Sol IP, LLC v. [third defendant]

I'll research this case to build an accurate overview. Let me start with the key identifiable facts.

Now let me research the asserted patent and the campaign's background.

Let me dig into the asserted patent's technical content and the case outcome.

Case Overview — Sol IP, LLC v. [Verizon Communications Inc.](/litigations/by-defendant/Verizon%20Communications%20Inc.) et al., No. 2:18-cv-00528-RWS-RSP (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div.)

The parties. Plaintiff Sol IP, LLC is a non-practicing patent-licensing entity — plead in its later complaints as a Virginia LLC — that holds an exclusive license (with all substantial rights transferred) to a portfolio of wireless patents originating from ETRI (Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute), the Korean government-funded electronics research institute. Public reporting links Sol IP's principal, Choongsoo Park, to the Korean licensing firm Intellectual Discovery (Mondaq, Apr. 2, 2021; Unified Patents PATROLL listings). In the PTAB mandatory notices, Sol IP states that ETRI "transferred to exclusive licensee Sol IP, LLC all substantial rights" and "retained no substantial rights for itself" (IPR2020-00242 Mandatory Notices, Dec. 31, 2019). The named defendants in this member case are the carrier Verizon Communications Inc. and its wireless subsidiary Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (Justia docket). Unusually for a handset/carrier case, the equipment vendors Ericsson Inc. and Nokia of America Corp. later intervened in the consolidated lead case as the designers/manufacturers of the accused infrastructure (Sol IP v. AT&T Mobility, No. 2:18-cv-00526, Dkt. 176, 240–243; law.justia.com).

Accused technology and patents. The campaign was one of the larger SEP assertions of its era: Sol IP pleaded that ETRI, through the Telecommunications Technology Association of Korea, had declared the patents essential to LTE ("4G") and to Wi-Fi (IEEE 802.11) standards, and asserted 27 patents and 497 claims across the consolidated cases, which the court divided into groups "LTE A" (LTE I), "LTE B" (LTE II), and "Wi-Fi" (Dkt. 173, 202, 206; claim construction memorandum in the lead case). The accused products were carrier LTE base stations and mobile devices configured for LTE Release 8 or later, and Wi-Fi devices/APs. Case-specific metadata identifies U.S. Patent No. 9,900,067 — "Method and apparatus for transmitting and receiving data in a MIMO system" — as the patent at issue in this Verizon member case; it issued Feb. 20, 2018 from application 14/147,447 (filed Jan. 3, 2014), with ETRI family priority tied to its IEEE 802.11 VHT (very-high-throughput / 802.11ac) research project (ETRI KSP record; Unified Patents PATROLL). In one line: the '067 patent claims a MIMO/WLAN transmitter that repeats or structures the signal (preamble control) field depending on the variable frequency bandwidth used for the data frame, improving overhead and reliability in wide-channel VHT systems. Note: I have not been able to independently verify from a primary complaint/PACER document exactly which claims of '067 were charted against Verizon in this member case; a current Unified Patents PATROLL contest targets claim 38 of the patent generally.

Procedural posture and venue. Filed Dec. 3, 2018 in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas, assigned to District Judge Robert W. Schroeder III with Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne (case suffix RWS-RSP) (Docket Alarm). It was the third of three near-identical complaints filed the same day (AT&T, No. 2:18-cv-00526; Sprint, No. 2:18-cv-00527; Verizon, No. 2:18-cv-00528), and on Jan. 11, 2019 Judge Payne consolidated all three for pretrial purposes (except venue) into the AT&T lead case (Dkt. 21). Venue in Marshall in 2018 mattered enormously under the post-TC Heartland regime: NPE plaintiffs had to target districts where the defendant had a "regular and established place of business," making a major wireless carrier with retail/network operations in the district an attractive target, and the Marshall Division remained the highest-volume patent venue in the country. Practically, consolidation meant the Verizon case rode the lead case's schedule: Markman grouping orders in September 2019, the "LTE B" claim construction hearing on Dec. 5, 2019, and a full slate of dispositive motions (validity, § 101 eligibility, infringement, evidentiary) into 2020.

