Litigation

XR Communications LLC d/b/a Vivato Technologies v. Nokia of America Corp.

active

2:25-cv-00979

Filed
2025-09-25

Patents at issue (1)

7177369

Summary

XR Communications sued Nokia of America Corp. in E.D. Tex., asserting U.S. 7,177,369 among other patents. The complaint targets Nokia 5G NR RAN beamforming products; the case remains open/active as of the narrative.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

I'll research this case across multiple sources.

Let me dig into the docket, complaint, and PTAB activity.

Now let me verify complaint details, the motion-to-dismiss basis, and any new IPRs.

Case overview — XR Communications, LLC d/b/a Vivato Technologies v. Nokia of America Corp., No. 2:25-cv-00979-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div., filed Sept. 25, 2025)

The parties. XR Communications, LLC d/b/a Vivato Technologies is a Delaware LLC with its principal place of business at 2809 Ocean Front Walk, Venice, California. It is the patent-holding successor to Vivato, the venture-backed Wi-Fi/beamforming startup founded in 2000 (funded with $80M+ and staffed by, among others, Siavash Alamouti and Vahid Tarokh), which no longer operates as a going concern selling product. XR's complaints describe a portfolio of "over 17 issued patents" and recite Vivato's 400+ global deployments, but in practice XR monetizes through serial assertion rather than manufacturing — courts and litigation-analytics services have repeatedly characterized it as a non-practicing entity, and its campaigns have run against Wi-Fi equipment makers (D-Link, C.D. Cal. No. 8:17-cv-596-DOC), Cisco/Samsung/Microsoft (W.D. Tex. Nos. 6:21-cv-623/626/695), Dell (W.D. Tex. No. 1:22-cv-861, settled June 2023), and the three big U.S. carriers (E.D. Tex. Nos. 2:23-cv-00202/203/204). Defendant Nokia of America Corp. is the U.S. subsidiary of Finland's Nokia, one of the three dominant global suppliers of 5G radio access network infrastructure; it supplies AirScale base stations and Cloud RAN/Open RAN gear to U.S. carriers such as T-Mobile, and it intervened as a defendant-side party in XR's earlier AT&T/Verizon/T-Mobile suits to protect that installed base. (Vivato complaint ¶¶10–16, via RPX; PatSnap case summary)

The accused technology and asserted patents. The accused instrumentalities are pleaded generically as "cellular base stations / 5G NR RAN solutions that support 3GPP 5G NR beamforming" — i.e., Nokia's massive-MIMO/beamforming 5G radios and the software that drives beam management and multi-user MIMO. A secondary complaint analysis identifies five asserted patents in the September 2025 complaint (the case metadata in this prompt lists only the '369, so treat the five-patent set as needing confirmation against the complaint itself): U.S. 7,177,369 ("Multipath Communication Methods and Apparatuses," issued Feb. 13, 2007, app. 10/131,864, priority to provisional 60/287,163 filed Apr. 27, 2001) — transmitter-side "pre-equalization" in which a base station derives a forward-path pre-equalization parameter from an uplink multipath transmission delay and then sets different transmit power levels on at least two OFDM tones; U.S. 8,737,511 ("Directed MIMO Communications," issued May 27, 201

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the docket and filings.

Key facts are emerging. Let me pull the docket and check the parallel proceedings.

Bottom line

As of 2026-10-22, XR Communications, LLC d/b/a Vivato Technologies v. Nokia of America Corp., No. 2:25-cv-00979-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex., Marshall Div.) is active and in an early-to-mid pretrial posture. There has been no Markman order, no summary-judgment ruling, no trial, no verdict, no settlement, and no appeal in this case. The one merits ruling of consequence is Judge Gilstrap's 2026-09-29 order denying Nokia's Rule 12(b)(6) motion and overruling Nokia's objections to Magistrate Judge Payne's Report and Recommendation (

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research the counsel of record for XR Communications in this E.D. Tex. case.

Bottom line

XR Communications (d/b/a Vivato Technologies) litigates through a two-firm structure that has been stable across its entire campaign: Russ August & Kabat LLP (Los Angeles) as lead/national patent counsel, with Miller Fair Henry PLLC (Longview, Texas) as local counsel for E.D. Tex. admissions. That team is the near-certain counsel in XR Communications v. Nokia of America, No. 2:25-cv-00979-JRG-RSP.

Important caveat on verification: I could not pull the actual ECF docket sheet or the notices of appearance in 2:25-cv-00979. The public docket mirrors I reached (Ex Parte's case page, which lists "No Attorneys") appear not to have indexed appearance records for this 2025 filing, and the only govinfo document surfaced is Judge Gilstrap's 9/29/2026 order adopting the R&R and denying Nokia's Rule 12(b)(6) motion (Dkt. 43). So the roster below is reconstructed from (a) the same plaintiff's counsel signature blocks in the immediately preceding, closely related E.D. Tex. cases, and (b) a September 2025 PTAB paper in a related IPR that lists the 2:25-cv-00979 matter with Reza Mirzaie's RAK address copied. Treat individual names as "identified with high confidence" rather than "confirmed from an appearance in this docket."

