Page 1 of 4 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

OPTIMORPHIX, INC.,

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., 

 Defendant. 

Civil Action No. 5:23-cv-126-RWS-JBB

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

OPTIMORPHIX, INC.,

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

AMAZON.COM, INC. AND AMAZON WEB 

SERVICES,INC., 

 Defendants. 

Civil Action No. 5:23-cv-123-RWS-JBB

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

OPTIMORPHIX, INC.,

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

BROADCOM INC., 

 Defendant. 

Civil Action No. 5:23-cv-134-RWS-JBB

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

OPTIMORPHIX, INC.,

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 

 Defendant. 

Civil Action No. 5:23-cv-150-RWS-JBB

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

OPTIMORPHIX, INC.,

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

F5, INC. 

 Defendant. 

Civil Action No. 5:24-cv-26-RWS-JBB

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

SECOND AGREED MOTION FOR CONTINUATION OF DEADLINES AND

SCHEDULING CONFERENCES

Case 5:23-cv-00134-RWS-JBB Document 27 Filed 03/07/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 413
Page 2 of 4

COMES NOW, Plaintiff OptiMorphix, Inc., (“Plaintiff”), and files this Second Agreed 

Motion for Continuation of Deadlines and Scheduling Conferences and shows the Court as 

follows:

Plaintiff filed its Complaint in Civil Action Number 5:23-cv-126-RWS-JBB against Cisco 

Systems, Inc. on November 2, 2023. Cisco Systems, Inc. filed its Answer on January 8, 2024.

Plaintiff filed its Complaint in Civil Action Number 5:23-cv-123-RWS-JBB against 

Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web Services, Inc. (collectively, “Amazon”) on October 23, 2023. 

Amazon filed a Motion to Dismiss on January 26, 2024. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on 

February 16, 2024 that added Defendant Amazon.com Services LLC and filed a Response to the 

Motion to Dismiss on February 19, 2024. On February 28, 2024 this Court denied the Motion to 

Dismiss as moot and extended the deadline for Defendants to respond to the Amended Complaint

up to and including April 29, 2024. 

Plaintiff filed its Complaint in Civil Action Number 5:23-cv-134 RWS-JBB against 

Broadcom Inc. on November 20, 2023. Broadcom Inc. filed a Motion to Dismiss on January 26, 

2024. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint and Response to the Motion to Dismiss of February 

23, 2024. This Court denied the Motion to Dismiss as moot on March 4, 2024. Defendant’s 

response to the Amended Complaint is due March 8, 2024. 

Plaintiff filed its Complaint against Microsoft Corporation on December 20, 2023. 

Microsoft Corporation’s deadline to respond to the Complaint is March 12, 2024. 

Plaintiff filed its original Agreed Motion for Continuation of Deadlines and Scheduling 

Conferences in the four matters on February 2, 2024 and this Court granted the continuations on 

February 2, 2024. 

Case 5:23-cv-00134-RWS-JBB Document 27 Filed 03/07/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 414
Page 3 of 4

Plaintiff has since filed its Complaint F5, Inc. (“F5”) on February 22, 2024. As pled in the 

Complaint against F5, the facts relating to the Court’s exercise of venue in that case arose in 

February 2024, thus precluding filing that case closer in time to the other cases addressed herein. 

Defendant F5, Inc.’s current deadline to respond to the Complaint is March 15, 2024. 

All five cases share core legal and factual issues, including common asserted patents. 

Counsel for Plaintiff and for each of the Defendants (excluding F5, Inc., whose counsel has not 

appeared) have met and conferred, and agreed to request that the Court 1) set consolidated 

schedules for these cases at least through the Markman hearings, and 2) set a joint Markman

hearing. 

On February 2, 2024, the Court entered an Order stating it “will set a joint scheduling 

conference” to permit “all Parties to participate in the meet and confer process and propose a joint 

case schedule to the Court.” Case No. 5:23-cv-126, Dkt. No. 21. At the time of that Order, the 

Court stated the joint scheduling conference would occur after Defendant Microsoft Corporation’s 

March 12, 2024 deadline to respond to the Complaint in Case No. 5:23-cv-150. Id. 

The Parties jointly (except F5, whose counsel has not yet appeared) request that the Court

hold a joint scheduling conference with all Parties, including F5, and set a joint scheduling 

conference after F5 answers or otherwise responds to the Complaint. This will allow all Parties to 

participate in the meet and confer process and propose a joint case schedule to the Court. 

Case 5:23-cv-00134-RWS-JBB Document 27 Filed 03/07/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 415
Page 4 of 4 

Dated: March 7, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Daniel P. Hipskind____________________

Dorian S. Berger (CA SB No. 264424) 

Daniel P. Hipskind (CA SB No. 266763) 

Erin E. McCracken (CA SB No. 244523) 

BERGER & HIPSKIND LLP

9538 Brighton Way, Ste. 320 

Beverly Hills, CA 90210 

Telephone: 323-886-3430 

Facsimile: 323-978-5508 

E-mail: dsb@bergerhipskind.com 

E-mail: dph@bergerhipskind.com 

E-mail: eem@bergerhipskind.com 

Elizabeth L. DeRieux

State Bar No. 05770585 

Capshaw DeRieux, LLP

114 E. Commerce Ave. 

Gladewater, TX 75647 

Telephone: 903-845-5770 

E-mail: ederieux@capshawlaw.com

Attorneys for OptiMorphix, Inc.

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

The undersigned hereby certifies that counsel for Plaintiff has met and conferred 

with counsel for Cisco Systems, Inc., Broadcom Inc., CA, Inc., Microsoft Corporation, 

Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, and Amazon Web Services, Inc., and 

this motion is agreed by all these Parties. Counsel for Plaintiff has not met and conferred 

with counsel for F5, Inc. as F5’s counsel has not yet appeared in the case. 

 /s/ Daniel P. Hipskind________________ 

Case 5:23-cv-00134-RWS-JBB Document 27 Filed 03/07/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 416