IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

DAINGEAN TECHNOLOGIES LTD., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

AT&T CORP., AT&T MOBILITY 

LLC, AT&T MOBILITY II LLC, and 

AT&T SERVICES INC., 

Defendants, 

ERICSSON INC., 

Intervenor, 

NOKIA OF AMERICA 

CORPORATION, 

Intervenor. 

 §

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

NO. 2:23-CV-000123-JRG-RSP 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND 

SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORY RESPONSE 

Case 2:23-cv-00123-JRG-RSP Document 104 Filed 04/19/24 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:

1621
i 

Table of Contents 

I. AT&T Has Not Complied with Its Discovery Obligations ..................................................... 3

II. Ericsson and Nokia Have Not Complied with Their Discovery Obligations .......................... 4

III. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 7

Case 2:23-cv-00123-JRG-RSP Document 104 Filed 04/19/24 Page 2 of 11 PageID #:

1622
1 

This is a patent infringement case about Defendant AT&T’s 5G network and the base 

stations used within that network, Intervenors Ericsson and 

Nokia. The “Accused Functionality” of the 5G network at issue involves: (1) SIB transmissions 

via broadcast or on-demand; (2) configured grant type 2 scheduling; and (3) beamforming 

algorithms using handset inputs from nearby cells. Plaintiff Daingean has requested technical 

documents about AT&T’s 5G network, including its architecture, components, software, and 

configuration relating to the Accused Functionality. Daingean has also requested technical 

documents about the Accused Functionality of the relevant base stations from Ericsson and Nokia. 

Finally, Daingean has served interrogatories on AT&T regarding the architecture, hardware, 

software, and configuration of its 5G network as related to the Accused Functionality. 

On December 13, 2023, Daingean outlined numerous production deficiencies in a letter to 

AT&T and Intervenors (collectively, “Defendants”). After two meet-and-confers, Daingean reurged its requests in a letter on February 16, 2024. Defendants responded on February 23, 2024. 

Since then, Defendants produced some of the specific documents Daingean identified. However, 

Defendants’ productions remain deficient, prompting Daingean to seek relief from the Court. 

Under the Discovery Order (Dkt. 49) and P.R. 3-4, Defendants are required to provide 

Daingean with “all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things in 

[Defendants’] possession, custody, or control...that are relevant to the pleaded claims or defenses,” 

(Dkt. 49 ¶3(b)) including “[s]ource code, specifications, schematics, flow charts, artwork, 

formulas, or other documentation sufficient to show the operation of any aspects or elements of an 

Accused Instrumentality identified by the patent claimant.” P.R. 3-4. Because Defendants refuse 

to provide the full scope of discovery required by this Court, Daingean moves to compel the 

following from AT&T, Ericsson, and Nokia: 

Case 2:23-cv-00123-JRG-RSP Document 104 Filed 04/19/24 Page 3 of 11 PageID #:

1623
2 

From AT&T: (a) Network architecture documents detailing the components of AT&T’s 

5G network, including details of which components interact with AT&T’s base stations regarding 

the Accused Functionality; (b) Base station configuration documents detailing the particular 

configuration and software revision of each 5G base station in AT&T’s network, including details 

of when those configurations and software revisions were updated; (c) Documents detailing 

, including the business 

justifications for, technical implementation of, timing of, and results of those tests; and (d) Updated 

response to interrogatory number 2 to detail base station configurations and software.1

From Ericsson and Nokia: (a) Build scripts for the produced source code revisions, 

including any scripts used to compile code, tests, or documentation; (b) Release notes for each 

source code revision; (c) Source code changelog for the produced source code detailing the author, 

date, files, and explanation of changes made to the source code related to the Accused 

Functionality; and (d) Data from issue tracking systems used to manage specifications, 

requirements, customer issues, and/or debug issues for base station products and their software 

related to the Accused Functionality. 

From Ericsson: (a) Documents detailing 

l; (b) Documents detailing support of 

; and (c) Non-source code documents produced on the source code computer. 

From Nokia: Documents detailing including studies, specifications, 

requirements, business justifications, functionality, and rollout plans. 

1

 On the most recent meet and confer, AT&T stated that it would again supplement its response to interrogatory number 

2 to include details regarding base station configuration and software revision rollout. If that supplement is satisfactory, 

Daingean will withdraw this request. 

Case 2:23-cv-00123-JRG-RSP Document 104 Filed 04/19/24 Page 4 of 11 PageID #:

1624
3 

I. AT&T Has Not Complied with Its Discovery Obligations 

On October 10, 2023, Daingean served AT&T with interrogatories requesting details about 

relevant development, implementation, and updates to AT&T’s 5G network (Interrogatory No. 1) 

and details about relevant third-party hardware and software within AT&T’s 5G network 

(Interrogatory No. 2). See Ex. A. Additionally, on December 13, 2023, Daingean specifically 

requested documents from AT&T: (1) “identifying and detailing the 5G-capable or 5G-aware base 

stations deployed within AT&T’s networks (‘Accused Products’)”; (2) “detailing the testing of the 

Accused Products”; (3) “identifying and detailing the software deployments (past and present 

versions) for the Accused Products”; and (4) “identifying and detailing the licensed features 

enabled on the Accused Products and the times during which those features have been enabled.” 

