{"cached_at":"2026-09-29T09:55:17.670041+00:00","cl_docket_id":"73266941","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73266941/","id":73266941,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/txed/","court_id":"txed","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":null,"clusters":[],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/1211/","referred_to":null,"bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/73266941/vl-collective-ip-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-04-29T14:36:14.503823-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-24T12:22:35.041976-07:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"Rodney Gilstrap","referred_to_str":"","panel_str":"","date_last_index":null,"date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2026-04-29","date_terminated":null,"date_last_filing":"2026-09-24","case_name_short":"","case_name":"VL Collective IP LLC v. Microsoft Corporation","case_name_full":"","slug":"vl-collective-ip-llc-v-microsoft-corporation","docket_number":"2:26-cv-00346","docket_number_core":"2600346","docket_number_raw":"2:26-cv-00346","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"2","federal_dn_case_type":"cv","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"JRG","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"245400","cause":"35:271 Patent Infringement","nature_of_suit":"830 Patent","jury_demand":"Plaintiff","jurisdiction_type":"Federal Question","appellate_fee_status":"","appellate_case_type_information":"","mdl_status":"","filepath_ia":"","filepath_ia_json":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"ia_needs_upload":true,"ia_date_first_change":"2026-04-29T14:36:14.496923-07:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/479298900/","id":479298900,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73266941/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/494944128/","id":494944128,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73266941/47/vl-collective-ip-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-09-24T11:37:43.724351-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-24T11:37:44.145097-07:00","sha1":"ae906e3be1fbd1afbf32a74e18810881395328f4","page_count":3,"file_size":153823,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.47.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 47 Filed 09/24/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 673\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MARSHALL DIVISION\n\n\n VL COLLECTIVE IP LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-00346-JRG\n\n Plaintiff,\n\n v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\n\n MICROSOFT CORPORATION,\n\n Defendant.\n\n\n\n STIPULATION OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL\n WITH PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO RULE 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)\n\n Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), Plaintiff VL Collective IP LLC and Defendant\n\nMicrosoft Corporation stipulate to the dismissal of Plaintiff\u2019s claims for relief against Defendant\n\nwith prejudice and Defendant\u2019s claims, defenses, or counterclaims for relief against Plaintiff\n\nwithout prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs and attorneys\u2019 fees.\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 47 Filed 09/24/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 674\n\n\n\n Dated: September 24, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Ahren C. Hsu-Hoffman by permission /s/ David Alberti by permission Andrea L.\n Andrea L. Fair Fair\n Natalie A. Bennett (Admitted to Practice) David Alberti\n Illinois State Bar No. 6304611 CA Bar No. 220265 (Admitted E.D. Texas)\n natalie.bennett@morganlewis.com dalberti@albertilim.com\n Katerina Hora Jacobson (Admitted to Sal Lim\n Practice) CA Bar No. 211836 (Admitted E.D. Texas)\n California Bar No. 342384 slim@albertilim.com\n katerina.horajacobson@morganlewis.com Russell S. Tonkovich\n MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP CA Bar No. 233280 (Admitted E.D. Texas)\n 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW rtonkovich@albertilim.com\n Washington, D.C. 20004-2541 James Barabas (pro hac vice)\n T. 202.739.3000 NY Bar No. 3911484\n F. 202.739.3001 jbarabas@albertilim.com\n Hong S. Lin\n Ahren C. Hsu-Hoffman (Admitted to Practice) CA Bar No. 249898 (Admitted E.D. Texas)\n Texas Bar No. 24053269 hlin@albertilim.com\n ahren.hsu-hoffman@morganlewis.com Andrew Hamill\n Jason E. Gettleman (Admitted to Practice) CA Bar No. 251156 (Admitted E.D. Texas)\n jason.gettleman@morganlewis.com ahamill@albertilim.com\n MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Jeremiah A. Armstrong (pro hac vice)\n 1400 Page Mill Road CA Bar No. 253705\n Palo Alto, CA 94304 jarmstrong@albertilim.com\n T. 650.843.4000 Nicholas Martini (pro hac vice)\n F. 650.843.4001 CA Bar No. 237687\n nmartini@albertilim.com\n Melissa Smith (SBN 24001351) Ryan Dooley (pro hac vice)\n melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com CA Bar No. 321645\n GILLAM & SMITH, LLP rdooley@albertilim.com\n 303 South Washington Avenue ALBERTI LIM & TONKOVICH LLP\n Marshall, Texas 75670 950 Tower Lane, Suite 1725\n Phone: 903 934-9257 Foster City, CA 94404\n Telephone: (650) 825-4300\n Attorneys for Defendant Facsimile: (650) 460-8443\n Microsoft Corporation\n Andrea L. Fair\n Texas Bar No. 24078488\n andrea@millerfairhenry.com\n Garrett C. Parish\n Texas Bar No. 24125824\n garrett@millerfairhenry.com\n MILLER FAIR HENRY PLLC\n 1507 Bill Owens Pkwy\n Longview, Texas 75604\n Telephone: (903) 757-6400\n\n\n\n 2\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 47 Filed 09/24/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 675\n\n\n\n Facsimile: (903) 757-2323\n\n Attorneys for Plaintiff\n VL Collective IP LLC\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I certify that the foregoing document is being served via the Court\u2019s CM/ECF system on\n\nSeptember 24, 2026, on all counsel of record who have consented to electronic service.\n\n /s/ David Alberti\n David Alberti\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE\n\n The undersigned hereby certifies that counsel for Plaintiff met and conferred with all\n\ncounsel of record pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(i), and this is a joint submission.\n\n /s/ David Alberti\n David Alberti\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-24T11:37:43.963511-07:00","document_number":"47","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175015718387","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Stipulation of Dismissal","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/494944129/","id":494944129,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73266941/47/1/vl-collective-ip-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-09-24T11:37:45.094973-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-24T11:37:48.337927-07:00","sha1":"b11bcf43af74c87e5607f2c40311c183d94ea652","page_count":1,"file_size":148885,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.47.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 47-1 Filed 09/24/26 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 676\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MARSHALL DIVISION\n\n VL COLLECTIVE IP LLC, \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Plaintiff, \u00a7 Case No. 2:26-cv-00346-JRG\n \u00a7\n v. \u00a7\n \u00a7 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\n MICROSOFT CORPORATION, \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Defendant. \u00a7\n\n ORDER\n Before the Court is Plaintiff VL Collective IP LLC and Defendant Microsoft Corporation\u2019s\n\n Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) (the\n\n \u201cStipulation\u201d). The Court, having considered the Stipulation, hereby ACCEPTS AND\n\n ACKNOWLEDGES the Stipulation. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all of Plaintiff\u2019s claims,\n\n are DISMISSED with prejudice, all of Defendant\u2019s claims, counterclaims, and defenses asserted\n\n in this case are DISMISSED without prejudice, and each party shall bear its own costs and\n\n attorneys\u2019 fees.\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-24T11:37:48.193506-07:00","document_number":"47","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"175015718388","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":2,"description":"Proposed Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-24T11:37:43.694147-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-24T12:22:35.159384-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-24","time_filed":"13:32:09","entry_number":47,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-24.001","pacer_sequence_number":122,"description":"JOINT STIPULATION of Dismissal VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO RULE 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) by VL Collective IP LLC. (Attachments: (1) Proposed Order)(Fair, Andrea)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/477009189/","id":477009189,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73266941/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/492588239/","id":492588239,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73266941/46/vl-collective-ip-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-09-04T12:02:43.386066-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-09T16:03:17.020722-07:00","sha1":"d1f6979d27e2c2c94b593458d91e40a8ac89e3e9","page_count":3,"file_size":166196,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.46.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.46.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":1,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 46 Filed 09/04/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 669\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MARSHALL DIVISION\n\n VL COLLECTIVE IP LLC, \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Plaintiff, \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Civil Action No. 2:26-cv-00346-JRG\n v. \u00a7\n \u00a7\n JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\n MICROSOFT CORPORATION, \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Defendant. \u00a7\n \u00a7\n \u00a7\n \u00a7\n\n MICROSOFT\u2019S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION TO SERVE ITS\n INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS, ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENT PRODUCTION, AND\n SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY CONTENTIONS\n\n Microsoft files this Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to comply with P.R. 3-3\n\n(Invalidity Contentions) and P.R. 3-4 (Document Production Accompanying Invalidity\n\nContentions) and to comply with the Court\u2019s Standing Order regarding Subject Matter Eligibility\n\nContentions as follows:\n\n Deadline Current Date New Date\n\n Comply with P.R. 3-3 (Invalidity Contentions) & 3- 09/14/2026 09/24/2026\n 4 (Document Production Accompanying Invalidity\n Contentions)\n Comply with Standing Order Regarding Subject- 09/14/2026 09/24/2026\n Matter Eligibility Contentions\n\n Microsoft\u2019s Invalidity Contentions pursuant to P.R. 3-3, accompanying document\n\nproduction pursuant to P.R. 3-4, and Subject Matter Eligibility Contentions are currently due by\n\nSeptember 14, 2026, as set by the Court\u2019s July 23, 2026 Order granting a prior extension of this\n\ndeadline (Dkt. 29). Microsoft respectfully requests that the Court extend this deadline by ten days,\n\nincluding September 24, 2026. Plaintiff VL Collective IP LLC does not oppose this extension.\n\n\n -1-\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 46 Filed 09/04/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 670\n\n\n\n\nThis requested extension of time is not for the purpose of delay and will not prejudice the parties.\n\n Date: September 4, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Melissa R. Smith\n Natalie A. Bennett*\n Illinois State Bar No. 6304611\n natalie.bennett@morganlewis.com\n MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP\n 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW\n Washington, D.C. 20004-2541\n T. 202.739.3000\n F. 202.739.3001\n\n Ahren C. Hsu-Hoffman\n Texas Bar No. 24053269\n ahren.hsu-hoffman@morganlewis.com\n Jason E. Gettleman*\n California Bar No. 269733\n jason.gettleman@morganlewis.com\n Katerina Hora Jacobson*\n California Bar No. 342384\n katerina.horajacobson@morganlewis.com\n MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP\n 1400 Page Mill Road\n Palo Alto, CA 94304\n T. 650.843.4000\n F. 650.843.4001\n\n Melissa R. Smith\n State Bar No. 24001351\n James Travis Underwood\n State Bar No. 24102587\n GILLAM & SMITH, LLP\n 303 South Washington Avenue\n Marshall, Texas 75670\n Telephone: (903) 934-8450\n Facsimile: (903) 934-9257\n Email: melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com\n travis@gillamsmithlaw.com\n\n *Admitted to Practice\n Attorneys for Defendant Microsoft\n Corporation\n\n\n\n\n -2-\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 46 Filed 09/04/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 671\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n The undersigned counsel hereby certifies that on , a true and correct copy of the\n\nforegoing document was served on all counsel of record who have appeared in this case via the\n\nCourt\u2019s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5.\n\n /s/ Melissa R. Smith\n Melissa R. Smith\n\n CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE\n\n I hereby certify that counsel for the parties have complied with the meet and confer\n\nrequirement in Local Rule CV-7(h). This motion unopposed.\n\n\n /s/ Melissa R. Smith\n Melissa R. Smith\n\n\n\n\n -3-\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-04T12:02:43.625628-07:00","document_number":"46","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175015671773","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Miscellaneous Relief","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/492588240/","id":492588240,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73266941/46/1/vl-collective-ip-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-09-04T12:02:44.577561-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-09T12:08:14.443215-07:00","sha1":"494908338cf4e1bf40bdea219cd55069a0c73a18","page_count":1,"file_size":99435,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.46.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.46.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":1,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 46-1 Filed 09/04/26 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 672\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MARSHALL DIVISION\n\n VL COLLECTIVE IP LLC, \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Plaintiff, \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Civil Action No. 2:26-cv-00346-JRG\n v. \u00a7\n \u00a7\n JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\n MICROSOFT CORPORATION, \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Defendant. \u00a7\n \u00a7\n \u00a7\n \u00a7\n\n ORDER GRANTING MICROSOFT\u2019S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION TO\n SERVE ITS INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS, ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENT\n PRODUCTION, AND SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY CONTENTIONS.\n\n The Court, having considered Defendant Microsoft Corporation\u2019s Unopposed Motion for\n\n Extension to comply with P.R. 3-3 (Invalidity Contentions) and P.R. 3-4 (Document Production\n\n Accompanying Invalidity Contentions) and to comply with the Court\u2019s Standing Order regarding\n\n Subject Matter Eligibility Contentions, and finding that good cause exists for the requested\n\n extension, hereby GRANTS the Unopposed Motion.\n\n IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the deadline for Microsoft to comply with P.R. 3-3\n\n (Invalidity Contentions) and P.R. 3-4 (Document Production Accompanying Invalidity\n\n Contentions) and to comply with the Court\u2019s Standing Order regarding Subject Matter Eligibility\n\n Contentions is extended by ten days, to and including September 24, 2026.\n\n\n\n\n -1-\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-04T12:02:47.187034-07:00","document_number":"46","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"175015671774","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":2,"description":"Proposed Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-04T12:02:43.358823-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-04T12:35:35.192853-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-04","time_filed":"14:02:00","entry_number":46,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-04.001","pacer_sequence_number":120,"description":"UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION TO SERVE ITS INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS, ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENT PRODUCTION, AND SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY CONTENTIONS by Microsoft Corporation. (Attachments: (1) Proposed Order)(Smith, Melissa)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/476732308/","id":476732308,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73266941/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/492303828/","id":492303828,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73266941/45/vl-collective-ip-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-09-02T14:32:28.824349-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-09T04:04:13.658396-07:00","sha1":"180d2760201d934d868a0d29b31b49d22a4cb9a0","page_count":3,"file_size":151087,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.45.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.45.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 45 Filed 09/02/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 643\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MARSHALL DIVISION\n\n\n VL COLLECTIVE IP LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-00346-JRG\n\n Plaintiff,\n\n v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\n\n MICROSOFT CORPORATION,\n\n Defendant.\n\n\n\n JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER\n\n Pursuant to the Court\u2019s Docket Control Order (Dkt. 30) Plaintiff VL Collective IP LLC\n\n(\u201cPlaintiff\u201d) and Microsoft Corporation (\u201cDefendant\u201d) jointly and respectfully request that the\n\nCourt enter the Agreed Proposed Protective Order, attached hereto.\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 45 Filed 09/02/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 644\n\n\n\n Dated: September 2, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Melissa Smith /s/ David Alberti\n Natalie A. Bennett (Admitted to Practice) David Alberti\n Illinois State Bar No. 6304611 CA Bar No. 220265 (Admitted E.D. Texas)\n natalie.bennett@morganlewis.com dalberti@albertilim.com\n Katerina Hora Jacobson (Admitted to Sal Lim\n Practice) CA Bar No. 211836 (Admitted E.D. Texas)\n California Bar No. 342384 slim@albertilim.com\n katerina.horajacobson@morganlewis.com Russell S. Tonkovich\n MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP CA Bar No. 233280 (Admitted E.D. Texas)\n 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW rtonkovich@albertilim.com\n Washington, D.C. 20004-2541 James Barabas (pro hac vice)\n T. 202.739.3000 NY Bar No. 3911484\n F. 202.739.3001 jbarabas@albertilim.com\n Hong S. Lin\n Ahren C. Hsu-Hoffman (Admitted to Practice) CA Bar No. 249898 (Admitted E.D. Texas)\n Texas Bar No. 24053269 hlin@albertilim.com\n ahren.hsu-hoffman@morganlewis.com Andrew Hamill\n Jason E. Gettleman (Admitted to Practice) CA Bar No. 251156 (Admitted E.D. Texas)\n jason.gettleman@morganlewis.com ahamill@albertilim.com\n MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Jeremiah A. Armstrong (pro hac vice)\n 1400 Page Mill Road CA Bar No. 253705\n Palo Alto, CA 94304 jarmstrong@albertilim.com\n T. 650.843.4000 Nicholas Martini (pro hac vice)\n F. 650.843.4001 CA Bar No. 237687\n nmartini@albertilim.com\n Melissa Smith (SBN 24001351) Ryan Dooley (pro hac vice)\n melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com CA Bar No. 321645\n GILLAM & SMITH, LLP rdooley@albertilim.com\n 303 South Washington Avenue ALBERTI LIM & TONKOVICH LLP\n Marshall, Texas 75670 950 Tower Lane, Suite 1725\n Phone: 903 934-9257 Foster City, CA 94404\n Telephone: (650) 825-4300\n Attorneys for Defendant Facsimile: (650) 460-8443\n Microsoft Corporation\n Andrea L. Fair\n Texas Bar No. 24078488\n andrea@millerfairhenry.com\n Garrett C. Parish\n Texas Bar No. 24125824\n garrett@millerfairhenry.com\n MILLER FAIR HENRY PLLC\n 1507 Bill Owens Pkwy\n Longview, Texas 75604\n Telephone: (903) 757-6400\n Facsimile: (903) 757-2323\n\n\n\n 2\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 45 Filed 09/02/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 645\n\n\n\n\n Attorneys for Plaintiff\n VL Collective IP LLC\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I certify that the foregoing document is being served via the Court\u2019s CM/ECF system on\n\nSeptember 2, 2026, on all counsel of record who have consented to electronic service.\n\n /s/ David Alberti\n David Alberti\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE\n\n The undersigned hereby certifies that counsel for Plaintiff met and conferred with all\n\ncounsel of record pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(i), and this is a joint submission.\n\n /s/ David Alberti\n David Alberti\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-02T14:32:29.117436-07:00","document_number":"45","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175015666454","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Miscellaneous Relief","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/492303834/","id":492303834,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73266941/45/1/vl-collective-ip-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-09-02T14:32:30.108276-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-09T03:14:02.129037-07:00","sha1":"2b99a044be3d73d3f19987312b90969846977944","page_count":23,"file_size":346523,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.45.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.45.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 45-1 Filed 09/02/26 Page 1 of 23 PageID #:\n 646\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MARSHALL DIVISION\n\n VL COLLECTIVE IP LLC, \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Plaintiff, \u00a7 Case No. 2:26-cv-00346-JRG\n \u00a7\n v. \u00a7\n \u00a7 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\n MICROSOFT CORPORATION, \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Defendant. \u00a7\n\n PROTECTIVE ORDER\n WHEREAS, Plaintiff VL Collective IP LLC and Defendant Microsoft Corporation,\n\nhereafter referred to as \u201cthe Parties,\u201d believe that certain information that is or will be encompassed\n\nby discovery demands by the Parties involves the production or disclosure of trade secrets,\n\nconfidential business information, or other proprietary information;\n\n WHEREAS, the Parties seek a protective order limiting disclosure thereof in accordance with\n\nFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c):\n\n THEREFORE, it is hereby stipulated among the Parties and ORDERED that:\n\n1. Each Party may designate as confidential for protection under this Order, in whole or in part,\n\n any document, information or material that constitutes or includes, in whole or in part,\n\n confidential or proprietary information or trade secrets of the Party or a Third Party to whom\n\n the Party reasonably believes it owes an obligation of confidentiality with respect to such\n\n document, information or material (\u201cProtected Material\u201d). Protected Material shall be\n\n designated by the Party producing it by affixing a legend or stamp on such document,\n\n information or material as follows: \u201cCONFIDENTIAL.\u201d The word \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d\n\n shall be placed clearly on each page of the Protected Material (except deposition and hearing\n\n\n 1\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 45-1 Filed 09/02/26 Page 2 of 23 PageID #:\n 647\n\n\n\n transcripts) for which such protection is sought. For deposition and hearing transcripts, the\n\n word \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d shall be placed on the cover page of the transcript (if not already\n\n present on the cover page of the transcript when received from the court reporter) by each\n\n attorney receiving a copy of the transcript after that attorney receives notice of the\n\n designation of some or all of that transcript as \u201cCONFIDENTIAL.\u201d\n\n2. Any document produced under Patent Rules 2-2, 3-2, and/or 3-4 before issuance of this\n\n Order with the designation \u201cConfidential\u201d or \u201cConfidential \u2013 Outside Attorneys\u2019 Eyes Only\u201d\n\n shall receive the same treatment as if designated \u201cRESTRICTED \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES\n\n ONLY\u201d under this Order, unless and until such document is redesignated to have a different\n\n classification under this Order.\n\n3. With respect to documents, information or material designated \u201cCONFIDENTIAL,\n\n \u201cRESTRICTED \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY,\u201d or \u201cRESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL\n\n \u2013 SOURCE CODE\u201d (\u201cDESIGNATED MATERIAL\u201d),1 subject to the provisions herein and\n\n unless otherwise stated, this Order governs, without limitation: (a) all documents,\n\n electronically stored information, and/or things as defined by the Federal Rules of Civil\n\n Procedure; (b) all pretrial, hearing or deposition testimony, or documents marked as\n\n exhibits or for identification in depositions and hearings; (c) pretrial pleadings, exhibits to\n\n pleadings and other court filings; (d) affidavits; and (e) stipulations. All copies,\n\n reproductions, extracts, digests and complete or partial summaries prepared from any\n\n\n\n\n1 The term DESIGNATED MATERIAL is used throughout this Protective Order to refer to the\n\nclass of materials designated as \u201cCONFIDENTIAL,\u201d \u201cRESTRICTED \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES\nONLY,\u201d or \u201cRESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 SOURCE CODE,\u201d both individually and\ncollectively.\n 2\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 45-1 Filed 09/02/26 Page 3 of 23 PageID #:\n 648\n\n\n\n DESIGNATED MATERIALS shall also be considered DESIGNATED MATERIAL and\n\n treated as such under this Order.\n\n4. A designation of Protected Material (i.e., \u201cCONFIDENTIAL,\u201d \u201cRESTRICTED \u2013\n\n ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY,\u201d or \u201cRESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 SOURCE\n\n CODE\u201d) may be made at any time. Inadvertent or unintentional production of documents,\n\n information or material that has not been designated as DESIGNATED MATERIAL shall\n\n not be deemed a waiver in whole or in part of a claim for confidential treatment. Any party\n\n that inadvertently or unintentionally produces Protected Material without designating it as\n\n DESIGNATED MATERIAL may request destruction of that Protected Material by\n\n notifying the recipient(s), as soon as reasonably possible after the producing Party becomes\n\n aware of the inadvertent or unintentional disclosure, and providing replacement Protected\n\n Material that is properly designated. The recipient(s) shall then destroy all copies of the\n\n inadvertently or unintentionally produced Protected Materials and any documents,\n\n information or material derived from or based thereon immediately upon being notified by\n\n the producing Party of the inadvertent or unintentional disclosure irrespective of any other\n\n potential remedies provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B). In the event\n\n of a disclosure of any Protected Material, by inadvertence or otherwise, to any person or\n\n persons not authorized to receive such disclosure under this Order, or in any circumstance\n\n not authorized under this Order, the Party responsible for having made such disclosure, and\n\n each Party with knowledge thereof, shall immediately notify counsel for the designating\n\n Party whose Protected Material has been disclosed and shall use its best efforts and\n\n cooperate in good faith to retrieve all unauthorized copies of the improperly disclosed\n\n Protected Material and to ensure that no further or greater unauthorized disclosure and/or\n\n\n\n 3\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 45-1 Filed 09/02/26 Page 4 of 23 PageID #:\n 649\n\n\n\n use thereof is made, including informing the person or persons to whom unauthorized\n\n disclosure was made of all the terms of this Order and requesting that such person or\n\n persons execute the acknowledgment attached as Appendix A.\n\n5. \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d documents, information and material may be disclosed only to the\n\n following persons, except upon receipt of the prior written consent of the designating Party,\n\n upon order of the Court, or as set forth in paragraph 15 herein:\n\n (a) outside counsel of record in this Action for the Parties;\n\n (b) employees of such counsel assigned to and reasonably necessary to assist such\n counsel in the litigation of this Action;\n\n (c) in-house counsel for the Parties who either have responsibility for making decisions\n dealing directly with the litigation of this Action, or who are assisting outside\n counsel in the litigation of this Action and who have completed the Undertaking\n attached at Appendix A hereto (the \u201cUndertaking\u201d) and the same is served upon\n the Parties;\n\n (d) up to and including three (3) designated representatives of each of the Parties to the\n extent reasonably necessary for the litigation of this Action, except that either party\n may in good faith request the other party\u2019s consent to designate one or more\n additional representatives, the other party shall not unreasonably withhold such\n consent, and the requesting party may seek leave of Court to designate such\n additional representative(s) if the requesting party believes the other party has\n unreasonably withheld such consent. Each designated representative shall be\n disclosed five (5) business days prior to receiving access to any Material and\n complete the attached Undertaking.\n\n (e) consultants or experts (i.e., not existing employees or affiliates of a Party or an\n affiliate of a Party) retained for the purpose of this litigation, provided that: (1) such\n consultants or experts are not presently employed by the Parties hereto for purposes\n other than this Action; (2) before access is given, the consultant or expert has\n completed the Undertaking attached as Exhibit A hereto and the same is served\n upon the producing Party (together with (i) a current curriculum vitae of the\n consultant or expert, (ii) identification of his/her (a) current employer(s) and (b)\n each person or entity from whom s/he has received compensation from for work\n (as an employee, consultant, contractor, or the like) pertaining to the field of the\n patent(s)-in-suit or the products accused of infringement within the preceding five\n (5) years, and (iii) a listing of all proceedings2 in which the expert has offered either\n2 For the avoidance of doubt, this includes any proceeding at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office\n\n\n\n 4\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 45-1 Filed 09/02/26 Page 5 of 23 PageID #:\n 650\n\n\n\n written or oral opinions or testimony (at trial or deposition) in the last five (5) years,\n at least ten (10) days before access to the Protected Material is to be given to that\n consultant or expert so that the producing Party may object to and notify the\n receiving Party in writing that it objects to disclosure of Protected Material to the\n consultant or expert3. A producing Party\u2019s objection to the disclosure of Designated\n Material to an outside consultant or expert must state with particularity the\n ground(s) of the objections. The Parties agree to promptly confer and use good faith\n to resolve any such objection. If the Parties are unable to resolve any objection, the\n objecting Party may file a motion with the Court within ten (10) days of the notice,\n or within such other time as the Parties may agree, seeking a protective order with\n respect to the proposed disclosure. The objecting Party shall have the burden of\n proving the need for a protective order. No disclosure shall occur until all such\n objections are resolved by agreement or Court order;\n\n (f) any mediator who is assigned to or retained for this matter, and his or her staff,\n subject to their agreement to maintain confidentiality consistent with this Order;\n\n (g) independent litigation support services, including persons working for or as court\n reporters, graphics or design services, jury or trial consulting services, and\n photocopy, document imaging, and database services retained by counsel and\n reasonably necessary to assist counsel with the litigation of this Action;\n\n (h) DESIGNATED MATERIAL may also be disclosed to mock jurors, provided that\n each mock juror first executes the Undertaking attached hereto and is not a current\n employee of, or affiliated with, any Party or a competitor of any Party; and\n\n (i) the Court and its personnel.\n\n6. A Party shall designate documents, information or material as \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d only\n\n upon a good faith belief that the documents, information or material contains confidential\n\n or proprietary information or trade secrets of the Party or a Third Party to whom the Party\n\n reasonably believes it owes an obligation of confidentiality with respect to such documents,\n\n information or material.\n\n\n\nor at the U.S. International Trade Commission.\n3 If such consultant or expert reasonably believes any of this information is subject to a\nconfidentiality obligation to a third-party, then the s/he should provide whatever information can\nbe disclosed without violating any confidentiality agreements and note in the disclosure that s/he\nreasonably believes other information is subject to a confidentiality obligation to a third-party. The\nproducing and receiving Parties may meet and confer regarding the withheld information.\n 5\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 45-1 Filed 09/02/26 Page 6 of 23 PageID #:\n 651\n\n\n\n7. Documents, information or material produced pursuant to any discovery request in this\n\n Action, including but not limited to Protected Material designated as DESIGNATED\n\n MATERIAL, shall be used by the Parties only in the litigation of this Action and shall not\n\n be used for any other purpose. Any person or entity who obtains access to DESIGNATED\n\n MATERIAL or the contents thereof pursuant to this Order shall not make any copies,\n\n duplicates, extracts, summaries or descriptions of such DESIGNATED MATERIAL or any\n\n portion thereof except as may be reasonably necessary in the litigation of this Action. Any\n\n such copies, duplicates, extracts, summaries or descriptions shall be classified\n\n DESIGNATED MATERIALS and subject to all of the terms and conditions of this Order.\n\n8. To the extent a producing Party believes that certain Protected Material qualifying to be\n\n designated CONFIDENTIAL is so sensitive that its dissemination deserves even further\n\n limitation, the producing Party may designate such Protected Material \u201cRESTRICTED \u2013\n\n ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY,\u201d or to the extent such Protected Material includes computer\n\n source code and/or live data (that is, data as it exists residing in a database or databases)\n\n (\u201cSource Code Material\u201d), the producing Party may designate such Protected Material as\n\n \u201cRESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 SOURCE CODE.\u201d\n\n9. For Protected Material designated RESTRICTED \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY, access\n\n to, and disclosure of, such Protected Material shall be limited to individuals listed in\n\n paragraphs 5(a-b) and (e-i). The individuals listed in paragraph 5(h) may only review\n\n presentations or summaries derived from information or documents designated\n\n \u201cRESTRICTED \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY,\u201d provided that they are not themselves\n\n given custody of any material designated \u201cRESTRICTED \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES\n\n ONLY\u201d or of any such derivative material. When disclosing such information to\n\n\n\n 6\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 45-1 Filed 09/02/26 Page 7 of 23 PageID #:\n 652\n\n\n\n individuals listed in paragraph 5(h), financial amounts must be altered in derivative\n\n materials but may be within the same magnitude as those in the underlying \u201cHIGHLY\n\n CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\u201d information or documents.