Case 1:15-cv-04219-TWT Document 32 Filed 06/20/16 Page 1 of 16
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
`
`
`
`Civil Action No.
`1:15-cv-04219-MHC
`
`
`
`IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD. a
`United Kingdom Limited Company,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`VALVE CORPORATION, a
`Washington Corporation,
`
`Defendant.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION AND RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT VALVE
`CORPORATION’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
`PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, AND
`MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IRONBURG EX2023, Page 1
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-04219-TWT Document 32 Filed 06/20/16 Page 2 of 16
`
`Plaintiff Ironburg Inventions Ltd. (“Plaintiff”) hereby opposes Defendant
`
`Valve Corporation’s (“Defendant”) Partial Motion to Dismiss First Amended
`
`Complaint. Plaintiff also hereby moves for leave to file a First Supplemental
`
`Complaint.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This Court should deny Valve’s Partial Motion to Dismiss. The Supreme
`
`Court’s recent decision in Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., No. 14-1513, 2016
`
`WL 3221515 (U.S. June 13, 2016) – issued eleven days after Valve filed its Partial
`
`Motion to Dismiss – reversed the strict two-part Seagate standard for awarding
`
`enhanced damages under Section 284 for willful infringement. In its Halo
`
`decision, the Supreme Court emphasized that district courts have broad discretion
`
`to award enhanced damages, and that they should take into account the totality of
`
`circumstances when exercising that discretion. See id. at *7, 9. The Supreme
`
`Court also explained that “culpability is generally measured against the knowledge
`
`of the actor at the time of the challenged conduct.” Id. at *10. In light of the
`
`Supreme Court’s Halo decision, the First Amended Complaint sufficiently alleges
`
`a claim for enhanced damages based on Ironburg’s allegations of Valve’s ongoing
`
`infringement despite having notice that the continued marketing of its gaming
`
`controllers violated Ironburg’s patent rights.
`
`IRONBURG EX2023, Page 2
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-04219-TWT Document 32 Filed 06/20/16 Page 3 of 16
`
`This Court should also grant, pursuant to Rule 15(d), Ironburg’s Motion for
`
`Leave to File a First Supplemental Complaint. That Motion for Leave should be
`
`granted based on the recent issuance (on May 31, 2016) of another patent (the ‘229
`
`Patent) directed towards video game controllers with controls located on the back
`
`of the controller. Ironburg, the assignee of the ‘229 Patent, could not have
`
`included allegations relating to the ‘299 Patent in its earlier complaints, and
`
`because this case is still in its infancy Valve will not suffer undue prejudice if those
`
`supplemental allegations are allowed. The proposed First Supplemental Complaint
`
`also alleges additional facts related to enhanced damages (the Supreme Court
`
`makes clear in Halo that there is no rigid test that is required, although willful
`
`infringement has traditionally sufficed) that took place after the Original
`
`Complaint was filed, including additional notice of infringement of each of the
`
`four patents at issue.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`Valve has moved to dismiss willful infringement allegations in Ironburg’s
`
`First Amended Complaint, claiming that willful infringement of the ‘770 and ‘688
`
`Patents is not sufficiently alleged. That complaint includes the following
`
`allegations:
`
`• “Defendant is presently making, using, importing, marketing, selling,
`and/or offering to sell gaming controllers, including but not limited to
`
`IRONBURG EX2023, Page 3
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-04219-TWT Document 32 Filed 06/20/16 Page 4 of 16
`
`Defendant’s Steam Controller [FN1], in this District and elsewhere in
`the United States that incorporate Plaintiff’s patented technology.
`[FN1: Pictures of Defendant’s Steam Controller from Defendant’s
`website (http://store.steampowered.com), which has been marketing
`its controller at least since March 2014, are annexed hereto as
`Exhibit D]” FAC ¶ 11.
