IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a 

VERIZON WIRELESS, 

Defendant, 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP 

(Lead Case) 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

AT&T SERVICES INC.; AT&T 

MOBILITY LLC; AT&T CORP., 

Defendants, 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00380-JRG-RSP 

(Member Case) 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

T-MOBILE USA, INC. 

Defendant, 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00381-JRG-RSP 

(Member Case) 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

-------------------------------------------------------AND------------------------------------------------------- 

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

T-MOBILE USA, INC. 

Defendant, 

NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION, 

ERICSSON INC. 

Intervenors. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CASE NO. 2:22-cv-00477-JRG-RSP 

(Lead Case) 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 89 Filed 01/19/24 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 721
COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

AT&T SERVICES INC.; AT&T 

MOBILITY LLC; AT&T CORP., 

Defendants, 

NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION, 

ERICSSON INC. 

Intervenors. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CASE NO. 2:22-cv-00474-JRG-RSP 

(Member Case) 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a 

VERIZON WIRELESS, 

Defendant, 

NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION, 

ERICSSON INC. 

Intervenors. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CASE NO. 2:22-cv-00478-JRG-RSP 

(Member Case) 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSED MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE 

CASES1

1

 This Reply is being filed in both the Cobblestone 1.0 Carrier Cases and Cobblestone 2.0 Carrier 

Cases concurrently. 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 89 Filed 01/19/24 Page 2 of 12 PageID #: 722
i 

Table of Exhibits 

Exhibit Description 

A E-Mail from Barton to Mirzaie 

B E-Mail from Barton to Mirzaie 

C E-Mail from Deane to Ma 

D Exhibit B to Cobblestone’s Preliminary 

Infringement Contentions served March 13, 

2023 in Case No. 2:22-cv-00477-JRG-RSP 

for U.S. Patent No. 9,094,888 

E Cobblestone Wireless, LLC’s Preliminary 

Disclosure of Asserted Claims and 

Infringement Contentions served December 

11, 2023 in Case No. 2:23-cv-00381-JRGRSP 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 89 Filed 01/19/24 Page 3 of 12 PageID #: 723
ii 

Table of Authorities 

Cases

Immersion Corp. v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. et al., 

No. 2:17-cv-00572-JRG Dkt. 61 (Order) (E.D. Tex. June 8, 2018) ....................................... 1, 3 

Dupont v. S. Pac. Co., 

366 F.2d 193 (5th Cir. 1966) ...................................................................................................... 4 

Immersion Corp. v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. et al., 

 No. 2:17-cv-00572-JRG, Dkt. 53 (Opposition to Motion) (E.D. Tex. May 11, 2018) .............. 1 

Immersion Corp. v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. et al., 

No. 2:17-cv-00572-JRG, Dkt. 48 (Motion) (E.D. Tex. Apr. 27, 2018) ...................................... 5 

Entropic Commc'ns, LLC v. Charter Commc’ns, Inc., 

No. 2:22-cv-00125-JRG, 2023 WL 5613185 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 29, 2023) .................................. 5

Spread Spectrum Screenings, LLC v. Eastman Kodak Co., 

657 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2011)................................................................................................... 4 

St. Bernard Gen. Hosp., Inc. v. Hosp. Serv. Ass’n of New Orleans, Inc., 

712 F.2d 889 (5th Cir. 1983) ...................................................................................................... 4 

Tex. Advanced Optoelectronic Sols., Inc. v. Renesas Elecs. Am., Inc., 

895 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................... 4 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 89 Filed 01/19/24 Page 4 of 12 PageID #: 724
1 

Cobblestone should not be permitted to waste party and Court resources because of its 

decision to file actions litigating the same claims across multiple cases. Consolidation would result 

in significant efficiencies by removing three trials from the Court’s calendar and resolving all 

claims asserted against each carrier in a single respective trial against each carrier. Although 

Cobblestone claims the delay would be prejudicial, no substantial activity has started in any of the 

cases, and the delay is of Cobblestone’s own making. Thus, the conservation of judicial and party 

resources gained from consolidation far outweighs any alleged prejudice to Cobblestone. 