\n\n10. The RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 SOURCE CODE designation is to be used only\n\n for source code printed out from the source code computer. For Protected Material\n\n designated RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 SOURCE CODE, the following additional\n\n restrictions apply:\n\n (a) Access to a Party\u2019s Source Code Material shall be provided only on \u201cstand-alone\u201d\n computer(s) (that is, the computer may not be linked to any network, including a\n local area network (\u201cLAN\u201d), an intranet or the Internet). The stand-alone\n computer(s) may be connected to a printer. Additionally, except as provided in\n paragraph 10(k) below, the stand-alone computer(s) may only be located at the\n offices of the producing Party\u2019s outside counsel. Each stand-alone computer may\n be connected to a monitor (of size no less than 27 inches), keyboard, and mouse,\n and must conform to reasonable, modern specifications. Upon the receiving Party\u2019s\n reasonable request, the producing Party shall make available more than one stand-\n alone computer, including more than one at the same review location, so that more\n than one authorized reviewer may review the Source Code Material\n simultaneously; the producing Party shall not be required to provide more than two\n (2) such computers absent a further showing of good cause.\n\n (b) The receiving Party shall make reasonable efforts to restrict its requests for such\n access to the stand-alone computer(s) to normal business hours, which for purposes\n of this paragraph shall be 8:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. However, upon reasonable\n notice from the receiving party, the producing Party shall make reasonable efforts to\n accommodate the receiving Party\u2019s request for access to the stand-alone computer(s)\n outside of normal business hours. The Parties agree to cooperate in good faith such\n that maintaining the producing Party\u2019s Source Code Material at the offices of its\n outside counsel shall not unreasonably hinder the receiving Party\u2019s ability to\n efficiently and effectively conduct the prosecution or defense of this Action. The\n receiving Party shall provide the producing Party with reasonable written notice of\n a source code inspection no less than five (5) business days in advance of the first\n requested inspection and three (3) business days in advance of each subsequent\n requested inspection (however, a request to shorten this notice period shall not be\n withheld unreasonably), and shall identify the individuals who will be reviewing\n the source code, as well as a good faith estimate of the anticipated length of review.\n The receiving Party\u2019s qualified persons shall sign, on each day, they view Source\n Code Material, a log with names and entry/exit times. Proper identification of all\n authorized persons shall be provided prior to any access to the secure room or the\n\n 7\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 45-1 Filed 09/02/26 Page 8 of 23 PageID #:\n 653\n\n\n\n source code computers, and access to the secure room or the source code computers\n may be denied to any individual who fails to provide proper identification.\n\n (c) The receiving Party\u2019s outside counsel, consultants, and/or experts shall be entitled\n to take notes relating to the Source Code Material but may not copy or transcribe\n verbatim any complete lines of the Source Code Material into the notes and all\n such notes must be stamped and treated as \u201cRESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL \u2013\n SOURCE CODE\u201d material. No copies of all or any portion of the source code may\n leave the room in which the source code is inspected except as otherwise provided\n herein. No electronic devices or recording devices, including, but not limited to,\n audio, image, or video recorders; or wireless devices with data transmission\n capabilities or recording capabilities (e.g., cameras), will be permitted in the room\n with the Source Code computer, unless agreed otherwise by the parties in writing.\n Each person authorized to access Source Code Material may use a single laptop\n computer for the sole purpose of typing notes related to Source Code Material\n review. The laptop used for taking notes during inspection shall be provided by the\n producing Party. The laptop shall have all picture taking, video recording, and\n external storage or copying capability and ports disabled and be configured such\n that all notes are stored only on an encrypted USB drive, and no copies (including\n via auto-save backups or any type of surveillance tool) of any of such notes are\n stored anywhere else or otherwise accessible by the producing Party. The laptop\n shall not be linked to any network, including a local area network (\u201cLAN\u201d), an\n intranet or the Internet. The receiving Party may remove the USB drive from the\n inspection room and shall be provided the password to access its contents outside\n of the inspection, provided that such access is done in a manner that ensures the\n security of its contents consistent with all other provisions of this order, including\n those governing material designated RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL \u2013\n SOURCE CODE. All documents into which any of the content of the notes is\n incorporated shall be designated RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 SOURCE\n CODE. No copies of all or any portion of the Source Code Material may leave the\n room in which the Source Code Material is inspected except as otherwise provided\n herein. Further, no other written or electronic record of the Source Code Material\n is permitted except as otherwise provided herein. Unless otherwise agreed in\n advance by the Parties in writing, following each day on which inspection is done\n under this Order, the Receiving Party\u2019s outside counsel, consultants, and/or experts\n shall remove all notes, documents, and all other materials from the Source Code\n Review Room. The producing Party shall not be responsible for any items left in\n the Source Code Review Room following each inspection session, and the\n receiving Party shall have no expectation of confidentiality for any items left in the\n Source Code Review Room following each inspection session without a prior\n agreement to that effect. The Producing Party shall make available a break out\n room in which the Source Code reviewer(s) may access their notes and make phone\n calls to outside counsel or Experts approved to access Source Code. All receiving\n Party\u2019s representatives entering the secured room containing the Source Code\n Computers must agree to submit to reasonable security measures to ensure they are\n not carrying any prohibited items (e.g., items that could be used to copy, remove,\n\n 8\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 45-1 Filed 09/02/26 Page 9 of 23 PageID #:\n 654\n\n\n\n or otherwise transfer any portion of the source code onto any recordable media or\n recordable device, other than as provided herein), before they will be given access\n to the secured computer;\n\n (d) The producing Party shall provide the receiving Party with information explaining\n how to start, log on to, and operate the stand-alone computer(s) in order to access the\n produced Source Code Material on the stand-alone computer(s);\n\n (e) The producing Party will produce Source Code Material in computer searchable\n format on the stand-alone computer(s) as described above. The producing Party\n shall install on each stand-alone computer the reasonable software tools requested\n by the receiving Party to view and search the produced Source Code Material. In\n the event the receiving Party requests commercially available software tools for\n viewing and searching Source Code Material to be installed on the stand-alone\n computer(s), the receiving Party shall identify those tools and provide the\n producing Party with licensed copies of the software tool(s) at the receiving Party\u2019s\n expense. The receiving Party must provide the producing Party with the requested\n licensed software at least five (5) business days in advance of the date upon which\n the receiving Party wishes to have the additional software tools available for use.\n The producing Party and receiving Party shall promptly meet and confer in good\n faith to resolve any disputes regarding the configuration of the stand-alone\n computer(s). If the producing Party makes Source Code Material available through\n a remote or virtualized environment rather than locally on the stand-alone\n computer, that environment shall conform to reasonable, modern specifications\n and shall not unreasonably hinder efficient review; if the receiving Party's outside\n consultants or experts determine in good faith that the environment does not permit\n reasonably responsive and efficient review, the producing Party shall, upon the\n receiving Party\u2019s request, make the Source Code Material available locally on the\n stand-alone computer(s).\n\n (f) Access to Protected Material designated RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL \u2013\n SOURCE CODE shall be limited to outside counsel and up to four (4) outside\n consultants or experts 4 (i.e., not existing employees or affiliates of a Party or an\n affiliate of a Party) retained for the purpose of this litigation and approved to access\n such Protected Materials pursuant to paragraph 5(e) above. Either party may in\n good faith request the other party\u2019s consent to designate one or more additional\n outside consultants or experts, the other party shall not unreasonably withhold such\n consent, and the requesting party may seek leave of Court to designate such\n additional consultant(s) or expert(s) if the requesting party believes the other party\n has unreasonably withheld such consent. A receiving Party may include excerpts\n of Source Code Material in a pleading, exhibit, expert report, discovery document,\n\n4 For the purposes of this paragraph, an outside consultant or expert is defined to include the outside\n\nconsultant\u2019s or expert\u2019s direct reports and other support personnel, such that the disclosure to a\nconsultant or expert who employs others within his or her firm to help in his or her analysis shall\ncount as a disclosure to a single consultant or expert.\n 9\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 45-1 Filed 09/02/26 Page 10 of 23 PageID #:\n 655\n\n\n\n deposition transcript, or other Court document, provided that the Source Code\n Documents are appropriately marked under this Order, restricted to those who are\n entitled to have access to them as specified herein, and, if filed with the Court, filed\n under seal in accordance with the Court\u2019s rules, procedures and orders. The\n producing Party may visually monitor the activities of the receiving Party\u2019s\n reviewers only to confirm compliance with this Order, but shall not review or\n monitor the reviewers\u2019 screens, notes, or work product.\n\n (g) To the extent portions of Source Code Material are quoted in a Source Code\n Document, either (1) the entire Source Code Document will be stamped and treated\n as RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 SOURCE CODE or (2) those pages\n containing quoted Source Code Material will be separately stamped and treated as\n RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 SOURCE CODE;\n\n (h) Except as set forth in paragraph 10(k) below, no electronic copies of Source Code\n Material shall be made without prior written consent of the producing Party, except\n as necessary to create documents which, pursuant to the Court\u2019s rules, procedures\n and order, must be filed or served electronically;\n\n (i) The receiving Party shall be permitted to request printouts of limited portions of Source\n Code Material, up to a reasonable number of pages and no more than 40\n consecutive pages, all of which shall be designated and clearly labeled\n \u201cRESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 SOURCE CODE,\u201d provided that such\n printouts are: (1) necessary for use as exhibits at trial; (2) necessary to prepare\n court filings, pleadings, or other papers (including a testifying expert\u2019s expert\n report); (3) necessary for deposition, or (4) necessary to prepare and develop\n claims, contentions, and defenses in this case. The producing party shall within\n three (3) days of the request provide the printouts and up to three (3) additional\n photocopies (for a total of four (4) total printed copies) of such printed Source\n Code Material. Nothing in this paragraph shall be interpreted as expanding the\n categories of authorized recipients set forth in paragraph 10(f) above. If the\n receiving Party reasonably believes it is necessary to print more, the parties shall\n meet and confer in good faith to resolve the issue. The receiving Party shall\n maintain a log of all such files that are printed (identifying date, file/path, and\n number of pages), and shall make the log available upon reasonable request for\n audit purposes. Any printouts or photocopies of Source Code Material must be\n made on colored (i.e., non-white) paper. Upon at least one week\u2019s advance notice,\n the producing Party shall make a stand-alone computer containing the Source Code\n Material, with the same software tools installed, available at any deposition\n concerning the Source Code Material.\n\n (j) Should such printouts or photocopies be transferred back to electronic media, such\n media shall be labeled \u201cRESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 SOURCE CODE\u201d and\n shall continue to be treated as such;\n\n\n\n 10\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 45-1 Filed 09/02/26 Page 11 of 23 PageID #:\n 656\n\n\n\n (k) If the receiving Party\u2019s outside counsel, consultants, or experts obtain printouts or\n photocopies of Source Code Material, the receiving Party shall ensure that such\n outside counsel, consultants, or experts keep the printouts or photocopies in a\n secured locked area in the offices of such outside counsel, consultants, or expert.\n The receiving Party may also temporarily keep the printouts or photocopies at: (i) the\n Court for any proceedings(s) relating to the Source Code Material, for the dates\n associated with the proceeding(s); (ii) the sites where any deposition(s) relating to\n the Source Code Material are taken, for the dates associated with the deposition(s);\n and (iii) any intermediate location reasonably necessary to transport the printouts or\n photocopies (e.g., a hotel prior to a Court proceeding or deposition); and\n\n (l) A producing Party\u2019s Source Code Material may only be transported by the receiving\n Party at the direction of a person authorized under paragraph 10(f) above to another\n person authorized under paragraph 10(f) above, on paper or removable electronic\n media (e.g., a DVD, CD-ROM, or flash memory \u201cstick\u201d) via hand carry, Federal\n Express or other similarly reliable courier. Source Code Material may not be\n transported or transmitted electronically over a network of any kind, including a\n LAN, an intranet, or the Internet. Source Code Material may only be transported\n electronically for the purpose of Court proceeding(s) or deposition(s) as set forth in\n paragraph 10(k) above and is at all times subject to the transport restrictions set forth\n herein. But, for those purposes only, the Source Code Materials may be loaded onto\n a stand-alone computer.\n\n (m) No other copying or transcribing of Source Code Material is allowed beyond that\n described in this Protective Order. No person shall copy, e-mail, transmit, upload,\n download, print, photograph or otherwise duplicate any portion of the Source Code\n Material, unless explicitly permitted by this Protective Order; and\n\n (n) Source Code Material of a producing party may not be used or discussed in any\n way in a mock trial or any other form of jury testing exercise by the receiving\n Party. This does not preclude the receiving Party from discussing the operation of\n the source code generally, or using some form of pseudo code that generally\n describes the operation of the source code.\n\n\n\n11. Any attorney representing a Party, whether in-house or outside counsel, and any person\n\n associated with a Party and permitted to receive the other Party\u2019s Protected Material that is\n\n designated RESTRICTED \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY and/or RESTRICTED\n\n CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 SOURCE CODE (collectively \u201cHIGHLY SENSITIVE\n\n MATERIAL\u201d), who obtains, receives, has access to, or otherwise learns, in whole or in\n\n\n 11\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 45-1 Filed 09/02/26 Page 12 of 23 PageID #:\n 657\n\n\n\n part, the other Party\u2019s HIGHLY SENSITIVE MATERIAL under this Order shall not\n\n prepare, prosecute, supervise, or assist in the preparation or prosecution of any patent\n\n application pertaining to the field of the invention of the patents-in-suit on behalf of the\n\n receiving Party or its acquirer, successor, predecessor, or other affiliate during the\n\n pendency of this Action and for one year after its conclusion, including any appeals. To\n\n ensure compliance with the purpose of this provision, each Party shall create an \u201cEthical\n\n Wall\u201d between those persons with access to HIGHLY SENSITIVE MATERIAL and any\n\n individuals who, on behalf of the Party or its acquirer, successor, predecessor, or other\n\n affiliate, prepare, prosecute, supervise or assist in the preparation or prosecution of any\n\n patent application pertaining to the field of invention of the patent-in-suit. Notwithstanding\n\n the foregoing, nothing in this paragraph shall prevent any attorney from participating in, or\n\n advising a client regarding, any reissue, ex parte reexamination, inter partes review, post-\n\n grant review, or other proceeding before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, provided\n\n that such attorney shall not participate in drafting, amending, or advising on the scope of\n\n patent claims in any such proceeding. This provision shall not bar entire firms, rather only\n\n the individuals who actually review or learn the substance of a Party\u2019s HIGHLY\n\n SENSITIVE MATERIAL.\n\n12. This Order is entered pursuant to Rule 502(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. This\n\n Order shall be interpreted to provide the maximum protection allowed by Federal Rule of\n\n Evidence 502(d). Nothing in this Order shall require production of documents,\n\n information or other material that a Party contends is protected from disclosure by the\n\n attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or other privilege, doctrine, or\n\n immunity. If documents, information or other material subject to a claim of attorney-client\n\n\n 12\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 45-1 Filed 09/02/26 Page 13 of 23 PageID #:\n 658\n\n\n\n privilege, work product doctrine, or other privilege, doctrine, or immunity is inadvertently\n\n or unintentionally produced, such production shall in no way prejudice or otherwise\n\n constitute a waiver of, or estoppel as to, any such privilege, doctrine, or immunity in the\n\n pending case or any other federal or state proceeding. Any Party that inadvertently or\n\n unintentionally produces documents, information or other material it reasonably believes\n\n are protected under the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or other privilege,\n\n doctrine, or immunity may obtain the return of such documents, information or other\n\n material by promptly notifying the recipient(s) in writing of the assertion of privilege or\n\n protection. When a producing Party identifies such information as privileged or protected,\n\n the receiving Party: (1) shall not use, and shall immediate cease any prior use of, such\n\n information; (2) shall take reasonable steps to retrieve the information from others to\n\n whom it was disclosed; (3) shall, within three (3) business days of the producing Party\u2019s\n\n request, return or destroy the information and all copies; and (4) shall confirm destruction\n\n of all copies not returned. No one shall use the fact or circumstances of production of the\n\n information in this Action to argue that any privilege or protection has been waived. For\n\n any document produced for which notice is given that the producing Party intends to assert\n\n privilege or work-product protection, at the receiving party\u2019s request, the producing party\n\n shall supply a privilege log for the inadvertently or unintentionally produced documents,\n\n information or other material within three (3) business days. Within five (5) days\n\n thereafter, a Party disputing a claim for privilege shall provide in writing the identification\n\n of the information at issue and the reasons (including legal support) for its assertion that\n\n information is not privilege, or that any privilege has been waived by some act other than\n\n production. Within three (3) business days thereafter, the Parties shall meet and confer in\n\n\n 13\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 45-1 Filed 09/02/26 Page 14 of 23 PageID #:\n 659\n\n\n\n good faith as to the claims of privilege. Within five (5) business days after the meet and\n\n confer, and not thereafter, the receiving party may file a motion to compel the production\n\n of the information.\n\n13. There shall be no disclosure of any DESIGNATED MATERIAL by any person authorized\n\n to have access thereto to any person who is not authorized for such access under this Order.\n\n The Parties are hereby ORDERED to safeguard all such documents, information and\n\n material to protect against disclosure to any unauthorized persons or entities. If a receiving\n\n Party learns that, by inadvertence or otherwise, it has disclosed DESIGNATED\n\n MATERIAL to any person or in any circumstance not authorized under this Order, the\n\n receiving party must immediately (a) notify the designating Party in writing of the\n\n unauthorized disclosures, and provide all known, relevant information concerning the\n\n nature and circumstances of the disclosure; and (b) use best efforts to retrieve all\n\n unauthorized copies of the DESIGNATED MATERIAL and to ensure that no further or\n\n greater unauthorized disclosure and/or use occurs.\n\n14. Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools. The Parties may utilize AI tools, including, but\n\n not limited to, legal research, document review, and analysis platforms such as CoCounsel,\n\n in connection with the review, analysis, and management of materials designated as\n\n \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d or \u201cRESTRICTED \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY ,\u201d provided\n\n that: (1) the Party uses the AI tool only through a proprietary, private, and secure\n\n environment licensed exclusively for that Party; (2) the AI tool is operated in a manner\n\n that maintains the confidentiality of the \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d or \u201cRESTRICTED \u2013\n\n ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\u201d materials in accordance with this Order; (3) the AI tool\n\n and any associated service provider shall not use, access, or retain the \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d\n\n\n 14\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 45-1 Filed 09/02/26 Page 15 of 23 PageID #:\n 660\n\n\n\n or \u201cHIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\u201d materials or the\n\n substance of prompts for any purpose other than to provide the contracted services to the\n\n Party; (4) the AI tool shall not use the \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d or \u201cRESTRICTED \u2013\n\n ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\u201d materials or the substance of prompts to train its models\n\n or for any other purpose unrelated to this litigation; (5) the use of the AI tool shall not\n\n result in disclosure of \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d or \u201cRESTRICTED \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES\n\n ONLY\u201d materials or the substance of prompts to any person or entity not otherwise\n\n authorized under this Order; and (6) the AI tool is capable of purging, deleting, and/or\n\n destroying any \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d or \u201cRESTRICTED \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\u201d\n\n materials or the substance of prompts in compliance with Paragraph 27 of this Order.\n\n Nothing in this paragraph shall be interpreted as expanding the categories of authorized\n\n recipients set forth in paragraphs 5, 9, and 10 above. The Parties may not use AI tools in\n\n connection with the review, analysis, and management of printouts or photocopies of\n\n source code, notes taken during the source code review (whether in electronic or paper\n\n form), or any other materials designated RESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE\n\n CODE that contain lines, portions, or excerpts of source code. For the avoidance of doubt,\n\n this paragraph does not preclude the installation and use of software tools or applications\n\n that have AI capabilities that are disabled during source code review. The Parties reserve\n\n the right to further discuss the use of AI tools if issues arise regarding the use of AI tools\n\n that are not expressly contemplated herein. To be clear, any person or entity in possession\n\n of DESIGNATED MATERIAL produced or exchanged in this litigation shall not submit\n\n such DESIGNATED MATERIAL or summary thereof to any open generative AI tool that\n\n does not meet requirements (1)-(6) specified above, so that the DESIGNATED\n\n\n 15\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 45-1 Filed 09/02/26 Page 16 of 23 PageID #:\n 661\n\n\n\n MATERIAL is not further disclosed or used in any manner inconsistent with this Order.\n\n The obligations and restrictions of this paragraph apply even where the DESIGNATED\n\n MATERIAL has been anonymized.\n\n15. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to prejudice any Party\u2019s right to use any\n\n DESIGNATED MATERIAL in taking testimony at any deposition or hearing provided that\n\n the DESIGNATED MATERIAL is only disclosed to a person(s) who is: (i) eligible to have\n\n access to the DESIGNATED MATERIAL by virtue of his or her employment with the\n\n designating party, (ii) identified in the DESIGNATED MATERIAL as an author, addressee,\n\n or copy recipient of such information, (iii) although not identified as an author, addressee,\n\n or copy recipient of such DESIGNATED MATERIAL, has, in the ordinary course of\n\n business, seen such DESIGNATED MATERIAL, (iv) a current or former officer, director\n\n or employee of the producing Party or a current or former officer, director or employee of\n\n a company affiliated with the producing Party; (v) counsel for a Party, including outside\n\n counsel and in-house counsel (subject to paragraph 9 of this Order); (vi) an independent\n\n contractor, consultant, and/or expert retained for the purpose of this litigation; (vii) court\n\n reporters and videographers; (viii) the Court; or (ix) other persons entitled hereunder to\n\n access to DESIGNATED MATERIAL. DESIGNATED MATERIAL shall not be\n\n disclosed to any other persons unless prior authorization is obtained from counsel\n\n representing the producing Party or from the Court.\n\n16. Parties may, at the deposition or hearing or within thirty (30) days after receipt of a\n\n deposition or hearing transcript, designate the deposition or hearing transcript or any portion\n\n thereof as \u201cCONFIDENTIAL,\u201d \u201cRESTRICTED - ATTORNEY\u2019 EYES ONLY,\u201d or\n\n \u201cRESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 SOURCE CODE\u201d pursuant to this Order. Access to\n\n\n 16\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 45-1 Filed 09/02/26 Page 17 of 23 PageID #:\n 662\n\n\n\n the deposition or hearing transcript so designated shall be limited in accordance with the\n\n terms of this Order. Until expiration of the 30-day period, the entire deposition or hearing\n\n transcript shall be treated as confidential.\n\n17. Any DESIGNATED MATERIAL that is filed with the Court shall be filed under seal and\n\n shall remain under seal until further order of the Court. The filing Party shall be responsible\n\n for informing the Clerk of the Court that the filing should be sealed and for placing the\n\n legend \u201cFILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER\u201d above the\n\n caption and conspicuously on each page of the filing. Exhibits to a filing shall conform\n\n to the labeling requirements set forth in this Order. If a pretrial pleading filed with the\n\n Court, or an exhibit thereto, discloses or relies on confidential documents, information or\n\n material, such confidential portions shall be redacted to the extent necessary and the\n\n pleading or exhibit filed publicly with the Court.\n\n18. The Order applies to pretrial discovery. Nothing in this Order shall be deemed to prevent\n\n the Parties from introducing any DESIGNATED MATERIAL into evidence at the trial of\n\n this Action, or from using any information contained in DESIGNATED MATERIAL at\n\n the trial of this Action, subject to any pretrial order issued by this Court.\n\n19. A Party may request in writing to the other Party that the designation given to any\n\n DESIGNATED MATERIAL be modified or withdrawn. If the designating Party does not\n\n agree to redesignation within ten (10) days of receipt of the written request, the requesting\n\n Party may apply to the Court for relief. Upon any such application to the Court, the burden\n\n shall be on the designating Party to show why its classification is proper. Such application\n\n shall be treated procedurally as a motion to compel pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil\n\n Procedure 37, subject to the Rule\u2019s provisions relating to sanctions. In making such\n\n\n 17\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 45-1 Filed 09/02/26 Page 18 of 23 PageID #:\n 663\n\n\n\n application, the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules\n\n of the Court shall be met. Pending the Court\u2019s determination of the application, the\n\n designation of the designating Party shall be maintained.\n\n20. Each outside consultant or expert to whom DESIGNATED MATERIAL is disclosed in\n\n accordance with the terms of this Order shall be advised by counsel of the terms of this\n\n Order, shall be informed that he or she is subject to the terms and conditions of this Order,\n\n and shall sign an acknowledgment that he or she has received a copy of, has read, and has\n\n agreed to be bound by this Order. A copy of the acknowledgment form is attached as\n\n Appendix A.\n\n21. To the extent that any discovery is taken of persons who are not Parties to this Action\n\n (\u201cThird Parties\u201d) and in the event that such Third Parties contended the discovery sought\n\n involves trade secrets, confidential business information, or other proprietary information,\n\n then such Third Parties may agree to be bound by this Order.\n\n22. To the extent that discovery or testimony is taken of Third Parties, the Third Parties may\n\n designate as \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d or \u201cRESTRICTED \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY\u201d\n\n any documents, information or other material, in whole or in part, produced or given by\n\n such Third Parties. The Third Parties shall have ten (10) days after production of such\n\n documents, information or other materials to make such a designation. Until that time\n\n period lapses or until such a designation has been made, whichever occurs sooner, all\n\n documents, information or other material so produced or given shall be treated as\n\n \u201cCONFIDENTIAL\u201d in accordance with this Order.\n\n23. Within f o r t y - f i v e (45) days of final termination of this Action, including any appeals,\n\n all DESIGNATED MATERIAL, including all copies, duplicates, abstracts, indexes,\n\n\n 18\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 45-1 Filed 09/02/26 Page 19 of 23 PageID #:\n 664\n\n\n\n summaries, descriptions, and excerpts or extracts thereof (excluding excerpts or extracts\n\n incorporated into any privileged memoranda of the Parties and materials which have been\n\n admitted into evidence in this Action), shall at the producing Party\u2019s election either be\n\n returned to the producing Party or be destroyed. The receiving Party shall verify the return\n\n or destruction by affidavit furnished to the producing Party, upon the producing Party\u2019s\n\n request. Notwithstanding this provision, outside counsel may retain one set of pleadings,\n\n discovery responses, correspondence, expert reports, and attorney and consultant work\n\n product (but not document productions) for archival purposes, but must return (or destroy)\n\n any pleadings, correspondences, and consultant work product that contain Source Code.\n\n To the extent any archival copy permitted to be retained under this provision is retained\n\n by outside counsel, such copy remains subject to this Protective Order. This paragraph\n\n does not prevent a Party\u2019s outside counsel from preserving its attorney work product,\n\n including memoranda and notes, relating to this case, except for those specified above.\n\n24. The failure to designate documents, information or material in accordance with this Order\n\n and the failure to object to a designation at a given time shall not preclude the filing of a\n\n motion at a later date seeking to impose such designation or challenging the propriety\n\n thereof. The entry of this Order and/or the production of documents, information and\n\n material hereunder shall in no way constitute a waiver of any objection to the furnishing\n\n thereof, all such objections being hereby preserved.\n\n25. Any Party knowing or believing that any other Party is in violation of or intends to violate\n\n this Order and has raised the question of violation or potential violation with the opposing\n\n party and has been unable to resolve the matter by agreement may move the Court for such\n\n relief as may be appropriate in the circumstances. Pending disposition of the motion by\n\n\n 19\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 45-1 Filed 09/02/26 Page 20 of 23 PageID #:\n 665\n\n\n\n the Court, the Party alleged to be in violation of or intending to violate this Order shall\n\n discontinue the performance of and/or shall not undertake the further performance of any\n\n action alleged to constitute a violation of this Order.\n\n26. Production of DESIGNATED MATERIAL by each of the Parties shall not be deemed a\n\n publication of the documents, information and material (or the contents thereof) produced\n\n so as to void or make voidable whatever claim the Parties may have as to the proprietary and\n\n confidential nature of the documents, information or other material or its contents.\n\n27. Nothing in this Order shall be construed to effect an abrogation, waiver or limitation of any\n\n kind on the rights of each of the Parties to assert any applicable discovery or trial privilege.\n\n28. Each of the Parties shall also retain the right to file a motion with the Court (a) to modify this\n\n Order to allow disclosure of DESIGNATED MATERIAL to additional persons or entities\n\n if reasonably necessary to prepare and present this Action and (b) to apply for additional\n\n protection of DESIGNATED MATERIAL.\n\n29. Any person in possession of another Party\u2019s DESIGNATED MATERIAL shall exercise\n\n the same degree of care with respect to its storage, custody, and use that such person\n\n applies to its own information of comparable sensitivity, but in no event less than\n\n reasonable precautions to protect against loss, misuse, or unauthorized access, disclosure,\n\n alteration, or destruction of such DESIGNATED MATERIAL. If a receiving Party\n\n discovers a breach of security involving another Party\u2019s DESIGNATED MATERIAL, it\n\n shall, no later than twenty-four (24) hours after discovery of the breach: (a) provide written\n\n notice of the breach to the designating Party; (b) investigate and remediate the effects of\n\n the breach; and (c) provide the designating Party with sufficient information to reasonably\n\n ascertain the size and scope of the breach, and shall thereafter cooperate reasonably with\n\n\n 20\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 45-1 Filed 09/02/26 Page 21 of 23 PageID #:\n 666\n\n\n\n the designating Party in investigating the breach.\n\n\n\n\n 21\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 45-1 Filed 09/02/26 Page 22 of 23 PageID #:\n 667\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MARSHALL DIVISION\n\n\n\n VL COLLECTIVE IP LLC, \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Plaintiff, \u00a7 Case No. 2:26-cv-00346-JRG\n \u00a7\n v. \u00a7\n \u00a7 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\n MICROSOFT CORPORATION, \u00a7\n Defendant. \u00a7\n \u00a7\n\n APPENDIX A\n UNDERTAKING OF EXPERTS OR CONSULTANTS REGARDING\n PROTECTIVE ORDER\n I, ___________________________________________, declare that:\n\n1. My address is _________________________________________________________.