IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

PEGASUS WIRELESS INNOVATION 

LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. 

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A 

VERIZON WIRELESS, et al.,

Defendants,

ERICSSON INC. and NOKIA OF 

AMERICA CORP.,

Intervenors.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00640-JRG

(Lead Case)

PEGASUS WIRELESS INNOVATION 

LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

AT&T CORP, et al.,

Defendants,

ERICSSON INC. and NOKIA OF 

AMERICA CORP.,

Intervenors.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00638-JRG

(Member Case)

PEGASUS WIRELESS INNOVATION 

LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

T-MOBILE USA, INC., et al.,

Defendants,

ERICSSON INC. and NOKIA OF 

AMERICA CORP.,

Intervenors.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00639-JRG

(Member Case)

Case 2:23-cv-00640-JRG Document 178 Filed 12/12/24 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 4533
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court are (1) Counterclaim-Defendant KT Corporation’s (“KT”) Motion for 

Protective Order from Non-Jurisdictional Discovery (the “PO Motion,” Dkt. No. 150), and (2) 

Defendants1 and Intervenors’2 Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery Requests from 

Counterclaim-Defendant KT Corporation (the “MTC,” Dkt. No. 151, and with the PO Motion, the 

“Motions”). In the PO Motion, KT requests “a protective order seeking relief from nonjurisdictional discovery under FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1), Local Rule CV-26(d), and this Court’s 

Discovery Order (Dkt. 58).” (Dkt. No. 150 at 1.) In the MTC, Defendants and Intervenors “request 

that the Court compel Counterclaim-Defendant KT Corporation . . . to respond to Defendants and 

Intervenors’ discovery requests.” (Dkt. No. 151 at 1.) For the following reasons, the Court finds 

that (1) the PO Motion should be GRANTED, and (2) that the MTC should be DENIED.

I. INTRODUCTION

On December 29, 2023, Plaintiff Pegasus Wireless Innovation LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed three 

patent infringement complaints against AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon. (Dkt. No. 1; No. 2:23-cv00638-JRG, Dkt. No. 1; No. 2:23-cv-00639-JRG, Dkt. No. 1.) In each complaint, Plaintiff asserts 

that Defendants infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 11,627,631; 10,181,931; 10,616,932; 11,405,942; 

10,594,460; 10,721,118; 11,219,000; 10,638,463; 11,540,272; 9,894,644; and 10,009,161 

(collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 1; No. 2:23-cv-00638-JRG, Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 1; 

No. 2:23-cv-00639-JRG, Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 1.) Given this overlap, the Court consolidated the three cases 

for all pretrial issues. (Dkt. No. 16.)

1 Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Verizon Business Network Services LLC, Verizon Corporate Services 

Group Inc., and TracFone Wireless, Inc (collectively, “Verizon”), AT&T Corp., AT&T Services, Inc., AT&T Mobility 

LLC, AT&T Mobility II LLC, New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, and Cricket Wireless LLC (collectively, “AT&T”), 

and T-Mobile USA, Inc., Sprint Solutions LLC, and Sprint Spectrum LLC (collectively, “T-Mobile” and with Verizon 

and AT&T, the “Defendants”).

2 Ericsson Inc. (“Ericsson”) and Nokia of America Corp. (“Nokia” and with Ericsson, the “Intervenors”).

Case 2:23-cv-00640-JRG Document 178 Filed 12/12/24 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 4534
3

On March 25, 2024, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon each filed an Answer and 

Counterclaims to their respective Complaint. (Dkt. Nos. 36, 39, 42.) Intervenors Nokia and 

Ericsson later each filed an answer and claims against KT. (Dkt. Nos. 99–101, 115–117.) Relevant 

here, Defendants and Intervenors identically pled counterclaims 12 and 13, respectively for 

“Breach of Contract (FRAND)” and “Failure to Negotiate in Good Faith.” (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 36 

Counterclaims ¶¶ 117–128.) These counterclaims are asserted against both Plaintiff and 

“counterclaim-defendant” (properly third-party defendant) KT.3

KT moved to dismiss all counterclaims, arguing that (1) this Court does not have personal 

jurisdiction over KT, and (2) Defendants and Intervenors fail to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). 

(Dkt. Nos. 130–134.) KT, Defendants, and Intervenors then jointly moved to (1) extend the 

deadline for Defendants/Intervenors to respond to the motions to dismiss, and (2) conduct 

jurisdictional discovery. (Dkt. No. 146.) Relevant here, the joint motion included the following 

agreement between KT, Defendants, and Intervenors:

The parties have 60 days to conduct jurisdictional discovery. Discovery shall be 

limited to issues raised in KT’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction 

and shall not include issues related to only the FRAND counterclaims.

(Id. at 3.) The Court granted the joint motion and entered an Order reflecting this agreement 

between KT, Defendants, and Intervenors. (Dkt. No. 148 at 3.)

