IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a 

VERIZON WIRELESS, 

Defendant, 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP 

(Lead Case) 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

AT&T SERVICES INC.; AT&T 

MOBILITY LLC; AT&T CORP., 

Defendants, 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00380-JRG-RSP 

(Member Case) 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

T-MOBILE USA, INC. 

Defendant, 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00381-JRG-RSP 

(Member Case) 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

-------------------------------------------------------AND------------------------------------------------------- 

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

T-MOBILE USA, INC. 

Defendant, 

NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION, 

ERICSSON INC. 

Intervenors. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CASE NO. 2:22-cv-00477-JRG-RSP 

(Lead Case) 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 49 Filed 12/15/23 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 208
COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

AT&T SERVICES INC.; AT&T 

MOBILITY LLC; AT&T CORP., 

Defendants, 

NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION, 

ERICSSON INC. 

Intervenors. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CASE NO. 2:22-cv-00474-JRG-RSP 

(Member Case) 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a 

VERIZON WIRELESS, 

Defendant, 

NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION, 

ERICSSON INC. 

Intervenors. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CASE NO. 2:22-cv-00478-JRG-RSP 

(Member Case) 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSED MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES1

1

 This motion is being filed in both the Cobblestone 1.0 Carrier Cases and Cobblestone 2.0 

Carrier Cases concurrently. 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 49 Filed 12/15/23 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 209
1 

Over the course of eight months, Cobblestone filed six cases in this District involving the 

same AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile defendants (the “Carrier Defendants”), the same accused 

products, and similar technology. In the same timeframe, Cobblestone also sued the Carrier 

Defendants’ supplier, Samsung, involving the same patents, the same accused products, and the 

same technology. The litany of cases filed by Cobblestone involve common questions of law and 

fact and have created a procedural quagmire involving seven trials, three different scheduled 

Markman hearings, three different pre-trial conference dates, three different discovery periods, and 

three different rounds of potential dispositive motions before the Court. Cobblestone’s decision to 

file its cases in this piecemeal manner—and Cobblestone’s specific decision to sit on an issued 

patent and delay asserting it—will waste resources for both the Court and the parties, cause 

confusion, and present a situation where Cobblestone is litigating the same issues with the same 

parties attempting to recover twice on the same claims. 

Pursuant to Rule 42(a), Defendants2

 request the cases against AT&T, T-Mobile, and 

Verizon be consolidated into a single case on the timeline of the latest filed case. In doing so, three 

trials would be removed from the Court’s calendar, and all claims asserted against each carrier can 

be resolved in a single respective trial against each carrier instead of two respective trials. 

Cobblestone opposes and claims prejudice, but no substantial activity has started in any of the 

cases. Instead, Defendants’ solution aligns the cases so that resources are used efficiently.

2

 Defendants as used herein refers to the named Defendants in the Cobblestone 1.0 and 

Cobblestone 2.0 cases, as well as Nokia and Ericsson who have intervened in the Cobblestone 

1.0 case and intend to intervene in the Cobblestone 2.0 cases. Nokia and Ericsson have asked 

permission from Cobblestone to intervene in Cobblestone 2.0 cases and are discussing the same 

with Cobblestone. 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 49 Filed 12/15/23 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 210
2 

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

A. Cobblestone 1.0 Carrier Cases 

On December 15-16, 2022, Plaintiff Cobblestone Wireless, LLC (“Cobblestone”) filed 

three cases against mobile network carriers AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon accusing the same 

products and technology of infringing four different patents: 

 Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. T-Mobile USA, et al., Civil Action No. 

2:22-cv-00477 (E.D. Tex.) (lead); 

 Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. Verizon Communications Inc., et al., Civil 

Action No. 2:22-cv-00478 (E.D. Tex.); and 

 Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. AT&T Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 2:22-cv00474 (E.D. Tex.). 

The four patents asserted are U.S. Patents No. 8,891,347 (the “’347 Patent”), 9,094,888 

(the “’888 Patent”), 10,368,361 (the “’361 Patent”), and 8,554,196 (the “’196 Patent”). (See e.g., 

Civil Action No. 2:22-cv-477, Dkt. No. 1). 

