Sol IP, LLC v. Verizon Communications Inc. et al.

I'll research this case thoroughly using web search.

Case Overview and Background — 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.)

The parties. Plaintiff Sol IP, LLC is a patent-assertion/licensing entity, not an operating company. It describes itself as "an intellectual-property licensing company organized … under the laws of Virginia" that "holds an exclusive license to the Asserted Patents from" the Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), South Korea's government-funded ICT research institute, "which transferred to Sol IP all substantial rights in those patents" (Mondaq/RPX summary of Sol IP v. Qualcomm, 6:21-cv-00270). USPTO assignment records at the time did not show Sol IP as record owner; public records identify two Sol IP entities — a Virginia LLC formed January 2015 and a Texas LLC formed June 2015 — both associated with Choongsoo Park, a former Fish & Richardson associate and executive vice president of Intellectual Discovery (same). Sol IP runs two licensing programs sourced from ETRI: an "LTE/LTE-A" program and a "WiFi" program (kangxin.com analysis; ip fray). The defendants are operating telecom carriers: Verizon Communications Inc. (Delaware corporation, New York HQ) and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, its wireless operating subsidiary (docket). In March and November 2019, Ericsson Inc. and Nokia of America Corporation intervened as the designers/manufacturers of accused products (Sol IP v. AT&T Mobility, No. 2:18-cv-00526, Dkt. 281/293).

The accused technology and the patent at issue. Sol IP's operative infringement contentions (First Amended P.R. 3-1/3-2 Disclosures, Mar. 22, 2019) accused "Accused Usage Devices" (all mobile devices used on defendants' networks after issuance) and "Accused Sale Devices" (all mobile devices sold by defendants), excluding devices made by Samsung, Amazon and Franklin Wireless and devices covered by a valid Sisvel UK pool license — i.e., the carriers were sued primarily over 4G/LTE-capable user equipment (UE) and Wi-Fi-capable devices, not network infrastructure (Ex. 1025, IPR2020-00241). The court ordered the asserted patents grouped into "LTE A," "LTE B," and "WiFi" families (Dkt. 173, 202; see the LTE A construction order, Dec. 16, 2019 and the LTE B construction order). The patent at issue in this docket is U.S. Patent No. 10,090,894, titled "Method and apparatus for transceiving data in a MIMO system," issued Oct. 2, 2018, with claims 1–30 asserted against all defendants (Patexia case summary; infringement contentions table). Technically, the '894 is an ETRI-origin MIMO/WLAN patent aimed at VHT (802.11ac-generation) frame formatting — improving how a receiver determines frame length and frame end for more efficient decoding — and is part of the same family as US 9,900,067 and US 8,654,881 (Unified Patents PATROLL contest for US 10,090,894). Because the published claim-construction opinions I could locate cover only the LTE A and LTE B groups, I could not verify a court-approved construction of any '894 claim term; the characterization above rests on Unified Patents' technical summary and the patent's own title/abstract, and should be treated as descriptive rather than adjudicated.

Procedural posture and venue. Sol IP filed three parallel complaints on Dec. 3, 2018 in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas — 2:18-cv-00526 (AT&T, lead), -00527 (Sprint), and this one, -00528 (Verizon) — alleging infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271, with a jury demand. The case was assigned to District Judge Robert W. Schroeder III, with Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne (Docket Alarm). On Jan. 11, 2019, the court consolidated all three for pretrial purposes (except venue) under lead case 2:18-cv-00526-RWS-RSP, directing future filings into the lead case (Dkt. 21). Venue mattered enormously: in 2018 E.D. Tex. was the nation's dominant patent-filing district, and Marshall in particular was known for a fast docket and plaintiff-favorable juries; because the defendants are carriers with retail stores and consumer sales in the district, Sol IP pleaded specific personal jurisdiction and venue on that retail/sales presence (see the parallel complaint's jurisdiction allegations at PTAB exhibit), which insulated the case from the TC Heartland venue squeeze that was then reshaping patent filings.

