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 MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER 

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

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 60 Filed 04/15/24 Page 1 of 22 PageID #: 1461
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND.......................................................1

A. Valve’s Execution of the 2016 Global Settlement and License 

Agreement..............................................................................................................1

B. PC Cafés.................................................................................................................2

C. Valve’s Servers and Alleged “Employees” Residing in Texas .............................3

D. Valve’s Relationship with Gearbox and Other Texas Game Developers..............4

1. Valve’s Decades-Old Product Development Agreement with 

Gearbox......................................................................................................4

2. Valve’s Product Distribution Agreement with Gearbox and 

Others.........................................................................................................4

II. LEGAL STANDARDS .....................................................................................................5

III. ARGUMENT.....................................................................................................................5

A. Venue Is Improper in the Eastern District of Texas Because Valve Has 

No Physical Place in This District .........................................................................6

1. Valve Has No Office Space or Real Property in This District ..................6

2. PC Cafés Are Not Physical Places of Valve in the District.......................6

3. Valve Does Not Control Developers Who Place Content on 

Steam........................................................................................................10

B. The GSALA Does Not Apply to This Lawsuit....................................................12

C. The Court Should Disregard Symbology’s Remaining, Irrelevant 

Allegations...........................................................................................................14

1. Valve’s Texas Taxpayer Number Is Irrelevant to Venue ........................14

2. Valve’s Participation in Old Cases Does Not Confer Venue 

Here..........................................................................................................14

3. Valve’s Sale of Gift Cards in This District Is Irrelevant to 

Venue .......................................................................................................15

4. Third-Party Servers Not in This District..................................................15

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 60 Filed 04/15/24 Page 2 of 22 PageID #: 1462
ii

IV. CONCLUSION................................................................................................................15

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................ ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL ....ERROR! BOOKMARK 

NOT DEFINED.

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 60 Filed 04/15/24 Page 3 of 22 PageID #: 1463
iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Cases

AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,

No. 22:1-cv-24-JRG-RSP, 2021 WL 6616856 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 10, 2021).............................10

Alexsam, Inc. v. Simon Prop. Grp. (Texas), L.P.,

No. 2:19-CV-00331-JRG, 2021 WL 8441707 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 3, 2021) ...............................15

AptusTech LLC v. Trimfoot Co., LLC,

No. 4:19-cv-00133-ALM, 2020 WL 1190070 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 12, 2020)................................5

In re Cray Inc.,

871 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2017)........................................................................................5, 6, 10

Display Techs., LLC v. Nvida Corp.,

No. 2:15-cv-00998-JRG-RSP, Dkt. 41 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 28, 2015) ..........................................14

EMA Electromechanics, Inc. v. Siemens Corp.,

No. 6:21-CV-1001-ADA, 2022 WL 1241967 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 26, 2022) .........................8, 11

Indus. Print Techs. v. Canon U.S.A.,

No. 2:14-CV-00019, 2014 WL 7240050 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 19, 2014) ......................................13

In re Micron Tech., Inc.,

875 F.3d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................15

Mirror Imaging, LLC v. Viewpointe Archive Servs. LLC,

No. 3:22-CV-2857-X, 2023 WL 5311491 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 17, 2023) ...................................15

TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Grp. Brands LLC,

581 U.S. 258 (2017).......................................................................................................5, 14, 15

Toshiba Int’l Corp. v. Fritz,

993 F. Supp. 571 (S.D. Tex. 1998)..........................................................................................14

Uniloc v. Activision Blizzard, Inc.,

No. 6:13-cv-00256-LED (E.D. Tex.).......................................................................................14

Unity Opto Tech. Co. v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC,

No. 18-cv-27-JDP, 2018 WL 2087250 (W.D. Wis. May 4, 2018)..........................................11

V&A Collection, LLC v. Guzzini Props. Ltd.,

46 F.4th 127 (2d Cir. 2022) .....................................................................................................15

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 60 Filed 04/15/24 Page 4 of 22 PageID #: 1464
iv