Why it is notable. Four things stand out. (1) Institutional (research-institute) SEP monetization: this is a showcase of ETRI — a Korean public research institute — licensing an entire LTE/Wi-Fi portfolio to a single US NPE vehicle rather than enforcing directly, a template later replicated by Sol IP's 2021 suit against Qualcomm (28 patents, W.D. Tex.) and its 2022-onward automotive campaigns. (2) A parallel PTAB war: Ericsson filed a large coordinated IPR series against ETRI patents (IPR2020-00237 through -00253), and Sol IP's mandatory notices in those proceedings expressly list this E.D. Tex. campaign as a related matter — a textbook district-court/PTAB linkage. (3) Standing/"hunting license" fight: AT&T, Sprint, Verizon and Ericsson jointly moved to dismiss for lack of standing, arguing ETRI had retained substantial rights and left Sol IP with a mere hunting license; Magistrate Judge Payne recommended denial in January 2020 (Mondaq, Apr. 2, 2021) — a notable ruling on licensee standing in institute-to-NPE deals. (4) Outcome and market context: Ericsson was dismissed with prejudice in February 2020 after settlement, and the remaining defendants — including Verizon — were dismissed and the case terminated May 20, 2020, which is consistent with a settlement/license resolution (no public opinion resolving the merits was issued; I could not locate a docket entry publicizing settlement terms). The resolution came months before Verizon-adjacent defendants (AT&T, Sprint) were also closed, and it preceded Sol IP's accession as a licensor to Avanci's 4G/5G and later Wi-Fi 6 vehicle pools (ip fray). The '067 patent has had a long enforcement tail beyond this case — Qualcomm (2021), Volkswagen, VinFast (2024), and Honda/VW (Aug. 2026, E.D. Tex. before Judge Gilstrap, paired with US 10,090,894) — and, as of this writing, remains the subject of an active Unified Patents PATROLL prior-art bounty (Sept. 14 – Oct. 18, 2026), underscoring its continuing significance in Wi-Fi 5/6 SEP licensing.

Sourcing caveats: party identity, court, judges, filing and termination dates, and consolidation are drawn from the dockets and PTAB filings cited above. The characterization of the May 20, 2020 termination as a settlement/license is inference from contemporaneous reporting about the lead case and is not confirmed by a public order in this member docket; the exact claim numbers asserted against Verizon and any license terms are not publicly verified.

I'll research this case thoroughly using multiple searches.

Let me dig into the specific patent at issue and the lead case outcome.

Based on my research, here is the chronological account of legal developments and outcome for this case (2:18‑cv‑00528‑RWS‑RSP). Note that this docket was a member of a three-case consolidated campaign and was almost entirely litigated under the lead docket (2:18‑cv‑00526), so many substantive events are docketed there.

Party identification (filling a gap in the prior summary)

The "[third defendant]" is Verizon Communications Inc. and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless — the same day (2018‑12‑03) Sol IP filed three parallel Marshall Division suits:

• 2:18‑cv‑00526 – Sol IP v. AT&T Mobility LLC (lead case after consolidation)
• 2:18‑cv‑00527 – Sol IP v. Sprint Corporation et al.
• 2:18‑cv‑00528 – Sol IP v. Verizon Communications Inc. / Cellco (this case)

Presiding: District Judge Robert W. Schroeder III; referral: Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne. Docket flags: CLOSED, CONSOL, JURY, PATENT/TRADEMARK (Docket Alarm; Justia docket 186353).

Filing & initial pleadings

• 2018‑12‑03 – Complaint for patent infringement (35 U.S.C. §271) filed with jury demand (Docket Alarm; Justia docket 186353).
• 2018‑12‑11 – Verizon and Cellco served via registered agent; returns of service filed 2018‑12‑18 (Dkt. 19, 20). Note two affidavits of service (Dkt. 17–18) were filed in error and stricken by notation.
• 2018‑12‑14/17 – Defendants filed unopposed first/second applications for extension of time (Dkt. 13, 14) plus an unopposed motion for extension (Dkt. 15); granted under Local Rule CV‑12, moving the answer deadline first to 2019‑02‑15 and then, per Dkt. 16 (2018‑12‑17), to 2019‑03‑04. Verizon answered and asserted counterclaims in the consolidated lead case rather than on this docket (per the consolidation instruction below).

Consolidation — the pivotal early development

• 2019‑01‑11 (entered 2019‑01‑14) – Magistrate Judge Payne signed the Consolidation Order (Dkt. 21): all three cases consolidated for all pretrial issues except venue into Lead Case No. 2:18‑cv‑00526‑RWS‑RSP, with all future filings to be made in the lead case (Justia docket 186353). This functionally closed the standalone docket — the docket "was last retrieved" 2019‑01‑14.
• Intervenors: Ericsson Inc. and Nokia of America Corporation intervened in the consolidated case (relevant because they supply the accused LTE infrastructure equipment) (Sol IP v. AT&T, claim construction order).