Counsel of record for Plaintiff XR Communications LLC d/b/a Vivato Technologies

Lead / national counsel — Russ August & Kabat LLP, 12424 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90025

Attorney Role Notes
Marc A. Fenster (CA SBN 181067) Lead trial counsel / partner Argued XR Communications' Federal Circuit appeal in XR Commc'ns v. D-Link Sys., Nos. 22-1785 et al. (Fed. Cir. May 18, 2023); long-time RAK patent trial lawyer.
Reza Mirzaie (CA SBN 246953) Lead counsel of record — primary signatory on Plaintiff's filings Argued XR Commc'ns v. ARRIS Solutions/Ruckus Wireless, No. 22-1125 (Fed. Cir. May 18, 2023) (§ 112 ¶ 6 / indefiniteness of the '231 patent). Signed the complaint and virtually every Vivato filing in the 2023 E.D. Tex. campaign; his rmirzaie@raklaw.com address is copied on the Sept. 29, 2025 PTAB submission that lists this 2:25-cv-00979 case.
Neil A. Rubin (CA SBN 250761) Of counsel / case team Entered a Notice of Appearance for Vivato in the parallel 2023 E.D. Tex. suits (e.g., 2:23-cv-00469, Dkt. 10) and appears on Federal Circuit briefs.
Paul A. Kroeger (CA SBN 229074) Of counsel / case team Appearance in parallel E.D. Tex. cases (2:23-cv-00469, Dkt. 11); named on Vivato's 2025 filings.
Philip X. Wang (CA SBN 262239) Of counsel / case team Listed in Plaintiff's signature blocks in E.D. Tex. consolidated cases and in prior PTAB mandatory notices.
James N. Pickens (CA SBN 307474) Associate Federal Circuit briefing team member in the 2023 XR appeals; signed Vivato filings.
Christian W. Conkle (CA SBN 306374) Associate Appearance for Vivato (2:23-cv-00469, Dkt. 6).
Minna Y. Chan / Jay (CA SBN 305941) Associate Federal Circuit briefing team; earlier PTAB back-up counsel.
Adam S. Hoffman (CA SBN 218740) Partner On Vivato E.D. Tex. signature blocks through July 2025.
Jacob Buczko Associate Appearances in Vivato's 2023–24 E.D. Tex. filings.

Local counsel — Miller Fair Henry PLLC, 1507 Bill Owens Parkway, Longview, TX 75604

Attorney Role Notes
Andrea L. Fair (TX SBN 24078488) Local counsel / Texas counsel of record Co-signs Vivato's E.D. Tex. filings alongside RAK (e.g., Dkt. 221 and Dkt. 227 in Lead Case 2:23-cv-00202-JRG-RSP, July 2025). Texas-admitted counsel used to satisfy E.D. Tex. local-rule admission requirements; her presence in this District's Vivato matters is consistent and appears on filings through mid-2025.

In-house counsel

No in-house attorney for XR Communications/Vivato has appeared in the record I could review. XR Communications is a patent-holding/licensing entity; its litigation is run by outside counsel. I did not find any docket entry naming a Vivato legal-department attorney, so I am not identifying one.

Historical note (do not confuse with current counsel)

In the 2018-era IPRs on U.S. 6,611,231, Vivato's PTAB counsel was Norooz PC — Kayvan B. Noroozi (Santa Monica, CA), Joel P.N. Stonedale and William P. Rothwell (Sugar Land, TX), plus James A. Milkey. That firm does not appear to be counsel in the current district-court campaign; RAK replaced/replaced-by Norooz in that era. Any printed "Vivato counsel = Norooz PC" reference is stale.

What I could not confirm (and how to close it)

  • Notices of appearance in 2:25-cv-00979. No ECF-stamped appearance documents for this case number surfaced. If any RAK attorney other than Mirzaie/Fenster will be lead in the Nokia matter, the docket will show it in a Dkt. 2–15 range Notice of Appearance.
  • Whether RAK's lineup has changed since 2025. Firm pages and the Sept. 2025 PTAB paper still show Mirzaie at RAK; I found no reporting of departures, but I did not verify each of the ten names above against a 2026 filing in this case.
  • Whether local counsel changed. Andrea Fair is confirmed as Vivato's Texas counsel through July 2025 in the companion cases; her appearance in the 2025 Nokia case specifically is unverified.
  • Whether any appearance is sealed. Nothing in the surfaced material suggests sealing, but I cannot exclude it because I did not access the live PACER docket.

Verification path: PACER docket for 2:25-cv-00979-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.), filtered for "Notice of Attorney Appearance" and the complaint's signature block; cross-check the RAK firm page for Russ August & Kabat's "XR Communications v. Nokia" matter listing.

Relevant authority and sourcing anchors

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research the defendant's counsel of record in this case.

Let me pull the actual docket and filings to identify Nokia's counsel.

Now let me find the actual filings in this docket that bear Nokia's counsel's signature blocks.