Valve Corp. v. Rothschild et al.,

No. 2:23-cv-01016 (W.D. Wash.)..............................................................................................1

In re Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc.,

28 F.4th 1203 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ........................................................................................ passim

Westport Fuel Sys. Canada, Inc. v. Nissan N. Am., Inc.,

No. 2:21-cv-00455-JRG-RSP, 2022 WL 4594036 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 12, 2022).........................9

Wireless Protocol Innovations, Inc. v. TCT Mobile (US) Inc.,

No. 6:15-cv-918-KNM, 2023 WL 4626659 (E.D. Tex. July 19, 2023) ..........................7, 8, 10

Statutes

28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).........................................................................................................................5

Other Authorities

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3)..............................................................................................................1, 15

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 60 Filed 04/15/24 Page 5 of 22 PageID #: 1465
1

In 2023, Valve Corporation sued Symbology Innovation, LLC’s owner, Leigh 

Rothschild, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.1 Valve accuses 

Rothschild and several of his companies of violating Washington’s Anti-Patent Troll Statute due 

to their repeated and improper accusations of infringement based on patents (not asserted here) to 

which Valve is already licensed. In response, Rothschild—through Symbology—filed this suit 

far from Valve’s Washington headquarters. But in doing so, Symbology (and Rothschild) chose 

the wrong venue to file their retaliatory suit. 

Symbology’s Third Amended Complaint (Dkt. 52) does nothing to fix the fatal defects in 

Symbology’s Original Complaint, First Amended Complaint, and Second Amended Complaint: 

there is no legal basis for finding that venue is proper in this District over Valve. Valve therefore 

moves for the fourth time under Rule 12(b)(3) to dismiss for improper venue.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Symbology filed its Third Amended Complaint on March 24, 2024. There, Symbology 

admits that Valve is incorporated and has its principal place of business in Washington state. 

Dkt. 52, ¶ 2. Symbology knows and ignores the fact that Valve does not own or rent any real 

property or possess or control any “shelf space” in this District. Decl. of C. Schenck (“Schenck 

Decl.”), ¶ 6. In fact, Symbology does not identify any physical presence of Valve in this District. 

A. Valve’s Execution of the 2016 Global Settlement and License Agreement 

Symbology adds new allegations regarding the 2016 Global Settlement and License 

Agreement (“GSALA”) (Ex. 1)2

 between Valve and Symbology’s owner, Rothschild, to settle 

patent infringement claims by Rothschild-owned Display Technologies. The agreement permits

1 Valve Corp. v. Rothschild et al., No. 2:23-cv-01016 (W.D. Wash.). 

2

 Symbology’s new complaint attaches only 6 of the 21 pages of the GSALA, omitting several 

highly relevant pages. Valve attaches the entire agreement for the Court’s consideration. 

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 60 Filed 04/15/24 Page 6 of 22 PageID #: 1466
2

disputes over the agreement to be brought in Texas. Symbology thus argues that Valve has 

waived any venue objections to all future disputes with any Rothschild-owned shell companies. 

Dkt. 52, ¶¶ 9-27; 57-58. 

In the GSALA, Valve took a license to a number of patents owned by specifically 

enumerated entities (referred to as “Assignee[s]”) owned by Rothschild. Ex. 1 § 9.2. Rothschild 

signed the GSALA on behalf of himself, Display Technologies, and “all entities listed as 

‘Assignee.’” Id., p. 14. Neither Symbology nor the Asserted Patents (nor any parent, 

continuations, continuations in part, or divisional) are mentioned in the GSALA. Id. at Exhibit C. 

The GSALA also includes a forum selection clause that states: 

The construction, validity, and performance of the Agreement shall be governed ... 

by the law of the State of Texas .... Parties hereby submit to the jurisdiction of, and 

waive any venue objections against, the State and Federal courts in Texas.

Id., §1.1. “Parties” includes only Display Technologies, Rothschild, and Valve. Id. p.1. 

B. PC Cafés

Symbology attempts to tie Valve to independent third-party gaming lounges in this 

District that purchased commercial licenses to provide games from Valve’s “Steam” gaming 

platform to customers. Dkt. 52, ¶¶ 30-34; 56; 65. These third-party gaming lounges are generally 

referred to as PC Cafés. 