Referred herein as the Cobblestone 1.0 Carrier Cases (or Cobblestone 1.0), Cobblestone 

has accused Nokia, Ericsson, and/or Samsung 4G and 5G base stations and mobile devices made 

by Samsung and Apple, among others. (Id.). The Cobblestone 1.0 Carrier Cases are currently set 

for trial on September 23, 2024, with the pretrial conference scheduled for August 21, 2024. (See 

e.g., Civil Action No. 2:22-cv-477, Dkt. No. 62). Furthermore, the Markman hearing is scheduled 

for April 30, 2024. (Id.). 

B. Cobblestone 2.0 Carrier Cases 

In August 2023, Cobblestone filed three more cases against the same Carrier Defendants 

asserting one patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,924,802 (the “’802 Patent”): 

 Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, 

Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-00382 (E.D. Tex.) (lead); 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 49 Filed 12/15/23 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 211
3 

 Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC et al., Civil Action No. 

2:23-cv-00380 (E.D. Tex.); 

 Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:23-cv00381 (E.D. Tex.).

Referred to herein as the Cobblestone 2.0 Carrier Cases (or Cobblestone 2.0), Cobblestone 

appears to accuse (based on the Complaint) the same base stations and mobile devices that it is 

accusing in Cobblestone 1.0.3 As such, the accused products for the Cobblestone 2.0 Carrier Cases 

will likely include the same base stations manufactured by Nokia, Ericsson, and/or Samsung as 

well as the same mobile devices made by Samsung and Apple, among others. At the Court’s recent 

scheduling conference, the Court provided that the Cobblestone 2.0 Carrier Cases should be set 

for jury selection on May 19, 2025, pretrial conference on April 11, 2025, and Markman on 

November 14, 2024.4

C. The Samsung Case 

On June 16, 2023 (right in between the filing of Cobblestone 1.0 and Cobblestone 2.0), 

Cobblestone directly sued the Carrier Defendants’ supplier Samsung on the same five patents, the 

same largely overlapping technology, the same Samsung-based 4G and 5G base stations, and the 

same Samsung mobile devices: 

 Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., Civil 

Action No. 2:23-cv-00285, Dkt. No. 1 (E.D. Tex.) (the “Samsung Case”).

3

 Cobblestone has twice asked for an extension to serve detailed infringement contentions listing 

the full set of products it accuses. Cobblestone has agreed not to use Defendants’ non-opposition 

to these extensions as a basis to oppose this motion. 

4

 Defendants have endeavored to bring this consolidation issue to the Court’s attention as soon 

as practical. In fact, Defendants have been attempting to discuss this issue with Cobblestone 

since September in an effort to present a joint motion to the Court. 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 49 Filed 12/15/23 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 212
4 

The Cobblestone Samsung Case is currently set for trial on May 5, 2025, with the pretrial 

conference scheduled for March 31, 2025. Furthermore, claim construction is not set to begin until 

July 10, 2024, with the Markman hearing scheduled for November 13, 2024. (Id.) (Civil Action 

No. 2:23-cv-285, Dkt. No. 30). 

D. The Overlap of Issues and Scheduled Proceedings 

The above cases revolve around overlapping issues of law and fact. First, the same products 

are involved. Cobblestone has not served contentions in all cases, but based on the pleadings, the 

same mobile devices as well as Nokia, Ericsson, and/or Samsung base stations will be involved 

across the cases identified above. This means the same discovery will be triplicated, the same 

source code will be reviewed three times, and the same issues will be litigated. Second, the same 

patents are involved. Across all seven cases, Cobblestone has launched a patchwork of allegations 

that lead to the same thing, namely, Cobblestone is litigating all five patents in Cobblestone 1.0, 

Cobblestone 2.0, and the Samsung Cases. Finally, the Court is poised to conduct overlapping 

Markman hearings and overlapping pre-trial conferences. Below is the current grid of thirteen 

Court-based events the Court has docketed on behalf of Cobblestone: 

