DM2\20511018.1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, dba 

VIVATO TECHNOLOGIES, 

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

AT&T SERVICES INC., et al, 

Defendants, 

ERICSSON INC. and 

NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION, 

 Intervenors. 

 Case No. 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP 

 (Lead Case) 

 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, dba 

VIVATO TECHNOLOGIES, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

T-MOBILE USA, INC. 

 Defendant. 

NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION, 

 Intervenor. 

 Case No. 2:23-cv-00469-JRG-RSP 

 (Member Case) 

 

NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION’S AMENDED 

ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS IN INTERVENTION 

Intervenor Nokia of America Corporation (“Nokia” or Intervenor”), hereby amends its 

Answer and Counterclaims to the Complaint of Plaintiff XR Communications, LLC dba Vivato 

Technologies’ (“XR” or “Plaintiff”) against Defendant T-Mobile USA, Inc. (“Defendant” or 

“T-Mobile”), as follows: 

SCOPE OF NOKIA’S ANSWER IN INTERVENTION 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 111 Filed 11/26/24 Page 1 of 21 PageID #:

3213
 2 

DM2\20511018.1 

Nokia’s use of headings in this Answer in Intervention is for convenience only and is not 

an admission as to any of Plaintiff’s allegations in the Complaint. 

Nokia further denies that any patent claims in this action are valid or enforceable. Nokia 

further reserves the right to amend or supplement its Answer in Intervention based on any 

additional facts or developments that become available or that arise after the filing of this Answer 

in Intervention. 

Nokia denies each and every allegation averred in the Complaint that is not expressly 

admitted below. Any factual allegation admitted below is admitted only as to the specific admitted 

facts, and not as to any purported conclusions, characterizations, implications, or speculations that 

might follow from the admitted facts. 

INTRODUCTION

1. Nokia admits that the Complaint purports to make a claim for patent infringement 

of United States Patent Nos. 11,750,256 (the “’256 Patent”), and 11,777,569 (the “’569 Patent”) 

and collectively refers to the patents as the “Asserted Patents.” Nokia lacks knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief as to the ownership of the Asserted Patents. Nokia denies 

that T-Mobile has infringed any of the Asserted Patents through T-Mobile’s use of Nokia 

equipment and denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 1. 

2. Nokia admits that electronic devices connect to the Internet wirelessly and allow 

people to communicate with each other. Nokia lacks knowledge or information sufficient to 

form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 2, and therefore denies 

the same. 

3. Nokia admits that Guglielmo Marconi was granted a British Patent (No. 12039), 

but denies that it occurred in 1896. Nokia admits that British Patent (No. 12039) was titled 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 111 Filed 11/26/24 Page 2 of 21 PageID #:

3214
 3 

DM2\20511018.1 

“Improvements in Transmitting Electrical impulses and Signals, and in Apparatus therefor.” 

Nokia admits that Guglielmo Marconi shared the Nobel Prize in Physics with Karl Ferdinand 

Braun in 1909. Nokia lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth 

of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 3, and therefore denies the same. 

4. Nokia admits that Guglielmo Marconi shared the Nobel Prize in Physics with Karl 

Ferdinand Braun in 1909. Nokia admits that Karl Ferdinand Braun gave a Nobel Lecture dated 

December 11, 1909. Nokia lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 4, and therefore denies the same. 

5. Nokia admits that Karl Ferdinand Braun is credited with inventions related to radio 

waves. Nokia admits that Karl Ferdinand Braun’s December 11, 1909 Nobel Lecture described 

his experiments with antennas. Nokia lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 5, and therefore denies the same. 

6. Nokia lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of 

the allegations of Paragraph 6, and therefore denies the same. 

7. Nokia lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of 

the allegations of Paragraph 7, and therefore denies the same. 

8. Nokia lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of 

the allegations of Paragraph 8, and therefore denies the same. 

9. Nokia lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of 

the allegations of Paragraph 9, and therefore denies the same. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 111 Filed 11/26/24 Page 3 of 21 PageID #:

3215
 4 

DM2\20511018.1 

THE PARTIES 

10. Nokia lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of 

the allegations of Paragraph 10, and therefore denies the same. 

