Sol IP, LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC et al.

I'll research this case thoroughly before drafting the overview.

Let me dig into the '067 patent specifically and the IPR linkage.

Good material. Let me pin down the '067-specific IPR, the disposition, and the patent's technical content.

Case Overview and Background

Parties. Sol IP, LLC is a Virginia-organized intellectual-property licensing vehicle — a classic NPE/PAE — that brought this suit as the exclusive licensee of a large wireless patent portfolio owned by the Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), South Korea's government-funded electronics research institute. Sol IP's mandatory notices in the parallel PTAB proceedings state that ETRI "transferred to exclusive licensee Sol IP, LLC[] all substantial rights" in the asserted patents and "retained no substantial rights for itself" (Sol IP Mandatory Notice, IPR2020-00242). Reporting identifies Sol IP's principal as Choongsoo Park, a former Fish & Richardson associate and executive at Korea's Intellectual Discovery, with prior related NPE litigation (Mondaq/RPX, "Sol IP Sues Qualcomm Over 28 ETRI Patents," Apr. 2, 2021). The defendants are the three U.S. national wireless carriers: AT&T Mobility LLC; Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (with Verizon Communications); and Sprint Communications Co. L.P., Sprint Solutions, Inc., and Sprint Spectrum L.P. Significantly, because the accused features live in the network equipment rather than the carriers' own products, the equipment vendors Ericsson Inc. and Nokia of America Corporation successfully intervened — Ericsson in March 2019 (Dkt. 176) and Nokia by the Court's Nov. 18, 2019 order (Dkt. 243) — to defend the products they designed and supplied (Mondaq; Sol IP, LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, E.D. Tex. claim construction order).

Accused technology and patents. The accused instrumentalities are, in substance, the defendants' 4G LTE networks and the standard-compliant mobile devices used on or sold for them. Sol IP's Local Patent Rule 3-1/3-2 contentions define "Accused Usage Devices" and "Accused Sale Devices" as all mobile devices used on or sold by each carrier's network "configured to communicate in accordance with LTE Release 8 (or later)," expressly carving out devices made by Samsung, Amazon, and Franklin Wireless, devices licensed through the Sisvel UK LTE pool, and (for some patents) Apple devices (Sol IP First Amended Infringement Disclosures, Ex. 1026, IPR2020-00242). The campaign ultimately asserted roughly 27 patents (metadata; one source says 28), all traceable to ETRI and pleaded as essential to the 3GPP LTE standards. Sol IP grouped them into "LTE A/LTE I," "LTE B/LTE II," "WiFi," and paging families; the LTE groups concern base-station/user-equipment interactions such as cell search (detecting primary/secondary synchronization signals to identify a cell), paging, and MIMO/uplink control signaling, while the WiFi patents concern wireless local-area networking (Sol IP Opening Claim Construction Br., Dkt. 206). The patent carried in this summary, U.S. 9,900,067 ("Method and apparatus for transmitting and receiving data in a MIMO system," issued Feb. 20, 2018), is a MIMO/WLAN-family patent directed to transmitting and receiving data across variable channel bandwidths, making control/signal fields more efficient and reliable by repeating or structuring them according to the frequency band used; Sol IP asserted claims 1–21, 23–27, and 30–44 of the '067 against all defendants (Patexia case summary; Unified Patents PATROLL contest for US-9,900,067).

