-1- 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERISON 

WIRELESS 

 Defendant 

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

AT&T SERVICES INC.; et al. 

 Defendants. 

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS LLC 

Plaintiff, 

T-MOBILE USA, INC. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Case No. 2:23-cv-00382 

 (Lead Case) 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

Case No. 2:23-cv-00380-JRG-RSP 

 (Member Case) 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

Case No. 2:23-cv-00381-JRG-RSP 

 (Member Case) 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

T-MOBILE’S ANSWER 

Defendant T-Mobile USA, Inc. (“T-Mobile” or “Defendant”) files this Answer and 

Defenses to the Complaint for Patent Infringement (“Complaint”) filed by Cobblestone Wireless, 

LLC (“Cobblestone” or “Plaintiff”) (Dkt. 1). Except as hereinafter specifically admitted, qualified, 

or affirmatively alleged, T-Mobile denies each and every allegation, matter, or thing contained in 

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

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

from the admitted facts. 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 23 Filed 11/03/23 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 99
-2- 

PLAINTIFF COBBLESTONE AND THE PATENTS IN SUIT1

1. T-Mobile is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the 

remaining allegations of paragraph 1 and therefore denies them. 

2. T-Mobile admits that T-Mobile USA, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws 

of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 12920 SE 38th Street, Bellevue, 

Washington 98006. T-Mobile admits that T-Mobile USA, Inc. has a registered agent for service, 

Corporation Service Company, 251 Little Falls Drive, Wilmington, Delaware 19808. T-Mobile 

admits that T-Mobile USA, Inc. has been registered to do business in the state of Texas under 

Texas SOS file number 12958406. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

3. T-Mobile admits that the Complaint purports to bring an action under Title 35 of 

the United States Code but denies that T-Mobile has committed any act of infringement of the 

Asserted Patent. T-Mobile does not dispute that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction but 

denies that Cobblestone is entitled to any relief. Except as expressly admitted, denied. 

4. T-Mobile does not contest that, for purposes of this action only, T-Mobile is subject 

to specific personal jurisdiction in this Court. Except as expressly admitted, T-Mobile denies the 

remaining allegations of paragraph 4. 

5. Denied. 

6. T-Mobile does not contest that, for purposes of this action only, venue is proper in 

this District, but denies that T-Mobile has committed acts of infringement of the Asserted Patent 

1 Headings and subheadings are copied from the Complaint for ease of reference only. These 

headings and subheadings do not require any response and do not constitute an admission or 

denial of any purported fact or allegation. To the extent a response is required to any allegation 

in the Complaint’s headings or subheadings, T-Mobile denies those allegations. 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 23 Filed 11/03/23 Page 2 of 13 PageID #: 100
-3- 

in this Districts or in any other judicial district in the United States. T-Mobile denies any remaining 

allegations of this paragraph. 

7. T-Mobile admits that T-Mobile USA, Inc. has retail stores in the Eastern District 

of Texas. T-Mobile denies the remaining allegations of this paragraph. 

8. T-Mobile admits that T-Mobile USA, Inc. operates a wireless telecommunications 

network that provides services to customers within the Eastern District of Texas. T-Mobile is 

without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations of this 

paragraph and therefore denies them. 

9. T-Mobile admits that T-Mobile USA, Inc. operates a wireless telecommunications 

network which provides services to customers within the Eastern District of Texas. T-Mobile is 

without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations of this 

paragraph and therefore denies them. 

COUNT 1 – CLAIM FOR ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’802 PATENT 

10. T-Mobile repeats its responses to paragraphs 1-9 as if fully stated herein. 

11. T-Mobile admits that Exhibit 1 to the Complaint purports to be U.S. Patent No. 

7,924,802 (the “’802 Patent”), entitled “Wireless Communication Systems and Methods” and 

indicates on its face that it issued on April 12, 2011. T-Mobile is without knowledge or information 

sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations of paragraph 11 and therefore denies them. 

12. Denied. 

13. Denied. 

14. Denied. 

15. T-Mobile admits that Exhibit 2 to the Complaint purports to be a claim chart. 

Except as expressly admitted, denied. 