`
`• “At least as early as March 7, 2014, in written and oral
`communications with Valve, Ironburg informed Valve that its
`marketing of gaming controllers, including Defendant’s Steam
`Controller, infringe Ironburg patents. In those pre-suit
`communications with Valve, Ironburg specifically identified Claim 1
`and Claim 20 of the ‘525 Patent (the two independent claims of that
`patent), as well as Ironburg’s then-pending patent applications,
`including one now issued as the ‘770 Patent placed at issue in this
`Complaint.” FAC ¶ 12.
`
`• “On information and belief, Defendant acted despite an objectively
`high likelihood that its actions, including but not limited to its
`marketing and sales of Defendant’s Steam Controller, constituted
`infringement of Patents-in-Suit. Defendant acted despite the fact that
`the objectively defined risk of infringement was either known or
`should have been known to the Defendant. Defendant’s infringement,
`including but not limited to its marketing and sales of Defendant’s
`Steam Controller, has been with actual notice of Patents-in-Suit,
`including as a result of Ironburg’s pre-suit communications with
`Valve regarding Defendant’s Steam Controller, the ‘525 Patent, and
`Ironburg’s patent applications, including one that has now issued as
`the ‘770 Patent. Defendant’s infringement, therefore, has been and is
`willful, so Plaintiff is entitled to enhanced damages for willful
`infringement. ” FAC ¶ 26.
`
`The First Amended Complaint also includes copies of the ‘525, ‘770 and
`
`‘688 Patents, which show that each of the patents is directed towards a video game
`
`controller with controls located on the back of the controller, as well as the
`
`IRONBURG EX2023, Page 4
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-04219-TWT Document 32 Filed 06/20/16 Page 5 of 16
`
`following relevant dates:
`
`• The ‘525 Patent: Issued on February 14, 2014 from U.S. Application
`No. 13/162,727, filed on June 17, 2011. See FAC, Exhibit A (copy of
`the ‘525 Patent).
`
`• The ‘770 Patent: Issued on July 28, 2015 from U.S. Application No.
`14/141,840, filed on December 27, 2013. The ‘840 application is a
`continuation of U.S. Application No. 13/162,727, which issued as the
`‘525 Patent-in-Suit. See FAC, Exhibit B (copy of the ‘770 Patent).
`
`• The ‘688 Patent: Issued on March 22, 2016 from U.S. Application
`No. 14/832,211, filed on August 21, 2015. See FAC, Exhibit C (copy
`of the ‘688 Patent).
`
`See FAC, Exhibits A-C (Copies of the ‘525, ‘770, and ‘688 Patents).
`
`In connection with Ironburg’s Motion for Leave to File a First Supplemental
`
`Complaint, in addition to the allegations above – including that Valve had notice of
`
`its gaming controllers’ infringement at least as early as March 7, 2014, but
`
`continued to market those controllers (see FAC ¶¶ 12, 26) – the following
`
`supplemental allegations are relevant:
`
`• On May 31, 2016, two weeks after Ironburg filed its First Amended
`Complaint, United States Patent No. 9,352, 229 entitled
`“CONTROLLER FOR A GAMES CONTROLLER,” was duly and
`legally issued to Ironburg. See [Proposed] FSC ¶ 6 and Exhibit 1
`(copy of the ‘229 Patent).
`
`• Plaintiff Ironburg is the owner and assignee of record of the ‘229
`Patent. See [Proposed] FSC ¶ 7.
`
`• The ‘229 Patent and the ‘525, ‘770, and ‘688 Patents (patents at issue
`
`IRONBURG EX2023, Page 5
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-04219-TWT Document 32 Filed 06/20/16 Page 6 of 16
`
`in the First Amended Complaint) all have claims directed to gaming
`controllers with controls located on the back of the controllers. See
`[Proposed] FSC ¶ 10.
`
`• On December 3, 2015, Ironburg notified Valve in writing that its
`marketing of gaming controllers, including Defendant’s Steam
`Controller, infringed upon the ‘525 and ‘770 Patents. On that same
`date, Ironburg filed, but did not immediately serve on Defendant, the
`complaint which initiated this suit. See [Proposed] FSC ¶ 14.