Procedural posture and notability. Filed December 3, 2018 in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas, the case was docketed as 2:18-cv-00526 and consolidated as the lead case with the parallel Sprint (-00527) and Verizon (-00528) suits, before District Judge Robert W. Schroeder III (RWS) and Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne (RSP). E.D. Tex./Marshall was then still a leading patent venue, prized by NPEs for its speed and experience — though this campaign is also a marker of the venue's shifting fortunes, since Sol IP's later follow-on suits went to W.D. Tex./Waco (Mondaq). The case's most consequential feature is its IPR linkage and settlement dynamics: on December 10, 2019 Ericsson filed a coordinated wave of thirteen inter partes review petitions against asserted ETRI patents (IPR2020-00237 through -00253; the '438, '435, '168, '204, and related patents are confirmed among them), and all were terminated on March 9, 2020, pre-institution, in view of a confidential settlement (Unopposed Motion to Dismiss, IPR2020-00239; IPR2020-00244 docket). Ericsson was dismissed with prejudice in February 2020, and the remaining defendants were dismissed on May 20, 2020, closing the case on a settlement/disposition basis with terms not public (Mondaq; Patexia lists 2:18-cv-00528 as "Dismissed - Other," terminated 5/20/2020). The litigation is notable for (1) epitomizing "privateering" of government-research SEPs — ETRI monetizing declared-essential LTE patents through an NPE — with FRAND/damages discovery into prior Samsung and Apple licenses and Sisvel-pool licensing (Magistrate Payne's Jan. 5, 2020 discovery order, Dkt. 291); (2) a live Article III standing challenge in which AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, and Ericsson argued ETRI retained substantial rights leaving Sol IP only a "hunting license," which Magistrate Judge Payne recommended denying in January 2020 (Mondaq); and (3) its place in a multi-year, multi-defendant assertion program that also swept in Qualcomm (W.D. Tex. 2021), Ford (2022), and VinFast (2024), and that remains an active target of Unified Patents' PATROLL prior-art crowdsourcing as recently as September 2026 (Unified Patents).

Sourcing caveats. The above is grounded in court filings, PTAB records, and secondary reporting, but several points are not fully verifiable from public sources: the confidential settlement terms (and whether all 27 asserted patents were resolved together); the precise disposition of each patent and the specific claims that survived claim construction; and which, if any, of Ericsson's thirteen IPRs challenged the '067 patent specifically — I could not confirm a '067-specific petition, so I have not attributed one. The claim-construction orders themselves are public (CourtListener) and would confirm the '067's grouping if needed.

I'll research this case thoroughly, starting with the docket and related proceedings.

Let me dig into the termination, the IPRs, and the related W.D. Tex. case.

Sol IP, LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 2:18-cv-00526-RWS-RSP (E.D. Tex.) — Key legal developments

Scope note: This is a large, consolidated, multi-defendant campaign (27 asserted patents, up to 497 asserted claims as of mid-2019). US 9,900,067 (MIMO, ETRI-origin) was one of the 27; most of the reported rulings below address other patents in the group. Where a fact is drawn from a secondary aggregator rather than a primary docket document, I flag it.

---

1. Filing and consolidation (Dec. 2018)

• 2018-12-03 — Sol IP filed three parallel complaints in the Marshall Division: No. 2:18-cv-00526 (AT&T Mobility LLC), No. 2:18-cv-00527 (Sprint Communications Co. L.P., Sprint Solutions, Inc., Sprint Spectrum L.P.), and No. 2:18-cv-00528 (Verizon Communications Inc. / Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless). All three were assigned to District Judge Robert W. Schroeder III with Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne; jury demand by plaintiff. Docket Alarm confirms all three were terminated 2020-05-20 with consolidated/patent flags.
• The three cases were consolidated under the -526 lead case; the caption in later orders reads Sol IP, LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, with Sprint and Verizon named as consolidated defendants.
• Intervenors: Ericsson Inc. moved to intervene (order at Dkt. 176) and Nokia of America Corporation intervened later (Dkt. 240; Nov. 18, 2019 Order at Dkt. 243). Both were network-infrastructure suppliers to the carrier defendants, and both participated as "Defendants" for claim-construction purposes.
• Asserted patents/claims: Sol IP's First Amended P.R. 3-1/3-2 Infringement Disclosures (served 2019-03-22) list asserted claims for at least eleven representative patents, including U.S. 9,900,067 (claims 1–21, 23–27, 30–44 against all defendants), plus '884, '063, '095, '940, '746, '894, '881, RE45,466, '211, and '174. The full case-wide total was 27 patents / 497 asserted claims before the July 22, 2019 deadline (Defendants' representation, Dkt. 248 at 3, quoted in Dkt. 293).
• Accused products: mobile devices and network equipment practicing 3GPP LTE Release 8 or later and IEEE 802.11 (Wi-Fi) standards, with carve-outs for licensed/excluded devices (Samsung, Amazon, Franklin Wireless, and any device licensed through the Sisvel UK pool). Sol IP is an ETRI (Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute) exclusive licensee; ETRI remained patent owner of record for PTAB purposes.
• Answers/counterclaims: I could not independently verify the specific answer and counterclaim docket entries within the research conducted. Given the discovery record (below), the defendants' defensive theory included FRAND/standard-essential-patent and patent-pool (Sisvel) licensing defenses, and the FRAND-related discovery disputes are documented (Dkt. 291). Treat the precise counterclaim counts and filing dates as unverified.

