Ericsson Inc. et al. v. XR Communications LLC

I'll verify the case details across sources before drafting.

Key correction found: Director Review was denied, not pending. Let me verify that and dig into the parallel district court case and outcomes.

Now let me pin down the Director Review outcome date, XR/Vivato's corporate background, and the '369 summary-judgment ruling.

Case overview and background

A framing correction up front. IPR2024-00314 is not a patent infringement action — it is an inter partes review before the PTAB, and the "Director Review requested" status in the case metadata is stale. Director Vidal denied the Request for Director Review, leaving the July 15, 2024 denial of institution intact (PTAB order denying Director Review; Arctic Invent summary). The infringement litigation to which it is tethered is XR Communications LLC d/b/a Vivato Technologies v. AT&T Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex., Marshall Division), consolidated with the Verizon (2:23-cv-00203) and T-Mobile (2:23-cv-00204) actions, plus a second wave in Nos. 2:23-cv-00468/469/470.

Parties. On the petitioner/intervenor side are operating companies: Ericsson Inc. (with parent Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson) and Nokia of America Corporation, the suppliers of the 4G/5G base stations and RAN equipment actually accused. Because XR sued the carriers rather than the equipment vendors, Ericsson and Nokia intervened as defendants and counterclaimants in the district court — the classic "sue the customer to pull in the supplier" NPE maneuver — and Ericsson joined Nokia as co-petitioner at the PTAB (Nokia later exited the district case via a stipulation of dismissal as to Nokia products, E.D. Tex. Dkt. 212). On the other side, XR Communications LLC d/b/a Vivato Technologies is a California-based patent assertion entity holding the portfolio of Vivato, Inc., a venture-backed smart-antenna Wi-Fi startup founded in 2000 that wound down on May 1, 2008. The portfolio passed through Wayout Wireless → Vivato Networks LLC/Inc. → Catcher Holdings → Aequitas before XR acquired it in December 2009 and revived then-abandoned applications (E.D. Tex. Dkt. 35 ¶¶ 11–28; Dkt. 170-38; Stanford NPE Litigation Database classifies the asserted patents' origin as "failed startup"). XR is a serial, multi-front asserter: 2017–18 suits against Wi-Fi OEMs (D-Link, Cisco, Aruba, Ruckus, Netgear, Ubiquiti, Belkin, ASUS) in C.D. Cal.; 2021 suits against Cisco, Samsung and Microsoft in W.D. Tex.; and the 2023 carrier campaign at issue here.

Accused technology and patents. The accused instrumentalities are the carriers' deployment of Ericsson and Nokia base stations and RAN solutions — principally massive-MIMO/beamforming functionality in 4G LTE and 5G NR, with XR's infringement theory centered on reciprocity-based beamforming and frequency-selective power scaling of OFDM subcarriers (see E.D. Tex. Dkt. 160 (MSJ) and Dkt. 267 (R&R)). The May 8, 2023 complaints asserted five patents (AO-120 report, E.D. Tex. Dkt. 300): (1) U.S. 7,177,369, "Multipath Communication Methods and Apparatuses" — deriving a forward-path pre-equalization parameter from a multipath transmission delay measured in the reverse link, then "selectively setting different transmission power levels for at least two OFDM tones"; (2) U.S. 8,289,939 and its continuations (3) U.S. 10,715,235 (iss. 2020) and (4) U.S. 10,594,376 (iss. 2020) — the Vivato "directed wireless communication"/coordinated-access-point family; and (5) U.S. 8,737,511 — steered/adaptive antenna ("smart antenna") Wi-Fi claims. Two further patents in the '235 family, issuing September and October 2023, drove the second wave of complaints (RPX, [New Patents in Hand, Vivato Technologies Hits

I'll research this case, starting with the PTAB proceeding and the underlying district court litigation.

Ericsson Inc. et al. v. XR Communications LLC — Litigation & Parallel-Proceedings Report

Scope note (important framing). IPR2024-00314 is not an infringement suit; it is the PTAB proceeding that Ericsson Inc. and Nokia of America Corp. filed on 2024-01-05 against U.S. 7,177,369. The infringement litigation the user asks about is the co-pending district court case in which Ericsson and Nokia appear as intervenors:

XR Communications, LLC d/b/a Vivato Technologies v. AT&T Services Inc., AT&T Mobility LLC, AT&T Corp., No. 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div.) (lead case), with member cases 2:23-cv-00203 (Verizon Communications, Inc./Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless) and 2:23-cv-00204 (T-Mobile USA, Inc.), before Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap, referred to Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne.

Because the existing sections cover the IPR, this report focuses on the district court case and then maps the PTAB proceedings onto it.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

The intervention posture is the key structural fact: XR sued the carriers, and the carriers' vendors (Ericsson, Nokia) defended the accused base-station equipment — which is why Ericsson/Nokia, not AT&T, were the IPR petitioners.