`
`• On May 16, 2016, Ironburg filed its First Amended Complaint, which
`included allegations that Valve’s marketing of its gaming controllers,
`including Defendant’s Steam Controller, infringed upon the ‘688
`Patent, as well as the ‘525 and ‘770 Patents. See [Proposed] FSC
`¶ 16.
`
`• On June 13, 2016, Ironburg informed Valve in writing that certain of
`its gaming controllers, including its Steam Controllers, not only
`infringe the ‘525, ‘770 and ‘688 Patents, but also infringe the newly-
`issued ‘229 Patent, including Claim 3 of the ‘229 Patent. See
`[Proposed] FSC ¶ 17.
`
`• Despite the June 13, 2016 notice, as well as Ironburg’s previous
`communications with Valve regarding the ‘525, ‘770, and ‘688
`Patents being infringed by Valve’s marketing of its controllers, as
`well as Ironburg filing suit on December 3, 2015, as of the date of this
`filing, Valve still continues to market those controllers in the U.S.,
`including through its website, and U.S. retailers like Amazon continue
`to sell those controllers. See [Proposed] FSC ¶ 18.
`
`• Gaming controller products made, used and sold by the defendant,
`including Defendant’s Steam Controller, infringe the ‘229 patent.
`Defendant's Steam Controller is a hand held controller that closely
`resembles the controller depicted in the patent. Each and every claim
`in the ‘229 patent is directed to a games controller. There are only
`two independent claims in the ‘229 patent: Claims 1 and 24. They
`are similar, but Claim 24 also includes an element for a mounting
`
`IRONBURG EX2023, Page 6
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-04219-TWT Document 32 Filed 06/20/16 Page 7 of 16
`
`plate on the back of the controller. Claim 1 includes the following
`claim elements: (1) an outer case, (2) multiple controls on the front
`and top of the case, (3) the case is shaped to be held in two hands with
`the user's thumbs operating the top controls and index fingers
`operating the front controls, (4) at least one additional back control
`with an elongate member that is operable by the user’s middle finger,
`(5) the additional control is inherently resilient and flexible and can be
`displaced by the user to activate a control function, and (6) the
`elongate member is at least partially disposed in a respective channel
`located on the back of the outer case (the channel being elongated
`along a longitudinal dimension of the elongate member). Defendant's
`Steam Controller is a hand held controller that includes the
`aforementioned claim elements, viz., (1) an outer case, (2) multiple
`controls on the front and top of the case, (3) the case is shaped to be
`held in two hands with the user's thumbs operating the top controls
`and index fingers operating the front controls, (4) at least one
`additional back control with an elongate member that is operable by
`the user’s middle finger, (5) the additional control is inherently
`resilient and flexible and can be displaced by the user to activate a
`control function, and (6) the elongate member is at least partially
`disposed in a respective channel located on the back of the outer case
`(the channel being elongated along a longitudinal dimension of the
`elongate member). The remaining claims of the patent include the
`elements of Claim 1 and add additional limitations. For example,
`Claim 3 further requires that the elongate member comprises a first
`dimension and the controller comprises a cover portion forming a
`conduit enclosing the elongate member within the respective channel
`along a portion of the first dimension of the elongate member. The
`Steam Controller includes each element of exemplary Claims 1 and 3.
`Plaintiff contends that the infringement is literal, but reserves the right
`to rely on the doctrine of equivalents. See [Proposed] FSC ¶ 20.
`
`• On information and belief, Defendant acted despite a high likelihood
`that its actions, including but not limited to its marketing and sales of
`Defendant’s Steam Controller, constituted infringement of the
`Patents-in-Suit (including the ‘229 Patent). Defendant acted despite
`the fact that the risk of infringement was either known or should have
`
`IRONBURG EX2023, Page 7
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-04219-TWT Document 32 Filed 06/20/16 Page 8 of 16
`
`been known to the Defendant. Defendant’s infringement, including
`but not limited to its marketing and sales of Defendant’s Steam
`Controller, has been with actual notice of the Patents-in-Suit
`(including the ‘229 Patent), including as a result of Ironburg’s
`communications with Valve regarding the ‘229 patent as well as
`regarding Defendant’s Steam Controller, the ‘525 Patent, and
`Ironburg’s patent applications. Defendant’s infringement, therefore,
`has been and is willful, so Plaintiff is entitled to enhanced damages
`for willful infringement. See [Proposed] FSC, ¶ 24.