2. Patent grouping and claim construction (Sept.–Dec. 2019)

• 2019-09-09 (Dkt. 173) — Court ordered Sol IP to group the asserted patents. Sol IP's notice (Dkt. 202) created three groups: "LTE A" (LTE I), "LTE B" (LTE II), and "WiFi."
  • LTE A: '354, '337, '936, '814, '168, '066, '063, '884, '211, RE45,466.
  • LTE B: '031, '565, '571, '064, '438, '976, '174, '435, '946, '204.
  • WiFi: includes '881 and '095 (and related Wi-Fi patents).
• 2019-09-11 — P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement: "there are no currently agreed constructions" — i.e., every term was disputed.
• 2019-10-10 — Rebuttal claim-construction declaration of Sol IP's expert Dr. Jonathan Wells (filed as an IPR exhibit), responding to defense experts Haimovich, Heegard, and Roy.
• 2019-12-04 and 2019-12-05 — Two days of Markman hearings (LTE A argued 12-04; LTE B and/or WiFi argued 12-05). The Court issued preliminary constructions immediately before each hearing to focus argument.
• 2019-12-17 (Dkt. 281) — Claim construction order for the LTE B patents entered; the court adopted Defendants' construction of the "short sequence" term. Separate claim-construction memorandum and opinions issued for LTE A (addressing "paging" patents) and WiFi, plus a further opinion on the '881 patent (Dkt. 292). Citations: Sol IP, LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 2:18-cv-00526-RWS-RSP (E.D. Tex. Dec. 17, 2019) (LTE B), available at courtlistener.com/opinion/9975776; LTE A at courtlistener.com/opinion/9975776 and vlex; '881 at courtlistener.com/opinion/9975791.
• Strategic significance: Because the Court largely sided with Defendants on the key "short sequence" term, Sol IP's literal-infringement theory on four patents ('565, '571, '064, '438) was undermined, prompting a mid-discovery pivot to doctrines of equivalents (see §4).

3. Pre-trial motions of substance

• No trial occurred. The docket shows no Markman-to-trial progression; the case closed roughly five months after claim construction.
• Motion for leave to amend invalidity contentions (Defendants) — DENIED, 2020-01-07 (Dkt. 293). Defendants sought to add the IEEE 802.11n standard as an anticipatory reference against the '940 patent. Magistrate Judge Payne denied leave, holding Defendants failed to show diligence under P.R. 3-6(b) and O2 Micro — Defendants had already charted 802.11n against six other Wi-Fi patents, so the reference was not newly discovered. This was a meaningful plaintiff win on the eve of expert discovery, preserving Sol IP's Wi-Fi case against an anticipation attack. (law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/texas/txedce/2:2018cv00526/186351/293)
• Motion to dismiss / transfer: I found no evidence of a granted motion to dismiss, § 101 motion, or motion to transfer venue in this lead case. The case remained in Marshall before Judge Schroeder through closing. (A separate 2020 W.D. Tex. filing, No. 3:20-cv-00137, appears in Sol IP's docket history with Ericsson as intervenor; its relationship to this campaign — refiling, severed claims, or a new dispute — is unverified and should be checked on PACER before being relied on.)
• Stay pending IPR: I could not confirm that a stay motion was filed or ruled on. The IPRs (below) were filed 2019-12-10 and were all terminated as settled before institution on 2020-03-09, which would have mooted any stay request. Treat "no stay ruling found" rather than "no stay sought."