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

Stay/transfer. I found no motion to transfer out of E.D. Tex. and no granted stay pending IPR in the materials reviewed. The district case ran forward in parallel with the IPRs; Defendants instead pursued claim construction and summary judgment as the invalidity/non-infringement vehicles. (Caution: a stay motion may have been filed and denied early in 2024 in the un-retrieved portion of the docket; docket entries below ~Dkt. 80 are not fully documented in the search results I could obtain.)

Dispositive and Daubert-type motions (June–July 2025). The case generated an unusually large simultaneous motion package, all ruled on collectively at dismissal:

I'll research the counsel of record for the petitioners (Ericsson and Nokia) in IPR2024-00314.

Threshold correction: this is a PTAB proceeding, not a district‑court infringement suit

IPR2024‑00314 is an inter partes review before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, not a PACER case. There is therefore no "plaintiff" and no complaint — the parties are Petitioner Ericsson Inc. and Nokia of America Corporation and Patent Owner XR Communications LLC d/b/a Vivato Technologies. The "counsel of record representing the plaintiff(s)" is accordingly the petitioners' prosecution bar, which is what I've identified below. There is no PACER docket sheet for this proceeding; the docket is PTAB's Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (PTABCTS), and the Board's papers are reproduced as exhibits in the parallel E.D. Tex. litigation (2:23‑cv‑00202, Dkts. 81, 123).

---

Petitioners' counsel of record (Ericsson Inc. and Nokia of America Corp.)

These two are the only petitioner-side practitioners I can confirm from the record. Both are listed under "For PETITIONER" in the Director's order denying review, and Duane Morris is the sole firm of record for Ericsson/Nokia in this IPR.

In-house: Ericsson's Ryan Wirtz, Associate General Counsel – Litigation, executed the petitioners' power of attorney in the companion IPR2024‑00613 (dated March 6, 2024). I could not confirm the POA signatory for IPR2024‑00314 specifically, so I would not state his name as counsel of record here without pulling the '314 POA.

---

Context: same team in the underlying district court case

In the parallel E.D. Tex. actions (XR Communications v. AT&T, No. 2:23‑cv‑00202‑JRG‑RSP, and the Verizon/T‑Mobile counterparts), Ericsson and Nokia appear as intervenors and are represented by the same Duane Morris team, per the Aug. 28, 2024 Joint Claim Construction Chart: Matthew S. Yungwirth, Alice E. Snedeker, John R. Gibson (Atlanta), Elise Sanford (Washington, D.C.), and William A. Liddell (Austin). That chart is the best available confirmation that the Duane Morris group is the coordinated Ericsson/Nokia team across both forums.

For completeness, the adverse side: Patent Owner XR Communications is represented by Reza Mirzaie (Reg. No. 69,138, lead) and Philip Wang (Reg. No. 74,621, backup) of Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, per XR's § 42.10(b) power of attorney dated January 11, 2024.

---

Posture affecting the answer

• Petition filed Jan. 5, 2024; institution denied July 15, 2024 (Paper 12).
• Petitioners filed a Request for Director Review on Aug. 14, 2024 (Paper 13), arguing the panel erred by adopting a sua sponte construction of "pre-equalization parameter" without giving the parties an opportunity to be heard (citing the Director's Aug. 2, 2024 decision in Samsung v. Slyde Analytics, IPR2024‑00040).
• The Director (Katherine K. Vidal) denied the request, leaving the denial of institution intact. I was not able to confirm the date of that denial order from my sources, and no Federal Circuit appeal by Petitioners is reflected in the materials I reviewed — so the proceeding appears terminated.

Because the case closed at the institution stage, the appearance list is short and no trial-phase counsel (e.g., local counsel, or separately retained Nokia trial counsel) ever materialized. Nothing in this file was sealed; the gap is simply that no further appearances occurred.

Sources: PTABCTS filings for IPR2024‑00314 (Petitioner's Request for Director Review, Aug. 14, 2024; Petitioner's Request for Refund of Post-Institution Fees, Sept. 12, 2024); Director's order denying Director Review; Decision Denying Institution (Paper 12), reproduced at XR Communications v. AT&T, No. 2:23‑cv‑00202 (E.D. Tex.), Dkt. 123‑6; Joint Claim Construction Chart, Dkt. 81‑13; XR Communications § 42.10(b) Power of Attorney (Jan. 11, 2024); Ericsson § 42.10(b) Power of Attorney in IPR2024‑00613 (Mar. 6, 2024).

I'll research the counsel of record for XR Communications LLC in this matter.

Threshold point on posture (important)

The case as captioned in the metadata — IPR2024-00314, Ericsson Inc. et al. v. XR Communications LLC — is a PTAB inter partes review, not a district-court infringement action. In this forum:

• Petitioners = Ericsson Inc. and Nokia of America Corp.
• "Defendant"/respondent = XR Communications LLC d/b/a Vivato Technologies (Patent Owner)

(In the parallel E.D. Tex. litigation, XR Communications LLC v. AT&T Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP, the roles are reversed — XR is the plaintiff and Ericsson/Nokia are defendants/intervenors. I address both sides below so there is no ambiguity, but the primary answer is XR's PTAB counsel.)