What happened, and why it's notable. The case was dismissed on May 20, 2020 ("dismissed — other"), and the docket reflects a settlement rather than a merits judgment. Along the way the litigation generated: (1) a standing/"hunting license" challenge — AT&T, Sprint, Verizon and Ericsson moved to dismiss on the theory that ETRI retained substantial rights, leaving Sol IP a mere exclusive licensee; Magistrate Judge Payne recommended denial in January 2020 (Mondaq); (2) a FRAND/SEP fight, since Sol IP pleaded willfulness based on pre-suit 2015 notice letters and ETRI's declarations of the LTE patents as essential through Korea's Telecommunications Technology Association, and sought discovery into prior Apple/Samsung license offers, Sisvel pool terms, and ETRI/Sol IP license negotiations (see the order on motions to compel, Dkt. 291); (3) a denied motion to amend invalidity contentions to add IEEE 802.11n, in a case the court described as having "27 asserted patents and 497 asserted claims" at its peak (Dkt. 293, Jan. 7, 2020) — an unusually large SEP assertion; and (4) a notable IPR-linkage episode: on Dec. 10, 2019 Ericsson filed thirteen IPR petitions against the asserted patents (IPR2020-00237 through -00253), and after Ericsson settled in February 2020 the parties filed substantively identical unopposed motions to dismiss each petition pre-institution, citing a confidential settlement agreement covering all three district-court cases, including this one (IPR2020-00238, Paper 7, Mar. 2, 2020). In market context, Sol IP has continued to monetize the ETRI portfolio: it sued Qualcomm on 28 ETRI patents in W.D. Tex. in 2021, joined Avanci's 4G/5G Vehicle and Wi-Fi 6 Vehicles programs as a licensor, litigated ETRI 4G SEPs against BYD in Germany and at the UPC (2025, since settled), and — most directly relevant here — in August 2026 filed fresh E.D. Tex. complaints against Honda (2:26-cv-00764) and Volkswagen (2:26-cv-00766) asserting, among others, US 10,090,894 (PacerMonitor Honda; PacerMonitor Volkswagen).

Sourcing caveat. Party names, court, division, case number, judges, consolidation, key rulings, IPR numbers and the May 20, 2020 dismissal are grounded in the docket summaries, CourtListener/Justia opinions, and PTAB filings cited above. Two points are not well sourced from primary documents: (a) the precise reason for the May 20, 2020 dismissal (the settlement agreement itself was filed as business-confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b), so no public order states the consideration); and (b) the WiFi/MIMO technical framing of the '894 and its assignment to the "WiFi" group, which I infer from Sol IP's grouping order, the patent's title, and Unified Patents' contest description rather than from a published claim-construction opinion. I also could not confirm from primary sources whether any of the thirteen Ericsson IPRs specifically targeted the '894; the petitions were dismissed before institution, so no PTAB merits ruling on the '894 exists.

I'll research this case thoroughly. Let me start with several targeted searches.

Let me dig deeper into the docket, settlement, and PTAB proceedings.

I was able to gather substantial material before hitting my research-step limit. Below is a chronology grounded in what I found, with explicit flags where the record is thin. Note a structural complication up front: this docket (2:18-cv-00528) was consolidated into Sol IP's AT&T lead case (2:18-cv-00526-RWS-RSP) on 2019-01-11 for all pretrial issues except venue. Almost every substantive event below therefore occurred on the lead case's docket and applies to Verizon by consolidation.

---

Case skeleton (confirmed)

Sources: Docket Alarm; Justia Dockets; Patexia.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings (Dec 2018 – Mar 2019)

• 2018-12-03 — Sol IP files three parallel complaints in Marshall: the AT&T lead case (2:18-cv-00526), the Sprint case (2:18-cv-00527), and this Verizon case (2:18-cv-00528). All three assert the same ETRI-originated LTE/Wi-Fi portfolio. Docket: complaint at Dkt. 1 (Verizon docket).
• 2018-12-11 — Verizon Communications Inc. and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless both served via registered agent The Corporation Trust Company (Dkts. 19–20, filed 2018-12-18).
• 2018-12-14 — Defendants file first and second unopposed applications for extension of time to answer (Dkts. 13–14), plus a motion resolved by Dkt. 16 (2018-12-17), which reset the answer deadline. The docket shows the answer due date extended multiple times, ultimately to 2019-03-04 for both Verizon entities.
• Answer / counterclaims: The Justia docket snapshot (last retrieved 2019-01-14) does not display an answer or counterclaims. I could not confirm from available sources the contents of Verizon's answer or any declaratory-judgment counterclaims of non-infringement/invalidity; the near-certain practice in this posture would be DJ counterclaims plus affirmative defenses (invalidity, non-infringement, FRAND/licensing defenses, § 101/§ 112). Treat that as inference, not sourced fact.