11. Nokia lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of 

the allegations of Paragraph 11, and therefore denies the same. 

12. Nokia lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of 

the allegations of Paragraph 12, and therefore denies the same. 

13. Nokia lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of 

the allegations of Paragraph 13, and therefore denies the same. 

14. Nokia lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of 

the allegations of Paragraph 14, and therefore denies the same. 

15. Nokia lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of 

the allegations of Paragraph 15, and therefore denies the same. 

16. Nokia lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of 

the allegations of Paragraph 16, and therefore denies the same. 

17. Nokia lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of 

the allegations of Paragraph 17, and therefore denies the same. 

18. Nokia lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of 

the allegations of Paragraph 18, and therefore denies the same. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

19. Nokia admits that the Complaint purports to state a claim for patent infringement 

arising under Title 35 of the United States Code. Nokia admits that this Court has subject matter 

jurisdiction over patent-law claims generally pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 111 Filed 11/26/24 Page 4 of 21 PageID #:

3216
 5 

DM2\20511018.1 

20. To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 20 of the Complaint sets forth legal 

conclusions, no response is required. Nokia denies that T-Mobile has infringed any of the 

Asserted Patents through T-Mobile’s use of Nokia equipment. Nokia lacks knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 

20 concerning personal jurisdiction over T-Mobile, and therefore denies the same. 

21. To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 21 of the Complaint set forth legal 

conclusions, no response is required. Nokia denies that T-Mobile has infringed any of the 

Asserted Patents through T-Mobile’s use of Nokia equipment. Nokia lacks knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 

21, and therefore denies the same. 

22. To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 22 of the Complaint set forth legal 

conclusions, no response is required. Nokia denies that T-Mobile has infringed any of the 

Asserted Patents through T-Mobile’s use of Nokia equipment. Nokia, however, does not contest 

whether venue in this District is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) for purposes of this 

action only; but it does deny that this is the most convenient forum in which to try this case. 

Nokia lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining 

allegations of Paragraph 22, and therefore denies the same. 

23. Nokia lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of 

the allegations of Paragraph 23, and therefore denies the same. 

24. To the extent the allegations of this paragraph purport to characterize the contents 

of written documents, those documents speak for themselves. Nokia lacks knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 24, and 

therefore denies the same. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 111 Filed 11/26/24 Page 5 of 21 PageID #:

3217
 6 

DM2\20511018.1 

25. To the extent the allegations of this paragraph purport to characterize the contents 

of written documents, those documents speak for themselves. Nokia lacks knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 24, and 

therefore denies the same. 

COUNT I 

INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 11,750,256

26. No response is required to Plaintiff’s reference and incorporation of Paragraphs 

above. To the extent a response is deemed required, Nokia repeats and incorporates by 

reference, as if fully set forth herein, their answers to Paragraphs 1-25, as set forth above. 

27. Nokia admits that Exhibit 1 of the Complaint purports to be a true and correct 

copy of U.S. Patent No. 11,750,256 (the “’256 Patent”) entitled “Directed Wireless 

Communication”. Nokia lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 27, and therefore denies the same. 

28. Nokia denies that T-Mobile has infringed any of the referenced claims of the ’256 

Patent through T-Mobile’s use of Nokia equipment. To the extent this paragraph contains any 

additional factual allegations, Nokia lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of those allegations, and therefore denies the same. 

29. Nokia denies that T-Mobile has infringed any of the referenced claims of the ’256 

Patent through T-Mobile’s use of Nokia equipment. To the extent this paragraph contains any 

additional factual allegations, Nokia lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of those allegations, and therefore denies the same. 

30. Nokia denies that T-Mobile has infringed any of the referenced claims of the ’256 

Patent through T-Mobile’s use of Nokia equipment. To the extent this paragraph contains any 

additional factual allegations, Nokia lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 111 Filed 11/26/24 Page 6 of 21 PageID #:

3218
 7 

DM2\20511018.1 

as to the truth of those allegations, and therefore denies the same. 

31. Nokia admits that Exhibit 2 attached to the Complaint purports to be a claim chart 

related to the ’256 Patent. Nokia denies the remaining allegations in Paragraph 31 of the 

Complaint. 

