IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

HEADWATER PARTNERS II LLC, 

Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant, 

vs. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

§

Case No. 2:24-cv-00015-JRG-RSP 

(Lead Case) 

Jury Trial Demanded 

T-MOBILE USA, INC. AND SPRINT LLC, 

Defendants and Counterclaimant-Plaintiffs. 

HEADWATER PARTNERS II LLC, 

Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant, 

vs. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

§ 

§ 

Case No. 2:24-cv-00016-JRG-RSP 

(Member Case) 

Jury Trial Demanded 

AT&T SERVICES, INC., AT&T MOBILITY 

LLC AND AT&T CORP., 

Defendants and Counterclaimant-Plaintiffs. 

HEADWATER PARTNERS II LLC, 

Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant, 

vs. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

Case No. 2:24-cv-00007-JRG-RSP 

Jury Trial Demanded 

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, D/B/A VERIZON 

WIRELESS, AND VERIZON CORPORATE 

SERVICES GROUP INC., 

Defendants and Counterclaimant-Plaintiffs. 

DEFENDANT’S ANSWER IN INTERVENTION 

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

submits the following Answer in Intervention to the January 10, 2024 Complaint (DE 1) 

Case 2:24-cv-00015-JRG-RSP Document 57 Filed 07/17/24 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 524
2 

(“Complaint”) of Plaintiff Headwater Partners II LLC (“Headwater”) in the above-titled action, 

Headwater Partners II LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 2-24-cv-00015 (E.D. Tex., 

filed Jan. 10, 2024): 

SCOPE OF DEFENDANT’S ANSWER IN INTERVENTION 

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

T-Mobile USA, Inc. and Sprint LLC’s (“T-Mobile”) use of Ericsson products. To the extent a 

response is required to allegations outside of this scope, Ericsson is without 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 are not 

admissions as to any of Headwater’s allegations in the Complaint. 

BACKGROUND 

1. Ericsson admits that Headwater purports to allege in the Complaint that T-Mobile 

has infringed United States Patent Nos. 9,094,868 (the “‘868 Patent”) and 9,413,502 (the “’502 

Patent”) (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”). 

2. Ericsson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations set forth in this Paragraph and therefore denies them. 

3. Ericsson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations set forth in this Paragraph and therefore denies them. 

4. Ericsson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations set forth in this Paragraph and therefore denies them. 

5. Ericsson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations set forth in this Paragraph and therefore denies them. 

6. Ericsson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

Case 2:24-cv-00015-JRG-RSP Document 57 Filed 07/17/24 Page 2 of 11 PageID #: 525
3 

truth of the allegations set forth in this Paragraph and therefore denies them. 

7. Ericsson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations set forth in this Paragraph and therefore denies them. 

8. Ericsson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations set forth in this Paragraph and therefore denies them. 

9. Ericsson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations set forth in this Paragraph and therefore denies them. 

10. Ericsson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations set forth in this Paragraph and therefore denies them. 

11. Ericsson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations set forth in this Paragraph and therefore denies them. 

12. Ericsson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations set forth in this Paragraph and therefore denies them. 

13. Ericsson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations set forth in this Paragraph and therefore denies them. 

14. Denied with respect to Ericsson products. Ericsson is without knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations set forth in this 

Paragraph and therefore denies them. 

PLAINTIFF HEADWATER AND THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT 

15. Ericsson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations set forth in this Paragraph and therefore denies them. 

16. Ericsson admits that on its face, the ’868 Patent is entitled “User equipment link 

quality estimation based on positioning” and issued on July 28, 2015. Ericsson admits that Exhibit 

Case 2:24-cv-00015-JRG-RSP Document 57 Filed 07/17/24 Page 3 of 11 PageID #: 526
4 

1 of the Complaint appears to be an accurate reproduction of the ’868 Patent. Ericsson is without 

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations set 

forth in this Paragraph and therefore denies them. 

17. Ericsson admits that on its face, the ’502 Patent is entitled “Backhaul assisted by 

user equipment” and issued on August 9, 2016. Ericsson admits that Exhibit 2 of the Complaint 

appears to be an accurate reproduction of the ’502 Patent. Ericsson is without knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations set forth in this 

Paragraph and therefore denies them. 

DEFENDANTS AND THE ACCUSED INSTRUMENTALITIES 

18. Ericsson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations set forth in this Paragraph and therefore denies them. 

19. Ericsson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations set forth in this Paragraph and therefore denies them. 

20. Ericsson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations set forth in this Paragraph and therefore denies them. 

21. Ericsson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations set forth in this Paragraph and therefore denies them. 