I. ARGUMENT 

A. Consolidation Will Meaningfully Reduce Duplication and Costs 

Issues of law and fact meaningfully overlap between the Cobblestone 1.0 cases, 

Cobblestone 2.0 cases, and the Samsung case. Cobblestone’s arguments to the contrary fail. First, 

the fact that different families are at issue in Cobblestone 1.0 and 2.0 does not weigh against 

consolidation. On a nearly identical set of facts, this Court has previously rejected the argument 

that consolidation is not appropriate simply because “different patent families” are involved. See

Immersion Corp. v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. et al., No. 2:17-cv-00572-JRG, Dkt. 53 at 7 

(Opposition to Motion) (E.D. Tex. May 11, 2018) (arguing against consolidation because “the two 

actions involve different patent families”). Instead, on similar facts, this Court has found that 

“consolidation will promote judicial efficiency and prevent unnecessary costs resulting from two 

separate yet duplicative Markman hearings and trials.” Id., Dkt. 61 at 1 (Order) (E.D. Tex. June 8, 

2018). That is exactly what Defendants ask for, and the Court should find, here. 

Second, during the pendency of this motion, Cobblestone served its infringement 

contentions in the Cobblestone 2.0 cases, specifically identifying the exact same base stations 

identified in the Cobblestone 1.0 cases: 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 89 Filed 01/19/24 Page 5 of 12 PageID #: 725
2 

E.g., Accused Base Stations (Cobblestone 

1.0) for 888 Patent 

E.g., Accused Base Stations (Cobblestone 

2.0) for 802 Patent 

Nokia: AirScale base station, AirScale radio 

and baseband, AirScale 5G mMIMO base 

station, ReefShark System on Chip and all 

products containing the same, AirScale 

Osprey, AirScale Habrok, AirScale mRRH, 

AirScale pRRH, AirScale 4.5G Pro RRH, 

AirScale sHUB, FZHR, FHFB, AZHL, 

AAFIA, 32TRX, 64TRX 

Nokia: AirScale base station, AirScale radio 

and baseband, AirScale 5G mMIMO base 

station, ReefShark System on Chip and all 

products containing the same, AirScale 

Osprey, AirScale Habrok, AirScale mRRH, 

AirScale pRRH, AirScale 4.5G Pro RRH, 

AirScale sHUB, FZHR, FHFB, AZHL, 

AAFIA, 32TRX, 64TRX 

Ericsson: 5G AIR Products, 5G Baseband 

products, 5G Radio products, 5G Antenna 

products, 4G AIR products, 4G Baseband 

Products, 4G Radio products, 4G Antenna 

products, AIR 1279, AIR 3218, AIR 3219, 

AIR 3229, AIR 3239, AIR 3246, AIR 3258, 

AIR 3268, AIR3283, AIRE 6419, AIR 6428, 

AIR 6468, AIR 6476, AIR 6488, Interleaved 

AIR, Baseband 5216, Baseband 6502, 

Baseband 6648, 5G Radio Dot, Radio 4407, 

Radio 4408, Radio 4412, Radio 4418, Radio 

4485, Radio 4490, Radio 8808, Radio 8863, 

Antenna 4600, Antenna 4602, Antenna 5500, 

and Antenna 6600 

Ericsson: 5G AIR Products, 5G Baseband 

products, 5G Radio products, 5G Antenna 

products, 4G AIR products, 4G Baseband 

Products, 4G Radio products, 4G Antenna 

products, AIR 1279, AIR 3218, AIR 3219, 

AIR 3229, AIR 3239, AIR 3246, AIR 3258, 

AIR 3268, AIR3283, AIRE 6419, AIR 6428, 

AIR 6468, AIR 6476, AIR 6488, Interleaved 

AIR, Baseband 5216, Baseband 6502, 

Baseband 6648, 5G Radio Dot, Radio 4407, 

Radio 4408, Radio 4412, Radio 4418, Radio 

4485, Radio 4490, Radio 8808, Radio 8863, 

Antenna 4600, Antenna 4602, Antenna 5500, 

and Antenna 6600 

Samsung: 4G base stations, 5G base stations, 

4T4R CBRS Radio, 32T32R Radio, 64T64R 

Radio, C-Band Radio, CDU50, One Antenna 

Radio, Link Hub, and Link HubPro. 

Samsung: 4G base stations, 5G base stations, 

4T4R CBRS Radio, 32T32R Radio, 64T64R 

Radio, C-Band Radio, CDU50, One Antenna 

Radio, Link Hub, and Link HubPro. 

Ex. D (Cobblestone 1.0 Infr. Contentions) at 1; Ex. E (Cobblestone 2.0 Inf. Contentions) at 2. 

Thus, Cobblestone’s statement that “Defendants speculate in their motion that the accused 

products in both cases will be substantially the same” carries no weight. Defendants’ statement 

proved completely true. Resp. at 5. Again, given the overlap in Accused Products, consolidation 

is appropriate. 

