1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

DAINGEAN TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

AT&T CORP., AT&T MOBILITY LLC, AT&T 

MOBILITY II LLC AND AT&T SERVICES 

INC., 

Defendants,

ERICSSON INC., 

Intervenor. 

Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-00123-JRG 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

MOVANT-INTERVENOR NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION’S 

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24, Movant-Intervenor Nokia of America 

Corporation (“Nokia”) respectfully moves for leave to intervene0 F

1 as a defendant in the above-titled 

case (“Nokia’s Motion” or “Motion”). As detailed more fully below, Nokia has demonstrated 

Constitutional standing to intervene and satisfies the requirement for intervention as a matter of 

law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a), and, alternatively, permissive intervention under 

Rule 24(b). For these reasons, and because Daingean Technologies Ltd. (“Daingean” or 

“Plaintiff”) and Defendants AT&T Corp., AT&T Mobility LLC, AT&T Mobility II LLC and 

 

1 As explained in Nokia’s Answer in Intervention, “Nokia’s intervention in this case is limited to 

defending AT&T from and against claims arising out of or in connection with, in whole or in part, 

the products, software, services, or other information Nokia provides to AT&T.” 
2 

AT&T Services Inc. (collectively, “AT&T” or “Defendants”)1 F

2 are not opposed to Nokia’s 

intervention, Nokia respectfully requests that the Court grant it leave to intervene and file a 

responsive pleading in intervention within twenty-four (24) hours of its Motion being granted.2F

3

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Daingean sued Defendant AT&T, one of Nokia’s customers, on March 24, 2023, 

asserting a total of six patents (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). See Dkt. No. 1 (“Compl.” or

“Complaint”). Ericsson Inc. moved to intervene in an unopposed motion, which the Court granted. 

Dkt. No. 36. Nokia seeks to intervene so that the dispute between Nokia and Daingean may be 

disposed of efficiently in the pending proceeding. None of the parties to this action oppose Nokia’s 

Motion. 

In its Complaint, Daingean alleges that AT&T infringes six patents by utilizing network 

equipment that, according to Daingean, “infringes directly” the Asserted Patents “in its 

implementation of AT&T’s 5G Networks.” Compl. at ¶¶ 45, 71, 124, 162, 190. Daingean proffers 

a list of accused generic network equipment that supposedly infringes the Asserted Patents, 

including “for example, base stations, cell towers, eNodeB, and/or gNodeB devices.” Compl. at ¶ 

103; see also Compl. at ¶¶ 166 (accusing “AT&T base station devices, such as gNodeBs (or gNBs), 

ngeNBs, eNodeBs (or eNBs), and/or en-gNBs). Nokia provides AT&T with certain of the network 

equipment that Daingean identifies in its Complaint. As a result of Nokia’s supply of 5G 

telecommunications equipment to AT&T, AT&T has tendered a demand that Nokia indemnify 

 

2 Plaintiff’s Complaint also included claims against AT&T Inc. and AT&T Communications LLC. 

The parties have, however, filed a joint stipulation pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a) dismissing 

these entities. 

3 In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(c), a copy of Nokia’s proposed Answer 

in Intervention and Counterclaims is attached as Exhibit 1. 
3

and defend AT&T pursuant to the terms of the agreement under which Nokia supplies this network 

equipment.

Accordingly, Nokia seeks to intervene because it sells equipment and technology to AT&T 

that Daingean accuses of infringement. As the designer, manufacturer, and distributor of certain 

accused equipment and technology, Nokia has a substantial interest in the litigation and is in the 

best position to defend against certain of Daingean’s claims. Nokia’s Motion is timely, and no 

existing party will suffer prejudice if Nokia intervenes. Moreover, Nokia’s intervention will not 

result in the case being delayed. Thus, Nokia respectfully requests the Court’s permission to 

intervene as a matter of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) or, alternatively, that the 

Court allow intervention under Rule 24(b).

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiff Appears to Accuse AT&T Network Equipment Supplied to AT&T by Nokia

of Infringement.3 F

4 Daingean accuses AT&T of infringing six U.S. patents because of AT&T’s 

use of allegedly infringing cellular wireless networks. See, e.g., Compl. at ¶¶ 46, 77, 92, 103, 117, 

155, 166, 182, 205. Nokia supplies, among other things, certain equipment and technology 

incorporated by AT&T into these cellular networks. In general, this network equipment and 

technology is interoperable with certain aspects of the 3rd Generation Partnership Project 

standards (“3GPP”) and fifth generation cellular network technology (“5G”).

