Cobblestone Wireless LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.

Cobblestone Wireless LLC, identified as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) and an entity of Bedrock IP Co., Ltd., and owned by Granite IP, LLC, initiated this patent infringement lawsuit against T-Mobile USA, Inc., a major American wireless network operator.. T-Mobile, a subsidiary of Deutsche Telekom AG, provides comprehensive telecommunication services, including voice, text messaging, video calling, and data communications to millions of subscribers, and sells a wide range of mobile devices.. The core of the dispute centers on US Patent 7924802, which broadly describes wireless communication systems and methods for transmitting signals simultaneously over a communication channel at different RF center frequencies.. Cobblestone Wireless accuses T-Mobile's wireless communication services and associated "Accused Instrumentalities," including cellular handsets supporting Wi-Fi-only automatic updates such as various models of Apple iPhones and Samsung Galaxy phones, of infringing this patent..

The case is being litigated in the Eastern District of Texas, a venue historically favored by patent plaintiffs due to its plaintiff-friendly local rules, judicial practices, and juries.. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap and Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne are presiding over the case, both frequently involved in patent litigation in this district.. This litigation is notable as part of a broader, aggressive assertion campaign by Cobblestone Wireless, which has filed numerous lawsuits against other major telecommunications and technology companies, including AT&T, Verizon, Samsung, Apple, Cisco, and Hewlett Packard Enterprise, asserting this and other wireless communication patents..

Adding to its notability, the asserted patent, US 7924802, is currently facing multiple challenges at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Several companies, including Samsung, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, and Qualcomm, have filed Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions, and Unified Patents also successfully requested an ex parte reexamination, which was instituted.. These parallel proceedings highlight significant challenges to the validity of the patent, creating a complex backdrop to the infringement claims in the district court.. The outcome of these validity challenges could significantly impact the ongoing district court litigation against T-Mobile and other defendants in Cobblestone's extensive patent monetization campaign..

This summary outlines the key legal developments in the patent infringement litigation of Cobblestone Wireless LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-00381, in the Eastern District of Texas, concerning US Patent 7,924,802.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • 2023-08-25: Cobblestone Wireless LLC filed the patent infringement lawsuit against T-Mobile USA, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting US Patent 7,924,802. This case is part of broader litigation by Cobblestone Wireless, LLC, with similar cases filed against other major telecommunications companies like AT&T Services Inc. and Verizon Wireless.

• Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

  • 2024-12-09: While specific to a related case (Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00454), the Eastern District of Texas granted a motion to stay pending inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. This indicates a potential strategy by defendants in related Cobblestone Wireless cases to seek stays based on IPRs. The court considers factors such as prejudice to the non-moving party, simplification of issues, and discovery completeness when deciding on a stay pending IPR.
  • 2025-05-13: A motion to stay pending IPR was also filed in T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Cobblestone Wireless, LLC, IPR2024-00137, with a decision rendered on May 22, 2024 (Paper 15), as referenced in another PTAB document.

• Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

  • 2024-08-28: Qualcomm Incorporated filed a Petition for inter partes review (IPR) of claims 1-4, 6-10, 13, 14, 17, and 21-25 of US Patent No. 7,924,802 B2 (the '802 patent), designated as IPR2024-01336. This IPR challenged the patentability of the asserted claims.
  • 2025-03-07: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) instituted an inter partes review of claims 1-4, 6-10, 13-14, 17, and 21-25 of the '802 patent in IPR2024-01336. The PTAB determined that the petitioner, Qualcomm, had demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable. The institution decision notes the ongoing district court cases, including Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00381.
  • 2026-03-05: A Final Written Decision was issued in IPR2024-01336, initiated by Qualcomm, Inc. against Cobblestone Wireless, LLC, regarding US Patent 7,924,802 B2. While the full details of the decision are not available in the provided snippets, a final decision on the patentability of the challenged claims has been made by the PTAB.

• Present Posture:

  • As of the latest information, the district court case (2:23-cv-00381) has been significantly impacted by the parallel IPR proceedings at the PTAB. The institution of IPR on the asserted claims of the '802 patent in IPR2024-01336 on March 7, 2025, and the subsequent Final Written Decision on March 5, 2026, suggest that the district court litigation would likely have been stayed pending the IPR outcome or is now in a phase that incorporates the PTAB's findings. Given the final decision from the PTAB on March 5, 2026, the ongoing litigation would now address the implications of that decision on the validity of the patent claims. Without direct access to the district court docket beyond the initial filing, the precise current status (e.g., dismissal, settlement, resumption) cannot be definitively stated, but the IPR outcome is a major development.

News and analysis coverage reveals that the patent infringement lawsuit Cobblestone Wireless LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-00381, in the Eastern District of Texas, concluded with a dismissal with prejudice on October 18, 2024. PatSnap reported that the case, which asserted US Patent 7,924,802, was resolved after 420 days, with each party bearing its own costs, strongly suggesting a confidential settlement. This outcome prevents Cobblestone Wireless from re-asserting the same infringement claims against T-Mobile, as well as intervenors Nokia of America Corporation and Ericsson Inc., for this specific patent and accused conduct. The patent in dispute covers 3GPP carrier aggregation technology, significant for cellular base stations and mobile products.

The case against T-Mobile was part of a broader, aggressive patent assertion campaign by Cobblestone Wireless, an entity identified as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE). Similar lawsuits asserting US Patent 7,924,802, and in some instances additional patents, were filed against other major telecommunications and technology companies, including AT&T, Verizon, Samsung, Apple, Cisco, and Hewlett Packard Enterprise. Many of these related cases, such as those against AT&T and Verizon also filed on August 25, 2023, similarly resulted in joint motions to dismiss with prejudice and mutual cost-bearing on October 18, 2024. Another suit against Motorola Mobility, asserting 7,924,802 and another patent, was dismissed with prejudice in June 2025 after just 271 days.