Ex. B (request numbers 5-7 and 9). AT&T has failed to fully respond. 

Technical documents: AT&T has not produced documents detailing its 5G networks or 

architecture of those networks pertaining to the Accused Functionality. Instead, AT&T has 

produced purportedly detailing 

configuration settings for those base stations. But AT&T has failed to confirm the nature of these 

documents in its interrogatory responses. AT&T has only identified base station 

models within its network but has not specifically indicated that the configuration 

settings were deployed, when the configuration settings were deployed, or how the configuration 

settings were deployed. Further, AT&T has not detailed when specific software revisions were 

deployed to its 5G base stations. AT&T should be ordered to produce documents detailing the its 

base station configurations and deployed software versions for those base stations. Further, AT&T 

should produce documents detailing the licensed features that it uses (and has used) within its 5G 

base stations. 

Case 2:23-cv-00123-JRG-RSP Document 104 Filed 04/19/24 Page 5 of 11 PageID #:

1625
4 

Interrogatory No. 2: AT&T has failed to fully respond to Interrogatory Number 2, which 

requests details concerning the 5G base stations deployed in AT&T’s network, their corresponding 

software revisions, and the features licensed for each base station. See Ex. A. Instead, AT&T 

merely states that 

 AT&T’s open-ended response provides virtually no information about 

AT&T’s software deployments. Thus, Daingean cannot know which software releases are at issue 

during which times within AT&T’s network, which is especially important in the quickly 

developing and evolving area of 5G technology. Different software versions, by definition, provide 

different functionality. Thus, AT&T should be compelled to provide details about the software 

versions deployed to its 5G base stations. 

II. Ericsson and Nokia Have Not Complied with Their Discovery Obligations 

On December 13, 2023, Daingean requested documents from Ericsson and Nokia 

“detailing the design, development, and testing of software deployments (past and present 

versions) for the Accused Products.” Ex. B (request number 8). In response, both have 

predominantly produced source code for numerous software versions, customer-facing feature 

descriptions lacking detail regarding the implementation of those features, and contracts with 

AT&T. Daingean requests that Ericsson and Nokia be compelled to produce the following key 

categories of relevant documents, which are currently lacking from their respective productions: 

General technical documents: Both Intervenors have failed to produce documents existing 

in the gap between highly technical source code and high-level customer facing documents. There 

is a significant information and comprehensibility gap between these document types. Typically, 

internal documentation governs the focus of source code development, including for example 

requirements, specifications, technical reviews, and viability testing. This documentation is 

Case 2:23-cv-00123-JRG-RSP Document 104 Filed 04/19/24 Page 6 of 11 PageID #:

1626
5 

dictated in part by Ericsson’s and Nokia’s internal protocols. Daingean cannot guess the specific 

documents to request from Defendants regarding the design, development, testing, and rollout of 

their 5G base station products. Daingean cannot further identify specific documents when it does 

not know Defendants’ internal processes. Instead, Defendants should search for and produce 

relevant technical documents, regardless of whether those documents are maintained on local 

servers, cloud-based servers, wikis, or web-based systems (such as JIRA). 

In the parties’ meet-and-confers, Defendants argued that they provided ample source code 

and technical documents sufficient to show the base stations’ operation. However, Defendants 

cannot unilaterally “limit discovery relating to technical operation to what they deem Plaintiff 

needs.” See LG Elecs., Inc. v. Hitachi, Ltd., No. 5:07-cv-90, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147716, at 

*10 (E.D. Tex. March 2, 2009) (emphasis added). P.R. 3-4 requires a defendant to “produce more 

than the bare minimum of what it believes is sufficient.” See Edward D. Loli Trust v. Avigilon 

Corp., Civ. No. 2:10-cv-605, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164425, at *9 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 16, 2012) 

(emphasis in original). Rather, Defendants must produce “all other relevant materials reasonably 

needed for Plaintiff to understand for itself how the technology at issue operates and functions.” 

See Edward D. Loli Trust, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164425, at *13 (emphasis in original); 

LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Asus Computer Int’l, No. 2:06-cv-348, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3878, at 

*16-17 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 21, 2009) (requiring production of “drafts or revisions to source 

code[,]...documents describing any modifications that the defendants have made to the source 

code”).

Documents associated with source code: Ericsson and Nokia have produced multiple 

source code versions of their base station software, each comprising many thousands of files that 

Case 2:23-cv-00123-JRG-RSP Document 104 Filed 04/19/24 Page 7 of 11 PageID #:

1627
6 

can only be reviewed in-person at counsels’ offices in Dallas.2 Intervenors should be compelled to 

provide additional, relevant documentation to guide the review of their voluminous source code 

productions, including at least build scripts, release notes, source code changelogs, and issue 

tracking documents. Each is highly relevant for evaluating the source code. 