Nokia supplies several types of network equipment and technology to AT&T, and Nokia’s 

entry into the case will facilitate discovery related to this equipment and technology. For example, 

for the Nokia-supplied equipment and technology, documents and other tangible evidence, 

 4 The scope of Daingean’s infringement allegations also includes certain network equipment and 

technology that AT&T may purchase from other suppliers, although Nokia lacks information about 

those other suppliers’ network equipment and technology.
4

including equipment specifications, are in Nokia’s possession, custody or control. As a result, 

Nokia’s entry into the case should streamline and simplify this litigation, especially as it relates to 

the Nokia-supplied network equipment and technology that Daingean alleges to infringe in its 

Complaint.

For example, Nokia supplies base stations, including base transceiver stations (“eNodeBs” 

and/or “gNodeBs”) to AT&T. These base stations are interoperable with certain aspects of 5G. 

In this case, Daingean asserts that AT&T infringes the Asserted patents “by at least manufacturing, 

supplying, distributing, selling, and/or offering for sale the Accused Instrumentalities,” including

“infringing activities” that involve AT&T’s 5G base stations, some of which are supplied by 

Nokia. Compl. at ¶ 45, 63, 71, 91, 99, 116, 124, 154, 181, 204. In short, Nokia-supplied network 

equipment and technology is integral to the resolution of this case, and Nokia has a substantial 

interest in protecting its equipment and technology.

AT&T Has Tendered an Indemnity Demand to Nokia, and Nokia Has a Substantial 

and Direct Interest in Protecting Its Customers’ Use of Nokia Equipment and Technology. 

Nokia’s customer, AT&T, has demanded indemnification of all costs and expenses incurred or to 

be incurred by AT&T with respect to this action based on the parties’ contractual agreement for 

AT&T’s purchase of the network equipment and/or technology described above. Daingean’s 

allegations, on their face, include assertions against network equipment and/or technology of the 

type that Nokia supplies.

This Case Is at an Early Stage in the Litigation. Currently no activity has occurred in 

this case that weighs against intervention. Daingean filed its Complaint on March 24, 2023, and

AT&T answered on June 6, 2023. Dkt. Nos. 1 and 22, respectively. An initial scheduling 

conference was held on July 20, 2023. The docket control order, discovery order, and protective 
5

order have very recently been entered. This case is at an early stage and intervention will cause 

no harm or delay to Daingean. 

III. ARGUMENT

Nokia supplies base stations, including eNodeBs and gNodeBs, to AT&T that are 

incorporated by AT&T into AT&T’s cellular networks. AT&T, who has been accused of 

infringement by the Plaintiff (see generally Dkt. No. 1), has tendered an indemnity demand to 

Nokia. This case thus presents a justiciable controversy as to Nokia. Nokia, as the designer, 

manufacturer, and distributor of base stations, including eNodeBs and gNodeBs, to AT&T, is in 

the best position to defend infringement claims against its equipment and technology. “‘[I]t is a 

simple fact of life that a manufacturer must protect its customers, either as a matter of contract, or 

good business, or in order to avoid the damaging impact of an adverse ruling against its products.’” 

Katz v. Lear Siegler, Inc., 909 F.2d 1459, 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (quoting Codex Corp. v. Milgo 

Elec. Corp., 553 F.2d 735, 737–38 (1st Cir. 1977)).

Nokia is entitled to intervene as a matter of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

24(a) and permissively under Rule 24(b). Nokia requests that the Court grant its Motion and permit 

intervention in this matter. Intervention will allow Nokia to protect its equipment and technology 

from a charge of infringement.

A. Mandatory Intervention

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) provides that 

[o]n timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who: . . . claims an 

interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and 

is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede 

the movant’s ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately 

represent that interest.

A proposed intervenor is entitled to mandatory intervention if all of the following elements are 

satisfied:
6

“(1) the application for intervention must be timely; (2) the applicant must have an 

interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action; (3) 

the applicant must be so situated that the disposition of the action may, as a practical 

matter, impair or impede his ability to protect that interest; [and] (4) the applicant’s 

interest must be inadequately represented by the existing parties to the suit.”

