FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION

HANSHOW TECHNOLOGY CO., 

LTD. AND SHANGHAI HANSHI 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 

CO., LTD

Plaintiffs,

v. 

SES-IMAGOTAG SA, SESIMAGOTAG GMBH AND 

CAPTANA GMBH

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

 Case No. 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP

DEFENDANTS VUSIONGROUP GMBH f/k/a SES-IMAGOTAG GMBH and CAPTANA 

GMBH’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ 

COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(B)(2)

Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 54 Filed 08/14/24 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:

901
FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................. i

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................................................................................... ii

A. MOVING DEFENDANTS DO NOT HAVE MINIMUM CONTACTS

WITH TEXAS OR THE U.S. ................................................................................................. 1

B. THE COURT LACKS PERSONAL JURISDICTION UNDER A

STREAM OF COMMERCE THEORY. .................................................................................... 3

C. PLAINTIFFS ENTIRELY FAIL TO SHOW THAT ITS ALLEGED

CONTACTS ARISE OUT OF OR RELATE TO ITS INFRINGEMENT ALLEGATIONS............... 6

D. PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER THE MOVING DEFENDANTS

WOULD OFFEND TRADITIONAL NOTIONS OF FAIR PLAY AND SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE... 8

E. PERSONAL JURISDICTION CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED UNDER

FED. R. CIV. P. 4(K)(2). ...................................................................................................... 9

F. VUSIONGROUP GMBH DID NOT WAIVE PERSONAL JURISDICTION. ............................. 10

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 10

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL..................................... 12

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................................. 12

Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 54 Filed 08/14/24 Page 2 of 15 PageID #:

902
FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Asarco, Inc. v. Glenara, Ltd., 912 F.2d 784, 787 n. 1 (5th Cir.1990)........................................... 10

Beverly Hills Fan Co. v. Royal Sovereign Corp., 21 F.3d 1558, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1994)................ 4

Celgard, LLC v. SK Innovation Co., 792 F.3d 1373, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2015).................................. 4

Cellport Sys., Inc. v. Harman Int'l Indus. Inc., No. 4:22-CV-808-SDJ, 

2024 WL 1337338, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 28, 2024). ............................................................. 6, 7

Diece-Lisa Indus., Inc. v. Disney Enters., Inc., 943 F.3d 239, 251 (5th Cir. 2019) ....................... 6

Glazier Grp., Inc. v. Mandalay Corp., Civ. Action No. H–06–2752, 

2007 WL 2021762, at *9 (S.D. Tex. July 11, 2007) ................................................................. 10

Luv N' care, Ltd. v. Insta-Mix, Inc., 438 F.3d 465, 470 (5th Cir. 2006)..................................... 5, 6

Seasons USA, Inc. v. SCS Direct, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:22-CV-00409-JRG-RSP, 

2023 WL 5344342, at *2 (E.D. Tex. June 9, 2023). ................................................................... 5

World Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980) ........................................ 6

Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 54 Filed 08/14/24 Page 3 of 15 PageID #:

903
FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PAGE 1

After three months of discovery—including two depositions, interrogatories, and 

thousands of pages of documents—Hanshow has not identified even a single allegedly infringing 

product sold by VusionGroup GmbH or Captana GmbH (“Moving Defendants”) in Texas or 

anywhere else in the United States. Instead, the evidence confirms that one entity is responsible 

for sale of the Accused Products in the United States, 

. The 

evidence also confirms that the Moving Defendants’

Confronted with these facts, Plaintiffs’ argument rests solely on the Moving Defendants’

 While this argument is also unsupported, more fatal is Plaintiffs’ complete failure to show 

that the alleged “knowledge” arises out of or relates to its own infringement allegations.

The bottom line is that Hanshow could have named the proper parties in this case. But for 

reasons that Hanshow declines to explain in its Opposition, it elected to name two parties over 

whom the exercise of personal jurisdiction is incompatible with Due Process. As a result, the Court 

should grant the Motion to Dismiss and dismiss the Moving Defendants from the case.

A. Moving Defendants Do Not Have Minimum Contacts With Texas or The U.S.

Plaintiffs offer no evidence that the Moving Defendants 

Both deponents in this case, 

See Ex. 1 at 16:10-12 (Vittorio Depo.); Ex. 2 at 7:17-19 

(Rallu Depo.). 