Parallel to the district court litigation, US Patent 7,924,802 has faced multiple validity challenges at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Unified Patents successfully requested an ex parte reexamination, which was instituted on June 14, 2024, finding substantial new questions of patentability on claims 1-15 and 17-23 of the patent. This reexamination was initiated on March 26, 2024, months before the district court case against T-Mobile was dismissed. While Qualcomm's inter partes review (IPR2024-01336) was instituted on March 7, 2025, and a final written decision issued on March 5, 2026, the district court's dismissal in October 2024 occurred prior to these key PTAB developments, indicating an independent resolution of the infringement claims. There were no reported damages sought or awarded, or public settlement terms, consistent with the mutual cost-bearing dismissal.

Sources

• patsnap.com
• patsnap.com
• patsnap.com
• squarespace.com
• unifiedpatents.com
• unifiedpatents.com
• rpxcorp.com
• rpxcorp.com
• rpxcorp.com
• patsnap.com
• rpxcorp.com
• bannerwitcoff.com

Cobblestone Wireless LLC is represented by attorneys from Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC and local counsel from Scheef & Stone, LLP.

Here are the details for the identified counsel:

Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC

• Stamatios Stamoulis
  • Role: Lead Counsel.
  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC, Wilmington, Delaware.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Stamoulis has over 20 years of experience in intellectual property and complex commercial law matters, including patent infringement cases in the Eastern District of Texas and the District of Delaware. He is recognized as an "IP Star" by Managing Intellectual Property.
• Richard C. Weinblatt
  • Role: Lead Counsel.
  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC, Wilmington, Delaware.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Weinblatt focuses on patent litigation and appellate work, with over 20 years of experience. He has argued numerous appeals before the Federal Circuit and successfully argued for the reversal of a district court's dismissal in Visual Memory, LLC v. NVIDIA Corp. on the basis of 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Scheef & Stone, LLP

• Michael C. Smith
  • Role: Local Counsel.
  • Firm: Scheef & Stone, LLP, Marshall, Texas.
  • Experience Note: Mr. Smith is a partner whose practice focuses on complex commercial and patent litigation in federal court, particularly in the Eastern District of Texas, where he has appeared as counsel of record in over 900 civil cases. He served as chairman of the Eastern District's Local Rules Advisory Committee from 2000-2009 and is a frequent author and speaker on patent litigation and federal court practice.

Other attorneys, Christian W. Conkle and Jacob Buczko, have also entered appearances for Cobblestone Wireless LLC in related cases and in this specific case, 2:23-cv-00381. However, their specific roles (e.g., lead, of counsel, local) are not explicitly detailed in the immediately available search results for this case, though Buczko has appeared in other Cobblestone cases.

T-Mobile USA, Inc. is represented by a team of attorneys from Alston & Bird LLP, with local counsel also appearing in the Eastern District of Texas. Key members of the defense team, based on their involvement in this and related patent litigation for T-Mobile, include:

• David S. Frist

  • Role: Lead Counsel (implied from frequent representation of T-Mobile in EDTX patent cases).
  • Firm & Office: Alston & Bird LLP, Dallas, TX.
  • Experience: Mr. Frist has a long history of representing T-Mobile, Ericsson, Nokia, AT&T, and Verizon in patent infringement actions related to 4G and 5G cellular patents, including numerous cases brought by Cobblestone Wireless LLC in the Eastern District of Texas, such as the present case (2:23-cv-00381) and its related matters (2:23-cv-00380, 2:23-cv-00382). He also represented Ericsson as a complainant in ITC investigations concerning cellular and video coding technology.

• Stephen G. McNiff

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office: Alston & Bird LLP, Atlanta, GA.
  • Experience: Mr. McNiff represents Ericsson, Nokia, AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile in patent infringement litigation concerning 4G and 5G cellular technology patents, including the Cobblestone Wireless cases (2:23-cv-00382, -00380, -00381). He was also part of the Alston & Bird team that secured a complete defense verdict for T-Mobile and Ericsson in General Access Solutions Ltd. v. T-Mobile US, Inc., et al. (2:23-cv-00158, E.D. Tex.), where the plaintiff sought $253 million. His experience includes representing intervenors Nokia Solutions and Networks in patent disputes related to wireless communication standards.

Additional Alston & Bird partners who were part of the successful defense team for T-Mobile and Ericsson in a related EDTX case (General Access Solutions Ltd. v. T-Mobile USA Inc., et al., No. 2:23-cv-00158) and likely contribute to T-Mobile's broader patent litigation strategy in the district include:

• Theodore Stevenson, III (Partner, Alston & Bird LLP, Dallas, TX)
• John D. Haynes (Partner, Alston & Bird LLP, Atlanta, GA)
• M. Scott Stevens (Partner, Alston & Bird LLP, Charlotte, NC)
• Thomas W. Davison (Partner, Alston & Bird LLP, Washington, D.C.)
• Natalie C. Clayton (Partner, Alston & Bird LLP, New York, NY)
• Michael C. Deane (Partner, Alston & Bird LLP, Atlanta, GA)
• Emily Chambers Welch (Partner, Alston & Bird LLP)

Local counsel also typically appears in Eastern District of Texas cases. While specific local counsel for T-Mobile in this particular Cobblestone Wireless case was not explicitly identified in the provided search results beyond the Alston & Bird attorneys, Deron Dacus of The Dacus Firm was mentioned as co-counsel in a similar T-Mobile defense victory in the EDTX.