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`A. The Supreme Court’s Just-Issued Halo Decision Confirms The
`Sufficiency Of Ironburg’s Willful Infringement Allegations In Its
`First Amended Complaint
`
`If there had been any questions about the sufficiency of Ironburg’s
`
`Section 284 willful infringement allegations based on Valve’s continued marketing
`
`of gaming controllers more than two years after receiving specific notice that those
`
`controllers infringed Ironburg’s patent rights (there should not have been any),
`
`such questions have been definitively put to rest by the Supreme Court’s recent
`
`decision in Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc. – issued eleven days after Valve
`
`filed its Partial Motion to Dismiss. In its decision interpreting the statute
`
`authorizing awards of enhanced damages, the Supreme Court reversed the standard
`
`for willful infringement that was enunciated by the Federal Circuit in In re Seagate
`
`Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360, (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Supreme Court in Halo
`
`emphasized that Seagate’s “objective recklessness” test was “unduly rigid” and
`
`IRONBURG EX2023, Page 8
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-04219-TWT Document 32 Filed 06/20/16 Page 9 of 16
`
`one that “impermissibly encumbers the statutory grant of discretion to district
`
`courts.” Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., No. 14-1513, 2016 WL 3221515,
`
`*7 quoting Octane Fitness, 572 U.S., at –––– (slip op., at 7).1
`
`Here, even though the First Amended Complaint readily met the Seagate
`
`standard2 because of Ironburg’s specific allegations of having given Valve pre-suit
`
`notice as early as March 2014 that Valve’s gaming controllers (e.g. the Steam
`
`Controller) infringed at least one of Ironburg’s valid patents (i.e. the ‘525 patent)
`
`(see FAC ¶¶ 12, 26), the Supreme Court has eliminated that standard.3 In its place,
`
`the Supreme Court has emphasized that Section 284 only requires that district
`
`courts consider the totality of circumstances in their determinations of whether to
`
`award enhanced damages for willful infringement – “courts should continue to take
`
`into account the particular circumstances of each case in deciding whether to
`
`award damages, and in what amount.” Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., No.
`
`1 In relevant part, Section 284 simply states: “the court may increase the
`
`damages up to three times the amount found or assessed.” In re Seagate
`Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d at 1371.
`2 The Seagate standard required that: (1) “the infringer acted despite an
`
`objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid
`patent,” and (2) “this objectively-defined risk . . . was either known or so obvious
`that it should have been known to the accused infringer.”
`3 The Supreme Court in Halo also rejected Seagate’s requirement that the
`
`defendant’s misconduct (recklessness) be shown by clear and convincing evidence.
`See Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., No. 14-1513, 2016 WL 3221515, at *9.
`
`IRONBURG EX2023, Page 9
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-04219-TWT Document 32 Filed 06/20/16 Page 10 of 16
`
`14-1513, 2016 WL 3221515, at *9; see also id. at *10 (“culpability is generally
`
`measured against the knowledge of the actor at the time of the challenged
`
`conduct.”).
`
`Because Valve has recognized (by its decision to not challenge the
`
`sufficiency of Ironburg’s allegations relating to the ‘525 Patent – see Mot. at 7-14)
`
`that the First Amended Complaint at least makes sufficient allegations warranting
`
`consideration by this Court of whether to award Ironburg enhanced damages
`
`pursuant to Section 284, Valve cannot be heard to argue that Ironburg’s additional
`
`allegations relating to the ‘770 and ‘688 Patents do anything but bolster Ironburg’s
`
`claim for such damages – especially in light of the Supreme Court’s holding that
`
`district court judges should simply “take into account the particular circumstances
`
`of each case in deciding whether to award [enhanced] damages, and in what
`
`amount.” Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., No. 14-1513, 2016 WL 3221515,
`
`at *9; see also id. at *10 (“ culpability is generally measured against the knowledge
`
`of the actor at the time of the challenged conduct.”).
