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

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

Let me pull the actual Nokia complaint and check the IPR status for the '511 patent.

Key development found: the PTAB invalidated the '511 claims in November 2025. Let me verify that outcome, any appeal, and the related litigation history.

Case Overview and Background

The parties. Plaintiff XR Communications, LLC, which does business as Vivato Technologies, is a Delaware LLC with its principal place of business at 2809 Ocean Front Walk, Venice, California. It is, functionally, a patent-licensing entity: it owns the asserted patent by assignment and describes itself as the successor to Vivato, the venture-backed wireless-infrastructure startup founded in 2000 (reportedly $80+ million raised, 400+ deployments, a 17-patent portfolio) whose engineers — including Siavash Alamouti and Vahid Tarokh — worked on beamforming, phased-array antennas, and MIMO (XR's complaint in the consolidated carrier case, No. 2:23-cv-00202, Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 10–16). Trade coverage of the Nokia suit characterizes XR as a "patent-holding entity" suing over Nokia's 5G base-station technology (Bloomberg Law report, as summarized via NewsBreak). Defendant Nokia of America Corporation is the principal U.S. operating subsidiary of Finland's Nokia Corporation, one of the three or four global suppliers of 5G radio access network (RAN) equipment — the base stations and radios that carriers like AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon deploy. So the case pits a small, litigation-funded licensing company against a large operating vendor, rather than against the carriers themselves — a deliberate structural choice discussed below.

The accused technology and the patent. The accused instrumentalities are pleaded generically as "cellular base stations / 5G NR RAN solutions that support 3GPP 5G NR beamforming" — i.e., Nokia's 5G massive-MIMO/beamforming base-station products and the network functions they implement (this product identification appears in the parallel XR complaints and in third-party analysis of the Nokia complaint at Ex Parte; note that source is an AI-generated complaint summary and not authoritative). Only one patent is at issue per the case metadata and per XR's own statement to the Board: U.S. Patent No. 8,737,511, "Directed MIMO Communications" (issued May 27, 2014; filed April 13, 2012). One-line technical sketch: the '511 patent claims a system of m antenna arrays, each with a beamformer producing n bidirectional beams, coupled to n MIMO transceivers, where the i-th signal into the j-th MIMO receiver corresponds to the j-th beam of the i-th array — in plain terms, a crossbar architecture that routes a given spatial beam from every array to a dedicated MIMO transceiver, so that beamforming's range extension and MIMO's throughput gains can be obtained together (see the Board's description in IPR2024-00868, Paper 8 at 2–7, institution decision). A caveat: one third-party complaint analysis of the Nokia case also lists the '235, '256, '569, and '369 patents; that conflicts with the case metadata and with XR's September 2025 related-matters statement to the PTAB, which says XR sued Nokia "asserting the '511 patent." I have treated the '511 patent as the sole asserted patent.

Procedural posture, venue, and why it matters. The suit was filed September 25, 2025, in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas and is captioned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap and Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne (2:25-cv-00979-JRG-RSP). It is a follow-on to XR's 2023 cellular campaign against AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile (Nos. 2:23-cv-00202/0203/0204, consolidated before Judge Gilstrap), in which Nokia of America and Ericsson intervened as equipment suppliers; in July 2025 the parties stipulated to dismissal of the Nokia products from that consolidated case (see Dkt. 226–227 in No. 2:23-cv-00202), and XR then re-filed against Nokia directly — a classic move by a licensor to preserve its case against a vendor after the customer case narrows. The docket shows Nokia moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) (Dkt. 16); Judge Payne recommended denial (Dkt. 41); Nokia objected (Dkt. 42); and on September 29, 2026 Judge Gilstrap overruled the objections, adopted the R&R, and denied the motion (Dkt. 43; govinfo text). The grounds of that motion are not stated in the order and could not be verified. Venue matters here for the usual EDTX reasons — Gilstrap's patent docket and its reputation for

I'll research this case and its parallel PTAB proceedings. Let me run a set of searches.

XR Communications (Vivato) v. Nokia of America — Litigation Developments

Verification note up front: The district docket for 2:25-cv-00979 is only partially mirrored in free sources. I can verify the complaint date, the Rule 12(b)(6) motion and its denial, and the complete PTAB record for the '511 patent. The answer/counterclaim dates, the precise ground of Nokia's motion to dismiss, and the current Federal Circuit status of the IPR appeal are not confirmed by any source I could reach — I flag those specifically rather than filling them in.

---

I. Chronological developments

A. Filing and initial pleadings

B. Pre-trial motions of substance

1. Motion to dismiss (Rule 12(b)(6)) — filed, recommended denied, denied.

• Dkt. 16 — Nokia's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
• Dkt. 41 — Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Payne recommending denial.
• Dkt. 42 — Nokia's Objections to the R&R.
• 2026-09-29 — Dkt. 43: Judge Gilstrap conducted de novo review, overruled the objections, adopted the R&R, and denied the motion to dismiss. The order states the objections "fail to show that the Report and Recommendation was erroneous." (govinfo PDF of Dkt. 43; Patent Case Watch summary)

⚠️ Gap: the ground of the 12(b)(6) motion is not disclosed in any accessible source. Given the timing (post-dating the PTAB's 2025-11-25 final written decision), the obvious candidates are a theory that the IPR outcome defeats or moots the infringement claim, or a pleading-sufficiency/§ 101 attack — but I have no source confirming which, and the denial means the theory failed at the pleading stage in any event.