Build scripts specifically identify which code modules are compiled into a particular 

software version release. Release notes identify changes made to each release, including addition 

of new features, removal of deprecated features, or enhancements to existing features. Source code 

changelogs identify the authors, timing, and explanations of source code modifications (including, 

for example, which requirement or feature the modification relates to). This information is 

important for identifying relevant documents and witnesses concerning the development of 

specific functionality within the source code. Additionally, issue tracking systems are often used 

to track the design, development, implementation, and testing of features for products and within 

source code. 

 Intervenors must identify any issue tracking systems 

and produce relevant documents from those systems.3 

Deficiencies related to specific features:

 These documents include references to particular components of the 

; however, Ericsson has not produced documents detailing t

. Ericsson should be compelled to produce documents detailing its 

Further, Ericsson and AT&T have indicated that a

2

 As discussed above, Daingean does not know which of these versions have been deployed in 

AT&T’s network; nor does it know the timing of deployments for the different software versions. 

3

 When Daingean raised 

but maintained that all document sources had been searched. 

Case 2:23-cv-00123-JRG-RSP Document 104 Filed 04/19/24 Page 8 of 11 PageID #:

1628
7 

. However, AT&T 

and Ericsson have only produced PowerPoint presentations . AT&T 

and Ericsson should produce all documents about 

. Additionally, 

; however, Nokia has not produced any 

documentation about that feature, including its requirements, design, implementation, testing, or 

analysis. Nokia should be compelled to do so. 

Non-source code documents produced on the source code computer: Ericsson has 

improperly produced non-source code documents on the source code computers, and it refuses to 

produce them otherwise. These documents are not source code; they describe or diagram features 

implemented in source code. See, e.g., Ex. C (paper copies provided via FedEx to the Court). These 

documents should be produced in non-source code form, which significantly enhances Daingean’s 

ability to review them. To the extent the documents are used to generate other documentation, 

those documents should also be produced. 

III. Conclusion 

Defendants have failed to provide the discovery required by this Court’s Discovery Order 

and Local Patent Rules. For the reasons detailed above, Daingean requests the Court to compel 

Defendants to produce the materials requested by Daingean. 

Case 2:23-cv-00123-JRG-RSP Document 104 Filed 04/19/24 Page 9 of 11 PageID #:

1629
8 

Dated: April 12, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ R. Allan Bullwinkel 

Demetrios Anaipakos

Texas Bar No. 00793258

danaipakos@aatriallaw.com

Amir H. Alavi 

Texas Bar No. 00793239 

aalavi@aatriallaw.com 

Michael McBride 

Texas Bar No. 24065700 

mmcbride@aatriallaw.com 

ALAVI & ANAIPAKOS PLLC 

609 Main Street, Suite 3200 

Houston, Texas 77002 

Telephone: (713) 751-2362 

Facsimile: (713) 751-2341 

Michael Heim 

Texas Bar No. 09380923 

mheim@hpcllp.com 

Eric Enger 

Texas Bar No. 24045833 

eenger@hpcllp.com 

R. Allan Bullwinkel 

Texas Bar No. 24064327 

abullwinkel@hpcllp.com 

Alden Harris 

Texas Bar No. 24083138 

aharris@hpcllp.com 

Blaine Larson 

Texas Bar No. 24083360 

blarson@hpcllp.com 

Michael Dunbar 

Texas Bar No. 24125213 

mdunbar@hpcllp.com 

HEIM PAYNE & CHORUSH LLP 

609 Main St., Suite 3200 

Houston, Texas 77002 

Telephone: (713) 221-2000 

Facsimile: (713) 221-2021 

Andrea L. Fair 

Texas Bar No. 24078488 

andrea@wsfirm.com 

WARD, SMITH & HILL, PLLC

Case 2:23-cv-00123-JRG-RSP Document 104 Filed 04/19/24 Page 10 of 11 PageID

#: 1630
9 

P.O. Box 1231 

Longview, Texas 75606 

Telephone: (903) 757-6400 

Facsimile: (903) 757-2323 

Counsel for Plaintiff Daingean Technologies 

Ltd. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule CV-5, I hereby certify 

that, on April 12, 2024, a copy of the foregoing was served electronically through the U.S. District 

Court, Eastern District of Texas ECF system to all counsel of record whom are Filing Users of the 

Court’s Electronic Filing System. 

/s/ R. Allan Bullwinkel 

R. Allan Bullwinkel 

 

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE 

 Pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(i), we hereby certify that the undersigned complied with the 

meet and confer requirement of Local Rule CV-7(h). A meeting was held over video conference 

on April 8, 2024. The parties could not agree on a resolution to the issues discussed above. Further, 

this motion is opposed. 

/s/ Amir H. Alavi 

Amir H. Alavi 

Lead Counsel 

/s/ Andrea L. Fair 

Andrea L. Fair 

Local Counsel 

Case 2:23-cv-00123-JRG-RSP Document 104 Filed 04/19/24 Page 11 of 11 PageID

#: 1631