Sol IP, LLC v. Sprint Communications Company L.P. et al.

I'll research this case and its context before drafting the overview.

Case Overview and Background

Parties. Sol IP, LLC v. Sprint Communications Company L.P., et al., No. 2:18-cv-00527-RWS-RSP (E.D. Tex. filed Dec. 3, 2018), is one of three parallel suits Sol IP filed the same day against the major U.S. wireless carriers — AT&T Mobility (lead case 2:18-cv-00526), Sprint (this case), and Verizon/Cellco (2:18-cv-00528). Sol IP is a Virginia LLC with a principal place of business in Vienna, Virginia, that describes itself as "an intellectual-property licensing company" holding an exclusive license to the asserted patents from the Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), a South Korean government-funded research institute, which allegedly "transferred to Sol IP all substantial rights in those patents" (Mondaq/RPX writeup of the later Sol IP v. Qualcomm complaint; the Stanford NPE Litigation Database classifies Sol IP's claims as "Acquired patents," and litigation-analytics services label it an NPE). Public records tie Sol IP to Choongsoo Park, a former Fish & Richardson associate and executive vice president of Korea's Intellectual Discovery patent fund; in later vehicle litigation Sol IP has sued through its licensing agent Avanci. On the defense side, the Sprint defendants (Sprint Communications Company L.P.; Sprint Solutions, Inc.; Sprint Spectrum L.P., with Sprint Corporation also named) were Sprint's carrier operating entities — at filing the fourth-largest U.S. wireless carrier, which was acquired by T-Mobile during the pendency of this case (merger closed April 2020). Both network-equipment vendors that designed the accused network gear, Ericsson Inc. (March 2019) and Nokia of America Corporation (Nov. 2019), successfully intervened in the consolidated case as designers/manufacturers, and the court treated them as "Defendants" for claim-construction purposes (Dkt. 292, WiFi claim construction order).

Accused technology and asserted patents. The campaign was a standard-essential-patent (SEP) assertion: Sol IP pleaded throughout that ETRI, through Korea's Telecommunications Technology Association (a 3GPP organizational partner), declared the asserted LTE and Wi-Fi patents essential to the 3GPP LTE (4G) and IEEE 802.11 standards, and it accused (i) the carriers' LTE/LTE-Advanced networks and (ii) the mobile devices used on or sold for those networks, plus Wi-Fi functionality. The scope was enormous: across the three consolidated cases the defendants faced 27 asserted patents and 497 asserted claims (Dkt. 293, Jan. 7, 2020). The patents were grouped into "LTE A," "LTE B," and "WiFi" families. Representative examples: the LTE "LTE B" group ('031, '565, '571, '064, '438, '976, '174) concerns cell search — detecting and decoding primary/secondary synchronization signals so a handset can find and identify a base station; the Wi-Fi group ('881, '095) concerns wireless-LAN/MIMO frame transmission. The patent carried in the case metadata here, U.S. Patent No. 9,900,067 ("Transmitting and Receiving Data in a MIMO System"), is an ETRI patent in that same MIMO/802.11 family (earliest priority March 12, 2010): in one line, it covers efficiently and reliably transmitting control/signal fields in a variable-bandwidth MIMO/WLAN data frame by repeating or differently structuring those fields depending on the frequency band in use (Unified Patents PATROLL contest description). Sol IP's first amended infringement contentions asserted '067 claims 1–21, 23–27, and 30–44 against all defendants (Sol IP's First Amended P.R. 3-1/3-2 Disclosures); accused instrumentalities were defined functionally as all mobile devices configured to operate on the defendants' LTE Release 8-or-later networks, subject to carve-outs for licensed vendors (Samsung, Apple, Amazon, Franklin) — i.e., a standard-compliance theory rather than a discrete product theory.

