Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 188 Filed 12/05/23 Page 1 of 16
`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 188 Filed 12/05/23 Page 1 of 16
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`WACO DIVISION
`
`FLYPSI, INC. (D/B/A FLYP),
`
`Civil Action No. 6:22-cv-31-ADA
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`FLYPSI, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO GOOGLE LLC’S MOTION
`FOR PARTIAL SUMAMRY JUDGMENT OF NO WILLFULLNESS(ECF NO.143)
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 188 Filed 12/05/23 Page 2 of 16
`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 188 Filed 12/05/23 Page 2 of 16
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`T.
`
`INTRODUCTION2000 cecce cece cee eececeeeeeeeceeeeesaesacsesecsesacsanacsecseeacseeaceatseeetseeaseeeaneee 1
`
`Tl. SUMMARY OF FACTS 2ooooccccccccccccccccccs cee eececeeceseeeeeceeesceecacsacsecacsacsececsecaeeacseeesseeaeeanseeeteeees 1
`
`THE.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD200i cceccccecec ee eee ese cesceeeeeececaeeacseacsecsenecacacsececseeeeeaseeeateaeatees 2
`
`TV. ARGUMENT 200ooooccccccccceceeccccccce cee cececeseeseeseecaeeaceeseesacsesscsacacsacsecacsesacsecsececsecaeeatseeeteeateeeeteee 3
`
`A.
`
`There is a Genuine Issue of Material Fact of Google’s Pre-Suit Knowledge. ............3
`
`Thereis a genuineissue of material fact whether Google knew of the Patents-in-
`1.
`Suit. 3
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Thereis a genuineissue of material fact whether Google was willfully blind.......6
`
`Google Ventures’ knowledge can be imputed to Google. .............00..ccecceeeeeeeteee 7
`
`There is a Genuine Issue of Material Fact of Deliberate or Intentional
`B.
`Tinfrimgement. ooo eee cece cc ceeccceccesceseeeseeeeeseesnesssessesssesseseesaeesssesessesetsecsseeesecseceaeeseeeaeeeeeseeneeeeeeees8
`
`Cc.
`
`There is a Genuine Issue of Material Fact of Egregious Behavior............................... 9
`
`Vi. CONCLUSION 200ooieccccccccececceececcsceseeeeseseeseeeeneeeseeeseesseesesessessesesessecseseeaesacaeesceecaeeasieeeeeeeaeeeeeeeee 9
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 188 Filed 12/05/23 Page 3 of 16
`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 188 Filed 12/05/23 Page 3 of 16
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`
`ACQIS LLC v. Lenovo Grp. Ltd.,
`No. 6:20-CV-00967-ADA, 2022 WL 2705269 (W.D.Tex. July 12, 2022)... 7
`
`Arigna Tech. Ltd. v. Nissan Motor Co.,
`No. 2:22-CV-0012-JRG-RSP, 2022 WL 17978913 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 5, 2022)... 3
`
`BillJCo, LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`583 F. Supp. 3d 769 (W.D. Tex. 2022)......cccccccccccccecesesesseseseesestseseecscseeeecseseeecseeeescseeenenseaeees 8,9
`
`Bio-Rad Lab'ys, Inc. v. 10X Genomics, Inc.,
`No. 19-CV-12533-WGY, 2020 WL 2079422 (D. Mass. Apr. 30, 2020)... eeeeeeeeeeeeteeees 3
`
`Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A.,
`563 U.S. 754 (QOLL).ececccccccceccecesesesescesteeesesesesessscseserscsescseseeasesesesacseeeesnecsesestseseeseseeetenseeeeeeseees 6
`
`Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.,
`S79 U.S. 93 (2016)... ceeccccccccccecseecesesesesecsesesssesesesssscsesevssesenacsesesesesesacseeeeeeecsesenseseatscseeenenseeeeetaeees 3
`
`Kaneka Corp. v. SKC Kolon PI, Inc.,
