IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. 

Defendant. 

 

Case No. 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP 

(Lead Case) 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE 

COMPANY; ARUBA NETWORKS, LLC, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 2:23-cv-00457-JRG-RSP 

(Member Case) 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS 

PENDING INTER PARTES REVIEW AND EX PARTE REEXAMINATION 

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 57 Filed 07/17/24 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 324
1 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Cobblestone’s argument that “[t]his Court has a ‘universal practice’ of denying preinstitution motions to stay” and thus, Defendants’ motion “should be denied on this basis alone” 

(“Response” at Dkt. 56 at 1, 5-6) is misguided because stays are to be determined on a case-bycase basis and there are key differences distinguishing the present cases from those cited by 

Cobblestone: 

 Plaintiff has four earlier-filed pending suits in this Court involving the only patent at 

issue in this case (the ’802 Patent); 

 The asserted claims are subject to four separate challenges: (1) Defendants’ IPR 

petition, (2) Samsung’s IPR petition, (3) The Carrier’s IPR petition,1 and (4) the 

PTO’s reexamination. A favorable resolution in any of these proceedings will 

simplify the issues currently before the Court; and 

 Institution decisions in Defendants’ IPR and Samsung’s IPR are expected two months 

before the November 26, 2024 Markman hearing. 

Because a stay will likely simplify the two underlying cases by eliminating most—if not 

all—issues for both trials, these cases are still in their infancy, and Plaintiff will not be prejudiced, 

Defendants respectfully request a stay pending final decisions on the IPR petitions and ex parte

reexamination and any subsequent appeals. 

II. ARGUMENT 

A. A Stay Will Simplify the Issues 

Cobblestone’s reliance on a “consistent practice” overlooks this Court’s explicit 

explanation that “[t]he likelihood of simplification of the issues should be determined on a caseby-case basis.” Resonant Sys., Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 2:22-cv-00423-JRG, Dkt. 83 

at 6 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 8, 2024); CyWee Grp. Ltd. v. Samsung Elec. Co. Ltd., No. 2:17-cv-00140-

 

1

 On June 28, 2024, after Defendants filed their Motion to Stay on June 25, 2024 (but before 

Cobblestone filed its Response on July 9), Verizon, T-Mobile, AT&T, Nokia, and Ericsson filed a 

petition for inter partes review against the ’802 Patent (“The Carrier’s IPR”). 

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 57 Filed 07/17/24 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 325
2 

WCB-RSP, 2019 WL 11023976, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 14, 2019) (Bryson, J.) (“[U]ltimately the 

Court must decide stay requests on a case-by-case basis.”). The instant cases present material 

distinctions that warrant deviation from cases Cobblestone relies on in its response. 

First, Plaintiff has asserted the ’802 Patent against four other defendants in seriatim fashion 

beginning in June 2023 through the initiation of these suits in September 2023. These earlier-filed 

cases have deadlines sooner than those in the Docket Control Order (Dkt. 37), thus, a stay will 

conserve Court and party resources as similar issues continue to be litigated, Markman hearings 

held, and claim construction orders issued related to the sole patent at issue here. 

Second, all of the asserted claims of the ’802 Patent have been challenged in Defendants’, 

Samsung’s, and The Carrier’s separate petitions for inter parties review, and have been ordered to 

be reexamined in the Unified Patents EPR. Thus, should the IPRs or reexamination result in 

cancellation or amendment of some or all of the asserted claims, “either some portion of the 

litigation will fall away, or the litigation will come to an end altogether.” NFC Tech. LLC v. HTC 

Am., Inc., No. 2:13-cv-1058-WCB, 2015 WL 1069111, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2015) (Bryson, 

J.). Cobblestone’s argument that the PTO has yet to issue any office actions in the reexamination 

(Dkt. 56 at 7) ignores that the Decision Granting Ex Parte Reexamination carefully reviewed the 

cited art and identified several substantial new questions of patentability. 

Cobblestone’s argument that PTO statistics show it is far more likely that the claims will 

be confirmed than canceled (id.) is similarly disingenuous. First, the statistics actually show that 

only about 20% of patents emerge from reexamination with all claims confirmed. In the other 

nearly 80% of cases, either all claims are canceled or amended: 

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 57 Filed 07/17/24 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 326
3 

See https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ex_parte_historical_stats_.pdf. Thus, 

Cobblestone’s own statistics suggest there is an 80% chance that the now-granted reexamination 

will result in the cancellation or amendment of all or some claims. Cancellation of the claims 

would certainly simplify the case (or end it), while amendment could either simplify the case or 

change it so substantially that, if a stay is not granted, the work done in the interim would be 

wasted. 

Third, institution decisions in Samsung’s IPR and Defendants’ IPR are expected two 

months before the November 26, 2024 Markman hearing – on or before September 14, 2024 and 

September 27, 2024, respectively. The PTAB’s reasoning on claim construction—and the parties’ 

arguments concerning it—could simplify or affect Markman briefing and arguments in this case. 

Plaintiff’s brief highlights that Defendants’ and Samsung’s IPR petitions “do not seek construction 

of any term,” (Dkt. 56, at 13), but omits that Plaintiff’s Preliminary Patent Owner Responses 

sought special constructions of multiple terms and asserted that the preamble of claim 1 is limiting, 

supporting these arguments with expert declarations. Thus, it is not “pure speculation” whether 

Plaintiff will make statements in the IPRs that might be relevant to claim construction—Plaintiff 

has already done so, and the parties and the Court stand to benefit from delaying further claim 

construction activity in this case until the PTAB has had an opportunity address those positions in 

its institution decision. 

For all of these reasons, the likelihood of simplification weighs in favor of staying these 

cases. 