 Ex. 2 at 33:16-24; Ex. 1 at 39:18-40:2, 50:12-22. It is undisputed that 

. See Dkt. No. 38-1 and 38-2 (Vittorio

Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 54 Filed 08/14/24 Page 4 of 15 PageID #:

904
FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PAGE 2

Decls.); Plts. Ex. 3 at p. 11-13 (Amended Responses to Interrogatories).

 Ex. 1 at 25: 15-19.

It is also undisputed that neither Moving Defendant makes, sells, advertises, or imports any 

products in the United States.

. Ex. 2 at 40:3-9; Ex. 1 at 48:8-12. 

 Ex. 1 at 56:10-16. 

Id. at 49:23-50:1. The Moving 

Defendants

Id. at 39:18-40:2. 

Id. at 50:12-22. This evidence is uncontroverted.

Nevertheless, to confuse the entities and issues, Plaintiffs’ Opposition is littered with 

mischaracterizations and falsehoods. For example, Plaintiffs state that “Moving Defendants . . .

cannot refute that [they] 

 Dkt. No. 49 at p. 8 (Opposition). This is unquestionably false. As 

all the testimony demonstrates, neither Moving Defendant 

See Ex. 2 at 41:14-20; Ex. 1 at 39:18-40:2, 49:23-50:1, 

56:10-16. Plaintiffs present no contrary evidence. In a blatant attempt to confuse the issues, 

Plaintiffs reference “VusionGroup,” without specifying the entity. For example, the Opposition

references

See Dat. No. 49 at pp. 1, 4, 7, 10, 13-15, 18.

Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 54 Filed 08/14/24 Page 5 of 15 PageID #:

905
FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PAGE 3

In view of the uncontroverted facts, it is no surprise that Plaintiffs’ only argument is that 

the Moving Defendants, at best, 

. Dkt. No. 49 at p. 9. Even this evidence is based on 

mischaracterizations. Plaintiffs allege that 

Dkt. No. 

49 at p. 9. This statement is unsupported. Mr. Rallu testified that 

. See Ex. 2 at 9:15-

10:1; 53:12-21. He did not testify that 

Plaintiffs also cite testimony that 

See No. 49 at p. 10 (citing Pls.’ Ex. 1 at 63:4-10; 

Pls.’ Ex. 3 at 12-13). But the testimony does not mention any CaptanaTM products whatsoever 

Additionally, while Mr. Rallu testified that

Ex. 2 at 14:11-22. In fact, 

Id. at 19:20-22.

The remainder of Plaintiffs’ cited testimony relates to Vusion US, its operations and its 

employees. Dkt. No. 49 at p. 9-10. Accordingly, there is no evidence that Moving Defendants 

 Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ sole argument 

for jurisdiction is based on a “stream of commerce” theory of specific jurisdiction.

1

B. The Court Lacks Personal Jurisdiction Under a Stream of Commerce Theory.

Plaintiffs cannot establish specific jurisdiction over the Moving Defendants under a

1 Plaintiffs do not argue general jurisdiction over the Moving Defendants. See Dkt. No. 49 p. 7, n. 3.

Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 54 Filed 08/14/24 Page 6 of 15 PageID #:

906
FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PAGE 4

“stream of commerce” theory because the Moving Defendants did not purposefully direct the 

Accused Products to Texas, nor did they anticipate that the products would arrive in Texas. See 

Beverly Hills Fan Co. v. Royal Sovereign Corp., 21 F.3d 1558, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (internal 

citations omitted). 

Plaintiffs recognize that the Federal Circuit has not adopted a uniform test for the “stream 

of commerce” theory of personal jurisdiction. See Opposition, Dkt. No. 49 at p. 11-12. In one 

formulation, goods must be placed in the stream of commerce “with the expectation that they 

would be purchased in the forum state.” Celgard, LLC v. SK Innovation Co., 792 F.3d 1373, 1380 

(Fed. Cir. 2015). In another, “something more is required, i.e., the purposeful direction of activities 

toward the forum.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiffs satisfy neither test.

In Celgard, the Court found that the plaintiff could not meet even the less stringent standard

because there was “no evidence establishing that the [accused products] actually enter the forum 

state.” Id. at 1382. The evidence showed only that the defendant sold its products to a third party 

who resold the products in the United States. Id. That is precisely the situation here.