Posture, venue, and why it matters. Filed in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas — then the highest-volume patent plaintiff venue in the country — and assigned to District Judge Robert W. Schroeder III with Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne, the case was consolidated for all pretrial issues (except venue) into lead case 2:18-cv-00526 by order signed Jan. 11 and entered Jan. 14, 2019 (Dkt. 24), and was terminated May 20, 2020, when the case closed with the lead case. The litigation was procedurally heavy: a two-day Markman hearing (Dec. 5, 2019) with an unusually large number of disputed terms; claim-construction orders including Dkt. 281 (Dec. 17, 2019) and a WiFi order at Dkt. 292; a successful Ericsson motion to disqualify two of Sol IP's technical experts (Dr. Robert Akl and Mr. Robert Tidwell) for prior confidential work on the same accused Ericsson products (Dkt. 267); discovery fights over FRAND-related license negotiations with Apple and Samsung (Dkt. 291); denial of defendants' motion to amend invalidity contentions to add IEEE 802.11n (Dkt. 293); and a mixed ruling on motions to strike Sol IP's infringement-contentions supplements, in which the court allowed a doctrine-of-equivalents theory on "short sequence" but rejected Sol IP's catch-all identification of accused devices (Dkt. 533, Apr. 20, 2020). The case is notable in several respects: (1) it was a large-scale SEP/FRAND assertion by an NPE monetizing a foreign government research institute's portfolio, with an unresolved standing challenge arguing ETRI retained substantial rights (Magistrate Judge Payne recommended denial in January 2020); (2) it was linked to parallel PTAB proceedings, including Ericsson-filed IPRs such as IPR2020-00239 and IPR2020-00241 (filed Dec. 10, 2019), with Sol IP's pleadings and contentions surfacing as exhibits in those petitions; (3) it sits in the middle of a persistent campaign — Ericsson and Nokia were dismissed (Ericsson with prejudice in February 2020, reportedly in light of settlement), and the remaining defendants were dismissed in May 2020 per RPX/Mondaq's account, though I have not independently verified the precise dismissal terms from the docket — and Sol IP went on to sue Qualcomm (28 patents, W.D. Tex. 2021), then automakers (Ford 2022, VinFast 2024, BYD in Munich in 2025, and Honda/Volkswagen in E.D. Tex. in August 2026), feeding directly into Avanci pool dynamics; and (4) the '067 patent itself remains contested — Unified Patents opened a PATROLL prior-art bounty on claim 38 of US 9,900,067 running Sept. 14–Oct. 18, 2026, confirming the patent is still being asserted.

Sourcing notes / caveats: Party identities, court, divisions, judges, consolidation, and termination date are confirmed by the docket and CourtListener/RPX/Justia records. The '067's exact per-patent claim-construction treatment is not fully confirmed — the WiFi order I located addresses the '881 and '095 patents, and I did not verify whether '067 received its own construction order before the case closed. The characterization of the May 2020 termination as settlement-driven rests on the RPX-sourced Mondaq report rather than a dismissal order I reviewed directly, so treat that inference as reported, not confirmed.

I'll research this case across PACER, court opinions, the Federal Circuit, USPTO PTAB, and legal news sources.

Let me dig deeper into the outcome, the parallel IPRs, and the related refiled case.

Sol IP, LLC v. Sprint Communications Co. L.P., No. 2:18-cv-00527-RWS-RSP (E.D. Tex.)

Below is the chronological development of this member case, which was consolidated into the lead case Sol IP, LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, No. 2:18-cv-00526-RWS-RSP. Note at the outset: because the case was consolidated for all pretrial purposes, most substantive orders appear on the 00526 lead docket and govern the Sprint defendants (and the Verizon/Cellco defendants in 00528) jointly. Citation to lead-case docket entries is therefore necessary and appropriate.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

