IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, dba 

VIVATO TECHNOLOGIES, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., 

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a 

VERIZON WIRELESS, 

 Defendants. 

ERICSSON INC. 

 Intervenor. 

 Case No. 2:23-cv-00470-JRG-RSP 

 (Lead Case) 

 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

XR COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, dba 

VIVATO TECHNOLOGIES, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

T-MOBILE USA, INC. 

 Defendant. 

ERICSSON INC., 

 Intervenor.

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

 (Member Case) 

 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

ERICSSON INC.’S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS IN INTERVENTION 

Intervenor Ericsson Inc. (“Ericsson” or Intervenor”), hereby submits the following 

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: 

Case 2:23-cv-00470-JRG-RSP Document 34 Filed 01/23/24 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 904
 2 

SCOPE OF ERICSSON’S ANSWER IN INTERVENTION 

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. 

INTRODUCTION

1. Ericsson 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.” Ericsson lacks knowledge or 

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

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

Ericsson equipment and denies any remaining allegations in Paragraph 1. 

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

allow people to communicate with each other. Ericsson 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. 

Case 2:23-cv-00470-JRG-RSP Document 34 Filed 01/23/24 Page 2 of 19 PageID #: 905
 3 

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

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

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

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

Braun in 1909. Ericsson 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. Ericsson admits that Guglielmo Marconi shared the Nobel Prize in Physics with 

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

dated December 11, 1909. Ericsson 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. Ericsson admits that Karl Ferdinand Braun is credited with inventions related to 

radio waves. Ericsson admits that Karl Ferdinand Braun’s December 11, 1909 Nobel Lecture 

described his experiments with antennas. Ericsson 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. Ericsson 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. Ericsson 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. Ericsson 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. Ericsson 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-00470-JRG-RSP Document 34 Filed 01/23/24 Page 3 of 19 PageID #: 906
 4 

THE PARTIES 

10. Ericsson 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. Ericsson 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. Ericsson 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. Ericsson 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. Ericsson 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. Ericsson 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. Ericsson 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. Ericsson 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. Ericsson 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. Ericsson admits that the Complaint purports to state a claim for patent 

infringement arising under Title 35 of the United States Code. Ericsson admits that this Court 

Case 2:23-cv-00470-JRG-RSP Document 34 Filed 01/23/24 Page 4 of 19 PageID #: 907
 5 

has subject matter jurisdiction over patent-law claims generally pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 

and 1338(a). 

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

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

Asserted Patents through T-Mobile’s use of Ericsson equipment. Ericsson 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. Ericsson denies that T-Mobile has infringed any of the 

Asserted Patents through T-Mobile’s use of Ericsson equipment. Ericsson 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. Ericsson denies that T-Mobile has infringed any of the 

Asserted Patents through T-Mobile’s use of Ericsson equipment. Ericsson, 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. 

Ericsson 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. Ericsson 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. Ericsson lacks knowledge or 

Case 2:23-cv-00470-JRG-RSP Document 34 Filed 01/23/24 Page 5 of 19 PageID #: 908
 6 

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

therefore denies the same. 

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

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

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 25, 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, Ericsson repeats and incorporates by 

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

27. Ericsson 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”. Ericsson 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. Ericsson denies that T-Mobile has infringed any of the referenced claims of the 

’256 Patent through T-Mobile’s use of Ericsson equipment. To the extent this paragraph 

contains any additional factual allegations, Ericsson lacks knowledge or information sufficient 

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

29. Ericsson denies that T-Mobile has infringed any of the referenced claims of the 

’256 Patent through T-Mobile’s use of Ericsson equipment. To the extent this paragraph 

contains any additional factual allegations, Ericsson 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-00470-JRG-RSP Document 34 Filed 01/23/24 Page 6 of 19 PageID #: 909
 7 

30. Ericsson denies that T-Mobile has infringed any of the referenced claims of the 

’256 Patent through T-Mobile’s use of Ericsson equipment. To the extent this paragraph 

contains any additional factual allegations, Ericsson lacks knowledge or information sufficient 

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

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

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

the Complaint. 

32. Ericsson denies that T-Mobile has infringed any of the referenced claims of the 

’256 Patent through T-Mobile’s use of Ericsson equipment. Ericsson denies the remaining 

allegations in Paragraph 32 of the Complaint. 

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

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

35. Ericsson 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, Ericsson repeats and incorporates by 

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

37. Ericsson admits that 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”. Ericsson 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. 