2. Consolidation (Jan 2019)

• Order signed 2019-01-11, entered 2019-01-14 — Dkt. 21: "The above-captioned cases are CONSOLIDATED for all pretrial issues (except venue) with Lead Case No. 2:18-CV-00526-RWS-RSP. All parties are instructed to file future filings (except relating to venue) in the Lead Case." (Magistrate Judge Payne.) See Justia Docket.
  • Strategic significance: Carving venue out of the consolidation means venue remained potentially live as to the Verizon/Sprint dockets. I did not locate a venue-transfer opinion in the record I retrieved; the case metadata does not reflect a transfer.

3. Intervenors (2019)

• Ericsson Inc. intervened in the consolidated case (referenced as Intervenor at Dkt. 176). Nokia of America Corporation intervened as well (see Dkt. 240, and the Nov. 18, 2019 Order, Dkt. 243). Both are the network-infrastructure suppliers whose LTE equipment Sol IP accused indirectly through the carriers, so they intervened to defend their products and drive invalidity claim construction. See Sol IP, LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC (consolidated), reported at CourtListener and VLEX.

4. Scale of the case and pre-Markman management (2019)

• Across the consolidated cases, this was an unusually large campaign: 27 asserted patents and 497 asserted claims before the July 22, 2019 invalidity-contentions deadline (see the Court's recitation in the 2020-01-07 Dkt. 293 opinion on Defendants' motion for leave to amend invalidity contentions, Justia Text).
• 2019-09-09 — Dkt. 173 (Order): The Court directed Sol IP to group the asserted patents. Sol IP then filed a notice of patent grouping (Dkt. 202) splitting the portfolio into "LTE A" (LTE I), "LTE B" (LTE II), and "WiFi."
• 2019-03-22 — Plaintiff Sol IP's First Amended Disclosures under P.R. 3-1/3-2: Asserted US 10,090,894, all claims 1–30, against all defendants (alongside '884, '063, '095, '940, '746, '881, '067, '256, RE45,466, and '211). Accused instrumentalities were framed as "all mobile devices used on defendants' mobile network … configured to communicate in accordance with" the relevant standards, with carve-outs for Samsung, Amazon, Franklin Wireless, and Sisvel-licensed devices. (Reproduced as an exhibit to the Ericsson IPRs — Dkt. Alarm copy).
• Note: after Sol IP's claim election, many previously disputed terms dropped out (see Sol IP's Opening Claim Construction Brief, Dkt. 206 at n.2, copy).

5. Claim construction (Markman) — the substantive heart of the case

All three Markman groupings were heard at a single hearing on 2019-12-05, with the Court issuing preliminary constructions shortly before the hearing to focus argument, followed by written Claim Construction Memoranda and Orders.

Group compositions (from the orders):

• LTE A (LTE I) — '354, '337, '936, '814, '168, '066, '063, '884, '211, RE45,466 (Sol IP opening brief, Dkt. 205, Exs. A1–A10). Order reported at Casetext.
• LTE B (LTE II) — '031, '565, '571, '064, '438, '976, '174, '435, '946, '204 (Dkt. 206, Exs. B1–B10). Order reported at CourtListener.
• WiFi — '881 and '095 (Dkt. 207, Exs.). Order reported at CourtListener Dkt. 292.

Representative outcomes (LTE B / "cell search" patents): In the '031/'976 family the fight was over whether the specification compelled that the PSS carries cell-group ID and the SSS carries cell-ID-within-group, versus Sol IP's "plain meaning"/partial-information reading. Defendants argued indefiniteness if the terms were read otherwise; Sol IP countered that Defendants' constructions would render dependent claims 3, 4, 10, 11 logically impossible. The Court gave preliminary constructions (e.g., "primary synchronization sequence (PSS) carrying partial information of a cell identification" → "carrying a portion of information that identifies a cell"; "SSS carrying remaining information…" → "carrying the remainder of the information that identifies the cell"), and for the '976 "indicator" terms the Court's preliminary constructions largely tracked plain meaning. See Casetext opinion text.

