-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,

Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00382

v. (Lead Case)

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/BA VERIZON

WIRELESS.,

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendants,

ERICSSON INC.,

Intervenor, 

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,

Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00380

v. (Member Case)

AT&T MOBILITY LLC, AT&T SERVICES, 

INC., AND AT&T CORP., 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendants,

ERICSSON INC.,

Intervenor, 

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,

Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00381

(Member Case)

v.

T-MOBILE USA, INC. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendants,

ERICSSON INC.,

Intervenor 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 70 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 580
-2-

ERICSSON INTERVENOR’S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS IN INTERVENTION 

Intervenor Ericsson Inc. (“Ericsson” or “Intervenor”), by and through its undersigned 

counsel, hereby submits the following Answer and Counterclaims in Intervention to the 

August 25, 2023, Complaint (Dkt. 1 (No. 2:23-cv-00382) (“Complaint”) of Plaintiff 

Cobblestone Wireless, LLC, (“Cobblestone” or “Plaintiff”): 

SCOPE OF ERICSSON’S ANSWER IN INTERVENTION 

Ericsson’s intervention in this case is limited to defending claims arising from Defendant’s 

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (“Defendant” or “Verizon”) use of Ericsson’s

equipment and/or technology. To the extent a response is required to allegations outside of this 

scope, Ericsson lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of such 

allegations and therefore denies them. Ericsson’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.

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

Ericsson 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. 

Ericsson 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. 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 70 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 581
-3-

PLAINTIFF COBBLESTONE AND THE PATENTS IN SUIT1

1. Ericsson is without knowledge or information sufficient to admit or deny the

remaining allegations of paragraph 1 and therefore denies them. 

2. Admitted.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. Ericsson admits that the Complaint purports to bring an action under Title 35 of the

United States Code but denies that Verizon has committed any acts of infringement of the Asserted 

Patent through the use of Ericsson’s equipment and technology. Ericsson 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. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 4 call for a legal conclusion,

no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, Ericsson admits that this 

Court has personal jurisdiction over it for purposes of this action only, but denies that Verizon has 

committed any act of infringement, through the use of Ericsson’s equipment and technology, of 

any claim of the Asserted Patent in this District, in Texas, or in the United States. Ericsson denies 

any remaining allegations of paragraph 4. 

5. Denied.

6. To the extent the allegations contained in paragraph 6 call for a legal conclusion,

no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, Ericsson denies that Verizon

has committed any act of infringement, through the use of Ericsson’s equipment and technology, 

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, Ericsson denies those allegations. 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 70 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 582
-4-

of any claim of the Asserted Patent in this District, or in the United States. 

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

of the allegations set forth in this paragraph and therefore denies them. To the extent the allegations 

contained in paragraph 7 of the Complaint set forth legal conclusions, no response is required. 

Ericsson denies any remaining allegations of paragraph 7. 

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

of the allegations set forth in this paragraph and therefore denies them. To the extent the allegations 

contained in paragraph 8 of the Complaint set forth legal conclusions, no response is required. 

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

of the allegations set forth in this paragraph and therefore denies them. To the extent the allegations 

contained in paragraph 9 of the Complaint set forth legal conclusions, no response is required. 

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

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

11. Ericsson 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. Ericsson lacks 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. Ericsson admits that Exhibit 2 to the Complaint purports to be a claim chart. Except

as expressly admitted, denied. 

16. Denied.

17. Denied.

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 70 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 583
-5-

ANSWER TO JURY TRIAL DEMAND

18. Ericsson admits that the Complaint sets forth a demand for a jury trial.

ERICSSON DENIES COBBLESTONE IS ENTITLED TO ITS PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Ericsson denies the allegations contained in Cobblestone’s Prayer for Relief and Ericsson

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

Ericsson respectfully requests a trial by jury of all issues so triable, pursuant to Rule 38 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

ERICSSON’S DEFENSES

Upon information and belief, and subject to its responses above, Ericsson alleges and 

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

or acknowledging that Ericsson 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, Ericsson undertakes the 

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

Ericsson 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) 

Ericsson’s equipment and technology supplied to Verizon does not, alone or in 

combination, infringe any valid and enforceable claim of the Asserted patent, either literally or 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 70 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 584
-6-

under the doctrine of equivalents, nor is such equipment and technology used in any infringement 

of any valid and enforceable claim. 