\n\n My current employer is _________________________________________________.\n\n My current occupation is ________________________________________________.\n\n2. I have received a copy of the Protective Order in this action. I have carefully read and\n\n understand the provisions of the Protective Order.\n\n3. I will comply with all of the provisions of the Protective Order. I will hold in confidence,\n\n will not disclose to anyone not qualified under the Protective Order, and will use only for\n\n purposes of this action any information designated as \u201cCONFIDENTIAL,\u201d\n\n \u201cRESTRICTED \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY,\u201d or \u201cRESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL\n\n \u2013 SOURCE CODE\u201d that is disclosed to me.\n\n4. Promptly upon termination of these actions, I will return all documents and things\n\n designated as \u201cCONFIDENTIAL,\u201d \u201cRESTRICTED \u2013 ATTORNEYS\u2019 EYES ONLY,\u201d or\n\n \u201cRESTRICTED CONFIDENTIAL \u2013 SOURCE CODE\u201d that came into my possession, and\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 45-1 Filed 09/02/26 Page 23 of 23 PageID #:\n 668\n\n\n\n all documents and things that I have prepared relating thereto, to the outside counsel for\n\n the party by whom I am employed.\n\n5. I hereby submit to the jurisdiction of this Court for the purpose of enforcement of the\n\n Protective Order in this action.\n\n I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.\n\n\n\nSignature ________________________________________\n\nDate ____________________________________________\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-09-02T14:32:32.897501-07:00","document_number":"45","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"175015666455","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":2,"description":"Proposed Protective Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-02T14:32:28.781071-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-02T15:24:23.744119-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-02","time_filed":"16:31:02","entry_number":45,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-02.001","pacer_sequence_number":118,"description":"JOINT MOTION for Entry of Protective Order by VL Collective IP LLC. (Attachments: (1) Proposed Protective Order)(Alberti, David)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/476450506/","id":476450506,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73266941/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/492013057/","id":492013057,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73266941/44/vl-collective-ip-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-08-31T15:15:35.090219-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T20:57:42.090005-07:00","sha1":"73b943ec6674c914c08164ffcc546f1e0d27183a","page_count":6,"file_size":173148,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.44.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.44.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 44 Filed 08/31/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 637\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MARSHALL DIVISION\n\n VL COLLECTIVE IP LLC,\n\n Plaintiff,\n Civil Action No. 2:26-cv-00346-JRG\n v.\n\n MICROSOFT CORPORATION, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\n\n Defendant.\n\n\n PLAINTIFF VL COLLECTIVE IP LLC\u2019S ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIMS TO FIRST\n AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT\n\n Plaintiff VL Collective IP LLC (\u201cVL IP\u201d), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby\n\nanswers Microsoft Corporation\u2019s (\u201cDefendant\u201d or \u201cMicrosoft\u201d) counterclaims as follows:\n\n PARTIES\n\n 1. VL IP admits that Microsoft admitted in Paragraph 12 of its Answer to VL IP\u2019s\n\nComplaint that Microsoft Corporation is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of\n\nthe State of Washington corporation.\n\n 2. Admitted.\n\n JURISDICTION AND VENUE\n\n 3. VL IP admits that Microsoft purports to bring these Counterclaims under the\n\npatent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 1 et seq., and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28\n\nU.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 2201-02. VL IP denies that Microsoft is entitled to any of the relief it seeks for its\n\nCounterclaims.\n\n 4. Admitted.\n\n 5. Admitted.\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 44 Filed 08/31/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 638\n\n\n\n\n 6. Admitted.\n\n COUNT 1 (Declaratory Judgement of Noninfringement of the \u2019868 Patent)\n\n 7. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if set\n\nforth fully herein.\n\n 8. VL IP admits that it alleges in its FAC that Microsoft has infringed one or more\n\nclaims of the \u2019868 Patent. Otherwise, denied.\n\n 9. Admitted.\n\n 10. Denied.\n\n 11. VL IP admits that Microsoft seeks a judicial determination of the respective rights\n\nof the parties with respect to the claims of the \u2019868 Patent. Otherwise, denied.\n\n COUNT 2 (Declaratory Judgement of Noninfringement of the \u2019599 Patent)\n\n 12. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if set\n\nforth fully herein.\n\n 13. VL IP admits that it alleges in its FAC that Microsoft has infringed one or more\n\nclaims of the \u2019599 Patent. Otherwise, denied.\n\n\n 14. Admitted.\n\n 15. Denied.\n\n 16. VL IP admits that Microsoft seeks a judicial determination of the respective rights\n\nof the parties with respect to the claims of the \u2019599 Patent. Otherwise, denied.\n\n COUNT 3 (Declaratory Judgement of Noninfringement of the \u2019474 Patent)\n\n 17. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if set\n\nforth fully herein.\n\n 18. VL IP admits that it alleges in its FAC that Microsoft has infringed one or more\n\n\n\n 2\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 44 Filed 08/31/26 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 639\n\n\n\n\nclaims of the \u2019474 Patent. Otherwise, denied.\n\n 19. Admitted.\n\n 20. Denied.\n\n 21. VL IP admits that Microsoft seeks a judicial determination of the respective rights\n\nof the parties with respect to the claims of the \u2019474 Patent. Otherwise, denied.\n\n COUNT 4 (Declaratory Judgement of Invalidity of the \u2019868 Patent)\n\n 22. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if set\n\nforth fully herein.\n\n 23. VL IP admits that it alleges in its FAC that the \u2019868 Patent is valid, enforceable,\n\nand was duly issued in full compliance with Title 35 of the United States Code. Otherwise, denied.\n\n 24. Admitted.\n\n 25. Denied.\n\n 26. VL IP admits that Microsoft seeks a judicial determination of the respective rights\n\nof the parties with respect to the validity of the claims of the \u2019868 Patent. Otherwise, denied.\n\n COUNT 5 (Declaratory Judgement of Invalidity of the \u2019599 Patent)\n\n 27. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if set\n\nforth fully herein.\n\n 28. VL IP admits that it alleges in its FAC that the \u2019599 Patent is valid, enforceable,\n\nand was duly issued in full compliance with Title 35 of the United States Code. Otherwise, denied.\n\n 29. Admitted.\n\n 30. Denied.\n\n 31. VL IP admits that Microsoft seeks a judicial determination of the respective rights\n\nof the parties with respect to the validity of the claims of the \u2019599 Patent. Otherwise, denied.\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 44 Filed 08/31/26 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 640\n\n\n\n\n COUNT 6 (Declaratory Judgement of Invalidity of the \u2019474 Patent)\n\n 32. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if set\n\nforth fully herein.\n\n 33. VL IP admits that it alleges in its FAC that the \u2019474 Patent is valid, enforceable,\n\nand was duly issued in full compliance with Title 35 of the United States Code. Otherwise, denied.\n\n 34. Admitted.\n\n 35. Denied.\n\n 36. VL IP admits that Microsoft seeks a judicial determination of the respective rights\n\nof the parties with respect to the validity of the claims of the \u2019474 Patent. Otherwise, denied.\n\n MICROSOFT\u2019S PRAYER FOR RELIEF\n\n VL IP denies the allegations set forth in Microsoft\u2019s Prayer for Relief, and VL IP further\n\ndenies that Microsoft is entitled to any relief whatsoever, including any of the relief sought in\n\nparagraphs a-g of its Prayer for Relief. Microsoft\u2019s prayer should be denied in its entirety and with\n\nprejudice, and Microsoft should take nothing.\n\n JURY TRIAL DEMAND\n\n Microsoft\u2019s demand for jury trial does not contain allegations subject to admission\n\nor denial by Plaintiff. Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule\n\nCV-38, Plaintiff requests a trial by jury on all claims and issues so triable.\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 44 Filed 08/31/26 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 641\n\n\n\n\nDated: August 31, 2026 By: /s/ David Alberti\n\n David Alberti\n CA Bar No. 220265 (Admitted E.D. Texas)\n dalberti@albertilim.com\n Sal Lim\n CA Bar No. 211836 (Admitted E.D. Texas)\n slim@albertilim.com\n Russell S. Tonkovich\n CA Bar No. 233280 (Admitted E.D. Texas)\n rtonkovich@albertilim.com\n James P. Barabas (pro hac vice)\n NY Bar No. 3911484\n jbarabas@albertilim.com\n Hong S. Lin\n CA Bar No. 249898 (Admitted E.D. Texas)\n hlin@albertilim.com\n Andrew Hamill\n CA Bar No. 251156 (Admitted E.D. Texas)\n ahamill@albertilim.com\n Jeremiah A. Armstrong (pro hac vice)\n CA Bar No. 253705\n jarmstrong@albertilim.com\n Nicholas Martini (pro hac vice)\n CA Bar No. 237687\n nmartini@albertilim.com\n Ryan Dooley (pro hac vice)\n CA Bar No. 321645\n rdooley@albertilim.com\n ALBERTI LIM & TONKOVICH LLP\n 950 Tower Lane, Suite 1725\n Foster City, CA 94404\n Telephone: (650) 825-4300\n Facsimile: (650) 460-8443\n\n Andrea L. Fair\n Texas Bar No. 24078488\n andrea@millerfairhenry.com\n Garrett C. Parish\n Texas Bar No. 24125824\n garrett@millerfairhenry.com\n MILLER FAIR HENRY PLLC\n 1507 Bill Owens Pkwy\n Longview, Texas 75604\n Telephone: (903) 757-6400\n Facsimile: (903) 757-2323\n\n\n\n 5\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 44 Filed 08/31/26 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 642\n\n\n\n\n Attorneys for Plaintiff VL Collective IP LLC\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have\n\nconsented to electronic service are being served with a copy of the foregoing document via the\n\nCourt\u2019s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) this August 31, 2026.\n\n\n /s/ David Alberti\n David Alberti\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-31T16:20:05.541178-07:00","document_number":"44","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175015659686","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Response to Non-Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-31T15:15:35.061224-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-31T16:20:05.171052-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-31","time_filed":"16:48:32","entry_number":44,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-31.001","pacer_sequence_number":115,"description":"RESPONSE to [35] Answer to Amended Complaint (Plaintiff's Answer to Counterclaims) by VL Collective IP LLC. (Alberti, David)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/476234925/","id":476234925,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73266941/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491791940/","id":491791940,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73266941/43/vl-collective-ip-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-08-28T14:59:16.691733-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T17:14:16.222336-07:00","sha1":"208cce199ca4764f1a87b2773a4b864d20941fb1","page_count":2,"file_size":157190,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.43.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.43.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 43 Filed 08/28/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 635\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MARSHALL DIVISION\n\n\n VL COLLECTIVE IP LLC,\n Civil Action No. 2:26-cv-00346-JRG\n Plaintiff,\n\n v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\n MICROSOFT CORPORATION,\n\n Defendant.\n\n\n NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE\n\n Defendant Microsoft Corporation. hereby notifies the Court that, pursuant to the Court\u2019s\n\n Docket Control Order (Dkt. No. 30), it has served its Initial Disclosures upon counsel of record\n\n for Plaintiff via email on August 28, 2026.\n\n\nDated: August 28, 2026\n By /s/ Melissa R. Smith\n Melissa R. Smith\n Texas State Bar No. 24001351\n melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com\n GILLAM & SMITH, LLP\n 303 South Washington Avenue\n Marshall, Texas 75670\n Phone: (903) 934-8450\n Fax: (903) 934-9257\n\n Natalie A. Bennett\n Illinois Bar No. 6304611\n natalie.bennett@morganlewis.com\n MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP\n 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW\n Washington, DC 20004-2541\n Telephone: (202) 739-5559\n Facsimile: (202) 739-3001\n\n Jason E. Gettleman\n CA State Bar No. 269733\n jason.gettleman@morganlewis.com\n Ahren C. Hsu-Hoffman\n TX State Bar No. 24053269\n ahren.hsu-hoffman@morganlewis.com\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 43 Filed 08/28/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 636\n\n\n\n Katerina Hora Jacobson\n CA State Bar No. 342384\n katerina.horajacobson@morganlewis.com\n MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP\n 1400 Page Mill Road\n Palo Alto, California 94304\n Telephone: (650) 843-4000\n Facsimile: (650) 843-4001\n\n\n\n ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT\n MICROSOFT CORPORATION\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n The undersigned hereby certifies that counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to\n\nelectronic services are being served with a copy of this document via the Court\u2019s CM/ECF system per\n\nLocal Rule CV-5(a)(3) on August 28, 2026.\n\n\n\n /s/ Melissa R. Smith\n Melissa R. Smith\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-28T14:59:16.953338-07:00","document_number":"43","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175015655847","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Compliance","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-28T14:59:16.655639-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-28T15:02:13.048445-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-28","time_filed":"16:57:54","entry_number":43,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-28.001","pacer_sequence_number":113,"description":"NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE by Microsoft Corporation regarding Initial Disclosures (Smith, Melissa)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/476234071/","id":476234071,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73266941/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491790971/","id":491790971,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73266941/42/vl-collective-ip-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-08-28T14:37:44.506753-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T17:11:48.307472-07:00","sha1":"8e6cb6830829a75d091b30765e1625ef99d6c68c","page_count":3,"file_size":144453,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.42.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.42.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 42 Filed 08/28/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 632\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MARSHALL DIVISION\n\n\n VL COLLECTIVE IP LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-00346-JRG\n\n Plaintiff,\n\n v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\n\n MICROSOFT CORPORATION,\n\n Defendant.\n\n\n\n NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE\n\n Plaintiff VL Collective IP LLC (\u201cPlaintiff\u201d) hereby notifies the Court that pursuant to the\n\nCourt\u2019s Docket Control Order (Dkt. 30) and Paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Discovery Order (Dkt. 34)\n\nPlaintiff has served its Initial and Additional Disclosures on Defendant via electronic mail on\n\nAugust 28, 2026.\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 42 Filed 08/28/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 633\n\n\n\n Dated: August 28, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ David Alberti\n David Alberti\n CA Bar No. 220265 (Admitted E.D. Texas)\n dalberti@albertilim.com\n Sal Lim\n CA Bar No. 211836 (Admitted E.D. Texas)\n slim@albertilim.com\n Russell S. Tonkovich\n CA Bar No. 233280 (Admitted E.D. Texas)\n rtonkovich@albertilim.com\n James Barabas (pro hac vice)\n NY Bar No. 3911484\n jbarabas@albertilim.com\n Hong S. Lin\n CA Bar No. 249898 (Admitted E.D. Texas)\n hlin@albertilim.com\n Andrew Hamill\n CA Bar No. 251156 (Admitted E.D. Texas)\n ahamill@albertilim.com\n Jeremiah A. Armstrong (pro hac vice)\n CA Bar No. 253705\n jarmstrong@albertilim.com\n Nicholas Martini (pro hac vice)\n CA Bar No. 237687\n nmartini@albertilim.com\n Ryan Dooley (pro hac vice)\n CA Bar No. 321645\n rdooley@albertilim.com\n ALBERTI LIM & TONKOVICH LLP\n 950 Tower Lane, Suite 1725\n Foster City, CA 94404\n Telephone: (650) 825-4300\n Facsimile: (650) 460-8443\n\n Andrea L. Fair\n Texas Bar No. 24078488\n andrea@millerfairhenry.com\n Garrett C. Parish\n Texas Bar No. 24125824\n garrett@millerfairhenry.com\n MILLER FAIR HENRY PLLC\n 1507 Bill Owens Pkwy\n Longview, Texas 75604\n Telephone: (903) 757-6400\n Facsimile: (903) 757-2323\n\n\n\n 2\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 42 Filed 08/28/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 634\n\n\n\n\n Attorneys for Plaintiff\n VL Collective IP LLC\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I certify that the foregoing document is being served via the Court\u2019s CM/ECF system on\n\nAugust 28, 2026, on all counsel of record who have consented to electronic service.\n\n /s/ David Alberti\n David Alberti\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-28T14:37:44.871296-07:00","document_number":"42","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175015655664","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Compliance","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-28T14:37:44.451829-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-28T15:02:24.872821-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-28","time_filed":"16:37:22","entry_number":42,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-28.001","pacer_sequence_number":111,"description":"NOTICE OF COMPLIANCE by VL Collective IP LLC (Initial and Additional Disclosures) (Alberti, David)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/476179929/","id":476179929,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73266941/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491735498/","id":491735498,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73266941/41/vl-collective-ip-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-08-28T10:27:14.958909-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T16:41:52.683948-07:00","sha1":"fa081cc7cf64a345c4a810ed5e75306d30f9c351","page_count":2,"file_size":746485,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.41.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.41.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 41 Filed 08/28/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 630\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MARSHALL DIVISION\n\n VL COLLECTIVE IP LLC, \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Plaintiff, \u00a7\n \u00a7\n v. \u00a7 CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:26-CV-00346-JRG\n \u00a7\n MICROSOFT CORPORATION, \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Defendant. \u00a7\n\n ORDER\n\n Before the Court is the Motion for Extension of Protective Order Deadline (the \u201cJoint\n\nMotion\u201d) filed by Plaintiff VL Collective IP LLC (\u201cPlaintiff\u201d) and Microsoft Corporation\n\n(\u201cDefendant\u201d) (collectively, \u201cthe Parties\u201d) (Dkt. No. 33) and the Unopposed Motion for Extension\n\nof Protective Order Deadline (\u201cDefendant\u2019s Motion\u201d) (together with the Joint Motion, the\n\n\u201cMotions\u201d) filed by Defendant (Dkt. No. 40). In the Joint Motion, the Parties jointly seek an 18-\n\nday extension of time to submit their proposed Protective Order and serve their Disclosures. (Dkt.\n\nNo. 33 at 1). The requested extension would move the deadlines from August 10, 2026, up to and\n\nincluding August 28, 2026. (Id.). In Defendant\u2019s Motion, Defendant seeks to further extend the\n\ndeadline for the Parties to submit the proposed Protective Order up to and including September 2,\n\n2026. (Dkt. No. 40 at 1). Defendant\u2019s Motion is unopposed. (Id. at 3).\n\n Having considered the Motions, the Court finds that they should be and hereby are\n\nGRANTED. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the deadline for the Parties to serve their\n\nDisclosures is extended up to and including August 28, 2026. The Court further ORDERS that\n\nthe deadline for the Parties to submit their proposed Protective Order is extended up to and\n\nincluding September 2, 2026.\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 41 Filed 08/28/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 631\n\n\n\n\n So ORDERED and SIGNED this 28th day of August, 2026.\n\n\n\n\n ____________________________________\n RODNEY GILSTRAP\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-08-28T10:27:15.429764-07:00","document_number":"41","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175015653891","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief AND Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-28T10:27:14.918528-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-28T11:05:07.555492-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-28","time_filed":"12:26:20","entry_number":41,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-28.001","pacer_sequence_number":108,"description":"ORDER granting [40] Motion for Extension of Protective Order Deadline; granting [33] Motion for Extension of Protective Order Deadline. Signed by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 8/28/2026. (NKL)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/475985707/","id":475985707,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73266941/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491534795/","id":491534795,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73266941/40/vl-collective-ip-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-08-27T07:19:01.773001-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T14:04:18.052931-07:00","sha1":"8c1154192cb8dfc33f2f274e53371c12774bb540","page_count":3,"file_size":169267,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.40.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.40.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 40 Filed 08/27/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 626\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MARSHALL DIVISION\n\n VL COLLECTIVE IP LLC, \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Plaintiff, \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Civil Action No. 2:26-cv-00346-JRG\n v. \u00a7\n \u00a7\n JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\n MICROSOFT CORPORATION, \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Defendant. \u00a7\n \u00a7\n \u00a7\n \u00a7\n\nDEFENDANT\u2019S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF PROTECTIVE ORDER\n\n DEADLINE\n\n Microsoft Corporation (\u201cDefendant\u201d) respectfully files this Unopposed Motion for\n\nExtension of the deadlines for the Protective Order. The deadline for the Defendant to submit its\n\nproposed Protective Order was set as August 10, 2026 (Dkt. 30). On August 7, 2026, the Plaintiff\n\nVL Collective IP LLC (\u201cPlaintiff\u201d) and Defendant moved to extend this deadline to August 28,\n\n2026 (Dkt. 33). Defendant hereby requests an extension of this deadline by two additional business\n\ndays to September 2, 2026.\n\n Defendant represents that the extension requested herein is not sought for the purposes of\n\ndelay but rather so the parties can eliminate disputes associated with the proposed protective order,\n\nwith a goal of submitting an agreed-upon protective order. Plaintiff and Defendant are diligently\n\nmeeting and conferring in this regard. This proposed extension does not affect any other deadline.\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 40 Filed 08/27/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 627\n\n\n\n Dated: August 27, 2026\n\n /s/ Melissa R. Smith\n Natalie A. Bennett*\n Illinois State Bar No. 6304611\n natalie.bennett@morganlewis.com\n MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP\n 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW\n Washington, D.C. 20004-2541\n T. 202.739.3000\n F. 202.739.3001\n\n Ahren C. Hsu-Hoffman\n Texas Bar No. 24053269\n ahren.hsu-hoffman@morganlewis.com\n Jason E. Gettleman*\n California Bar No. 269733\n jason.gettleman@morganlewis.com\n Katerina Hora Jacobson*\n California Bar No. 342384\n katerina.horajacobson@morganlewis.com\n MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP\n 1400 Page Mill Road\n Palo Alto, CA 94304\n T. 650.843.4000\n F. 650.843.4001\n\n Melissa R. Smith\n State Bar No. 24001351\n GILLAM & SMITH, LLP\n 303 South Washington Avenue\n Marshall, Texas 75670\n Telephone: (903) 934-8450\n Facsimile: (903) 934-9257\n Email: melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com\n\n *Admitted to Practice\n Attorneys for Defendant Microsoft\n Corporation\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 40 Filed 08/27/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 628\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have\n\nconsented to electronic service are being served with a copy of the foregoing document via the\n\nCourt\u2019s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) this August 27, 2026.\n\n /s/ Melissa R. Smith\n Melissa R. Smith\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE\n\n I hereby certify that counsel for the parties have complied with the meet and confer\n\nrequirement in Local Rule CV-7(h). This motion unopposed.\n\n\n /s/ Melissa R. Smith\n Melissa R. Smith\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-27T07:19:02.235049-07:00","document_number":"40","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175015649386","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Miscellaneous Relief","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491534796/","id":491534796,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73266941/40/1/vl-collective-ip-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-08-27T07:19:03.372101-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T14:05:40.165355-07:00","sha1":"f494abb5be96ad496dea6e2f3ebb7860857ed361","page_count":1,"file_size":98537,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.40.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.40.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 40-1 Filed 08/27/26 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 629\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MARSHALL DIVISION\n\n VL COLLECTIVE IP LLC, \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Plaintiff, \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Civil Action No. 2:26-cv-00346-JRG\n v. \u00a7\n \u00a7\n JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\n MICROSOFT CORPORATION, \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Defendant. \u00a7\n \u00a7\n \u00a7\n \u00a7\n\n ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF PROTECTIVE\n ORDER DEADLINE\n\n Before the Court is the Unopposed Motion for Extension of the Protective Order Deadline\n\n filed by Defendant Microsoft Corporation.\n\n After consideration, the Court GRANTS the Unopposed Motion.\n\n It is therefore ORDERED that the deadline for the parties to submit their proposed\n\n Protective Order is extended to September 2, 2026.\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-27T07:19:05.989336-07:00","document_number":"40","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"175015649387","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":2,"description":"Proposed Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-27T07:19:01.692668-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-27T07:43:07.049568-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-27","time_filed":"09:17:30","entry_number":40,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-27.001","pacer_sequence_number":106,"description":"UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF PROTECTIVE ORDER DEADLINE by Microsoft Corporation. (Attachments: (1) Proposed Order)(Smith, Melissa)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/475912710/","id":475912710,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73266941/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491459583/","id":491459583,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73266941/39/vl-collective-ip-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-08-26T14:08:05.283012-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T12:27:30.238761-07:00","sha1":"25602a68b9b0ab24a4159a5942b24600035d0927","page_count":3,"file_size":169397,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.39.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.39.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 39 Filed 08/26/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 622\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MARSHALL DIVISION\n\n VL COLLECTIVE IP LLC, \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Plaintiff, \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Civil Action No. 2:26-cv-00346-JRG\n v. \u00a7\n \u00a7\n JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\n MICROSOFT CORPORATION, \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Defendant. \u00a7\n \u00a7\n \u00a7\n \u00a7\n\nDEFENDANT\u2019S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF PROTECTIVE ORDER\n\n DEADLINE\n\n Microsoft Corporation (\u201cDefendant\u201d) respectfully files this Unopposed Motion for\n\nExtension of the deadlines for the Protective Order. The deadline for the Defendant to submit its\n\nproposed Protective Order was set as August 10, 2026 (Dkt. 30). On August 7, 2026, the Plaintiff\n\nVL Collective IP LLC (\u201cPlaintiff\u201d) and Defendant moved to extend this deadline to August 28,\n\n2026 (Dkt. 33). Defendant hereby requests an extension of this deadline by two additional business\n\ndays to September 2, 2026.\n\n Defendant represents that the extension requested herein is not sought for the purposes of\n\ndelay but rather so the parties can eliminate disputes associated with the proposed protective order,\n\nwith a goal of submitting an agreed-upon protective order. Plaintiff and Defendant are diligently\n\nmeeting and conferring in this regard. This proposed extension does not affect any other deadline.\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 39 Filed 08/26/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 623\n\n\n\n Dated: August 26, 2026\n\n /s/ Melissa R. Smith\n Natalie A. Bennett*\n Illinois State Bar No. 6304611\n natalie.bennett@morganlewis.com\n MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP\n 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW\n Washington, D.C. 20004-2541\n T. 202.739.3000\n F. 202.739.3001\n\n Ahren C. Hsu-Hoffman\n Texas Bar No. 24053269\n ahren.hsu-hoffman@morganlewis.com\n Jason E. Gettleman*\n California Bar No. 269733\n jason.gettleman@morganlewis.com\n Katerina Hora Jacobson*\n California Bar No. 342384\n katerina.horajacobson@morganlewis.com\n MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP\n 1400 Page Mill Road\n Palo Alto, CA 94304\n T. 650.843.4000\n F. 650.843.4001\n\n Melissa R. Smith\n State Bar No. 24001351\n GILLAM & SMITH, LLP\n 303 South Washington Avenue\n Marshall, Texas 75670\n Telephone: (903) 934-8450\n Facsimile: (903) 934-9257\n Email: melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com\n\n *Admitted to Practice\n Attorneys for Defendant Microsoft\n Corporation\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 39 Filed 08/26/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 624\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have\n\nconsented to electronic service are being served with a copy of the foregoing document via the\n\nCourt\u2019s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) this August 26, 2026.\n\n /s/ Melissa R. Smith\n Melissa R. Smith\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE\n\n The undersigned hereby certifies that counsel for Plaintiff met and conferred with counsel\n\nfor Defendant to discuss the substantive relief sought in this Motion pursuant to Local Rule CV-\n\n7(h).\n\n /s/ Melissa R. Smith\n Melissa R. Smith\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-26T14:08:05.553402-07:00","document_number":"39","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175015648260","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Miscellaneous Relief","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491459610/","id":491459610,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73266941/39/1/vl-collective-ip-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-08-26T14:08:06.786846-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T12:27:18.866093-07:00","sha1":"faa4557e0ab6d8b082e16076ed532ae04e201492","page_count":1,"file_size":98662,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.39.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.39.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 39-1 Filed 08/26/26 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 625\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MARSHALL DIVISION\n\n VL COLLECTIVE IP LLC, \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Plaintiff, \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Civil Action No. 2:26-cv-00346-JRG\n v. \u00a7\n \u00a7\n JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\n MICROSOFT CORPORATION, \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Defendant. \u00a7\n \u00a7\n \u00a7\n \u00a7\n\n ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF PROTECTIVE\n ORDER DEADLINE\n\n Before the Court is the Unopposed Motion for Extension of the Protective Order Deadline\n\n filed by Defendant Microsoft Corporation.\n\n After consideration, the Court GRANTS the Unopposed Motion.\n\n It is therefore ORDERED that the deadline for the parties to submit their proposed\n\n Protective Order is extended to September 2, 2026.\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-26T14:08:09.486124-07:00","document_number":"39","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"175015648261","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":2,"description":"Proposed Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-26T14:08:05.249230-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-26T14:41:34.039236-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-26","time_filed":"15:58:35","entry_number":39,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-26.001","pacer_sequence_number":104,"description":"UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF PROTECTIVE ORDER DEADLINE by Microsoft Corporation. (Attachments: (1) Proposed Order)(Smith, Melissa)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/475766762/","id":475766762,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73266941/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491309549/","id":491309549,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73266941/38/vl-collective-ip-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-08-25T14:35:26.100135-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T09:59:47.223476-07:00","sha1":"7c97c29e665126f34d68ae1d3fcace43fcb7ba5a","page_count":2,"file_size":128837,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.38.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.38.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 38 Filed 08/25/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 620\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MARSHALL DIVISION\n\n\nVL COLLECTIVE IP LLC,\n Civil Action No. 2:26-cv-00346-JRG\n Plaintiff,\n\n v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\nMICROSOFT CORPORATION,\n\n Defendant.\n\n\n NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL\n\n Notice is hereby given that James \u201cTravis\u201d Underwood of Gillam & Smith, LLP enters\n\nhis appearance on behalf of Defendant Microsoft Corporation. this matter as additional counsel.