Case 2:23-cv-00470-JRG-RSP Document 34 Filed 01/23/24 Page 7 of 19 PageID #: 910
 8 

38. Ericsson denies that T-Mobile has infringed any of the referenced claims of the 

’569 Patent through T-Mobile’s use of Ericsson equipment. To the extent this paragraph 

contains any additional factual allegations, Ericsson lacks knowledge or information sufficient 

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

39. Ericsson denies that T-Mobile has infringed any of the referenced claims of the 

’569 Patent through T-Mobile’s use of Ericsson equipment. To the extent this paragraph 

contains any additional factual allegations, Ericsson lacks knowledge or information sufficient 

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

40. Ericsson denies that T-Mobile has infringed any of the referenced claims of the 

’569 Patent through T-Mobile’s use of Ericsson equipment. To the extent this paragraph 

contains any additional factual allegations, Ericsson lacks knowledge or information sufficient 

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

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

chart related to the ’569 Patent. Ericsson lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a 

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

42. Ericsson denies that T-Mobile has infringed any of the referenced claims of the 

’256 Patent through T-Mobile’s use of Ericsson equipment. Ericsson denies the remaining 

allegations in Paragraph 42 of the Complaint. 

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

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

45. Ericsson 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. 

Case 2:23-cv-00470-JRG-RSP Document 34 Filed 01/23/24 Page 8 of 19 PageID #: 911
 9 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

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

response is required. Ericsson 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. 

DEFENSES 

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

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

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

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

FIRST DEFENSE 

(NO INFRINGEMENT) 

1. Ericsson 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 

Case 2:23-cv-00470-JRG-RSP Document 34 Filed 01/23/24 Page 9 of 19 PageID #: 912
 10 

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 

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 

Case 2:23-cv-00470-JRG-RSP Document 34 Filed 01/23/24 Page 10 of 19 PageID #: 913
 11 

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 Ericsson. 

SEVENTH DEFENSE 

(INEQUITABLE CONDUCT) 

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

inequitable conduct as follows:

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

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

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

12. 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. 

13. 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. 

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

’329 application. 

15. 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 

Case 2:23-cv-00470-JRG-RSP Document 34 Filed 01/23/24 Page 11 of 19 PageID #: 914
 12 

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

16. 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. 

17. 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). 

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

prosecuting the application was unintentional was false. 

19. 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. 

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

21. 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. 

22. 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. 

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

application was not unintentional. 

24. 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 

Case 2:23-cv-00470-JRG-RSP Document 34 Filed 01/23/24 Page 12 of 19 PageID #: 915
 13 

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. 

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

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

26. 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 

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. 

27. 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. 

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

in inequitable conduct in reviving the ’329 application. 

Case 2:23-cv-00470-JRG-RSP Document 34 Filed 01/23/24 Page 13 of 19 PageID #: 916
 14 

EIGHTH DEFENSE 

(STATUTORY LIMITATIONS) 

29. 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 Ericsson 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) 

30. 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 

 Ericsson hereby reserves the right to supplement defenses as discovery proceeds in this 

case. 

INTERVENOR ERICSSON INC.’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 XR Communications, LLC 

(“Plaintiff” or “XR”): 

Parties 

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

at 6300 Legacy Drive, Plano, Texas 75024. 

Case 2:23-cv-00470-JRG-RSP Document 34 Filed 01/23/24 Page 14 of 19 PageID #: 917
 15 

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. 

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 Defendant, and thus venue for Ericsson’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 Ericsson’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 Ericsson to TCase 2:23-cv-00470-JRG-RSP Document 34 Filed 01/23/24 Page 15 of 19 PageID #: 918
 16 

Mobile. 

10. Ericsson 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. Ericsson further denies that T-Mobile has infringed the Asserted Patents, directly 

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

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

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

First Counterclaim 

Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ’256 Patent 

13. Ericsson incorporates by reference the prior allegations. 

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

Ericsson’s equipment and technology in its wireless network. 

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

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

16. Ericsson’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 Ericsson and Plaintiff as to whether the Ericsson’s equipment and 

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

18. Ericsson requests a judicial determination and declaration that Ericsson’s 

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

Second Counterclaim 

Case 2:23-cv-00470-JRG-RSP Document 34 Filed 01/23/24 Page 16 of 19 PageID #: 919
 17 

Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ’569 Patent 

19. Ericsson incorporates by reference the prior allegations. 

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

Ericsson’s equipment and technology in its wireless network. 

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

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

22. Ericsson’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 Ericsson and Plaintiff as to whether the Ericsson’s 

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

Patent. 

24. Ericsson requests a judicial determination and declaration that Ericsson’s 

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

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Ericsson prays for judgment as follows: 

a. A declaration that T-Mobile has not infringed the Asserted Patents through TMobile’s use of Ericsson 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 Ericsson on all of its Defenses; 

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

relief; 

Case 2:23-cv-00470-JRG-RSP Document 34 Filed 01/23/24 Page 17 of 19 PageID #: 920
 18 

d. A judgment in favor of Ericsson 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 Ericsson; 

g. 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 CV-38, 

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

Dated: January 23, 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 Ericsson Inc.

Case 2:23-cv-00470-JRG-RSP Document 34 Filed 01/23/24 Page 18 of 19 PageID #: 921
 19 

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 January 23, 2024. 

/s/ Matthew S. Yungwirth 

Matthew S. Yungwirth 

Case 2:23-cv-00470-JRG-RSP Document 34 Filed 01/23/24 Page 19 of 19 PageID #: 922