3 See, e.g., Ex. 2 (PC Café 

Agreement), § 2(A)(2). 

Id. 

3 In contrast, an individual subscriber to Valve’s Steam platform can purchase single player 

licenses to games available on Steam, allowing only that subscriber to play their chosen game. 

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 60 Filed 04/15/24 Page 7 of 22 PageID #: 1467
3

 Ex. 3 (30(b)(6) Dep. Tr., 

35:22-25; 74:18-21). 

See, e.g., Ex. 2. The PC Café Agreement does not give Valve any control over 

the operation of the PC Cafés. Valve only provides a license to the digital content that the Cafés 

purchase to provide for their patrons. The PC Café, not Valve, is responsible for providing the 

physical premises. See id. at 1. 

Id., § 4A 

see also id. §§ 4C, 4D.

 Schenck Decl., ¶¶ 7-8. 

C. Valve’s Servers and Alleged “Employees” Residing in Texas

Valve’s Contracts with Cloud Storage Providers:

See, e.g., Exs. 4-8. 

 Ex. 9 (Resp. 

Venue Interr. 2). 

See Ex. 4, § 16.5; see also

Ex. 5, § 11.7; Ex. 6, § 12.9; Ex. 7 § 19; Ex. 8, .p. 7 (Misc., § a).

Valve’s Dedicated Severs: Some of Valve’s own servers are hosted 

 Dkt. 52, ¶ 40. Symbology acknowledges that these servers are 

outside this District. Id. 

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 60 Filed 04/15/24 Page 8 of 22 PageID #: 1468
4

 Ex. 3, 14:1-

9; 95:9-15. 

 Ex. 3, 95:9-15. 

 Ex. 10 § 9h. 

D. Valve’s Relationship with Gearbox and Other Texas Game Developers

1. Valve’s Decades-Old Product Development Agreement with Gearbox

Symbology attempts to bootstrap allegations relating only to co-defendant Gearbox 

Software to Valve. E.g., Dkt. 52, 41-42., ¶ 7. Valve is not related to Gearbox and does not 

exercise control over Gearbox. Schenck Decl., ¶ 16; Dkt. 36 at 2-3. In 2001, after Gearbox 

developed two expansions to Valve’s “Half-Life” video game franchise, Valve entered into an 

agreement with Gearbox to do additional video game development work. Id., ¶¶ 17-19. In 2002, 

Valve terminated that contract. Id., ¶ 20. Since then, Valve has not collaborated with Gearbox to 

develop any products. Id., ¶ 21. Valve and Gearbox did not work together to develop the Steam 

mobile app that is accused of infringement. Id., ¶ 22. 

2. Valve’s Product Distribution Agreement with Gearbox and Others 

Valve uses the term 

 Ex. 3, 70:15-18. On Steam, users can select and purchase 

games offered by hundreds of different game developers. Each of the game developers must

 Ex., 3, 15:13-16:10. 

 Ex. 11, ¶ 2.1. Id. 

at ¶ 3.5. Further, the 

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 60 Filed 04/15/24 Page 9 of 22 PageID #: 1469
5

Id. at ¶ 15.7. To help developers make their games 

compatible with Steam, Valve provides them with access to the Steam Software Developer Kit 

(“SDK”). Ex. 3, 55:1-14. The SDK cannot be used to “build [developers’] games.” Dkt. 52, ¶ 42. 

The “SDK provides a range of features which are designed to help ship your application or game 

on Steam in an efficient manner.” Ex. 12. 

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

Symbology “bears the burden of establishing proper venue.” AptusTech LLC v. Trimfoot 

Co., LLC, No. 4:19-cv-00133-ALM, 2020 WL 1190070, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 12, 2020). 