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 57 Filed 07/17/24 Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 327
4 

B. A Stay Will Not Substantially Prejudice Cobblestone 

Cobblestone claims it will be prejudiced by a stay because these cases have been pending 

for nearly ten months and a delay will prejudice its right to vindicate its patent rights. Dkt. 56 at 

9-10. This complaint ignores Plaintiff’s ability to control the timing of the underlying District 

Court litigations and the inter partes reviews. Cobblestone initiated lawsuits asserting 

infringement of the ’802 Patent beginning with Samsung in June 2023, but waited until the end of 

September to file the present actions. Since filing the instant suits and discovery opening in January 

2024, Cobblestone has produced only two documents and served only a single set of common 

interrogatories. Cobblestone has not noticed or taken any depositions and has not served any thirdparty discovery. Thus, Cobblestone has not been litigating these cases as if it were seeking a timely 

vindication of its purported patent rights and to claim prejudice from a delay in response to a 

motion to stay is belied by Cobblestone’s actions to date. In any case, mere delay in Cobblestone 

enforcing its patent rights is insufficient to constitute undue prejudice, especially when monetary 

damages are available to cure any prejudice. Realtime Data, LLC v. Rackspace US, Inc., No. 6:16-

CV-00961, 2017 WL 772654, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 28, 2017) (“[C]oncerns such as timely 

enforcement of patent rights are generally too generic, standing alone, to defeat a stay motion.”). 

With respect to the speed of the inter partes reexamination, Cobblestone controls the 

timing of those proceedings. Cobblestone can proceed on the expeditious schedule in progress, or 

delay resolution before the Patent Office by requesting extensions. Accordingly, Plaintiff will not 

be substantially prejudiced which weighs in favor of staying these cases. 

C. A Stay Will Conserve Substantial Resources 

The underlying cases are in their early stages and significant work remains to be done by 

the Court and the parties. Cobblestone’s inability to identify anything more than the Court’s 

scheduling conference and issuance of the DCO, PO, DO, and ESI Orders as evidence of the 

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 57 Filed 07/17/24 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 328
5 

Court’s investment of resources in these cases (Dkt. 56 at 11) shows the weakness of its argument. 

The Court has not been presented with any discovery disputes, received claim construction 

briefing, prepared for or held Markman hearings, written claim construction orders, prepared for 

or held motions hearings, reviewed dispositive motions or Daubert motion briefing, or conducted 

pretrial conferences. 

Likewise, as discussed above, the parties have yet to engage in substantial discovery. 

Cobblestone attempts to bolster its argument that the parties have invested substantial resources in 

these cases by stating that claim construction has begun. After Plaintiff’s Response was filed, 

Defendants served a list of eight terms for construction, to which Cobblestone had nothing to add. 

That is the extent to which claim construction has progressed. In contrast, the parties will expend 

substantial resources during the two months leading up to the November 26, 2024 Markman

hearing on claim construction briefing and technical tutorials. But because institution of 

Samsung’s IPR and Defendants’ IPR are expected on or before September 14, 2024 and September 

27, 2024 respectively, a stay now will conserve these resources and allow the Court to resolve 

similar issues in the earlier-filed cases. 

Accordingly, because the parties and the Court have not yet invested substantial resources, 

the early stage of the cases weighs in favor of staying these cases. 

 

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 57 Filed 07/17/24 Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 329
6 

Dated: July 17, 2024 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Holly Engelmann 

Melissa Richards Smith 

Texas Bar No. 24001351 

melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com 

GILLAM & SMITH LLP 

303 S. Washington Avenue 

Marshall, Texas 75670 

Telephone: 903.934.8450 

Facsimile: 903.934.9257 

Louis N. Jameson 

GA State Bar No. 003970 

wjameson@duanemorris.com 

Matthew S. Yungwirth 

GA State Bar No. 783597 

msyungwirth@duanemorris.com 

Jayla C. Grant 

GA State Bar No. 312669 

jcgrant@duanemorris.com 

Glenn D. Richeson 

GA State Bar No. 339261 

gdricheson@duanemorris.com 

DUANE MORRIS LLP

1075 Peachtree Street NE 

Suite 1700 

Atlanta, Georgia 30309-3929 

Telephone: (404)-253-6910 

Holly E. Engelmann 

Texas Bar No. 24040865 

hengelmann@duanemorris.com 

DUANE MORRIS LLP 

Terrace 7 

2801 Via Fortuna, Suite 200 

Austin, Texas 78746-7567 

Telephone: (214) 257-7226 

Counsel for Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc.

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 57 Filed 07/17/24 Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 330
7 

/s/ Tyler Marandola 

Jennifer H. Doan 

Texas Bar No. 08809050 

jdoan@haltomdoan.com 

Joshua R. Thane 

Texas Bar No. 24060713 

jthane@haltomdoan.com 

HALTOM & DOAN 

6500 Summerhill Rd., Suite 100 

Texarkana, TX 75503 

Telephone: 903.255.1000 

Facsimile: 903.934.9257 

Matthew S. Yungwirth 

GA State Bar No. 783597 

msyungwirth@duanemorris.com 

DUANE MORRIS LLP

1075 Peachtree Street NE 

Suite 1700 

Atlanta, Georgia 30309-3929 

Telephone: (404)-253-6910 

Tyler Marandola 

PA State Bar No. 313585 

tmarandola@duanemorris.com 

DUANE MORRIS LLP 

30 S. 17th Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

Telephone: (215) 979-1000 

Counsel for Defendants Hewlett Packard 

Enterprise Company and Aruba Networks, LLC

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 57 Filed 07/17/24 Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 331
8 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served on all counsel of record 

via ECF filing on July 17, 2024. 

/s/ Holly Engelmann 

Holly Engelmann

Case 2:23-cv-00454-JRG-RSP Document 57 Filed 07/17/24 Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 332