Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 143 Filed 11/20/23 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 33490
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`AX WIRELESS LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`LENOVO GROUP LIMITED,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No. 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`DEFENDANT LENOVO GROUP LIMITED’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSED
`MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 143 Filed 11/20/23 Page 2 of 13 PageID #: 33491
`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 143 Filed 11/20/23 Page 2 of 13 PagelD #: 33491
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`THE COURT’S JURISDICTION RULING APPLIES EQUALLY TO NDCA ..….1
`THE COURT’S JURISDICTION RULING APPLIES EQUALLY TO NDCA......1
`EASE OF ACCESS TO SOURCES OF PROOF FAVORS TRANSFER ………….2
`EASE OF ACCESS TO SOURCES OF PROOF FAVORS TRANSFER............. 2
`AVAILABILITY OF COMPULSORY PROCESS FAVORS TRANSFER ……….4
`AVAILABILITY OF COMPULSORY PROCESS FAVORS TRANSFER.......... 4
`COST AND CONVENIENCE OF WITNESSES FAVORS TRANSFER …………5
`COST AND CONVENIENCE OF WITNESSES FAVORS TRANSFER............ 3
`PRACTICAL ISSUES FAVOR TRANSFER ………………………………………7
`PRACTICAL ISSUES FAVOR TRANSFER........... cc eceee eee eee nce eee eee eaeeneneens 7
`LOCAL INTEREST FAVORS TRANSFER; OTHER FACTORS NEUTRAL …...7
`LOCAL INTEREST FAVORS TRANSFER; OTHER FACTORS NEUTRAL......7
`
`
`I.
`L.
`II.
`IL.
`III.
`Til.
`IV.
`IV.
`V.
`V.
`VI.
`VI.
`
`
`ii
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 143 Filed 11/20/23 Page 3 of 13 PageID #: 33492
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CSIRO v. Cisco,
`809 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..................................................................................................5
`
`Diem LLC v. BigCommerce, Inc.
`(No. 6:17-cv-186, 2017 WL 6729907 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 28, 2017)) ............................................7
`
`In re Apple Inc.,
`No. 2021-181, 2021 WL 5291804 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2021) ...................................................4
`
`In re HP Inc.,
`826 F. App’x 899 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ............................................................................................4
`
`In re Hulu, LLC,
`No. 2021-142, 2021 WL 3278194 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 2, 2021) .....................................................5
`
`In re LG Elecs. Inc.,
`No. 2018-134, slip op. (Fed. Cir. April 24, 2018) .....................................................................2
`
`In re Meraki Integrated Cir. (Shenzhen) Tech., Ltd.,
`No. 2021-180, 2021 WL 5292271 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2021) ...................................................1
`
`In re Meta Platforms,
`No. 2023-143, slip op. (Fed. Cir. Oct. 30, 2023) .......................................................................7
`
`In re Planned Parenthood,
`52 F.4th 625 (5th Cir. 2022) ..................................................................................................3, 7
`
`In re Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`2 F.4th 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ................................................................................................5, 7
`
`In re Stingray ...................................................................................................................................2
`56 F.4th 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2023)
`
`In re TikTok, Inc.,
`No. 23-50575, slip op. at 19-20 (5th Cir. Oct. 31, 2023) ................................................. passim
`
`In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc.,
`545 F. 3d 304, 318 (5th Cir. 2008) ............................................................................................1
`
`Intertrust Techs. Corp. v. Cinemark Holdings, Inc.,
`No. 2:19-CV-00265-JRG, 2020 WL 6479562 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2020) ...............................4
`
`Japan Display Inc. v. Tianma Microelectronics Co.,
`No. 2:20-cv-283, 2021 WL 3772425 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 25, 2021) ..........................................2, 7
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 143 Filed 11/20/23 Page 4 of 13 PageID #: 33493
`
`
`Maxell Ltd. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 5:19-cv-36, slip op. (E.D. Tex. Jan. 3, 2020) ......................................................................4
`
`Pinn, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 19-cv-01805, 2021 WL 4775969 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2021) .............................................6
`
`Pioneer Corp. v. Samsung SDI Co.,
`No. 2:06CV384, 2008 WL 11348028 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 15, 2008)..............................................6
`
`RULES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 ...........................................................................................................................1, 2
`
`Fed R. Civ. P. 45 ..............................................................................................................................4
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 143 Filed 11/20/23 Page 5 of 13 PageID #: 33494
`
`
`The EDTX “contains no relevant evidence, is thousands of miles from the vast majority of
`
`relevant witnesses, and is wholly unconnected to the underlying dispute.” In re TikTok, Inc. No.