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 Verizon 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 Verizon 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 70 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 585
-7-

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 Asserted Patent are used by and/or 

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

involving Ericsson 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 Ericsson by any entity or entities having express or implied licenses or covenant not 

to sue or assert the Asserted Patent 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 Ericsson. 

TENTH DEFENSE

(No Injunctive Relief) 

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 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 70 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 586
-8-

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 

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

one or more claims in this lawsuit.

INTERVENOR ERICSSON’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, Ericsson

Inc. (“Ericsson”) asserts the following Counterclaims against Plaintiff Cobblestone Wireless, LLC 

(“Cobblestone”):

THE PARTIES

1. Intervenor Ericsson Inc. (“Ericsson”) is a Delaware partnership with its principal 

place of business at 6300 Legacy Drive, Plano, Texas 75024.

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

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., 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 70 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 587
-9-

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 

Verizon, and thus venue for Ericsson’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 Verizon 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 Verizon, on the other, concerning the alleged infringement by 

Verizon of the Patent-in-Suit.

8. Ericsson denies that the Ericsson’s equipment and technology, supplied to Verizon, 

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. Ericsson realleges Paragraphs 1-8 as though fully set forth herein.

10. Cobblestone alleges that Verizon has infringed and continues to infringe at least 

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

11. Ericsson denies that any of Ericsson’s equipment and technology infringes any 

valid claim of the ’802 Patent.

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 70 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 588
-10-

12. Ericsson 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 Ericsson does not make, use, sell, or offer to sell any product, system, 

platform, or service that performs, 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, Ericsson denies

that any Ericsson’s equipment and technology has infringed or infringes any valid claim of the 

’802 Patent. 

14. There is an actual and justiciable controversy between Cobblestone and Ericsson

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

Ericsson’s equipment and technology supplied to Verizon infringes the ’802 Patent. 

15. Ericsson is entitled to a judicial declaration that its equipment and technology 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 Ericsson’s equipment and technology does not infringe

the ’802 Patent, Cobblestone will continue to wrongfully assert the ’802 Patent against Ericsson’s 

customers, such as Verizon, and thereby cause Ericsson irreparable harm and injury. 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 70 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 589
-11-

SECOND COUNTERCLAIM – DECLARATION OF INVALIDITY OF U.S. 

PATENT NO. 7,924,802 

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

18. Ericsson 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. Ericsson requests a judicial determination and declaration that the claims of the

’802 Patent are invalid. 

RESERVATIONS

Ericsson 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 declaration that Verizon has not infringed the Asserted Patent through Verizon’s use

of Ericsson’s equipment and/or technology, contributed to infringement of the Asserted

Patent, and/or induced the infringement of the Asserted Patent;

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

c. A judgement in favor of Ericsson 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 judgement that the claims of the Asserted Patent are invalid and/or unenforceable.

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 70 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 590
-12-

in this action; 

g. An award to Ericsson of its 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 Asserted Patent 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: January 5, 2024

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

Vantage South End 

1120 South Tryon Street 

Suite 300 

Charlotte, NC 28203-6818 

Phone: 704-444-1000 

Fax: 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

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 70 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 591
-13-

 emily.welch@alston.com

 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 

Deron Dacus

ddacus@dacusfirm.com 

The Dacus Firm

821 ESE Loop 323 

Suite 430 

Tyler, TX 75701 

Telephone: (903) 705-1117 

Facsimile: (903) 581-2543 

Counsel for Ericsson Inc. 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 70 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 592
-14-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 5th day of January, 2024, 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

Vantage South End

1120 South Tryon Street

Suite 300

Charlotte, NC 28203-6818 

Phone: 704-444-1000 

Fax: 704-444-1111 

Counsel for Ericsson Inc.

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 70 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 593