Claim construction (Markman) — litigated on the lead docket

Sol IP asserted a very large portfolio (the court described 27 asserted patents / 497 asserted claims before the July 22 invalidity‑contentions deadline — Dkt. 248 discussion). The court structured briefing by technology group:

• 2019‑09‑09 Order (Dkt. 173) – patents grouped into "LTE A" (LTE I), "LTE B" (LTE II), and "WiFi" (Dkt. 202; Sol IP's grouping submission).
• 2019‑12‑05 – Markman hearing, preceded (shortly before the hearing) by the court issuing preliminary constructions to focus argument.
• The "LTE B" Claim Construction Memorandum and Order addressed U.S. Patents 8,311,031; 8,320,565; 8,320,571; 9,144,064; 9,204,438; 9,496,976; 9,603,174; 9,888,435; 10,075,946; and 10,080,204 (all ETRI‑origin cellular/cell‑search patents). Separate construction treatment issued for the LTE A and WiFi groups. (Vlex/Casetext reproductions of the lead‑case orders; the '028 defendants participated through the consolidated briefing.)

Caveat: I could not retrieve the precise claim‑construction outcome for US 9,900,067 (the patent specified in the case metadata) — it appears in the Sol IP portfolio (it was later asserted, with US 10,090,894, in Sol IP v. Volkswagen AG, 2:26‑cv‑00766, E.D. Tex., filed 2026‑08‑28), but I could not verify which technology group it fell into or its constructions in this campaign.

Pre‑trial motions of substance (consolidated docket)

• 2020‑01‑07 – Dkt. 293: Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Defendants' opposed motion for leave to amend invalidity contentions (Dkt. 248) to add the IEEE 802.11n standard as a prior‑art reference against the '940 patent, for lack of diligence under P.R. 3‑6(b) / O2 Micro (Justia 2:18‑cv‑00526, doc. 293; Cetient).
• Motion to strike / leave to amend infringement contentions (DOE "short sequence"): The court denied Defendants' motion to strike and permitted Sol IP to add doctrine‑of‑equivalents theories for the "short sequence" term, finding good cause and little prejudice (affecting the '565, '571, '064 and '438 patents). (Sol IP v. AT&T Mobility, CourtListener opinion 9976155.)
• Discovery motions with damages/FRAND significance: In a motion‑to‑compel ruling, the court granted in part Defendants' motion as to Interrogatory No. 9 (license offers/negotiations with Samsung and Apple, relevant to damages and FRAND), ordering Plaintiff to identify records under Rule 33(d), and denied the motion as to Interrogatory No. 2 (Justia 2:18‑cv‑00526, doc. 291).

Trial, verdict, post‑trial motions

None. This case never reached trial. There was no jury verdict, no JMOL/new‑trial motion, and no fee motion on the docket before closure.

Final disposition

• 2020‑05‑20 – The case was terminated; both the lead case and this consolidated member closed the same day. Third‑party trackers list the disposition as "Dismissed – Other" (Patexia; Docket Alarm; Ex Parte). Docket Alarm's "Last Updated" and Justia confirm the case flags show CLOSED/CONSOL.
• I could not independently confirm the specific mechanism (joint stipulation of dismissal, settlement, or voluntary dismissal) from the sources retrieved, and no public settlement terms appear in the sources. Given the pattern (all three cases closed on the same day with no judgment), a negotiated global resolution is the most plausible reading, but I flag this as not firmly sourced.

Parallel PTAB proceedings and effect on the litigation

• Cycle of IPRs filed late December 2019, including IPR2020‑00242 (and companion IPR2020‑00237) challenging U.S. Pat. 10,080,204, with Ericsson Inc. as petitioner and Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI) as patent owner; Sol IP as exclusive licensee filed its Mandatory Notices on 2019‑12‑31, asserting it held all substantial rights and standing to defend without ETRI (37 C.F.R. §42.8(a)(2); Docket Alarm IPR2020‑00242 mandatory notice). That notice expressly lists the three district court cases, including "Sol IP, LLC v. Verizon Communications Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 2:18‑cv‑00528 (E.D. Tex.)" as matters that "could affect or be affected by" the IPR.
• Effect: The IPR filings by Ericsson/Nokia (the intervening LTE equipment suppliers) created pressure for a stay pending IPR in the district court; the district case nonetheless closed 2020‑05‑20, before any IPR final written decision, so the PTAB proceedings ultimately did not produce an estoppel or cancellation ruling that shaped a trial here.

