WAG acquisition, L.L.C. v. Technius Ltd., No. 2:24-cv-00714 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2026)

The Court held a Pretrial Conference in the above-captioned case on July 21, 2026 regarding pending pretrial motions, motions in limine (“MILs”), and disputed exhibits between Plaintiff WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. (“Plaintiff” or “WAG”) and Defendant Technius Ltd. (“Defendant” or “Technius”) (collectively, the “Parties”) in the above-captioned matter (Dkt. Nos. 65, 66, 67, 85, 86). This Order memorializes the Court’s rulings on the pretrial motions, MILs, and disputed exhibits as announced from the bench and read into the record, including additional instructions that were given to the Parties. While this Order summarizes the Court’s rulings as announced into the record during the Pretrial Conference, this Order in no way limits or constrains such rulings from the bench. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. Motion by Plaintiff To Strike Portions of Expert Reports of Defendant’s Technical

Expert Ziaxing Xiong (Dkt. No. 65). The motion was GRANTED IN PART. The Court found that Dr. Xiong’s reports constituted conclusory, unsupported statements. Dr. Xiong may not offer bare conclusions; his report must provide the facts and data he reviewed; the principles, methods, and analyses he relied on in coming to his conclusions; and how such principles, methods, analyses—when applied to the facts and data—inform his conclusions. See2 generally FED. R. EVID. 702. Although the Court identified particular paragraphs as exemplary of this issue, the failure to include such bases pervades Dr. Xiong’s reports. The Court thus GRANTED the motion on this basis.

As to Dr. Xiong’s opinions asserting “sending initial streaming media elements to the user system” requires “actively sending” such elements, the Court GRANTED the motion. Notwithstanding the general issue with Dr. Xiong’s report, the attempt to insert “actively” into the claim term is improper claim construction and exceeds the plain and ordinary meaning of the term. Defense counsel represented on the record they will voluntarily remove “actively” from Dr. Xiong’s opinions. Of course, Dr. Xiong may present opinions about the plain and ordinary meaning of “sending,” but to impose an additional, unrecited requirement is improper.

As to paragraph 43 of Dr. Xiong’s report, reciting that “[His] understanding is that Technius did not use LL-HLS before the WAG patents-in-suit expired,” the Court GRANTED the motion and STRUCK that sentence as purely factual recital. See generally supra.

As to paragraph 149 of Dr. Xiong’s report, the motion was WITHDRAWN. As to the six invalidity references and opinions absent from Defendant’s invalidity contentions, the Court GRANTED the motion. Specifically, the Court STRUCK all such references and opinions with respect to the ’622 Patent, the ’226 Patent, the ’390 Patent, the ’221 Patent, and the ’230 Patent, and the RFC 2326 real-time streaming references.

As to Dr. Xiong’s indefiniteness opinions, the motion was DENIED AS MOOT in light of Defendant’s representation that it will not raise indefiniteness at trial.

Given the pervasive issues throughout the report, including those specifically described above, the Court ORDERS the following

• 3• Defendant must serve amended reports of Dr. Xiong within 14 days of this Order to address all issues identified by this Court (both in this Order and orally at the Pretrial Conference). Such amendments may not introduce new matters and new opinions. If the amended reports go beyond the opinions in Dr. Xiong’s original reports or go beyond addressing the issues identified by this Court, the Court will consider striking Dr. Xiong’s reports in their entirety.
• • Plaintiff shall have 14 days from the date of such service to serve its own expert’s amended rebuttal reports, if any. Also, Plaintiff is hereby granted leave to depose Dr. Xiong on his amended reports within this same time frame—14 days from the day of service of Dr. Xiong’s amended reports. If Defendant serves its amended reports at different times, Plaintiff’s deadline runs from the latest date of service by Defendant.
• • If Plaintiff serves rebuttal reports, Defendant shall have 7 days from the date of service of any such report to depose Plaintiff’s expert on the same.
• • The Parties are ORDERED to make their experts available for such depositions within the timeframes described above.
• • Neither Party may file Dauberts on any amendments ordered herein without prior leave of Court.

2. Defendant Technius’s Daubert Motion To Strike Expert Testimony of Keith J. Teruya

(Dkt. No. 66). The motion was DENIED. The Court found that Plaintiff’s expert qualifies under FED. R. EVID. 702.

3. Defendant Technius’s Motion for Summary Determination of Non-Infringement and

To Strike the HLS Portion of the Supplemental Infringement Contentions (Dkt. No.

67).

4The motion was DENIED. First, the portion of the motion seeking summary judgment was DENIED. Defendant represented that the basis for summary judgment does not substantially differ from its basis to strike Plaintiff’s expert, which the Court also denied. The Court additionally DENIED this portion of the motion because it found questions of material fact precluded summary judgment.

Second, the portion of the motion seeking to strike HLS from Plaintiff’s supplemental infringement contentions was DENIED.

4. Parties’ Opposed Motions in Limine (Dkt. Nos. 85, 86).

a. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine 1: Preclude evidence, testimony, or argument as to any

allegedly material software or system changes after September 4, 2022. This MIL was DENIED. b. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine 2: Preclude opinion testimony by lay witnesses based on

technical knowledge or inference as to the operation of source code or streaming media protocols with respect to claim limitations, or the correspondence of prior art to features of the asserted claims.

This MIL was DENIED. c. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine 3: Preclude questions, testimony, or argument to the effect

that “WAG didn’t invent buffering,” where made or asserted in isolation from other elements comprising the claimed combination in a manner suggesting noninfringement by reason of merely practicing the prior art or invalidity by making buffering the sole required claim element.

This MIL was DENIED. d. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine 4: Preclude testimony, questions seeking to elicit

testimony, and argument, addressing claim limitations contrary to their construction by the Court.

This MIL was DENIED.

5e. Plaintiff’s Motion in Limine 5: Preclude questions, testimony, and argument as to on-

sale bar as a basis for invalidity.

This MIL was GRANTED. If either Party wishes to introduce evidence regarding a dispute of when certain inventor documents were created, the Parties must first approach the bench and seek leave from the Court.

f. Defendant’s Motion in Limine 1: Exclude references to pornography.

This MIL was GRANTED. The Court also ORDERED that “d/b/a stripchat.com” be dropped from the caption in this case. The Parties may not show the jury anything with a caption showing “d/b/a stripchat.com.” If Plaintiff wishes to present argument, evidence, or testimony regarding the nature of Defendant’s business, it must first seek leave of Court.

g. Defendant’s Motion in Limine 2: Exclude evidence and testimony gathered after

expiration of the patents in suit.

This MIL was DENIED. h. Defendant’s Motion in Limine 3: Exclude Wayback Machine evidence.

This MIL was DENIED. i. Defendant’s Motion in Limine 4: Exclude “white papers” or standards documents.

This MIL was DENIED.

5. Parties’ Exhibit Disputes

Plaintiff’s exhibits in bucket 1 were EXCLUDED but may still be used for impeachment purposes and offered as demonstratives.

Plaintiff’s exhibit PTX-15 in bucket 5 was PRE-ADMITTD. Plaintiff’s exhibits in bucket 7 were EXCLUDED but may still be used as a demonstrative for its expert’s testimony.

6.

Plaintiff’s exhibits in bucket 8 were EXCLUDED but may still be used as a demonstrative. All other exhibits not withdrawn by the Parties, pursuant to their agreement, are hereby PRE-ADMITTED.

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 29th day of September, 2026.

RODNEY GILSTRAP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE