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.,

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

(Lead Case)

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 86 Filed 01/12/24 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 696
Defendant, 

NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION,

ERICSSON INC.

Intervenors.

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

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 86 Filed 01/12/24 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 697
1

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendants’ motion to consolidate the Carrier 1 cases and the Carrier 2 cases, and put all 

cases on the same schedule as the later-filed Carrier 2 cases, is without merit and should be denied. 

The purpose of Rule 42 is to promote judicial economy and reduce unnecessary costs or delay. But 

consolidating the two sets of cases, which were filed eight months apart and thus are at completely 

different stages, would not meaningfully reduce costs at all. There are zero overlapping patents 

and the accused functionalities differ. Indeed, the ’802 patent asserted in the Carrier 2 cases is not 

related to the patents asserted in the Carrier 1 cases and there are no overlapping inventors. Thus, 

the Carrier 1 and Carrier 2 cases will require separate discovery and claim construction regardless 

of consolidation. And to the extent there is any overlap, the Court has already ordered cross-use of 

documents and source code in order to minimize duplication.

Defendants attempt to downplay the substantial prejudice to Cobblestone that would result 

if their motion were granted by arguing that it would only set the Carrier 1 cases back by a “few 

months.” This is simply untrue. Trial in the Carrier 1 cases is currently set for September 2024, 

whereas trial in the Carrier 2 cases is in May 2025. The requested consolidation would thus delay 

Carrier 1 by eight months, which is substantial. Indeed, this Court recently denied consolidation 

where the cases had far more in common than they do here because they were “too far apart” in 

time. Entropic Commc’ns, LLC v. Charter Commc’ns, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00125-JRG, 2023 WL 

5613185, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 29, 2023). The same reasoning applies here.

Notably, during the parties’ meet and confer, Cobblestone offered to put the Carrier 2 cases 

on the same track as the Carrier 1 cases in order to address Defendants’ purported concerns about 

duplication and costs. Defendants rejected this proposal, confirming that their primary goal is 

delay. This is improper. Their motion should be denied.

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 86 Filed 01/12/24 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 698
2

II. BACKGROUND

Defendants’ motion seeks to consolidate two sets of consolidated cases, filed eight months 

apart, that are on different schedules and concern different patents and different accused 

instrumentalities. The first set of consolidated cases, which Defendants refer to as the 

“Cobblestone 1.0 Carrier Cases” (hereafter referred to as the “Carrier 1” cases), were filed in 

December 2022:

• Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00477 (E.D. Tex.) (lead 

case), filed on December 16, 2022;

• Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. Verizon Communications Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00478 (E.D. 

Tex.), filed on December 16, 2022; and

• Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. AT&T Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00474 (E.D. Tex.), filed on 

December 15, 2022.

In each of these cases, Cobblestone alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,891,347 

(“’347 patent”), 9,094,888 (“’888 patent”), 10,368,361 (“’361 patent”), and 8,554,196 (the “’196 

patent”). As set forth in Cobblestone’s infringement contentions served on March 13, 2022, the 

accused products in the Carrier 1 cases include (1) cellular base stations that support 3GPP 5G NR 

beamforming, handover between 4G and 5G NR wireless networks, or directional Supplementary 

Uplink (SUL) and/or Bandwidth Adaptation functionality, (2) cellular user equipment and Wi-Fi 

gateway devices that supports 3GPP 5G NR beamforming, and (3) cellular handsets, tablets, or 

smartwatches that support Wi-Fi-only automatic updates. Mirzaie Decl. ¶ 2. At a high level, 

beamforming is a technique that uses multiple antennas at the base station to form directional 

beams towards user devices, improving the signal quality and the spectral efficiency. Handover is 

the process of transferring a mobile device’s connection from one network to another, while 

maintaining the continuity and quality of the services. Directional supplementary uplink and/or 

bandwidth adaptation allows base stations to adjust the frequency spectrum utilized according to 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 86 Filed 01/12/24 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 699
3

the channel conditions and mobile device requirements. Wi-Fi-only automatic updates is a feature 

that allows a device to update applications or software only when connected to a Wi-Fi network, 

thus saving cellular data and battery life. Jury selection is set to begin in the Carrier 1 cases on 

September 23, 2024.

The second set of consolidated cases, which Defendants refer to as the “Cobblestone 2.0 

Carrier Cases” (hereafter referred to as the “Carrier 2” cases), were filed eight months later in 

August 2023:

• Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, No. 2:23-cv00382 (E.D. Tex.) (lead case), filed on August 25, 2023; 

• Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. AT&T Services Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00380 (E.D. Tex.), filed 

on August 25, 2023; and 

• Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00381 (E.D. Tex.), filed 

on August 25, 2023.

The asserted patent in those cases, U.S. Patent No. 7,924,802 (“’802 patent”), comes from 

a different family than those asserted in the Carrier 1 case. As set forth in Cobblestone’s 

infringement contentions served on December 11, 2023, the accused products in the Carrier 2 cases 

include cellular base stations, mobile products, and services that support 3GPP carrier aggregation.

Mirzaie Decl. ¶ 3. At a high level, 3GPP carrier aggregation is a technology that allows a device 

to use multiple frequency ranges simultaneously for faster and more reliable data transmission. 

Jury selection is currently set for May 19, 2025—eight months after the trial in the Carrier 1 cases.

The accused products and accused functionalities are fundamentally different as described 

in detail above even if there is some general overlap between the Carrier 1 and Carrier 2 cases. 

Given the highly specialized settings in which these functionalities are typically developed, it is 

unlikely for there to be meaningful overlap in Defendants’ technical witnesses. Defendants also 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 86 Filed 01/12/24 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 700
4

have not identified any technical witnesses in Carrier 2 to date, thus any purported overlap is 

speculative. See Mirzaie ¶ 9.

Importantly, Cobblestone has already agreed to, and the Court has ordered, the cross-use 

of documents and source code in order to minimize duplication and Cobblestone remains open to 

additional streamlining proposals. See Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a 

Verizon Wireless, No. 2:23-cv-00382, Dkt. No. 69 at 7 (E.D. Tex.). And during the parties’ meet 

and confers, Cobblestone made clear that it was amenable to putting the Carrier 2 cases on the 

same schedule as the Carrier 1 cases (rather than delaying the Carrier 1 cases eight months to put 

them on the same schedule as the Carrier 2 cases, which is what Defendants propose). Mirzaie 

Decl. ¶ 4. This would address Defendants’ purported concerns about “unnecessary repetition and 

costs” and avoid delaying trial in the Carrier 1 cases. Defendants, however, rejected this proposal. 

Id.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

“Under Rule 42(a), where actions involve a common question of law or fact, ‘the court 

may ... consolidate the actions.’” Entropic, 2023 WL 5613185, at *1 (emphasis in original). 

However, “common issues do not mandate consolidation.” Network Sys. Techs., LLC v. Samsung 

Elecs. Co., No. 2:22-cv-00481-JRG, 2023 WL 4534358, at *3 (E.D. Tex. July 13, 2023). The rule 

“is permissive and vests a purely discretionary power in the district court.” Id. “Consolidation is 

improper if it would prejudice the rights of the parties,” or where the cases are “different stages of 

preparedness for trial.” St. Bernard Gen. Hosp., Inc. v. Hosp. Serv. Ass’n of New Orleans, Inc., 712 

F.2d 978, 889, 990 (5th Cir. 1983). 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 86 Filed 01/12/24 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 701
5

IV. ARGUMENT

As set forth below, consolidation of the Carrier 1 and Carrier 2 cases is inappropriate here. 

While there may be some general overlap in the issues when viewed at a high level, consolidation 

will not meaningfully reduce duplication or costs given that there are no overlapping patents or 

patent families, and the accused functionalities across the two cases are different. Thus, each set 

of the Carrier cases will require separate discovery and claim construction. Any minimal cost 

savings is far outweighed by the significant prejudice by delaying Cobblestone’s day in court for

the Carrier 1 cases by eight months. 

A. Consolidation Will Not Meaningfully Reduce Duplication and Costs Given 

That There Are No Overlapping Patent Families and Different Accused 

Functionalities 

The Court has already consolidated the three Carrier 1 cases and the three Carrier 2 cases, 

which makes sense because the asserted patent families across the respective consolidated cases 

are the same. In contrast, there are zero overlapping patent families between the Carrier 1 and 

Carrier 2 cases. The patent asserted in the Carrier 2 cases (the ’802 patent) is not asserted in any 

of the Carrier 1 cases. In addition, while Defendants speculate in their motion that “the accused 

products in both cases will be substantially the same, if not identical” (Mot. at 6), that is simply 

not the case. As set forth above, the Carrier 1 cases concern products pertaining to beamforming, 

supplemental uplink, bandwidth adaptation, handover, and wifi-only automatic updates, whereas 

the Carrier 2 cases focus on products pertaining to carrier aggregation. The Carrier 1 cases also

focus on mobile devices pertaining to 5G beamforming or wifi-only automatic updates, while the

Carrier 2 cases, focuses on mobile devices pertaining to 4G and 5G carrier aggregation. Mirzaie 

Decl. ¶ 8. Defendants have not demonstrated the extent to which the accused products actually 

overlap or not, other than offering speculation. The mere fact that both cases generally concern 4G 

and 5G wireless standards is of little consequence given that the cases focus on different specific 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 86 Filed 01/12/24 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 702
6

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

discovery. And regardless, to the extent there is overlap in the issues and discovery, Cobblestone 

has already agreed to, and the Court has ordered, the cross-use of documents and source code in 

order to minimize duplication and reduce costs and Cobblestone remains open to additional 

streamlining proposals. 

Defendants’ assertion that consolidation of the Carrier 1 and Carrier 2 cases “would remove 

three trials, a Markman hearing, and at least one pretrial conference” (Mot. at 9) does not mean 

the issues would be reduced; it simply means Cobblestone’s day in court will be delayed, and the 

Court and the jury would have to deal with more unrelated issues at once. Further, combining the 

Markman hearings and pretrial conferences will not reduce efforts or costs given the different 

asserted patent families, claim terms, and accused functionalities. For example, the parties will 

still have to litigate, and the Court will still have to separately construe, the disputed terms of the 

’802 patent regardless of whether the Markman hearing in the Carrier 2 cases is held at the same 

time as the Markman in the Carrier 1 cases. 

Defendants further argue that consolidation “will avoid unnecessary repetition and costs 

because Cobblestone 2.0 is scheduled directly behind the Samsung Case,” and that litigation of 

claims against the manufacturer should take precedence over the customer defendants. Mot. at 6–

7. By “Samsung Case,” Defendants are referring to Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. Samsung 

Electronics, Co., No. 2L23-cv-00285-JRG (E.D. Tex.). Defendants’ argument fails for multiple 

reasons. As an initial matter, the cases cited by Defendants concern staying the claims against the 

customer defendants pending resolution of the manufacturer suit. A motion to stay based on the 

customer suit exception involves a completely different standard than a motion to consolidate, and 

requires consideration of several factors, including whether the customer defendants have agreed 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 86 Filed 01/12/24 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 703
7

to be bound by the outcome of the manufacturer suit. See, e.g., Spread Spectrum Screening LLC v. 

Eastman Kodak Co., 657 F.3d 1349, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Defendants have not made any showing 

that the case against Samsung will resolve any of the issues in the carrier cases. Nor can they, given 

that Samsung is not the only manufacturer/supplier of accused products; others include Nokia, 

Ericsson (both of which have intervened in both sets of Carrier cases), and Apple. See, e.g., Ex. 3 

at 2. Additionally, customer-suit stays are typically where the customer is a “mere reseller” (see, 

e.g., id. at 1357), and here, the Carrier Defendants typically implement the accused products in 

highly customized networks, such that their use of the equipment is often highly customized to 

their particular network needs. Furthermore, Defendants have not agreed to be bound by any

decisions in the Samsung case. Mirzaie Decl. ¶ 5. But perhaps more fundamentally, it is simply 

inappropriate for Defendants to use a motion to consolidate as a means to obtain their preference 

to have the Samsung claims tried first. 

Finally, Defendants’ concerns about potential jury confusion and inconsistent results are 

overblown. Defendants only vaguely allude to common defenses with “common issues of fact” 

such as “Cobblestone’s licensing history and discussions with each Carrier Defendant.” Mot. at 7. 

But Defendants fail to explain how the mere presence of such highly generalized alleged “common 

issues of fact” could confuse the jury. And even assuming this is a legitimate concern, the Court 

can “instruct the jury and cabin party arguments to limit jury confusion, which is an inherent risk 

when any single case from a group of complex cases goes to trial.” Entropic, 2023 WL 5613185, 

at *2. Furthermore, the doctrine of collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) should sufficiently protect 

against the danger of inconsistent outcomes should the same issues arise in the Carrier 2 cases. See 

id. (noting that defendant “may litigate ... issue preclusion if it wishes” and “it is not unfair to 

[defendant] to ask it to defend itself”).

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 86 Filed 01/12/24 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 704
8

B. Consolidation Will Substantially Prejudice Cobblestone by Delaying Trial in 

the Carrier 1 Cases for Eight Months

It is well-established that consolidation is inappropriate where it would result in prejudice 

or where the cases are “different stages of preparedness for trial.” St. Bernard, 712 F.2d at 889, 

990. And here, it is clear that the two sets of cases are at different stages, as they were filed eight 

months apart and thus have different schedules with different deadlines and different trial dates. 

Trial in the Carrier 1 cases is set for September 2024, and trial in the Carrier 2 cases is set eight 

months later in May 2025. Mirzaie Decl. ¶ 6. In the Carrier 1 cases, the parties have already 

completed certain claim construction disclosures, fact discovery is well underway and set to close 

in under four months, and expert discovery is set to close in under five months. See Id.; Dkt. No. 

62 (Carrier 1 lead case). By contrast, the Carrier 2 cases are still in the pleading stage and, for 

example, claim construction disclosures are not even set to begin until July (after the close of 

expert discovery in the Carrier 1 cases). See Mirzaie Decl. ¶ 6; Dkt. No. 66 (Carrier 2 lead case). 

Thus, there can be no question that the cases are at different stages of preparedness for trial. See 

AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Waze Mobile Ltd., No. 2:19-cv-00359-JRG, 2022 WL 1608047, at *4 

(E.D. Tex. May 20, 2022) (denying motion to consolidate where the cases had “different trial 

schedules ... with varying deadlines, and consequently, they ‘are at different stages of 

preparedness for trial’”). 

Defendants attempt to downplay the delay that would result from their requested 

consolidation, asserting that they only want to “move Cobblestone 1.0 back by a few months.” 

Mot. at 8. This is a gross understatement. Consolidation would delay the Carrier 1 cases by eight 

months. Defendants’proposal would derail the discovery progress in the Carrier 1 cases. Discovery 

has been open since April 2023 and is set to close soon, in May 2024. Mirzaie Decl. ¶ 7. Defendants 

and Intervenors Ericsson and Nokia have responded to numerous interrogatories and have 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 86 Filed 01/12/24 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 705
9

produced hundreds of thousands of pages of documents. Id. The parties have engaged in multiple 

rounds of discovery correspondence. Id. Cobblestone’s source code expert has conducted code 

review multiple times. Id. In contrast, discovery has just opened in the Carrier 2 cases. Id.

Defendants’ proposal to delay Cobblestone’s day in Court for eight months, in view of a case where 

discovery has just opened, does not make logical sense and is unduly prejudicial to Cobblestone.

For example, in Entropic, this Court denied consolidation despite the patents in the two 

actions sharing the same specification and inventors, and despite the accused products and services 

sharing the “same definition,” because the cases were “simply too far apart for it to be practical to 

consolidate them.” 2023 WL 5613185, at *1-2. In that case, the trials were ten months apart, which 

is similar to the eight-month difference between the Carrier 1 and Carrier 2 trials here. The

Entropic Court found that plaintiff “should not have to delay in bringing its case to trial before a 

jury.” Id. at *2. The Court also rejected the defendant’s concerns about “litigat[ing] the same case 

twice” and potential jury confusion, explaining that “discovery between these actions will overlap, 

such that discovery does not have to be wholly duplicative between the First and Second Actions,” 

and that the similarities between the patents-in-suit will actually “simplify claim construction” in 

the second action. Id. The Court further explained any potential jury confusion can be remedied 

with appropriate jury instructions, and that defendants have the option to litigate issue preclusion 

if they so choose. Id. In conclusion, the Entropic Court recognized that any additional costs that 

may result from denying consolidation are “insufficient to overcome the burdens of consolidating 

two cases that are at very different stages of development and readiness.” Id.