WiFi group: Disputes included "bit information" in the '881 patent, where Defendants contended indefinite and the Court's preliminary construction was "information regarding a data field" (Dkt. 292 at 4 & tbl.).

Caveat on the '894 patent: I could not confirm that US 10,090,894 was elected for, or reached, claim construction in the district court. The '894 is a MIMO/WLAN frame-formatting patent in the same ETRI family as the '881 patent (cf. Unified Patents' characterization of '894 as covering "MIMO/WLAN data transmission and reception, especially VHT frame formatting," PATROLL), so it would logically belong to the "WiFi" grouping — but the WiFi Markman order I retrieved addresses '881 and '095, suggesting '894 was among the non-elected/non-disputed patents after the claim election. Flag as unresolved.

6. Discovery milestones with strategic significance

• Invalidity contentions / leave to amend — Dkt. 248 & Order Dkt. 293 (2020-01-07): Defendants (AT&T, Verizon/Cellco, Sprint) moved for leave to add the IEEE 802.11n standard as an anticipatory reference against the '940 patent. The Court DENIED leave, finding no diligence under P.R. 3-6(b)/O2 Micro: 802.11n was publicly available and Defendants had already used it in six other Wi-Fi claim charts, so they either mistakenly omitted it or consciously chose to — either way, no good cause. This was a meaningful defense setback on one of the Wi-Fi patents.
• Motion to compel / FRAND & damages discovery — Dkt. 291: The Court addressed Defendants' motion to compel interrogatory responses.
  • Interrogatory No. 2 (detailed § 112 support contentions for every element of every asserted claim) — DENIED, following Finjan; the information was obtainable by other means.
  • Interrogatory No. 9 (identify all license agreements/offers between Sol IP, ETRI, and third parties, including negotiation dates, terms, royalty rates) — GRANTED in part as to pre-agreement offers from Samsung and Apple (Sol IP had agreed to produce those), with Rule 33(d) business-records option. Defendants' requests were expressly tied to damages and the FRAND inquiry — i.e., this was SEP/FRAND discovery aimed at showing Sol IP's royalty demands were inconsistent with its FRAND obligations and with ETRI's existing pool licenses (Sisvel). Justia text.
  • Strategic significance: The FRAND/license-offer discovery plus the Sisvel carve-out in Sol IP's infringement contentions confirms the defense theory was (a) FRAND overreach and (b) exhaustion/license through the Sisvel pool, in addition to invalidity.
• Infringement-contentions amendments: The Court also adjudicated Sol IP's motions to amend/supplement infringement contentions, including one addressing whether Sol IP credibly "did not previously know" of newly added devices (reported at CourtListener 9976155).

I found no summary-judgment motion, Daubert ruling, or motion to strike resolved on the merits in the materials retrieved. Given the 2020-05-20 termination, the case appears to have ended before dispositive motions.

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings

• 2019-12-10 — Ericsson Inc. petitions for IPR against a cluster of ETRI/Sol IP patents: IPR2020-00237, -00238, -00239, -00240, -00241, -00242. Examples: IPR2020-00241 (US 9,888,435) and IPR2020-00242 (US 10,080,204). The petitions were filed in the PTAB with ETRI as patent owner and Sol IP as exclusive licensee. See Dkt. Alarm PTAB docket.
• 2019-12-31 — Sol IP files Mandatory Notices as exclusive licensee under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8(a)(2), asserting that "ETRI transferred to exclusive licensee Sol IP, LLC, all substantial rights" and that Sol IP "has standing to defend the patent[s] … without the participation of ETRI." Sol IP listed the three district-court cases — 2:18-cv-00526, -00527, and -00528 (Verizon) — as related matters. Notice.
• 2020-03-02/03-09 — Settlement-before-institution terminations: The Board terminated the Ericsson IPRs (at minimum IPR2020-00242, and the parallel set) after the parties filed an Unopposed Motion to Dismiss and a confidential settlement agreement; the Board treated the agreement as business confidential under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b). PTAB issued the Termination Decision Document on 2020-03-09, with a refund approval 2020-04-02. Order PDF (illustrating the Board's standard termination-on-settlement practice).
  • Effect on the litigation: Because these IPRs were terminated pre-institution, there was no institution decision and no final written decision. The only litigation effect was timing pressure — the December 2019 filings coincided with the December 5, 2019 Markman hearing and the January 2020 contentions disputes, and Ericsson used the district-court record (Sol IP's infringement contentions, Sol IP's opening claim-construction brief, Dr. Wells's declarations) as IPR exhibits, which is why those district documents are now publicly available.
• No IPR on the '894 patent found. I located no PTAB petition against US 10,090,894. Corroborating that inference: as of 2026, Unified Patents opened a fresh PATROLL prior-art contest targeting at least claim 7 of the '894 patent (window Sept. 14 – Oct. 18, 2026), which is the kind of crowdsourced search typically run because no IPR has been filed. PATROLL contest.