22. Ericsson admits that Headwater purports to accuse “4G LTE and 5G base stations, 

nodes, and related network equipment and services, including those described in Exhibits 3 and 4, 

made, used, offered for sale, sold, and/or imported by T-Mobile in the United States” (the 

“Accused Instrumentalities”). 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

23. This Paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. To the 

Case 2:24-cv-00015-JRG-RSP Document 57 Filed 07/17/24 Page 4 of 11 PageID #: 527
5 

extent a response is deemed necessary, Ericsson admits that Headwater purports to allege a claim 

for patent infringement in the Complaint. Ericsson is without knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations set forth in this Paragraph and therefore 

denies them. 

24. This Paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. To the 

extent a response is deemed necessary, Ericsson denies that T-Mobile has infringed the Patentsin-Suit through T-Mobile’s use of Ericsson products. Ericsson is without knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations set forth in this 

Paragraph and therefore denies them. 

25. This Paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. To the 

extent a response is deemed necessary, Ericsson denies that T-Mobile has infringed the Patentsin-Suit through T-Mobile’s use of Ericsson products. Ericsson is without knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations set forth in this 

Paragraph and therefore denies them. 

26. This Paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. To the 

extent a response is deemed necessary, Ericsson denies that T-Mobile has infringed the Patentsin-Suit through T-Mobile’s use of Ericsson products. Ericsson is without knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations set forth in this 

Paragraph and therefore denies them. 

27. Ericsson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations set forth in this Paragraph and therefore denies them. 

28. Ericsson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations set forth in this Paragraph and therefore denies them. 

Case 2:24-cv-00015-JRG-RSP Document 57 Filed 07/17/24 Page 5 of 11 PageID #: 528
6 

29. This Paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. To the 

extent a response is deemed necessary, Ericsson denies that T-Mobile has infringed the Patentsin-Suit through T-Mobile’s use of Ericsson products. Ericsson is without knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations set forth in this 

Paragraph and therefore denies them. 

30. Ericsson is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the 

truth of the allegations set forth in this Paragraph and therefore denies them. 

COUNT 1 – CLAIM FOR INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’868 PATENT 

31. Ericsson incorporates by reference each response contained in Paragraphs 1 

through 30 of this Answer in Intervention as though fully set forth herein. 

32. Ericsson admits that on its face, the ’868 Patent issued on July 28, 2015 and is 

entitled “User equipment link quality estimation based on positioning.” Ericsson admits that 

Exhibit 1 of the Complaint appears to be an accurate reproduction of the ’868 Patent. 

33. This Paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. To the 

extent a response is deemed necessary, Ericsson is without knowledge or information sufficient to 

form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in this Paragraph and therefore denies them. 

34. This Paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. To the 

extent a response is deemed necessary, Ericsson is without knowledge or information sufficient to 

form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in this Paragraph and therefore denies them. 

35. Denied with respect to Ericsson products. Ericsson is without knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations set forth in this 

Paragraph and therefore denies them. 

36. Denied with respect to Ericsson products. Ericsson is without knowledge or 

Case 2:24-cv-00015-JRG-RSP Document 57 Filed 07/17/24 Page 6 of 11 PageID #: 529
7 

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations set forth in this 

Paragraph and therefore denies them. 

37. Denied with respect to Ericsson products. Ericsson is without knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations set forth in this 

Paragraph and therefore denies them. 

38. This Paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. To the 

extent a response is deemed necessary, Ericsson denies that T-Mobile has infringed the Patentsin-Suit through T-Mobile’s use of Ericsson products. Ericsson is without knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations set forth in this 

Paragraph and therefore denies them. 

COUNT 2 – CLAIM FOR INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’502 PATENT 

39. Ericsson incorporates by reference each response contained in Paragraphs 1 

through 38 of this Answer in Intervention as though fully set forth herein. 

40. Ericsson admits that on its face, the ’502 Patent issued on August 9, 2016 and is 

entitled “Backhaul assisted by user equipment.” Ericsson admits that Exhibit 2 of the Complaint 

appears to be an accurate reproduction of the ’502 Patent. 

41. This Paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. To the 

extent a response is deemed necessary, Ericsson is without knowledge or information sufficient to 

form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in this Paragraph and therefore denies them. 

42. This Paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. To the 

extent a response is deemed necessary, Ericsson is without knowledge or information sufficient to 

form a belief as to the truth of the allegations set forth in this Paragraph and therefore denies them. 

43. Denied with respect to Ericsson products. Ericsson has never sold or deployed base 

Case 2:24-cv-00015-JRG-RSP Document 57 Filed 07/17/24 Page 7 of 11 PageID #: 530
8 

stations that support Integrated Access Backhaul (IAB) in any commercial network. Ericsson is 

without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining 

allegations set forth in this Paragraph and therefore denies them. 

44. Denied with respect to Ericsson products. Ericsson has never sold or deployed base 

stations that support Integrated Access Backhaul (IAB) in any commercial network. Ericsson is 

without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining 

allegations set forth in this Paragraph and therefore denies them. 