`
`23-50575, slip op. at 19-20 (5th Cir. Oct. 31, 2023) (abuse of discretion to deny transfer where two
`
`factors favor transfer and no factors disfavor). Having failed to identify a single witness in EDTX,
`
`AXW relies entirely on out-of-district witnesses who have no or questionable relevance to the
`
`accused functionality: (1) Rivet employees (developers of unaccused software); (2) Wi-Fi
`
`Alliance affiliates (“WFA”) (with no role in certifying Intel’s Wi-Fi 6 chips); (3) tertiary prior art
`
`witnesses (never subpoenaed); (4) Matt Zielinski (apex International Sales executive at Lenovo
`
`US); (5) and Derik Moore (lone supplier witness identified by AXW). AXW distorts the facts to
`
`deem these witnesses relevant, while wholesale dismissing over three dozen NDCA witnesses,
`
`including from Intel, MediaTek, and Qualcomm—the suppliers of the Wi-Fi adapters at issue. See
`
`Ex. 26. Where the accused technology is researched, developed, and tested in the NDCA and “not
`
`a single relevant factor favors [EDTX],” it would be an abuse of discretion to deny transfer. See
`
`In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F. 3d 304, 318 (5th Cir. 2008).
`
`I.
`
`THE COURT’S JURISDICTION RULING APPLIES EQUALLY TO NDCA
`AXW does not dispute that the Court’s resolution of LGL’s motion to dismiss applies with
`
`equal force in NDCA or argue that suit could not have been brought there. Opp. 4–5. The Court
`
`credited AXW’s stream-of-commerce theory, relying on retail sales in this district, and found
`
`jurisdiction under the “federal long-arm statute” of Rule 4(k)(2). Dkt. 29, ¶ 7; Dkt. 110 (R&R) at
`
`7, 9; Dkt. 119 at 11. To the extent these theories support jurisdiction here, they also support
`
`jurisdiction in NDCA where the same retailers operate. Mot. 10 n.5; see In re Meraki Integrated
`
`Cir. (Shenzhen) Tech., Ltd., No. 2021-180, 2021 WL 5292271, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2021)
`
`(“[C]ourt’s own stated basis for jurisdiction…would apply equally to both districts.”). Indeed,
`
`AXW cannot have it both ways—arguing that personal jurisdiction exists in EDTX, but not in
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 143 Filed 11/20/23 Page 6 of 13 PageID #: 33495
`
`
`NDCA on the same facts. AXW further argues LGL “cannot force transfer by consenting to
`
`personal jurisdiction in one district but not the other.” Opp. 5. But if jurisdiction exists in either
`
`district (as the Court has now held), it exists in both districts based on the same facts, so AXW is
`
`incorrect1 that LGL will consent to jurisdiction “in one [] but not the other.” Id.
`
`II.
`
`
`EASE OF ACCESS TO SOURCES OF PROOF FAVORS TRANSFER
`
`The ease-of-access inquiry focuses on the transferor and transferee districts, not the forum
`
`state. TikTok, slip op. at 7. Thus, in TikTok (slip op. at 7), the Fifth Circuit held the WDTX abused
`
`its discretion in relying on the presence of a single engineer with access to source code in NDTX
`
`to deem that code equally accessible in WDTX as in NDCA. While key evidence may be
`
`electronic, AXW cannot identify any Intel employees with proof in EDTX (as there are none), much
`
`less employees who have a security clearance to top-secret Wi-Fi 6 documents or code.