4. Discovery milestones with strategic significance

• 2019-03-22 — Sol IP serves First Amended P.R. 3-1/3-2 Disclosures (infringement contentions and accused instrumentalities).
• Dkt. 291 (Magistrate Judge Payne, ~Jan. 2020) — Discovery order on Defendants' motion to compel:
  • Interrogatory No. 2 — DENIED. Defendants sought element-by-element § 112 written-description/support contentions for every element of every asserted claim; the Court adopted the reasoning of Finjan and refused to require that level of detail, noting depositions were an adequate alternative.
  • Interrogatory No. 9 — GRANTED in part. Defendants obtained discovery into all license agreements and offers involving Sol IP, ETRI, and third parties — including the pre-execution Samsung and Apple negotiation/license offers and non-executed license offers, which Defendants argued were relevant to damages and the FRAND inquiry. Sol IP was permitted to proceed under Rule 33(d) by specifying records rather than compiling summaries, but had to identify and produce the records. This is the case's clearest signal that FRAND/SSO-licensing was a central damages/defense battleground.
• 2020-01-20 (Dkt. 319-10) — Sol IP serves its First Supplement to infringement contentions adding a doctrine-of-equivalents theory on the "short sequence" limitation, shortly after the Markman order.
• 2020-04-20 (Dkt. 533) — Court grants Sol IP leave to amend infringement contentions to add the DOE theory (opinion at Dkt. 533, pp. 1–13), over Defendants' opposition. The Court found: diligence weighed slightly in Sol IP's favor (it moved promptly after the Dec. 17, 2019 Markman order); importance weighed in Sol IP's favor because the "short sequence" construction affected all asserted claims in the '565, '571, '064, and '438 patents (with claim 3 of '565, claim 5 of '571, claim 1 of '064, and claim 16 of '438 elected per Dkt. 344); and it credited the burden created by two days of Markman and an unusually high number of disputed terms (P.R. 4-5(d) charts at Dkts. 253-1 through 253-3). Defendants' contrary argument — that four affected patents were a "mere fraction" of 27 — was rejected.
• Claim election: Sol IP elected claims per Dkt. 344 (reducing the number of live claims from the original ~497 — a standard case-management device in large E.D. Tex. campaigns).

5. Parallel PTAB proceedings and their effect

• 2019-12-10 — Ericsson Inc. filed at least five inter partes review petitions against Sol IP/ETRI patents in rapid succession:
  • IPR2020-00239 — Ericsson Inc. v. Sol IP, LLC (petition filed 2019-12-10; exhibits include the Oct. 10, 2019 Wells rebuttal declaration).
  • IPR2020-00240 — Ericsson Inc. v. Sol IP, LLC (filed 2019-12-10; terminated 2020-03-09, status "Terminated–Settled"; panel: Judges Droesch, Howard, Jefferson; Tech Center 2400, Art Unit 2469).
  • IPR2020-00241 — Ericsson Inc. v. Sol IP, LLC, U.S. Patent No. 9,888,435 ('435).
  • IPR2020-00242 — Ericsson Inc. v. Sol IP, LLC, U.S. Patent No. 10,080,204 ('204).
  • IPR2020-00243 — Ericsson Inc. v. Sol IP, LLC, U.S. Patent No. 8,971,168 ('168).
  • I did not locate a petition specifically against US 9,900,067 in these searches; the '067 patent's PTAB exposure in this campaign is unverified. (Note that Nokia, the other intervenor, is separately a heavy IPR filer, and Nokia or AT&T may have filed additional petitions that my search did not surface — worth a focused PTAB API / Docket Alarm check on the '067 patent.)
• 2019-12-31 — Sol IP filed Mandatory Notices in the IPRs (e.g., IPR2020-00242, Paper re Mandatory Notices), stating that ETRI transferred all substantial rights and retained no substantial rights, so Sol IP had standing to defend without ETRI joining. Sol IP also gave notice of the co-pending E.D. Tex. actions (-526, -527, -528).
• 2020-01-08/09 — PTAB issued a Notice of Defective Petition and then a Notice of Accepting Corrected Petition (IPR2020-00242, Papers 6 and 8), with a corrected exhibit table (Paper 7) — procedural only.
• 2020-03-02 — Unopposed motion to dismiss filed (IPR2020-00242, Paper 9), together with a Joint Request to treat the settlement agreement as business-confidential (Paper 10).
• 2020-03-09 — PTAB termination decisions "Settlement Before Institution" in the Ericsson IPRs (IPR2020-00242, Paper 12), i.e., the petitions were never instituted. Refund notices issued 2020-04-02 (Paper 14).
• Effect on the litigation: Because the IPRs settled before institution and were terminated in March 2020, they never produced a Fintiv-type stay fight or an institution decision that could estop anyone under § 315(e). Their practical significance is (a) they show Ericsson bet on PTAB as a parallel pressure track and (b) the settlement-driven IPR terminations two months before the case closed strongly corroborate a global, license-based resolution rather than a merits loss.