8. Final disposition (2020)

• 2020-05-20 — Case terminated, docket status "dismissed - other." Docket Alarm; Patexia.
• Character of the disposition: Consistent with (a) the March 2020 Ericsson settlement that resolved "all currently pending matters before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and District Court proceedings between the Parties" and (b) the rapid March–May 2020 wind-down of the coordinated Ericsson IPRs, the Verizon docket almost certainly closed by stipulated dismissal following settlement. However, I was unable to retrieve the dismissal order or a settlement announcement for the Verizon docket specifically, so I cannot state the dismissal's terms (with/without prejudice, license, or payment) as sourced fact. No final judgment, no verdict, no JMOL/new-trial/fee motion, and no appeal appears in the record I retrieved.
• Important nuance: the March 2020 PTAB settlement was between Ericsson and Sol IP/ETRI — not Verizon. The Verizon dismissal two months later is a separate event. I would characterize the two as related components of a coordinated 2020 global resolution of the Sol IP/ETRI campaign against the U.S. carriers, but the link is inference.

9. Posture and legacy

• The lead 2:18-cv-00526 (AT&T) case is referenced in later filings as "active as of 02/01/2023" (PTAB petition exhibit), suggesting at least some portion of the consolidated campaign persisted or was reopened/refiled after this docket closed — treat as a lead-case artifact, not a Verizon-docket event.
• Sol IP's campaign continues into 2026 on the same ETRI portfolio, including the '894 patent: Sol IP, LLC v. Honda Motor Co. (2:26-cv-00764, E.D. Tex., filed 2026-08-28, Judge Gilstrap) and Sol IP, LLC v. Volkswagen AG (2:26-cv-00766, filed 2026-08-28), both attaching US 10,090,894 as an exhibit. PacerMonitor: Honda; PacerMonitor: VW. This means the '894 patent's validity remains untested at the PTAB and the patent is still being asserted.

---

Consolidated chronology (Verizon docket + related lead-case events)

---

Where the record is thin (do not treat as established)

1. Verizon's answer and any counterclaims — not retrieved; the answer's content is unknown from my sources.
2. The specific dismissal instrument on 2020-05-20 (stipulated dismissal? with or without prejudice? license terms?) — not retrieved.
3. Whether US 10,090,894 was elected and construed — not confirmed; it does not appear in the reported LTE A/LTE B/WiFi Markman orders I found.
4. Any venue motion or ruling — none found, despite venue being carved out of the consolidation order.
5. Any IPR against the '894 patent — none found; the 2026 Unified PATROLL contest implies none was ever filed.

If you need items 1–4 nailed down, the next step would be PACER pulls of the Verizon docket (2:18-cv-00528, Dkts. 1, 22+, and the post-May-2020 closing entries) and the lead case's 2020 docket around the May 20, 2020 termination.

I'll search for press coverage of this case from multiple angles.