 Cobblestone 1.0 Cobblestone 2.0 Samsung Case 

Markman Hearing April 30, 2024 November 14, 2024 November 13, 2024 

Pre-Trial Conference(s) August 21, 2024 April 11, 2025 March 31, 2025 

Trial (Lead) September 23, 2024 May 19, 2025 May 5, 2025 

Trial (Second Carrier) September 23, 2024 May 19, 2025 - 

Trial (Third Carrier) September 23, 2024 May 19, 2025 - 

 Thus, in order to streamline the issues for the Court and the parties, Defendants request 

that the Court consolidate the Cobblestone 1.0 Carrier Cases and the Cobblestone 2.0 Carrier Cases 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 49 Filed 12/15/23 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 213
5 

together and set the cases on the schedule that the Cobblestone 2.0 Carrier Cases were assigned at 

the recent December 4, 2023 Scheduling Conference.5

II. GOVERNING LEGAL STANDARDS 

Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure enables a court to consolidate actions 

pending before it if those actions involve “a common question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

42(a). “The proper solution to the problems created by the existence of two or more cases involving 

the same parties and issues, simultaneously pending in the same court would be to consolidate 

them under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Miller v. United States Postal 

Service, 729 F.2d 1033, 1036 (5th Cir. 1984). “The stated purpose of Rule 42(a) is to ‘avoid 

unnecessary costs or delay’, and hence the decision to invoke the rule is entirely within the 

discretion of the district court as it seeks to promote the administration of justice.” Gentry v. Smith, 

487 F.2d 571, 581 (5th Cir. 1973). Furthermore, the Fifth Circuit has stated that “[T]rial judges are 

urged to make good use of Rule 42(a)” to “expedite the trial and eliminate unnecessary repetition 

and confusion.” Dupont v. S. Pac. Co., 366 F.2d 193, 195-96 (5th Cir. 1966). Furthermore, 

“[a]ctions involving the same parties are apt candidates for consolidation.” Wright & Miller, Fed. 

Prac. & Proc. § 2384. 

III. DISCUSSION 

Consolidating Cobblestone 1.0 into Cobblestone 2.0 would help to avoid unnecessary 

costs, unnecessary confusion, and remove three of the seven cases, one Markman hearing, and at 

least one pretrial conference from the Court’s docket. Furthermore, this consolidation will not 

cause any significant prejudicial delay. See Immersion Corp. v. Samsung Elec. Am., Inc., et al., 

5

 Defendants are also amendable to consolidate Cobblestone 1.0 and 2.0 with the Samsung Case 

for pretrial purposes. 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 49 Filed 12/15/23 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 214
6 

No. 2:17-cv-00572, Dkt. No. 30 (E.D. Tex., June 7, 2018) (ordering consolidation of two cases 

brought by the same Plaintiff against the same Defendants). 

A. Consolidation Will Help Avoid Unnecessary Repetition and Unnecessary 

Costs 

 Consolidation will facilitate judicial economy and help to preserve the parties’ and Court’s 

resources by reducing costs and avoiding unnecessary repetition as the cases involve multiple 

common questions of law and fact. As an initial matter, the Cobblestone 1.0 and Cobblestone 2.0 

involve the same parties6

 and counsel on both sides. Furthermore, while Cobblestone has yet to 

serve infringement contentions in the Cobblestone 2.0 cases, Defendants anticipate the accused 

products in both cases will be substantially the same, if not identical. See Cobblestone Wireless, 

LLC v. Cellco P’ship d/b/a Verizon Wireless, No. 2:23-cv-00382 (E.D. Tex.), Dkt. No. 1 at ¶12 

(defining “Accused Instrumentalities” as “cellular base stations, mobile products, and services that 

support 3GPP carrier aggregation”). In addition, the technology at issue in both cases is similar 

because 4G and 5G wireless standards are accused in both cases. Furthermore, there is good reason 

to believe that the same witnesses, source code, custodians, and documents will be relevant for 

both cases. Cobblestone has recognized the benefits of consolidating the five patents asserted 

across Cobblestone 1.0 and 2.0 as it has asserted the same five patents in a single case against 

Samsung (i.e., the Samsung Case). Thus, consolidating the Cobblestone 1.0 and 2.0 cases will 

relieve the parties and the Court of the significant burden associated with duplicative fact and 

expert discovery and pretrial matters. 

