Integral Wireless Technologies LLC v. AT&T Inc.

Integral Wireless Technologies LLC, a known patent assertion entity (PAE) associated with the Texas monetization firm Empire IP LLC, has initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against AT&T Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas. Integral Wireless was established in Texas on September 30, 2024, and its managing members are the founders of Empire IP, Daniel Mitry and Timothy Salmon, indicating a strategic focus on patent monetization rather than product manufacturing or service provision. AT&T Inc. is a major American multinational telecommunications operating company, recognized as the world's third-largest telecommunications company by revenue, the third-largest wireless carrier in the United States, and a leading fiber internet provider. Its diverse offerings include wireless, wired telecommunications, and internet services.

While specific accused products or services for this particular case were not immediately detailed in publicly available summaries, Integral Wireless Technologies has previously targeted "802.11/BT compatible devices," "5G compatible devices," "HEVC compatible devices," "802.11n compatible devices," "Bluetooth compatible devices," and server systems in similar litigations against other telecommunications and device companies. Given AT&T's extensive telecommunications business, it is highly probable that the infringement allegations concern AT&T's wireless communication products and services, including its 5G network, Wi-Fi offerings, and Bluetooth-enabled devices, along with related infrastructure. The sole patent asserted in this case is U.S. Patent No. 8,976,714, which broadly relates to methods and systems for wireless communication. A technical sketch of the patent describes it as pertaining to "wireless communication involving a first wireless device, a second wireless device, and a third wireless device, where the first wireless device transmits information to the second wireless device via a common wireless communication link shared with the third wireless device."

The case, 2:26-cv-00198, is active in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The specific division and assigned judge are not yet publicly known without accessing the court's docket directly. This venue is notably advantageous for patent plaintiffs, particularly NPEs, due to its historically fast-paced dockets, plaintiff-friendly local rules, and a reputation for juries that are often perceived as favorable to patentees. The Eastern District of Texas has consistently ranked as a top forum for patent litigation, especially for NPEs, in recent years. The notability of this case stems from Integral Wireless Technologies' pattern as an NPE asserting patents acquired from Intellectual Ventures LLC (IV), a significant patent aggregator. This action against a major operating company like AT&T underscores the ongoing trend of patent monetization efforts in the telecommunications sector. As of the current date, no information regarding parallel inter partes reviews (IPRs) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for U.S. Patent No. 8,976,714 has been identified through public searches.

Here's a summary of the key legal developments and current posture of the patent infringement litigation "Integral Wireless Technologies LLC v. AT&T Inc." in the Texas Eastern District Court, as of May 28, 2026.

Case Caption: Integral Wireless Technologies LLC v. AT&T Inc.
Case Number: 2:26-cv-00198
Court: Texas Eastern District Court
Status: Active litigation
Plaintiff(s): Integral Wireless Technologies LLC
Defendant(s): AT&T Inc.
Patents at Issue: 8,976,714

Integral Wireless Technologies LLC is a Texas monetization firm that acquired a portfolio of 60 US patent assets from Intellectual Ventures LLC (IV) on October 15, 2024. Intellectual Ventures appears to have retained an interest in the monetization of these portfolios. Integral Wireless was created in Texas on September 30, 2024.

Key Legal Developments:

• Filing of Complaint (2026): Integral Wireless Technologies LLC initiated this patent infringement suit against AT&T Inc. in the Texas Eastern District Court under case number 2:26-cv-00198. The specific filing date in 2026 is not available in the provided search results, but the case is confirmed as active litigation.

Given the case was filed in 2026 and today's date is May 28, 2026, the litigation is in its very early stages. Therefore, information regarding answers, counterclaims, substantive pre-trial motions (like motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending IPR), claim construction outcomes (Markman), discovery milestones, trial events, verdicts, post-trial motions, or appeals is not yet publicly available or would not have occurred.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

There is no information in the provided search results indicating any parallel PTAB IPR or PGR proceedings specifically targeting U.S. Patent No. 8,976,714 in relation to this case.