6. Final disposition and present posture

• 2020-05-20 — All three consolidated cases (-526, -527, -528) were terminated/closed on the same date (Docket Alarm; metadata "Status: closed"). Given the simultaneous settlement-driven termination of the Ericsson IPRs (2020-03-09) and the confidential settlement-agreement request filed with the PTAB, the most likely disposition is dismissal following a confidential settlement and patent-pool/license resolution — but the docket does not state a stated disposition in the metadata, and I could not verify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice, or whether any judgment was entered.
• No trial, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial/fee motion appears in the record; the case ended before expert trial practice, and the last substantive filings (April 2020, Dkt. 533) were discovery/contentions motions.
• No Federal Circuit appeal is indicated (nothing to appeal — no judgment on the merits).
• Aftermath / campaign continuation: Sol IP continued to monetize the same ETRI portfolio against downstream implementers, including a Ford action, a VinFast Auto LLC action (C.D. Cal. No. 2:24-cv-05959, asserting ETRI cell-search/MIMO patents including the '067 and '894 families on 3GPP LTE Rel. 8/10 standard-compliant equipment), and August 28, 2026 E.D. Tex. suits against Honda (2:26-cv-00764) and Volkswagen (2:26-cv-00766) asserting US 9,900,067 and US 10,090,894 against Wi-Fi 5 (802.11ac) functionality (counsel: Nelson Bumgardner / Brent Bumgardner, John Murphy, Timothy Grochocinski, Christopher Granaghan). The '067 patent at issue here thus remains the lead asserting patent in a live 2026 Sol IP campaign.

---

Bottom line

The -526 lead case was a volume NPE campaign against the three major U.S. carriers with supplier intervenors (Ericsson, Nokia), litigated aggressively through patent grouping, two days of Markman, parallel Ericsson IPRs, and hard-fought contentions and FRAND-license discovery. The decisive events were (1) Sol IP's loss on the "short sequence" construction with a partially successful post-Markman DOE pivot (Dkt. 533), (2) Sol IP's win denying Defendants' 802.11n invalidity amendment (Dkt. 293), and (3) the global settlement that wiped out all five Ericsson IPRs in March 2020 and closed the litigation on 2020-05-20 — with no merits judgment, verdict, or appeal.

Points to verify on PACER/PTAB before relying on them: the answer/counterclaim entries and any FRAND counterclaims; the exact dismissal order and whether it was with prejudice; the existence (if any) of a stay motion; and whether any petition attacked US 9,900,067 specifically.

I'll search for press coverage of this case across several angles.

Initial searches returned mostly court records, not press. Let me search more targeted news angles.

I have leads worth pursuing: a Susman Godfrey bio claiming Law360/WSJ/Bloomberg/Texas Lawyer coverage, and a Mondaq article. Let me search those specific angles.

Sources

• TO: Mail Stop 8 Director of the U
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
• 8320565 | NPE Litigation Database
• AT&T Mobility LLC - AT&T Mobility LLC
• Sol IP, LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC – CourtListener.com - 🚀 CourtListener is now available in ChatGPT
• Sol IP, LLC v. At&T Mobility LLC - From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research
• 2:18-cv-00526 | Sol IP LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC | Ex Parte
• UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• Sol IP, LLC v. At&T Mobility LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-00526-RWS-RSP LEAD CASE - Sol IP, LLC v. At&T Mobility LLC, Case No. 2:18-cv-00526-RWS-RSP LEAD CASE
• $4,000 for Sol IP MIMO patents prior art — Unified Patents
• Cases

I'll research the counsel of record for Sol IP, LLC in this case. Let me search the docket and related sources.

Let me dig into the docket and confirm the plaintiff's counsel of record.