In addition, consolidating Cobblestone 1.0 into Cobblestone 2.0 will avoid unnecessary 

repetition and costs because Cobblestone 2.0 is scheduled directly behind the Samsung Case (e.g., 

6

 Nokia and Ericsson intend to intervene and are currently discussing their intervention in 

Cobblestone 2.0 with Cobblestone. 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 49 Filed 12/15/23 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 215
7 

the Samsung Case has a May 5, 2025 trial date and Cobblestone 2.0 has a May 19, 2025 trial date). 

The Federal Circuit has expressed favor with Courts that resolve claims against the 

manufacturer/supplier (Samsung) before the customer (the Carrier Defendants) under the 

customer-suit exception. See Katz v. Lear Siegler, 909 F.2d 1459, 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1990) 

(“[L]itigation against . . . the manufacturer of infringing goods takes precedence over a suit by the 

patent owner against customers of the manufacturer.”); Spread Spectrum Screenings, LLC v. 

Eastman Kodak Co., 657 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[T]he guiding principles in the 

customer suit exception cases are efficiency and judicial economy.”). Cobblestone cannot collect 

damages twice for the same patent on the same products, so Cobblestone will have to address this 

issue at some point regardless of the outcome of this Motion. Tex. Advanced Optoelectronic Sols., 

Inc. v. Renesas Elecs. Am., Inc., 895 F.3d 1304, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[D]ouble recovery for the 

same injury is inappropriate.”); see also Aero Prods. Int'l, Inc. v. Intex Recreation Corp., 466 F.3d 

1000, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2006). 

B. Consolidation Will Reduce Confusion 

Consolidation of Cobblestone 1.0 into Cobblestone 2.0 will reduce confusion and the 

potential for inconsistent outcomes. For example, Cobblestone’s licensing history and discussions 

with each Carrier Defendant are common questions of fact across both Cobblestone 1.0 and 2.0. 

These common questions of fact will play a role in the Carrier Defendants’ defense against 

Cobblestone’s damages case. Trying these same common issues to a jury in two separate trials for 

each Carrier could lead to inconsistent outcomes that will unnecessarily confuse and complicate 

the litigation. Likewise, Defendants have raised other defenses with common issues of fact, such 

as patent ownership, which if tried twice by each Carrier Defendant could lead to an inconsistent 

result that would be both difficult and confusing to resolve. 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 49 Filed 12/15/23 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 216
8 

C. Consolidation Will Not Prejudice Cobblestone. 

 Finally, Cobblestone is not prejudiced by consolidation. Consolidation will only cause a 

delay of mere months for the resolution of the Cobblestone 1.0 Carrier Cases, and even so, that 

delay is the result of Cobblestone’s own actions. First, Cobblestone could have asserted the ’802 

Patent against the Carrier Defendants earlier, but instead, Cobblestone sat on the patent for five 

months and waited until August 2023 to assert it. Cobblestone was assigned the ’802 Patent in 

April 2023. Cobblestone filed suit against Samsung on the ’802 Patent in June 2023. Either of 

those times it could have addressed this patent with the Carrier Defendants or attempted to add the 

patent to Cobblestone 1.0. Instead, Cobblestone waited until August 2023 to file Cobblestone 2.0. 

Indeed, shortly after the Cobblestone 2.0 Carrier Cases were filed, Defendants’ counsel contacted 

Cobblestone to discuss the issues raised by the filing of the Cobblestone 2.0 Carrier Cases that are 

now the subject of this Motion. Ex. A (E-mail from Barton to Mirzaie). Cobblestone did not 

respond to any of the issues until Defendants gave notice of the instant Motion and requested a 

meet-and-confer consistent with the Court’s local rules. Ex. B (E-mail from Barton to Mirzaie); 

Ex. C (E-mail from Deane to Ma). Thus, any delay that may be experienced now by consolidating 

Cobblestone 1.0 into Cobblestone 2.0 is a result of Cobblestone’s failure to assert the ’802 Patent 

when it first could have and failure to engage with Defendants once it did. 