\n\n James \u201cTravis\u201d Underwood may receive all communications from the Court and from\n\nother parties at Gillam & Smith, LLP, 7232 Crosswater Avenue, Tyler, Texas 75703; Telephone:\n\n(903) 934-8450; Facsimile: (903) 934-9257; e-mail travis@gillamsmithlaw.com.\n\n\nDated: August 25, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n\n\n /s/ James Travis Underwood\n James Travis Underwood\n Texas Bar No. 24102587\n GILLAM & SMITH, LLP\n 7232 Crosswater Avenue\n Tyler, Texas 75703\n Telephone: (903) 934-8450\n Facsimile: (903) 934-9257\n Email: travis@gillamsmithlaw.com\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 38 Filed 08/25/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 621\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I hereby certify that counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic\n\nservice are being served this 25th day of August 2026, with a copy of this document via the\n\nCourt\u2019s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3).\n\n\n\n /s/ James Travis Underwood\n James Travis Underwood\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-25T14:35:26.426764-07:00","document_number":"38","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175015644782","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Attorney Appearance","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-25T14:35:26.043522-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-25T15:27:17.435186-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-25","time_filed":"16:27:26","entry_number":38,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-25.001","pacer_sequence_number":101,"description":"NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by James Travis Underwood on behalf of Microsoft Corporation (Underwood, James)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/473895105/","id":473895105,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73266941/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489375685/","id":489375685,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73266941/37/vl-collective-ip-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-08-10T12:32:21.246875-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-22T09:31:01.475852-07:00","sha1":"865bf1504fc8d577e730e0c1007cd5b64f22588f","page_count":3,"file_size":153292,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.37.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.37.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 37 Filed 08/10/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 617\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MARSHALL DIVISION\n\n VL COLLECTIVE IP LLC, \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Plaintiff, \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Civil Action No. 2:26-cv-00346-JRG\n v. \u00a7\n \u00a7\n JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\n MICROSOFT CORPORATION, \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Defendant. \u00a7\n \u00a7\n \u00a7\n \u00a7\n\n DEFENDANT MICROSOFT CORPORATION\u2019S\n RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT\n\n Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1, Defendant, Microsoft Corporation\n\n(\u201cMicrosoft\u201d), through its counsel, states that it has no parent corporation and no publicly held\n\ncorporation owns 10% or more of its stock.\n\n\n\n\n -1-\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 37 Filed 08/10/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 618\n\n\n\n\n Date: August 10, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Melissa R. Smith\n Natalie A. Bennett*\n Illinois State Bar No. 6304611\n natalie.bennett@morganlewis.com\n MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP\n 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW\n Washington, D.C. 20004-2541\n T. 202.739.3000\n F. 202.739.3001\n\n Ahren C. Hsu-Hoffman\n Texas Bar No. 24053269\n ahren.hasu-hoffman@morganlewis.com\n Jason E. Gettleman*\n California Bar No. 269733\n jason.gettleman@morganlewis.com\n Katerina Hora Jacobson*\n California Bar No. 342384\n katerina.horajacobson@morganlewis.com\n MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP\n 1400 Page Mill Road\n Palo Alto, CA 94304\n T. 650.843.4000\n F. 650.843.4001\n\n Melissa R. Smith\n State Bar No. 24001351\n GILLAM & SMITH, LLP\n 303 South Washington Avenue\n Marshall, Texas 75670\n Telephone: (903) 934-8450\n Facsimile: (903) 934-9257\n Email: melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com\n\n *Admitted to Practice\n Attorneys for Defendant Microsoft\n Corporation\n\n\n\n\n -2-\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 37 Filed 08/10/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 619\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n The undersigned counsel hereby certifies that on August 10, 2026, a true and correct copy\n\nof the foregoing document was served on all counsel of record who have appeared in this case\n\nvia the Court\u2019s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5.\n\n /s/ Melissa R. Smith\n Melissa R. Smith\n\n\n\n\n -3-\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-10T12:32:21.478422-07:00","document_number":"37","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175015600410","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Disclosure Statement/Certificate of Interested Persons","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-10T12:32:21.219886-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-10T12:58:16.198441-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-10","time_filed":"14:31:46","entry_number":37,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-10.001","pacer_sequence_number":98,"description":"Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1(a)(1) Disclosure Statement filed by Microsoft Corporation (Smith, Melissa)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/473885058/","id":473885058,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73266941/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489365334/","id":489365334,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73266941/36/vl-collective-ip-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-08-10T11:36:31.492571-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-22T09:19:16.916129-07:00","sha1":"65a7742ed38026e074e5b61fe78acc25481d4533","page_count":3,"file_size":154295,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.36.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.36.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 36 Filed 08/10/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 614\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MARSHALL DIVISION\n\n\n VL COLLECTIVE IP LLC,\n Civil Action No. 2:26-cv-00346-JRG\n Plaintiff,\n\n v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\n MICROSOFT CORPORATION,\n\n Defendant.\n\n\n JURY DEMAND\n\n In accordance with Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Microsoft\n\nCorporation respectfully demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.\n\n\n\n\n Dated: August 10, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Melissa R. Smith\n Melissa Richards Smith\n TX State Bar No. 24001351\n melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com\n GILLAM & SMITH LLP\n 303 South Washington Avenue\n Marshall, Texas 75670\n Telephone: (903) 934-8450\n Facsimile: (903) 934-9257\n\n Natalie A. Bennett*\n Illinois Bar No. 6304611\n natalie.bennett@morganlewis.com\n MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP\n 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW\n Washington, DC 20004-2541\n Telephone: (202) 739-5559\n Facsimile: (202) 739-3001\n\n Jason C. White*\n\n\n\n 1\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 36 Filed 08/10/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 615\n\n\n\n\n Illinois Bar No. 6238352\n jason.white@morganlewis.com\n MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP\n 110 North Wacker Drive\n Chicago, IL 60606\n Telephone: (312) 324-1000\n Facsimile: (312) 324-1001\n\n Ahren C. Hsu-Hoffman\n TX State Bar No. 24053269\n ahren.hsu-hoffman@morganlewis.com\n MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP\n 1400 Page Mill Road\n Palo Alto, California 94304\n Telephone: (650) 843-4000\n Facsimile: (650) 843-4001\n\n Jason E. Gettleman\n California State Bar No. 269733\n jason.gettleman@morganlewis.com\n MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP\n 1400 Page Mill Road\n Palo Alto, California 94304\n Telephone: (650) 843-4000\n Facsimile: (650) 843-4001\n\n Katerina Hora Jacobson\n California State Bar No. 342384\n katerina.horajacobson@morganlewis.com\n MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP\n 1400 Page Mill Road\n Palo Alto, California 94304\n Telephone: (650) 843-4000\n Facsimile: (650) 843-4001\n\n *Admitted to Practice\n\n Attorneys for Defendant Microsoft Corporation\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 36 Filed 08/10/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 616\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I hereby certify that counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic\n\nservice are being served on August 10, 2026, with a copy of this document via the Court\u2019s CM/ECF\n\nsystem.\n\n /s/ Melissa R. Smith\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-08-10T11:36:31.782653-07:00","document_number":"36","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175015600023","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Jury Demand","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-10T11:36:31.458065-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-10T12:04:02.070057-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-10","time_filed":"13:35:48","entry_number":36,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-10.001","pacer_sequence_number":96,"description":"DEMAND for Trial by Jury by Microsoft Corporation. (Smith, Melissa)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/473884639/","id":473884639,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73266941/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489364910/","id":489364910,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73266941/35/vl-collective-ip-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-08-10T11:33:20.720890-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-22T07:46:05.845693-07:00","sha1":"2e1abbbc7f25d6b1ccfa6845c356b32a3e73cdea","page_count":45,"file_size":475978,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.35.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.35.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 35 Filed 08/10/26 Page 1 of 45 PageID #: 569\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MARSHALL DIVISION\n\n\n VL COLLECTIVE IP LLC,\n Civil Action No. 2:26-cv-00346-JRG\n Plaintiff,\n\n v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\n MICROSOFT CORPORATION,\n\n Defendant.\n\n\n DEFENDANT\u2019S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF\u2019S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR\n PATENT INFRINGEMENT\n\n Defendant Microsoft Corporation (\u201cMicrosoft\u201d) hereby answers VL Collective IP LLC\u2019s\n\n (\u201cPlaintiff\u201d or \u201cVL IP\u201d) First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement (\u201cFAC\u201d) as follows.\n\n Microsoft denies the allegations and characterizations in the FAC unless expressly admitted in the\n\n following paragraphs. Furthermore, the section headings and footnotes herein are included only\n\n for purposes of clarity and organization. Microsoft denies any allegations that may be implied by\n\n or inferred from the headings and footnotes contained in the FAC.\n\n INTRODUCTION\n\n 1. Founded in 2019, with support from widely-recognized industry leaders,\n\n VideoLabs, Inc. (\u201cVideoLabs\u201d) launched to address the problem created by multiple companies\n\n owning various inventions that enable delivery of high-quality video end-to-end for consumers by\n\n offering an efficient license to those inventions.\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the\n\n truth of the allegations in Paragraph 1 of the FAC and, on that basis, denies each and every\n\n allegation therein.\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 35 Filed 08/10/26 Page 2 of 45 PageID #: 570\n\n\n\n\n 2. Initially, VideoLabs offered membership on its platform to all willing companies.\n\n In exchange for low-cost membership or licensing fees, VideoLabs provided access to its patent\n\n portfolio and a commitment to seek out the most important patents in the video industry and clear\n\n them. Many prominent companies recognized the benefits of the VideoLabs platform and worked\n\n with VideoLabs to efficiently and responsibly license its video technology patents.1\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the\n\n truth of the allegations in Paragraph 2 of the FAC and, on that basis, denies each and every\n\n allegation therein.\n\n 3. In 2024, VideoLabs shifted its focus in two important ways. First, VideoLabs\n\n shifted from clearing patents predominantly related to technologies involved in end-to-end video\n\n to acquiring and licensing patents more broadly related to high-technology innovations. Second,\n\n VideoLabs also shifted its licensing model to place direct emphasis on serving innovators through\n\n an equitable licensing platform. In this way, VideoLabs continued to offer an efficient licensing\n\n model and platform to technology implementers while primarily serving patent owners and\n\n innovators equitably in the high-technology marketplace.\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the\n\n truth of the allegations in Paragraph 3 of the FAC and, on that basis, denies each and every\n\n allegation therein.\n\n 4. Building on its history of acquiring the most important patents and in view of its\n\n shifting focus, in 2024, VideoLabs acquired a patent portfolio from DXC Technology Company\n\n relevant to cloud computing. That portfolio, a subset of which comprises the Asserted Patents,\n\n originated with ServiceMesh, Inc. (\u201cServiceMesh\u201d), a pioneering company founded around 2008\n\n\n\n 1\n https://www.videolabsinc.com/licensees\n\n\n 2\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 35 Filed 08/10/26 Page 3 of 45 PageID #: 571\n\n\n\n\n that innovated technologies in cloud computing. ServiceMesh pioneered a platform that enabled\n\n and automated management of both on-premises and cloud-based services.2 That platform allowed\n\n organizations to accelerate the adoption of cloud-based services and, today, the technologies\n\n innovated by ServiceMesh form a core offering of Microsoft\u2019s cloud services.\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft denies that the technologies allegedly innovated by ServiceMesh form a\n\n core offering of Microsoft\u2019s cloud services. Microsoft is without knowledge or information\n\n sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 4 of the FAC\n\n and, on that basis, denies each and every allegation therein.\n\n 5. Consistent with its business practice, VideoLabs attempted to enter into good-faith\n\n discussions with Defendant Microsoft to negotiate a reasonable license to the Asserted Patents.\n\n Despite those attempts, Defendant knowingly continued its infringement of the patents-in-suit,\n\n continues to do so today, and will continue to do so until this Court puts a stop to its infringement.\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft admits that VideoLabs communicated with certain Microsoft employees\n\n regarding the Asserted Patents. The remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of the FAC\n\n call for a conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required,\n\n Microsoft specifically denies that it has committed acts of infringement in this District or\n\n elsewhere and denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 5.\n\n 6. VL IP was founded in 2019 as a subsidiary of VideoLabs. VideoLabs is the prior\n\n owner of the \u2019868 Patent, \u2019599 Patent, and \u2019474 Patent. In January of 2026, VideoLabs assigned\n\n all right, title, and interest in these Asserted Patents to VL IP.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n https://www.zdnet.com/article/servicemesh-agility-platform-8-0-aims-to-help-enterprises-rein-\n in-shadow-it/\n\n\n 3\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 35 Filed 08/10/26 Page 4 of 45 PageID #: 572\n\n\n\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the\n\n truth of the allegations in Paragraph 6 of the FAC and, on that basis, denies each and every\n\n allegation therein.\n\n 7. VL IP owns the \u2019868 Patent, titled \u201cCloud Computing Gateway, Cloud Computing\n\n Hypervisor, and Methods for Implementing Same.\u201d The \u2019868 Patent covers a cloud gateway\n\n system, a cloud hypervisor system, and methods for implementing the same. The inventions of the\n\n \u2019868 Patent are a significant advance in the field of cloud computing, including systems and\n\n methods for managing cloud infrastructure and communicating with cloud provisioning and\n\n management tools.\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the\n\n truth of the allegation that VL IP owns the \u2019868 Patent and therefore denies that allegation.\n\n Microsoft denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 7.\n\n 8. VL IP owns the \u2019599 Patent, titled \u201cSystem and Method for a Cloud Computing\n\n Abstraction Layer with Security Zone Facilities.\u201d The \u2019599 Patent covers a virtualization\n\n environment adapted for development and deployment of at least one software workload, the\n\n virtualization environment having a metamodel framework that allows the association of a policy\n\n to the software workload upon deployment of the software workload. The inventions of the \u2019599\n\n Patent are a significant advance in the field of cloud computing, including systems and methods\n\n for securing, controlling and managing cloud services, applications, platforms, and infrastructure.\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the\n\n truth of the allegation that VL IP owns the \u2019599 Patent and therefore denies that allegation.\n\n Microsoft denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 8.\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 35 Filed 08/10/26 Page 5 of 45 PageID #: 573\n\n\n\n\n 9. VL IP owns the \u2019474 Patent titled \u201cCloud Computing Gateway, Cloud Computing\n\n Hypervisor, and Methods for Implementing Same.\u201d The \u2019474 Patent covers a cloud gateway\n\n system, a cloud hypervisor system, and methods for implementing the same. The inventions of the\n\n \u2019474 Patent are a significant advance in the field of cloud computing, including systems and\n\n methods for managing cloud infrastructure and communicating with cloud provisioning and\n\n management tools.\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the\n\n truth of the allegation that VL IP owns the \u2019474 Patent and therefore denies that allegation.\n\n Microsoft denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 9.\n\n 10. VL IP brings this action to remedy Defendant Microsoft\u2019s infringement of VL IP\u2019s\n\n patented technology. Microsoft provides cloud computing technology using the inventions\n\n claimed in the Asserted Patents in its Azure, Azure Arc, Azure VPN Gateway, and Azure\n\n Kubernetes Service (collectively, \u201cAzure Products\u201d) and knowingly induces customers, end users,\n\n and third parties to directly infringe the claims of the Asserted Patents. Microsoft also directly\n\n infringes the Asserted Patents as set forth below.\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft admits that it offers certain cloud computing products and services under\n\n the names Azure, Azure Arc, Azure VPN Gateway, and Azure Kubernetes Service. Microsoft\n\n denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 10.\n\n THE PARTIES\n\n 11. Plaintiff VL Collective IP LLC is a corporation organized under the laws of the\n\n state of Delaware, with its principal place of business in Palo Alto, CA.\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the\n\n truth of the allegations in Paragraph 11 of the FAC and, on that basis, denies each and every\n\n allegation therein.\n\n\n 5\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 35 Filed 08/10/26 Page 6 of 45 PageID #: 574\n\n\n\n\n 12. On information and belief, Defendant Microsoft Corporation (\u201cMicrosoft\u201d) is a\n\n corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Washington, with several places\n\n of business within this District.\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft admits it is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State\n\n of Washington. Microsoft specifically denies that it maintains a regular and established place of\n\n business within this District. Microsoft otherwise denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph\n\n 12 of the FAC.\n\n JURISDICTION AND VENUE\n\n 13. This is an action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Laws of the United\n\n States, Title 35 of the United States Code, including 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 271. This Court has jurisdiction\n\n over the subject matter of this action under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1331 and 1338(a).\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft admits that Plaintiff purports to bring this action for patent infringement\n\n under the patent laws of the United States of America, Title 35 of the United States Code.\n\n Microsoft admits that the FAC is based on the patent laws of the United States and asserts subject\n\n matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1331 and 1338(a). Microsoft denies that there is any basis\n\n for Plaintiff\u2019s FAC. Microsoft further denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief requested\n\n or any other relief. Microsoft otherwise denies the remaining allegations set forth in Paragraph 13\n\n of the FAC.\n\n 14. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Microsoft pursuant to due process and/or\n\n the Texas Long Arm Statute because Microsoft has committed and continues to commit acts of\n\n patent infringement, including acts giving rise to this action, within the State of Texas and within\n\n this District, and because Microsoft recruits Texas residents, directly or through an intermediary\n\n located in this state, for employment inside or outside this state, for example, in its Austin and San\n\n Antonio offices. The Court\u2019s exercise of jurisdiction over Microsoft would not offend traditional\n\n\n 6\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 35 Filed 08/10/26 Page 7 of 45 PageID #: 575\n\n\n\n\n notions of fair play and substantial justice because Microsoft has established minimum contacts\n\n with the forum.\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft admits\u2014for purposes of this action only\u2014that it is subject to this Court\u2019s\n\n personal jurisdiction. Microsoft specifically denies that it has committed acts of infringement in\n\n the State of Texas or elsewhere. Microsoft admits that it has employees throughout the United\n\n States, including in Texas. Microsoft denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 14 of the FAC.\n\n 15. On information and belief, Microsoft makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, and/or\n\n imports into the United States, including in this District, products and services, including, without\n\n limitation, Microsoft\u2019s Azure Products. Microsoft has continuous and systematic business contacts\n\n with the State of Texas. Microsoft, directly or through subsidiaries or intermediaries, conducts its\n\n business extensively throughout Texas, by offering for sale, selling, and advertising its products\n\n and/or services in the State of Texas and the Eastern District of Texas, including its Azure Products\n\n and associated services. Microsoft, directly and through subsidiaries or intermediaries, has\n\n purposefully and voluntarily placed one or more of its products and services, including its Azure\n\n Products and associated services, into the stream of commerce with the intention and expectation\n\n that they will be purchased and used by consumers in the State of Texas and the Eastern District\n\n of Texas. These products and/or services, including the Azure Products and associated services,\n\n have been and continue to be purchased and used by consumers in the State of Texas and the\n\n Eastern District of Texas. In addition, on information and belief, Microsoft conducts operations\n\n related to its products and services, including the Azure Products and associated services in its\n\n Eastern District of Texas facilities.\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft admits that it sells and offers to sell products and services throughout the\n\n United States, including in Texas. Microsoft admits that the Azure Arc, Azure VPN Gateway, and\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 35 Filed 08/10/26 Page 8 of 45 PageID #: 576\n\n\n\n\n Azure Kubernetes Service products and services accused of infringement in this lawsuit are\n\n available to users throughout the United States, including in this District. Microsoft specifically\n\n denies that it has committed acts of infringement in the State of Texas or elsewhere and denies any\n\n remaining allegations in Paragraph 15 of the FAC.\n\n 16. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1391 and 1400\n\n because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this\n\n District, and Microsoft has committed acts of infringement and has regular and established places\n\n of business in this District. Microsoft has committed acts of infringement in this District, directly\n\n and/or through intermediaries, by, among other things, making, using, offering to sell, selling,\n\n and/or importing products and services that infringe the Asserted Patents, as alleged herein.\n\n Microsoft has additionally committed acts of infringement in this District, indirectly, by, among\n\n other things, inducing others to infringe the Asserted Patents and contributing to the infringement\n\n of others, as alleged herein. Microsoft is registered to do business in Texas and has several regular\n\n and established places of business in this District as discussed below.\n\n ANSWER: The allegations contained in Paragraph 16 of the FAC call for a conclusion to which\n\n no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Microsoft does not contest venue for\n\n the purposes of this action only. Microsoft admits\u2014for purposes of this action only\u2014that it is\n\n registered to do business in the State of Texas and that it sells and offers to sell products and\n\n services throughout the United States, including in Texas. Microsoft specifically denies that it has\n\n committed acts of infringement in this District or elsewhere, directly and/or through\n\n intermediaries, and denies all remaining allegations in Paragraph 16 of the FAC.\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 35 Filed 08/10/26 Page 9 of 45 PageID #: 577\n\n\n\n\n 17. Microsoft maintains millions of dollars of business and personal property in Collin\n\n County, within this District, as shown below.3\n\n\n\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft admits that Paragraph 17 appears to contain a screenshot from the identified\n\n hyperlink in footnote 3 to a third-party website. Microsoft admits that the addresses listed in this\n\n screenshot correspond to Best Buy locations that sell Microsoft products and a data center\n\n supporting Microsoft services. Microsoft denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 17.\n\n\n\n\n 3\n https://esearch.collincad.org/ (last visited April 27, 2026) (search results for \u201cMicrosoft\u201d).\n\n\n 9\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 35 Filed 08/10/26 Page 10 of 45 PageID #: 578\n\n\n\n\n 18. Similarly, Defendant maintains significant business and personal property in\n\n Denton County, within this District, as shown below.4\n\n\n\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft admits that Paragraph 18 appears to contain a screenshot from the identified\n\n hyperlink in footnote 4 to a third-party website. Microsoft admits that the addresses listed in this\n\n screenshot correspond to Best Buy locations that sell Microsoft products. Microsoft denies any\n\n remaining allegations in Paragraph 18.\n\n 19. Microsoft has several corporate offices in the State of Texas, employing hundreds\n\n of persons. On information and belief, these offices are located in at least the following cities:\n\n Dallas and Houston.5\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft admits\u2014for purposes of this action only\u2014that it is registered to do business\n\n in the State of Texas and that it sells and offers to sell products and services throughout the United\n\n States, including in Texas. Microsoft admits that it maintains offices in the State of Texas in the\n\n cities of Austin, Houston, Irving, and San Antonio, all of which are outside this District. Microsoft\n\n admits that Paragraph 19 purports to cite the identified hyperlink in footnote 5 to a now-inactive\n\n webpage on Microsoft\u2019s website. Microsoft specifically denies that it maintains a regular and\n\n established place of business in this District. Microsoft specifically denies that it has committed\n\n\n\n\n 4\n https://www.dentoncad.com/property-search (last visited April 27, 2026) (search results for\n \u201cMicrosoft\u201d).\n 5\n https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/ec/locations (last visited April 27, 2026).\n\n\n 10\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 35 Filed 08/10/26 Page 11 of 45 PageID #: 579\n\n\n\n\n any acts of infringement in this District, the State of Texas, or elsewhere. Microsoft denies the\n\n remaining allegations in Paragraph 19 of the FAC.\n\n 20. Further, Microsoft operates Microsoft Windows Stores within at least ten Best Buy\n\n retail locations throughout the State of Texas, including in this District, e.g., 2800 N Central\n\n Expressway, Plano, Texas 75074; 3333 Preston Road, Suite 200, Frisco, Texas 75034; and 2601\n\n S Stemmons Freeway, Suite 300, Lewisville, Texas 75067.6\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft denies that it operates \u201cMicrosoft Windows Stores\u201d within Best Buy retail\n\n locations in the State of Texas, including those located at 2800 N Central Expressway, Plano,\n\n Texas 75074; 3333 Preston Road, Suite 200, Frisco, Texas 75034; and 2601 S Stemmons Freeway,\n\n Suite 300, Lewisville, Texas 75067. Microsoft further admits that the footnote to Paragraph 20\n\n purports to include hyperlinks to third-party websites. Microsoft denies any remaining allegations\n\n in Paragraph 20 of the FAC.\n\n 21. These Microsoft Windows Stores are operated by Microsoft within Best Buy stores\n\n and are regular and established places of business of Microsoft. According to Microsoft, these\n\n Windows Stores are a \u201ccomprehensive store-within-a-store,\u201d with dedicated \u201cMicrosoft\n\n specialists\u201d serving Best Buy customers within this \u201cunique environment.\u201d7\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft denies that it operates \u201cMicrosoft Windows Stores\u201d within Best Buy stores.\n\n Microsoft denies that \u201cMicrosoft Windows Stores\u201d are \u201cregular and established places of business\n\n\n\n\n 6\n https://stores.bestbuy.com/tx/plano/2800-n-central-expy-202.html (last visited April 27, 2026);\n https://stores.bestbuy.com/tx/frisco/3333-preston-rd-180.html (last visited April 27, 2026);\n https://stores.bestbuy.com/tx/lewisville/2601-s-stemmons-fwy-258.html (last visited April 27,\n 2026).\n 7\n https://news.microsoft.com/source/2013/06/13/microsoft-and-best-buy-announce-the-windows-\n store-only-at-best-buy-2/ (last visited April 27, 2026).\n\n\n 11\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 35 Filed 08/10/26 Page 12 of 45 PageID #: 580\n\n\n\n\n for Microsoft.\u201d Microsoft admits that Paragraph 21 purports to quote from a Microsoft website\n\n cited in footnote 7. Microsoft denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 21 of the FAC.\n\n 22. Microsoft holds these Windows Stores out as discrete retail locations. Former\n\n Microsoft Chief Marketing Officer described these store-in-store locations as \u201cdepartment-level\n\n takeover[s]\u201d that are \u201cunlike a lot of store-within-a-store concepts.\u201d8 Microsoft leases the spaces\n\n for these Windows Stores from Best Buy and controls its \u201cown pricing and merchandise\n\n decisions.\u201d9\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft admits that Paragraph 22 purports to quote from a website cited in footnote\n\n 8. Microsoft further admits that the footnote 9 to Paragraph 22 purports to include a hyperlink to\n\n a third-party website. Microsoft denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 22 of the FAC.\n\n 23. In addition to maintaining its stores within Best Buy retail locations, and as shown\n\n by its property listings in Collin County, Microsoft has approximately $2 million of property,\n\n including data servers, at Aligned Data Center located within this District at 2800 Summit Ave.,\n\n Plano, Texas 75074.10\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft admits that the footnote to Paragraph 23 purports to include a hyperlink to\n\n a third-party website. Microsoft further admits certain of its data servers are located at Aligned\n\n Data Center located within this District at 2800 Summit Ave., Plano, Texas 75074. Microsoft\n\n denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 23 of the FAC.\n\n\n\n\n 8\n https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2013/06/13/talking-retail-the-new-windows-\n store-only-at-best-buy/ (last visited April 27, 2026).\n 9\n https://www.startribune.com/best-buy-bets-big-on-store-within-store-concepts/215301161 (last\n visited April 27, 2026).\n 10\n https://aligneddc.com/blog/aligned-data-centers-opens-ultra-efficient-data-center-in-plano/\n (last visited April 27, 2026); https://dallasinnovates.com/north-texas-aligned-data-centers-to-be-\n acquired-for-40-billion-by-blackrock-nvidia-xai-microsoft-and-others/ (last visited April 28,\n 2026).\n\n\n 12\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 35 Filed 08/10/26 Page 13 of 45 PageID #: 581\n\n\n\n\n 24. Microsoft has announced a deal with CoreWeave to allow Microsoft to use\n\n CoreWeave\u2019s Plano data center for its Microsoft Azure AI workloads.11\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft admits that the footnote to Paragraph 24 purports to include a hyperlink to\n\n a third-party website. Microsoft admits that it entered into a deal with CoreWeave to use its data\n\n centers for some of its Azure AI workloads. Microsoft denies any remaining allegations in\n\n Paragraph 24.\n\n 25. Further compounding Microsoft\u2019s presence in this District, it was announced in\n\n April 2024 that Microsoft had purchased 500 acres of land to the east of Plano to construct a new\n\n data center.12 Microsoft also maintains an Azure point of presence (\u201cPOP\u201d) within this District, in\n\n Plano.13\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft admits that the footnotes of Paragraph 25 purport to include hyperlinks to\n\n third-party websites. Microsoft further admits that Plano, Texas contains a point of presence (POP)\n\n for its Azure Content Delivery Network. Microsoft denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph\n\n 25 of the FAC.\n\n 26. Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Microsoft\n\n Corporation. Exhibit G at \u00b6 4. In its legal filings, Microsoft Corporation and Microsoft\n\n Technology Licensing, LLC are referred to and treated as a single entity, \u201cMicrosoft.\u201d Id. at \u00b6 1.\n\n\n\n\n 11\n https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/coreweave-plans-16bn-ai-cloud-data-center-in-\n plano-texas/ (last visited April 28, 2026).\n 12\n Microsoft to acquire 500 acres in Plano, Illinois - report \u2013 DCD,\n https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/microsoft-to-acquire-500-acres-in-plano-illinois-\n report/ (last visited April 27, 2026).\n 13\n https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/cdn/cdn-pop-locations (last visited April 27, 2026);\n POPs are part of content delivery networks: \u201ca distributed network of servers that can efficiently\n deliver web content to users. A content delivery network store[s] cached content on edge servers\n in point of presence (POP) locations that are close to end users, to minimize latency.\u201d\n https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/cdn/cdn-overview (last visited April 28, 2026).\n\n\n 13\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 35 Filed 08/10/26 Page 14 of 45 PageID #: 582\n\n\n\n\n Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC\u2019s address is the same as Microsoft Corporation\u2019s\n\n headquarters. Id. at \u00b6 4. Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC holds patents issued on inventions\n\n created by employees at Microsoft Corporation and is often the assignee of patents filed by\n\n inventors from Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft Corporation\u2019s website states: \u201cMicrosoft\n\n Technology Licensing (MTL) is a subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation and manages Microsoft\n\n patents and technology transfer activities.\u201d Exhibit H. Microsoft Corporation has knowledge of,\n\n and control over, the activities and operations of Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC.\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft admits that Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC is a wholly-owned\n\n subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft admits that Exhibit G purports to be copy of a\n\n complaint filed by Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC against Kyocera Corporation and\n\n Kyocera Communications, Inc. Microsoft admits that in that complaint \u201cMicrosoft Technology\n\n Licensing, LLC\u201d and \u201cMicrosoft Corporation are referred to as \u201cMicrosoft.\u201d Microsoft denies that\n\n Microsoft Corporation and Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC are a single entity, alter egos,\n\n or that they are generally referred to or treated as a single entity for all purposes, and denies any\n\n implication that corporate separateness should be disregarded. Microsoft admits that in that\n\n complaint Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC identifies its principal place of business at One\n\n Microsoft Way, Redmond, Washington 98052. Microsoft admits that its employees have\n\n previously assigned inventions to them, which they have then assigned to Microsoft Technology\n\n Licensing, LLC. Microsoft admits that Exhibit H purports to be a copy of its website that states\n\n \u201cMicrosoft Technology Licensing (MTL) is a subsidiary of Microsoft Corporation and manages\n\n Microsoft patents and technology transfer activities.\u201d Microsoft denies any remaining allegations\n\n in Paragraph 26.\n\n\n\n\n 14\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 35 Filed 08/10/26 Page 15 of 45 PageID #: 583\n\n\n\n\n THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT\n\n 27. VL IP owns the entire right, title, and interest in the \u2019868 Patent, which is titled\n\n \u201cCloud Computing Gateway, Cloud Computing Hypervisor, and Methods for Implementing\n\n Same.\u201d The Patent issued on August 20, 2013 to inventor Duncan Christopher Hill from U.S.\n\n Patent Application No. 12/488,424 filed on June 19, 2009. A true and correct copy of the \u2019868\n\n Patent is attached as Exhibit A to this Complaint.\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft admits that Exhibit A purports to be a copy of the \u2019868 Patent which is titled\n\n \u201cCloud Computing Gateway, Cloud Computing Hypervisor, and Methods for Implementing\n\n Same.\u201d Microsoft admits that, on the face of the \u2019868 Patent, its issue date is August 20, 2013.\n\n Microsoft admits that, on the face of the \u2019868 Patent, Duncan Christopher Hill is identified as the\n\n inventor. Microsoft admits that, on the face of the \u2019868 Patent, its application as U.S. Patent\n\n Application No. 12/488,424 was filed on June 19, 2009. Microsoft is without knowledge or\n\n information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 27\n\n of the FAC and, on that basis, denies those allegations.\n\n 28. VL IP owns the entire right, title, and interest in the \u2019599 Patent, which is titled\n\n \u201cSystem and Method for a Cloud Computing Abstraction Layer with Security Zone Facilities.\u201d\n\n The Patent issued on June 30, 2015 to inventors Frank R. Martinez and Eric Pulier from U.S.\n\n Patent Application No. 13/354,275 filed on January 19, 2012. A true and correct copy of the \u2019599\n\n Patent is attached as Exhibit B to this Complaint.\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft admits that Exhibit B purports to be a copy of the \u2019599 Patent which is\n\n titled \u201cSystem and Method for a Cloud Computing Abstraction Layer with Security Zone\n\n Facilities.\u201d Microsoft admits that, on the face of the \u2019599 Patent, its issue date is June 30, 2015.\n\n Microsoft admits that, on the face of the \u2019599 Patent, Frank R. Martinez and Eric Pulier are\n\n identified as inventors. Microsoft admits that, on the face of the \u2019599 Patent, its application as U.S.\n\n\n 15\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 35 Filed 08/10/26 Page 16 of 45 PageID #: 584\n\n\n\n\n Patent Application No. 13/354,275 was filed on January 19, 2012. Microsoft is without knowledge\n\n or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph\n\n 28 of the FAC and, on that basis, denies those allegations.\n\n 29. VL IP owns the entire right, title, and interest in the \u2019474 Patent, which is titled\n\n \u201cCloud Computing Gateway, Cloud Computing Hypervisor, and Methods for Implementing\n\n Same.\u201d The Patent issued on May 15, 2018 to inventor Duncan Christopher Hill from U.S. Patent\n\n Application No. 15/452,032 filed on March 7, 2017. A true and correct copy of the \u2019474 Patent is\n\n attached as Exhibit C to this Complaint.\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft admits that Exhibit C purports to be a copy of the \u2019474 Patent which is titled\n\n \u201cCloud Computing Gateway, Cloud Computing Hypervisor, and Methods for Implementing\n\n Same.\u201d Microsoft admits that, on the face of the \u2019474 Patent, its issue date is May 15, 2018.\n\n Microsoft admits that, on the face of the \u2019474 Patent, Duncan Christopher Hill is identified as the\n\n inventor. Microsoft admits that, on the face of the \u2019474 Patent, its application as U.S. Patent\n\n Application No. 15/452,032 was filed on March 7, 2017. Microsoft is without knowledge or\n\n information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in Paragraph 29\n\n of the FAC and, on that basis, denies those allegations.\n\n 30. Duncan Hill invented a novel cloud gateway system, cloud hypervisor system, and\n\n methods of implementing the same. His inventions were a significant advance in the field of cloud\n\n infrastructure. Mr. Hill patented these inventions in the \u2019868 Patent.\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft admits that, on the face of the \u2019868 Patent, Duncan Christopher Hill is\n\n identified as the inventor. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 30.\n\n\n\n\n 16\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 35 Filed 08/10/26 Page 17 of 45 PageID #: 585\n\n\n\n\n 31. Claim 5 of the \u2019868 Patent reads as follows:\n\n 5. A cloud hypervisor system comprising:\n a processor;\n a pseudo-hypervisor creation tool configured, using the processor, to\n establish a pseudo-hypervisor instance;\n an API call listening tool configured, using the processor, to listen for and\n receive hypervisor API calls;\n a hypervisor API call translation tool configured, using the processor, to\n translate a hypervisor API call received by the API call listening tool into an\n intermediate representation;\n a cloud API translation tool configured, using the processor, to translate an\n intermediate representation into a cloud API call; and\n a routing tool configured, using the processor, to route an intermediate\n representation from the hypervisor API call translation tool to the cloud API\n translation tool.\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft admits Paragraph 31 purports to quote from claim 5 of the \u2019868 Patent.\n\n Microsoft denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 31 of the FAC.\n\n 32. Frank Martinez and Eric Pulier invented a visualization environment adapted for\n\n development and deployment of at least one software workload. Their inventions were a\n\n significant advance in the fields of cloud services, applications, platforms, and infrastructure. Mr.\n\n Martinez and Mr. Pulier patented these inventions in the \u2019599 Patent.\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft admits that, on the face of the \u2019599 Patent, Frank R. Martinez and Eric\n\n Pulier are identified as inventors. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 32.\n\n 33. Claim 1 of the \u2019599 Patent reads as follows:\n\n 1. A method, comprising:\n providing at least one processor capable of executing computing code in\n data communication with a nontransitory computer readable storage medium\n having encoded thereon computer executable instructions which, when executed on\n the processor, provide a virtualization environment adapted for development of a\n software workload to be deployed using at least one resource of a computing cloud,\n the software workload including a software unit of computing processing\n performed via at least one of an Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS), a Platform-as-\n a-Service (PaaS), or a Service-as-a-Service (SaaS), the virtualization environment\n having a metamodel framework that allows for the association of at least one policy\n to the software workload, the policy to be applied to the software workload upon\n its deployment;\n\n\n 17\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 35 Filed 08/10/26 Page 18 of 45 PageID #: 586\n\n\n\n\n defining a security zone including at least one of the cloud resource(s),\n wherein one or more boundaries of the security zone are updatable, wherein one or\n more updated policies are applicable to the software workload when deployed\n within the security zone, and wherein the security zone is definable at differing\n levels of abstraction;\n determining at least one of a plurality of security zone policy types, each\n type comprising at least one security policy that may be applied to the software\n workload using at least one resource within the security zone;\n including the at least one security zone policy type in the metamodel\n framework;\n associating a security policy of the at least one security zone policy type(s)\n with the software workload upon development of the software workload; and\n automatically applying the security policy to the software workload when\n the software workload is deployed within the security zone.\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft admits Paragraph 33 purports to quote from claim 1 of the \u2019599 Patent.\n\n Microsoft denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 33 of the FAC.\n\n 34. Duncan Hill invented a novel cloud gateway system, cloud hypervisor system, and\n\n methods of implementing the same. His inventions were a significant advance in the field of cloud\n\n infrastructure. Mr. Hill patented these inventions in the \u2019474 Patent.\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft admits that, on the face of the \u2019474 Patent, Duncan Christopher Hill is\n\n identified as the inventor. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 34.\n\n 35. Claim 1 of the \u2019474 Patent reads as follows:\n\n 1. A computer-implemented method for managing cloud infrastructure, the\n method comprising:\n establishing an enterprise network, wherein one or more network end-user\n devices are connected to the enterprise network;\n connecting an enterprise gateway appliance to the enterprise network;\n establishing a secure virtual private network between the enterprise gateway\n appliance and at least a first enterprise virtual machine in a cloud provider network,\n wherein the establishing further comprises:\n establishing a connection between the enterprise gateway appliance and at\n least one remote gateway node in the cloud provider network, wherein the secure\n virtual private network is established between the enterprise gateway appliance, the\n remote gateway node, and the first enterprise virtual machine; and\n causing one or more network service plug-ins to execute in the cloud\n provider network.\n\n\n\n\n 18\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 35 Filed 08/10/26 Page 19 of 45 PageID #: 587\n\n\n\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft admits Paragraph 35 purports to quote from claim 1 of the \u2019474 Patent.\n\n Microsoft denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 35 of the FAC.\n\n COUNT 1: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,514,868 BY MICROSOFT\n\n 36. VL IP incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-35 above.\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft repeats and incorporates by reference each of the answers in the foregoing\n\n paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.\n\n 37. Microsoft has directly infringed, and continues to directly infringe one or more\n\n claims of the \u2019868 Patent, including at least claim 5 of the \u2019868 Patent, literally and/or under the\n\n doctrine of equivalents, by or through making, using, offering for sale, selling within the United\n\n States, and/or importing into the United States computer products and/or services such as the\n\n Microsoft Azure Products (collectively, the \u201cMicrosoft Accused Products\u201d), including, for\n\n example, Azure Arc in violation of 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 271(a).\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 37 of the FAC.\n\n 38. The Microsoft Accused Products, including, for example, Azure Arc, directly\n\n infringe claim 5 of the \u2019868 patent as set forth in Exhibit D.\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 38 of the FAC. Microsoft\n\n further denies each and every allegation set forth in Exhibit D.\n\n 39. Microsoft has also indirectly infringed and continues to indirectly infringe the \u2019868\n\n Patent by inducing infringement by its customers, end users, and third parties of the \u2019868 Patent.\n\n Microsoft has been on notice of the \u2019868 patent and its infringement since at least the issuance of\n\n the \u2019868 patent on August 20, 2013. In the prosecution of Microsoft\u2019s patent application with U.S.\n\n Patent Publication No. 2010/0318609 (\u201cMicrosoft\u2019s \u2019609 patent application\u201d), Microsoft provided\n\n a detailed analysis of the substance of the \u2019868 patent. In prosecution of Microsoft\u2019s \u2019609 patent\n\n application, the examiner relied on the published application that resulted in the \u2019868 patent, U.S.\n\n\n 19\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 35 Filed 08/10/26 Page 20 of 45 PageID #: 588\n\n\n\n\n Patent Publication No. 2010/0027552 (\u201c\u2019552 Publication\u201d), to reject the claims of Microsoft\u2019s \u2019609\n\n patent application over the course of several office actions. In an office action dated December 27,\n\n 2010, the examiner rejected the claims of Microsoft\u2019s \u2019609 patent application for anticipation\n\n based on the Hill reference, which is the \u2019552 Publication. In its response to that office action dated\n\n March 28, 2011, Microsoft provided a detailed analysis of the substance of the \u2019552 Publication.\n\n In a second office action dated June 13, 2011, the examiner rejected the claims of Microsoft\u2019s \u2019609\n\n patent application for obviousness based on the Hill reference (i.e., the \u2019552 Publication). In\n\n response to that office action on September 13, 2011, Microsoft again submitted arguments\n\n analyzing the \u2019552 Publication. Then, in yet another office action dated March 2, 2012, the\n\n examiner rejected the claims of Microsoft\u2019s \u2019609 patent application for obviousness based on the\n\n \u2019552 Publication. In its response to this office action on July 2, 2012, Microsoft again provided\n\n arguments regarding the \u2019552 Publication. The examiner again rejected the claims of Microsoft\u2019s\n\n \u2019609 patent application for obviousness based on the \u2019552 Publication in an office action dated\n\n October 12, 2012. Microsoft responded to this office action on January 14, 2013, by further\n\n analyzing the \u2019552 Publication. In another office action dated May 9, 2013, the examiner again\n\n rejected the claims of Microsoft\u2019s \u2019609 patent application for obviousness based on the \u2019552\n\n Publication. The \u2019552 Publication issued as the \u2019868 patent on August 20, 2013. Microsoft\n\n responded to the May 9, 2013 office action on August 27, 2013, again analyzing the disclosure of\n\n the \u2019552 Publication, which had now already issued as the \u2019868 patent. Microsoft\u2019s \u2019609 patent\n\n application was abandoned on June 20, 2014, approximately 10 months after the \u2019868 patent\n\n issued.\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft denies that it has indirectly infringed or is indirectly infringing the \u2019868\n\n Patent, including by inducing infringement by any customer, end user, or third party. Microsoft\n\n\n\n\n 20\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 35 Filed 08/10/26 Page 21 of 45 PageID #: 589\n\n\n\n\n further denies that it possessed the knowledge or specific intent required to induce infringement of\n\n the \u2019868 Patent. Microsoft admits that the \u2019868 Patent issued on August 20, 2013. Microsoft further\n\n admits that during prosecution of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0318609 the\n\n Examiner cited U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0027552 in certain Office Actions\n\n and that Microsoft submitted responses to those Office Actions. Microsoft denies the remaining\n\n allegations in Paragraph 39.\n\n 40. Further, in the prosecution of Microsoft\u2019s patent application with U.S. Patent\n\n Publication No. 2013/0142201 (\u201cMicrosoft\u2019s \u2019201 patent application\u201d), Microsoft again performed\n\n an extensive analysis of the \u2019552 Publication to Hill, which is the published application that\n\n resulted in the \u2019868 patent. In office actions dated April 21, 2014 and February 6, 2015, the\n\n examiner rejected the claims of Microsoft\u2019s \u2019201 patent application for obviousness in view of the\n\n \u2019552 Publication, which had already issued as the \u2019868 patent. In its response to an office action\n\n dated June 24, 2015, Microsoft provides a detailed analysis of the \u2019552 Publication to Hill. The\n\n examiner again rejected the claims of Microsoft\u2019s \u2019201 patent application for obviousness in view\n\n of the \u2019552 Publication in additional office actions dated July 24, 2015, and November 2, 2015.\n\n Microsoft eventually was deemed to have abandoned the \u2019201 patent application on June 1, 2016.\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft admits that, during prosecution of the application published as U.S. Patent\n\n Application Publication No. 2013/0142201, the Examiner cited U.S. Patent Application\n\n Publication No. 2010/0027552 in Office Actions. Microsoft further admits that it submitted a\n\n response dated June 24, 2015, and that Microsoft\u2019s patent application was abandoned on June 1,\n\n 2016. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 40 of the FAC.\n\n 41. Additionally, Microsoft affirmatively disclosed the \u2019552 Publication, which issued\n\n as the \u2019868 patent in August 2013, in Information Disclosure Statements on December 1, 2015, in\n\n\n\n\n 21\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 35 Filed 08/10/26 Page 22 of 45 PageID #: 590\n\n\n\n\n the prosecution of U.S. Patent No. 10,075,304 and in March 2014 in the prosecution of the U.S.\n\n Patent No. 11,314,556. The examiner similarly cited the \u2019552 Publication in the prosecution of\n\n three other Microsoft patents, including U.S. Patent No. 8,019,873, U.S. Patent No. 8,849,924, and\n\n U.S. Patent No. 9,075,661.\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft admits that U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0027552 was\n\n identified in Information Disclosure Statements submitted during prosecution of the applications\n\n that issued as U.S. Patent Nos. 10,075,304 and 11,314,556. Microsoft further admits that the \u2019552\n\n Publication was cited during prosecution of the applications that issued as U.S. Patent Nos.\n\n 8,019,873, 8,849,924, and 9,075,661. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 41\n\n of the FAC.\n\n 42. All of Microsoft\u2019s patents and patent applications above that cite the \u2019552\n\n Publication concern cloud computing. The Microsoft Accused Products in this case relate to Azure,\n\n Microsoft\u2019s cloud computing platform. Furthermore, the \u2019868 patent and the \u2019552 Publication are\n\n well known in the field and have been cited over 325 times by other patents and patent applications.\n\n Microsoft thus had knowledge of the \u2019868 patent and knew that the Microsoft Accused Products\n\n (e.g., the Azure Products) infringe the \u2019868 patent. Alternatively, Microsoft was willfully blind to\n\n the existence of the \u2019868 patent and its infringement by deliberately avoiding confirming these\n\n facts.\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft admits that it offers products and services under the name \u201cMicrosoft\n\n Azure\u201d and that Azure is a cloud computing platform. Microsoft is without knowledge or\n\n information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations that the \u2019868 Patent and the\n\n \u2019552 Publication are \u201cwell known in the field\u201d or have been cited more than 325 times by other\n\n\n\n\n 22\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 35 Filed 08/10/26 Page 23 of 45 PageID #: 591\n\n\n\n\n patents and patent applications. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 42 of the\n\n FAC.\n\n 43. VideoLabs and Microsoft have a long relationship. VideoLabs publicly announced\n\n on its website in 2022 that Microsoft has entered into an agreement to license VideoLabs\u2019 patents.\n\n VideoLabs also publicly announced its acquisition of the patents-in-suit in 2024.\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft admits that it and VideoLabs entered into one prior licensing transaction\n\n regarding an unrelated patent portfolio. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph\n\n 43 of the FAC.\n\n 44. From at least the time that Microsoft received notice, Microsoft has been actively\n\n inducing its customers, end users, and third parties to infringe at least claim 5 of the \u2019868 Patent.\n\n Microsoft has taken affirmative actions to induce infringement by intentionally instructing its\n\n customers, end users, and third parties to infringe one or more claims of the \u2019868 Patent, including\n\n at least claim 5, through websites and online tutorials that provide instructions on the infringing\n\n use and implementation of the Microsoft Accused Products, such as those available at the\n\n following URLs:\n\n https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/resources/cloud-computing-dictionary/what-is-azure/\n\n https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/blog/itopstalkblog/azure-arc-for-it-pros/2347921\n\n https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-arc/overview\n\n https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-resource-manager/management/overview\n\n https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/explore/global-infrastructure#tabs-pill-bar-\n oc9430_tab1\n\n https://datacenters.microsoft.com/WhatIsADatacenter/\n\n https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-arc/resource-bridge/overview\n\n https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-resource-manager/templates/overview\n\n https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-resource-manager/templates/deploy-rest\n\n\n 23\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 35 Filed 08/10/26 Page 24 of 45 PageID #: 592\n\n\n\n\n https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-resource-manager/templates/template-\n expressions\n\n https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-resource-manager/templates/parameter-files\n\n https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-resource-manager/templates/parameters\n\n https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-resource-manager/bicep/overview\n\n https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-arc/servers/manage-vm-extensions\n\n https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-resource-manager/templates/template-\n tutorial-create-templates-with-dependent-resources\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 44 of the FAC.\n\n 45. With knowledge of both the \u2019868 Patent and its infringement of the \u2019868 Patent,\n\n Microsoft has acted with specific intent or willful blindness to actively aid and abet its customers,\n\n end users, and third parties in infringing the \u2019868 Patent by making and using the Microsoft\n\n Accused Products in a manner constituting direct infringement of at least claim 5 of the \u2019868\n\n Patent. Microsoft is thus liable for infringement of the \u2019868 Patent under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 271(b).\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 45 of the FAC.\n\n 46. On information and belief, since being on notice of the \u2019868 patent, Microsoft\u2019s\n\n past and continuing infringement has been intentional, deliberate, egregious, and willful. This case\n\n is therefore an exceptional case, which warrants an award of treble damages and attorneys\u2019 fees to\n\n Plaintiff pursuant to 35 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 284, 285.\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 46 of the FAC.\n\n 47. As a result of Microsoft\u2019s infringement of the \u2019868 Patent, VL IP has suffered\n\n monetary damages and is entitled to no less than a reasonable royalty for Microsoft\u2019s use of the\n\n claimed inventions of the \u2019868 Patent, together with interest and costs as determined by the Court.\n\n VL IP will continue to suffer damages in the future unless Microsoft\u2019s infringing activities are\n\n enjoined by this Court.\n\n\n 24\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 35 Filed 08/10/26 Page 25 of 45 PageID #: 593\n\n\n\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 47 of the FAC.\n\n 48. VL IP will be irreparably harmed unless a permanent injunction is issued enjoining\n\n Microsoft and its agents, employees, representatives, affiliates, and others acting in concert with\n\n Microsoft from infringing the \u2019868 Patent.\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 48 of the FAC.\n\n COUNT 2: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,069,599 BY MICROSOFT\n\n 49. VL IP incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-48 above.\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft repeats and incorporates by reference each of the answers in the foregoing\n\n paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.\n\n 50. Microsoft has directly infringed, and continues to directly infringe one or more\n\n claims of the \u2019599 Patent, including at least claim 1 of the \u2019599 Patent, literally and/or under the\n\n doctrine of equivalents, by or through making, using, offering for sale, selling within the United\n\n States, and/or importing into the United States the Microsoft Accused Products, including, for\n\n example, Azure Kubernetes Service in violation of 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 271(a).\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 50 of the FAC.\n\n 51. The Microsoft Accused Products, including, for example, Azure Kubernetes\n\n Service, directly infringe claim 1 as set forth in Exhibit E.\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 51 of the FAC. Microsoft\n\n further denies each and every allegation set forth in Exhibit E.\n\n 52. Microsoft has also indirectly infringed and continues to indirectly infringe the \u2019599\n\n Patent by actively inducing infringement by its customers, end users, and third parties of the \u2019599\n\n Patent. Microsoft has been on notice of the \u2019599 patent and its infringement thereof since at least\n\n May 3, 2017. In the prosecution of Microsoft\u2019s U.S. Patent No. 10,860,545, Microsoft\n\n affirmatively cited the asserted \u2019599 patent in Information Disclosure Statements dated May 3,\n\n\n 25\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 35 Filed 08/10/26 Page 26 of 45 PageID #: 594\n\n\n\n\n 2017. Microsoft also affirmatively cited the asserted \u2019599 patent in Information Disclosure\n\n Statements dated May 3, 2017 in the prosecution of Microsoft\u2019s U.S. Patent No. 10,725,979.\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft admits that the publicly available prosecution histories of U.S. Patent Nos.\n\n 10,860,545 and 10,725,979 list the \u2019599 Patent in Information Disclosure Statements. Microsoft\n\n denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 52 of the FAC.\n\n 53. The \u2019599 patent issued on June 30, 2015. In prosecution of its application with U.S.\n\n Patent No. 10,581,756 (\u201cMicrosoft\u2019s \u2019756 patent\u201d), Microsoft provided a detailed analysis of the\n\n substance of the \u2019599 patent. In prosecution of Microsoft\u2019s \u2019756 patent, the examiner relied on the\n\n published application that resulted in the \u2019599 patent, U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0185913\n\n (\u201c\u2019913 Publication\u201d), to reject the claims of Microsoft\u2019s \u2019756 patent over the course of several\n\n office actions. In an office action dated June 20, 2019, the examiner rejected the claims of\n\n Microsoft\u2019s \u2019756 patent for obviousness based on the Martinez reference, which is the \u2019913\n\n Publication. In response to the office action dated September 20, 2019, Microsoft provided a\n\n detailed analysis of the \u2019913 Publication, which had already issued as the \u2019599 patent more than\n\n four years earlier. Microsoft further proposed to discuss the \u2019913 Publication to Martinez in an\n\n interview with the examiner during prosecution.\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft admits that the \u2019599 Patent issued on June 30, 2015. Microsoft further\n\n admits that, during prosecution of U.S. Patent No. 10,581,756, the Examiner cited U.S. Patent\n\n Application Publication No. 2012/0185913 in an Office Action and Microsoft submitted a\n\n response. Microsoft further admits that the publicly available prosecution history shows that an\n\n examiner interview concerning the \u2019913 Publication was proposed. Microsoft denies the remaining\n\n allegations in paragraph 53 of the FAC.\n\n\n\n\n 26\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 35 Filed 08/10/26 Page 27 of 45 PageID #: 595\n\n\n\n\n 54. Moreover, Microsoft disclosed the \u2019913 Publication in an Information Disclosure\n\n Statement dated August 14, 2018, in the prosecution of U.S. Publication No. 2017/0171020, which\n\n was more than three years after the \u2019599 patent had issued. The \u2019913 Publication was also cited by\n\n the examiner in the prosecutions of Microsoft\u2019s U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0168900 and\n\n U.S. Patent No. 10,740,086. All of Microsoft\u2019s patents and patent applications above that cite the\n\n \u2019599 patent or the \u2019552 Publication relate to cloud computing. The Microsoft Accused Products in\n\n this case relate to Azure, Microsoft\u2019s cloud computing platform. Furthermore, the \u2019599 patent and\n\n the \u2019913 Publication are well known in the field and have been cited over 590 times by other\n\n patents and patent applications.\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft admits that the publicly available prosecution history of U.S. Patent\n\n Application Publication No. 2017/0171020 shows that U.S. Patent Application Publication No.\n\n 2012/0185913 was identified in an Information Disclosure Statement. Microsoft further admits\n\n that the \u2019913 Publication was cited during prosecution of U.S. Patent No. 10,740,086. Microsoft\n\n admits that it offers products and services under the name \u201cMicrosoft Azure\u201d and that Azure is a\n\n cloud computing platform. Microsoft is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a\n\n belief as to the truth of the allegations that the \u2019599 Patent and the \u2019913 Publication are \u201cwell\n\n known in the field\u201d or have been cited more than 590 times by other patents and patent\n\n applications. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 54 of the FAC.\n\n 55. Therefore, Microsoft thus had knowledge of the \u2019599 patent and knew that the\n\n Microsoft Accused Products (e.g., the Azure Products) infringe the \u2019599 patent. Alternatively,\n\n Microsoft was willfully blind to the existence of the \u2019599 patent and its infringement by\n\n deliberately avoiding confirming these facts.\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 55 of the FAC.\n\n\n\n\n 27\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 35 Filed 08/10/26 Page 28 of 45 PageID #: 596\n\n\n\n\n 56. Furthermore, VideoLabs and Microsoft have a long relationship. VideoLabs\n\n publicly announced on its website in 2022 that Microsoft has entered into an agreement to license\n\n VideoLabs\u2019 patents. VideoLabs also publicly announced its acquisition of the patents-in-suit in\n\n 2024.\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft admits that it and VideoLabs entered into one prior licensing transaction\n\n regarding an unrelated patent portfolio. Microsoft denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph\n\n 56 of the FAC.\n\n 57. From at least the time that Microsoft received notice, Microsoft has been actively\n\n inducing its customers, end users, and third parties to infringe at least claim 1 of the \u2019599 Patent.\n\n Microsoft has taken affirmative actions to induce infringement by intentionally instructing its\n\n customers, end users, and third parties to infringe one or more claims of the \u2019599 Patent, including\n\n at least claim 1, through websites and online tutorials that provide instructions on the infringing\n\n use and implementation of the Microsoft Accused Products, such as those available at the\n\n following URLs:\n\n https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/virtual-machines/managed-disks-overview\n\n https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/aks/what-is-aks\n\n https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/virtual-machines/overview\n\n https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/resources/cloud-computing-dictionary/what-is-azure/\n\n https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/container-instances/container-instances-overview\n\n https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/training/modules/describe-azure-compute-networking-\n services/5-containers\n\n https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/aks/use-azure-policy\n\n https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/governance/policy/concepts/definition-structure-\n basics\n\n https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/governance/policy/concepts/initiative-definition-\n structure\n\n\n 28\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 35 Filed 08/10/26 Page 29 of 45 PageID #: 597\n\n\n\n\n https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/governance/policy/concepts/scope\n\n https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/governance/policy/assign-policy-\n bicep?tabs=azure-powershell\n\n https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/governance/policy/assign-policy-\n template?tabs=azure-powershell\n\n https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/well-architected/service-guides/azure-kubernetes-\n service\n\n https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/aks/learn/quick-kubernetes-deploy-rm-\n template?tabs=azure-cli\n\n https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/aks/learn/quick-kubernetes-deploy-\n bicep?tabs=azure-cli\n\n https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/defender-for-cloud/defender-for-cloud-\n introduction\n\n https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/defender-for-cloud/defender-for-containers-\n architecture?tabs=defender-for-container-arch-aks\n\n https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/defender-for-cloud/enablement-guide-runtime-\n gated\n\n https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/defender-for-cloud/recommendations-reference-\n container\n\n https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/aks/security-controls-policy\n\n https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/virtual-network/kubernetes-network-policies\n\n https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/aks/network-policy-best-practices\n\n https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/defender-for-cloud/defender-for-containers-\n introduction\n\n https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/aks/pci-ra-code-assets\n\n https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/aks/cis-kubernetes\n\n https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/aks/developer-best-practices-pod-security\n\n https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/aks/concepts-security\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 57 of the FAC.