16. Denied. 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 23 Filed 11/03/23 Page 3 of 13 PageID #: 101
-4- 

17. Denied. 

ANSWER TO JURY TRIAL DEMAND 

18. T-Mobile admits that the Complaint sets forth a demand for a jury trial. 

T-MOBILE DENIES COBBLESTONE IS ENTITLED TO ITS PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

T-Mobile denies the allegations contained in Cobblestone’s Prayer for Relief and T-Mobile 

further denies that Cobblestone is entitled to any relief whatsoever, including any relief sought in 

paragraphs A through F of its Prayer for Relief. Cobblestone’s Prayer for Relief should, therefore, be 

denied in its entirety and with prejudice, and Cobblestone should take nothing. 

JURY TRIAL DEMAND 

T-Mobile respectfully requests a trial by jury of all issues so triable, pursuant to Rule 38 of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

T-MOBILE’S DEFENSES 

Upon information and belief, and subject to its responses above, T-Mobile alleges and 

asserts the following defenses in response to the allegations of the Complaint, without admitting 

or acknowledging that T-Mobile bears the burden of proof as to any of them or that any must be 

pleaded as defenses. Regardless of how such defenses are listed herein, T-Mobile undertakes the 

burden of proof only as to those defenses that are deemed affirmative defenses as a matter of law. 

T-Mobile expressly reserves the right to amend or raise additional defenses pursuant to any docket 

control order as additional information becomes available through further investigation and 

discovery. 

FIRST DEFENSE 

(Non-Infringement of the ’802 Patent) 

T-Mobile does not infringe and has not infringed the ’802 Patent directly, indirectly, 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 23 Filed 11/03/23 Page 4 of 13 PageID #: 102
-5- 

literally, or under the doctrine of equivalents, or in any other manner, and is not liable for 

infringement of any valid and enforceable claim of the ’802 Patent. 

SECOND DEFENSE 

(Invalidity of the ’802 Patent) 

The claims of the ’802 Patent are invalid for failure to comply with the requirements of 

Title 35 of the United States Code, including, without limitation, 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, 112, 

and/or 116. 

THIRD DEFENSE 

(Statutory Limit on Damages) 

Cobblestone’s claim for damages, equitable relief, and/or costs is statutorily limited by 35 

U.S.C. §§ 252, 286, 287, and/or 288. 

FOURTH DEFENSE 

(No Willful Infringement) 

Cobblestone is not entitled to enhanced or increased damages for willful infringement 

because T-Mobile has not engaged in any conduct that meets the applicable standard for willful 

infringement. 

FIFTH DEFENSE 

(No Exceptional Case) 

Cobblestone cannot prove that this is an exceptional case justifying award of attorney’s 

fees against T-Mobile pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285. 

SIXTH DEFENSE 

(Waiver, Equitable Estoppel, Acquiescence, Unclean Hands) 

Cobblestone’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, or its remedies limited, by the 

doctrines of waiver, implied waiver, equitable estoppel, acquiescence, and/or unclean hands. 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 23 Filed 11/03/23 Page 5 of 13 PageID #: 103
-6- 

SEVENTH DEFENSE 

(Prosecution History Estoppel) 

Cobblestone’s claims for relief are barred in whole or in part by prosecution history 

estoppel and/or prosecution history disclaimer based on amendments, statements, admission, 

omissions, representations, disclaimers, and/or disavowals made by the applicants for the ‘802 

Patent. 

EIGHTH DEFENSE 

(Statutory Limitation) 

To the extent certain products accused of infringing the Patent-in-Suit are used by and/or 

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

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

to 28 U.S.C. § 1498. 

NINTH DEFENSE 

(License, Implied License, Exhaustion) 

Cobblestone’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 the Patent-in-Suit and/or (ii) under the doctrine of patent exhaustion. Additionally, 

Cobblestone’s claims for patent infringement are precluded in whole or in part by any direct 

licenses or agreements/covenants not to sue that pertain to T-Mobile. Additionally, Cobblestone’s 

claims for patent infringement are precluded in whole or in party by direct or implied licenses 

and/or covenants not to sue that pertain to Cobblestone or prior assignees affiliations with any 

defensive patent trust. 

TENTH DEFENSE 

(No Injunctive Relief) 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 23 Filed 11/03/23 Page 6 of 13 PageID #: 104
-7- 

Cobblestone’s claims for relief are barred in whole or in part because Cobblestone is not 

entitled to injunctive relief. Any alleged injury to Cobblestone is not immediate or irreparable and 

Cobblestone has an adequate remedy at law. 