Notably, the majority of Plaintiffs’ allegations concern the Moving Defendants’

 See Opposition, Dkt. 

No. 49 at pp. 13-14. Even Plaintiffs’ own citations confirm that CaptanaTMproducts2

See Plfs.’ Ex. 1 at 40:20-41:3 

; Plfs.’ Ex. 1 at 50:12-22 ; Plfs.’ Ex. 2 at 

19:20-22 . The evidence overwhelmingly 

shows that sales and importation of the Accused Products 

2 As discussed infra § C, the CaptanaTM camera products are a critical and necessary component of Plaintiffs’ 

infringement allegations.

Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 54 Filed 08/14/24 Page 7 of 15 PageID #:

907
FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PAGE 5

. Id. at 40:20-41:20, 50:12-22. In fact, VusionGroup GmbH 

See Ex. 1 at 49:23-50:1. Plaintiffs present no 

contrary evidence, and none exists.

Plaintiffs also argue that Accused Products

but offers no evidence that the Moving Defendants had any knowledge of, much less role in, 

In fact, there is no testimony identifying that 

See Ex. 1 at 74:9-

75-7 ; Ex. 2 at 40:15-41:13 

.

Plaintiffs rely exclusively on Seasons USA, Inc. v. SCS Direct, Inc., to support their 

argument that mere knowledge is sufficient to impose jurisdiction on the Moving Defendants. Civil 

Action No. 2:22-CV-00409-JRG-RSP, 2023 WL 5344342, at *2 (E.D. Tex. June 9, 2023). Seasons 

USA is easily distinguishable. Seasons USA was a copyright infringement case involving a 

defendant that placed its products for direct sale to end customers on its own Amazon webstore

page. Id. Here the evidence conclusively establishes that neither Moving Defendant 

nor do they 

have anything analogous to a “webstore”.

Moreover, Seasons USA relies on the Fifth Circuit holding in Luv N' care, Ltd. v. InstaMix, Inc., 438 F.3d 465, 470 (5th Cir. 2006), which specifically recognizes that “a unilateral 

decision to take chattel [] to a distant State does not confer jurisdiction.” Id. (citing World Wide 

Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980)). Essential to the holding was evidence 

of 65 invoices that showed that the final destination of the products was Texas. Id. There is no 

such evidence in this case, and moreover, there is no evidence of 

Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 54 Filed 08/14/24 Page 8 of 15 PageID #:

908
FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PAGE 6

. 

. See Exs. 

3-4 The critical evidence 

supporting the decision in Luv N’ Care is absent here.

This case is more analogous to the recent holding in Cellport Sys., Inc. v. Harman Int'l 

Indus. Inc., No. 4:22-CV-808-SDJ, 2024 WL 1337338, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 28, 2024). In a patent 

case, Cellport found that the court lacked jurisdiction for two reasons. First, Plaintiff failed to 

establish that any accused products were sold in Texas, and thus, failed to show that defendants 

contacts with Texas arose or related to acts of infringement. Id. at *5. The 

evidence shows that and Plaintiffs have no contrary 

evidence. See Ex. 2 at 19:20-22.

Second, Cellport found that the Court did not have personal jurisdiction under a stream of 

commerce theory because the evidence did not support imputing the contacts of a corporate parent 

onto its defendant subsidiaries when there was no showing of an alter-ego relationship between 

the two companies. 2024 WL 1337338, at *5 (quoting Diece-Lisa Indus., Inc. v. Disney Enters., 

Inc., 943 F.3d 239, 251 (5th Cir. 2019) (“generally the proper exercise of personal jurisdiction 

over a nonresident corporation may not be based solely upon the contacts with the forum state of 

another corporate entity with which the defendant may be affiliated”) (internal quotation marks 

omitted)). Here, as in Cellport, the evidence shows that the Moving Defendants

See id. As in 

Cellport, no evidence here supports a “stream of commerce” theory over the Moving Defendants.

C. Plaintiffs Entirely Fail to Show That Its Alleged Contacts Arise Out of Or Relate to 

Its Infringement Allegations.

As Plaintiffs recognize, specific jurisdiction requires that a defendants’ relevant contacts 

Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 54 Filed 08/14/24 Page 9 of 15 PageID #:

909
FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PAGE 7

with a forum must “arise out of or relate to” plaintiffs’ claims of infringement. Dkt. No. 49 at 7.