32. Nokia denies that T-Mobile has infringed any of the referenced claims of the ’256 

Patent through T-Mobile’s use of Nokia equipment. Nokia denies the remaining allegations in 

Paragraph 32 of the Complaint. 

33. Nokia denies the allegations in Paragraph 33 of the Complaint. 

34. Nokia denies the allegations in Paragraph 34 of the Complaint. 

35. Nokia lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of 

the allegations in Paragraph 35 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same. 

COUNT II 

INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 11,777,569

36. No response is required to Plaintiff’s reference and incorporation of Paragraphs 

above. To the extent a response is deemed required, Nokia repeats and incorporates by 

reference, as if fully set forth herein, their answers to Paragraphs 1-35, as set forth above. 

37. Nokia admits the Exhibit 3 to the Complaint purports to be a true and correct copy 

of the U.S. Patent 11,777,569 (the “’569 Patent”) entitled “Directed Wireless Communication”. 

Nokia lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining 

allegations of Paragraph 37, and therefore denies the same. 

38. Nokia denies that T-Mobile has infringed any of the referenced claims of the ’569 

Patent through T-Mobile’s use of Nokia equipment. To the extent this paragraph contains any 

additional factual allegations, Nokia lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of those allegations, and therefore denies the same. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 111 Filed 11/26/24 Page 7 of 21 PageID #:

3219
 8 

DM2\20511018.1 

39. Nokia denies that T-Mobile has infringed any of the referenced claims of the ’569 

Patent through T-Mobile’s use of Nokia equipment. To the extent this paragraph contains any 

additional factual allegations, Nokia lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of those allegations, and therefore denies the same. 

40. Nokia denies that T-Mobile has infringed any of the referenced claims of the ’569 

Patent through T-Mobile’s use of Nokia equipment. To the extent this paragraph contains any 

additional factual allegations, Nokia lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief 

as to the truth of those allegations, and therefore denies the same. 

41. Nokia admits that Exhibit 4 attached to the Complaint purports to be a claim chart 

related to the ’569 Patent. Nokia lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as 

to the truth of those allegations, and therefore denies the same. 

42. Nokia denies that T-Mobile has infringed any of the referenced claims of the ’256 

Patent through T-Mobile’s use of Nokia equipment. Nokia denies the remaining allegations in 

Paragraph 42 of the Complaint. 

43. Nokia denies the allegations in Paragraph 43 of the Complaint. 

44. Nokia denies the allegations in Paragraph 44 of the Complaint. 

45. Nokia lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of 

the allegations in Paragraph 45 of the Complaint, and therefore denies the same. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

These Paragraphs set forth the statement of relief requested by Plaintiff to which no 

response is required. Nokia denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any relief and specifically denies all 

the allegations and prayers for relief contained in Paragraphs (a) through (f) of Plaintiff’s Prayer 

for Relief. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 111 Filed 11/26/24 Page 8 of 21 PageID #:

3220
 9 

DM2\20511018.1 

DEFENSES 

 Subject to the responses above, Nokia alleges and asserts the following defenses in 

response to the allegations, without admitting or acknowledging that Nokia bears the burden of 

proof as to any of them or that any must be pleaded as defenses. Nokia specifically reserves all 

rights to allege additional defenses that become known through the course of discovery. 

FIRST DEFENSE 

(NO INFRINGEMENT) 

1. Nokia equipment and technology supplied to T-Mobile has not infringed and does 

not infringe, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, any valid and enforceable claim 

of the Asserted Patents, in any manner including under any section of 35 U.S.C. § 271, including 

35 U.S.C. §271(a), (b), and/or (c), willfully or otherwise. T-Mobile has not performed any act 

and are not proposing to perform any act in violation of any rights validly belong to Plaintiff.

SECOND DEFENSE 

(INVALIDITY) 

2. The asserted claims of the Asserted Patents are invalid for failure to satisfy the 

requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 100, et seq., including, but not limited to, one or more of the following: 

35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112. For example, each claim is invalid in view of the 

references cited by the Examiner and arguments made by the Applicants during prosecution of the 

applications that issued as the Asserted Patents. 