• 2018-12-03 — Sol IP, LLC filed three parallel complaints in E.D. Tex. (Marshall) against AT&T Mobility (2:18-cv-00526), the Sprint entities (2:18-cv-00527), and Verizon/Cellco (2:18-cv-00528). Each is a §271 patent case; the caption lists Sprint Communications Company L.P., Sprint Solutions, Inc., and Sprint Spectrum L.P. (with Sprint Corporation also named on the docket). No jury demand appears on the face of the 00527 docket. (Justia docket; Docket Alarm)
• 2018-12-11 — Sprint defendants served (Returns of Summons filed 2018-12-18); original answers due 2019-01-01.
• 2019-01-02 — Sprint defendants appeared through Robert William Weber (Notice of Appearance, Dkt. 22) and obtained an unopposed 30-day extension to answer, to 2019-02-01 (Dkt. 23). (Justia docket)
• The complaint asserted U.S. Patent No. 9,900,067 along with a large ETRI-derived portfolio. Sol IP's First Amended Disclosures Under L. Pat. R. 3-1/3-2 (served 2019-03-22) identifies the '067 patent (claims 1–21, 23–27, 30–44) among the asserted patents and accuses "all Accused Usage Devices and Accused Sale Devices" practicing LTE/Wi-Fi standards. The patents trace to the Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), with Sol IP as exclusive licensee. (First Amended Infringement Disclosure)

Verification note: I could not confirm the precise filing dates/content of the Sprint answer, affirmative defenses, or counterclaims (e.g., invalidity and non-infringement counterclaims) from the public sources retrieved; the answer deadline was extended to 2019-02-01. Defendants later undisputedly pressed invalidity contentions and invalidity defenses throughout the consolidated case, but I have not located the Sprint-specific answer docket entry text.

2. Consolidation

• 2019-01-11/14 — Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne entered the Consolidation Order (Dkt. 24 in 00527; signed 2019-01-11, entered 2019-01-14), consolidating 00527 and 00528 into lead case 2:18-cv-00526 "for all pretrial issues (except venue)." All future filings were directed to the lead case. This is the structural event that explains why 00527 terminated simultaneously with 00526. (Justia docket)
• The consolidated case became extremely large — the court and parties repeatedly referenced 27 asserted patents and hundreds of asserted claims. (Order, Dkt. 293)
• Interventions: Ericsson Inc. and Nokia of America Corporation intervened (as indemnitors/suppliers of the accused infrastructure). The Nov. 18, 2019 order (Dkt. 243) addressed Nokia's intervention. Ericsson's intervention is central because it drove the parallel IPR campaign (below). (Claim Construction Mem. Op., Dkt. 292)

3. Claim construction (Markman) — the substantive heart of the pretrial phase

• 2019-09-09 — The court ordered Sol IP to group the asserted patents into three clusters, and by Dkt. 202 Sol IP designated "LTE A" (LTE I), "LTE B" (LTE II) and "WiFi." (Dkt. 292)
• 2019-09-11 — P.R. 4-3 Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (Dkt. 176) reported no agreed constructions — a completely contested Markman docket. (Dkt. 292)
• 2019-10-16 — Sol IP's opening claim construction brief for the LTE Group B patents (Dkt. 206). The LTE B group included the '031, '565, '571, '064, '438, '976, '174, '435, '946, and '204 patents (cell-search/synchronization subject matter); the WiFi group addressed the '881 and '095 patents (MIMO/WLAN). Sol IP relied on the declaration of Dr. Jonathan Wells; defendants relied on Drs. Alexander Haimovich, Chris Heegard, and Sumit Roy. (Dkt. 206; Dkt. 292)
• 2019-12-05 — Markman hearing (the record references "two days of Markman proceedings" and a very high number of disputed terms). Shortly before the hearing, the court issued preliminary constructions to focus argument — a signature practice of this bench. (Dkt. 533 at 4)
• 2019-12-17 — Claim Construction Memorandum and Order for the LTE B patents (Dkt. 281). Critically for the merits, the court adopted Defendants' construction of the "short sequence" term — a construction that impacted asserted claims in the '565, '571, '064, and '438 patents. (Dkt. 281; Casetext)
• 2019-12-17 (separate order) — Claim Construction Memorandum and Order for the WiFi patents (Dkt. 292), construing terms such as "bit information" in the '881 patent and addressing indefiniteness disputes. (Dkt. 292)

Strategic significance: Sol IP lost at least one materially important term ("short sequence"), which forced it into a doctrine-of-equivalents fallback (see §5). The Markman phase also drove claim election (Dkt. 344).

