, 2023); Social Position Input Systems, LLC v. Valve Corp. 

et al., No. 2:23-cv-00425 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 18, 2023); and Quantum Technology Innovations, 

LLC v. Valve Corp. et al., No. 2:23-cv-00422 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 18, 2023). To capture all three 

cases, this brief references “Plaintiffs” rather than just “Symbology,” where “Plaintiffs” means 

Symbology Innovations, Social Position Input Systems, and Quantum Technology Innovations. 

2 Plaintiffs make much out of Valve refusing the waive its implied licensing defense. To avoid 

any ambiguity, Valve’s position is that the GSALA does not govern these cases in any way, and 

Valve has never indicated that it would raise an implied licensing defense based on the GSALA. 

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 66 Filed 04/30/24 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 1566
2

Co. v. Modec (USA), Inc., 240 F. App’x 612, 616 (5th Cir. 2007); see also Qualls v. Prewett 

Enterprises, Inc., 594 F. Supp. 3d 813, 821 (S.D. Tex. 2022). Instead of explaining how the 

infringement claims are “controlled, managed, or governed by” the GSALA, Plaintiffs assert in a 

single sentence that “Valve Corporation makes the forum selection clause controlling because it 

is part of the nexus of operative facts.” Opp. at 2; Qualls, 594 F. Supp. 3d at 821.

Plaintiffs do not explain what “operative facts” are connected to the GSALA. That is 

likely because no relevant facts in Plaintiffs’ cases are connected to that agreement. The GSALA 

does not reference any of the Plaintiffs. The asserted patents are not included in the GSALA—a 

fact Plaintiffs readily admit. Opp. at 5. Plaintiffs do not even allege that the patents included in 

the GSALA are related to the asserted patents. See Dkts. 52 & 63. The technology also differs 

between the GSALA and the current cases. In Display Technologies, the lawsuit that led to the 

agreement, the accused technology was Valve’s Steam Operating System. Display Technologies, 

LLC v. Valve Corp., 2:15-cv-999, Dkt. 1 ¶ 10 (E.D. Tex. June 8, 2015). In contrast, Plaintiffs 

now accuse QR code functionality (Symbology), VR headsets (Social Pos. Input Sys.), and 

content distribution systems (Quantum Tech.).

Lacking actual facts to support their argument, Plaintiffs allege that “Valve Corporation 

refuses to stipulate to not raising a license defense in this case based on this prior GSALA.” Opp. 

at 2. This fact is irrelevant to the question of proper venue. First, Valve has not raised or asserted 

a license defense (or even answered the complaints). Plaintiffs merely attempt to manufacture 

venue using a hypothetical argument about what defenses Valve might assert, which is 

insufficient to keep Valve in this District. See Indus. Print Techs. v. Canon U.S.A., No. 2:14-CV00019, 2014 WL 7240050, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 19, 2014) (“[U]nless the contract is ... at the 

very core of the dispute, the Court will not likely conclude that the facts fall within the scope of 

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 66 Filed 04/30/24 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 1567
3

the contract. This is especially true if the Court perceives that the party who asserts the forumselection clause attempts to manufacture a contract dispute simply as a means to import the 

forum-selection clause into the case for venue purposes.”).

Second, Plaintiffs’ allegation that “Valve refused to stipulate that it would not raise a 

licensing defense in March 2024” is misleading.

3 Plaintiffs offered to stay litigation in exchange 

for Valve agreeing to two conditions: (1) Plaintiffs required Valve to “stipulate to not asserting a 

licensing defense”; and (2) Plaintiffs demanded Valve be “willing to waive filing fees motion in 

exchange for the stays.” Ex. 1 at 1. Valve’s refusal to accept Plaintiffs’ invitation to waive its 

rights were divorced from any discussion or dispute regarding the GSALA and cannot be used to 

fabricate a nexus to the GSALA. 

Third, Plaintiffs contradict their own argument that Valve’s unraised, hypothetical 

licensing defense creates a nexus to the GSALA. For example, they allege “plaintiff is 

considered a party to the GSALA such that this patent dispute is controlled by the forum 

selection clause.” Opp. at 8. Yet in the very next sentence, Plaintiffs contend that Valve “does 

not have a license to the patents-in-suit in any of the EDTX cases” and threaten to move to strike 

“any licensing defense.” Id.; see also id. (Valve “did not include these patents as ‘Licensed 

Patents’ in GSALA...” Plaintiffs’ use of the GSALA as a sword to manufacture venue and a 

shield from any unraised licensing defense is fatal to their argument that this case arises from the 

3 Plaintiffs’ recounting of Valve’s Washington case is similarly misleading. Opp. at 6 n.3. Valve 

has not argued the GSALA is unenforceable, and Defendants have not “moved to dismiss 

indicating venue is improper.” Id. In response to Defendants’ motion to transfer under 27 U.S.C. 