Plaintiffs’ Opposition does not discuss this essential second and Plaintiffs have not shown that it 

is met by either Moving Defendant.

Plaintiffs insist jurisdictional allegations on two combined categories of products, the 

combination of which Plaintiffs refer to in its complaint as the “Vusion digital shelf platform.” See

Dkt. No. 49 at p. 3, 7 (referencing Complaint). 

Id. Separately, 

. Id. at p. 4. There is no dispute that the Vusion ESLs do 

not contain cameras. Plaintiffs present no evidence that the Moving Defendantsinteract to create 

the “Accused Products,” or that either Moving Defendant is involved with the other’s operations. 

Plaintiffs have not shown that either Moving Defendant

. See Ex. 2 at 41:14-20; Ex. 1 at 23:12-16, 80:6-25, 98:15-18.

Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patents 11,087,272 (“’272 Patent”) and 

10,701,321 (“’321 Patent”). The claims of the ’272 Patent, as described in representative claim 1 

quoted in the Complaint, require among other things “capturing one or more images of a portion 

of a shelf with a camera.” See Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 19. The claims of the ’321 Patent, as described in 

representative claim 1 quoted in the Complaint, require among other things “one or more 

surveillance cameras.” While all the asserted claims are directed to camera or video systems, 

despite this, Plaintiffs staunchly allege in their Opposition that Vusion ESLs also comprise part of 

the accused systems, methods, and apparatuses.

Plaintiffs’ stream of commerce theory rests on each of the Moving Defendants separately 

introducing their respective products into the stream of commerce with knowledge that they will 

be sold in the United States. But Plaintiffs do not present evidence that either Moving Defendant 

Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 54 Filed 08/14/24 Page 10 of 15 PageID #:

910
FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PAGE 8

introducesthe combined “Accused Products” into the stream of commerce, or that either combines 

them. In fact, Plaintiffs have not identified any instance where the Accused Products are combined 

(and thus the alleged infringement occurs) by anyone either in Texas or the United States.

Even if each moving Defendant introduces some product into the stream of commerce

separately, in neither case is it the product that Plaintiffs claim to allegedly infringe the Asserted 

Patents. Thus, Plaintiffs do not show, or even substantively argue, that its “stream of commerce” 

contacts arise out of or relate to Plaintiffs’ self-described infringement claims. Plaintiffs’ failure to 

discuss the critical second prong of the specific jurisdiction analysis is fatal to its arguments.

D. Personal Jurisdiction Over the Moving Defendants Would Offend Traditional 

Notions of Fair Play and Substantial Justice. 

Plaintiffs cannot deny that hailing the Moving Defendants into a Texas court would offend 

traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Plaintiffs’ entire argument stems from the 

Moving Defendants’ mere awareness that other entities are conducting sales in Texas. But it 

conveniently ignores the facts. Plaintiffs chose to name additional foreign defendants in a clear 

case of venue manipulation. It is undisputed that the Moving Defendants 

All the Moving Defendants’ 

 Plaintiffs have not identified one instance of actual alleged infringement, according to its 

own contentions, that exists in Texas or the United States. Lastly, this case will proceed with 

Vusion France as a defendant regardless of whether the Moving Defendants are dismissed.

These combined facts make this an atypical case where Moving Defendants’ alleged

contacts with the United States, much less Texas, are unrelated to the infringement alleged. It is 

undisputed that the Moving Defendants’ witnesses would be required to travel thousands of miles 

to a forum that they are unfamiliar. Plaintiffs allege that Texas has an interest in adjudicating the 

Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 54 Filed 08/14/24 Page 11 of 15 PageID #:

911
FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PAGE 9

matter and that they have an interest in securing relief. But Plaintiffs omit that, even without the 

Moving Defendants, this relief will be available to them from Vusion France if this case proceeds. 

Plaintiffs cannot articulate a credible reason that the Moving Defendants are necessary 

parties in this case. Plaintiffs merely allege that the Moving Defendants are essential to avoid 

“unnecessary third-party discovery fights.” However, they present no reason why these “discovery 

fights” are likely to happen, or why Plaintiffs could not obtain relevant discovery from Vusion 

France or by subpoena. In fact, had Plaintiffs wanted to name the most relevant party, Vusion US, 

it could have. If Plaintiffs’ arguments about discovery barriers had any merit, which they do not, 

they intentionally created more barriers by not naming the right party.