`
`In sum, each of the three arguments put forward by Valve in its Partial
`
`Motion is without merit. See Mot. 7-14. First, even under the now-disavowed
`
`Seagate standard, Valve is wrong when it claims that “[f]or both the ‘770 and ‘688
`
`Patents” Ironburg was required to “allege that Valve had [] pre-suit knowledge of
`
`IRONBURG EX2023, Page 10
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-04219-TWT Document 32 Filed 06/20/16 Page 11 of 16
`
`the patents.” Mot. at 7. Under Seagate, pre-suit knowledge of a particular patent
`
`was never required, the standard was only “know” or “should have known.” See In
`
`re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 at 1371 (explaining that defendant’s
`
`awareness of the risk of infringement needed to be “known or so obvious that it
`
`should have been known”).
`
`Second, under Halo, Valve cannot assert that a defendant’s pre-suit
`
`knowledge of a patent is required for willful infringement. See Mot. at 9-12. The
`
`Supreme Court’s Halo decision makes it clear that a district court has broad
`
`discretion to decide whether to award enhanced damages pursuant to Section 284;
`
`there simply is no strict requirement for such pre-suit knowledge – especially at the
`
`pleading stage. See Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., No. 14-1513, 2016 WL
`
`3221515, at *7, *9.
`
`Third, as expressly recognized in Valve’s supplemental letter brief to this
`
`Court (see Dkt. No. 27), the Supreme Court’s Halo decision struck down any
`
`“objective reckless” requirement – a requirement that Valve argued Ironburg had
`
`not sufficiently alleged. See Mot. at 12-14.
`
`Therfore, especially in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Halo decision, this
`
`Court should not grant Valve’s Partial Motion to Dismiss.
`
`IRONBURG EX2023, Page 11
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-04219-TWT Document 32 Filed 06/20/16 Page 12 of 16
`
`B.
`
`Ironburg Should Be Granted Leave To Supplement Its First
`Amended Complaint To Add A Claim For Infringement Of
`Ironburg’s Recently-Issued ‘229 Patent, And Further Willful
`Infringement Allegations
`
`On May 31, 2016, two weeks after Ironburg filed its First Amended
`
`Complaint, U.S. Patent No. 9,352, 229 (the ‘229 Patent), which is entitled
`
`“CONTROLLER FOR A GAMES CONTROLLER,” was issued to Ironburg. See
`
`Declaration of Neil Swartzberg, Exhibit A ([Proposed] First Supplemental
`
`Complaint, with copy of the ‘229 Patent attached as Exhibit 1). The ‘229 Patent,
`
`similar to the ‘525, ‘770, and ‘688 Patents, has claims directed to controls located
`
`on the back of the controllers. Cf. id. with FAC, Exhibits A-C (copies of the ‘525,
`
`‘770, and ‘688 Patents).
`
`On June 13, 2016, Ironburg informed Valve in writing that certain of its
`
`gaming controllers, including its Steam Controllers, not only infringe the ‘525,
`
`‘770 and ‘688 Patents, but also infringe the newly-issued ‘229 Patent. See
`
`Swartzberg Decl., Exhibit B (Copy of 6/13/16 Letter from R. Becker). That
`
`written notice to Valve included an illustrative claim chart detailing the controllers’
`
`infringement of Claim 3 of the ‘229 Patent. See id.
`
`Despite the June 13, 2016 letter, as well as Ironburg’s previous
`
`communications with Valve regarding the ‘525, ‘770, and ‘688 Patents being
`
`infringed by Valve’s marketing of its controllers (see FAC ¶¶ 12, 26), as well as
`
`IRONBURG EX2023, Page 12
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-04219-TWT Document 32 Filed 06/20/16 Page 13 of 16
`
`Ironburg filing suit on December 3, 2015, as of the date of this filing, Valve still
`
`continues to market those controllers in the U.S., including through its website (see
`
`http://store.steampowered.com/app/353370), and U.S. retailers like Amazon
`
`continue to sell those controllers (see, e.g., https://www.amazon.com/Steam-
`
`Controller-SteamOS/dp/B016KBVBCS).