ELEVENTH DEFENSE 

(Failure to State a Claim) 

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

TWELFTH DEFENSE 

(Standing/Ownership) 

To the extent that Cobblestone was not the sole and total owner of all substantial rights in 

any of the Asserted Patent as of the filing date of the Complaint, Cobblestone is without standing 

to bring one or more claims in this lawsuit. 

T-MOBILE’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, T-Mobile 

Wireless (“T-Mobile”) asserts the following Counterclaims against Plaintiff Cobblestone 

Wireless, LLC (“Cobblestone”): 

THE PARTIES 

1. T-Mobile is a Delaware partnership with its principal place of business at 12920 

SE 38th Street, Bellevue, Washington 98006. 

2. Upon information and belief, and based on Cobblestone’s allegations in its 

Complaint, Cobblestone Wireless, LLC is a Texas limited liability company with a principal place 

of business located at 101 E. Park Boulevard, Suite 600, Plano, Texas 75074 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 23 Filed 11/03/23 Page 7 of 13 PageID #: 105
-8- 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

3. These counterclaims arise under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35, 

United States Code. The jurisdiction of this Court is proper under at least 25 U.S.C. § 271 et seq., 

and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338, and 2201-02. 

4. This Court has jurisdiction over these Counterclaims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 

1331, 1338(a), and 2201(a). 

5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Cobblestone, as Cobblestone consented 

to personal jurisdiction by commencing this action for patent infringement in this judicial district. 

6. Cobblestone has consented to venue in this Court by bringing this action against TMobile, and thus venue for T-Mobile’s counterclaims is proper in this district, although a different 

venue may be more convenient to hear the dispute. 

7. Cobblestone has filed suit in this Court against T-Mobile for alleged infringement 

of one or more claims of the Patent-in-Suit in this action. Accordingly, there is an actual, 

continuing, and justiciable controversy arising under the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1, et seq. 

between Cobblestone, on the one hand, and T-Mobile, on the other, concerning the alleged 

infringement by T-Mobile of the Patent-in-Suit. 

8. T-Mobile denies that it directly or indirectly infringes any valid and enforceable 

claim of the Patent-in-Suit. In view of the foregoing, there exists an actual and justiciable 

controversy between the parties with respect to the alleged infringement of the Patent-in-Suit. 

FIRST COUNTERCLAIM – DECLARATION OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. 

PATENT NO. 7,924,802 

9. T-Mobile realleges Paragraphs 1-8 as though fully set forth herein. 

10. Cobblestone alleges that T-Mobile has infringed and continues to infringe at least 

claim 1 of the ’802 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a). 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 23 Filed 11/03/23 Page 8 of 13 PageID #: 106
-9- 

11. T-Mobile denies that it infringes any valid claim of the ’802 Patent. 

12. T-Mobile does not make, use, sell, or offer to sell any product, system, platform, or 

service, that practices every element of any claim of the ’802 Patent, including but not limited to 

claim 1, at least because T-Mobile does not make, use, sell, or offer to sell any product, system, 

platform, or service that perform, for example: (i) “a method of transmitting information in a 

wireless communication channel comprising:”; (ii) “transmitting first information across a first 

frequency range using a wireless transmitter, the first frequency range having a first center 

frequency, a first highest frequency, and a first lowest frequency; and”; (iii) “simultaneously 

transmitting second information across a second frequency range using the same wireless 

transmitter, the second frequency range having a second center frequency greater than the first 

center frequency, a second highest frequency, and a second lowest frequency.” 

13. For these, and other reasons to be established through discovery, T-Mobile denies 

that it infringes any valid claim of the ’802 Patent. 

14. There is an actual and justiciable controversy between Cobblestone and T-Mobile 

arising under the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. §§ 1, et seq., concerning Cobblestone’s allegations that TMobile infringes the ’802 Patent. 

15. T-Mobile is entitled to a judicial declaration that it has not and does not infringe 

directly or indirectly, by inducement or by contribution, or under the doctrine of equivalents, any 

valid, enforceable claim of the ’802 Patent. 