One status correction: although the metadata lists the case as "Director Review requested," the public record reflects that the Director denied the Request for Director Review, leaving the July 15, 2024 non-institution decision (Paper 12) intact, and Petitioners later sought a refund of the $23,250 in post-institution fees (Sept. 12, 2024).

---

Counsel of record for XR Communications LLC (Patent Owner / respondent)

Sourcing for the two above: Petitioners' Request for Refund of Post-Institution Fees (Paper filed Sept. 12, 2024) in IPR2024-00314 carries a certificate of service on "Reza Mirzaie, Reg. No. 69,138" and "Philip Wang, Reg. No. 74,621," both of Russ, August & Kabat, 12424 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90025, at the rak_vivato@raklaw.com service address — i.e., PTAB counsel of record for Patent Owner. Mirzaie also confirms in a sworn declaration in the parallel E.D. Tex. action that he is "counsel of record for Plaintiff XR Communications, LLC" and identifies the IPR2024-00314 Patent Owner Preliminary Response (filed Apr. 22, 2024, Paper 7) as an exhibit. IPVerse's PTAB counsel table likewise lists "Mirzaie, Reza et al." as Respondent Counsel.

Other RAK attorneys who appear for XR in the related matters (not confirmed as appearances in -00314 itself)

These names appear on XR's behalf in the co-pending E.D. Tex. docket and in XR's other IPRs; I could not confirm each one entered an appearance in IPR2024-00314 specifically, so treat them as supporting/related-matter counsel rather than counsel of record here:

• Marc A. Fenster (RAK founding partner; CA SBN 181067) — RAK's lead trial lawyer on the XR/Vivato matters.
• Christian W. Conkle (CA SBN 306374) — back-up counsel for XR in PTAB proceedings (pro hac vice in IPR2022-00367).
• Kent N. Shum (CA SBN 259189) — RAK; listed on XR pleadings since the 2017–2018 C.D. Cal. campaign.
• James N. Pickens, Paul Anthony Kroeger, Neil Alan Rubin, Minna Y. Chan/Jay, Adam S. Hoffman, Jacob Buczko — all listed as plaintiff-side attorneys for XR on the E.D. Tex. docket (No. 2:23-cv-00202) and/or XR's later suits (e.g., XR v. Spectrum Gulf Coast, No. 2:25-cv-01253).

Note: RAK has a Washington, D.C. office (800 Maine Ave., SW, Suite 200) used for some matters, but XR's PTAB filings route to the Los Angeles office.

---

For completeness: counsel for the district-court defendants (Ericsson / Nokia) in No. 2:23-cv-00202

If your question was instead aimed at the infringement-defendant side, the public record shows:

• Kevin P. Anderson and Patrick D. McPherson, Duane Morris LLP (Washington, D.C.) — identified as Lead Counsel for Petitioners Ericsson Inc. and Nokia of America Corporation in IPR2024-00314 (Anderson's Aug. 14, 2024 Director Review transmittal letter and the Sept. 12, 2024 refund request; McPherson is the PTAB filing contact, pdmcpherson@duanemorris.com, docket H4569-00004). Duane Morris also appears for Ericsson/Nokia as petitioners in IPR2024-00613 and the related Ericsson/Nokia IPR cluster.
• Deron R. Dacus and Melissa Richards Smith — listed by third-party docket aggregators (UniCourt) as attorneys for the "Defendant, Intervenor and Counter-Claimant" Ericsson/Nokia side in No. 2:23-cv-00202. These are Texas counsel and appear to be the local/E.D. Tex. team, but I could not verify their firm affiliations from a primary docket entry in this search — treat as unconfirmed.

---

Caveats and sourcing gaps

• No sealing issue: the -00314 record is public — Petition (Paper 3), POPR (Paper 7), Preliminary Reply (Paper 9), Preliminary Sur-reply (Paper 10), and the Institution Decision (Paper 12, July 15, 2024) are all accessible; the POPR is reproduced as an exhibit in the E.D. Tex. docket (Dkt. 131-3).
• I did not retrieve XR's § 42.10(b) power of attorney filed in IPR2024-00314 itself. Its counsel identification here is reconstructed from the Petition's service list, the POPR, and Petitioners' certificate of service — which is reliable but is not the POA document. XR's POA in the sibling IPR2022-00613 names Mirzaie as lead and Wang as back-up, consistent with the above.
• No attorney named above is inferred or interpolated; anyone whose role I could not ground is flagged as "related-matter" or "unconfirmed."
• Key URLs: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1555050](/patent/1555050)/download-documents (Director Review transmittal and refund request); https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2024-00314; https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67349582/ (E.D. Tex. 2:23-cv-00202); https://www.raklaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Reza_Mirzaie_2-25-2026.pdf (Mirzaie firm bio).