THIRD DEFENSE 

(NOTICE, DAMAGES, AND COSTS) 

3. Plaintiff’s claims for damages are statutorily limited under 35 U.S.C. §§ 252, 286, 

287, or 307. To the extent Plaintiff or its licensees have failed to comply with the marking and 

notice requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287(a), Plaintiff’s requested relief is barred, in whole or in 

part, for any damages arising from T-Mobile’s alleged infringement prior to at least the date of 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 111 Filed 11/26/24 Page 9 of 21 PageID #:

3221
 10 

DM2\20511018.1 

the filing of the original Complaint or otherwise limited by 35 U.S.C. § 286. 

4. Plaintiff is barred from recovering costs in connection with this action under 35 

U.S.C. § 288. 

5. Plaintiff’s claims for relief are limited by the doctrines of full compensation, 

exhaustion, and/or first sale, and Plaintiff is not entitled to a double recovery. 

FOURTH DEFENSE 

(PROSECUTION HISTORY ESTOPPEL) 

6. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel based 

on statements, representations, and admissions made during the prosecution of the patent 

applications resulting in the Asserted Patents before the United States Patent and Trademark Office 

and/or during the prosecution of related patent applications.

FIFTH DEFENSE 

(FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM) 

7. The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

SIXTH DEFENSE 

(LICENSE, IMPLIED LICENSE, AND/OR EXHAUSTION)

8. Plaintiff’s claims for patent infringement are precluded in whole or in part (i) to the 

extent that any allegedly infringing products or components thereof are supplied, directly or 

indirectly, to T-Mobile by any entity or entities having express or implied licenses or covenant 

not to sue or assert to the Asserted Patents and/or (ii) under the doctrine of patent exhaustion. 

Additionally, Plaintiff’s claims for patent infringement are precluded in whole or in part to any 

direct licenses or agreements/covenants not to sue that pertain to T-Mobile or Nokia. 

9. By way of non-limiting example, Plaintiff’s claims for patent infringement are 

barred, in whole or in part, by a prior license entered into between Plaintiff and 

for which . was an Initial Licensee, the benefits of which inure to 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 111 Filed 11/26/24 Page 10 of 21 PageID

#: 3222
 11 

DM2\20511018.1 

 customers and downstream manufacturers whose products incorporate 

components, including Nokia’s 5G base stations that are accused of infringement in this case. 

10. On September 11, 2024, Plaintiff entered into a license agreement with 

 is identified in the license agreement in Exhibit A as 

an “Initial Licensee.” A copy of the license agreement was produced by Plaintiff at XR-EDTX1-

00054791 (the “ License”). 

11. As part of the License, Plaintiff granted to a 

 under the “Patents” 

to 

 and to 

Subsidiaries and Third Parties, 

12. The “Patents” under the License include each of the Patents-in-Suit in this 

case, along with 

13. The license extends to any which are 

products, including those used or sold by third parties, that combine 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 111 Filed 11/26/24 Page 11 of 21 PageID

#: 3223
 12 

DM2\20511018.1 

14. At least some of Nokia’s 5G base stations accused of infringement in this case 

constitute a because they incorporate chips fabricated 

by or its affiliates that are a under 

the License, and those chips contain functionality that is accused of satisfying a material 

element or a material step of a claim in the Asserted Patents. 

15. Specifically, a number of the Asserted Claims of the Asserted Patents in this case 

require computation of information about received signals, and Nokia’s 5G base stations are 

accused of performing these computations. 

16. The chips fabricated by or its affiliates are responsible for these 

computations. Thus, the chips are involved in all of the functionalities that Plaintiff alleges to be 

a material part of the functionality that infringes the claims. For at least that reason, the Nokia’s 

base stations that incorporate this chip are a under the 

 License. 

17. Plaintiff’s claims are therefore barred or limited to the extent they assert 

infringement by Nokia 5G base stations that qualify as a 

under the License.