I am unable to identify the counsel of record representing Integral Wireless Technologies LLC in Integral Wireless Technologies LLC v. AT&T Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-00198 in the Eastern District of Texas.

Web searches for this specific case number (2:26-cv-00198) consistently show the defendant as Lucid Group, Inc., not AT&T Inc., in the Eastern District of Texas. For instance, PacerMonitor lists "Integral Wireless Technologies LLC v. Lucid Group, Inc. (2:26-cv-00198)" and identifies James Francis McDonough, III, Carey Matthew Rozier, and Jonathan Lloyd Hardt of Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC as counsel for the plaintiff in that case.

Given the authoritative case metadata provided in the prompt, which specifies AT&T Inc. as the defendant for Case No. 2:26-cv-00198, and the conflicting information from public dockets, it is not possible to confirm the counsel for the plaintiff in Integral Wireless Technologies LLC v. AT&T Inc., Case No. 2:26-cv-00198 at this time. Filings for this specific case as described in the prompt are either sealed, not yet publicly indexed under this exact defendant/case number combination, or the case number provided in the prompt refers to a different matter than what is currently accessible in public records.

As of May 28, 2026, a search for the specific docket of Integral Wireless Technologies LLC v. AT&T Inc., case number 2:26-cv-00198, in the Texas Eastern District Court has not yielded publicly available information detailing the counsel of record for the defendant(s). It is possible that counsel has not yet formally appeared, or the initial filings are not yet widely indexed or publicly accessible through general web searches.

However, AT&T Inc. is a frequent defendant in patent infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Texas, and several law firms and attorneys are known for consistently representing the company in such cases. While these are not confirmed for the instant case (2:26-cv-00198), they represent a strong likelihood of firms and individuals who may appear on behalf of AT&T:

• Deron R. Dacus

  • Role: Likely local counsel or lead counsel.
  • Firm: The Dacus Firm, PC, Tyler, Texas.
  • Note: Frequently appears as local counsel for major defendants in the Eastern District of Texas, including AT&T in previous patent litigation, such as Lemko Corporation v. AT&T Inc. et al. and Pegasus Wireless Innovation v. AT&T.

• Shannon Marie Dacus

  • Role: Likely local counsel.
  • Firm: The Dacus Firm, PC, Tyler, Texas.
  • Note: Also listed as representing AT&T in Lemko Corporation v. AT&T Inc. et al..

• Brian Rosenthal

  • Role: Lead counsel.
  • Firm: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, New York.
  • Note: A partner in Gibson Dunn's Intellectual Property practice, Brian Rosenthal has litigated over 125 patent cases, often as lead counsel, including representing AT&T in complex patent infringement matters involving LTE and WiFi technologies. He has a strong record in jury trials and appeals to the Federal Circuit.

• Krishnan Padmanabhan

  • Role: Lead counsel.
  • Firm: Winston & Strawn LLP, New York, New York.
  • Note: Represented AT&T in Lemko Corporation v. AT&T Inc. et al.. While some Winston & Strawn attorneys have withdrawn from a different AT&T case, Padmanabhan has a history of representation.

• Robert N. Kang

  • Role: Lead counsel.
  • Firm: Winston & Strawn LLP.
  • Note: Appeared for AT&T in Lemko Corporation v. AT&T Inc. et al..

• Scott M. Border

  • Role: Lead counsel.
  • Firm: Winston & Strawn LLP.
  • Note: Represented AT&T in Lemko Corporation v. AT&T Inc. et al..

• Todd Landis

  • Role: Lead counsel.
  • Firm: Williams Simons & Landis PC.
  • Note: Was defense counsel for AT&T in a patent trial against inventor Joe Andrew Salazar in the Eastern District of Texas, where a jury found non-infringement for AT&T and other carriers.