The same analysis applies here. Indeed, there is even less reason to consolidate the Carrier 

1 and Carrier 2 given that, unlike Entropic, the ’802 patent family is not related to the patent

families asserted in the Carrier 1 cases, there are no overlapping inventors, and the accused 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 86 Filed 01/12/24 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 706
10

instrumentalities are different. As in Entropic, Defendants’ purported concerns about duplication 

and jury confusion can easily be remedied through cross-use agreements, issue preclusion, and 

jury instructions.

Defendants’ assertion that the delay that would result from consolidation is somehow 

Cobblestone’s fault because it waited until August 2023 to assert the ’802 patent against them 

(Mot. at 8) is nonsensical. As noted by Defendants, the ’802 patent was not assigned to 

Cobblestone until April 2023—four months after it filed the Carrier 1 cases. Accordingly, 

Cobblestone opted to file a new case rather than seek amendment, as it was fully within its rights 

to do. Not surprisingly, Defendants cite no authority to support the proposition that Cobblestone 

was somehow obligated to seek to amend the Carrier 1 cases to add the ’802 patent—which is 

unrelated to any of the Carrier 1 patents. Nor do they cite any authority to support the notion that 

filing complaints a mere four months after acquiring the patent was somehow unreasonable. 

Instead, Defendants offer only attorney argument, claiming that “[b]y asserting all five 

patents against Samsung and accusing the same technology, Cobblestone has evidenced that it is 

capable of litigating all five patents at the same time in a single trial.” Mot. at 8. This misses the 

point. Whether Cobblestone is “capable” of litigating all five patents together is irrelevant and does 

not change the fact that the requested consolidation would substantially delay the Carrier 1 cases 

and prejudice Cobblestone’s right to a timely trial. Indeed, in Entropic the Court rejected a nearly 

identical argument. See 2023 WL 5613185, at *2 (rejecting argument that plaintiff “filed a case in 

California that included all eight patents from both the First and Second Actions here” and denying 

consolidation because the cases were “too far apart”).

Notably, Defendants fail to mention that Cobblestone offered to put the Carrier 2 cases on 

the same schedule as the Carrier 1 cases, which would address their purported concerns about 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 86 Filed 01/12/24 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 707
11

duplication and inconsistent results while also avoiding any delay and prejudice to Cobblestone. 

See Mirzaie Decl. ¶ 4. Defendants rejected this proposal, which confirms that their primary goal 

is delay, not efficiency. See id. Where, as here, Defendants’ motion “appears to be nothing more 

than a veiled attempt to delay trial” in the Carrier 1 cases, “proceeding with the order of trials as 

currently scheduled avoids prejudice and delay, ensures judicial economy, and safeguards 

principles of fundamental fairness.” AGIS Software, 2022 WL 1608047, at *4 (cleaned up).

V. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to consolidate should be denied.

Dated: January 12, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Reza Mirzaie

Reza Mirzaie

CA State Bar No. 246953

Marc A. Fenster

CA State Bar No. 181067

Neil A. Rubin

CA State Bar No. 250761

Amy E. Hayden

CA State Bar No. 287026

Christian W. Conkle

CA State Bar No. 306374

Jonathan Ma

CA State Bar No. 312773

RUSS AUGUST & KABAT

12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th 

Floor Los Angeles, CA 90025

Telephone: 310-826-7474

Email: rmirzaie@raklaw.com

Email: mfenster@raklaw.com

Email: nrubin@raklaw.com

Email: ahayden@raklaw.com

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 86 Filed 01/12/24 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: 708
12

Email: cconkle@raklaw.com

Email: jma@raklaw.com 

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 86 Filed 01/12/24 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 709
13

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was filed electronically in 

compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a) and served via email on all counsel of record January 12, 

2024. 

/s/ Reza Mirzaie

Reza Mirzaie

Case 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP Document 86 Filed 01/12/24 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 710