Because Valve is incorporated in the United States, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) is the “sole and 

exclusive” provision controlling venue.4 TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Grp. Brands LLC, 581 

U.S. 258, 265-66 (2017). Under Section 1400(b), Symbology can only establish venue in a 

district where a corporate defendant “resides” (i.e., is incorporated) or “where the defendant has 

committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.” Id. To find 

that Valve has a regular and established place of business, “(1) there must be a physical place in 

the district; (2) it must be a regular and established place of business; and (3) it must be the place 

of the defendant.” In re Cray Inc., 871 F.3d 1355, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Venue is improper if 

just one of these three requirements is missing. Id. To establish that Valve has a “regular and 

established place of business” in this District, “considerations include whether [Valve] owns or 

leases the place, or exercises other attributes of possession or control over the place.” Id. at 1363. 

III. ARGUMENT

Neither party disputes that Valve is incorporated in Washington state, and accordingly, it 

4

 Symbology’s § 1391 arguments run headfirst into this undisputed law. Dkt. 52, ¶¶ 54-55. The 

Court should disregard as irrelevant—and wrong—Symbology’s belief that § 1391 applies here. 

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 60 Filed 04/15/24 Page 10 of 22 PageID #: 1470
6

does not “reside” in Texas. Therefore, Symbology must show that Valve has a physical place in 

this District and that the place is a “regular and established place of business.” In re Cray, 871 

F.3d at 1360. Symbology does not plausibly allege facts to meet this burden. 

A. Venue Is Improper in the Eastern District of Texas Because Valve Has No 

Physical Place in This District

1. Valve Has No Office Space or Real Property in This District

Symbology does not allege that Valve owns or leases any real property or maintains any 

office space in this District. Symbology does not allege that Valve operates any stores, 

warehouses, fulfillment centers, or computer servers to sell or distribute its products. Indeed, it 

cannot, as Valve does not have any physical presence here. Schenck Decl., ¶¶ 5-6. 

Valve has servers that it owns . Plaintiff acknowledges that these 

servers are not in this District. Dkt. 52, ¶ 40. They are thus not relevant to venue. In re Cray, 871 

F.3d at 1362. Plaintiff attempts to manufacture venue by alleging that Valve 

Dkt. 52, ¶ 59. 

 Ex. 3, 14:1-9; 95:9-15. Further, alleging (without proof) 

that 

 is inadequate to show that Valve has a “regular and established place of business” in this 

District. In re Cray, 871 F.3d at 1360. 

2. PC Cafés Are Not Physical Places of Valve in the District

Symbology’s threadbare allegations about PC Cafés fail to clear the Federal Circuit’s 

high bar for imputing the contacts of third parties to Valve. When determining whether to impute 

third-party contacts to Valve for the purposes of venue, “the most significant factor to consider is 

the degree of control that [Valve] maintains over the daily operations of the [third party].” In re 

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 60 Filed 04/15/24 Page 11 of 22 PageID #: 1471
7

Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., 28 F.4th 1203, 1210 (Fed. Cir. 2022). The control must be so 

expansive and fulsome to amount to an “agency relationship [where] the ‘principle ha[s] the right 

throughout the duration of the relationship to control the agent’s acts.’” Id. (citation omitted). 

Merely setting standards and providing constraints is insufficient to rise to an agency relationship 

and impute the contacts of a third party to Valve. Id. 

For example, in In re Volkswagen, the Federal Circuit determined the defendant car 

manufacturers did not have control over dealerships that sold defendants’ products, despite 

contractual provisions mandating the dealerships: 

(1) employ certain types of employees...; (2) maintain a minimum amount of 

inventory; (3) perform warranty work...; (4) use specified tools...; (5) use 

distributor-approved computer hardware and software; (6) comply with the 

distributors’ standards regarding dealership appearance...; (7) comply with the 

distributors’ working capital requirements; and (8) attend mandatory training... 

Id. at 1211. Instead, the eight contractual obligations placed on the dealerships by the 

manufacturers were merely found to be constraints and standards and did not amount to “stepby-step instructions” on how the car dealerships were to run their business. Id. at 1211-12. 