`198 F. Supp. 3d 1089 (C.D. Cal. 2016) ooo.c.cceccecccecccecesceeseeseseeeeeeseseseseseseseseeneeseeeeseenenseseeeeeees 4
`
`Maxell Ltd. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 5:19-CV-00036-RWS, 2019 WL 7905455 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 23, 2019) ..0...cceeeeeeeeeeees 4
`
`Parity Networks, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`No. 6:19-CV-00207-ADA, 2019 WL 3940952 (W.D.Tex. July 26, 2019) 0... 2
`
`SIMO Holdings Inc. v. Hong Kong uCloudlink NetworkTech. Ltd.,
`396 F. Supp. 3d 323 (S.D.N-Y. 2019) ...cccecccccccccceseseeeseseseeseseeeeeeecseneesescaeeeseseeevseeeeeneeseeeseeeee 4
`
`SimpliVity Corp. v. Springpath, Inc.,
`2016 WL 5388951 (D. Mass. July 15, 2016) .o..cccccececcececcceceeceeeeeeceseeseeeeseseeseeeeseeetseesteeees 4,5
`
`Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc.,
`824 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2016) o..c.cceccccccccccccccecceescsecsesesesesesesenscseecsacseseeeceesacscseseacseaceeeatseeetenatees 3
`
`WBIP, LLC v. KohlerCo.,
`829 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2016) oo...ccececcecececccececcsesceeesesesessesesessscscecsacseseeecaesavacseseeeescseeeescseeetenseees 7
`
`il
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 188 Filed 12/05/23 Page 4 of 16
`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 188 Filed 12/05/23 Page 4 of 16
`
`WCM Indus., Inc. v. IPS Corp.,
`721 F. App'x 959 (Fed. Cir. 2018) o.c.cccccccccccccccececcesessseeeeseseeessescsesessesesesacsesecscseseesssesesetatseeanecas 3
`
`Xiros, Ltd. v. Depuy Synthes Sales, Inc.,
`No. W-,21-CV-00681-ADA, 2022 WL 3592449 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 22, 2022)... 5
`
`ill
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 188 Filed 12/05/23 Page 5 of 16
`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 188 Filed 12/05/23 Page 5 of 16
`
`TABLEOF EXHIBITS!
`
`No.
`
`Brief Description
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`Deposition Transcript ofae.
`
`U.S. Patent App. No. 2011-00226468
`
`U.S. Patent No. 9,667,770
`
`GOOG-FLYP-00004044 (Email dated November 4, 2015)
`
`GOOG-FLYP-00004068 (Email dated November 12, 2015)
`
`GOOG-FLYP-00004068 (Email dated November 12, 2015)
`
`Deposition Transcript of Peter Rinfret
`
`GOOG-FLYP-00004070 (Email dated November 12, 2015)
`
`GOOG-FLYP-00004072 (Email dated November 16, 2015)
`
`GOOG-FLYP-00004073 (Flyp Slide Deck Presentation)
`
`Google Patents About Page
`
`Declaration of Peter Rinfret
`
`Google Patents Coverage Page
`
`Scott Austin, Google Ventures’ Entire Investment Team Finally Revealed, WALLST. J.
`(Apr. 30, 2010)
`
`
`
`
`
`15 OM, Google Voice Co-Founder Quits, Joins Google Ventures
`
`16
`
`DanSeifert, Android’s Co-Founder Is Spending Google’s Billions Huntingfor the Next
`Big Thing, THE VERGE (Mar. 6, 2014
`
`! The undersigned herebystates that true and correct copies of the exhibits noted here are attached
`to this Motion.
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 188 Filed 12/05/23 Page 6 of 16
`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 188 Filed 12/05/23 Page 6 of 16
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The totality of the evidence creates a genuine issue of material fact whether Google
`
`willfully infringed the Patents-in-Suit. The Court should deny summary judgment because whether
`
`Google’s infringement wasintentional is a matter for the fact-finders to decide.
`
`II.