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`; Mot. 13 n.10. AXW cannot credibly argue that WFA simulation code and testing code are
`
`irrelevant when it has expressly sought such discovery. Ex. 5 (seeking discovery re: WFA
`
`certification
`
`(Topic 7)
`
`and Wi-Fi 6
`
`functionality,
`
`“including…testing protocols,
`
`procedures,…simulations” (Topic 13));
`
`
`
`
`
`,
`
`
`
`
`1 AXW’s cited cases are distinguishable. In re Stingray addressed an issue not before this Court:
`the applicability of Rule 4(k)(2) where a defendant unilaterally consents to jurisdiction in another
`district. 56 F.4th 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Unlike the movants in Japan Display Inc. and In re LG
`Electronics, LGL has satisfied its burden of proof on jurisdiction in the transferee district by
`relying on the Court’s adjudication on that issue. Cf. Japan Display Inc. v. Tianma
`Microelectronics Co., No. 2:20-cv-283, 2021 WL 3772425, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 25, 2021) (no
`such adjudication made because movant withdrew its jurisdiction motion); In re LG Elecs. Inc.,
`No. 2018-134, slip op. at 4 (Fed. Cir. April 24, 2018) (movant failed to show it was “so heavily
`engaged in activity” to render requested forum home, unlike here where Court relied on retailers).
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 143 Filed 11/20/23 Page 7 of 13 PageID #: 33496
`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 143 Filed 11/20/23 Page 7 of 13 PagelD #: 33496
`
`Instead, AXW misrepresents the record and ignores the multiple bases for Ms. Azizi’s
`
`testimony on this point to speculate that the Rivet team may haveaccess to relevant source code.
`
`ee
`ee
`ee
`Be Indeed, AXW hastellingly withdrawn the baseless
`
`assertions? madein its Dell opposition that Rivet engineers worked “on the accused functionalities”
`
`and that source code for accused features are in Texas (Dkt. 120, 1, 4-5), yet it still insists that Mike
`
`Cubbage—a former Intel employee responsible for sales and marketing of unaccused Killer
`
`software—has sales knowledge “of the relevant Wi-Fi 6 chips” (Dkt. 130, 5—6). Not true. Mr.
`
`Cubbage marketed unaccused Killer sofitware—not W1-F1 6 chips—andhe wasnot authorized to
`
`retain Intel confidential information after his departure. Dkt. 124-13, § 8; Ex. 3 (Mike Cubbage
`
`LinkedIn Profile focusing on role in “software,” not chip business); Ex. 1, 58:8—23, 110:18-22.
`
`This factor also favors transfer because there are physical samples of Wi-Fi 6 adapters in
`
`NDCA,but none in EDTX. See Dkt. 128, 3-4. See In re Planned Parenthood, 52 F Ath 625, 630
`
`(Sth Cir. 2022). Lastly, AXW speculates there is WFA proof in Texas, but WFA1s a decentralized
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 143 Filed 11/20/23 Page 8 of 13 PageID #: 33497
`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 143 Filed 11/20/23 Page 8 of 13 PagelD #: 33497
`
`non-profit, and no witnesses in EDTX have technical information relevant to Intel’s Wi-Fi 6
`
`certification. Cordeiro Decl., {J 9-17. In contrast, Intel identified WFA proof that is more relevant
`
`to Intel’s WFAcertification of the Wi-Fi 6 adapters at issue in NDCA.Seeid., § 10.
`
`il.
`
`AVAILABILITY OF COMPULSORY PROCESS FAVORS TRANSFER
`
`AXWidentifies no relevant witness within this Court’s 100-mile compulsory power, while
`
`LGLidentifies numerous witnesses within the NDCA’s.4 Mot. 2-6.