This Court has also found relationships between defendants and third parties to lack the 

high level of control necessary to impute the contacts of the third party to the defendant even 

when the defendant “provided detailed instructions to [third-party] employees tasked with 

inspecting the products and making them commercial ready; supervised and reviewed issues with 

the supply chain; [] worked with [third-party] to improve processes,” and “was able to access 

[third-party] facilities to review [third-party] processes and work.” Wireless Protocol 

Innovations, Inc. v. TCT Mobile (US) Inc., No. 6:15-cv-918-KNM, 2023 WL 4626659, at *11 

(E.D. Tex. July 19, 2023). The Court explained that “adherence to quality control standards set 

out by [defendant] is insufficient to establish that [defendant] had the requisite interim control 

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 60 Filed 04/15/24 Page 12 of 22 PageID #: 1472
8

over [third-party] or [their] employees necessary to create an agency relationship.” Id. at *12. 

Like In re Volkswagen and Wireless Protocol, the PC Cafés operate independently of 

Valve. Plaintiff identifies no facts supporting its conclusory statement that Valve “controls the 

day-to-day operations” of the PC Cafés. First, Plaintiff alleges that Valve 

Compare Dkt. 52 at 31 

with Ex. 2, § 4A. Second, Plaintiff alleges that Valve provides 

Compare Dkt. 52, ¶ 31 with Ex. 3, 35:22-25. 

. 

Third, Plaintiff alleges that Valve 

Compare Dkt. 52, ¶ 45 with Ex. 3, 78:18-19 

and 79:13-17 

Plaintiff’s only evidence is a 

 Dkt. 52, ¶ 45, Fig. 11; see also EMA Electromechanics, Inc. 

v. Siemens Corp., No. 6:21-CV-1001-ADA, 2022 WL 1241967, at *7, *9 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 26, 

2022) (finding that after three months of venue discovery, plaintiff failed to make a prima facie 

case for venue because allegations in its complaint were specifically controverted by defendant’s 

evidence, and “well-pleaded facts are only accepted as true if uncontroverted”). 

The only purported “step-by-step instructions” Plaintiff points to are the sign-up 

instructions Valve posts to guide individuals interested in becoming PC Cafés. Dkt. 52, Fig. 5. 

These cannot support that Valve “controls the actions” of the PC Cafés. In re Volkswagen, 28 

F.4th at 1210. Instead, once an individual signs the PC Café Agreement, 

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 60 Filed 04/15/24 Page 13 of 22 PageID #: 1473
9

 Ex. 3 at 74:18-21. 

 Ex. 2 at 1; Schenck Decl., ¶ 7. The PC Café 

Agreement makes clear that the 

 Ex. 2 at §§ 4A; 4D. 

Under the PC Café Agreement, Valve merely 

. For example, Valve 

allows PC Café operations to 

Ex. 2 at 2(C). These mere “constraints on the service provider” are 

insufficient to rise to the level of the “right to give instructions” or have control over daily 

operations. See In re Volkswagen, 28 F.4th at 1209-10. The PC Café Agreement also allows 

Valve 

 Schenck Decl., ¶ 8. Even if 

Valve had, does not rise to the level of day-to-day control sufficient to convert 

the PC Café to a regular an established place of Valve. See Westport Fuel Sys. Canada, Inc. v. 

Nissan N. Am., Inc., No. 2:21-cv-00455-JRG-RSP, 2022 WL 4594036, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 12, 

2022) (finding that employees visiting dealerships in the district at least 44 times and 32 times 

does not convert the dealership into a regular and established place of Nissan). 

At all times, PC Cafés are independently created, owned, and operated by third parties. 

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 60 Filed 04/15/24 Page 14 of 22 PageID #: 1474
10

Valve’s licensing of digital content to these entities with certain restrictions and standards is 

insufficient to impute the contacts of PC Cafés to Valve. Wireless Protocol, 2023 WL 4626659 

at *11. Thus, PC Cafés located in this District cannot be a regular and established place of Valve. 