\n\n\n\n\n 29\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 35 Filed 08/10/26 Page 30 of 45 PageID #: 598\n\n\n\n\n 58. With knowledge of both the \u2019599 Patent and its infringement of the \u2019599 Patent,\n\n Microsoft has acted with specific intent or willful blindness to actively aid and abet its customers,\n\n end users, and third parties in infringing the \u2019599 Patent by making and using the Microsoft\n\n Accused Products in a manner constituting direct infringement of at least claim 1 of the \u2019599\n\n Patent. Microsoft is thus liable for infringement of the \u2019599 Patent under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 271(b).\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 58 of the FAC.\n\n 59. On information and belief, since being on notice of the \u2019599 patent, Microsoft\u2019s\n\n past and continuing infringement has been intentional, deliberate, egregious, and willful. This case\n\n is therefore an exceptional case, which warrants an award of treble damages and attorneys\u2019 fees to\n\n Plaintiff pursuant to 35 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 284, 285.\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 59 of the FAC.\n\n 60. As a result of Microsoft\u2019s infringement of the \u2019599 Patent, VL IP has suffered\n\n monetary damages and is entitled to no less than a reasonable royalty for Microsoft\u2019s use of the\n\n claimed inventions of the \u2019599 Patent, together with interest and costs as determined by the Court.\n\n VL IP will continue to suffer damages in the future unless Microsoft\u2019s infringing activities are\n\n enjoined by this Court.\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 60 of the FAC.\n\n 61. VL IP will be irreparably harmed unless a permanent injunction is issued enjoining\n\n Microsoft and its agents, employees, representatives, affiliates, and others acting in concert with\n\n Microsoft from infringing the \u2019599 Patent.\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 61 of the FAC.\n\n COUNT 3: INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 9,973,474 BY MICROSOFT\n\n 62. VL IP incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-61 above.\n\n\n\n\n 30\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 35 Filed 08/10/26 Page 31 of 45 PageID #: 599\n\n\n\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft repeats and incorporates by reference each of the answers in the foregoing\n\n paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.\n\n 63. Microsoft has directly infringed, and continues to directly infringe one or more\n\n claims of the \u2019474 Patent, including at least claim 1 of the \u2019474 Patent, literally and/or under the\n\n doctrine of equivalents, by or through making, using, offering for sale, selling within the United\n\n States, and/or importing into the United States the Microsoft Accused Products, including, for\n\n example, the Azure VPN Gateway in violation of 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 271(a).\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 63 of the FAC.\n\n 64. The Microsoft Accused Products, including, for example, the Azure VPN Gateway,\n\n directly infringe claim 1 as set forth in Exhibit F.\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 64 of the FAC. Microsoft\n\n further denies each and every allegation set forth in Exhibit F.\n\n 65. Microsoft has also indirectly infringed and continues to indirectly infringe the \u2019474\n\n Patent by inducing infringement by its customers, end users, and third parties of the \u2019474 Patent.\n\n Microsoft has been on notice of the \u2019474 patent and its infringement thereof at least as early as the\n\n filing of the original Complaint.\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 65 of the FAC.\n\n 66. Microsoft has been actively inducing its customers, end users, and third parties to\n\n infringe at least claim 1 of the \u2019474 Patent. Microsoft has taken affirmative actions to induce\n\n infringement by intentionally instructing its customers, end users, and third parties to infringe one\n\n or more claims of the \u2019474 Patent, including at least claim 1, through websites and online tutorials\n\n that provide instructions on the infringing use and implementation of the Microsoft Accused\n\n Products, such as those available at the following URLs:\n\n\n\n\n 31\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 35 Filed 08/10/26 Page 32 of 45 PageID #: 600\n\n\n\n\n https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/vpn-gateway/vpn-gateway-about-\n vpngateways\n\n https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/vpn-gateway/tutorial-site-to-site-\n portal\n\n https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/vpn-gateway/vpn-gateway-download-\n vpndevicescript\n\n https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/enterprise/connect-an-on-\n premises-network-to-a-microsoft-azure-virtual-network?view=o365-\n worldwide\n\n https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/vpn-gateway/vpn-gateway-about-vpn-\n gateway-settings\n\n https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/vpn-gateway/vpn-gateway-vpn-faq\n\n https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/blog/appsonazureblog/how-to-choose-\n the-right-network-plugin-for-your-aks-cluster-a-flowchart-guide/3969292\n\n https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/virtual-network/deploy-container-\n networking\n\n https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/network-watcher/network-watcher-\n agent-linux?tabs=portal\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 66 of the FAC.\n\n 67. Microsoft has also contributed to, and continues to contribute to, the infringement\n\n of claim 1 of the \u2019474 patent by making, using, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing the\n\n components of the Microsoft Accused Products, including Azure VPN Gateway, in violation of\n\n 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 271(c). Microsoft makes, uses, offers to sell, sells, and/or imports such products with\n\n the knowledge that they are especially designed for use in performing the method of claim 1, that\n\n their use constitutes a material part of the method of claim 1, and that they are not a staple article\n\n of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use.\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 67 of the FAC.\n\n 68. With knowledge of both the \u2019474 Patent and its infringement of the \u2019474 Patent,\n\n Microsoft has acted with specific intent or willful blindness to actively aid and abet its customers,\n\n\n 32\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 35 Filed 08/10/26 Page 33 of 45 PageID #: 601\n\n\n\n\n end users, and third parties in infringing the \u2019474 Patent by making and using the Azure VPN\n\n Gateway in a manner constituting direct infringement of at least claim 1 of the \u2019474 Patent.\n\n Microsoft is thus liable for infringement of the \u2019474 Patent under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 271(b).\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 68 of the FAC.\n\n 69. On information and belief, since at least the filing of the original Complaint,\n\n Microsoft\u2019s past and continuing infringement has been intentional, deliberate, egregious, and\n\n willful. This case is therefore an exceptional case, which warrants an award of treble damages and\n\n attorneys\u2019 fees to Plaintiff pursuant to 35 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 284, 285.\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 69 of the FAC.\n\n 70. As a result of Microsoft\u2019s infringement of the \u2019474 Patent, VL IP has suffered\n\n monetary damages and is entitled to no less than a reasonable royalty for Microsoft\u2019s use of the\n\n claimed inventions of the \u2019474 Patent, together with interest and costs as determined by the Court.\n\n VL IP will continue to suffer damages in the future unless Microsoft\u2019s infringing activities are\n\n enjoined by this Court.\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 70 of the FAC.\n\n 71. VL IP will be irreparably harmed unless a permanent injunction is issued enjoining\n\n Microsoft and its agents, employees, representatives, affiliates, and others acting in concert with\n\n Microsoft from infringing the \u2019474 Patent.\n\n ANSWER: Microsoft denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 71 of the FAC.\n\n PRAYER FOR RELIEF\n\n To the extent that any statement in the Prayer for Relief section of the FAC is deemed\n\n factual, it is denied. Further, Microsoft denies that Plaintiff has any valid claim and is entitled to\n\n any relief whatsoever.\n\n\n\n\n 33\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 35 Filed 08/10/26 Page 34 of 45 PageID #: 602\n\n\n\n\n AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES\n\n Microsoft asserts the following additional and affirmative defenses without assuming any\n\n burden of proof when such burden would otherwise be on Plaintiff. Microsoft repeats and\n\n incorporates by reference each of its answers in paragraphs 1 through 71 and the Response to\n\n Prayer for Relief as set forth above with each of the following defenses as if fully set forth herein.\n\n Further, Microsoft specifically reserves all rights to assert additional defenses and affirmative\n\n defenses as additional information becomes available.\n\n FIRST DEFENSE\n\n Plaintiff has failed to plead its claims with sufficient specificity or factual support to place\n\n Microsoft on notice of the claims Plaintiff is asserting against it, such that Plaintiff failed to state\n\n a claim upon which relief can be granted.\n\n SECOND DEFENSE\n\n Microsoft has not infringed and does not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the\n\n Asserted Patents, either directly or indirectly, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.\n\n THIRD DEFENSE\n\n The claims of the Asserted Patents are invalid for failure to meet the requirements of one\n\n or more sections of Title 35, United States Code, and/or Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations,\n\n including but not limited to one or more of 35 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 101, 102, 103 and 112.\n\n FOURTH DEFENSE\n\n Plaintiff\u2019s claims for patent infringement are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines\n\n of prosecution history estoppel, judicial estoppel, and/or prosecution disclaimer.\n\n FIFTH DEFENSE\n\n Microsoft has not committed any acts of infringement, willful or otherwise, in this District\n\n or elsewhere, and the Asserted Patents are invalid, and thus Plaintiff cannot prove that it is entitled\n\n\n 34\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 35 Filed 08/10/26 Page 35 of 45 PageID #: 603\n\n\n\n\n to enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 284 or that this case is otherwise exceptional under 35\n\n U.S.C. \u00a7 285.\n\n SIXTH DEFENSE\n\n Plaintiff\u2019s claims against Microsoft for recovery are barred, in whole or in part, by 35\n\n U.S.C. \u00a7 286. For the purposes of this defense, the relevant calculation period for damages\u2014 as\n\n prescribed by statute\u2014cannot be more than six years prior to the filing of the Original Complaint.\n\n SEVENTH DEFENSE\n\n Plaintiff\u2019s claims against Microsoft for recovery are barred, in whole or in part, by 35\n\n U.S.C. \u00a7 287. To the extent Plaintiff, any predecessor in interest, or any licensee or other person\n\n failed to properly mark any of their relevant products or materials, Plaintiff may not recover\n\n damages for acts occurring before Microsoft received actual notice that it was allegedly infringing\n\n the Asserted Patents.\n\n EIGHTH DEFENSE\n\n Plaintiff is precluded from recovering costs under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 288.\n\n NINTH DEFENSE\n\n Plaintiff is not entitled to any injunctive relief or other equitable because, among other\n\n reasons, any alleged injury is not immediate or irreparable, and Plaintiff has an adequate remedy\n\n at law for any alleged injury.\n\n TENTH DEFENSE\n\n Plaintiff\u2019s claims against Microsoft are barred or limited by the equitable doctrine of\n\n estoppel, waiver, implied waiver, implied license, prosecution latches, laches to the extent legally\n\n available, unclean hands, and/or other equitable doctrines. For example, and upon information and\n\n belief, Plaintiff unreasonably delayed filing this action after it knew, or should have known, of the\n\n\n\n\n 35\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 35 Filed 08/10/26 Page 36 of 45 PageID #: 604\n\n\n\n\n allegedly infringing acts identified in the FAC. Allowing this action to proceed after such\n\n unreasonable delay stands to materially prejudice Microsoft.\n\n ELEVENTH DEFENSE\n\n To the extent any Asserted Patents incorrectly names or omits an inventor and any such\n\n inventorship error cannot be corrected under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 256, the affected Asserted Patent and/or\n\n claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 115 and/or 256.\n\n TWELFTH DEFENSE\n To the extent Plaintiff was not the true, correct, sole, and total owner of all substantial\n\n rights to the Asserted Patents as of the filing date of the Original Complaint. Plaintiff lacks standing\n\n to bring or maintain one or more claims in this lawsuit.\n\n THIRTEENTH DEFENSE\n\n Plaintiff cannot assert the claims of the Asserted Patents under the doctrine of equivalents\n\n to cover the allegedly infringing products, services, systems, or instrumentalities because any such\n\n asserted scope of equivalency would encompass or ensnare the prior art.\n\n\n\n COUNTERCLAIMS\n\n Microsoft Corporation (\u201cMicrosoft\u201d) alleges and asserts the following counterclaims\n\n against VL Collective IP LLC\u2019s (\u201cVL IP\u201d).\n\n PARTIES\n\n 1. Counterclaimant Microsoft is a Washington corporation with its principal place of\n\n business located at One Microsoft Way, Redmond, Washington 98052.\n\n 2. On information and belief, Counterclaim Defendant VL Collective IP LLC is a\n\n Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Palo Alto, CA.\n\n\n\n\n 36\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 35 Filed 08/10/26 Page 37 of 45 PageID #: 605\n\n\n\n\n JURISDICTION AND VENUE\n\n 3. These Counterclaims arise under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. \u00a7\n\n 1 et seq., and the Declaratory Judgement Act, 28 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 2201-02.\n\n 4. Subject to Microsoft\u2019s defenses and denials stated above, this Court has jurisdiction\n\n over the subject matter of these Counterclaims under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1331, 1338(a), 1367, and 2201-\n\n 02.\n\n 5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over VL IP because, inter alia, VL IP has\n\n submitted to the jurisdiction of this Court by purposefully availing itself of the benefits and\n\n protections of the laws of this District by filing suit in this District.\n\n 6. Subject to Microsoft\u2019s defenses and denials stated above, venue for this\n\n Counterclaim is proper in this District because VL IP has consented to this venue through the filing\n\n of a claim of patent infringement against Microsoft in this District, in response to which this\n\n Counterclaim is being asserted.\n\n COUNT 1 (Declaratory Judgement of Noninfringement of the \u2019868 Patent)\n\n 7. Microsoft realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in Paragraphs 1-\n\n 6 of its Counterclaims and all of the Defenses and Additional and Affirmative Defenses above as\n\n if fully set forth herein.\n\n 8. Although VL IP alleges in its FAC that Microsoft has infringed one or more claims\n\n of the \u2019868 Patent, Microsoft has not infringed and does not infringe any valid and enforceable\n\n claim of the \u2019868 Patent, either directly, indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,\n\n because Microsoft\u2019s products, infrastructure, and/or services do not practice every claimed\n\n limitation.\n\n 9. An actual controversy exists with respect to the alleged infringement of the \u2019868\n\n Patent.\n\n\n 37\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 35 Filed 08/10/26 Page 38 of 45 PageID #: 606\n\n\n\n\n 10. Absent a declaration and order as sought by Microsoft, VL IP will continue to\n\n wrongfully assert that Microsoft has infringed claims of the \u2019868 Patent, thereby causing Microsoft\n\n irreparable injury and damage.\n\n 11. A judicial determination of the respective rights of the parties with respect to the\n\n claims of the \u2019868 Patent is now necessary and appropriate under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 2201 and 2202.\n\n COUNT 2 (Declaratory Judgement of Noninfringement of the \u2019599 Patent)\n\n 12. Microsoft realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in Paragraphs 1-\n\n 11 of its Counterclaims and all of the Defenses and Additional and Affirmative Defenses above as\n\n if fully set forth herein.\n\n 13. Although VL IP alleges in its FAC that Microsoft has infringed one or more claims\n\n of the \u2019599 Patent, Microsoft has not infringed and does not infringe any valid and enforceable\n\n claim of the \u2019599 Patent, either directly, indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,\n\n because Microsoft\u2019s products, infrastructure, and/or services do not practice every claimed\n\n limitation.\n\n 14. An actual controversy exists with respect to the alleged infringement of the \u2019599\n\n Patent.\n\n 15. Absent a declaration and order as sought by Microsoft, VL IP will continue to\n\n wrongfully assert that Microsoft has infringed claims of the \u2019599 Patent, thereby causing Microsoft\n\n irreparable injury and damage.\n\n 16. A judicial determination of the respective rights of the parties with respect to the\n\n claims of the \u2019599 Patent is now necessary and appropriate under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 2201 and 2202.\n\n\n\n\n 38\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 35 Filed 08/10/26 Page 39 of 45 PageID #: 607\n\n\n\n\n COUNT 3 (Declaratory Judgement of Noninfringement of the \u2019474 Patent)\n\n 17. Microsoft realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in Paragraphs 1-\n\n 16 of its Counterclaims and all of the Defenses and Additional and Affirmative Defenses above as\n\n if fully set forth herein.\n\n 18. Although VL IP alleges in its FAC that Microsoft has infringed one or more claims\n\n of the \u2019474 Patent, Microsoft has not infringed and does not infringe any valid and enforceable\n\n claim of the \u2019474 Patent, either directly, indirectly, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents,\n\n because Microsoft\u2019s products, infrastructure, and/or services do not practice every claimed\n\n limitation.\n\n 19. An actual controversy exists with respect to the alleged infringement of the \u2019474\n\n Patent.\n\n 20. Absent a declaration and order as sought by Microsoft, VL IP will continue to\n\n wrongfully assert that Microsoft has infringed claims of the \u2019474 Patent, thereby causing Microsoft\n\n irreparable injury and damage.\n\n 21. A judicial determination of the respective rights of the parties with respect to the\n\n claims of the \u2019474 Patent is now necessary and appropriate under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 2201 and 2202.\n\n COUNT 4 (Declaratory Judgement of Invalidity of the \u2019868 Patent)\n\n 22. Microsoft realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in Paragraphs 1-\n\n 21 of its Counterclaims and all of the Defenses and Additional and Affirmative Defenses above as\n\n if fully set forth herein.\n\n 23. VL IP alleges in its FAC that the \u2019868 Patent is valid, enforceable, and was duly\n\n issued in full compliance with Title 35 of the United States Code. However, on information and\n\n belief, each claim of the \u2019868 Patent asserted against Microsoft is invalid for failing to comply\n\n\n\n\n 39\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 35 Filed 08/10/26 Page 40 of 45 PageID #: 608\n\n\n\n\n with one or more of the requirements for patentability set forth in 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 101 et seq., including\n\n but not limited to sections 101, 102, 103, and 112. As a non-limiting example, the claims of the\n\n \u2019868 Patent are anticipated or rendered obvious in view of U.S. Patent Publication Nos.\n\n 2005/0027886 (\u201cPutnam\u201d) and 2007/0240160 (\u201cPaterson-Jones\u201d).\n\n 24. An actual controversy exists with respect to the alleged infringement of the \u2019868\n\n Patent and the validity of the claims of the \u2019868 Patent.\n\n 25. Absent a declaration and order as sought by Microsoft, VL IP will continue to\n\n wrongfully assert that Microsoft has infringed the \u2019868 Patent, thereby causing Microsoft\n\n irreparable injury and damage.\n\n 26. A judicial determination of the respective rights of the parties with respect to the\n\n invalidity of the claims of the \u2019868 Patent is now necessary and appropriate under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7\n\n 2201 and 2202.\n\n COUNT 5 (Declaratory Judgement of Invalidity of the \u2019599 Patent)\n\n 27. Microsoft realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in Paragraphs 1-\n\n 26 of its Counterclaims and all of the Defenses and Additional and Affirmative Defenses above as\n\n if fully set forth herein.\n\n 28. VL IP alleges in its FAC that the \u2019599 Patent is valid, enforceable, and was duly\n\n issued in full compliance with Title 35 of the United States Code. However, on information and\n\n belief, each claim of the \u2019599 Patent asserted against Microsoft is invalid for failing to comply\n\n with one or more of the requirements for patentability set forth in 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 101 et seq., including\n\n but not limited to sections 101, 102, 103, and 112. As a non-limiting example, the claims of the\n\n \u2019599 Patent are anticipated or rendered obvious in view of U.S. Patent Publication Nos.\n\n 2008/0126406 (\u201cEndabetla\u201d) and 2007/0186274 (\u201cThrysoe\u201d).\n\n\n\n\n 40\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 35 Filed 08/10/26 Page 41 of 45 PageID #: 609\n\n\n\n\n 29. An actual controversy exists with respect to the alleged infringement of the \u2019599\n\n Patent and the validity of the claims of the \u2019599 Patent.\n\n 30. Absent a declaration and order as sought by Microsoft, VL IP will continue to\n\n wrongfully assert that Microsoft has infringed the \u2019599 Patent, thereby causing Microsoft\n\n irreparable injury and damage.\n\n 31. A judicial determination of the respective rights of the parties with respect to the\n\n invalidity of the claims of the \u2019599 Patent is now necessary and appropriate under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7\n\n 2201 and 2202.\n\n COUNT 6 (Declaratory Judgement of Invalidity of the \u2019474 Patent)\n\n 32. Microsoft realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations in Paragraphs 1-\n\n 31 of its Counterclaims and all of the Defenses and Additional and Affirmative Defenses above as\n\n if fully set forth herein.\n\n 33. VL IP alleges in its FAC that the \u2019474 Patent is valid, enforceable, and was duly\n\n issued in full compliance with Title 35 of the United States Code. However, on information and\n\n belief, each claim of the \u2019474 Patent asserted against Microsoft is invalid for failing to comply\n\n with one or more of the requirements for patentability set forth in 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 101 et seq., including\n\n but not limited to sections 101, 102, 103, and 112. As a non-limiting example, the claims of the\n\n \u2019474 Patent are anticipated or rendered obvious in view of U.S. Patent Publication Nos.\n\n 2006/0203820 (\u201cColuccio\u201d) and 2007/0240160 (\u201cPaterson-Jones\u201d).\n\n 34. An actual controversy exists with respect to the alleged infringement of the \u2019474\n\n Patent and the validity of the claims of the \u2019474 Patent.\n\n\n\n\n 41\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 35 Filed 08/10/26 Page 42 of 45 PageID #: 610\n\n\n\n\n 35. Absent a declaration and order as sought by Microsoft, VL IP will continue to\n\n wrongfully assert that Microsoft has infringed the \u2019474 Patent, thereby causing Microsoft\n\n irreparable injury and damage.\n\n 36. A judicial determination of the respective rights of the parties with respect to the\n\n invalidity of the claims of the \u2019474 Patent is now necessary and appropriate under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7\n\n 2201 and 2202.\n\n MICROSOFT\u2019S PRAYER FOR RELIEF\n\n Wherefore, Microsoft Corporation respectfully requests that the Court enter an Order and\n\n Judgment against VL IP, as follows:\n\n a. Granting judgment in favor of Microsoft and against VL IP on all counts;\n\n b. Dismissing with prejudice VL IP\u2019s FAC and all purported causes of action therein\n\n against Microsoft, denying any and all relief sought by VL IP, and ordering that VL IP take nothing\n\n by reason of its FAC;\n\n c. Declaring that Microsoft has not infringed and is not currently infringing any claim\n\n of the \u2019868, \u2019599, and \u2019474 Patents;\n\n d. Declaring that the claims of the \u2019868, \u2019599, and \u2019474 Patents are invalid;\n\n e. Awarding Microsoft its costs and expenses incurred in this action to the extent\n\n authorized by applicable law, including its reasonable attorneys\u2019 fees under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 285;\n\n f. That Microsoft be awarded its costs incurred in this action; and\n\n g. Awarding any other such relief as this Court deems just and proper.\n\n JURY DEMAND\n\n Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Microsoft demands a trial by\n\n jury as to all issues so triable.\n\n\n\n\n 42\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 35 Filed 08/10/26 Page 43 of 45 PageID #: 611\n\n\n\n\n Dated: August 10, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Melissa R. Smith\n Melissa Richards Smith\n TX State Bar No. 24001351\n melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com\n GILLAM & SMITH LLP\n 303 South Washington Avenue\n Marshall, Texas 75670\n Telephone: (903) 934-8450\n Facsimile: (903) 934-9257\n Natalie A. Bennett*\n Illinois Bar No. 6304611\n natalie.bennett@morganlewis.com\n MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP\n 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW\n Washington, DC 20004-2541\n Telephone: (202) 739-5559\n Facsimile: (202) 739-3001\n\n Jason C. White*\n Illinois Bar No. 6238352\n jason.white@morganlewis.com\n MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP\n 110 North Wacker Drive\n Chicago, IL 60606\n Telephone: (312) 324-1000\n Facsimile: (312) 324-1001\n\n Ahren C. Hsu-Hoffman\n TX State Bar No. 24053269\n ahren.hsu-hoffman@morganlewis.com\n MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP\n 1400 Page Mill Road\n Palo Alto, California 94304\n Telephone: (650) 843-4000\n Facsimile: (650) 843-4001\n\n Jason E. Gettleman\n California State Bar No. 269733\n jason.gettleman@morganlewis.com\n MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP\n 1400 Page Mill Road\n Palo Alto, California 94304\n Telephone: (650) 843-4000\n Facsimile: (650) 843-4001\n\n\n\n 43\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 35 Filed 08/10/26 Page 44 of 45 PageID #: 612\n\n\n\n\n Katerina Hora Jacobson\n California State Bar No. 342384\n katerina.horajacobson@morganlewis.com\n MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP\n 1400 Page Mill Road\n Palo Alto, California 94304\n Telephone: (650) 843-4000\n Facsimile: (650) 843-4001\n\n *Admitted to Practice\n\n Attorneys for Defendant Microsoft Corporation\n\n\n\n\n 44\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 35 Filed 08/10/26 Page 45 of 45 PageID #: 613\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I hereby certify that counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic\n\n service are being served on August 10, 2026, with a copy of this document via the Court\u2019s CM/ECF\n\n system.\n\n /s/ Melissa R. Smith\n\n\n\n\n 45\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-08-10T11:33:21.128429-07:00","document_number":"35","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175015599999","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Answer to Amended Complaint","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-10T11:33:20.695962-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-10T12:04:04.956764-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-10","time_filed":"13:31:20","entry_number":35,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-10.001","pacer_sequence_number":94,"description":"ANSWER to [31] Amended Complaint, by Microsoft Corporation.(Smith, Melissa)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/473685111/","id":473685111,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73266941/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489158893/","id":489158893,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73266941/34/vl-collective-ip-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-08-07T13:18:24.891428-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-22T17:06:04.853869-07:00","sha1":"902f96c72276f343bb361e966c9c4a5be96a5c2a","page_count":10,"file_size":791115,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.34.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.34.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 34 Filed 08/07/26 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 559\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MARSHALL DIVISION\n\n VL COLLECTIVE IP LLC, \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Plaintiff, \u00a7 Case No. 2:26-cv-00346-JRG\n \u00a7\n v. \u00a7\n \u00a7 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\n MICROSOFT CORPORATION, \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Defendant. \u00a7\n\n DISCOVERY ORDER\n\n After a review of the pleaded claims and defenses in this action, in furtherance of the\n\n management of the Court\u2019s docket under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, and after receiving\n\n the input of the parties to this action, it is ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:\n\n 1. Initial Disclosures. In lieu of the disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\n\n 26(a)(1), each party shall disclose to every other party the following information:\n\n (a) the correct names of the parties to the lawsuit;\n\n (b) the name, address, and telephone number of any potential parties;\n\n (c) the legal theories and, in general, the factual bases of the disclosing party\u2019s claims\n\n or defenses (the disclosing party need not marshal all evidence that may be offered\n\n at trial);\n\n (d) the name, address, and telephone number of persons having knowledge of relevant\n\n facts, a brief statement of each identified person\u2019s connection with the case, and a\n\n brief, fair summary of the substance of the information known by any such person;\n\n (e) any indemnity and insuring agreements under which any person or entity carrying\n\n on an insurance business may be liable to satisfy part or all of a judgment entered\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 34 Filed 08/07/26 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 560\n\n\n\n\n in this action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the\n\n judgment;\n\n (f) any settlement agreements relevant to the subject matter of this action; and\n\n (g) any statement of any party to the litigation.\n\n 2. Disclosure of Expert Testimony.1 A party must disclose to the other parties the identity\n\n of any witness it may use at trial to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702,\n\n 703 or 705, and:\n\n (a) if the witness is one retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony in\n\n the case or one whose duties as the party\u2019s employee regularly involve giving expert\n\n testimony, provide the disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\n\n 26(a)(2)(B) and Local Rule CV-26; and\n\n (b) for all other such witnesses, provide the disclosure required by Federal Rule of Civil\n\n Procedure 26(a)(2)(C).\n\n 3. Additional Disclosures. Without awaiting a discovery request, 2 each party will make the\n\n following disclosures to every other party:\n\n (a) provide the disclosures required by the Patent Rules for the Eastern District of\n\n Texas with the following modifications to P.R. 3-1 and P.R. 3-3:\n\n i. If a party claiming patent infringement asserts that a claim element is a\n\n software limitation, the party need not comply with P.R. 3-1 for those claim\n\n elements until 30 days after source code for each Accused Instrumentality\n\n\n\n 1 All expert reports should be written such that the report is organized with discrete\n\n paragraph numbers.\n 2 The Court anticipates that this disclosure requirement will obviate the need for requests\n\n for production.\n\n\n\n -2-\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 34 Filed 08/07/26 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 561\n\n\n\n\n is produced by the opposing party. Thereafter, the party claiming patent\n\n infringement shall identify, on an element-by-element basis for each\n\n asserted claim, what source code of each Accused Instrumentality allegedly\n\n satisfies the software limitations of the asserted claim elements.\n\n ii. If a party claiming patent infringement exercises the provisions of\n\n Paragraph 3(a)(i) of this Discovery Order, the party opposing a claim of\n\n patent infringement may serve, not later than 30 days after receipt of a\n\n Paragraph 3(a)(i) disclosure, supplemental \u201cInvalidity Contentions\u201d that\n\n amend only those claim elements identified as software limitations by the\n\n party claiming patent infringement.\n\n (b) produce or permit the inspection of all documents, electronically stored\n\n information, and tangible things in the possession, custody, or control of the party\n\n that are relevant to the pleaded claims or defenses involved in this action, except to\n\n the extent these disclosures are affected by the time limits set forth in the Patent\n\n Rules for the Eastern District of Texas; and\n\n (c) provide a complete computation of any category of damages claimed by any party\n\n to the action, and produce or permit the inspection of documents or other\n\n evidentiary material on which such computation is based, including materials\n\n bearing on the nature and extent of injuries suffered, except that the disclosure of\n\n the computation of damages may be deferred until the time for Expert Disclosures\n\n if a party will rely on a damages expert.\n\n 4. Protective Orders. The Court will enter the parties\u2019 Agreed Protective Order.\n\n\n\n\n -3-\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 34 Filed 08/07/26 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 562\n\n\n\n\n 5. Discovery Limitations. The discovery in this cause is limited to the disclosures described\n\n in Paragraphs 1-3 together with: 35 interrogatories per side, 40 requests for admissions per\n\n side, the depositions of the parties, depositions on written questions of custodians of\n\n business records for third parties, and 100 hours of deposition time per side for depositions\n\n of party and third-party witnesses (excluding expert depositions), no more than 85 hours\n\n of which may be used for party witnesses. The parties agree to confer in good faith to the\n\n extent additional time beyond those limits is required to complete depositions. Each Side\n\n may depose each of the other Side\u2019s experts for up to seven (7) hours; provided, however,\n\n that if an expert submits multiple reports on different issues (e.g., validity and\n\n infringement), ten (10) hours of deposition testimony shall be permitted. Any deposition\n\n time requiring an interpreter or translator shall be counted as 1 hour for each 1.5 hours on\n\n the record (e.g., three (3) hours of deposition time will count as two (2) hours), and such\n\n deposition may be continued for an additional day at the request of a party if the actual\n\n time incurred on the first day exceeds seven (7) hours. The parties shall confer in good\n\n faith to the extent additional deposition time beyond the limits set forth above is reasonably\n\n required. Drafts of any report or disclosure prepared by an expert who will give testimony\n\n in this action (a \u201cTestifying Expert\u201d) or the Testifying Expert\u2019s assistants, and notes,\n\n preparatory materials, and other documents prepared by or for a Testifying Expert or the\n\n Testifying Expert\u2019s assistants as part of the investigation, in preparing an expert report, or\n\n in preparing for the expert\u2019s deposition, shall not be subject to discovery, regardless of\n\n whether such materials have been disclosed or transmitted to, or contain any notes,\n\n writings, or markings created by, in-house or outside counsel or the employees or\n\n consultants of the party that engaged the Testifying Expert. Discovery of materials\n\n\n\n\n -4-\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 34 Filed 08/07/26 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 563\n\n\n\n\n provided to a Testifying Expert is limited to those materials, facts, consulting-expert\n\n opinions, and other matters relied upon by the Testifying Expert in formulating any opinion\n\n in this action; details regarding compensation and fee agreements remain discoverable. No\n\n discovery may be taken from or about any Consulting Expert who will not provide\n\n testimony in this action, except to the extent that such consulting expert provided\n\n information, opinions, or materials that a Testifying Expert relied upon. Written or oral\n\n communications between a Testifying Expert or Consulting Expert, his or her assistants,\n\n and/or in-house counsel or outside counsel, or employees of or consultants for the party or\n\n parties who engaged such Testifying Expert or Consulting Expert, are not subject to\n\n discovery unless the conversations or communications are relied upon by a Testifying\n\n Expert in formulating his/her final report, trial or deposition testimony, or any opinion in\n\n this action. \u201cSide\u201d means a party or a group of named parties and includes entities that are\n\n corporate affiliates of a named party. Any party may later move to modify these limitations\n\n for good cause.