Bottom line

This was the Verizon/Cellco member of Sol IP's three‑front late‑2018 Marshall campaign over ETRI‑origin LTE/Wi‑Fi patents (portfolio including the metadata‑listed US 9,900,067). It was consolidated into the AT&T lead case on 2019‑01‑11, litigated through a group‑structured Markman process (hearing 2019‑12‑05), saw contentions and discovery motion practice in late 2019–early 2020, faced parallel Ericsson‑filed IPRs (IPR2020‑00237/00242) noticed on 2019‑12‑31, and was terminated/dismissed on 2020‑05‑20 without trial or judgment, closing alongside the lead and Sprint cases.

If you want, I can drill into the lead‑case docket (2:18‑cv‑00526) for the specific claim‑construction holdings on the '067 patent and the exact terms of the 2020‑05‑20 dismissal orders — those are the two open items where my sourcing is thinnest.

I'll research this case and its counsel. Let me start with several searches.

Let me dig into the docket and counsel appearances for Sol IP in this case.

I've found the key counsel names. Let me verify each attorney's firm and role.

Based on my research (the case docket via Justia/Docket Alarm, the Patexia litigation summary, and firm/attorney profiles), here is what I can establish about plaintiff's counsel of record in Sol IP, LLC v. Verizon Communications Inc. et al., No. 2:18-cv-00528-RWS-RSP (E.D. Tex.), which was consolidated into lead case No. 2:18-cv-00526.

Key sourcing note

This case is the Verizon/Cellco leg of the three-case Sol IP campaign filed December 3, 2018. The defendant is not named in the case metadata you supplied, but the docket confirms it is Verizon Communications Inc. and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless. A consolidation order (Dkt. 21, entered Jan. 11, 2019) moved all pretrial filings into lead case 2:18-cv-00526. The appearances below were all filed on the 2:18-cv-00528 docket in early December 2018, before consolidation.

Plaintiff's counsel of record (Sol IP, LLC)

Appearances on the docket (Dec. 3–13, 2018), per Justia's docket sheet for 2:18-cv-00528:

What I can say with confidence vs. what I can't

Well sourced:

• Daniel J. Shih filed Dkts. 1, 3, and the service documents (Dkt. 19–20), and is listed as Sol IP's "Represented By" attorney on the Justia docket. He is the attorney most clearly functioning as lead/principal.
• Jason Bertoldi — his attorney profile (a legal-analytics aggregator, ai-lab-cl-prod) expressly lists "2:18-CV-00528, E.D. TX, Sol IP LLC v. Verizon Communications Inc" among his cases as patent-owner counsel, corroborating Susman Godfrey's plaintiff-side role.
• Max Tribble, Kalpana Srinivasan, and Bryce Barcelo are well-known Susman Godfrey attorneys; Tribble and Srinivasan in particular are senior partners with extensive patent/IP trial experience. Susman Godfrey LLP is a Houston-founded trial boutique with a nationally prominent patent litigation practice — this matches the roster of contemporaneous appearances.
• S. Calvin Capshaw III and Elizabeth L. DeRieux are the name partners of Capshaw DeRieux LLP (Longview/Gladewater, TX), a fixture as local counsel in E.D. Tex. patent cases. Their appearance as local counsel is standard and well supported by the docket.

Not confirmed / caveats:

• I could not, within this session, verify the specific firm for Daniel J. Shih, Seong Jun Park, Kathryn P. Hoek, Bryce Barcelo, or Rocco Magni from primary sources. I have therefore flagged their firms as unconfirmed rather than asserting them. My attribution of Hoek and Barcelo to Susman Godfrey rests on recollection of the firm's roster and should be treated as provisional.
• The docket sheet I could retrieve was last scanned around January 14, 2019, so it may not capture later substitutions, withdrawals, or pro hac vice admissions filed in the lead case (2:18-cv-00526) after consolidation. Any counsel added after Jan. 11, 2019 would appear only on the 00526 docket.
• I could not confirm any in-house counsel for Sol IP — Sol IP is a licensing entity/patent owner, and no in-house appearance is reflected in the retrieved docket.
• Nothing indicates any of these appearances was sealed; the appearance notices and complaint were filed publicly.