Let me get the actual docket sheet and complaint to confirm all plaintiff-side counsel.

I was able to retrieve some plaintiff-side counsel information, but I should be transparent that I could not pull the full PACER docket sheet's attorney-appearance entries before exhausting my search budget. Here is what is well-sourced, followed by explicit gaps.

Plaintiff-side counsel of record — Sol IP, LLC

Firm of record: Susman Godfrey LLP — the plaintiff's law firm throughout the campaign. The firm's Texas base is 1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100, Houston, TX 77002 (Susman Godfrey also has offices in Dallas, Seattle, Los Angeles, and New York). The Sol IP campaign (this lead case 2:18-cv-00526 plus consolidated 2:18-cv-00527 and 2:18-cv-00528) was handled out of Susman Godfrey.

Confirmed attorney

Source: Ex Parte attorney profile for Jason Bertoldi, which ties him to Sol IP LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 2:18-CV-00526 (E.D. Tex.), among the companion filings — https://ai-lab.exparte.com/attorney/40833949/jason-bertoldi.

Likely/associated Susman Godfrey names — NOT yet confirmed as appearances in this case

Susman Godfrey's patent trial bench includes partners who routinely staff these Marshall cases. I found these attorneys repeatedly associated with Susman Godfrey's E.D. Tex. patent practice, but I could not confirm they entered an appearance in 2:18-cv-00526 specifically — treat as unverified leads, not counsel of record:

• Max Lalon Tribble, Jr. — Susman Godfrey partner, Houston; heavyweight E.D. Tex. patent trial lawyer (e.g., Fractus v. Geotab, 2:24-cv-01009; long record in Marshall patent cases). IAM Patent 1000 "Gold" individual.
• Joseph Samuel Grinstein — Susman Godfrey partner, Houston; Chambers USA–ranked for Intellectual Property (Texas); frequent E.D. Tex. patent counsel.

These names appeared in searches for Susman Godfrey's Texas patent practice generally (e.g., the Fractus docket, IAM/Chambers profiles) but not in a Sol IP filing I could verify.

Important caveats and gaps

• I could not download the PACER docket sheet's appearance entries (Dkt. Nos. for Notices of Appearance) for this case before running out of search steps. As a result, I cannot give you the complete, docket-verified list of every plaintiff-side attorney, their exact role labels (lead / of counsel / local counsel), or admission dates.
• No local counsel identified. E.D. Tex. practice often pairs national counsel (Susman Godfrey) with a Marshall/Tyler local firm. I did not find a confirmed local-counsel firm for Sol IP in this case; do not assume one.
• No in-house counsel identified for Sol IP (a non-practicing-entity-style plaintiff; likely no in-house patent litigators).
• The consolidated caption was split into three captions (AT&T at 2:18-cv-00526; Sprint at -00527; Verizon/Cellco at -00528), with Ericsson and Nokia as intervenors. Plaintiff's counsel of record appears to be the same Susman Godfrey team across all three.

Recommended next step to close the gaps

To produce a docket-verified roster (names, roles, firm addresses, and appearance dates), pull the PACER docket report for 2:18-cv-00526-RWS-RSP and look at the first ~10 entries (Complaint, Notice of Attorney Appearance, and any Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice), plus the signature blocks on Dkt. Nos. 1 (Complaint) and 533 (Sol IP's brief, 04/20/2020). Those will name the exact Susman Godfrey attorneys (and any local counsel) who appeared for the plaintiff. If you can confirm those entries, I can update this roster with verified role designations.

I did not fabricate any attorney names or roles; the only attorney I can affirmatively tie to a Sol IP appearance is Jason Bertoldi (Susman Godfrey), and the firm of record is Susman Godfrey LLP.

I'll research the defense-side counsel of record from multiple angles.

Good initial leads. Now let me pin down the docket-level appearances and the Verizon/Sprint side.

Counsel of Record — Defendant Side

Bottom line up front: I could confirm a full defense team for AT&T Mobility (Mayer Brown + Potter Minton) from an E.D. Tex. filing in this campaign, and I found a trace linking a Gibson Dunn partner to the lead case number. I could not retrieve the live PACER docket sheet or the attorney-appearance list, and the Dockets.Justia snapshot for the Verizon consolidated case is stale (last retrieved 1/14/2019, before any defense appearances). So the Verizon/Cellco and Sprint rosters below are partially unverified, and the intervenor (Ericsson/Nokia) teams are unverified. I have flagged each item accordingly rather than filling gaps.

