Case 6:20-cv-01212-ADA Document 21 Filed 04/16/21 Page 1 of 4
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`OCEAN SEMICONDUCTORS LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`NXP SEMICONDUCTORS N.V., et al.,
`Defendants.
`
`Civil Action No. 6:20-CV-1212-ADA
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`NXP USA, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO OCEAN SEMICONDUCTOR LLC’S MOTION
`FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY TO NXP USA, INC.’S PARTIAL MOTION TO
`DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 271(g)
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01212-ADA Document 21 Filed 04/16/21 Page 2 of 4
`
`Surreplies “are heavily disfavored.” Warrior Energy Servs. Corp. v. ATP Titan M/V, 551
`
`F. App’x 749, 751 n.2 (5th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (quoting Weems v. Hodnett, No. 10-CV-1452,
`
`2011 WL 2731263, at *1 (W.D. La. July 13, 2011)). They “often amount to little more than a
`
`strategic effort by the nonmovant to have the last word on a matter,” and it is proper to deny a
`
`surreply request when a party “fails to demonstrate exceptional or extraordinary circumstances.”
`
`Weems, 2011 WL 2731263, at *1. Such is the case here.
`
`The Motion for Leave (Dkt. 20) is entirely conclusory and offers no support for the relief
`
`sought. When a party “ma[kes] conclusory statements about new arguments” without identifying
`
`any, it has failed to show such circumstances. Silo Rest. Inc. v. Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 420
`
`F. Supp. 3d 562, 571 (W.D. Tex. 2019). Here, Ocean states that NXP’s Reply “asserts new
`
`arguments not presented in its original Motion” but does not describe those arguments. See Dkts.
`
`20 at 1 & 20-1 at 1. Ocean’s conclusory statements do not support a motion for leave. Silo Rest.,
`
`420 F. Supp. at 571.
`
`The substance of the proposed surreply (Dkt. 20-1) reveals why Ocean did not bother to
`
`attempt to justify its request for leave. The caselaw Ocean wishes to address in its proposed
`
`surreply falls into three categories—none of which justifies departing from the Court’s Local
`
`Rules:
`
`1. Caselaw NXP cited in the underlying Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 15) to which Ocean had
`the opportunity to respond, and did, in its Opposition (Dkt. 18):
`
`• Bayer AG v. Housey Pharm., Inc., 340 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
`• Momenta Pharms., Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA Inc., 809 F.3d 610 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`2. Caselaw that Ocean cited in its Opposition to which NXP responded in its Reply:
`
`• Bio-Technology General Corp. v. Genentech, Inc., 80 F.3d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
`• Millennium Cryogenic Techs., Ltd. v. Weatherford Artificial Lift Sys., No. H-12-
`0890, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196638 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 5, 2012)
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01212-ADA Document 21 Filed 04/16/21 Page 3 of 4
`
`• Ormco Corp. v. Align Tech., Inc., 653 F. Supp. 2d 1016 (C.D. Cal. 2009)
`
`3. Caselaw that Ocean cites for the first time in its proposed Surreply (Dkt. 20-1):
`
`• Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`Allowing Ocean more pages would reward its transparent effort to have the last word and
`
`make new arguments on caselaw that has already been addressed in accordance with the Local
`
`Rules. Accordingly, NXP respectfully requests that the Court deny Ocean’s Motion for Leave.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01212-ADA Document 21 Filed 04/16/21 Page 4 of 4
`
`Dated: April 16, 2021
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` /s/ Bradley D. Coburn
`Barry K. Shelton
`Texas State Bar No. 24055029
`Bradley D. Coburn
`Texas State Bar No. 24036377
`SHELTON COBURN LLP
`311 RR 620, Suite 205
`Austin, TX 78734-4775
`bshelton@sheltoncoburn.com
`coburn@sheltoncoburn.com
`(512) 263-2165 (Telephone)
`(512) 263-2166 (Facsimile)
`
`Attorneys for NXP USA, Inc.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
`
`document has been served on all counsel of record via the Court’s ECF system.
`
` /s/ Bradley D. Coburn
`Bradley D. Coburn
`
`3
`
`