4. Discovery milestones with strategic significance

• 2020-01-05 — Order on Defendants' Motion to Compel (Dkt. 291; motion at Dkt. 213). Judge Payne granted in part and denied in part:
  • Interrogatory No. 2 (element-by-element written-description/priority support): denied — not required by P.R. 3-1(e); following Finjan v. ESET; not proportional.
  • Interrogatory No. 9 (licensing negotiations): granted for pre-execution negotiations as to consummated licenses (Samsung, Apple), but denied for unconsummated negotiations (Mondis).
  • Interrogatory No. 12 (ETRI standards contributions): denied as unduly burdensome and of limited probative value.
    This order is a frequently cited E.D. Tex. discovery ruling on the scope of P.R. 3-1(e) priority disclosures. (Dkt. 291; reported as Sol IP, LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 2020 WL 60140 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 6, 2020))
• 2020-01-07 — Order denying Defendants' Motion for Leave to Amend Invalidity Contentions (Dkt. 293; motion at Dkt. 248). Defendants sought to add the IEEE 802.11n standard as an anticipatory reference against the '940 patent; the court found no diligence (the reference was publicly available and defendants had already used it in six other charts) and denied leave. This is a substantive loss for Defendants on invalidity. (Dkt. 293)
• 2020-01-20 — Sol IP served its First Supplement adding doctrine-of-equivalents theories for the "short sequence" term; Defendants moved to strike (Dkt. 319).
• 2020-04-20 — Order on the Motion to Strike (Dkt. 533): the court denied Defendants' motion and allowed Sol IP to amend its infringement contentions to add DOE theories for "short sequence," finding good cause/diligence and minimal prejudice because Defendants' non-infringement reports came over a month after the supplement and no expert depositions had occurred. This kept four patents' worth of infringement theories (including the '438 patent) alive. (Dkt. 533; Dkt. 537 discussion)

Note on overlapping property: The asserted patents in this campaign were all standard-essential (LTE/3GPP and IEEE 802.11) patents from ETRI; damages and FRAND issues pervaded discovery and expert work, which is why Defendants sought licensing-negotiation discovery (Interrogatory No. 9).

5. Pre-trial motions of substance

• No motion to transfer or motion to dismiss ruling specific to the Sprint case is reflected in the sources retrieved. (Venue motions were expressly excluded from the consolidation order, but I could not confirm a Sprint-specific venue ruling on the public docket. Treat this as unverified.)
• No summary-judgment ruling appears on the public record before termination — consistent with the case resolving in the spring of 2020, roughly 17 months after filing and before any trial setting.
• No motion to stay pending IPR is documented in the retrieved record; indeed, the IPR petitions were filed 2019-12-10 and terminated by settlement in March 2020, foreclosing any stay fight.
• The substantive pretrial rulings of note are the discovery relief (§4), the denial of Defendants' invalidity-contentions amendment (Dkt. 293), and the grant of Sol IP's DOE amendment (Dkt. 533).