---

AT&T Mobility LLC — best-supported

Source: an E.D. Tex. filing captioned "ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT AT&T MOBILITY LLC," archived at archive.org (gov.uscourts.txed.145573 doc. 362). The signature block lists the following:

⚠️ Verification caveat: the archived PDF sits under PACER case ID txed.145573, which is not the lead-case ID 186351 (2:18-cv-00526). The signature block matches this campaign's defendant profile (AT&T Mobility as defendant, Mayer Brown as national counsel, Potter Minton as Tyler local counsel), and the firm pairings are consistent with AT&T's standard defense arrangement in E.D. Tex. patent cases — but I could not confirm from the retrieved text that this exact filing is from 2:18-cv-00526 rather than another AT&T Mobility patent case in the district. Treat the AT&T roster as highly likely, pending docket confirmation.

---

Sprint Communications Co. L.P. / Sprint Solutions, Inc. / Sprint Spectrum L.P. — unverified lead

• Sarah L. Segal — Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. An attorney-profile aggregator lists Segal against Sol IP LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 2:18-CV-00526, E.D. Tex., filed 12/03/18, with a defendant-side role marker (profile page). Gibson Dunn is a known Sprint-side patent-defense firm. This is a case-association index entry, not a docket appearance — I could not confirm which defendant she appeared for, her lead/of-counsel designation, or her office. Do not treat as confirmed.

Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (and Verizon Communications Inc.) — not confirmed

• No defense-side attorney appearance for Verizon/Cellco in this case was retrieved. The only attorney entries I could pull for the Verizon consolidated case (2:18-cv-00528) were plaintiff-side (Sol IP's team), and the Dockets.Justia docket was last updated January 14, 2019 — before the March 4, 2019 answer deadline (Justia docket 2:18-cv-00528).
• By analogy only (not proof): Alston & Bird appeared for Cellco Partnership in the parallel Fractus v. AT&T/Verizon/Sprint/T-Mobile E.D. Tex. litigation (PTAB filing). I did not verify Alston & Bird appeared for Verizon in this case.

Intervenors Ericsson Inc. and Nokia of America Corporation — not confirmed

Both were intervention defendants (Ericsson per Dkt. 176; Nokia per Dkt. 243, Nov. 18, 2019 Order — see the claim-construction order text quoted at vLex). Ericsson separately filed IPRs against Sol IP (IPR2020-00239, -00241, -00242), and Sol IP filed a mandatory notice as exclusive licensee (IPR2020-00242 mandatory notice). I could not retrieve the district-court or IPR counsel names for either intervenor. Note that intervenor/IPR counsel frequently differ from the named defendants' counsel, so this should not be inferred from the AT&T team.

---

What is not available / what to pull next

1. The live docket sheet (PACER, 2:18-cv-00526-RWS-RSP) and the "Notice of Attorney Appearance" entries. These are the authoritative source for roles (lead vs. of counsel vs. local) and for the Verizon and Sprint teams. I could not access them; CourtListener/Justia mirrors I reached were either opinion-only (CourtListener opinion 9975877) or stale.
2. The protective-order service list — the best single document for a complete defense-side counsel roster in a multi-defendant, multi-intervenor case like this. Worth pulling.
3. Whether any appearances are sealed — I found no evidence of sealed appearances, but I also cannot rule it out.
4. Case closure (5/20/2020): the metadata shows termination without a stated disposition. The heavy claim-narrowing (27 patents → elected claims), the denied leave to amend invalidity contentions (Dkt. 293), and the parallel Ericsson/Nokia IPRs are all consistent with an eventual settlement/consolidated resolution, but no dismissal order or settlement document was retrieved, so I make no assertion about the disposition or who paid what.

Fabrication check: Every name above is drawn from a cited source document or index entry. I have not inferred or invented any attorney, firm, office, or designation. The only item I would characterize as a lead rather than a fact is Sarah Segal/Gibson Dunn for Sprint.