Press and trade coverage of Sol IP v. Verizon (2:18-cv-00528)

The short version: this docket generated essentially no case-specific press. Searching the caption, the party names, the '894 patent number, and the settlement date, I found no Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Ars Technica, The Verge, Patently-O, EFF Deeplinks, or JD Supra article about the Verizon docket itself. What Law360's public indexes returned for "Verizon" + "patent verdict" was a snippet about a $190 million jury verdict against Verizon Wireless in E.D. Tex. over Wi-Fi-to-cellular call handover (Law360 index snippet) — reported in more detail as a post-trial JMOL fight by legalnewsfeed on 2026-07-31. That is not this case: the technology (call handover) and the patents are different, and RPX attributes Q2 2026's top damage award against Verizon to plaintiff Aspen Networks — so the $190M verdict should not be conflated with Sol IP's 2020 dismissal. The best evidence that the Sol IP case ended quietly rather than newsworthy is that the only public statement of its outcome I could find is an attorney bio: Susman Godfrey's Bryce Barcelo page states the consolidated carrier litigation "resolved against all defendants the month before trial." That is a law-firm self-description, not press reporting, and it gives no terms.

The coverage that does exist is trade/analyst-level and mostly about the campaign, not this docket. The single most substantive published account is Mondaq (2021-04-02, "Sol IP Sues Qualcomm Over 28 ETRI Patents"), which states that the carrier campaign "launched … in December 2018 with suits against wireless carriers AT&T, Sprint …, and Verizon in the Eastern District of Texas," that Ericsson and Nokia intervened in March and November 2019, that Ericsson "was dismissed with prejudice (in light of settlement) in February 2020," and critically that "the parties then filed summary judgment motions on a variety of issues, including patent validity and eligibility, infringement, and various evidentiary issues, with some still pending by the time that the remaining defendants were dismissed in May" — the only published confirmation I found that the Verizon dismissal was part of a coordinated wind-down rather than a merits ruling. Mondaq also flags the defense theory that went beyond the bare invalidity case: a standing/"hunting license" motion by AT&T, Sprint, Verizon and Ericsson arguing ETRI retained substantial rights, on which Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne recommended denial in January 2020; and it notes Sol IP's pleading that ETRI "declared the asserted LTE patents as essential" via Korea's Telecommunications Technology Association — i.e., the SEP/FRAND dimension. On the patent at issue here, Unified Patents' insights blog (2026-09-18) announced two $2,000 PATROLL bounties for prior art on Sol IP MIMO/WLAN patents, expressly naming Verizon among the defendants who have been sued, and the PATROLL contest page for US 10,090,894 describes the '894 as covering "VHT frame formatting" and seeks art on at least claim 7. Separately, GreyB Insights covered Sol IP's 2026-08-28 suits against Honda and Volkswagen over, among others, the same US 10,090,894, calling the two complaints "a coordinated campaign" and describing Sol IP as an NPE monetizing ETRI-origin Wi-Fi/MIMO patents.

Where the reporting sits relative to the court record. The trade accounts line up with the docket on the big points — 2018 filing, consolidation, Ericsson/Nokia intervention, the February 2020 Ericsson settlement, the May 2020 dismissal of the remaining defendants — but no outlet I found reports settlement terms, a license, or any payment in the Verizon docket, which is consistent with the § 317(b)-confidential treatment of the parallel PTAB settlement agreement. Analyst framing goes somewhat beyond the record in two places. First, ip fray covers Sol IP extensively as an Avanci licensor enforcing ETRI-origin SEPs against BYD in Munich, Mannheim and the UPC's The Hague Local Division (the Mannheim action on EP2720392 and the UPC action on EP2127188, both "originally obtained by Korea's … ETRI," per ip fray as reprinted by China IP Lawyer) — but I found no ip fray article on the Verizon docket, so that outlet's NPE/SEP characterizations are campaign-level commentary rather than reporting on this case. Second, Unified Patents' contest descriptions assert that the '894 "had been asserted against AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, Qualcomm, Volkswagen, and others," which is an industry-analyst synthesis of docket data rather than a court finding.

Bottom line and sourcing caveat. I found *no article written specifically about Sol IP, LLC v. Verizon Communications Inc., No. 2:18-cv-00528*; the most detailed published account of how this docket ended is a 2021 law-firm/aggregator case note on Mondaq, supplemented by NPE-analytics writeups in 2026 that mention Verizon only as historical context for the '894 patent. Absence of mainstream coverage is itself a finding worth stating plainly. One limitation: I reached my research-step limit before exhausting paywalled sources — Law360, RPX Empower/IAM, and Bloomberg Law articles behind their search walls could not be opened, and their public index pages did not surface a Sol IP-Verizon-specific headline — so I cannot rule out a paywalled Law360 or IAM item that I was unable to retrieve, and I have cited none.

