Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, Case No. 6:21-cv-01217, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The plaintiff is Atlas Global Technologies, LLC, a non-practicing entity (NPE) that holds a portfolio of wireless communication patents. The defendant is OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., a Chinese consumer electronics manufacturer known for its smartphones. The complaint asserted eight U.S. patents, including 10153886, against OnePlus's flagship OnePlus 9 and OnePlus 9 Pro handsets, alleging infringement related to LTE and Wi-Fi communication technologies.

The case was presided over by District Judge Alan D. Albright. The Western District of Texas, particularly the Waco Division where Judge Albright was the sole judge for patent cases, became a prominent venue for patent litigation due to Judge Albright's efforts to establish it as a serious forum for sophisticated patent cases and his patent-friendly local rules. This venue offered predictability for patent plaintiffs, especially NPEs, in terms of judicial assignment and expedited case schedules. However, it should be noted that the practice of guaranteeing Judge Albright for Waco filings changed in July 2022 when patent cases were randomized among all judges in the Western District.

The litigation concluded on February 7, 2024, after over two years, with a joint motion to dismiss granted by the court. Atlas Global Technologies' claims were dismissed with prejudice, meaning they cannot refile the same infringement claims against OnePlus on these patents, while OnePlus's counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice. The public record does not disclose any financial terms, licensing arrangements, or settlement amounts, indicating a confidential negotiated settlement between the parties. The specific technical sketch for US Patent 10153886 is for a "system and method for network access, control, and management," related to wireless communication.

The patent infringement litigation, Atlas Global Technologies, LLC v. OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (Case No. 6:21-cv-01217), involved U.S. Patent 10153886, among seven other patents related to LTE and Wi-Fi communication technologies.

Here's a chronological overview of the key legal developments and outcome:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • Complaint: Atlas Global Technologies, LLC filed the complaint on November 22, 2021, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The complaint asserted eight U.S. patents against OnePlus's flagship OnePlus 9 and OnePlus 9 Pro handsets, alleging infringement related to LTE and Wi-Fi communication technologies.
  • Answer & Counterclaims: The specific dates for OnePlus's answer and counterclaims are not publicly available in the provided search results. However, it's generally understood that counterclaims were filed as the final dismissal order references them.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance: The provided information does not detail specific motions to dismiss, transfer, or for summary judgment in this particular case. However, it is noted that such motions are a standard part of patent litigation. The Western District of Texas, under Judge Albright, was known for an expedited case schedule, which might impact the timing and volume of such motions compared to other districts.

• Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes: There is no specific public record in the provided search results detailing a Markman hearing or order in this case. Claim construction is a significant stage in patent litigation, but the case concluded prior to trial, which might explain the absence of a publicly documented Markman order.

• Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance: The provided information doesn't offer specific details on discovery milestones within this case. Patent cases typically involve extensive discovery, including document exchanges and depositions.

• Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions: The case did not proceed to trial. Therefore, there are no trial events, verdicts, or post-trial motions to report.

• Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

  • Dismissal: The litigation concluded on February 7, 2024, with a joint motion to dismiss granted by the court.
  • Terms of Dismissal: Atlas Global Technologies' claims were dismissed with prejudice, meaning they cannot refile the same infringement claims against OnePlus on these patents in any U.S. court. OnePlus's counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice. Each party bore its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees.
  • Settlement: The public record does not disclose any financial terms, licensing arrangements, or settlement amounts, indicating a confidential negotiated settlement between the parties. The asymmetric dismissal structure (plaintiff with prejudice, defendant without prejudice) is a standard feature of negotiated patent settlements.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings on the Asserted Patents: The provided search results do not explicitly indicate any parallel PTAB IPR or PGR proceedings specifically initiated against U.S. Patent 10153886 related to this Atlas v. OnePlus case. However, it's common for defendants in patent infringement cases to file IPRs challenging the validity of asserted patents.

I'll research the plaintiff's counsel of record for this case.

Good initial data. Let me verify firms, roles, and any later-appearing counsel.

Let me pull the full docket party/counsel listing and check for later appearances or lead-counsel designations.

Plaintiff's counsel of record — Atlas Global Technologies, LLC

Bottom line: Atlas was represented by a three-firm team: Heim, Payne & Chorush LLP (Houston — the substantive patent-trial firm), Susman Godfrey LLP (Houston/Los Angeles — trial and appellate co-counsel), plus two Longview/Gladewater, Texas trial boutiques acting in a Texas-local capacity: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (now Miller Fair Henry) and Capshaw DeRieux, LLP. All twelve-to-thirteen appearances were filed in the first 48 hours after the November 22, 2021 complaint.