Third, the fact that both 4G and 5G functionality is accused across the cases and patents 

weighs in favor of consolidation for discovery, not against it. Indeed, Cobblestone asserts the exact 

same five patents against Samsung in the Samsung case, which shows that Cobblestone believes 

all discovery for all accused functionality can be dealt with in one case. Cobblestone further 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 89 Filed 01/19/24 Page 6 of 12 PageID #: 726
3 

acknowledged this overlap when it agreed to the cross-use of documents and source code in the 

Cobblestone 1.0 and 2.0 cases. Resp. at 6. Thus, Cobblestone's argument that “different specific 

functionalities of the accused base stations and user equipment . . . will thus require different 

discovery” is without merit. Cobblestone’s argument is just a distraction from the main focus of 

Rule 42(a), which is the promotion of judicial economy. An agreement to the cross-use of 

documents and the issues about specific functionality in discovery does nothing to lighten the 

burden of additional jury trials, additional Markman hearings, and additional pretrial conferences 

on the Court. Immersion Corp., No. 2:17-cv-00572-JRG, Dkt. 61 (Order) (E.D. Tex. June 8, 2018). 

As explained in detail in Defendants’ Motion, the Court is well-poised to use its discretion to 

consolidate these cases to prevent duplicative Markman hearings and pre-trial conferences. For 

example, the Court should reject Cobblestone’s argument about the need to separately construe 

the ’802 patent because it discounts the cost-savings of consolidation and ignores the lion’s share 

of costs associated with conducting two Markman proceedings instead of one, including the 

duplication of the Court’s time, the technical advisor’s time, and the party resources needed for 

multiple expert declarations and multiple rounds of briefing. Moreover, without consolidation, 

Cobblestone completely ignores that any disputed terms of the ’802 patent will also need to be 

construed in the Samsung case. It makes little sense for Cobblestone to seek to double (or triple) 

the burden on the Court and the parties to litigate identical issues. 

Fourth, consolidating Cobblestone 1.0 into Cobblestone 2.0 will avoid unnecessary 

repetition and costs because Cobblestone 2.0 is scheduled directly behind the Samsung Case (e.g., 

the Samsung Case has a May 5, 2025 trial date and Cobblestone 2.0 has a May 19, 2025 trial date). 

To be clear, Cobblestone is asserting the same patents against Samsung in both the Samsung case 

(where the allegations are made directly against Samsung) and the Cobblestone 1.0 and 2.0 cases 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 89 Filed 01/19/24 Page 7 of 12 PageID #: 727
4 

(where they are made against the Carriers that allegedly use Samsung equipment). Rather than 

addressing the increased efficiencies of resolving Cobblestone’s infringement allegations against 

Samsung equipment first, Cobblestone merely argues that the factors considered on a motion to 

stay based on the customer suit exception are different than the standard for a motion to 

consolidate. Resp. at 6-7. However, the same guiding principles of efficiency and judicial economy 

apply for a motion to consolidate and the customer suit exception. Spread Spectrum Screenings, 

LLC v. Eastman Kodak Co., 657 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[T]he guiding principles in 

the customer suit exception cases are efficiency and judicial economy.”) Cf. Dupont v. S. Pac. Co., 

366 F.2d 193, 195-96 (5th Cir. 1966) (“[T]rial judges are urged to make good use of Rule 42(a)” 

to “expedite the trial and eliminate unnecessary repetition and confusion.”). Cobblestone also 

ignores that the Samsung Case will necessarily have an impact on Cobblestone 1.0 and 2.0. 

Samsung products (e.g. Samsung handsets) are accused of infringing the Asserted Patents in the 

Samsung case for the sale of those products to the carriers, and those same products are accused 

of infringement in the Cobblestone 1.0 and 2.0 cases. Cobblestone cannot recover for infringement 

of the same exact product in both cases. Tex. Advanced Optoelectronic Sols., Inc. v. Renesas Elecs. 

Am., Inc., 895 F.3d 1304, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[D]ouble recovery for the same injury is 

inappropriate.”). 

