-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/B/A VERIZON

WIRELESS.,

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendants,

NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION

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,

NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION

Intervenor, 

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,

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

(Member Case)

v.

T-MOBILE USA, INC. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendants,

NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION

Intervenor. 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 75 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 640
-2-

NOKIA INTERVENOR’S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS IN INTERVENTION 

Intervenor Nokia of America Corporation (“Nokia” 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-00381) (“Complaint”) of 

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

SCOPE OF NOKIA’S ANSWER IN INTERVENTION 

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

T-Mobile USA, Inc. (“Defendant” or “T-Mobile”) use of Nokia’s equipment and/or technology.

To the extent a response is required to allegations outside of this scope, Nokia lacks knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of such allegations and therefore denies them. 

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.

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 75 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 641
-3-

PLAINTIFF COBBLESTONE AND THE PATENTS IN SUIT1

1. Nokia 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. Nokia 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 acts of infringement of the 

Asserted Patent through the use of Nokia’s equipment and technology. Nokia 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, Nokia admits that this Court 

has personal jurisdiction over it for purposes of this action only, but denies that T-Mobile has 

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

claim of the Asserted Patent in this District, in Texas, or in the United States. Nokia 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, Nokia denies that T-Mobile 

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

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, Nokia denies those allegations.

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 75 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 642
-4-

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

7. Nokia 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. 

Nokia denies any remaining allegations of paragraph 7.

8. Nokia 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. Nokia 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. Nokia repeats its responses to paragraphs 1-9 as if fully stated herein.

11. Nokia 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. Nokia 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. Nokia 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 75 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 643
-5-

ANSWER TO JURY TRIAL DEMAND

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

NOKIA DENIES COBBLESTONE IS ENTITLED TO ITS PRAYER FOR RELIEF

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

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

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

NOKIA’S DEFENSES

Upon information and belief, and subject to its responses above, Nokia alleges and asserts 

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

acknowledging that Nokia 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, Nokia undertakes the burden of 

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

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) 

Nokia’s equipment and technology supplied to T-Mobile does not, alone or in combination, 

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

of equivalents, nor is such equipment and technology used in any infringement of any valid and 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 75 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 644
-6-

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 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 75 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 645
-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 Nokia 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 Nokia 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 Nokia. 

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 

Cobblestone has an adequate remedy at law.

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 75 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 646
-8-

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 NOKIA’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 Cobblestone 

Wireless, LLC (“Cobblestone”):

THE PARTIES

1. Intervenor Nokia of America (“Nokia”) is a Delaware partnership with its principal

place of business at 600-700 Mountain Avenue, Murray Hill, NJ 07974. 

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., 

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

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 75 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 647
-9-

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 Nokia’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. Nokia denies that the Nokia’s equipment and technology, supplied to T-Mobile,

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. Nokia 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). 

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

claim of the ’802 Patent. 

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

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 75 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 648
-10-

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

claim 1, at least because Nokia 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, Nokia denies that 

that any Nokia’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 Nokia

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

Nokia’s equipment and technology supplied to T-Mobile infringes the ’802 Patent.

15. Nokia 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 Nokia’s equipment and technology does not infringe the

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

customers, such as T-Mobile, and thereby cause Nokia irreparable harm and injury.

SECOND COUNTERCLAIM – DECLARATION OF INVALIDITY OF U.S. 

PATENT NO. 7,924,802

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

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 75 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 649
-11-

18. Nokia 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. Nokia requests a judicial determination and declaration that the claims of the ’802

Patent are invalid. 

RESERVATIONS 

Nokia 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 T-Mobile has not infringed the Asserted Patent through T-Mobile’s

use of Nokia’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 Nokia on all of its Defenses;

c. A judgement in favor of Nokia 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

in this action;

g. An award to Nokia of its fees and expenses of litigation, including but not limited to

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 75 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 650
-12-

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/ David S. Frist

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 

 emily.welch@alston.com 

 michael.deane@alston.com

 sloane.kyrazis@alston.com 

ALSTON & BIRD LLP

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 75 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 651
-13-

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 Nokia of America Corporation 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 75 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 652
-14-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this day 5th 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/ David Frist 

David Frist

 david.frist@alston.com 

ALSTON & BIRD LLP

1201 W Peachtree St NW

Atlanta, GA 30309

Phone: 404-881-7000 

Fax: 404-881-7777 

Counsel for Nokia of America Corporation

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 75 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 653