`
`SUMMARYOF FACTS
`
`Google Ventures partneri whowasaninventor ofGoogle Voice
`
`21; Ex. 2. Amongotherthings, this process involved evaluatingii
`1 25:17-18) And wie
`
`Po The USPTOpublished the ’720 Application in January 2015.
`(Ex. 3.) After the °720 Application waspublished,Po a meeting to discuss Flyp’s
`
`theein,
`eee
`|| interaction with iii showshe wasinvestigating Flyp’s technology.(Ex. 5||
`
`PoP| wasalso aware of Flyp’s technology.(Ex.6. P|
`Eee
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 188 Filed 12/05/23 Page 7 of 16
`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 188 Filed 12/05/23 Page 7 of 16
`
`eee)
`BRI osc,Is
`eeEx. 7 at 284:14-16.) During the meeting,Po
`Ss
`
`| F
`
`ollowing theeng,
`eS ::)
`ee
`
`Venture neverinvested in Flyp. Instead, GoogleVoice
`|ixcorporated Flyp’s patented technology. (Ex. 1 at 33:18-21P|
`eee
`ee)
`
`Il.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`To state a claim for willful infringement, “a plaintiff must allege facts plausibly showing
`
`that as of the time of the claim's filing, the accused infringer: (1) knew of the patent-in-suit; (2)
`
`after acquiring that knowledge, it infringed the patent; and (3) in doing so, it knew, or should have
`
`known,that its conduct amounted to infringement of the patent.” Parity Networks, LLC v. Cisco
`
`Sys., Inc., No. 6:19-CV-00207-ADA, 2019 WL 3940952, at *3 (W.D. Tex. July 26, 2019).
`
`“TE]|vidence of knowledge of the patents in suit and intent sufficient to establish deliberate or
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 188 Filed 12/05/23 Page 8 of 16
`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 188 Filed 12/05/23 Page 8 of 16
`
`intentional conduct may be inferred from circumstantial evidence.” Arigna Tech. Ltd. v. Nissan
`
`Motor Co., No. 2:22-CV-00126-JRG-RSP, 2022 WL 17978913, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 5, 2022)
`
`(citing Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. NuVasive, Inc., 824 F.3d 1344, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
`
`(“knowledge of infringement can be inferred from circumstantial evidence”)). The Patent Act’s
`
`mechanisms for enhanced damages intend to punish infringers for conduct beyond typical
`
`infringement—behaviorthat is “willful, wanton, malicious, bad-faith, deliberate, consciously
`
`wrongful, flagrant, or—indeed—characteristic of a pirate.” Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc.,
`
`579 U.S. 93, 103-04 (2016).
`
`IV.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`There is a Genuine Issue of Material Fact of Google’s Pre-Suit Knowledge.
`
`Thetotality of the evidence creates genuine issue of material fact whether(1) Google knew
`
`of the Patents-in-Suit or (2) Google waswillfully blind to the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`1.
`
`There is a genuine issue of material fact whether Google knew of the
`Patents-in-Suit.
`
`Thetotality of the evidence creates a genuine issue of material fact whether Google knew
`
`of the Patents-in-Suit. The evidence demonstrates thait
`
`Courts look to the totality of the evidence to determine whetherthere is a genuine issue of
`
`material fact whethera party knew ofthe Patents-in-Suit. See WCMIndus., Inc. v. IPS Corp., 721
`
`F. App’x 959 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding willful infringement knowledge “lookstothetotality of the
`
`circumstances presented in the case.””) (quotation omitted); Bio-Rad Lab'ys, Inc. v. 10X Genomics,
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 188 Filed 12/05/23 Page 9 of 16
`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 188 Filed 12/05/23 Page 9 of 16
`
`Inc., No. 19-CV-12533-WGY, 2020 WL 2079422 (D. Mass. Apr. 30, 2020) (“Courts, however,
`
`have since accepted circumstantial evidence to prove knowledge.”); SIMO Holdings Inc. v. Hong
`
`Kong uCloudlink Network Tech. Ltd., 396 F. Supp. 3d 323, 334 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (“Evidence of
`
`pre-suit knowledge of a patent can be circumstantial.”) (quoting Kaneka Corp. v. SKC KolonPI,
`
`Inc., 198 F. Supp. 3d 1089, 1107 (C.D. Cal. 2016)). While “[k]knowledgeof a patent application
`
`alone is insufficient to demonstrate knowledge ofthe later issued patent,” when considered with
`
`other circumstantial evidence, “a party’s exposure to a patent application may give rise to
`
`knowledgeofa later issued patent.” Maxell Ltd. v. Apple Inc., No. 5:19-CV-00036-RWS,2019
`
`WL 7905455, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 23, 2019) (emphasis added).