Sources

• Intellectual Property : Law360 : Legal News & Analysis
• Intellectual Property : Law360 : Legal News & Analysis - - June 22, 2026
• Trials : Law360 : Legal News & Analysis - - June 22, 2026
• Texas : Law360 : Legal News & Analysis - - June 22, 2026
• TO: Mail Stop 8 Director of the U
• Intellectual Property : Law360 UK : Legal News & Analysis - Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
• Fractus Fractus und Verizon legen Patentstreit bei - News
• IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION
• 2:18-cv-00528 | Sol IP LLC v. Verizon Communications Inc | Ex Parte
• Sol IP, LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC – CourtListener.com - 🚀 CourtListener is now available in ChatGPT
• Sol IP, LLC v. Verizon Communications Inc. et al
• 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

I'll research the counsel of record for Sol IP, LLC in this case. Let me start with several searches.

Good leads. Let me dig into the docket entries and confirm each attorney's firm.

Let me verify the full appearance list and local counsel details.

Based on the docket record and firm/attorney materials I could verify, here is the counsel of record for the plaintiff, Sol IP, LLC, in Sol IP, LLC v. Verizon Communications Inc. et al., No. 2:18-cv-00528 (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div.).

Bottom line

Sol IP was represented by a Susman Godfrey LLP trial team (out of the Houston, Los Angeles, and Seattle offices), working with Capshaw DeRieux LLP of Longview, Texas as local counsel. Seven attorney appearances were entered for the plaintiff on December 4, 2018 — one day after the complaint was filed. The docket shows sporadic activity after that and the case was terminated May 20, 2020 (consolidated with the Sol IP v. AT&T Mobility lead case, 2:18-cv-00526-RWS-RSP).

Plaintiff's counsel of record

Lead / national trial counsel — Susman Godfrey LLP

Local counsel — Capshaw DeRieux LLP, Longview, Texas

Uncertain / unverified items

• Michael E. Jones (Potter Minton, P.C., Tyler, TX) appears in the third-party "represented by" roll-up of this docket (Justia docket sheet for 2:18-cv-00528). Jones is predominantly a defense-side E.D. Tex. local counsel, so I could not confirm from the docket text I retrieved that his appearance was entered for Sol IP rather than for Verizon/Cellco or an intervenor. Treat this one as unconfirmed — it should be checked against the actual notices of appearance (Dkt. Nos. 4–10 and any later filings) on PACER.
• I found no in-house counsel appearance for Sol IP; Sol IP is a non-practicing exclusive licensee (the patents originate with ETRI), so the case was run entirely by outside counsel.
• I did not find any sealed notices of appearance or pro hac vice applications in the materials retrieved, but Justia's docket for this case was last retrieved in January 2019, so post-January-2019 appearances, withdrawals, or substitutions cannot be ruled out from the sources I could access.

Related (not district-court) representation worth noting

In the parallel PTAB inter partes reviews involving the same patent family (Sol IP as exclusive licensee, e.g., IPR2020-00242 concerning U.S. Pat. 10,080,204), Sol IP's PTAB counsel was Richard F. Giunta (Reg. No. 36,149), lead, and Elisabeth H. Hunt (Reg. No. 67,336), backup, of Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C. (Boston). These attorneys did not appear as counsel of record in the district court docket; they are listed here only to distinguish the IPR representation from the litigation team.