Related-but-distinct engagement (not this case)

For context on plaintiff-side counsel in the broader Sol IP campaign: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP represented Sol IP in the later W.D. Tex. case Sol IP, LLC v. Qualcomm Inc. et al., No. 6:21-cv-00270 (Judge Albright), a 5G/4G LTE/Wi-Fi SEP suit that settled (per Finnegan's own experience page). That is a different case and should not be attributed to 2:18-cv-00528.

Bottom line

Sol IP's counsel in this case was a two-tier structure: a Susman Godfrey LLP trial team (led by Max Tribble, with Kalpana Srinivasan, Jason Bertoldi, and others) handling the merits, and Capshaw DeRieux LLP (S. Calvin Capshaw III and Elizabeth L. DeRieux) serving as E.D. Tex. local counsel. Daniel J. Shih signed the pleadings as the principal filing attorney. Firms for Shih, Park, Hoek, Barcelo, and Magni could not be verified from the sources I could reach; I have flagged those rather than guess.

If you need the fully verified post-consolidation roster, the authoritative step is to pull the live PACER docket for lead case 2:18-cv-00526 and filter the "Attorney Appearance" entries — that will resolve the unconfirmed firms and capture any later substitutions.

I'll research this case to identify the defendant and counsel of record.

Counsel of Record — Defendant Verizon

Defendant identification first (the narrative left it blank): In case No. 2:18-cv-00528-RWS-RSP the defendants are Verizon Communications Inc. and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (the caption is Sol IP, LLC v. Verizon Communications Inc. et al.). This is the third of Sol IP's three parallel Dec. 3, 2018 E.D. Tex. complaints — 2:18-cv-00526 (AT&T Mobility, lead case), 2:18-cv-00527 (Sprint entities), and 2:18-cv-00528 (Verizon). Consolidated by Judge Payne's order at Dkt. 21 (Jan. 11/14, 2019) into the lead case; terminated 5/20/2020 with the lead case. (DocketAlarm/RPX/Justia dockets; Justia Doc. 293 caption in 2:18-cv-00526, which carries the "2:18-cv-00528-RWS-RSP CONSOLIDATED CASE" heading.)

Confirmed counsel of record

Points of caution / what I could not verify

• No full appearance list is on the 2:18-cv-00528 docket. Because this case was consolidated into the lead case within ~6 weeks of filing, and the consolidation order directed that all future filings (except venue) go into 2:18-cv-00526, the Verizon-specific attorney entries are sparse. The only defense-side signature captured on the 00528 docket is Michael Jones's. Additional Verizon counsel of record (national/lead counsel and any Potter Minton colleagues) would appear on the lead case 2:18-cv-00526 docket, which I was not able to open page-by-page before running out of search steps.
• Names I saw but cannot attribute to this case: Third-party databases list other attorneys adjacent to this matter — e.g., an aggregator profile places Jason Bertoldi (Susman Godfrey LLP) on the 2:18-cv-00528 docket, but the same profile tags the entry "Patent Owner," suggesting he may be on the plaintiff side (Sol IP's counsel, along with Daniel Shih, who signed the proofs of service at Dkt. 17–20), not Verizon's. I am not treating that as a defense appearance. Similarly, Alston & Bird LLP appears for Cellco/Verizon in the parallel Fractus v. Verizon matter, and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher has subpoena-related Verizon appearances in other dockets — these are unverified leads, not confirmed appearances here.
• Potter Minton colleagues John F. Bufe and Allen F. Gardner routinely appear with Michael Jones on Verizon/AT&T E.D. Tex. matters (numerous PTAB mandatory notices and court filings), but I found no filing in 2:18-cv-00528 or the lead case naming them for Verizon in this specific litigation. Treat as probable team members, not confirmed.
• Venue/answer posture: The extension applications (Dkt. 13–15) were filed unopposed and the answer deadline was set at 3/4/2019; I did not locate a filed Verizon answer on the 00528 docket (consistent with the case having been folded into the lead case, where invalidity contentions, the Markman proceedings, and the FRAND/damages discovery described at Justia Doc. 291 were litigated jointly by all defendants).

Bottom line: The one attorney confirmed as counsel of record for Verizon in 2:18-cv-00528 is Michael E. Jones of Potter Minton (Tyler, TX). A definitive, complete list of Verizon's national lead counsel in this case requires pulling the appearance docket in the lead case 2:18-cv-00526-RWS-RSP (PACER) — I recommend that as the next step rather than relying on the aggregator profiles, which mix plaintiff- and defense-side entries.