Verification caveat up front: I could not retrieve a full PACER docket sheet for 6:21-cv-01217 showing the CM/ECF "LEAD ATTORNEY / ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED" role flags, so I cannot confirm which attorney is formally designated lead counsel in this docket. The Justia docket listing for the case (last retrieved March 10, 2023) is the source for the appearance entries below; the firm-attribution and experience notes come from firm press releases, PTAB filings, and Federal Circuit materials in the related Atlas matters. Nothing below is inferred from a sealed filing — although no filings in this case are publicly identified as sealed, later-stage filings (post–early 2023) are not visible on the free docket copy I could reach.

Heim, Payne & Chorush LLP — Houston, TX (Heritage Plaza, 1111 Bagby St., Ste. 2100 during this case; firm moved to 609 Main St., Ste. 3200 in 2023)

These five entered under ECF Nos. 3–6 and 13 (Nov. 22, 2021) — the earliest appearances, filed the same day as the complaint, which is the pattern of the case's originating/first-named counsel:

Susman Godfrey LLP — Houston, TX (1000 Louisiana St., Ste. 5100) and Los Angeles, CA (1900 Avenue of the Stars, 14th Fl.)

Entered ECF Nos. 14–17 (Nov. 23, 2021):

Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC — Longview, TX (1507 Bill Owens Parkway); renamed Miller Fair Henry effective Oct. 1, 2024

Entered ECF Nos. 8–9 (Nov. 23, 2021) — Texas-local/trial counsel:

Capshaw DeRieux, LLP — Gladewater, TX

Entered ECF Nos. 10–11 (Nov. 23, 2021) — Texas-local counsel:

Practical reading / what this means

1. Two-track team structure. HPC (substantive patent prosecution-side knowledge, PTAB defense, Heim as portfolio anchor) + Susman Godfrey (trial/appellate horsepower, with Tribble and Grinstein as the public faces) + WSH and Capshaw DeRieux for the Texas venue/trial function. That is the identical lineup Atlas used across the whole Wi-Fi 6 campaign (TP-Link, Sercomm, ASUS, Acer, D-Link, Zyxel), which is why the same names recur in the Fed. Cir. and PTAB records — useful if you need to argue a common-interest or privilege posture across the related cases.
2. Who to notice for appeal/PTO purposes. For the PTAB/reexam side of the '886 patent (Unified Patents' ex parte reexam filed Feb. 28, 2023, granted Mar. 16, 2023), Heim and Harris are the working Atlas attorneys of record in the Atlas IPR family; Elkhunovich is the confirmed Federal Circuit contact for Atlas as respondent in the OnePlus mandamus.
3. Contradiction check with the prior sections. The earlier "Defendant representatives" section attributes OnePlus's defense to Sheppard Mullin — that is consistent with the Federal Circuit docket in No. 23-130 (Robert M. Masters, Jonathan R. DeFosse, Jennifer Ayers, Timothy P. Cremen), so no conflict. The prior "Case overview" correctly describes this as one of multiple '886 cases; note the prior section's assertion that there was no parallel PTAB proceeding on the '886 patent should be flagged as incomplete — there was no IPR on the '886 patent, but Unified Patents did obtain an ex parte reexamination of it in March 2023, and Atlas's defense of that patent in the district cases (including Judge Albright's claim-construction order in this very case, cited in the later ASUS/Arcadyan briefing as rejecting indefiniteness for the NDPA limitations) is the relevant parallel track.
4. Limits of the record. No financial terms of the February 7, 2024 dismissal (Joint Motion, ECF 85) are public. Attorney fees/costs were borne by each side, so there is no fee-shifting record to mine, and no public order identifies which attorney signed the Rule 41 stipulation.

OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. was represented by the law firm Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton in this case. While specific individual attorneys were not named in the provided search results for this particular case, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton is a well-known firm with a strong intellectual property practice.

OnePlus has been involved in other patent litigation matters where attorney names are publicly available, which may indicate attorneys that could also be involved in this case:

• In IPR2025-00783, OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. et al. v. Pantech Corporation, counsel listed for the Petitioner (OnePlus) includes Zhiwei Zou.
• OnePlus has also been involved in a UK appeal case, InterDigital Technology Corp v OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., regarding confidentiality regimes in SEP infringement proceedings, though specific attorneys were not named in the summary.