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.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["6:21-cv-01217 counsel for plaintiff Atlas Global Technologies LLC", "Atlas Global Technologies LLC attorneys 6:21-cv-01217", "attorneys for Atlas Global Technologies LLC", "OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. attorneys 6:21-cv-01217", "6:21-cv-01217 Atlas Global Technologies LLC complaint", "Atlas Global Technologies LLC patent litigation counsel"]))
thought
The user is asking for the counsel of record for the plaintiff, Atlas Global Technologies, LLC, in case 6:21-cv-01217. I need to identify their names, roles, firms, office locations, and relevant patent litigation experience. I will use web search to look for docket entries, court opinions, and legal news sources.

Here's a plan:

1. Search for "6:21-cv-01217 counsel for plaintiff Atlas Global Technologies LLC" to find a general overview of attorneys.
2. Look for the initial complaint or appearance filings on the docket to identify the attorneys who first appeared.
3. Check for any subsequent appearances or changes in counsel.
4. For each identified attorney, search their name and firm to find their role (lead, local, etc.), office location, and relevant patent litigation experience.Plaintiff Atlas Global Technologies, LLC was represented by the following counsel of record in Case No. 6:21-cv-01217:

Lead Counsel

• Firm: Heim, Payne & Chorush, LLP

• Office Location: Houston, Texas

• Attorneys:

  • Michael Heim
    • Role: Lead Counsel, Partner.
    • Relevant Experience: Name partner at Heim, Payne & Chorush, LLP. He has served as lead counsel for Atlas Global Technologies in other patent cases involving wireless transmission patents and has been involved in Federal Circuit appeals regarding venue issues.
  • Eric Enger
    • Role: Partner.
    • Relevant Experience: Played pivotal and key roles in defending Atlas Global Technologies' patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and in district court cases.
  • Alden Harris
    • Role: Partner.
    • Relevant Experience: Involved in Atlas Global Technologies' litigation strategy, including venue issues, and was part of the trial team in other patent infringement cases.
  • Blaine Larson
    • Role: Partner.
    • Relevant Experience: Involved in Atlas Global Technologies' litigation strategy, including venue issues, and was part of the trial team in other patent infringement cases.
  • Wills Collier
    • Role: Associate.
    • Relevant Experience: Played a key role in securing wins for Atlas Global Technologies in PTAB proceedings concerning patent validity.

Local Counsel

• Firm: Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC

• Office Location: Longview, Texas

• Attorneys: While specific docket entries for Case No. 6:21-cv-01217 explicitly naming Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC or its attorneys as local counsel were not found in the provided search results, Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC frequently serves as co-counsel or local counsel for Atlas Global Technologies in patent infringement cases in Texas federal courts. It is a common practice for out-of-state lead counsel to engage local Texas counsel in patent cases filed in the Western District of Texas.

  • Wesley Hill
    • Role: Partner (likely local counsel).
    • Relevant Experience: An experienced trial lawyer in patent infringement, intellectual property, and business litigation, particularly active in the Eastern District of Texas (from which the Western District of Texas Waco Division derives many of its practices). He has served as lead or co-lead counsel in numerous patent cases, securing multi-million dollar verdicts.
  • Johnny Ward
    • Role: Partner (likely local counsel).
    • Relevant Experience: Name partner at Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, known for major trial victories in high-stakes intellectual property and complex commercial litigation.
  • Andrea Fair
    • Role: Trial Lawyer, Partner (likely local counsel).
    • Relevant Experience: Has garnered a national reputation for securing multimillion-dollar verdicts in intellectual property and patent cases, including substantial results against major technology companies.

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.