`
`MediaTek and Qualcomm. Four MediaTek witnesses with personal knowledge of the
`
`802.1 lax standard-development process are in NDCA,° while Jamie Huang, the project lead for
`
`MediaTek’s Wi-Fi 6 chip development, is in Taiwan. Ex. 26. AXW identifies only Derik Moore
`
`in Austin, more than 100 miles from EDTX. Opp. 12. The availability of compulsory process over
`
`these relevant unwilling witnesses (see Ex. 28 at 2) n NDCA weighsstrongly in favoroftransfer.
`
`In re Apple Inc., No. 2021-181, 2021 WL 5291804, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2021); Jntertrust
`
`Techs. Corp. v. Cinemark Holdings, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-00265-JRG, 2020 WL 6479562, at *5 (E.D.
`
`Tex. Sept. 30, 2020) (“personal knowledge”of accused standard’s developmentrelevant). If these
`
`witnesses were deemed willing, as AXW argues they should be (see Opp. 9), “[t]he presence of
`
`one Texas witness cannot overcome the immense inconvenience that the majority of relevant
`
`witnesses would face if this case wereto be tried in Texas.” 7ikTok, slip op. at 11. If Qualcomm’s
`
` AXW cites Maxell Ltd. v. Apple Inc., No. 5:19-cv-36, slip op. at 16 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 3, 2020)
`4
`to allege EDTX has subpoena powerover Dell’s suppliers through their Texas offices. But Fed.
`R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1)(B)@)applies only to parties. See Rule 45, Cmt. N. (2013 Am.). Dell’s suppliers
`are not parties, and derRule PBN), non-parties can only be compere “af [they] would
`
`not incur substantial expense.” Jd: see also In re HP Inc._ 826 F_ App’x 899.900 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 143 Filed 11/20/23 Page 9 of 13 PageID #: 33498
`
`
`San Diego witnesses are deemed willing, the NDCA is also more convenient. See Ex. 26.
`
`WFA. LGL identified multiple WFA witnesses in NDCA who are involved in certifying
`
`Intel’s Wi-Fi 6 products; they outweigh the irrelevant witnesses that AXW identified (all outside
`
`the EDTX’s 100-mile compulsory powers). Cordeiro Decl. ¶¶ 9-17; Opp. 3.
`
`Invalidity Witnesses. AXW asks the Court to disregard key NDCA prior art witnesses. Such a
`
`“categorical rejection” would be an “abuse of discretion.” In re Hulu, LLC, No. 2021-142, 2021 WL
`
`3278194, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 2, 2021). LGL’s subpoenas focused on authors of primary art from
`
`Intel’s IPR petitions, though there are even more NDCA witnesses from primary, charted art. Mot.
`
`6; Ta Decl., ¶ 30; Ex. 27. In contrast, no one has subpoenaed the witnesses listed by AXW because
`
`they are tertiary and background authors and/or authors of uncharted combination art who are not
`
`currently expected to testify at trial and thus have no “convenience” concerns. Ta Decl., ¶ 30.
`
`Licensing Witnesses.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` LGL has subpoenaed the California
`
`witnesses that were disclosed only after the start of venue discovery to LGL. Exs. 8-25.
`
`IV. COST AND CONVENIENCE OF WITNESSES FAVORS TRANSFER
`
`While NDCA would be convenient for many witnesses, EDTX is not convenient for any.