SEVENTH DEFENSE 

(INEQUITABLE CONDUCT) 

18. Plaintiff’s enforcement of at least the ‘256 Patent and the 569 Patent is barred by 

inequitable conduct as follows:

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 111 Filed 11/26/24 Page 12 of 21 PageID

#: 3224
 13 

DM2\20511018.1 

19. The ’256 and ’569 Patents both ultimately arose from an application originally filed 

in 2003 as Application Serial Number 10/700,329. 

20. By fall of 2007, the ’329 application was owned by Vivato Networks, Inc. 

21. In November 2007, Aequitas Capital Management, Inc. (“Aequitas Capital”) 

agreed to loan up to $1,000,000 to Vivato Networks, with an initial advance of $300,000, secured 

in part by the patent applications. 

22. In December 2007, Vivato Networks merged with Catcher Holdings, Inc. 

(“Catcher”), and transferred the patent applications to Vivato Networks Holdings, Inc. (“Vivato 

Holdings”). Vivato Holdings granted Catcher the exclusive right to prosecute the applications. 

On April 1, 2008, Catcher ceased operations and terminated all employees due to a lack of 

working capital. 

23. In late April or early May 2008, Brooks withdrew as the attorney of record for the 

’329 application. 

24. In June 2008, Aequitas Equipment Finance, LLC (“Aequitas”), assignee of 

Aequitas Capital’s security interest in the applications, sought to foreclose on, inter alia, the ’329 

application, which became abandoned between June and July 2008 for failure to respond to an 

office action from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). 

25. In April 2009, Aequitas obtained a foreclosure judgment against Vivato Networks 

and Vivato Holdings, and took titled of the abandoned applications through a sheriff’s sale. 

26. In fall 2009, Carl J. Schwedler, attorney for Aequitas, filed petitions to revive, inter 

alia, the ’329 application. As part of that petition, Schwedler represented that the entire period 

of delay, from the due date for filing a reply to the pending USPTO office action to the date of 

the petition, was unintentional under 37 C.F.R. § 1.137(b)(4). 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 111 Filed 11/26/24 Page 13 of 21 PageID

#: 3225
 14 

DM2\20511018.1 

27. Upon information and belief, Schwedler’s representation that the delay in 

prosecuting the application was unintentional was false. 

28. The USPTO denied the petition to revive the ’329 application. In December 2009, 

Aequitas sold its patent portfolio (including the still-abandoned ’329 application) to Plaintiff XR. 

29. In 2010, XR took responsibility for prosecuting the patent application. 

30. On November 8, 2010, Daniel P. Burke, an attorney for XR, filed a renewed petition 

to revive the ’329 application. In doing so, Burke represented to the USPTO that the entire period 

of delay from the due date for filing a reply to the pending USPTO office action to the date of 

the petition was unintentional. 

31. Upon information and belief, Burke’s representation that delay in prosecuting the 

applications was unintentional was false, and XR itself would not have had knowledge of the 

circumstances surrounding the abandonment of the applications. 

32. Upon information and belief, the delay that resulted in abandonment of the ’329 

application was not unintentional. 

33. Catcher’s SEC filings reflect that, at least as of September 2007, it likely had 

sufficient funds to pay for prosecution of the application. Moreover, Catcher’s wholly-owned 

subsidiary Vivato Networks had received an agreement for a $1,000,000 loan in November 2007 

(with $300,000 advances), which could have been used to pay for prosecution of the ’329 

application. 

34. Therefore, upon information and belief, Aequitas and XR falsely certified that the 

entire period of delay in replying to the PTO was unintentional. 

35. Upon information and belief, the false representations that the entire period of delay 

in responding to the USPTO with respect to the ’329 application was unintentional was made 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 111 Filed 11/26/24 Page 14 of 21 PageID

#: 3226
 15 

DM2\20511018.1 

with intent to deceive the USPTO into granting the petitions to revive. Specifically, upon 

information and belief, the following petitions to revive (and requests for reconsideration) 

contained knowingly false statements made with intent to deceive, and were material to the 

USPTO’s decision to revive the application and ultimately issue the Patents-in-Suit: 

a. The petition to revive the ’329 application, filed on August 28, 2009 by 

Schwedler; 

b. The request for reconsideration of the dismissal of the petition to revive 

the ’329 application, filed on November 18, 2009 by Schwedler; and 

c. The renewed petition to revive the ’329 application, filed on November 8, 

2010 by Burke. 

