IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

SYMBOLOGY INNOVATIONS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. 

VALVE CORPORATION, GEARBOX 

SOFTWARE, L.L.C.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-CV-00419-JRG

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the Court are the Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (the 

“Motion to Strike”) (Dkt. No. 57) and the Motion to Dismiss Under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(3) for Improper Venue (the “Motion to Dismiss”) (Dkt. No. 55) filed by 

Defendant Valve Corporation (“Valve”). Also before the Court are the Motion to Expedite 

Briefing on Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint and Motion to Expedite 

Briefing on Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (the “Motions to Expedite”) 

filed by Valve. (Dkt. Nos. 56, 58). In the Motion to Strike, Valve asks the Court to strike Plaintiff 

Symbology Innovations, LLC’s (“Symbology”) Third Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 52) and to 

order Symbology to file a response to Valve’s motion to dismiss for improper venue. (Dkt. No. 57 

at 1).

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Symbology filed its Original Complaint on September 15, 2023. (Dkt. No. 1). Symbology 

alleged that venue was proper in this District because Valve “maintains a regular and established 

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 64 Filed 04/29/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 1549
2

business presence in this District.” (Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 8). Valve moved to dismiss Symbology’s Original 

Complaint under Rule 12(b)(3) for improper venue. (Dkt. No. 11). In response, the parties 

requested to “conduct limited, expedited venue discovery,” which the Court granted. (Dkt. No. 24 

(the “Venue Discovery Order”) at 1). During venue discovery, Symbology twice amended its 

complaint. (Dkt. Nos. 35, 40). In its January 16, 2024 First Amended Complaint, Symbology realleged its previous venue allegations and added new ones as well. See, e.g., (Dkt. No. 35, ¶ 12). 

In response, Valve filed a renewed motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 37). On February 13, 2024, 

Symbology filed a Second Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 40). Valve renewed its motion to 

dismiss again in response to the Second Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 45).

Per the Court’s Venue Discovery Order, Symbology’s response to Valve’s motion to dismiss 

was to be filed by March 11, 2024. (Dkt. No. 24, ¶ 7). The Court granted an extension of this 

deadline to March 21, 2024 at Symbology’s unopposed request. (Dkt. No. 50). On March 21, 2024, 

Symbology did not file a response to Valve’s motion to dismiss and instead filed its Third Amended 

Complaint. (Dkt. No. 52). On April 8, 2024, Valve renewed its Motion to Dismiss for improper 

venue in response to Symbology’s Third Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 55). The same day, Valve

also filed the present Motion to Strike the Third Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 57).

III. DISCUSSION

In the Motion to Strike, Valve argues that the Third Amended Complaint should be stricken 

because “Symbology violated this Court’s order on venue discovery (Dkt. 24, ‘Venue Order’) by 

not filing a response to Valve’s motion to dismiss.” (Dkt. No. 57 at 1). Valve contends that 

Symbology is “purposefully seek[ing] to delay the Court’s orderly process for timely resolving the 

issue of whether venue over Value is proper in this District.” (Id.).

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 64 Filed 04/29/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 1550
3

Symbology argues that “[u]nder the Court’s Docket Control Order, the parties are allowed 

to amend the pleadings until August 29, 2024,” and that it “amended within its allowed time under 

the DCO.” (Dkt. No. 61 at 1). Symbology contends that it “is entitled to amend its complaint even 

if there was a briefing schedule in place for Valve’s motion to dismiss via another order or local 

rule.” (Id. at 3).

Symbology is correct that the Court’s Docket Control Order sets August 29, 2024 as the 

deadline for the parties to amend pleadings, prior to which Symbology need not seek leave of 

Court to amend its pleadings. See (Dkt. No. 29 at 4). However, the DCO’s deadline for amended 

pleadings does not allow Symbology to avoid responding to Valve’s Motion to Dismiss. The 

parties have conducted expedited venue discovery, and Symbology should have all of the 

information it needs to respond to Valve’s Motion to Dismiss. As such, the Court GRANTS 

Valve’s request to order Symbology to file a response to Valve’s renewed Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 

No. 55). 

IV. CONCLUSION

Having considered the Motion to Strike (Dkt. No. 57), the Court finds that it should be 

GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART as described herein. Accordingly, the Court 

ORDERS that Symbology must file its response to the Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 55) within 

five days of the issuance of this Order.

1 The Court DENIES Valve’s request to strike Symbology’s 

Third Amended Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15 or 16. The Court further 

DENIES AS MOOT the Motions to Expedite (Dkt. Nos. 56, 58) and Valve’s earlier-filed motion 

to dismiss for improper venue (Dkt. No. 45) in view of the relief granted in this Order. Finally, the

Court ORDERS that Symbology is prohibited from further amending its complaint prior to the 

1 For avoidance of doubt, the timing of Valve’s reply brief and Symbology’s sur-reply brief will be governed by the 

local rules.

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 64 Filed 04/29/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 1551
4

Court’s order addressing the Motion to Dismiss on the venue issue without first receiving leave of 

Court. 

____________________________________

RODNEY GILSTRAP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE So ORDERED and SIGNED this 29th day of April, 2024.

Case 2:23-cv-00419-JRG Document 64 Filed 04/29/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 1552