6. Parallel PTAB proceedings — the decisive pressure point

• 2019-12-10 — Ericsson Inc. (intervenor/indemnitor) filed a wave of IPR petitions against the ETRI/Sol IP patents, captioned Ericsson Inc. v. Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute, including:
  • IPR2020-00237 ('337), 00238 ('936), 00239 ('438), 00240 ('976), 00241 ('435), 00242 ('204), 00243 ('168), 00244 ('168), 00249 ('354), 00250 ('063), 00251 ('174), 00252 ('066), and 00253 ('814). (Termination Decision, Paper 10, 2020-03-09)
• 2019-12-30/31 — Sol IP filed Mandatory Notices as exclusive licensee in the IPRs, identifying the three district-court cases (00526, 00527, 00528) as related matters. (Mandatory Notice, IPR2020-00239)
• 2020-03-09 — The PTAB entered Termination Decisions (Settlement Before Institution) in all the Ericsson IPRs (e.g., IPR2020-00239 Paper 10, IPR2020-00241, IPR2020-00251). The Board dismissed the petitions without institution or final written decision, treating the Settlement Agreement as business-confidential and holding that it "resolves the disputes between the parties in the above-captioned preliminary proceedings and the related lawsuits." (Termination Decision, IPR2020-00251)
• Effect on the litigation: The IPRs never reached institution, so no claim was cancelled or upheld by the PTAB. However, the March 2020, Ericsson–ETRI/Sol IP settlement is the event that coincides with the district court's May 2020 closure of the case. There is no IPR on U.S. 9,900,067 in the retrieved list.

Caveat: I could not retrieve a document expressly stating that the Ericsson–ETRI settlement also resolved the Sprint/AT&T/Verizon defendants' exposure. The Board's language ("the related lawsuits") and the timing strongly indicate a global campaign settlement, but the Sprint-specific dismissal instrument is not in the retrieved record.

7. Settlement / final disposition

• 2020-05-20 — Case 2:18-cv-00527 and lead case 2:18-cv-00526 were terminated/closed. The docket flags read CLOSED and CONSOL; the NPE Litigation Database and RPX list the case as closed on 2020-05-20 with no verdict. (Justia Docket Alarm; RPX Empower; Ex Parte/AI Lab record)
• No trial, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial/fee motions are reflected in the record. The case resolved roughly 17 months after filing, in the middle of expert-discovery/fact-discovery after the December 2019 Markman phase.
• The Precedential "present posture": closed and consolidated into the lead case, which itself closed the same day.

Confidence level: The termination date (2020-05-20) is well sourced (docket metadata). The mechanism (voluntary dismissal pursuant to settlement vs. dismissal on other terms, with or without prejudice) is not confirmed by any retrieved document. Given the March 2020 IPR settlement language, a settlement-driven dismissal is the most likely explanation, but I decline to state it as fact.

8. Aftermath / subsequent Sol IP campaign (context)

The Sol IP / ETRI campaign continued after this case closed:

• Sol IP, LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC et al., No. 3:20-cv-00137 (filed ~2020-01-20; listed via Justia with defendants Sprint Communications, Sprint Spectrum, AT&T Mobility and intervenor Ericsson/Nokia) — a related/parallel filing that was also closed. (Justia party search)
• Sol IP, LLC v. Qualcomm Inc. et al., No. 6:21-cv-00270 (W.D. Tex.), filed 2021-03-17.
• Sol IP, LLC v. Ford Motor Co., No. 2:22-cv-00097 (E.D. Tex.), filed 2022-04-22 (amended complaint).
• Sol IP, LLC v. VinFast Auto, LLC et al., No. 2:24-cv-05959.
  The patents at issue here (including the family of the '438/'435, and post-termination continuations such as U.S. 10,383,041 and app. 16/530,994) were later asserted against new defendants. (Patent-family references in US 11,425,633)

---

Summary timeline

Key takeaways

1. This case never reached trial. It is a consolidated, discovery/Markman-phase case that resolved in May 2020.
2. The decisive lever was the parallel IPR campaign by intervenor Ericsson — terminated en masse on settlement in March 2020, which coincided with the collapse of the district-court case, strongly suggesting a global settlement of the campaign.
3. The most significant contested merits rulings were (a) the December 2019 Markman orders, where Defendants won the "short sequence" term but Sol IP salvaged a doctrine-of-equivalents path via the April 2020 order; and (b) the January 2020 discovery rulings.
4. US 9,900,067 (the patent listed in this case's metadata) was among the asserted patents; no IPR on the '067 patent appears in the retrieved PTAB record.

Open items I could not verify from public sources: the exact content of the Sprint answer/counterclaims; any Sprint-specific venue ruling; the precise dismissal mechanism and whether it was with prejudice; and the terms of the settlements (all filed under seal as business-confidential). These should be confirmed via direct PACER inspection of the lead-case docket (2:18-cv-00526) and the PTAB termination records.

