`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`VIDEOLABS, INC. and
`VL COLLECTIVE IP LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`ROKU, INC.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`C. A. No.: 23-cv-1136 (JHS)
`
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO ROKU’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`On February 16, 2024, Defendant Roku, Inc. filed a Motion to Dismiss (D.I. 10). Without
`
`admitting any such amendment was required, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (D.I.
`
`18) pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). In view of Plaintiffs’ First
`
`Amended Complaint, Defendant’s motion is moot and should be denied in all respects. See, e.g.,
`
`Merritt v. Fogel., 349 Fed.Appx. 742, 745 (3d Cir. 2009) (citing Pure Country Inc. v. Sigma Chi
`
`Fraternity, 312 F.3d 952, 956 (8th Cir. 2002) (the filing of an amended complaint renders moot
`
`defendants’ motion to dismiss).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-01136-JHS Document 20 Filed 03/08/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1021
`
`Dated: March 8, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`FARNAN LLP
`
`
`
`/s/ Brian E. Farnan
`Brian E. Farnan (Bar No. 4089)
`Michael J. Farnan (Bar No. 5165))
`919 N. Market St., 12th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 777-0300
`bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`mfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`
`M. Elizabeth Day (Pro Hac Vice)
`Marc Belloli (Pro Hac Vice)
`Jerry D. Tice II (Pro Hac Vice)
`Aaron R. Hand (Pro Hac Vice)
`Hillary Bunsow (Pro Hac Vice)
`BUNSOW DE MORY LLP
`701 El Camino Real
`Redwood City, CA 94063
`Tel.: (650) 351-7248
`Fax: (415) 426-4744
`eday@bdiplaw.com
`mbelloli@bdiplaw.com
`jtice@bdiplaw.com
`ahand@bidplaw.com
`hbunsow@bdiplaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`VideoLabs, Inc. and VL Collective IP LLC
`
`
`2
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