\n\n 6. Privileged Information. There is no duty to disclose privileged documents or\n\n information. However, the parties are directed to meet and confer concerning privileged\n\n documents or information after the Status Conference. By the deadline set in the Docket\n\n Control Order, the parties shall exchange privilege logs identifying the documents or\n\n information and the basis for any disputed claim of privilege in a manner that, without\n\n revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the other parties to assess\n\n the applicability of the privilege or protection. Any party may move the Court for an order\n\n compelling the production of any documents or information identified on any other party\u2019s\n\n privilege log. If such a motion is made, the party asserting privilege shall respond to the\n\n\n\n\n -5-\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 34 Filed 08/07/26 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 564\n\n\n\n\n motion within the time period provided by Local Rule CV-7. The party asserting privilege\n\n shall then file with the Court within 30 days of the filing of the motion to compel any proof\n\n in the form of declarations or affidavits to support their assertions of privilege, along with\n\n the documents over which privilege is asserted for in camera inspection. However, if the\n\n party asserting privilege seeks an in camera review by the Court, such party shall first\n\n obtain leave from the Court prior to delivery of documents to the Court.\n\n 7. Signature. The disclosures required by this Order shall be made in writing and signed by\n\n the party or counsel and shall constitute a certification that, to the best of the signer\u2019s\n\n knowledge, information and belief, such disclosure is complete and correct as of the time\n\n it is made. If feasible, counsel shall meet to exchange disclosures required by this Order;\n\n otherwise, such disclosures shall be served as provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\n\n 5. The parties shall promptly file a notice with the Court that the disclosures required under\n\n this Order have taken place.\n\n 8. Duty to Supplement. After disclosure is made pursuant to this Order, each party is under\n\n a duty to supplement or correct its disclosures immediately if the party obtains information\n\n on the basis of which it knows that the information disclosed was either incomplete or\n\n incorrect when made, or is no longer complete or true.\n\n 9. Discovery Disputes.\n\n (a) Except in cases involving claims of privilege, any party entitled to receive\n\n disclosures (\u201cRequesting Party\u201d) may, after the deadline for making disclosures,\n\n serve upon a party required to make disclosures (\u201cResponding Party\u201d) a written\n\n statement, in letter form or otherwise, of any reason why the Requesting Party\n\n believes that the Responding Party\u2019s disclosures are insufficient. The written\n\n\n\n\n -6-\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 34 Filed 08/07/26 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 565\n\n\n\n\n statement shall list, by category, the items the Requesting Party contends should be\n\n produced. The parties shall promptly meet and confer. If the parties are unable to\n\n resolve their dispute, then the Responding Party shall, within 14 days after service\n\n of the written statement upon it, serve upon the Requesting Party a written\n\n statement, in letter form or otherwise, which identifies (1) the requested items that\n\n will be disclosed, if any, and (2) the reasons why any requested items will not be\n\n disclosed. The Requesting Party may thereafter file a motion to compel.\n\n (b) An opposed discovery related motion, or any response thereto, shall not exceed 7\n\n pages. Attachments to a discovery related motion, or a response thereto, shall not\n\n exceed 5 pages. No further briefing is allowed absent a request or order from the\n\n Court.\n\n (c) Prior to filing any discovery-related motion, the parties must fully comply with the\n\n substantive and procedural conference requirements of Local Rule CV-7(h) and (i).\n\n Within 72 hours of the Court setting any discovery motion for a hearing, each\n\n party\u2019s lead attorney (see Local Rule CV-11(a)) and local counsel shall meet and\n\n confer in person or by telephone, without the involvement or participation of other\n\n attorneys, in an effort to resolve the dispute without Court intervention.\n\n (d) Counsel shall promptly notify the Court of the results of that meeting by filing a\n\n joint report of no more than two pages. Unless excused by the Court, each party\u2019s\n\n lead attorney shall attend any discovery motion hearing set by the Court (though\n\n the lead attorney is not required to argue the motion).\n\n (e) Any change to a party\u2019s lead attorney designation must be accomplished by motion\n\n and order.\n\n\n\n\n -7-\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 34 Filed 08/07/26 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 566\n\n\n\n\n (f) Counsel are directed to contact the chambers of the undersigned for any \u201chot-line\u201d\n\n disputes before contacting the Discovery Hotline provided by Local Rule CV-\n\n 26(e). If the undersigned is not available, the parties shall proceed in accordance\n\n with Local Rule CV-26(e).\n\n 10. No Excuses. A party is not excused from the requirements of this Discovery Order because\n\n it has not fully completed its investigation of the case, or because it challenges the\n\n sufficiency of another party\u2019s disclosures, or because another party has not made its\n\n disclosures. Absent court order to the contrary, a party is not excused from disclosure\n\n because there are pending motions to dismiss, to remand or to change venue.\n\n 11. Filings. Only upon request from chambers shall counsel submit to the court courtesy\n\n copies of any filings.\n\n 12. Proposed Stipulations by the Parties Regarding Discovery.\n\n (a) Electronic Service. Notwithstanding paragraph 7 of this Order, the parties agree to\n\n electronic service of disclosures, all correspondence, documents filed under seal,\n\n written discovery requests, and responses to written discovery requests, either by email\n\n (or if too voluminous, by FTP or other file transfer service) or through the ECF. Parties\n\n may serve all documents by e-mail by sending the documents to the email address for\n\n all counsel of record in this case. Documents are timely served by e-mail where the e-\n\n mail is sent by 11:59 pm Central Time on the date due. Per Local Rule CV-5(d),\n\n documents e-mailed after 5:00 p.m. Central Time shall be deemed served on the\n\n following day for purposes of calculating a response date to the document served.\n\n\n\n\n -8-\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 34 Filed 08/07/26 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 567\n\n\n\n\n (b) Service in Microsoft Word. Interrogatories, requests for admission, and deposition\n\n notices should be promptly provided in Microsoft Word format in addition to PDF\n\n format upon request by the receiving party.\n\n (c) Privilege Logs. Privilege Logs will be due as set forth in the Docket Control Order. The\n\n parties need not log privileged documents or information created after the filing date\n\n of the Complaint. The privilege logs shall identify the documents or information and\n\n the basis for any disputed claim of privilege in a manner that, without revealing\n\n information itself privileged or protected, will enable the other parties to assess the\n\n applicability of the privilege or protection.\n\n (d) Depositions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). Unless otherwise agreed, at least two\n\n weeks before the agreed date of a deposition pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6), the\n\n party being deposed will disclose to the other side both the corporate representative (by\n\n name) and the 30(b)(6) topic(s) for which that representative will be designated on\n\n behalf of the party.\n\n (e) Discovery of all electronically stored information (\u201cESI\u201d) shall be governed by a\n\n separate ESI Order. The parties will agree to entry of an E-Discovery Order based on\n\n the Court's Model E-Discovery Order for Patent Cases, subject to potential changes by\n\n the parties, and will submit a Proposed Order to the Court for approval. The parties will\n\n endeavor to submit a Proposed ESI Order to the Court for approval within 30 days after\n\n the filing of the parties\u2019 Proposed Discovery Order. In the meantime, the parties do not\n\n need to search for, collect, or produce email until an ESI Order is entered.\n\n (f) The parties agree that they will timely serve each other with copies of any subpoenas or\n\n deposition notice directed to a third party. a party receiving documents and/or written\n\n\n\n\n -9-\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 34 Filed 08/07/26 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 568\n\n\n\n\n objections or responses from a third party will provide copies of the foregoing to the\n\n other parties within three (3) business days of receiving those documents, objections,\n\n or responses. The parties agree to consult with each other before scheduling any third-\n\n party deposition and to provide at least five (5) business days\u2019 notice of the selected\n\n court reporting agency to allow for the coordination of remote depositions, if any.\n\n 13. Standing Orders. The parties and counsel are charged with notice of and are required to\n\n fully comply with each of the Standing Orders of this Court. Such are posted on the Court\u2019s\n\n website at http://www.txed.uscourts.gov/?q=court-annexed-mediation-plan. The substance\n .\n of some such orders may be included expressly within this Discovery Order, while others\n\n (including the Court\u2019s Standing Order Regarding Protection of Proprietary and/or\n\n Confidential Information to Be Presented to the Court During Motion and Trial Practice)\n\n are incorporated herein by reference. All such standing orders shall be binding on the\n\n parties and counsel, regardless of whether they are expressly included herein or made a\n\n part hereof by reference.\n\n So ORDERED and SIGNED this 7th day of August, 2026.\n\n\n\n\n ____________________________________\n RODNEY GILSTRAP\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n\n\n\n\n - 10 -\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-07T13:18:25.286110-07:00","document_number":"34","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175015596505","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-07T13:18:24.862344-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-07T13:41:49.112499-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-07","time_filed":"15:17:39","entry_number":34,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-07.001","pacer_sequence_number":92,"description":"DISCOVERY ORDER. (Motion(s)[32] terminated). Signed by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 8/7/2026. (slo)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/473679988/","id":473679988,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73266941/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489153674/","id":489153674,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73266941/33/vl-collective-ip-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-08-07T13:01:13.060581-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-22T16:17:58.696224-07:00","sha1":"eca21b66a2e80ac56668ceb287a793a3b56d0b7c","page_count":3,"file_size":151128,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.33.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.33.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 33 Filed 08/07/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 555\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MARSHALL DIVISION\n\n\n VL COLLECTIVE IP LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-00346-JRG\n\n Plaintiff,\n\n v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\n\n MICROSOFT CORPORATION,\n\n Defendant.\n\n\n\n JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF PROTECTIVE ORDER DEADLINE\n\n Plaintiff VL Collective IP LLC (\u201cPlaintiff\u201d) and Microsoft Corporation (\u201cDefendant\u201d),\n\ncollectively (\u201cthe Parties\u201d) jointly and respectfully file this Joint Motion for Extension of the\n\ndeadlines for the Protective Order and the Initial and Additional Disclosures. The deadline for\n\nthe parties to submit their proposed Protective Order and serve their Disclosures is currently set as\n\nAugust 10, 2026 (Dkt. 30). The parties hereby request an extension of these deadlines to August\n\n28, 2026.\n\n The Parties represent that the extension requested herein is not sought for the purposes of\n\ndelay but rather so the parties can eliminate disputes associated with the proposed protective order,\n\nwith a goal of submitting an agreed-upon protective order. The parties are diligently meeting and\n\nconferring in this regard. This proposed extension does not affect any other deadline.\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 33 Filed 08/07/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 556\n\n\n\n Dated: August 7, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Natalie A. Bennett /s/ David Alberti\n Natalie A. Bennett (Admitted to Practice) David Alberti\n Illinois State Bar No. 6304611 CA Bar No. 220265 (Admitted E.D. Texas)\n natalie.bennett@morganlewis.com dalberti@albertilim.com\n Katerina Hora Jacobson (Admitted to Sal Lim\n Practice) CA Bar No. 211836 (Admitted E.D. Texas)\n California Bar No. 342384 slim@albertilim.com\n katerina.horajacobson@morganlewis.com Russell S. Tonkovich\n MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP CA Bar No. 233280 (Admitted E.D. Texas)\n 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW rtonkovich@albertilim.com\n Washington, D.C. 20004-2541 James Barabas (pro hac vice)\n T. 202.739.3000 NY Bar No. 3911484\n F. 202.739.3001 jbarabas@albertilim.com\n Hong S. Lin\n Ahren C. Hsu-Hoffman (Admitted to Practice) CA Bar No. 249898 (Admitted E.D. Texas)\n Texas Bar No. 24053269 hlin@albertilim.com\n ahren.hsu-hoffman@morganlewis.com Andrew Hamill\n Jason E. Gettleman (Admitted to Practice) CA Bar No. 251156 (Admitted E.D. Texas)\n jason.gettleman@morganlewis.com ahamill@albertilim.com\n MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Jeremiah A. Armstrong (pro hac vice)\n 1400 Page Mill Road CA Bar No. 253705\n Palo Alto, CA 94304 jarmstrong@albertilim.com\n T. 650.843.4000 Nicholas Martini (pro hac vice)\n F. 650.843.4001 CA Bar No. 237687\n nmartini@albertilim.com\n Melissa Smith (SBN 24001351) Ryan Dooley (pro hac vice)\n melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com CA Bar No. 321645\n GILLAM & SMITH, LLP rdooley@albertilim.com\n 303 South Washington Avenue ALBERTI LIM & TONKOVICH LLP\n Marshall, Texas 75670 950 Tower Lane, Suite 1725\n Phone: 903 934-9257 Foster City, CA 94404\n Telephone: (650) 825-4300\n Attorneys for Defendant Facsimile: (650) 460-8443\n Microsoft Corporation\n Andrea L. Fair\n Texas Bar No. 24078488\n andrea@millerfairhenry.com\n Garrett C. Parish\n Texas Bar No. 24125824\n garrett@millerfairhenry.com\n MILLER FAIR HENRY PLLC\n 1507 Bill Owens Pkwy\n Longview, Texas 75604\n Telephone: (903) 757-6400\n Facsimile: (903) 757-2323\n\n\n\n 2\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 33 Filed 08/07/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 557\n\n\n\n\n Attorneys for Plaintiff\n VL Collective IP LLC\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have\n\nconsented to electronic service are being served with a copy of the foregoing document via the\n\nCourt\u2019s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) this August 7, 2026.\n\n\n /s/ David Alberti\n David Alberti\n\n CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE\n\n The undersigned hereby certifies that counsel for Plaintiff met and conferred with counsel\n\nfor Defendant to discuss the substantive relief sought in this Motion pursuant to Local Rule CV-\n\n7(h). The Parties are jointly seeking the relief sought in this Motion.\n\n /s/ David Alberti\n David Alberti\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-07T13:01:13.546972-07:00","document_number":"33","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175015596347","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Miscellaneous Relief","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/489153676/","id":489153676,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73266941/33/1/vl-collective-ip-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-08-07T13:01:14.756218-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-22T16:45:36.163982-07:00","sha1":"01cfba4887c88c2558356aa5e259e8532b33d28a","page_count":1,"file_size":112817,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.33.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.33.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 33-1 Filed 08/07/26 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 558\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MARSHALL DIVISION\n\n\n VL COLLECTIVE IP LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-00346-JRG\n\n Plaintiff,\n\n v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\n\n MICROSOFT CORPORATION,\n\n Defendant.\n\n\n\n ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF PROTECTIVE ORDER\n DEADLINE\n\n Before the Cour is the Joint Motion for Extension of the Protective Order and the Initial\n\n and Additional Disclosures Deadline filed by Plaintiff VL Collective IP LLC and Defendant\n\n Microsoft Corporation.\n\n After consideration, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion.\n\n It is therefore ORDERED that the deadline for the parties to submit their proposed\n\n Protective Order and serve their Initial and Additional Disclosures is extended to August 28, 2026.\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-07T13:01:17.438866-07:00","document_number":"33","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"175015596348","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":2,"description":"Proposed Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-07T13:01:12.994222-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-07T13:41:55.095316-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-07","time_filed":"15:00:47","entry_number":33,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-07.001","pacer_sequence_number":90,"description":"JOINT MOTION for Extension of Protective Order Deadline by VL Collective IP LLC. (Attachments: (1) Proposed Order)(Alberti, David)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/473095584/","id":473095584,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73266941/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/488551664/","id":488551664,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73266941/32/vl-collective-ip-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-08-03T14:16:00.710075-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-22T08:38:08.914340-07:00","sha1":"233f9dee19c38a709b96ceefd7ac91276e883e64","page_count":3,"file_size":150558,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.32.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.32.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 32 Filed 08/03/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 542\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MARSHALL DIVISION\n\n\n VL COLLECTIVE IP LLC, Case No. 2:26-cv-00346-JRG\n\n Plaintiff,\n\n v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\n\n MICROSOFT CORPORATION,\n\n Defendant.\n\n\n\n JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DISCOVERY ORDER\n\n Pursuant to the Court\u2019s Docket Control Order (Dkt. 30) Plaintiff VL Collective IP LLC\n\n(\u201cPlaintiff\u201d) and Microsoft Corporation (\u201cDefendant\u201d) jointly and respectfully request that the\n\nCourt enter the Agreed Proposed Discovery Order, attached hereto.\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 32 Filed 08/03/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 543\n\n\n\n Dated: August 3, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Natalie A. Bennett /s/ David Alberti\n Natalie A. Bennett (Admitted to Practice) David Alberti\n Illinois State Bar No. 6304611 CA Bar No. 220265 (Admitted E.D. Texas)\n natalie.bennett@morganlewis.com dalberti@albertilim.com\n Katerina Hora Jacobson (Admitted to Sal Lim\n Practice) CA Bar No. 211836 (Admitted E.D. Texas)\n California Bar No. 342384 slim@albertilim.com\n katerina.horajacobson@morganlewis.com Russell S. Tonkovich\n MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP CA Bar No. 233280 (Admitted E.D. Texas)\n 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW rtonkovich@albertilim.com\n Washington, D.C. 20004-2541 James Barabas (pro hac vice)\n T. 202.739.3000 NY Bar No. 3911484\n F. 202.739.3001 jbarabas@albertilim.com\n Hong S. Lin\n Ahren C. Hsu-Hoffman (Admitted to Practice) CA Bar No. 249898 (Admitted E.D. Texas)\n Texas Bar No. 24053269 hlin@albertilim.com\n ahren.hsu-hoffman@morganlewis.com Andrew Hamill\n Jason E. Gettleman (Admitted to Practice) CA Bar No. 251156 (Admitted E.D. Texas)\n jason.gettleman@morganlewis.com ahamill@albertilim.com\n MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Jeremiah A. Armstrong (pro hac vice)\n 1400 Page Mill Road CA Bar No. 253705\n Palo Alto, CA 94304 jarmstrong@albertilim.com\n T. 650.843.4000 Nicholas Martini (pro hac vice)\n F. 650.843.4001 CA Bar No. 237687\n nmartini@albertilim.com\n Melissa Smith (SBN 24001351) Ryan Dooley (pro hac vice)\n melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com CA Bar No. 321645\n GILLAM & SMITH, LLP rdooley@albertilim.com\n 303 South Washington Avenue ALBERTI LIM & TONKOVICH LLP\n Marshall, Texas 75670 950 Tower Lane, Suite 1725\n Phone: 903 934-9257 Foster City, CA 94404\n Telephone: (650) 825-4300\n Attorneys for Defendant Facsimile: (650) 460-8443\n Microsoft Corporation\n Andrea L. Fair\n Texas Bar No. 24078488\n andrea@millerfairhenry.com\n Garrett C. Parish\n Texas Bar No. 24125824\n garrett@millerfairhenry.com\n MILLER FAIR HENRY PLLC\n 1507 Bill Owens Pkwy\n Longview, Texas 75604\n Telephone: (903) 757-6400\n Facsimile: (903) 757-2323\n\n\n\n 2\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 32 Filed 08/03/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 544\n\n\n\n\n Attorneys for Plaintiff\n VL Collective IP LLC\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I certify that the foregoing document is being served via the Court\u2019s CM/ECF system on\n\nAugust 3, 2026, on all counsel of record who have consented to electronic service.\n\n /s/ David Alberti\n David Alberti\n\n CERTICIATE OF CONFERENCE\n\n The undersigned hereby certifies that counsel for Plaintiff met and conferred with all\n\ncounsel of record pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(i)., and this is a joint submission.\n\n /s/ David Alberti\n David Alberti\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-03T14:16:00.975595-07:00","document_number":"32","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175015583378","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Miscellaneous Relief","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/488551665/","id":488551665,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73266941/32/1/vl-collective-ip-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-08-03T14:16:01.952584-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-22T08:38:05.648767-07:00","sha1":"d199512c33cc4fc66ceef452b9e57ceb5a4e4152","page_count":10,"file_size":196523,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.32.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.32.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 32-1 Filed 08/03/26 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:\n 545\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MARSHALL DIVISION\n\n VL COLLECTIVE IP LLC, \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Plaintiff, \u00a7 Case No. 2:26-cv-00346-JRG\n \u00a7\n v. \u00a7\n \u00a7 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\n MICROSOFT CORPORATION, \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Defendant. \u00a7\n\n DISCOVERY ORDER FOR PATENT CASES\n\n After a review of the pleaded claims and defenses in this action, in furtherance of the\n\nmanagement of the Court\u2019s docket under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16, and after receiving\n\nthe input of the parties to this action, it is ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:\n\n1. Initial Disclosures. In lieu of the disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\n\n 26(a)(1), each party shall disclose to every other party the following information:\n\n (a) the correct names of the parties to the lawsuit;\n\n (b) the name, address, and telephone number of any potential parties;\n\n (c) the legal theories and, in general, the factual bases of the disclosing party\u2019s claims\n\n or defenses (the disclosing party need not marshal all evidence that may be offered\n\n at trial);\n\n (d) the name, address, and telephone number of persons having knowledge of relevant\n\n facts, a brief statement of each identified person\u2019s connection with the case, and a\n\n brief, fair summary of the substance of the information known by any such person;\n\n (e) any indemnity and insuring agreements under which any person or entity carrying\n\n on an insurance business may be liable to satisfy part or all of a judgment entered\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 32-1 Filed 08/03/26 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:\n 546\n\n\n\n in this action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the\n\n judgment;\n\n (f) any settlement agreements relevant to the subject matter of this action; and\n\n (g) any statement of any party to the litigation.\n\n2. Disclosure of Expert Testimony.1 A party must disclose to the other parties the identity\n\n of any witness it may use at trial to present evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 702,\n\n 703 or 705, and:\n\n (a) if the witness is one retained or specially employed to provide expert testimony in\n\n the case or one whose duties as the party\u2019s employee regularly involve giving expert\n\n testimony, provide the disclosures required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\n\n 26(a)(2)(B) and Local Rule CV-26; and\n\n (b) for all other such witnesses, provide the disclosure required by Federal Rule of Civil\n\n Procedure 26(a)(2)(C).\n\n3. Additional Disclosures. Without awaiting a discovery request, 2 each party will make the\n\n following disclosures to every other party:\n\n (a) provide the disclosures required by the Patent Rules for the Eastern District of\n\n Texas with the following modifications to P.R. 3-1 and P.R. 3-3:\n\n i. If a party claiming patent infringement asserts that a claim element is a\n\n software limitation, the party need not comply with P.R. 3-1 for those claim\n\n elements until 30 days after source code for each Accused Instrumentality\n\n\n\n 1 All expert reports should be written such that the report is organized with discrete\n\nparagraph numbers.\n 2 The Court anticipates that this disclosure requirement will obviate the need for requests\n\nfor production.\n\n\n\n -2-\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 32-1 Filed 08/03/26 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:\n 547\n\n\n\n is produced by the opposing party. Thereafter, the party claiming patent\n\n infringement shall identify, on an element-by-element basis for each\n\n asserted claim, what source code of each Accused Instrumentality allegedly\n\n satisfies the software limitations of the asserted claim elements.\n\n ii. If a party claiming patent infringement exercises the provisions of\n\n Paragraph 3(a)(i) of this Discovery Order, the party opposing a claim of\n\n patent infringement may serve, not later than 30 days after receipt of a\n\n Paragraph 3(a)(i) disclosure, supplemental \u201cInvalidity Contentions\u201d that\n\n amend only those claim elements identified as software limitations by the\n\n party claiming patent infringement.\n\n (b) produce or permit the inspection of all documents, electronically stored\n\n information, and tangible things in the possession, custody, or control of the party\n\n that are relevant to the pleaded claims or defenses involved in this action, except to\n\n the extent these disclosures are affected by the time limits set forth in the Patent\n\n Rules for the Eastern District of Texas; and\n\n (c) provide a complete computation of any category of damages claimed by any party\n\n to the action, and produce or permit the inspection of documents or other\n\n evidentiary material on which such computation is based, including materials\n\n bearing on the nature and extent of injuries suffered, except that the disclosure of\n\n the computation of damages may be deferred until the time for Expert Disclosures\n\n if a party will rely on a damages expert.\n\n4. Protective Orders. The Court will enter the parties\u2019 Agreed Protective Order.\n\n\n\n\n -3-\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 32-1 Filed 08/03/26 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:\n 548\n\n\n\n5. Discovery Limitations. The discovery in this cause is limited to the disclosures described\n\n in Paragraphs 1-3 together with: 35 interrogatories per side, 40 requests for admissions per\n\n side, the depositions of the parties, depositions on written questions of custodians of\n\n business records for third parties, and 100 hours of deposition time per side for depositions\n\n of party and third-party witnesses (excluding expert depositions), no more than 85 hours\n\n of which may be used for party witnesses. The parties agree to confer in good faith to the\n\n extent additional time beyond those limits is required to complete depositions. Each Side\n\n may depose each of the other Side\u2019s experts for up to seven (7) hours; provided, however,\n\n that if an expert submits multiple reports on different issues (e.g., validity and\n\n infringement), ten (10) hours of deposition testimony shall be permitted. Any deposition\n\n time requiring an interpreter or translator shall be counted as 1 hour for each 1.5 hours on\n\n the record (e.g., three (3) hours of deposition time will count as two (2) hours), and such\n\n deposition may be continued for an additional day at the request of a party if the actual\n\n time incurred on the first day exceeds seven (7) hours. The parties shall confer in good\n\n faith to the extent additional deposition time beyond the limits set forth above is reasonably\n\n required. Drafts of any report or disclosure prepared by an expert who will give testimony\n\n in this action (a \u201cTestifying Expert\u201d) or the Testifying Expert\u2019s assistants, and notes,\n\n preparatory materials, and other documents prepared by or for a Testifying Expert or the\n\n Testifying Expert\u2019s assistants as part of the investigation, in preparing an expert report, or\n\n in preparing for the expert\u2019s deposition, shall not be subject to discovery, regardless of\n\n whether such materials have been disclosed or transmitted to, or contain any notes,\n\n writings, or markings created by, in-house or outside counsel or the employees or\n\n consultants of the party that engaged the Testifying Expert. Discovery of materials\n\n\n\n\n -4-\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 32-1 Filed 08/03/26 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:\n 549\n\n\n\n provided to a Testifying Expert is limited to those materials, facts, consulting-expert\n\n opinions, and other matters relied upon by the Testifying Expert in formulating any opinion\n\n in this action; details regarding compensation and fee agreements remain discoverable. No\n\n discovery may be taken from or about any Consulting Expert who will not provide\n\n testimony in this action, except to the extent that such consulting expert provided\n\n information, opinions, or materials that a Testifying Expert relied upon. Written or oral\n\n communications between a Testifying Expert or Consulting Expert, his or her assistants,\n\n and/or in-house counsel or outside counsel, or employees of or consultants for the party or\n\n parties who engaged such Testifying Expert or Consulting Expert, are not subject to\n\n discovery unless the conversations or communications are relied upon by a Testifying\n\n Expert in formulating his/her final report, trial or deposition testimony, or any opinion in\n\n this action. \u201cSide\u201d means a party or a group of named parties and includes entities that are\n\n corporate affiliates of a named party. Any party may later move to modify these limitations\n\n for good cause.\n\n6. Privileged Information. There is no duty to disclose privileged documents or\n\n information. However, the parties are directed to meet and confer concerning privileged\n\n documents or information after the Status Conference. By the deadline set in the Docket\n\n Control Order, the parties shall exchange privilege logs identifying the documents or\n\n information and the basis for any disputed claim of privilege in a manner that, without\n\n revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the other parties to assess\n\n the applicability of the privilege or protection. Any party may move the Court for an order\n\n compelling the production of any documents or information identified on any other party\u2019s\n\n privilege log. If such a motion is made, the party asserting privilege shall respond to the\n\n\n\n\n -5-\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 32-1 Filed 08/03/26 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:\n 550\n\n\n\n motion within the time period provided by Local Rule CV-7. The party asserting privilege\n\n shall then file with the Court within 30 days of the filing of the motion to compel any proof\n\n in the form of declarations or affidavits to support their assertions of privilege, along with\n\n the documents over which privilege is asserted for in camera inspection. However, if the\n\n party asserting privilege seeks an in camera review by the Court, such party shall first\n\n obtain leave from the Court prior to delivery of documents to the Court.\n\n7. Signature. The disclosures required by this Order shall be made in writing and signed by\n\n the party or counsel and shall constitute a certification that, to the best of the signer\u2019s\n\n knowledge, information and belief, such disclosure is complete and correct as of the time\n\n it is made. If feasible, counsel shall meet to exchange disclosures required by this Order;\n\n otherwise, such disclosures shall be served as provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\n\n 5. The parties shall promptly file a notice with the Court that the disclosures required under\n\n this Order have taken place.\n\n8. Duty to Supplement. After disclosure is made pursuant to this Order, each party is under\n\n a duty to supplement or correct its disclosures immediately if the party obtains information\n\n on the basis of which it knows that the information disclosed was either incomplete or\n\n incorrect when made, or is no longer complete or true.\n\n9. Discovery Disputes.