Second, Cobblestone cannot argue that it will be prejudiced by having to litigate all five 

patents at the same time. By asserting all five patents against Samsung and accusing the same 

technology, Cobblestone has evidenced that it is capable of litigating all five patents at the same 

time in a single trial. Thus, Cobblestone cannot now complain that litigating five patents against 

AT&T, T-Mobile, or Verizon, would be burdensome. 

Third, the delay is not substantial and is dramatically offset by other benefits. Defendants 

are only requesting to move Cobblestone 1.0 back by a few months. Meanwhile, consolidating the 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 49 Filed 12/15/23 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 217
9 

cases would reduce the number of Court hearings (e.g., consolidation would remove three trials, a 

Markman hearing, and at least one pretrial conference). Thus, the benefits from consolidating 

Cobblestone 1.0 and the Cobblestone 2.0 together far outweigh any prejudice that may be 

experienced by Cobblestone. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

As explained above, consolidation of the Cobblestone 1.0 Carrier Cases and Cobblestone 

2.0 Carrier Cases will promote efficiency, conserve judicial and party resources, eliminate the need 

for duplicative discovery, and aid in the just resolution of this matter. As such, Defendants 

respectfully request that the Court consolidate Cobblestone 1.0 and Cobblestone 2.0 and adopt the 

Docket Control Order for Cobblestone 2.0. 

 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 49 Filed 12/15/23 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 218
10 

Respectfully submitted: December 15, 2023 

/s/ David S. Frist 

David S. Frist 

 David.Frist@alston.com 

John Daniel Haynes 

 John.Haynes@alston.com 

Emily Welch 

 Emily.Welch@alston.com 

Michael Clayton Deane 

 Michael.Deane@alston.com 

Sloane Sueanne Kyrazis 

 Sloane.Kyrazis@alston.com 

ALSTON & BIRD LLP 

1201 West Peachtree Street NW 

Atlanta, GA 30309 

404-881-7000 

Fax: 404-881-7777 

Ross Ritter Barton 

 Ross.Barton@alston.com 

ALSTON & BIRD LLP 

1120 South Tryon Street 

Suite 300 

Charlotte, NC 28203 

704-444-1287 

Fax: 704-444-1111 

Theodore Stevenson, III 

 Ted.Stevenson@alston.com 

Adam Ahnhut 

 Adam.ahnhut@alston.com 

ALSTON & BIRD LLP 

2200 Ross Ave 

Suite 2300 

Dallas, TX 75201 

214-922-3507 

Fax: 214-922-3899 

Attorneys for AT&T Services, Inc., AT&T 

Corp., AT&T Mobility LLC, T-Mobile USA, 

Inc., and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon 

Wireless, Ericsson Inc. and Nokia of America 

Corporation 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 49 Filed 12/15/23 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 219
11 

Deron Dacus 

ddacus@dacusfirm.com 

The Dacus Firm 

821 ESE Loop 323, Suite 430 

Tyler, TX 75701 

903-705-1117 

Fax: 903-581-2543 

Attorney for AT&T Services, Inc., AT&T 

Corp., AT&T Mobility LLC, Cellco 

Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Ericsson 

Inc. and Nokia of America Corporation 

Melissa R. Smith 

melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com 

Tom Gorham 

tom@gillamsmithlaw.com 

Gillam & Smith LLP 

102 N. College, Suite 800 

Tyler, TX 75702 

903-934-8450 

Fax: 903-934-9257 

Attorneys for T-Mobile USA, Inc.

 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 49 Filed 12/15/23 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 220
12 

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE 

I hereby certify that the parties met and conferred on November 30, 2023, pursuant to Local 

Rule CV-7(h). The personal conference required by Local Rule CV-7(h) was conducted 

telephonically between John Ma, for Cobblestone, and Michael Deane and David First, for 

Defendants. Despite the parties’ efforts, the parties were not able to come to an agreement on the 

relief requested in this motion. As such, this motion is opposed. 

/s/ David S. Frist 

David S. Frist 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

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

served on December 15, 2023, on the counsel of record via electronic mail. 

/s/ David S. Frist 

David S. Frist 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 49 Filed 12/15/23 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 221