`
`In sum, despite having had ample notice and opportunity to stop infringing
`
`Ironburg’s patent rights, Valve continues to do so, including over and against
`
`Ironburg’s rights in the newly-issued ‘229 Patent. Such conduct requires Ironburg
`
`to claim infringement of an additional patent, and to also identify that additional
`
`patent in support of its request for an award of enhanced damages pursuant to
`
`Section 284 for willful infringement.
`
`When events such as those relating to ‘229 Patent (i.e. issuance,
`
`infringement, notice and continuing infringement) take place after the filing of an
`
`original complaint, a court should, absent undue prejudice or delay, freely grant
`
`plaintiff leave to supplement the complaint to add such allegations. See, e.g.
`
`Micron Tech., Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 409 F. Supp. 2d 552, 558 (D. Del. 2006)
`
`(allowing plaintiff to add claims of infringement for additional, newly-issued
`
`patents; explaining that the standard for allowing such allegations under Rule 15(d)
`
`for post-filing conduct is essentially the same as the “freely-given” standard under
`
`IRONBURG EX2023, Page 13
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-04219-TWT Document 32 Filed 06/20/16 Page 14 of 16
`
`Rule 15(a)) ; e-Watch Inc. v. Avigilon Corp., No. CIV.A. H-13-0347, 2013 WL
`
`5231521, at *2, fn.1 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 16, 2013) (denying motion to dismiss
`
`amended complaint’s allegations regarding willful infringement that took place
`
`after filing of initial complaint, and explaining that to the extent such allegations
`
`related to post-filing conduct the complaint could, pursuant to Rule 15(d), be re-
`
`filed as a supplemental pleading).
`
`Here, because this case is still in its infancy (e.g. infringement contentions
`
`have not yet been served), and because Ironburg could not have earlier made these
`
`allegations regarding the ‘229 Patent and further ongoing infringement, there is
`
`neither undue delay nor undue prejudice. See id. Ironburg, therefore, respectfully
`
`requests leave to file the First Supplemental Complaint attached as Exhibit A to
`
`the Swartzberg Declaration.4
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For the reasons stated herein, Ironburg respectfully requests that Valve’s
`
`
`4 Ironburg notes that its allegations in the First Amended Complaint relating
`to infringement of the ‘688 Patent, which also issued after the Original Complaint
`was filed, can be deemed supplemental allegations, since they relate to post-filing
`conduct. See id.
`
`IRONBURG EX2023, Page 14
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-04219-TWT Document 32 Filed 06/20/16 Page 15 of 16
`
`Partial Motion to Dismiss be denied in its entirety5, and that Ironburg’s Motion for
`
`Leave to File a First Supplemental Complaint be granted.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Robert D. Becker
`Robert D. Becker, pro hac vice
`CA Bar No. 160648
`MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP
`1841 Page Mill Road, Suite 200
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Telephone: (650) 812-1300
`Facsimile: (650) 213-0260
`
`Cynthia R. Parks, local counsel
`GA Bar No. 563929
`PARKS IP LAW LLC
`730 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 600
`Atlanta, GA 30308
`Telephone: (678) 365-4444
`Facsimile: (678) 365-4450
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD.
`
`
`
`June 20, 2016
`
`Dated:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5 In the event this Court grants Valve’s Partial Motion to Dismiss, such
`
`dismissal should be without prejudice because Valve did not seek dismissal with
`prejudice.
`
`IRONBURG EX2023, Page 15
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-04219-TWT Document 32 Filed 06/20/16 Page 16 of 16
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on June 20, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing
`
`with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will automatically send
`
`email notification of such filing to the attorneys of record.
`
`/s/ Robert D. Becker
`Robert D. Becker
`
`
`
`317185939.3
`
`IRONBURG EX2023, Page 16
`
`