`
`This factor strongly favors transfer when there is “nothing on the other side of the ledger.” In re
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co., 2 F.4th 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2021). First, it would be an abuse of discretion
`
`to ignore the 100-mile test and deem this factor neutral where the bulk of relevant witnesses have
`
`to travel significant distances. TikTok, slip op. at 10-12, 19-20 (holding NDCA more convenient
`
`for Asia witnesses). This factor makes NDCA “clearly more convenient” for witnesses from Intel
`
`(CA, OR, Israel), LGL (Hong Kong), MediaTek (CA, Taiwan), and Qualcomm (CA). Ex. 26.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 143 Filed 11/20/23 Page 10 of 13 PageID #:
`33499
`
`
`Second, while AXW highlights non-relevant Rivet team members in Austin, it dismisses
`
`the five NDCA engineers actually responsible for Intel’s Wi-Fi 6 design or testing—who best
`
`know the topics on which AXW seeks discovery. See Ex. 5 (Wi-Fi 6 conception/design (Topic 9),
`
`testing and simulation (Topic 13); Wi-Fi 6 advantages (Topic 15); non-infringing alternatives
`
`(Topic 19)); Dkt-104-2, ¶¶ 11-15; Cordeiro Decl., ¶¶ 9-17; Dkt 122 at 14. By contrast, Rivet team
`
`members in Austin are not only irrelevant, but must travel from Austin to Marshall, which is no
`
`more convenient than travel from Austin to NDCA.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exs. 31-32.
`
`Third, for the five witnesses of LGL’s subsidiaries, this factor favors transfer because a
`
`direct flight to NDCA is about 4.5 hours (Chicago) or 6 hours (Raleigh, NC), but travel to Marshall
`
`requires a 3-hour (Chicago) or 4-hour (Raleigh) flight to Dallas plus a 2.5-hour drive. AXW
`
`identifies Matthew Zielinski, EVP & President of Lenovo’s International Sales Organization, in
`
`Austin. Ta Decl., ¶ 33. But no one disputes that LGL’s subsidiaries made U.S. sales. As an apex
`
`witness, Mr. Zielinski is unlikely to be called to trial as he has no unique, personal knowledge of
`
`U.S. sales, procurement, or the accused features, and there are less intrusive discovery methods.6
`
`See TikTok, slip op. at 8 (discounting “high-ranking company executive” with no proof helpful to
`
`adjudication). Moreover, travel from Austin to Marshall is no more convenient than to NDCA.
`
`Fourth, the NDCA is more convenient for AXW’s witnesses: Keith Im (CA), Scott Lim
`
`(Korea), Mandy Chan (Vancouver), and inventors Marcos Tzannes (NDCA) and Joon Bae Kim
`
`
`6 Pioneer Corp. v. Samsung SDI Co., No. 2:06CV384, 2008 WL 11348028, at *3 (E.D. Tex.
`Feb. 15, 2008) (quashing deposition of VP); Pinn, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 19-cv-01805, 2021 WL
`4775969, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2021) (applying apex doctrine to trial testimony).
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 143 Filed 11/20/23 Page 11 of 13 PageID #:
`33500
`
`
`(NDCA). Opp. 9;
`
`. Mr. Kim declares he resides on the East Coast or in
`
`Houston, but he works and signed his declaration in the NDCA. Ex. 30. The inventor declarations
`
`regarding the inventors’ willingness to travel to EDTX (Opp. 9) also carry little weight because
`
`there is no indication either inventor would not testify in NDCA.
`
`V.
`
`PRACTICAL ISSUES FAVOR TRANSFER
`
`There is no alleged “delay” because LGL promptly and properly filed its motion7 after the
`
`Court’s personal jurisdiction ruling, two months before Markman and 10 months before trial,
`
`putting this motion on equal footing with the Dell and HPI transfer motions. Filing this motion
`
`earlier would have required LGL to “have its cake and eat it too” in denying personal jurisdiction
`
`for dismissal while consenting to personal jurisdiction for transfer. Japan Display, 2021 WL
`
`3772425 at *3. LGL had little option but to wait for resolution of the jurisdictional issues. Lastly,
`
`AXW fails to identify any prejudice. If granted, discovery in all three cases would proceed in a
`
`more convenient forum under the same judge, nullifying AXW’s “inconvenience” argument.
`
`VI.