3. Valve Does Not Control Developers Who Place Content on Steam 

a. Valve’s Decades-Old Collaboration with Gearbox

Symbology uses Gearbox in a transparent attempt to manufacture venue against Valve by 

imputing Gearbox’s contacts with this District to Valve. This is legally insufficient to find venue 

over Valve in this District. See In re Cray Inc., 871 F.3d at 1360. Valve and Gearbox are 

separate entities that do not share any common ownership, employees, or office space. Schenck 

Decl. ¶ 23; see also Dkt. 36 at 2-3 (“Valve and Gearbox are wholly different entities...”). Valve 

does not have any control or authority over the actions of Gearbox. Id. 

From 2001 to 2002, Gearbox and Valve collaborated to create video game content. 

Schenck Decl., ¶¶ 19-20. Valve terminated that agreement in 2002. Ex. 13. This productdevelopment work occurred two decades before Plaintiff filed its complaint and is irrelevant to 

venue. AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 22:1-cv-24-JRG-RSP, 2021 WL 

6616856, *1 n. 1 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 10, 2021). 

Since the project ended in 2002, Valve and Gearbox have had no further collaboration on 

the creation of any product, including those Symbology accuses of infringement. Schenck Decl.,

¶¶ 21-22. Valve’s 30(b)(6) deponent confirmed that

 Ex. 3 at 56:18-25. Despite confirming the 

current state of Valve and Gearbox’s relationship, Symbology incorrectly alleges that Valve 

collaborated with Gearbox to develop Tiny Tina’s Wonderland, a game that was released in 

2022. Dkt. 52, ¶¶ 41; 49; Ex. 14. The game’s public listing shows “Gearbox Software” is the 

only developer, and “2K” is the only publisher. Ex. 14. Valve had no involvement in the 

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 60 Filed 04/15/24 Page 15 of 22 PageID #: 1475
11

development of Tiny Tina’s Wonderland. Ex. 6 at 56:18-25. 

 Ex. 3, 37:15-38:8. 

The Court should disregard Plaintiff’s unfounded factual averments made after months of venue 

discovery that proves them false. See EMA Electromechanics, 2022 WL 1241967, at *7, *9. 

b. Valve’s Current Relationship with Game Developers

Despite having three months of venue discovery, other than Gearbox, Symbology never 

asked Valve about any of the allegedly Texas-based companies mentioned in Paragraph 43 of the 

Third Amended Complaint. Yet it now boldly claims that Valve has 

 Dkt. 52, ¶ 43. 

This is wrong because, even if these newly introduced companies are 

 Ex. 3, 70:15-18; see also EMA Electromechanics, 2022 WL 1241967, at *7, 

*9. 

Ex. 11. The agreement does not provide any 

 Ex. 11; see 

also In re Volkswagen, 28 F.4th at 1210-11. The agreement 

 Ex.11, ¶ 15.7. Thus, the 

presence of game developers in this District cannot be used to support venue over Valve. See, 

e.g., Unity Opto Tech. Co. v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC, No. 18-cv-27-JDP, 2018 WL 

2087250, at *3 (W.D. Wis. May 4, 2018) (finding no venue where “one corporation simply ... 

‘works closely’ with another corporation” in the disputed district). 

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 60 Filed 04/15/24 Page 16 of 22 PageID #: 1476
12

Symbology alleges that Valve provides 

 and Valve 

 Dkt. 52 at ¶¶ 42-43. 

Symbology’s allegations about Valve’s “partners” are contradicted by the evidence it received 

during venue discovery. Ex. 3, 70:15-18 As the SDA makes clear, 

Ex. 11, ¶ 2.1. Further, the Steam Software Developer 

Kit (“SDK”) that Symbology references is used only to ensure that already completed games are 

compatible with Steam. Ex. 3, 55:1-14. The SDK cannot be used to “build games” as Plaintiff 

alleges. Id.; Ex. 12 (“The Steamworks SDK provides a range of features which are designed to 

help ship your application or game on Steam in an efficient manner.”). 

Even if Plaintiff’s allegations were true (they are not), Valve providing resources to 

ensure technical compatibility is insufficient to treat the developers and Valve as interchangeable 

for the purpose of determining whether Valve has a place of business in this District. Nothing in 

the 

In re Volkswagen, 28 F.4th at 1210. 