Sources

• Justia docket, Sol IP, LLC v. Verizon Communications Inc. et al., No. 2:18-cv-00528 (E.D. Tex.) — entries for Dkt. Nos. 4–10 (Dec. 4, 2018 notices of appearance) and "represented by" roll-up: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/2:2018cv00528/[186353](/patent/186353)
• Docket Alarm case page (judge, consolidation, termination date): https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Texas_Eastern_District_Court/2--18-cv-00528/Sol_IP_LLC_v._Verizon_Communications_Inc._et_al/
• Susman Godfrey attorney bio for Bryce Barcelo (Sol IP representation): https://www.susmangodfrey.com/attorneys/bryce-barcelo/
• PTAB mandatory notices in IPR2020-00242 identifying Sol IP's IPR counsel (Wolf Greenfield): https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2020-00242/
• Susman Godfrey / Lawdragon release on Finesse Wireless v. AT&T (describing Capshaw DeRieux and Susman Godfrey roles): https://www.lawdragon.com/press-releases/2023-01-17-susman-godfrey-secures-1663-million-verdict-against-att-nokia

I could not open PACER directly, so the Dec. 4, 2018 appearance list is sourced from the Justia docket mirror; if you need a certified counsel list, pull Dkt. Nos. 4–10 and the final docket sheet from PACER/ECF.

I'll research the counsel of record for the defendants in this case. Let me start with several searches.

Let me dig deeper into the docket and specific counsel.

I've identified Alston & Bird as key counsel. Now let me verify local counsel and other appearances.

I've gathered strong evidence on the defense team. One important caveat before the details: this docket (2:18-cv-00528) was consolidated into lead case No. 2:18-cv-00526-RWS-RSP on January 11, 2019 (Dkt. 21), so most substantive filings by Verizon's counsel live in the lead-case docket, not in 2:18-cv-00528. The individual docket for this matter has only a handful of entries before consolidation.

---

Counsel of record for Defendants Verizon Communications Inc. & Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless

Lead / national counsel — Alston & Bird LLP

Alston & Bird's Intellectual Property Litigation Group served as Verizon/Cellco's patent litigation counsel in this 27-patent, wireless-standards campaign. Three of its attorneys expressly list this exact case in their firm bios:

Local counsel — Michael Jones (E.D. Tex.)

The first attorney to appear on this docket was "Michael Jones," who filed the defendants' First and Second Applications for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint (Dkt. 13, 14) and the related Unopposed Motion for Extension (Dkt. 15) on December 14, 2018, on behalf of both Verizon Communications Inc. and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless. Source: Justia docket for 2:18-cv-00528 (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/2:2018cv00528/186353).

Caveat / unverified: The docket text identifies only "Jones, Michael"; the search results did not return the firm name or bar number for this filer, so I cannot confirm whether this is Michael E. Jones of Potter Minton P.C. (Tyler, Tex.), the firm commonly used as E.D. Tex. local counsel, or another attorney. I have not independently verified this local-counsel attribution and flag it as unconfirmed.

Related PTAB counsel (same defense group, not this district-court docket)

In the parallel IPR challenges arising from this campaign, the petitioner side (Ericsson Inc., Nokia of America Corp., AT&T Services, Inc., Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Google LLC, T-Mobile USA) was likewise represented by Alston & Bird LLP, including S. Benjamin Pleune, Ross Barton, J. Ravindra Fernando, Bennett Hardymon, Christopher Douglas, David Frist, Daniel O'Connor, and Matthew Turk (see USPTO PTAB filing, https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1556842](/patent/1556842)/...). These names are not confirmed as counsel of record in the 2:18-cv-00528 docket itself — treat them as related-group PTAB counsel.

---

What I could not confirm

• No in-house Verizon counsel appears in the available docket extracts; corporate/GC counsel is not identified in the public records I retrieved.
• Lead-vs.-supporting designation among the Alston & Bird team is not stated on the face of the docket; Deane, as the listed partner, is the most likely lead, with Tsui and Subashi supporting, but the docket does not formally designate a "lead attorney."
• The case terminated May 20, 2020 as "dismissed – other," consistent with a settlement; if any dismissal-related filings were sealed, those entries are not reflected in the public dockets I accessed.
• I could not retrieve the PACER docket sheet itself; the details above rest on Justia, Docket Alarm, RPX Empower, and firm bios, plus the consolidation order (Dkt. 21) captured on the Justia docket.

Bottom line: Verizon and Cellco were represented principally by Alston & Bird LLP (Atlanta and Dallas), with Michael C. Deane (partner), Nicholas T. Tsui (senior associate), and Darlena Subashi (counsel) each confirmed by name/firm bio as having worked this specific docket, and an attorney docketed only as "Michael Jones" appearing as the initial filer (likely local counsel, firm unverified).