3 While Plaintiff, KT, Defendants, and Intervenors refer to KT as a “counterclaim-defendant,” that label is inaccurate. 

“Counterclaims” are asserted against “an opposing party.” FED. R. CIV. PRO. 13. However, KT was not “an opposing 

party” when Defendants/Intervenors filed their claims against it—Plaintiff was the only named plaintiff and KT was 

an unnamed third party. KT is more properly delineated as a third-party defendant and the “counterclaims” referenced 

in the Motions are in reality third party claims. However, to avoid more confusion and in light of inartful drafting by 

the Parties, the Court will refer to the claims against KT as counterclaims—but only in this Order. Hereafter, KT shall 

be referenced to as a “third-party defendant.”

Case 2:23-cv-00640-JRG Document 178 Filed 12/12/24 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 4535
4

II. ANALYSIS

A. The PO Motion

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), the Court “may, for good cause, issue an 

order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden 

or expense.” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(c)(1). 

KT, Defendants, and Intervenors expressly agreed that for 60 days, “[d]iscovery shall be 

limited to issues raised in KT’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and shall not 

include issues related to only the FRAND counterclaims.” (Dkt. No. 146 at 3 (emphasis added).) 

The Court entered an Order giving effect to the Parties’ agreement. (Dkt. No. 148 at 3.) However, 

Defendants/Intervenors now seek to expand the scope of this agreed upon discovery during the 

jurisdictional discovery period. (See Dkt. Nos. 150-2, 150-3.) Defendants/Intervenors do not 

dispute most of the alleged discovery overreach. (Dkt. No. 154 at 4–5.) Indeed, 

Defendants/Intervenors’ main argument seems to be that good cause does not exist for the 

requested protective order because the discovery agreement with KT does not preclude nonjurisdictional discovery. (Id. at 3 n.2.) The Court rejects Defendants/Intervenors’ reading of the 

agreement and the Court’s Order on jurisdictional discovery. KT, Defendants, and Intervenors 

could have expressly addressed whether or not non-jurisdictional discovery would proceed or not

during the jurisdictional discovery period. They chose not to do so, and they should be held to their 

agreement. 

Under these circumstances, the Court finds that Defendants/Intervenors are not entitled to 

non-jurisdictional discovery during the jurisdictional discovery period and that good cause for a 

protective order exists. KT, Defendants, and Intervenors came to an agreement that was accepted

by the Court regarding the scope of discovery during the discovery period. Now allowing nonjurisdictional discovery would render this agreement meaningless. Accordingly, the Court finds 

Case 2:23-cv-00640-JRG Document 178 Filed 12/12/24 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 4536
5

that KT’s PO Motion should be granted. However, after the jurisdictional discovery period closes, 

Defendants/Intervenors may renew their requests for non-jurisdiction discovery. KT shall collect 

and produce relevant and non-privileged information in response to such requests in accordance 

with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this District’s Local Rules, and this Court’s Orders.

B. The MTC

In the MTC, Defendants/Intervenors request the Court to compel KT to produce nonjurisdictional discovery. For the same reasons as those discussed above, the Court finds that the 

MTC should be denied. After the jurisdictional discovery period closes, Defendants/Intervenors 

may renew their non-jurisdiction discovery requests. KT shall collect and produce relevant and 

non-privileged information in response to such requests in accordance with the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure, this District’s Local Rules, and this Court’s Orders. The Court finds that the MTC 

should be denied.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that Third-Party Defendant (improperly referred 

to as Counterclaim-Defendant)4 KT Corporation’s Motion for Protective Order from Nonjurisdictional Discovery (Dkt. No. 150) should be and hereby is GRANTED. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that KT shall not be required to respond to non-jurisdictional discovery requests 

during the jurisdictional discovery period. The Court further finds that Defendants and Intervenors’ 

Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery Requests from KT Corporation (Dkt. No. 151) should 

be and hereby is DENIED.

4 In conformity with the above, all Parties are directed hereafter to refer to KT as third-party defendant and the 

complaints against it as third-party complaints—not counterclaims. Only a defendant can assert a counterclaim against 

a plaintiff. KT is neither a plaintiff nor is it a named defendant. It is a third-party defendant and should be identified 

hereafter as such.

Case 2:23-cv-00640-JRG Document 178 Filed 12/12/24 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 4537
6

The Parties are further ORDERED to meet and confer within three (3) days of entry of 

this Order to determine how this Order impacts (1) KT Corporation’s Motion for Protective Order 

from Questioning Beyond the Scope of Jurisdictional Discovery (Dkt. No. 168) and (2) The ThirdParty-Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Court Ordered Deposition of KT Corporation (Dkt. No. 169). 

If this Order provides guidance that resolves all issues raised in the motions filed at Dkt. Nos. 168 

and 169, the Parties are DIRECTED to file motions to withdraw the motions filed at Dkt. Nos. 

168 and 169 within three (3) days of the Court ordered meet and confer. If this Order does not 

provide guidance that resolves the issues raised in the motions filed at Dkt. Nos. 168 and 169, the 

Parties are DIRECTED to file a joint notice indicating as such within three (3) days of the Court 

ordered meet and confer.

So Ordered this

Dec 11, 2024

Case 2:23-cv-00640-JRG Document 178 Filed 12/12/24 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 4538