B. The GSALA Does Not Apply to This Lawsuit

Plaintiff alleges for the first time that Valve has waived its right to object to venue 

because of a forum selection clause in the GSALA to which (a) Plaintiff was not a party and 

(b) that does not license, let alone mention, the Asserted Patents. Dkt. ¶¶ 9-26, 57-60, 66. The 

GSALA does not govern venue in this lawsuit. Its forum selection clause states, “Parties hereby 

submit to the jurisdiction of, and waive any venue objections against, the State and Federal 

courts in Texas.” Ex. 1, § 11.1. “Parties” is defined as Valve, Display Technologies, and Leigh 

Rothschild. Despite Plaintiff’s extensive focus on the term “Affiliate” in the GSALA (Dkt. 52 ¶¶ 

17-18), Plaintiff is not a Party nor an Assignee to whom the Agreement applies. Ex. 1 at 14; 

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 60 Filed 04/15/24 Page 17 of 22 PageID #: 1477
13

Ex. C. Indeed, “Affiliate” is exclusively used in the agreement to refer to Valve’s Affiliates, not 

Rothschild’s or Display Technologies’ Affiliates. Ex. 1, §§ 1.2; 1.3; 2.1; 3.1; 3.2; 7.1. 

Symbology is not a Party to the GSALA and cannot enforce the forum selection clause. 

Further, this lawsuit does not “aris[e]” out of the GSALA, making the forum selection 

clause inapplicable. Symbology is not named in the GSALA. The Asserted Patents are not 

licensed to Valve in the GSALA. Plaintiff does not dispute this. See Dkt. 52, ¶¶ 21, 58 (“Valve 

Corporation does not have a license to the patents-in-suit”); ¶ 58 (“Plaintiffs...intend to move to 

strike ... a licensing defense under the GSALA where Valve Corporation contends that under the 

definition of ‘Licensed Products’ it has a license to use the asserted patents-in-suit”). The 

GSALA is not related to any of Symbology’s claims. See Indus. Print Techs. v. Canon U.S.A., 

No. 2:14-CV-00019, 2014 WL 7240050, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 19, 2014). 

Despite admitting that the GSALA is irrelevant to the Asserted Patents and this lawsuit, 

Plaintiff attempts to use the GSALA as a sword to enforce the forum selection clause and as a 

shield from any defense of Valve’s that it has a license to the Asserted Patents. This Court faced 

a nearly identical situation in Industrial Print, where the plaintiff both opposed application of a 

forum selection clause in an agreement and simultaneously raised a dispute over facts squarely 

within the agreement. Indus. Print Techs., 2014 WL 7240050, at *5. The Court warned that it 

“will look with serious skepticism on parties that assert the forum-selection clause of an 

(otherwise ancillary) contract when the real dispute is clearly not wedded to the contract 

containing the forum-selection clause.” Id. That skepticism is warranted here. Symbology 

attempts to manufacture a venue dispute out of an unrelated contract based on a hypothetical 

licensing defense that Valve (1) has not asserted and (2) Plaintiff alleges cannot be asserted. The 

“real dispute” in this case involves a party not subject to the GSALA, patents not licensed in the 

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 60 Filed 04/15/24 Page 18 of 22 PageID #: 1478
14

GSALA, and claims that do not arise out of any provision of the GSALA. Plaintiff is improperly 

“attempt[ing] to manufacture a contract dispute simply as a means to import the forum-selection 

clause into the case for venue purposes.” Id. The Court should reject this attempt.

C. The Court Should Disregard Symbology’s Remaining, Irrelevant Allegations 

1. Valve’s Texas Taxpayer Number Is Irrelevant to Venue 

Valve’s Texas Franchise Tax Account and Texas Taxpayer Number show only that Valve 

conducts business in Texas, not that venue is proper in this District. “The Texas franchise tax is a 

privilege tax imposed on each taxable entity formed or organized in Texas or doing business in 

Texas.” Franchise Tax, https://comptroller.texas.gov/taxes/franchise/. The Supreme Court 

confirmed merely conducting business in the state, without more, is insufficient to prove that 

venue is proper. TC Heartland, 581 U.S. at 266. 