Bottom line up front

I can confirm that Nokia is actively represented and litigating (it filed the Rule 12(b)(6) motion at Dkt. 16, objections at Dkt. 42, and lost on both on 9/29/2026 at Dkt. 43), and that Duane Morris LLP is Nokia of America's outside patent litigation firm in the XR Communications/Vivato campaign. What I could not fully verify within this session is the complete, current ECF appearance roster and lead/local designations in this specific docket (2:25-cv-00979), because the individual signature blocks and appearance notices are not freely indexed. I flag that distinction below rather than filling gaps with guesses.

Defense counsel — what is sourced

Attorney Role Firm / office Note
Duane Morris LLP (firm-level) Nokia's outside litigation counsel of record in the XR/Vivato matters Duane Morris LLP The firm connection is well grounded: Nokia's answer filed in the closely related XR Communications v. Verizon, No. 2:23-cv-00203-JRG-RSP, carries a Duane Morris document footer ("DM2\20511025.1") — see the Nokia answer on CourtListener. That case is the direct predecessor to this one (same patents, same plaintiff, same Nokia base-station products, Nokia intervening to defend its 5G RAN equipment).
Ian Laszlo Pham Kecskes Appears in PACER party-counsel metadata as counsel associated with Nokia Duane Morris LLP ⚠️ Attribution only partially verified. He is listed under a "Nokia of America Corporation — Represented By" heading on the PACER Monitor page for the related XR v. Spectrum Gulf Coast, No. 2:25-cv-01253, but that page aggregates counsel for all parties in the case, so the heading-to-attorney mapping cannot be relied on without pulling the actual appearance notices.
Sajid Saleem Same caveat as above Duane Morris LLP — Atlanta ⚠️ Same attribution caveat (appears in the same aggregated PACER Monitor counsel list).
Nicholas M. Mathews; Matthew Sean Yungwirth Possible local/Texas counsel (unconfirmed for Nokia in this docket) McKool Smith, P.C. — Dallas ⚠️ Both appear in the aggregated counsel list on that same PACER Monitor page, and Yungwirth signs sealed filings in the 2023 XR lead case, where Nokia was an intervenor. However, McKool Smith also appears for other parties in the XR campaign (e.g., Ericsson-side and carrier-side filings), so I cannot state that these two are Nokia's local counsel in 2:25-cv-00979 without the appearance notices. E.D. Tex. Local Rule AT-2 does require local counsel for trial, so a Texas local-counsel pairing is expected — I just can't confirm which firm here.
Alice E. Snedeker Listed in the same aggregated metadata Firm not confirmed ⚠️ Insufficient sourcing — do not rely on this entry.
Nokia in-house counsel Not identified — No in-house attorney appearance was found on the public docket. Corporate defendants in E.D. Tex. typically appear through outside counsel only; I found nothing indicating a Nokia legal-department appearance.

What I could not verify (stated explicitly, per your instruction)

  1. Lead counsel designation in 2:25-cv-00979. No public source I retrieved shows a "lead attorney" designation or the signature block of Dkt. 16 (Nokia's motion to dismiss) or Dkt. 42 (Nokia's objections). Those two documents, plus the earliest ECF "Notice of Attorney Appearance" filings, are the authoritative source and should be pulled directly.
  2. Whether any filings are sealed. I found no indication that counsel identity is sealed in this case — the docket is not under seal as to party representation, and Nokia's motion practice is public.
  3. Office locations for the Duane Morris attorneys (Duane Morris has multiple offices, and the Kecskes/Saleem entries suggest D.C./Atlanta, but I did not confirm office designations from a firm page).
  4. Whether the case has been consolidated with the other 2025 XR suits (e.g., XR v. T-Mobile, No. 2:25-cv-00697; XR v. Spectrum Gulf Coast, No. 2:25-cv-01253) before Judge Gilstrap — if consolidated, the counsel roster would be maintained in a lead case and this docket's appearances would be sparser.

Recommended verification steps (2–3 docket pulls)

  • Dkt. 1-3 range / appearance notices — ECF "Notice of Attorney Appearance" entries for Nokia in 2:25-cv-00979 give the definitive roster and firm/office data.
  • Dkt. 16 (Motion to Dismiss) and Dkt. 42 (Objections) — signature blocks will identify lead counsel and confirm local counsel.
  • Dkt. 43 (Order, 9/29/2026), available at govinfo, confirms Nokia's active defense but does not list counsel.

One substantive note for the case file

The metadata's single-patent listing (’369) understates the pleadings: the complaint as analyzed publicly asserts U.S. 7,177,369, 8,737,511, 10,715,235, 11,750,256, and 11,777,569 against "cellular base stations / 5G NR RAN solutions that support 3GPP 5G NR beamforming." That matters for counsel analysis because the same Duane Morris team defended Nokia on these patents (including the ’369 pre-equalization dispute and the ’511/’235 claim construction) in the 2023 AT&T/Verizon/T-Mobile cases — so Nokia's counsel here is not new to these claim terms or to Judge Gilstrap's/Magistrate Judge Payne's courtroom.