`
`Other courts have found similar behavior sufficient to support willfulness claims. For
`
`instance, the court considering SimpliVity Corp. v. Springpath, Inc., No. 4:15-13345-TSH,
`
`2016 WL 5388951, at *9 (D. Mass. July 15, 2016), found a sophisticated infringer’s
`
`surreptitious investigation into its competitor’s technology and incorporationof that technology
`
`into its own product was enoughto support a reasonable inferencethat the infringer knew about
`
`the asserted patent, even though the asserted patent had not yet issued from its then-pending
`
`application:
`
`The court infers from the SAC Springpath’s pre-suit knowledge of
`the °799 Patent. SimpliVity has alleged that Springpath—a
`sophisticated entity and SimpliVity competitor—surreptitiously
`investigated SimpliVity’s technology (albeit before the 799 Patent
`was issued) and thereafter developed a product which mimics the
`technology in the ’799 Patent. Read in the light most favorable to
`SimpliVity, this narrative lends support to a reasonable inference
`that Springpath knew of the ’799 Patent before this litigation.
`
`Id. Among facts the SimpliVity court found compelling were that the patent application was
`
`publicly available at the time of the investigation; the competitor’s product later incorporated the
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 188 Filed 12/05/23 Page 10 of 16
`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 188 Filed 12/05/23 Page 10 of 16
`
`same technologies disclosed in the pending application; and the competitor’s representative, a co-
`
`founder, misled the patentee about his connection to the competing product. Seeid.
`
`The evidence presented abovetells a strikingly similar story. The evidence presented above
`
`demonstrates that the USPTO published the ’720 Application in January 2015, beforef
`
`Not longater thatetn,
`
`SimpliVity, the totality of this evidence creates a genuine issue of material fact whether the
`
`infringer knew ofthe Patents-in-Suit beforethis litigation. 2016 WL 5388951, at *9.
`
`Additionally,
`
`all
`
`the
`
`Patents-in-Suit were
`
`uploaded
`
`to Google’s_ website
`
`patents.google.com (“Google Patents”), creating a genuine issue of material fact whether Google
`
`knew of the Patents-in-Suit. See Xiros, Ltd. v. Depuy Synthes Sales, Inc., No. W-21-CV-00681-
`
`ADA, 2022 WL 3592449, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 22, 2022) (stating J&J had alleged knowledge
`
`“from J&J’s citation of an article on its website,” but refusing to impute that knowledge to J&J’s
`
`affiliate). Google Patents is owned and operated by Google. Google Patents allowsusersto “search
`
`and read the full text of patents,” including “all patents and published applications in [Google’s]
`
`index, but Google cannot guarantee complete coverage.” (Ex. 11.) While Google does not cover
`
`cveryp12)
`
`Google contends that
`
`there is no evidence that Google does anything other than
`
`automatically add patents to Google Patents. (ECF No. 143 at 4.) But Google Patents states that
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 188 Filed 12/05/23 Page 11 of 16
`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 188 Filed 12/05/23 Page 11 of 16
`
`Google “currently index[ex] full-text documents” and that the patents listed are “all patents and
`
`published applications in our index, but we cannot guarantee complete coverage.” (Ex. 13.)