\n\n (a) Except in cases involving claims of privilege, any party entitled to receive\n\n disclosures (\u201cRequesting Party\u201d) may, after the deadline for making disclosures,\n\n serve upon a party required to make disclosures (\u201cResponding Party\u201d) a written\n\n statement, in letter form or otherwise, of any reason why the Requesting Party\n\n believes that the Responding Party\u2019s disclosures are insufficient. The written\n\n\n\n\n -6-\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 32-1 Filed 08/03/26 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:\n 551\n\n\n\n statement shall list, by category, the items the Requesting Party contends should be\n\n produced. The parties shall promptly meet and confer. If the parties are unable to\n\n resolve their dispute, then the Responding Party shall, within 14 days after service\n\n of the written statement upon it, serve upon the Requesting Party a written\n\n statement, in letter form or otherwise, which identifies (1) the requested items that\n\n will be disclosed, if any, and (2) the reasons why any requested items will not be\n\n disclosed. The Requesting Party may thereafter file a motion to compel.\n\n (b) An opposed discovery related motion, or any response thereto, shall not exceed 7\n\n pages. Attachments to a discovery related motion, or a response thereto, shall not\n\n exceed 5 pages. No further briefing is allowed absent a request or order from the\n\n Court.\n\n (c) Prior to filing any discovery-related motion, the parties must fully comply with the\n\n substantive and procedural conference requirements of Local Rule CV-7(h) and (i).\n\n Within 72 hours of the Court setting any discovery motion for a hearing, each\n\n party\u2019s lead attorney (see Local Rule CV-11(a)) and local counsel shall meet and\n\n confer in person or by telephone, without the involvement or participation of other\n\n attorneys, in an effort to resolve the dispute without Court intervention.\n\n (d) Counsel shall promptly notify the Court of the results of that meeting by filing a\n\n joint report of no more than two pages. Unless excused by the Court, each party\u2019s\n\n lead attorney shall attend any discovery motion hearing set by the Court (though\n\n the lead attorney is not required to argue the motion).\n\n (e) Any change to a party\u2019s lead attorney designation must be accomplished by motion\n\n and order.\n\n\n\n\n -7-\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 32-1 Filed 08/03/26 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:\n 552\n\n\n\n (f) Counsel are directed to contact the chambers of the undersigned for any \u201chot-line\u201d\n\n disputes before contacting the Discovery Hotline provided by Local Rule CV-\n\n 26(e). If the undersigned is not available, the parties shall proceed in accordance\n\n with Local Rule CV-26(e).\n\n10. No Excuses. A party is not excused from the requirements of this Discovery Order because\n\n it has not fully completed its investigation of the case, or because it challenges the\n\n sufficiency of another party\u2019s disclosures, or because another party has not made its\n\n disclosures. Absent court order to the contrary, a party is not excused from disclosure\n\n because there are pending motions to dismiss, to remand or to change venue.\n\n11. Filings. Only upon request from chambers shall counsel submit to the court courtesy\n\n copies of any filings.\n\n12. Proposed Stipulations by the Parties Regarding Discovery.\n\n (a) Electronic Service. Notwithstanding paragraph 7 of this Order, the parties agree to\n\n electronic service of disclosures, all correspondence, documents filed under seal,\n\n written discovery requests, and responses to written discovery requests, either by email\n\n (or if too voluminous, by FTP or other file transfer service) or through the ECF. Parties\n\n may serve all documents by e-mail by sending the documents to the email address for\n\n all counsel of record in this case. Documents are timely served by e-mail where the e-\n\n mail is sent by 11:59 pm Central Time on the date due. Per Local Rule CV-5(d),\n\n documents e-mailed after 5:00 p.m. Central Time shall be deemed served on the\n\n following day for purposes of calculating a response date to the document served.\n\n\n\n\n -8-\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 32-1 Filed 08/03/26 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:\n 553\n\n\n\n (b) Service in Microsoft Word. Interrogatories, requests for admission, and deposition\n\n notices should be promptly provided in Microsoft Word format in addition to PDF\n\n format upon request by the receiving party.\n\n (c) Privilege Logs. Privilege Logs will be due as set forth in the Docket Control Order. The\n\n parties need not log privileged documents or information created after the filing date\n\n of the Complaint. The privilege logs shall identify the documents or information and\n\n the basis for any disputed claim of privilege in a manner that, without revealing\n\n information itself privileged or protected, will enable the other parties to assess the\n\n applicability of the privilege or protection.\n\n (d) Depositions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). Unless otherwise agreed, at least two\n\n weeks before the agreed date of a deposition pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6), the\n\n party being deposed will disclose to the other side both the corporate representative (by\n\n name) and the 30(b)(6) topic(s) for which that representative will be designated on\n\n behalf of the party.\n\n (e) Discovery of all electronically stored information (\u201cESI\u201d) shall be governed by a\n\n separate ESI Order. The parties will agree to entry of an E-Discovery Order based on\n\n the Court's Model E-Discovery Order for Patent Cases, subject to potential changes by\n\n the parties, and will submit a Proposed Order to the Court for approval. The parties will\n\n endeavor to submit a Proposed ESI Order to the Court for approval within 30 days after\n\n the filing of the parties\u2019 Proposed Discovery Order. In the meantime, the parties do not\n\n need to search for, collect, or produce email until an ESI Order is entered.\n\n (f) The parties agree that they will timely serve each other with copies of any subpoenas or\n\n deposition notice directed to a third party. a party receiving documents and/or written\n\n\n\n\n -9-\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 32-1 Filed 08/03/26 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:\n 554\n\n\n\n objections or responses from a third party will provide copies of the foregoing to the\n\n other parties within three (3) business days of receiving those documents, objections,\n\n or responses. The parties agree to consult with each other before scheduling any third-\n\n party deposition and to provide at least five (5) business days\u2019 notice of the selected\n\n court reporting agency to allow for the coordination of remote depositions, if any.\n\n13. Standing Orders. The parties and counsel are charged with notice of and are required to\n\n fully comply with each of the Standing Orders of this Court. Such are posted on the Court\u2019s\n\n website at http://www.txed.uscourts.gov/?q=court-annexed-mediation-plan. The substance\n\n of some such orders may be included expressly within this Discovery Order, while others\n\n (including the Court\u2019s Standing Order Regarding Protection of Proprietary and/or\n\n Confidential Information to Be Presented to the Court During Motion and Trial Practice)\n\n are incorporated herein by reference. All such standing orders shall be binding on the\n\n parties and counsel, regardless of whether they are expressly included herein or made a\n\n part hereof by reference.\n\n\n\n\n - 10 -\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-03T14:16:04.853905-07:00","document_number":"32","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"175015583379","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":2,"description":"Proposed Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-03T14:16:00.684874-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-03T14:55:43.859891-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-03","time_filed":"16:15:04","entry_number":32,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-03.001","pacer_sequence_number":88,"description":"JOINT MOTION for Entry of Agreed Discovery Order by VL Collective IP LLC. (Attachments: (1) Proposed Order)(Alberti, David)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/472261780/","id":472261780,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73266941/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/487690155/","id":487690155,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73266941/31/vl-collective-ip-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-07-27T12:07:09.518834-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T21:48:23.553463-07:00","sha1":"41634830d359de8b5a1aae5fa4a91345a14c35e8","page_count":26,"file_size":498143,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.31.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.31.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":"2026-07-27T12:07:09.964266-07:00","document_number":"31","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175015564040","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Amended Complaint","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/487690169/","id":487690169,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73266941/31/1/vl-collective-ip-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-07-27T12:07:11.402212-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T21:47:46.635314-07:00","sha1":"b20c5f7b381a04e73a01ecb986c77b2f7a92a30a","page_count":21,"file_size":393846,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.31.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.31.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":"2026-07-27T12:07:18.846783-07:00","document_number":"31","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"175015564041","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit A","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/487690170/","id":487690170,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73266941/31/2/vl-collective-ip-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-07-27T12:07:11.415966-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T21:47:43.468171-07:00","sha1":"c5f6f100242da8af41110dd7ebab33b22ec7bb2c","page_count":44,"file_size":1013866,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.31.2.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.31.2.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":"2026-07-27T12:07:26.557681-07:00","document_number":"31","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"175015564042","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit B","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/487690171/","id":487690171,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73266941/31/3/vl-collective-ip-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-07-27T12:07:11.426091-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T21:47:47.265093-07:00","sha1":"53bf0b3f42f2e619dabef281628adafd96e1f12e","page_count":22,"file_size":480447,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.31.3.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.31.3.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":"2026-07-27T12:07:33.995378-07:00","document_number":"31","attachment_number":3,"pacer_doc_id":"175015564043","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit C","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/487690172/","id":487690172,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73266941/31/4/vl-collective-ip-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-07-27T12:07:11.435682-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T21:47:44.662577-07:00","sha1":"fd1d43b7cd2bf258b412cbc93d2a4e430090afda","page_count":27,"file_size":6464405,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.31.4.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.31.4.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":"2026-07-27T12:07:44.492612-07:00","document_number":"31","attachment_number":4,"pacer_doc_id":"175015564044","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit D","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/487690173/","id":487690173,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73266941/31/5/vl-collective-ip-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-07-27T12:07:11.446537-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T21:47:48.348511-07:00","sha1":"78ad37feabe91bab4ed0ba00979cdc71afc48b90","page_count":51,"file_size":2478361,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.31.5.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.31.5.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":"2026-07-27T12:07:53.531545-07:00","document_number":"31","attachment_number":5,"pacer_doc_id":"175015564045","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit E","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/487690174/","id":487690174,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73266941/31/6/vl-collective-ip-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-07-27T12:07:11.458896-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T21:47:56.003698-07:00","sha1":"07fe050e62f4669f9e4f026f72eb14fa772849b3","page_count":38,"file_size":2692121,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.31.6.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.31.6.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":"2026-07-27T12:08:03.713444-07:00","document_number":"31","attachment_number":6,"pacer_doc_id":"175015564046","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit F","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/487690175/","id":487690175,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73266941/31/7/vl-collective-ip-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-07-27T12:07:11.469429-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T21:47:50.708079-07:00","sha1":"208f7d2528529e23ff0ad6f1afb9d3e96d615ec7","page_count":20,"file_size":102116,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.31.7.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.31.7.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":"2026-07-27T12:08:12.215245-07:00","document_number":"31","attachment_number":7,"pacer_doc_id":"175015564047","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit G","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/487690177/","id":487690177,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73266941/31/8/vl-collective-ip-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-07-27T12:07:11.480826-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T21:47:50.224897-07:00","sha1":"424398433bb7f0621a8e0eca6b7ddab145477f23","page_count":2,"file_size":2718752,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.31.8.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.31.8.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":"2026-07-27T12:08:20.925771-07:00","document_number":"31","attachment_number":8,"pacer_doc_id":"175015564048","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit H","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-27T12:07:09.451392-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-27T12:57:09.986932-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-27","time_filed":"14:05:54","entry_number":31,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-27.001","pacer_sequence_number":86,"description":"FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT for Patent Infringement against Microsoft Corporation, filed by VL Collective IP LLC. (Attachments: (1) Exhibit A, (2) Exhibit B, (3) Exhibit C, (4) Exhibit D, (5) Exhibit E, (6) Exhibit F, (7) Exhibit G, (8) Exhibit H)(Alberti, David)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/472085153/","id":472085153,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73266941/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/487506825/","id":487506825,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73266941/30/vl-collective-ip-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-07-24T13:51:00.143079-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-14T19:09:01.609494-07:00","sha1":"aca457c3f7c60a21a27d01e29588180c86cf4eb1","page_count":6,"file_size":765889,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.30.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.30.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 30 Filed 07/24/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 285\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MARSHALL DIVISION\n\nVL COLLECTIVE IP LLC \u00a7\n \u00a7\nv. \u00a7 Case No. 2:26-CV-00346-JRG\n \u00a7\nMICROSOFT CORPORATION \u00a7\n\n\n DOCKET CONTROL ORDER\n\n In accordance with the scheduling conference held in this case, it is hereby ORDERED\n\nthat the following schedule of deadlines is in effect until further order of this Court:\n\n June 5, 2028 *Jury Selection \u2013 9:00 a.m. in Marshall, Texas\n\n *Defendant to disclose final invalidity theories, final prior art\n 7 days before Jury\n references/combinations, and final equitable defenses with notice of\n Selection\n the same filed with the Court.1\n\n 10 days before Jury *Plaintiff to disclose final election of Asserted Claims with notice of\n Selection the same filed with the Court.2\n\n * If a juror questionnaire is to be used, an editable (in Microsoft Word\n May 8, 2028 format) questionnaire shall be jointly submitted to the Deputy Clerk\n in Charge by this date.3\n\n *Pretrial Conference \u2013 9:00 a.m. in Marshall, Texas before District\n May 1, 2028\n Judge Rodney Gilstrap.\n\n\n\n\n1\n The proposed DCO shall include this specific deadline. The deadline shall read, \u201c7 days before\nJury Selection,\u201d and shall not include a specific date.\n2\n Given the Court\u2019s past experiences with litigants dropping claims and defenses during or on the\neve of trial, the Court is of the opinion that these additional deadlines are necessary. The proposed\nDCO shall include this specific deadline. The deadline shall read, \u201c10 days before Jury Selection,\u201d\nand shall not include a specific date.\n3\n The Parties are referred to the Court\u2019s Standing Order Regarding Use of Juror Questionnaires in\nAdvance of Voir Dire.\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 30 Filed 07/24/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 286\n\n\n\n\n *Notify Court of Agreements Reached During Meet and Confer\n\n The parties are ordered to meet and confer on any outstanding\n April 24, 2028\n objections or motions in limine. The parties shall advise the Court of\n any agreements reached no later than 1:00 p.m. three (3) business\n days before the pretrial conference.\n\n *File Joint Pretrial Order, Joint Proposed Jury Instructions, Joint\n Proposed Verdict Form, Responses to Motions in Limine, Updated\n April 24, 2028\n Exhibit Lists, Updated Witness Lists, and Updated Deposition\n Designations\n\n *File Notice of Request for Daily Transcript or Real Time Reporting.\n\n If a daily transcript or real time reporting of court proceedings is\n April 17, 2028 requested for trial, the party or parties making said request shall file\n a notice with the Court and e-mail the Court Reporter, Shawn\n McRoberts, at shawn_mcroberts@txed.uscourts.gov.\n\n File Motions in Limine\n\n The parties shall limit their motions in limine to issues that if\n April 10, 2028\n improperly introduced at trial would be so prejudicial that the Court\n could not alleviate the prejudice by giving appropriate instructions to\n the jury.\n\n April 10, 2028 Serve Objections to Rebuttal Pretrial Disclosures\n\n Serve Objections to Pretrial Disclosures; and Serve Rebuttal Pretrial\n April 3, 2028\n Disclosures\n\n Serve Pretrial Disclosures (Witness List, Deposition Designations,\n March 20, 2028\n and Exhibit List) by the Party with the Burden of Proof\n\n *Response to Dispositive Motions (including Daubert Motions).\n Responses to dispositive motions that were filed prior to the\n dispositive motion deadline, including Daubert Motions, shall be due\n March 13, 2028\n in accordance with Local Rule CV-7(e), not to exceed the deadline\n as set forth in this Docket Control Order.4 Motions for Summary\n Judgment shall comply with Local Rule CV-56.\n\n\n\n\n4\n The parties are directed to Local Rule CV-7(d), which provides in part that \u201c[a] party\u2019s failure to\noppose a motion in the manner prescribed herein creates a presumption that the party does not\ncontrovert the facts set out by movant and has no evidence to offer in opposition to the motion.\u201d\n\n -2-\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 30 Filed 07/24/26 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 287\n\n\n\n\n *File Motions to Strike Expert Testimony (including Daubert\n Motions)\n February 28, 2028\n No motion to strike expert testimony (including a Daubert motion)\n may be filed after this date without leave of the Court.\n\n *File Dispositive Motions\n\n No dispositive motion may be filed after this date without leave of\n the Court.\n February 28, 2028\n Motions shall comply with Local Rule CV-56 and Local Rule CV-7.\n Motions to extend page limits will only be granted in exceptional\n circumstances. Exceptional circumstances require more than\n agreement among the parties.\n\n February 22, 2028 Deadline to Complete Expert Discovery\n\n February 7, 2028 Serve Disclosures for Rebuttal Expert Witnesses\n\n Deadline to Complete Fact Discovery and File Motions to Compel\n January 18, 2028\n Discovery\n\n Serve Disclosures for Expert Witnesses by the Party with the Burden\n January 18, 2028\n of Proof\n\n January 4, 2028 Comply with P.R. 3-7 (Opinion of Counsel Defenses)\n\n *Claim Construction Hearing \u2013 9:00 a.m. in Marshall, Texas before\n December 14, 2027\n District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.\n\n November 30, 2027 *Comply with P.R. 4-5(d) (Joint Claim Construction Chart)\n\n November 23, 2027 *Comply with P.R. 4-5(c) (Reply Claim Construction Brief)\n\n November 16, 2027 Comply with P.R. 4-5(b) (Responsive Claim Construction Brief)\n\n Comply with P.R. 4-5(a) (Opening Claim Construction Brief) and\n Submit Technical Tutorials (if any)\n November 2, 2027\n Good cause must be shown to submit technical tutorials after the\n deadline to comply with P.R. 4-5(a).\n\n\n\nIf the deadline under Local Rule CV 7(e) exceeds the deadline for Response to Dispositive\nMotions, the deadline for Response to Dispositive Motions controls.\n\n\n\n -3-\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 30 Filed 07/24/26 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 288\n\n\n\n\n Deadline to Substantially Complete Document Production and\n Exchange Privilege Logs\n November 2, 2027\n Counsel are expected to make good faith efforts to produce all\n required documents as soon as they are available and not wait until\n the substantial completion deadline.\n\n Comply with P.R. 4-4 (Deadline to Complete Claim Construction\n October 19, 2027\n Discovery)\n\n October 12, 2027 File Response to Amended Pleadings\n\n *File Amended Pleadings\n September 28, 2027\n It is not necessary to seek leave of Court to amend pleadings prior to\n this deadline unless the amendment seeks to assert additional patents.\n\n September 21, 2027 Comply with P.R. 4-3 (Joint Claim Construction Statement)\n\n August 31, 2027 Comply with P.R. 4-2 (Exchange Preliminary Claim Constructions)\n\n August 10, 2027 Comply with P.R. 4-1 (Exchange Proposed Claim Terms)\n\n Comply with Standing Order Regarding Subject-Matter Eligibility\n September 14, 2026\n Contentions5\n\n September 14, 2026 Comply with P.R. 3-3 & 3-4 (Invalidity Contentions)\n\n *File Proposed Protective Order and Comply with Paragraphs 1 & 3\n of the Discovery Order (Initial and Additional Disclosures)\n August 10, 2026\n The Proposed Protective Order shall be filed as a separate motion\n with the caption indicating whether or not the proposed order is\n opposed in any part.\n\n *File Proposed Discovery Order\n August 3, 2026\n The Proposed Discovery Order shall be filed with the caption\n indicating whether or not the proposed order is opposed in any part.\n\n July 27, 2026 Join Additional Parties\n\n\n\n5\n _http://www.txed.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/judgeFiles/EDTX%20Standing%20Order%20\nRe%20Subject%20Matter%20Eligibility%20Contentions%20.pdf [https://perma.cc/RQN2-\nYU5P]\n\n\n -4-\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 30 Filed 07/24/26 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 289\n\n\n\n\n July 6, 2026 Comply with P.R. 3-1 & 3-2 (Infringement Contentions)\n(*) indicates a deadline that cannot be changed without an acceptable showing of good\ncause. Good cause is not shown merely by indicating that the parties agree that the\ndeadline should be changed.\n\n ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS\n\n Mediation: While certain cases may benefit from mediation, such may not be appropriate\nfor every case. The Court finds that the Parties are best suited to evaluate whether mediation will\nbenefit the case after the issuance of the Court\u2019s claim construction order. Accordingly, the Court\nORDERS the Parties to file a Joint Notice indicating whether the case should be referred for\nmediation within fourteen days of the issuance of the Court\u2019s claim construction order. As a\npart of such Joint Notice, the Parties should indicate whether they have a mutually agreeable\nmediator for the Court to consider. If the Parties disagree about whether mediation is appropriate,\nthe Parties should set forth a brief statement of their competing positions in the Joint Notice.\n\n Summary Judgment Motions, Motions to Strike Expert Testimony, and Daubert\nMotions: For each motion, the moving party shall provide the Court with two (2) hard copies of\nthe completed briefing (opening motion, response, reply, and if applicable, sur-reply), excluding\nexhibits, in D-three-ring binders, appropriately tabbed. All documents shall be single-sided and\nmust include the CM/ECF header. These copies shall be delivered to the Court within three (3)\nbusiness days after briefing has completed. For expert-related motions, complete digital copies of\nthe relevant expert report(s) and accompanying exhibits shall be submitted on a single flash drive\nto the Court. Complete digital copies of the expert report(s) shall be delivered to the Court no later\nthan the dispositive motion deadline.\n\n Indefiniteness: In lieu of early motions for summary judgment, the parties are directed to\ninclude any arguments related to the issue of indefiniteness in their Markman briefing, subject to\nthe local rules\u2019 normal page limits.\n\n Lead Counsel: The Parties are directed to Local Rule CV-11(a)(1), which provides that\n\u201c[o]n the first appearance through counsel, each party shall designate a lead attorney on the\npleadings or otherwise.\u201d Additionally, once designated, a party\u2019s lead attorney may only be\nchanged by the filing of a Motion to Change Lead Counsel and thereafter obtaining from the Court\nan Order granting leave to designate different lead counsel. The true lead counsel should be\ndesignated early and should not expect to parachute in as lead once the case has been largely\ndeveloped.\n\n Motions for Continuance: The following will not warrant a continuance nor justify a\nfailure to comply with the discovery deadline:\n\n(a) The fact that there are motions for summary judgment or motions to dismiss pending;\n\n(b) The fact that one or more of the attorneys is set for trial in another court on the same day,\n unless the other setting was made prior to the date of this order or was made as a special\n provision for the parties in the other case;\n\n\n -5-\n\fCase 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 30 Filed 07/24/26 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 290\n\n\n\n\n(c) The failure to complete discovery prior to trial, unless the parties can demonstrate that it\n was impossible to complete discovery despite their good faith effort to do so.\n\n Amendments to the Docket Control Order (\u201cDCO\u201d): Any motion to alter any date on\nthe DCO shall take the form of a motion to amend the DCO. The motion to amend the DCO shall\ninclude a proposed order that lists all of the remaining dates in one column (as above) and the\nproposed changes to each date in an additional adjacent column (if there is no change for a date\nthe proposed date column should remain blank or indicate that it is unchanged). In other words,\nthe DCO in the proposed order should be complete such that one can clearly see all the remaining\ndeadlines and the changes, if any, to those deadlines, rather than needing to also refer to an earlier\nversion of the DCO.\n\n Joint Pretrial Order: In the contentions of the Parties included in the Joint Pretrial Order,\nthe Plaintiff shall specify all allegedly infringed claims that will be asserted at trial. The Plaintiff\nshall also specify the nature of each theory of infringement, including under which subsections of\n35 U.S.C. \u00a7 271 it alleges infringement, and whether the Plaintiff alleges divided infringement or\ninfringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Each Defendant shall indicate the nature of each\ntheory of invalidity, including invalidity for anticipation, obviousness, subject-matter eligibility,\nwritten description, enablement, or any other basis for invalidity. The Defendant shall also specify\neach\n . prior art reference or combination of references upon which the Defendant shall rely at trial,\nwith respect to each theory of invalidity. Other than as set forth in the above deadlines, the\ncontentions of the Parties may not be amended, supplemented, or dropped without leave of the\nCourt based upon a showing of good cause. The Parties in a case which has been consolidated for\npre-trial purposes and which is moving towards a separate trial on the merits (subsequent to pre-\ntrial) shall file, as an exhibit to the parties\u2019 Joint Pretrial Order, a list identifying all docket entries\nfrom the lead case that relate to the applicable member case.\n\n Trial: All parties must appear in person at trial. All non-individual (including but not\nlimited to corporate) parties must appear at trial through the presence in person of a designated\nrepresentative. Once they have appeared, any representative of a non-individual party shall not be\nreplaced or substituted without express leave of Court.\n\n So ORDERED and SIGNED this 23rd day of July, 2026.\n\n\n\n\n ____________________________________\n RODNEY GILSTRAP\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n\n\n\n\n -6-\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-07-24T13:51:00.476170-07:00","document_number":"30","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175015560791","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Scheduling Order/Docket Control Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-24T13:51:00.053140-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-24T14:38:22.083644-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-24","time_filed":"15:49:36","entry_number":30,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-24.001","pacer_sequence_number":84,"description":"DOCKET CONTROL ORDER - Pretrial Conference set for 5/1/2028 at 09:00 AM before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. Jury Selection set for 6/5/2028 at 09:00AM before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. Markman/Claim Construction Hearing set for 12/14/2027 at 09:00 AM before District Judge Rodney Gilstrap.. Signed by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 7/23/2026. (NKL)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/472069599/","id":472069599,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73266941/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/487490818/","id":487490818,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73266941/29/vl-collective-ip-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-07-24T12:29:29.723594-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-27T16:52:01.283811-07:00","sha1":"34d9d7941ef14b7947194c2bfdd4c1b9532bf296","page_count":1,"file_size":743023,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.29.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.29.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 29 Filed 07/24/26 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 284\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MARSHALL DIVISION\n\n VL COLLECTIVE IP LLC, \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Plaintiff, \u00a7\n \u00a7\n v. \u00a7 CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:26-CV-00346-JRG\n \u00a7\n MICROSOFT CORPORATION, \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Defendant. \u00a7\n\n ORDER\n\n Before the Court is the Unopposed Motion for Extension To Serve P.R. 3-3 and 3-4\n\nInvalidity Contentions and Subject Matter Eligibility Contentions (the \u201cMotion\u201d) filed by\n\nDefendant Microsoft Corporation (\u201cDefendant\u201d). (Dkt. No. 26). In the Motion, Defendant seeks\n\na two-week extension of time to serve invalidity contentions and subject matter eligibility\n\ncontentions pursuant to P.R. 3-3, 3-4. (Id. at 1). The requested extension would move the deadline\n\nfrom\n . August 31, 2026, up to and including September 14, 2026. (Id.). The Motion is unopposed.\n\n(Id. at 1-2).\n\n Having considered the Motion, and noting its unopposed nature, the Court finds that it\n\nshould be and hereby is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the deadline for\n\nDefendant to respond to Plaintiff\u2019s Complaint is extended up to and including September 14,\n\n2026.\n\n\n So ORDERED and SIGNED this 23rd day of July, 2026.\n\n\n\n\n ____________________________________\n RODNEY GILSTRAP\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-07-24T12:29:30.279641-07:00","document_number":"29","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175015560087","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-24T12:29:29.697806-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-24T12:36:07.059295-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-24","time_filed":"14:27:37","entry_number":29,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-24.001","pacer_sequence_number":82,"description":"ORDER granting [26] Motion for Extension To Serve P.R. 3-3 and 3-4 Invalidity Contentions and Subject Matter Eligibility Contentions. Signed by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 7/23/2026. (NKL)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/472069554/","id":472069554,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73266941/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/487490773/","id":487490773,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73266941/28/vl-collective-ip-llc-v-microsoft-corporation/","date_created":"2026-07-24T12:27:44.522656-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-14T18:50:50.150059-07:00","sha1":"28fff8151e5e379f46c1e29de5314c00f9515e7d","page_count":1,"file_size":740264,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.28.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txed.245400/gov.uscourts.txed.245400.28.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 2:26-cv-00346-JRG Document 28 Filed 07/24/26 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 283\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MARSHALL DIVISION\n\n VL COLLECTIVE IP LLC, \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Plaintiff, \u00a7\n \u00a7\n v. \u00a7 CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:26-CV-00346-JRG\n \u00a7\n MICROSOFT CORPORATION, \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Defendant. \u00a7\n\n ORDER\n\n Before the Court is the Unopposed Motion for Extension To Respond to Complaint (the\n\n\u201cMotion\u201d) filed by Defendant Microsoft Corporation (\u201cDefendant\u201d). (Dkt. No. 25). In the Motion,\n .\nDefendant seeks a one-week extension of time to respond to Plaintiff VL Collective IP LLC\n\n(\u201cPlaintiff\u201d)\u2019s Complaint. (Id. at 1). The requested extension would move the deadline from July\n\n20, 2026, up to and including July 27, 2026. (Id.). The Motion is unopposed. (Id.).\n\n Having considered the Motion, and noting its unopposed nature, the Court finds that it\n\nshould be and hereby is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the deadline for\n\nDefendant to respond to Plaintiff\u2019s Complaint is extended up to and including July 27, 2026.\n\n So ORDERED and SIGNED this 23rd day of July, 2026.\n\n\n\n\n ____________________________________\n RODNEY GILSTRAP\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-07-24T12:27:44.908429-07:00","document_number":"28","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"175015560076","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-24T12:27:44.482733-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-24T12:36:08.297036-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-24","time_filed":"14:26:33","entry_number":28,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-24.001","pacer_sequence_number":80,"description":"ORDER granting [25] Motion for Extension To Respond to Complaint. Signed by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 7/23/2026. (NKL)","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=73266941&page_size=40"}