Lemko Corporation v. AT&T Inc. et al.

Lemko Corporation, an Illinois-based operating company specializing in Network Functions Virtualization (NFV) and Mobile Edge Computing (MEC)-based mobile networks, has initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against telecommunications giant AT&T Inc., along with its subsidiaries AT&T Mobility and others. Lemko describes itself as a pioneer in providing edge-capable mobile network platforms and resilient 4G/5G wireless networks for various applications, including IoT, private 4G/5G networks, rural broadband, and military deployments, having powered mobile networks for over two decades. AT&T, a leading American telecommunications company, provides wireless services nationwide through AT&T Mobility. The core of Lemko's complaint alleges that AT&T is unlawfully utilizing its patented mobile network innovations, specifically targeting AT&T's Private Edge 5G Network platform and Private Mobile Connection service. Lemko claims its technology, introduced seven years prior to broader industry recognition of NFV, significantly reduces deployment and operational costs of mobile broadband networks by virtualizing network functions on off-the-shelf servers at the network's edge.

The litigation, filed on March 17, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, asserts infringement of seven patents, including U.S. Patent No. 8,310,990, titled "System, Method, and Device for Routing Calls Using a Distributed Mobile Architecture." The remaining six patents are broadly directed to various aspects of network communications and distributed mobile architecture for 4G/5G networks, focused on reducing operational costs and simplifying mobile core deployment. The case is assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, a well-known figure in patent litigation. The Eastern District of Texas remains a significant venue for patent disputes, and notably, the court denied AT&T's recent motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of Texas, determining there was no substantial overlap with Lemko's earlier-filed suit against Microsoft (Affirmed Networks).

This lawsuit is notable due to Lemko's assertion that it had previously presented its network solution to AT&T, sought a partnership, and that AT&T acknowledged the technology's alignment with industry goals before allegedly choosing to willfully infringe rather than license the patents. The case also forms part of a broader campaign by Lemko, which commenced with a lawsuit against Microsoft (Affirmed Networks) in the Northern District of Texas in February 2022, involving similar patents related to distributed mobile architecture and 4G/5G networks. This pattern suggests an assertion strategy by Lemko, an operating company with a history of developing and deploying network technology, to protect its intellectual property in the rapidly evolving 5G and edge computing markets.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Lemko Corporation v. AT&T Inc. et al.

This patent infringement litigation, filed by Lemko Corporation against AT&T Inc. and its subsidiaries in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:25-cv-00305), commenced on March 17, 2025. The case alleges infringement of seven patents related to network communications, specifically targeting AT&T's Private Edge 5G Network platform and Private Mobile Connection service. The litigation is ongoing, with significant activity revolving around a parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Chronological Developments:

• 2025-03-17: Complaint Filed
  Lemko Corporation filed its complaint for patent infringement and demanded a jury trial in the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint names AT&T Inc., AT&T Enterprises LLC, AT&T Communications LLC, AT&T Mobility LLC, AT&T Mobility LLC II, and AT&T Services, Inc. as defendants. Lemko asserted seven patents, including U.S. Patent No. 8,310,990. Other patents specifically mentioned in the complaint excerpt include US8230230, US8310322, US8315667, and US8565029. Lemko alleged willful infringement, stating that it had presented its Distributed Mobile Architecture (DMA) technology and informed AT&T of its patents, including the '990 patent, as early as 2013, prior to AT&T's launch of the allegedly infringing products.

• 2025-08-04: Motion to Stay Filed in District Court
  AT&T appears to have filed a motion to stay the district court proceedings pending inter partes review, as referenced in later PTAB filings (Docket No. 46, E.D. Tex. Aug. 4, 2025). A "First Amended Docket Control Order" was also issued on this date.

• 2025-09-08: IPR Petition Filed and Discretionary Denial Requested (US8310990)
  AT&T Services, Inc. and Microsoft Corporation filed an IPR petition (IPR2025-01142) challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,310,990. In response, Lemko filed a request for discretionary denial of institution, arguing that the Fintiv factors favored denial. Lemko highlighted the patent's age (over twelve years), AT&T's long-standing knowledge of the patent (since 2013), Lemko's substantial investment in the inventions, and the unlikelihood of the district court action being stayed before a Final Written Decision in the IPR. Lemko's request also cited prior IPRs against Microsoft regarding other Lemko patents, where some claims were upheld, and institution was denied in other petitions.

• Undetermined Outcome: IPR2025-01142 Institution Decision
  As of May 19, 2026, the specific decision on whether IPR2025-01142 was instituted has not been located in publicly available search results. However, the period following Lemko's request for discretionary denial (September 2025 onwards) saw the USPTO Director taking full personal control over all IPR institution decisions, leading to a significant trend of discretionary denials, often without detailed reasoning, based on factors like "settled expectations" and timing. This broader context suggests that such a denial was a possibility for IPR2025-01142.

• Current Posture: The district court litigation is ongoing. While a motion to stay pending IPR was filed, its outcome is not publicly available in the provided search results. Given the absence of later significant developments like Markman orders, trial dates, or final judgments in the readily accessible information, the case likely remains in its early to mid-litigation stages, potentially impacted by the pending IPR proceedings or the outcome of the motion to stay. No information regarding AT&T's answer or any counterclaims has been identified beyond the initial complaint. No public record of claim construction (Markman) outcomes, discovery milestones, trial events, or a final disposition (settlement, dismissal, judgment, or appeal) has been found.