B. Consolidation Will Not Prejudice Cobblestone. 

First, the Cobblestone 1.0 cases and Cobblestone 2.0 cases are not at meaningfully 

“different stages of preparedness for trial[.]” St. Bernard Gen. Hosp., Inc. v. Hosp. Serv. Ass’n of 

New Orleans, Inc., 712 F.2d 889, 990 (5th Cir. 1983). In the Cobblestone 1.0 Case, no substantial 

activity has occurred yet (the parties only just exchanged proposed claim terms on January 9 after 

this Motion was filed), no depositions are scheduled, and fact and expert discovery remain open 

for nearly four and five months, respectively. No substantial activity has taken place in the 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 89 Filed 01/19/24 Page 8 of 12 PageID #: 728
5 

Cobblestone 2.0 cases either. Thus, the circumstances are materially different from those in 

Entropic Comm’cns, LLC v. Charter Commc’ns, Inc., which Cobblestone relies on extensively in 

its Response. Resp. at 8-10. No. 2:22-cv-00125-JRG, 2023 WL 5613185 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 29, 

2023). In Entropic, consolidation was denied because the cases were “too far apart,” and the first 

action was “nearing the end of expert discovery” while fact discovery was just opening in the 

second action. 2023 WL 5613185, at *6. The circumstances here are materially different, as no 

substantial activity has occurred in any case. Instead, the stages of the cases here are similar that 

in Immersion Corp., where this Court ordered consolidation of two actions in which document 

production in the first action was proceeding, but no deposition had been scheduled, and only an 

answer to the Complaint was filed in the second action. No. 2:17-cv-00572-JRG, Dkt. 48 at 5-6 

(Motion) (E.D. Tex. Apr. 27, 2018). 

Second, any prejudice from delay is due to Cobblestone’s own making. As explained in 

Defendants’ Motion, Cobblestone sat on the ’802 Patent for months before asserting it in 

Cobblestone 2.0. Thus, Cobblestone’s statement that its “day in court” will be delayed has no 

merit. Resp. at 9. 

 Third, the only compromise that Cobblestone has offered is to move the Cobblestone 2.0 

cases to place it on the Cobblestone 1.0 schedule. This proposal prejudices Defendants’ ability to 

conduct a fulsome investigation of the ’802 patent, as Cobblestone just served its infringement 

contentions mere weeks ago. Cobblestone thus seeks to hamstring Defendants because of its 

purposeful delay, which is fundamentally improper. 

Defendants respectfully request that the Court consolidate Cobblestone 1.0 and 

Cobblestone 2.0 and adopt the Docket Control Order for Cobblestone 2.0. 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 89 Filed 01/19/24 Page 9 of 12 PageID #: 729
6 

Respectfully submitted: January 19, 2024 

/s/ David S. Frist 

David S. Frist 

 David.Frist@alston.com 

John Daniel Haynes 

 John.Haynes@alston.com 

Emily Welch 

 Emily.Welch@alston.com 

Michael Clayton Deane 

 Michael.Deane@alston.com 

Sloane Sueanne Kyrazis 

 Sloane.Kyrazis@alston.com 

ALSTON & BIRD LLP 

1201 West Peachtree Street NW 

Atlanta, GA 30309 

404-881-7000 

Fax: 404-881-7777 

Ross Ritter Barton 

 Ross.Barton@alston.com 

ALSTON & BIRD LLP 

1120 South Tryon Street 

Suite 300 

Charlotte, NC 28203 

704-444-1287 

Fax: 704-444-1111 

Theodore Stevenson, III 

 Ted.Stevenson@alston.com 

Adam Ahnhut 

 Adam.ahnhut@alston.com 

ALSTON & BIRD LLP 

2200 Ross Ave 

Suite 2300 

Dallas, TX 75201 

214-922-3507 

Fax: 214-922-3899 

Attorneys for AT&T Services, Inc., AT&T 

Corp., AT&T Mobility LLC, T-Mobile USA, 

Inc., and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon 

Wireless, Ericsson Inc. and Nokia of America 

Corporation 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 89 Filed 01/19/24 Page 10 of 12 PageID #: 730
7 

Deron Dacus 

ddacus@dacusfirm.com 

The Dacus Firm 

821 ESE Loop 323, Suite 430 

Tyler, TX 75701 

903-705-1117 

Fax: 903-581-2543 

Attorney for AT&T Services, Inc., AT&T 

Corp., AT&T Mobility LLC, Cellco 

Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Ericsson 

Inc. and Nokia of America Corporation 

Melissa R. Smith 

melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com 

Tom Gorham 

tom@gillamsmithlaw.com 

Gillam & Smith LLP 

102 N. College, Suite 800 

Tyler, TX 75702 

903-934-8450 

Fax: 903-934-9257 

Attorneys for T-Mobile USA, Inc.

 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 89 Filed 01/19/24 Page 11 of 12 PageID #: 731
8 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document has been 

served on January 19, 2024, on the counsel of record via electronic mail. 

/s/ David S. Frist 

David S. Frist 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 89 Filed 01/19/24 Page 12 of 12 PageID #: 732