45. Denied with respect to Ericsson products. Ericsson has never sold or deployed base 

stations that support Integrated Access Backhaul (IAB) in any commercial network. Ericsson is 

without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining 

allegations set forth in this Paragraph and therefore denies them. 

46. This Paragraph states a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. To the 

extent a response is deemed necessary, Ericsson denies that T-Mobile has infringed the Patentsin-Suit through T-Mobile’s use of Ericsson products. Ericsson is without knowledge or 

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations set forth in this 

Paragraph and therefore denies them. 

JURY DEMAND 

47. No response is necessary to a jury demand. To the extent a response is deemed to 

be required, Ericsson admits that Headwater requests a trial by jury. 

RESPONSE TO HEADWATER’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

 Ericsson denies that Headwater is entitled to any relief with respect to Ericsson products, 

including but not limited to the relief sought by Headwater under Paragraphs A–G of the 

Complaint. 

Case 2:24-cv-00015-JRG-RSP Document 57 Filed 07/17/24 Page 8 of 11 PageID #: 531
9 

DEFENSES 

Without altering the burden of proof, Ericsson asserts the following defenses, which are 

based upon an investigation that is not complete and is prior to the results of any discovery from 

Headwater. Ericsson’s investigation of its defenses is continuing, and Ericsson reserves the right 

to assert all defenses under Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the patent laws of 

the United States, and any other defense, at law or in equity, that may now exist or in the future be 

available based upon discovery and further investigation in this case. 

First Defense 

Ericsson has not infringed, and does not infringe (literally, under the doctrine of 

equivalents, directly, indirectly, contributorily, or by inducement) any valid, enforceable claim of 

the Patents-in-Suit. 

Second Defense 

Ericsson’s actions in defending this case do not give rise to an exceptional case under 35 

U.S.C. § 285. 

Third Defense 

Headwater is not entitled to any form of equitable relief because Headwater has not 

suffered, and will not suffer, irreparable harm as a result of the alleged conduct. Headwater has an 

adequate remedy at law, and the balance of hardships and the public interest do not favor injunctive 

relief. Ericsson further alleges that Headwater is an entity which, upon information and belief, 

does not make or sell any products or services. Accordingly, Ericsson further alleges that 

Headwater could not meet the applicable standard to warrant an injunction. 

Fourth Defense 

Headwater’s right to seek damages is limited, including without limitation, by 35 U.S.C. 

Case 2:24-cv-00015-JRG-RSP Document 57 Filed 07/17/24 Page 9 of 11 PageID #: 532
10 

§§ 286, 287 and 288. 

Fifth Defense 

The claims of the Patents-in-Suit are invalid for failure to meet the conditions for 

patentability set forth in 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq., including without limitation §§ 101, 102, 103, 

and/or 112 thereof. 

Sixth Defense 

To the extent Headwater was not the sole and total owner of all substantial rights in the Patentsin-Suit as of the filing date of the Complaint, Headwater lacks standing to bring one or more claims in 

this lawsuit.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Ericsson demands a trial by jury on all 

issues so triable. 

Dated: July 17, 2024 Respectfully Submitted, 

 /s/ Deron R. Dacus 

Jacob K. Baron, Esq. 

MA Bar No.: 652568 

Email: jacob.baron@hklaw.com 

Joshua C. Krumholz, Esq. 

(LEAD COUNSEL) 

(Pro hac vice) 

MA Bar No.: 552573 

Email: joshua.krumholz@hklaw.com 

Jacob W. S. Schneider, Esq. 

(Pro hac vice) 

MA Bar No.: 675315 

Email: jacob.schneider@hklaw.com 

Allison M. Lucier, Esq. 

(Pro hac vice) 

MA Bar No.: 569193 

Email: allison.lucier@hklaw.com 

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 

10 Saint James Avenue; 11th Floor 

Boston, MA 02116 

Case 2:24-cv-00015-JRG-RSP Document 57 Filed 07/17/24 Page 10 of 11 PageID #: 533
11 

Telephone: 617-523-2700 

Facsimile: 617-523-6850 

Deron R. Dacus 

Texas Bar No. 00790553 

E-mail: ddacus@dacusfirm.com 

THE DACUS FIRM, P.C. 

821 ESE Loop 323, Suite 430 

Tyler, Texas 75701 

903-705-1117 (phone) 

903-581-2543 (fax)

Attorneys for Ericsson Inc. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 17th day of July, 2024, I caused the foregoing Answer 

in Intervention to be filed electronically with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system 

which will send a notice of electronic filing to all counsel of record who are deemed to have 

consented to electronic service. 

/s/ Deron R. Dacus 

Deron R. Dacus, Esq. 

Case 2:24-cv-00015-JRG-RSP Document 57 Filed 07/17/24 Page 11 of 11 PageID #: 534