36. Upon information and belief, the false representations that the entire period of delay 

in responding to the USPTO with respect to the ’329 application was unintentional were material 

to the USPTO, because without that false representation the USPTO would not have ultimately 

granted the petitions to revive and the ’256 and ’569 Patents never would have issued. 

37. Accordingly, upon information and belief, Aequitas, XR and their counsel engaged 

in inequitable conduct in reviving the ’329 application. 

EIGHTH DEFENSE 

(STATUTORY LIMITATIONS) 

38. To the extent certain equipment accused of infringing the Asserted Patents are used 

by and/or manufactured for the United States Government and/or public good, Plaintiff’s claims 

involving T-Mobile or Nokia may not be pursued in this Court and are subject to other limitations 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1498.

NINTH DEFENSE 

(NO ENTITLEMENT TO INJUNCTIVE RELIEF) 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 111 Filed 11/26/24 Page 15 of 21 PageID

#: 3227
 16 

DM2\20511018.1 

39. XR is not entitled to injunctive relief. Under eBay v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 

U.S. 388 (2006), any alleged injury to XR would not be immediate or irreparable, XR would 

have an adequate remedy at law, and the balance of hardships does not warrant injunctive relief.

RESERVATION OF DEFENSES 

 Nokia hereby reserves the right to supplement defenses as discovery proceeds in this case. 

INTERVENOR NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION’S COUNTERCLAIMS 

Without admitting any of the allegations of the Complaint other than those expressly 

admitted herein, and without prejudice to the right to plead any additional counterclaims as the 

facts of the matter warrant, pursuant to Rule 13 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Nokia of 

America Corporation (“Nokia”) asserts the following counterclaims against Plaintiff XR 

Communications, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “XR”): 

Parties 

1. Intervenor Nokia is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business at 

600-700 Mountain Avenue, Murray Hill, NJ 07974. 

2. Upon information and belief, and according to the allegations in its Complaint, 

Plaintiff XR Communications, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with a principal place 

of business at 2809 Ocean Front Walk, Venice, California 90291. 

3. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that it is the “sole owner by assignment of all right, 

title, and interest in each Asserted Patent.” 

Jurisdiction and Venue 

4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over these counterclaims under 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1331, 1338(a), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202, and 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, et seq. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 111 Filed 11/26/24 Page 16 of 21 PageID

#: 3228
 17 

DM2\20511018.1 

5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Plaintiff because, among other reasons, 

Plaintiff has consented to jurisdiction by choosing to file claims for infringement of the Asserted 

Patents in this district. 

6. Venue is proper in this district. Plaintiff has consented to venue in this district by 

bringing this action against Defendants, and thus venue for Nokia’s counterclaims is proper in this 

district, although a different venue may be more convenient to hear the dispute. 

Nature of the Action 

7. Based on XR’s Complaint, XR has substantial rights and interests in U.S. Patent 

Nos. 11,750,256 (the “’256 Patent”) and 11,777,569 (the “’569 Patent”), and collectively referred 

to as the Asserted Patents. 

8. Plaintiff has sued Nokia’s customer, T-Mobile (as defined above) for alleged 

infringement of the Asserted Patents in Eastern District of Texas, Case No. 2:23-cv-00469 (the 

“T-Mobile Case”). 

9. Plaintiff’s Complaint in the T-Mobile Case alleges infringement based, in part, 

upon functionality implemented by network equipment and technology supplied by Nokia to TMobile. 

10. Nokia asserts that the Asserted Patents are invalid for failure to satisfy the 

requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 100, et seq., including, but not limited to, one or more of the following: 

35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and/or 112. 

11. Nokia further denies that T-Mobile has infringed the Asserted Patents, directly or 

indirectly, through T-Mobile’s use of Nokia equipment or technology. 