E. Personal Jurisdiction Cannot Be Established Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2). 

For the same reasons Plaintiffs cannot establish any relevant contactsin Texas, they fail to 

establish minimum contacts with the United States that arise out of or relate to their claims of 

infringement. Again, Plaintiffs’ alleged contacts with the United States rest solely on the Moving 

Defendants’ 

Moreover, Plaintiffs have failed to show that any isolated instances of Moving Defendants’

arise out of or relate to their infringement allegations. 

Plaintiffs identify an instance of a 

Opposition, Dkt. No. 49 at p. 18. However, Mr. Rallu stated

, and Plaintiffs have no other evidence that 

 related to anything tied to its infringement allegations. Ex. 2 at 10:23-12:8. 

Furthermore, the contact is irrelevant to jurisdiction because 

See id.; Asarco, Inc. v. Glenara, Ltd., 912 

Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 54 Filed 08/14/24 Page 12 of 15 PageID #:

912
FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PAGE 10

F.2d 784, 787 n. 1 (5th Cir.1990) (“the relevant time for determining jurisdiction is the filing of 

the complaint.”); see also Glazier Grp., Inc. v. Mandalay Corp., Civ. Action No. H–06–2752, 2007 

WL 2021762, at *9 (S.D. Tex. July 11, 2007) (“In the Fifth Circuit, post-complaint activities

cannot create specific personal jurisdiction that was lacking when the lawsuit was filed.”). 

Otherwise, Plaintiffs’ allegedly relevant contacts rely 

, and not either of the Moving Defendants. Thus, the Moving Defendants do not have 

any relevant contacts with the United States, and the Court does not have personal jurisdiction 

over the Moving Defendants under F.R.C.P. 4(k)(2).

F. VusionGroup GmbH Did Not Waive Personal Jurisdiction.

Plaintiffs cite no law supporting its position that VusionGroup GmbH has waived its 

challenge to personal jurisdiction. Instead, Plaintiffs merely argue that an overlap in parties and 

“accused products” renders this case and Hanshow I “related.” The cases are not related. Plaintiffs

do not deny that Hanshow I involves different patents, technology, and products. The CaptanaTM

camera products, which as discussed above, are a central part of Plaintiffs’ infringement 

allegations, are not accused products in Hanshow I and Captana GmbH is not a defendant in 

Hanshow I. Nevertheless, even if the cases were remotely similar, which they are not, Plaintiff 

fails to provide any support for its assertion that jurisdiction would be waived.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Moving Defendants respectfully request that the Court 

grant their Motion and dismiss them for lack of personal jurisdiction. 

Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 54 Filed 08/14/24 Page 13 of 15 PageID #:

913
FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PAGE 11

Dated: August 6, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Matthew C. Acosta 

Matthew C. Acosta

Texas State Bar No. 24062577

PLATT RICHMOND PLLC

1201 N. Riverfront Blvd., Suite 150

Dallas, TX 75207

Tel. (214) 559-2700

Fax: (214) 559-4390

Grant E. Kinsel

Washington State Bar No. 49576

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue Suite 4900

Seattle, WA 98101

Tel: (206) 359-3516

Fax: (206) 359-9000

Matthew J. Moffa

New York State Bar No. 5045067

Perkins Coie LLP

1155 Avenue of the Americas, 22nd Floor

New York, NY 10036

Eric H. Findlay

State Bar No. 00789886

Findlay Craft, P.C.

7270 Crosswater Avenue

Suite B

Tyler, Texas 75703

Tel: (903) 534-1100

Fax: (903) 534-1137

Attorneys for Defendants VusionGroup SA,

VusionGroup GmbH, and Captana GmbH.

Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 54 Filed 08/14/24 Page 14 of 15 PageID #:

914
FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PAGE 12

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

Pursuant to Local Rule CV-5(a)(7)(B), the undersigned certifies that the foregoing 

document and attachments are permitted to be filed under seal pursuant to the Protective Order 

(Dkt. No. 41) governing this case.

/s/ Matthew C. Acosta

MATTHEW C. ACOSTA

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned counsel for Defendants does hereby certify that this pleading was served 

on all counsel of record on August 6, 2024 via electronic means.

/s/ Matthew C. Acosta

MATTHEW C. ACOSTA

Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 54 Filed 08/14/24 Page 15 of 15 PageID #:

915