Lemko Corporation is represented by the following counsel of record in Lemko Corporation v. AT&T Inc. et al., case number 2:25-cv-00305:

• Christopher V. Goodpastor

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: DiNovo Price LLP, Austin, TX
  • Note on experience: A trial lawyer specializing in patent litigation, he has secured a jury verdict against Samsung for smartphone data transfer patents and handles inter partes reviews (IPRs), having been recognized as a top-performing attorney representing patent owners in IPRs.

• Thomas Dunlap

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig, Leesburg, VA (with other offices including Tysons, VA; San Juan, PR; London, UK)
  • Note on experience: A founding partner with extensive litigation experience, he has secured a $31 million patent jury verdict in the Eastern District of Texas and has expertise in patent, trademark, and government contract disputes.

• Melissa S. Smith

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Gillam & Smith LLP, Marshall, TX
  • Note on experience: A partner experienced in trying patent lawsuits in the Eastern District of Texas, she has achieved non-infringement and invalidity verdicts and has served as local counsel in over three thousand patent cases.

• Richard D. Harris

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Day Pitney, Hartford, CT
  • Note on experience: Chairs the firm's Technology, Telecommunications, and Outsourcing practice group, focusing on commercial transactions with an emphasis on intellectual property and technology issues, including licensing and transfer of patents.

• Andrew M. Grossman

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: BakerHostetler LLP, Washington, D.C.
  • Note on experience: Leads BakerHostetler's Appellate and Major Motion team and has litigated complex commercial, administrative, and constitutional issues, including appearances before the U.S. Supreme Court.

• Craig J. Dillard

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Nelson Mullins, Houston, TX
  • Note on experience: His practice focuses on complex commercial litigation, including intellectual property litigation.

• J. Christopher Barks

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: No firm or office location definitively identified as representing Lemko in this case based on the provided search results; however, general experience in patent litigation is noted.
  • Note on experience: Experience in intellectual property and patent litigation.

Please note that for J. Christopher Barks, while general experience in patent litigation is noted, the specific firm and office location representing Lemko in this case could not be definitively identified from the provided search results as being explicitly linked to this specific plaintiff and case number. The PACER monitor link listed several attorneys, but the provided search snippets primarily elaborate on the experience of the individuals rather than their precise role or firm in this specific case, unless directly mentioned in the context of Lemko v. AT&T.

The defendant(s), AT&T Inc., AT&T Mobility, and other subsidiaries, are represented by the following counsel of record in Lemko Corporation v. AT&T Inc. et al., case number 2:25-cv-00305:

• Paul Andre

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP (office location not specified in direct search results for this case, but the firm has multiple US offices, including New York and San Francisco).
  • Note on experience: Paul Andre is a well-known patent litigator, frequently representing technology companies in high-stakes disputes, particularly in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Aaron M Frankel

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP (office location not specified).
  • Note on experience: Aaron Frankel is also part of Herbert Smith Freehills' intellectual property practice.

• Elizabeth L DeRieux

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Capshaw DeRieux LLP, Longview, TX
  • Note on experience: Elizabeth DeRieux is an experienced attorney practicing in the Eastern District of Texas, often serving as local counsel in patent infringement cases.

• James Hannah

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP (office location not specified).
  • Note on experience: James Hannah is associated with Herbert Smith Freehills in patent litigation matters.

• Lisa Kobialka

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer (US) LLP (office location not specified).
  • Note on experience: Lisa Kobialka is involved in intellectual property litigation at Herbert Smith Freehills.

• Krishnan Padmanabhan

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Winston & Strawn LLP, New York, NY
  • Note on experience: Krishnan Padmanabhan is a partner at Winston & Strawn, specializing in intellectual property litigation.

• Deron R Dacus

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: The Dacus Firm, PC, Tyler, TX
  • Note on experience: Deron Dacus is a highly experienced local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas for patent litigation, with his firm frequently representing defendants in this venue.

• Robert N. Kang

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Winston & Strawn LLP (office location not specified, but likely associated with one of their IP hubs).
  • Note on experience: Robert Kang is an attorney with Winston & Strawn, practicing in intellectual property.

• Shannon Marie Dacus

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: The Dacus Firm, PC, Tyler, TX
  • Note on experience: Shannon Marie Dacus also practices patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas and often serves as local counsel alongside Deron Dacus.

• Scott M Border

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Winston & Strawn LLP (office location not specified).
  • Note on experience: Scott Border is an attorney with Winston & Strawn involved in intellectual property matters.

• Kelly C Hunsaker

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Winston & Strawn LLP, Redwood City, CA
  • Note on experience: Kelly Hunsaker is an intellectual property litigator at Winston & Strawn, with experience in patent disputes.

The information for the attorneys is primarily sourced from the PacerMonitor docket entry for the case. Additional search results corroborate the role of firms like The Dacus Firm as experienced local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas for telecommunications patent cases. While some firm office locations for Herbert Smith Freehills and Winston & Strawn were not explicitly tied to the case counsel in the direct search results, the PacerMonitor listing provides the primary firm affiliation for each attorney.