12. In view of the foregoing, a conflict of asserted rights between Nokia and Plaintiff 

with respect to the alleged infringement and validity of the Asserted Patents. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 111 Filed 11/26/24 Page 17 of 21 PageID

#: 3229
 18 

DM2\20511018.1 

First Counterclaim 

Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ’256 Patent 

13. Nokia incorporates by reference the prior allegations. 

14. Plaintiff alleges that T-Mobile infringes the ’256 Patent through the use of Nokia’s 

equipment and technology in its wireless network. 

15. An actual, substantial, and continuing justiciable controversy exists between Nokia 

and Plaintiff with respect to infringement of the ’256 Patent. 

16. Nokia’s equipment and technology does not infringe and has not infringed any valid 

claim of the ’256 Patent literally, directly, indirectly (such as contributorily or by way of 

inducement), willfully, or under the doctrine of equivalents. 

17. There exists an actual and justiciable controversy, within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 2201 and 2202, between Nokia and Plaintiff as to whether the Nokia’s equipment and 

technology has infringed or infringes any valid and enforceable claim of the ’256 Patent. 

18. Nokia requests a judicial determination and declaration that Nokia’s equipment and 

technology does not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the ’256 Patent. 

Second Counterclaim 

Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ’569 Patent 

19. Nokia incorporates by reference the prior allegations. 

20. Plaintiff alleges that T-Mobile infringes the ’569 Patent through the use of Nokia’s 

equipment and technology in its wireless network. 

21. An actual, substantial, and continuing justiciable controversy exists between Nokia 

and Plaintiff with respect to infringement of the ’569 Patent. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 111 Filed 11/26/24 Page 18 of 21 PageID

#: 3230
 19 

DM2\20511018.1 

22. Nokia’s equipment and technology does not infringe and has not infringed any valid 

claim of the ’569 Patent literally, directly, indirectly (such as contributorily or by way of 

inducement), willfully, or under the doctrine of equivalents. 

23. Accordingly, there exists an actual and justiciable controversy, within the meaning 

of 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, between Nokia and Plaintiff as to whether the Nokia’s equipment 

and technology has infringed or infringes any valid and enforceable claim of the ’569 Patent. 

24. Nokia requests a judicial determination and declaration that Nokia’s equipment and 

technology does not infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the ’569 Patent. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Nokia prays for judgment as follows: 

a. A declaration that T-Mobile has not infringed the Asserted Patents through TMobile’s use of Nokia equipment and/or technology, contributed to the infringement of any of the 

Asserted Patents, and/or induced others to infringe any of the Asserted Patents 

b. A judgment in favor of Nokia on all of its Defenses; 

c. A judgment denying any relief whatsoever, including but not limited to injunctive 

relief; 

d. A judgment in favor of Nokia on its Counterclaims; 

e. A judgment that the claims of each of the Asserted Patents are invalid and/or 

unenforceable; 

f. A judgment that this action is exceptional within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285 

and an award of attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation to Nokia; 

g. Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 111 Filed 11/26/24 Page 19 of 21 PageID

#: 3231
 20 

DM2\20511018.1 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

In accordance with Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule CV-38, 

Intervenor Nokia respectfully demand a jury trial of all issues triable to a jury in this action. 

Dated: November 19, 2024 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Matthew S. Yungwirth 

Deron R. Dacus (TBN 00790553) 

ddacus@dacusfirm.com 

THE DACUS FIRM, P.C. 

821 ESE Loop 323 

Suite 430 

Tyler, Texas 75701 

Telephone: 903.705.1117 

Facsimile: 903.581.2543 

Email: ddacus@dacusfirm.com 

Matthew S. Yungwirth 

Email: msyungwirth@duanemorris.com 

John R. Gibson 

Email: jrgibson@duanemorris.com 

Alice E. Snedeker 

aesnedeker@duanemorris.com 

DUANE MORRIS LLP 

1075 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 1700 

Atlanta, GA 30309 

Telephone: (404) 253-6900 

Counsel for Intervenor Nokia of America 

Corporation

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to 

electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF system 

per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on November 19, 2024. 

/s/ Matthew S. Yungwirth 

Matthew S. Yungwirth 

Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 111 Filed 11/26/24 Page 20 of 21 PageID

#: 3232
Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP Document 111 Filed 11/26/24 Page 21 of 21 PageID

#: 3233