2. Valve’s Participation in Old Cases Does Not Confer Venue Here

In 2013, Valve intervened in a case where Uniloc alleged that Valve’s customer infringed 

its patents through sales of products on Valve’s Steam platform. Uniloc v. Activision Blizzard, 

Inc., No. 6:13-cv-00256-LED, Dkt. 1, ¶ 12(c) (E.D. Tex. Mar. 21, 2013). As Symbology 

recognizes, Valve consented to venue “for the purposes of this litigation only.” Id. at Dkt. 154-1. 

Similarly, Valve stated in response to a 2015 lawsuit that “Valve does not dispute, for the 

purposes of this action only, that venue is proper in this judicial district.” Display Techs., LLC v. 

Nvida Corp., No. 2:15-cv-00998-JRG-RSP, Dkt. 41, ¶ 4 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 28, 2015). 

Valve’s limited consent to venue in 2013 and in 2015 is irrelevant to the question of 

whether venue is proper as to Valve in this case. See Toshiba Int’l Corp. v. Fritz, 993 F. Supp. 

571, 573 (S.D. Tex. 1998). Symbology’s arguments would require a party to forever waive 

venue in a district if it seeks to intervene in a case for which it was not a named defendant. That 

is simply not the law. V&A Collection, LLC v. Guzzini Props. Ltd., 46 F.4th 127, 132 (2d Cir. 

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 60 Filed 04/15/24 Page 19 of 22 PageID #: 1479
15

2022) (“‘A party’s consent to jurisdiction in one case [ ] extends to that case alone.’”). Further, 

Valve’s decision not to challenge venue in 2013 and 2015 cannot be used as a waiver to the 

present challenge because of an intervening change in law in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 

decision in TC Heartland. In re Micron Tech., Inc., 875 F.3d 1091, 1096, 1099 (Fed. Cir. 2017).

3. Valve’s Sale of Gift Cards in This District Is Irrelevant to Venue

Allegations that Valve sells gift cards in this District are insufficient to prove venue over 

Valve. See supra § IV.C.1; Dkt. 40, ¶ 11. This Court already rejected such allegations. Alexsam, 

Inc. v. Simon Prop. Grp. (Texas), L.P., No. 2:19-CV-00331-JRG, 2021 WL 8441707, at *2 (E.D. 

Tex. Sept. 3, 2021) (rejecting argument that venue is proper because AMEX sold “prepaid, 

reloadable gift cards” through vendors as “not consistent with current venue law”).

4. Third-Party Servers Not in This District

Plaintiff alleges Valve

 Dkt 52, ¶ 39. Missing from Plaintiff’s argument is any allegation 

that Valve does not 

Ex. 9, at 13. Regardless, 

See In re 

Volkswagen, 28 F.4th at 1209-10; Mirror Imaging, LLC v. Viewpointe Archive Servs. LLC, No. 

3:22-CV-2857-X, 2023 WL 5311491, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 17, 2023). 

IV. CONCLUSION

Valve requests the Court dismiss this case for improper venue. Valve also requests that, 

after doing so, the Court keep the case open to hear any fee request that Valve chooses to file. 

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 60 Filed 04/15/24 Page 20 of 22 PageID #: 1480
16

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 60 Filed 04/15/24 Page 21 of 22 PageID #: 1481
17

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that all counsel of record who have consented to electronic service are 

being served with a copy of this document via electronic mail on April 8, 2024. 

I also hereby certify that all counsel of record who have consented to electronic service 

are being served with a notice of filing of this document, under seal, pursuant to L.R. CV-5(a)(7) 

on April 8, 2024. 

/s/ Shaun W. Hassett

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

I certify that the foregoing document is authorized to be filed under seal pursuant to the 

Protective Order entered in this case.

/s/ Shaun W. Hassett

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 60 Filed 04/15/24 Page 22 of 22 PageID #: 1482