I'll research the counsel of record for the plaintiff in this case. Let me start with searches on the docket and related filings.

I found the initial appearance docket entries. Let me dig deeper to confirm firms and roles.

Let me pull the complaint signature block and check for additional appearances in the lead case.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — Sol IP, LLC v. Sprint Communications Co. L.P. et al., No. 2:18-cv-00527-RWS-RSP (E.D. Tex.)

Bottom line: Plaintiff Sol IP, LLC was represented by a two-firm team — Susman Godfrey LLP as lead/primary patent counsel (Houston and Los Angeles offices) and Capshaw DeRieux, LLP as Texas local counsel in Marshall/Gladewater. The plaintiff's appearances were docketed Dec. 4–13, 2018 (Dkt. 4–10, 13), immediately after the Dec. 3, 2018 complaint.

Attorneys appearing for Sol IP, LLC

Counsel listed below are drawn from the appearances docketed in No. 2:18-cv-00527 (per the Dockets.Justia docket sheet for that case) and corroborated by the Sol IP/Ericsson IPR correspondence identifying the same team (e.g., PTAB IPR2020-00239, Ex. 1033, in which Sol IP's D. Shih led and B. Barcelo and Capshaw/DeRieux were copied).

Role breakdown

• Lead counsel / trial team: Susman Godfrey LLP — Tribble (Houston), Srinivasan (Los Angeles), with Bertoldi, Hoek, Barcelo, Park, and Shih on the working group.
• Local counsel: Capshaw DeRieux, LLP — Capshaw and DeRieux (Gladewater/Longview, TX).
• In-house: None identified. Sol IP is an NPE/exclusive licensee of ETRI patents (it took all substantial rights to the patents-in-suit, per its Dec. 31, 2019 IPR mandatory notices), so there is no corporate legal department of record; no in-house counsel appeared.
• PTAB/IPR counsel (separate from this district-court docket): For the parallel Ericsson IPRs against the same Sol IP patents, the mandatory notices list Richard F. Giunta (Reg. No. 36,149) as lead and Elisabeth H. Hunt (Reg. No. 67,336) as backup — Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C. These are PTAB practitioners, not the district-court counsel of record, and are noted only because they handled the related IPRs.

Caveats on sourcing

• The party/firm attributions for Tribble, Srinivasan, Bertoldi, and the Capshaw DeRieux attorneys are corroborated by firm pleadings, attorney-profile databases, and the Sol IP–Ericsson IPR correspondence. The Susman Godfrey attribution for Hoek, Park, Barcelo, and Shih is based on the consistent Susman Godfrey filing pattern and IPR correspondence rather than a firm-branded signature block I retrieved directly; treat that firm assignment as well-supported but not individually confirmed by a signed document in this record.
• The freely available docket sheet for 2:18-cv-00527 was last retrieved Jan. 14, 2019, i.e., shortly after the Dec. 2018 appearances. Because the case was consolidated Jan. 11, 2019 into lead case No. 2:18-cv-00526-RWS-RSP (Dkt. 24) and all later filings were made in the lead case, any subsequent appearances, substitutions, withdrawals, or pro hac vice admissions were filed in 2:18-cv-00526 and are not reflected in the free 527 docket. A PACER pull of the lead-case docket (or the consolidated docket) would be required to confirm the final counsel roster through the May 20, 2020 termination.
• No sealed-counsel issue was identified; the appearances above are public docket entries. I did not locate a document indicating any attorney appeared under seal or with a withheld identity.

I'll research the docket and counsel of record for the Sprint defendants in this case.

I found the initial appearance. Let me dig deeper into the docket and counsel details.

Let me examine the lead case docket and filing signatures to identify all Sprint counsel.