Texas v. United States, 805 F.3d 653, 657 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. 

v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., 732 F.2d 452, 463 (5th Cir. 1984) (en banc)).

Nokia satisfies each element required for intervention as a matter of right. First, Nokia’s 

Motion is timely, as only five months have elapsed since Plaintiff filed its Complaint. See e.g.,

Edwards v. City of Houston, 78 F.3d 983, 1000–01 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc) (citing Fifth Circuit 

intervention cases finding that delays as long as five months or more are not unreasonable); Team 

Worldwide Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00235-JRG, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

201769, at *9 (E.D. Tex. 2017) (Gilstrap, J.) (finding that a period of four months did not constitute 

impermissible delay); Ericsson Inc. v. D-Link Sys., Inc., No. 6:10-cv-473 (E.D. Tex. May 4, 2012), 

Dkt. No. 205 (granting Intel’s partially opposed motion to intervene filed five months after the

scheduling conference took place and nearly one year into the case). Furthermore, as Daingean 

does not oppose this Motion, there is no allegation that Plaintiff is prejudiced by the timing of 

Nokia’s Motion. However, even if there were such an allegation, there is no basis for finding 

prejudice as discovery has just opened, claim construction has not begun, and the trial date is more 

than a year away. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Tex. Alcoholic Bev. Comm’n, 834 F.3d 562, 565 

(5th Cir. 2016) (“Because the Association sought intervention before discovery progressed and 

because it did not seek to delay or reconsider phases of the litigation that had already concluded, 

the Association’s motion was timely”).

Second, Nokia has a substantial interest in defending its equipment and technology. Based 

on the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint, it appears that Plaintiff is accusing Nokia base stations, 

including eNodeBs and gNodeBs, of infringing at least some of the Patents-in-Suit. Courts 
7

routinely recognize that developers, manufacturers, and distributors of accused equipment and 

technology, such as Nokia, have a considerable interest in patent litigations against their 

customers. See, e.g., U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC v. Acer, Inc., No. 6:09-cv-448-JDL, 2010 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150649, at *13 (E.D. Tex. May 10, 2010) (Love, J.) (“[A] manufacturer such as 

Intel faces the loss of its customer base and reputation as a result of patent infringement 

allegations.” (citation omitted)). Nokia also has a financial stake in this litigation, as AT&T has 

demanded indemnity from Nokia for its use of Nokia’s equipment and technology. See e.g., First 

Gibraltar Bank v. Bradley, No. 95-20500, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 43235, at *12 (5th Cir. Sept. 

10, 1996) (unpublished) (“Given the agency’s obligation to indemnify . . . , [the agency] had a 

concrete financial interest in the litigation that would justify its status as [an intervenor.]”); Kadlec 

Med. Ctr. v. Lakeview Anesthesia Assocs., No. 04-997, 2004 Dist. LEXIS 18277, at *2 (E.D. La. 

Sept. 10, 2004) (Where the named defendant “will seek indemnification against [the intervenor],” 

the interest requirement is met by the intervenor’s “interest in having its obligations under the 

[indemnification agreement] established . . . .”).

Third, Nokia’s interests may be impaired because (1) Nokia’s obligations may impute 

responsibilities for potential money judgments; (2) adverse rulings could impact Nokia’s 

relationships with its customers; and (3) an adverse judgment could also create precedent that 

could be used against Nokia and its customers in other proceedings related to Nokia equipment, 

software, and technology. See, e.g., Heaton v. Monogram Credit Card Bank, 297 F.3d 416, 424 

(5th Cir. 2002) (The potential “stare decisis effect of an adverse judgment constitutes a sufficient 

impairment to compel intervention.” (citation omitted)); Katz, 909 F.2d at 1464 (“‘[I]t is a simple 

fact of life that a manufacturer must protect its customers, either as a matter of contract, or good 

business, or in order to avoid the damaging impact of an adverse ruling against its products.’”
8

(citation omitted)); Team Worldwide Corp., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201769, at *13 (“[T]he 

ongoing sale and distribution of [the intervenor’s] products is put at risk by [the plaintiff’s] 

allegations of infringement.”). 