§ 1404, Valve argued that the forum selection clause of the GSALA is permissive, not 

mandatory. Valve v. Rothschild et al., 2:23-cv-1016-JNW, Dkt. 29 at 5-6 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 13, 

2023). Valve did not amend its complaint in response to Defendants’ motion to transfer.

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 66 Filed 04/30/24 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 1568
4

GSALA. Gen. Protecht Grp., Inc. v. Leviton Mfg. Co., 651 F.3d 1355, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

4

II. PLAINTIFFS’ REMAINING ARGUMENTS ARE LEGALLY FORECLOSED

Plaintiffs half-heartedly argue that venue over Valve is proper for three additional 

reasons. Case law forecloses each argument. First, Plaintiffs argue that “venue is proper under 

§ 1391(c)(2) because Defendant Valve Corporation ‘resides’ in the EDTX where the Court has 

personal jurisdiction over [Valve].

5

” Opp. at 8. This argument is frivolous. Section 1391 does not 

apply to this case. TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Grp. Brands LLC, 581 U.S. 258, 265-66 

(2017). Valve is not subject to venue in this District merely because it might be subject to 

personal jurisdiction. In re Cray Inc., 871 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2017).

Second, Plaintiffs argue PC Cafés that “advertise Valve’s STEAM gaming platform and 

that Valve can inspect” them shows Valve has “ratified” these establishments. Opp. at 8-9. This 

Court has already ruled such allegations are insufficient to establish venue. See Westport Fuel 

Sys. Canada, Inc. v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00455-JRG-RSP, 2022 WL 4594036, at 

*1, 3 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 12, 2022). Plaintiffs do not address or rebut Valve’s arguments on this 

point, nor explain why the Court should depart from prior precedent.

Third, Plaintiffs argue Valve “has agency over employees that reside in this district 

perform inspections of its dedicated servers.” Opp. at 9. Plaintiffs copy this argument from

Symbology’s Third Amended Complaint with no additional facts or argument to support it. It is 

4 Even if this Court were to find that the current lawsuits arises out of the GSALA, Plaintiffs still 

cannot invoke the forum selection clause because they are not parties to that agreement. The term 

“Parties” is a defined term that exclusively refers to Valve, Display Technologies, and Leigh 

Rothschild. Dkt. 55-3 at 1. Despite Plaintiffs’ undue focus on the term “Affiliate,” the agreement 

never uses it to refer to the subsidiaries of Patent Assert Management. Instead, the term is used 

exclusively to reference Valve’s “Affiliates,” to clarify the scope of protection that Valve and its 

“Affiliates” were given under the GSALA. See, e.g., Dkt. 55-3 at 4 (§§ 3.1-.2). 

5 Valve disputes that it is subject to personal jurisdiction in the Eastern District of Texas.

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 66 Filed 04/30/24 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 1569
5

insufficient for the same reasons laid out in Valve’s motion. Dkt. 55 at 6. Namely, Valve has no 

employees who live in this District, and alleging (without proof) that third-party employees live 

in this District but perform work related to Valve outside this District cannot show that Valve has 

a “regular and established place of business” here. In re Cray, 871 F.3d at 1360.

III. PLAINTIFFS CONCEDE THE FALSITY OF THEIR REMAINING

ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN THEIR COMPLAINTS BUT MISSING FROM 

THEIR OPPOSITION.

Plaintiffs attempt multiple times to incorporate 24 pages of allegations from Symbology’s 

Third Amended Complaint into their 15 page-opposition. Opp. at 1, n. 1; see also id., at 7. This 

is an improper attempt to circumvent this Court’s Local Rules and should be disregarded. 

Plaintiffs abandon many of the allegations made in their various complaints for why 

venue is purportedly proper in this District. Uncontroverted arguments from Valve’s motion to 

dismiss include the complete irrelevance of Valve’s: (1) prior consent to venue (Dkt. 55 at 14-

15); (2) sale of gift cards in the District (id. at 15); (3) distribution of video games from Texas 

game developers (id. at 11-12); (4) previous game development with Gearbox Software (id. at 

10-11); (5) Texas Franchise Account and Texas Taxpayer Number (id. at 14); (6) Dallas-based 

server (id. at 3-4); and (7) Texas-based “employees”6 (No. 23-422, Dkt. 11 at 5-6, ¶ 7(d)).

Plaintiffs’ failure to rebut Valve’s arguments concedes that these allegations are insufficient. 

Wilson v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, No. A-10-CA-597-SS, 2011 WL 13324379, at *1 (W.D. Tex. 

Feb. 25, 2011) (granting motion to dismiss where Plaintiff did not file a substantive response). 

IV. CONCLUSION

Valve requests the Court dismiss these cases. Valve also requests that, should the Court 

dismiss, the Court keep the cases open to hear any fee request that Valve chooses to file.

6 As explained in Valve’s motion to dismiss in the Social Positioning case, Plaintiff’s allegation 

is wrong. Valve has no Texas employees. 23-422, Dkt. 11 at 4-7.

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 66 Filed 04/30/24 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 1570
6

Dated: April 30, 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 66 Filed 04/30/24 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 1571