`
`Between Google affirmatively indexing patents, and not indexing every patent—which should
`
`happen if the process was automatic—the evidence shows that Google analyzes the patents on
`
`Google Patents. Additionally, even though Google Patentsis publicly available, only one company
`
`owns and operates it—Google. Flyp is not asserting that Google knew of the Patents-in-Suit
`
`because Google Patents is publicly available. Rather, Google knew of the Patents-in-Suit when
`
`they were added to Google Patents because Google owns, operates, and indexed the Patents-in-
`
`Suit onto Google Patents. The totality of this evidence creates a genuine issue of material of fact
`
`whether Google knew of the Patents-in-Suit that should be decided by the jury.
`
`2.
`
`There is a genuine issue of material fact whether Google waswillfully
`blind.
`
`The underlying reasoning in SimpliVity and Google’s operation of Google Patent also
`
`create a genuine issue of material fact whether Google wasat least willfully blind to the Patents-
`
`in-Suit. Google’s meetings and inquiries into Flyp’s technology is evidence that Google
`
`“subjectively believe[d] that there is a high probability that” Flyp possessed the technology
`
`incorporated into Google Voice, and that Google took “deliberate actions to avoid learning of that
`
`fact.” Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754, 769-70 (2011). Google is a
`
`sophisticated entity able to analyze and track patents and applications—andin fact hadretrieved
`
`every asserted patent and analyzedit shortly after it issued through its Google Patents service. (Ex.
`
`12.) Google knew about the pending 710 Application, knew about Flyp’s patent prosecution
`
`plans, and still knowingly incorporated claimed inventions from the ’710 Application into its
`
`Google Voice product. The totality of the evidence creates a genuine issue of material fact whether
`
`Google waswillfully blind, and the Court should deny Google’s motion for summary judgment of
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 188 Filed 12/05/23 Page 12 of 16
`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 188 Filed 12/05/23 Page 12 of 16
`
`no willfulness andlet the jury considerthe factual componentsof willfulness. WBIP, LLC v. Kohler
`
`Co., 829 F.3d 1317, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“We do not interpret Halo as changingthe established
`
`law that the factual components of the willfulness question should be resolved by the jury.”).
`
`3.
`
`Google Ventures’ knowledge can be imputed to Google.
`
`Google Ventures’ knowledge, particularly regarding Google Voice, can be imputed to
`
`Google. “[W]hile notice to a corporation is not ‘necessarily’ imputed to its subsidiaries, it is
`
`imputed between those whoareaffiliated in certain factual circumstances.” 4COQIJS LLC v. Lenovo
`
`Grp. Ltd., No. 6:20-CV-00967-ADA,2022 WL 2705269 (W.D. Tex. July 12, 2022).
`
`Contrary to Google’s attempts to separate Google from Google Ventures in the Motion,
`
`the evidence shows that Google closely controlled Google VenturesPo
`SS 0:0: 5s 670s,rs
`
`a «
`1320-21, During hisepson,
`
`a T
`
`he integration between Google and Google Ventures was extensive. Beyond Android co-
`
`founder a. Google embedded “select advisors” into Google Ventures representing a
`vittual Who’s Whoof Google heavy hitters, “such as YouTube co-founders[i andi
`a. and early employeefT . ChiefEconomistiin and Chief Technology
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 188 Filed 12/05/23 Page 13 of 16
`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 188 Filed 12/05/23 Page 13 of 16
`
`Advocatea. (Ex. 14.) The overlap between Google Ventures and Google Voice was
`particularly significant. Beyondf| a Google Voice inventor, Google Voice co-founder
`P| and Google Voice veteran were key personnel that Google embedded
`
`into Google Ventures. (See Ex. 14; Ex. 15.) Additionally, the flow of information between Google
`
`Ventures and Google went both ways: “Companies in the portfolio also have close access to
`
`Google engineers and processes around managing products and setting goals.” (Ex. 16.)
`
`Additionally, despite now working at Google,ee
`
`Between Google Ventures starting as a part of Google,Po
`
`between Google and Google Ventures, and the key personnel of Google Voice involved in Google
`
`Ventures, Google Ventures’ knowledge can be imputed to Google—particularly regarding Google
`
`Voice.