Finally, the existing parties are not situated to represent Nokia’s interests. As the designer 

and manufacturer of equipment and technology at issue in this litigation, Nokia is uniquely situated 

to understand and defend its own products. Indeed, as the product designer and keeper of key 

relevant technical documents, Nokia is the single most important source of information about its 

equipment and technology. Thus, Nokia is capable of presenting a defense in support of its 

interests that could not be presented by AT&T alone. See Sw. Bell Tel., L.P. v. Arthur Collins, 

Inc., No. 3:04-cv-00669 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 28, 2005), Dkt. No. 50 at 5 (finding under the inadequate 

representation inquiry that “the customer would not be the best source for providing the detailed 

information about the [intervenor-manufacturer’s] products.”). Accordingly, Nokia has met its 

burden of demonstrating its need to independently defend its own equipment and technology.

B. Permissive Intervention

A second, independent basis for granting Nokia’s Motion is permissive intervention. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b) requires only that the prospective intervenor have “a claim 

or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact,” and that the motion 

for intervention be timely filed. The claims and defenses that Nokia intends to plead share an 

abundance of common questions of law and fact with the main action. For instance, Nokia will 

raise defenses of non-infringement and invalidity against the Plaintiff. The determination of 

validity necessarily involves the resolution of legal and factual issues within the scope of 35 U.S.C. 

§§ 101, 102, 103, 112, and/or 116. Any validity defense raised by AT&T will involve similar 

legal and factual issues. These overlapping factual issues are sufficient to warrant permissive 

intervention. See Team Worldwide Corp., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 201769, at *19–20. 
9

Moreover, as discussed in more detail above, Nokia’s Motion is timely and will not unduly 

delay the proceedings or unduly prejudice the original parties, as evidenced by the fact that neither 

AT&T nor Daingean oppose this Motion. Furthermore, intervention in this case promotes both 

fairness and judicial economy given that Nokia’s indemnification obligations to AT&T and that 

Nokia’s equipment and technology is directly at issue in this litigation. As permissive intervention 

is “wholly discretionary,” the lack of prejudice or delay and the promotion of fairness and judicial 

economy further support granting Nokia’s Motion. New Orleans Pub. Serv., 732 F.2d at 470–71. 

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Nokia respectfully requests that the Court enter an order 

granting Nokia leave to intervene, either as a matter of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

24(a) or permissively under Rule 24(b). Nokia further requests that it be granted leave to file a 

responsive pleading in intervention within twenty-four (24) hours of its Motion being granted.
Dated: August 24, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Nicholas Mathews

Nicholas Mathews (Lead Counsel) 

Texas State Bar No. 24085457 

nmathews@McKoolSmith.com 

MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.

300 Crescent Court Suite 1500 

Dallas, TX 75201 

Telephone: (214) 978-4000 

Telecopier: (214) 978-4044 

Joshua Budwin 

Texas State Bar No. 24050347 

jbudwin@mckoolsmith.com 

Matthew T. Cameron

Texas State Bar No. 24097451 

mcameron@McKoolSmith.com 

MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.

303 Colorado Street, Suite 2100 

Austin, TX 78701 

Telephone: (512) 692-8752 

Samuel F. Baxter

Texas State Bar No. 01938000 

sbaxter@McKoolSmith.com 

Jennifer L. Truelove 

Texas State Bar No. 24012906 

jtruelove@McKoolSmith.com 

MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.

104 East Houston Street, Suite 300 

Marshall, TX 75670 

Telephone: (903) 923-9000 

Telecopier: (903) 923-9099 

ATTORNEYS FOR 

INTERVENOR NOKIA OF 

AMERICA CORPORATION
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document has been 

served on all counsel of record via the Court’s ECF system on August 24, 2023. 

/s/ Nicholas Matthews

Nicholas Mathews

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERNCE

The undersigned hereby certifies that pursuant to Local Rules CV-7(h) and (i), counsel 

for Movant-Intervenor Nokia of America Corporation conferred with counsel for Defendant 

AT&T, as well as with counsel for Plaintiff Daingean regarding this Motion and all counsel 

indicated that they do not oppose the relief sought herein.

/s/ Nicholas Matthews

Nicholas Mathews