`
`LOCAL INTEREST FAVORS TRANSFER; OTHER FACTORS NEUTRAL
`
`Where “third parties researched, designed, and developed…those applications…[t]hese
`
`significant factors…give [NDCA] a legitimate interest in adjudicating the cases ‘at home.’” Samsung,
`
`2 F.4th at 1380. The other public factors are neutral. Contrary to AXW’s cited district court cases,
`
`the Federal Circuit has more recently affirmed it is error to find that court congestion weighs
`
`against transfer if plaintiff does not practice the patents. In re Meta Platforms, No. 2023-143, slip
`
`op. at 4 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 30, 2023).
`
`
`7 AXW ignores cases cited by LGL that grant motions filed even later in time, while relying on
`cases that address distinguishable circumstances. Dkt. 122 at 13-14. In Japan Display, the motion
`was addressed near the close of discovery, after multiple discovery hearings had already been held.
`2021 WL 3772425, at *6. In Diem LLC v. BigCommerce, Inc. (No. 6:17-cv-186, 2017 WL 6729907
`(E.D. Tex. Dec. 28, 2017)), defendant sought transfer after filing “a series of substantive motions”
`that required the Court’s investment. Id. at *5. In In re Planned Parenthood—a non-patent case
`involving a different schedule—the motion was filed when fact discovery was nearly over and
`after several motions to compel had been ruled on. 52 F.4th 625 (5th Cir. 2022).
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 143 Filed 11/20/23 Page 12 of 13 PageID #:
`33501
`
`
`
`Dated: November 8, 2023
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/ Janice L. Ta
`Janice L. Ta (SBN 24075138)
`Dakota P. Kanetzky (SBN 24116599)
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`405 Colorado Street, Suite 1700
`Austin, TX 78701
`Tel: (737) 256-6100
`Fax: (737) 256-6300
`Email: JTa@perkinscoie.com
`Email: DKanetzky@perkinscoie.com
`
`Sarah E. Piepmeier (SBN 227094)
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`505 Howard Street, Suite 1000
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`Tel: (415) 344-7000
`Fax: (415) 344-7050
`Email: spiepmeier@perkinscoie.com
`
`Matthew W. Hindman (SBN 247707)
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`3150 Porter Drive
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212
`Tel: (650) 838-4372
`Fax: (650) 838-4350
`Email: mhindman@perkinscoie.com
`
`James S. Miller (SBN 55524)
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`1201 3rd Avenue, Suite 4900
`Seattle, WA 98101
`Tel: (206) 359-8584
`Fax: 206 359-9584
`Email: jmiller@perkinscoie.com
`
`Ashlee Elouise Sherman (SBN 348085)
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`11452 El Camino Real, Suite 300
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Tel: (858) 720-5700
`Fax: (858) 720-5799
`Email: asherman@perkinscoie.com
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 143 Filed 11/20/23 Page 13 of 13 PageID #:
`33502
`
`
`Michael E. Jones (SBN 10929400)
`Shaun W. Hassett (SBN 24074372)
`POTTER MINTON, P.C.
`102 North College
`500 Plaza Tower
`Tyler, TX 75702
`Tel: (903) 597-8311
`Fax: (903) 593-0846
`mikejones@potterminton.com
`Email: shaunhassett@potterminton.com
`
`Deron R. Dacus (SBN 00790553)
`THE DACUS FIRM, PC
`821 ESE Loop 323, Suite 430
`Tyler, TX 75701
`Tel: (903) 705-1117
`Fax: (903) 581-2543
`Email: ddacus@dacusfirm.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants Dell Inc. and Dell
`Technologies Inc.
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF AUTHORIZATION
`
`The Reply is filed under seal pursuant to the Protective Order entered in this case (ECF
`
`No. 70, ¶ 40) because material included in the Reply is designated under the Protective Order.
`
`/s/ Janice L. Ta
`Janice L. Ta
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing document was served via electronic
`
`mail on November 8, 2023, to all opposing counsel of record via the Court’s CM/ECF system.
`
`/s/ Janice L. Ta
`Janice L. Ta
`
`
`
`9
`
`