16. Absent a declaration that T-Mobile does not infringe the ’802 Patent, Cobblestone 

will continue to wrongfully assert the ’802 Patent against T-Mobile and thereby cause T-Mobile 

irreparable harm and injury. 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 23 Filed 11/03/23 Page 9 of 13 PageID #: 107
-10- 

SECOND COUNTERCLAIM – DECLARATION OF INVALIDITY OF U.S. 

PATENT NO. 7,924,802 

17. T-Mobile realleges Paragraphs 1-16 as though fully set forth herein. 

18. T-Mobile asserts that claims of the ’802 Patent are invalid for failure to satisfy one 

or more of the provisions of Title 35 of the United States Code, including, but not limited to 35 

U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, 112. 

19. Accordingly, there exists an actual and justiciable controversy as to whether the 

claims of the ’802 Patent are valid. 

20. T-Mobile requests a judicial determination and declaration that the claims of the 

’802 Patent are invalid. 

RESERVATIONS 

T-Mobile reserves the right to supplement and/or amend its defenses as discovery proceeds 

in this case. 

REQUEST FOR RELIEF 

Defendants respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment as follows: 

a. A judgment dismissing Cobblestone’s Complaint against Defendants with prejudice; 

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

c. A judgement in favor of T-Mobile on all of its Counterclaims; 

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

relief, in favor of Cobblestone; 

e. A judgment that Defendants have not infringed, contributed to the infringement of, or 

induced others to infringe, either directly or indirectly, any valid claims of the Patentin-Suit; 

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

that Defendants are entitled to recover their reasonable attorney’s fees upon prevailing 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 23 Filed 11/03/23 Page 10 of 13 PageID #: 108
-11- 

in this action; 

g. An award to Defendants of their fees and expenses of litigation, including but not 

limited to attorney’s fees and costs; 

h. A judgment limiting or barring Cobblestone’s ability to enforce the Patent-in-Suit in 

equity; 

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

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

In accordance with Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule CV38, Defendants respectfully demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable in this action. 

DATED: November 3, 2023 

 Respectfully submitted, 

Alston & Bird LLP 

BY: /s/ Ross Barton

Theodore Stevenson (TX Bar No. 19196650) 

Adam B. Ahnhut (TX Bar No. 24106983) 

 ted.stevenson@alston.com 

 adam.ahnhut@alston.com 

ALSTON& BIRD LLP 

2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2300 

Dallas, TX 75201 

Phone: (214) 922-3400 

Fax: (214) 922-3899 

Ross Barton (NC Bar No. 37179) 

 ross.barton@alston.com 

ALSTON & BIRD LLP 

1120 South Tryon Street 

Suite 300 

Charlotte, NC 28203 

Telephone: (704) 444-1000 

Facsimile: (704) 444-1111 

John D. Haynes (GA Bar No. 340599) 

David S. Frist (GA Bar No. 205611) 

Emily Welch (GA Bar No. 606071) 

Michael C. Deane (GA Bar No. 497195) 

Sloane S. Kyrazis (GA Bar No. 878240) 

 john.haynes@alston.com 

 david.frist@alston.com 

 emily.welch@alston.com 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 23 Filed 11/03/23 Page 11 of 13 PageID #: 109
-12- 

 michael.deane@alston.com 

 sloane.kyrazis@alston.com 

ALSTON & BIRD LLP 

One Atlantic Center 

1201 West Peachtree Street 

Atlanta, GA 30309-3424 

Telephone: (404)-881-7000 

Facsimile: (404) 881-7777 

Melissa Richards Smith 

(TX Bar No. 24001351) 

Gillam & Smith, LLP 

303 South Washington Avenue 

Marshall, TX 75670 

903-934-8450 

Fax: 903-934-9257 

Email: melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com 

Counsel for T-Mobile USA, Inc. 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 23 Filed 11/03/23 Page 12 of 13 PageID #: 110
-13- 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

 I hereby certify that on this 3rd day of November, 2023, I electronically filed the foregoing 

with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will automatically send notification of 

such filing upon Counsel of Record. 

/s/ Ross Barton 

Ross Barton (NC Bar No. 37179) 

ross.barton@alston.com 

ALSTON & BIRD LLP 

1120 South Tryon Street 

Suite 300 

Charlotte, NC 28203 

Telephone: (704) 444-1000 

Facsimile: (704) 444-1111 

Counsel for T-Mobile USA, Inc. 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 23 Filed 11/03/23 Page 13 of 13 PageID #: 111