Counsel of Record — Sprint Defendants

Important sourcing caveat up front: This case (2:18-cv-00527) was consolidated for all pretrial purposes into lead case 2:18-cv-00526-RWS-RSP on January 14, 2019 (Dkt. 24, Consolidation Order). After that date, substantive filings—and counsel signatures—moved to the lead docket, which is why the standalone 00527 docket is thin (last PACER pull indexed was 1/14/2019). I was able to verify one attorney of record via the docket; I could not verify any additional Sprint-side counsel within this research session, and I am flagging that as a gap rather than guessing.

---

1. Robert William Weber — counsel of record (sole confirmed appearance for all Sprint entities)

• Name / Role: Robert William Weber. Appeared on behalf of Sprint Communications Company L.P., Sprint Corporation, Sprint Solutions, Inc., and Sprint Spectrum L.P. His appearance is the only Sprint-side attorney appearance on the 00527 docket. Based on his firm's Texarkana location and his pattern of appearances in Sprint's E.D. Tex. matters, he functions as local/regional counsel of record (often paired with out-of-state national counsel in Sprint's other cases), though the docket does not formally designate him "lead" vs. "local."
• Firm / Office: Smith Weber, L.L.P., 5505 Plaza Drive, P.O. Box 6167, Texarkana, TX 75505-6167. Tel: 903-223-5656; Fax: 903-223-5652; bweber@smithweber.com. Texas State Bar No. 21044800 (admitted 1979).
• Docket support: Dkt. 22, Notice of Attorney Appearance (filed Jan. 2, 2019) for all four Sprint entities; Dkt. 23, Defendants' Unopposed First Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint (signed "(Weber, Robert)"), which was granted under Local Rule CV-12, setting Sprint's answer deadline to Feb. 1, 2019.
• Relevant experience note: Weber is a Texarkana civil litigator whose practice includes intellectual property, and he has been a recurring E.D. Tex. appearance counsel for Sprint Solutions, Sprint Spectrum, and Boost Mobile, including wireless-standard patent suits (e.g., Cellular Communications Equipment LLC litigation). In those matters he typically served alongside national defense counsel — but I could not confirm which, if any, national firm joined him in this case.

---

2. Sprint's national/lead trial counsel — NOT VERIFIED

I was unable to confirm from the available public sources whether Sprint retained outside national counsel (e.g., a firm handling the invalidity/claim-construction workstream) in this consolidated action. Because the substantive motions in the lead case were filed jointly by AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint (see, e.g., Dkt. 213 Motion to Compel; Dkt. 248 Opposed Motion for Leave to Amend Invalidity Contentions), the signatures may attribute the filing collectively, obscuring per-party counsel. Treat any specific name I have not listed above as unverified. The reliable way to close this gap is a direct PACER pull of the 2:18-cv-00526 docket and a review of the signature blocks on Dkts. 213, 248, 293, and the joint claim construction papers.

---

3. Related non-defendant appearances (context, not Sprint counsel)

• Intervenors Ericsson Inc. and Nokia of America Corporation intervened in the consolidated action (Dkt. 176; Dkt. 205 n.1; Dkt. 240; Nov. 18, 2019 Order, Dkt. 243). Ericsson, for example, filed the Motion to Disqualify Sol's experts (Dkt. 241, decided Dec. 5, 2019). These are intervenors, not defendants, and their counsel are separate from Sprint's — I did not verify their names here.
• Also note the caption shift: the suit was originally filed against Sprint Corporation et al., while later filings and the case metadata refer to the three Sprint Communications / Sprint Solutions / Sprint Spectrum entities. I did not locate a dismissal order for Sprint Corporation; that too would need docket confirmation.

---

Bottom line

The only Sprint-side counsel I can attribute with solid citation is Robert W. Weber of Smith Weber, L.L.P. (Texarkana, TX), appearing for all Sprint entities via Dkt. 22 (Jan. 2, 2019). Additional/lead counsel, if any, is not verifiable from the sources available in this session, and I have not invented names to fill that gap. Recommend a live PACER review of the lead docket 2:18-cv-00526 and signature blocks on the jointly filed motions to complete the roster.