`
`B.
`
`There is a Genuine Issue of Material Fact of Deliberate or Intentional
`Infringement.
`
`Flyp has provided evidence that creates a genuine issue of material fact of deliberate or
`
`intentional infringement. See BillJCo, LLC v. Apple Inc., 583 F. Supp. 3d 769, 777 (W.D. Tex.
`
`2022) (“an accused infringer's knowledgeof infringement will necessarily require an assessment
`
`of the totality of the patentee's allegations.”). The evidence demonstrates that the USPTO
`
`published the ’720 Application in January 2015, beforePs
`
`EEbefore the meeting. Not long after that meeting,
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 188 Filed 12/05/23 Page 14 of 16
`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 188 Filed 12/05/23 Page 14 of 16
`
`errr
`ee
`
`Asin SimpliVity, the totality of this evidence creates a genuineissue of material of fact that
`
`Google intentionally infringed Flyp’s patents by obtaining the patented technology during ||
`a meeting with Flyp and incorporating the patented technology into Google Voice.
`
`Accordingly, whether Google’s infringement wasintentional is a matter for the fact-finders to
`
`decide.
`
`Cc.
`
`There is a Genuine Issue of Material Fact of Egregious Behavior.
`
`While there is a genuine issue of material fact of egregious behavior,it is not necessary to
`
`show egregious behaviorfor willful infringement. See BillJCo, LLC, 583 F. Supp. 3d at 779. Still,
`
`even without this requirement, there is a genuine issue of material fact that Google’s behavior was
`
`egregious.
`
`The totality of the evidence demonstrates that P| investigated Flyp with other
`
`individuals involved in Google Voice, set up a meeting with Flyp, learned about Flyp’s technology
`
`and pending patent application during the meeting,PO
`ee. and incorporated the technology into Google Voice.
`
`(See discussion supra Section I.A.) Whether the totality of this evidence demonstrates that
`
`Google’s conduct was egregiousis a matter for the fact-finders to decide.
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For these reasons and on the basis of foregoing authorities, Flyp respectfully requests that
`
`the Court deny Google’s Motion for Summary Judgment of No Willfulness.
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 188 Filed 12/05/23 Page 15 of 16
`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 188 Filed 12/05/23 Page 15 of 16
`
`DATED: November28, 2023
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Thomas M. Melsheimer
`Thomas M. Melsheimer
`
`Texas Bar No. 13922550
`tmelsheimer@winston.com
`M.Brett Johnson
`
`Texas Bar No. 00790975
`mbjohnson@winston.com
`Michael A. Bittner
`Texas Bar No. 24064905
`mbittner@winston.com
`C. Charles Liu
`
`Texas Bar No. 24100410
`ccliu@winston.com
`Steven R. Laxton
`
`Texas Bar No. 24120639
`slaxton@winston.com
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`2121 North Pearl Street, Suite 900
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Telephone: (214) 453-6500
`
`Matthew R. McCullough
`California Bar No. 301330
`mrmecullough@winston.com
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`275 Middlefield Road, Suite 205
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Telephone: (650) 858-6500
`
`William M. Logan
`Texas Bar No. 24106214
`wlogan@winston.com
`Evan D. Lewis
`
`Texas Bar No. 24116670
`edlewis@winston.com
`WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
`800 Capitol Street, Suite 2400
`Houston, TX 77002
`Telephone: (713) 651-2766
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 188 Filed 12/05/23 Page 16 of 16
`Case 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 188 Filed 12/05/23 Page 16 of 16
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on November 28, 2023, a true and correct copy of the foregoing
`document wasfiled electronically with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECFsystem.As of this
`date, all counsel of record have consented to electronic service and are being served with a copy
`of this document through the Court’s CM/ECF system and by email. Administrative Policies and
`Procedures for Electronic Filing in Civil and Criminal Cases, Western District of Texas, Section
`14.
`
`/s/ Michael A. Bittner
`Michael A. Bittner
`
`11
`
`