2. Transfer / stay. No motion to transfer venue (Nokia is a repeat EDTX defendant and had already litigated these patents in Marshall) and no stay pending IPR is confirmed in the new case. Notably, Nokia did not need a stay: it had already obtained a final written decision invalidating the claims (below).

3. Summary judgment. None reached in 2:25-cv-00979 — the case was still at the pleading stage as of the 2026-09-29 order. By contrast, the 2023 consolidated case generated a heavy summary-judgment/Daubert wave in June–July 2025 (Nokia/Ericsson motions for partial SJ of no literal infringement on the '511, '235 and '369 patents, no written description on the '235, no DOE infringement, damages motions, and cross-motions to strike experts Negus, Bazelon, Dell and Williams) — but the Nokia-products SJ motion was mooted by the June 2025 stipulation (Dkt. 193).

C. Claim construction (Markman)

• No Markman proceeding has occurred in 2:25-cv-00979. No claim construction order, joint claim construction statement, or P.R. 4 hearing is confirmed for the new case.
• The relevant constructions come from the earlier consolidated case. In No. 2:23-cv-00202, the court issued a Claim Construction Order (ECF 99) and XR filed a partial objection (ECF 113) directed in part to the '511 terms "n multiple-input multiple-output transceivers (MIMO)," "MIMO transmitter …/MIMO receiver …," and the 3GPP LTE-Advanced/TDD/FDD limitation. The Docket Control Order in that case set the Markman hearing for 2025-02-04 before Judge Payne, with P.R. 4-5(a) opening briefs due 2024-12-12 and the Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement filed under P.R. 4-3. That construction order was then used as evidence in the IPR (Patent Owner Ex. 2007 in IPR2024-00868).
• Strategic significance: the constructions of "MIMO transceiver," the m/n/i/j indexing relationship, and "beamformer" were the same battleground in the IPR — Petitioners' obviousness theory depended on reading the claims onto a two-modem/two-subarray "cross-connect" modification of Trigui, and Vivato's defense was that the claim's indexing architecture forecloses that mapping.

D. Discovery milestones with strategic significance

• No verified discovery milestones in 2:25-cv-00979 (the case had not progressed past the motion-to-dismiss ruling).
• Discovery that matters strategically came from the earlier case: fact discovery closed 2025-02-14; expert reports served 2025-02-28; expert discovery closed 2025-04-07; a February 3, 2025 hearing was held on Vivato's motion to compel (referenced in the parties' joint motion for entry of a DCO, Dkt. 139); and the claim-narrowing ladder (18 claims by 2025-04-11; 26 prior-art grounds by 2025-04-14). Because the '511 validity fight

I'll research the docket and counsel appearances for this case.

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

Sourcing caveat up front: I could not retrieve a free docket sheet for 2:25-cv-00979 that displays the appearances list (CourtListener/RECAP has no indexed docket for this number; the Ex Parte AI docket mirror shows "No Attorneys"; PacerMonitor's public page for the companion case 2:26-cv-00001 does list the plaintiff's filer). However, the case is unquestionably past the appearance stage — Nokia moved to dismiss (Dkt. 16), Judge Payne issued an R&R recommending denial (Dkt. 41), Nokia objected (Dkt. 42), and Judge Gilstrap adopted the R&R and denied the motion on 09/29/2026 (Dkt. 43) — so counsel are of record. The roster below is drawn from (a) signed filings and signature blocks in the closely related Vivato E.D. Tex. cases, (b) the PTAB service/POA records for the same patents, and (c) the plaintiff's filings in the 2026 companion suit. Confirm against the Dkt. 1 signature block and the notices of appearance on PACER.

Lead / trial counsel — Russ August & Kabat (Los Angeles, CA)

Local counsel (E.D. Tex.)

In-house / client-side

• Kai Hansen, Manager, XR Communications LLC d/b/a Vivato Technologies — signed XR's PTAB power of attorney (Jan. 11, 2024). He is the client representative, not an attorney of record in the district court matter.

Key firm-level experience points

• Russ August & Kabat has been Vivato's sole litigation counsel across the whole campaign: XR Communications v. Ruckus Wireless / ARRIS (N.D. Cal. 3:18-cv-01992, -02736, through the 2021 Federal Circuit appeal); XR Communications v. AT&T / Verizon / T-Mobile and v. Ericsson/Nokia (E.D. Tex. 2:23-cv-00202, -00203, -00204, -00470); and the 2025–26 follow-on suits against Nokia (this case and 2:26-cv-00001), T-Mobile (2:25-cv-00697) and Spectrum Gulf Coast (2:25-cv-01253).
• Mirzaie, Wang and the RAK team also defend XR as patent owner in the Ericsson/Nokia IPRs on the same family — e.g., IPR2024-00868 ('511 patent) and IPR2024-00314 ('369 patent).

Explicit gaps

• I did not find a public document naming counsel specifically for 2:25-cv-00979 (no free appearance list; the Dkt. 43 order is unsigned by counsel and the Dkt. 1 complaint PDF was not accessible in full text). The assignment of Mirzaie as lead and Fair as local counsel is a well-sourced inference, not a verbatim docket read.
• Nothing indicates sealed or pro hac vice issues affecting plaintiff's counsel; no in-house counsel has entered an appearance.
• I found no evidence of any additional outside firm (e.g., a second litigation boutique) appearing for Vivato in this docket.

I'll research defense counsel for Nokia of America in this docket and its related matters.

Key leads: Duane Morris (Atlanta) represented Nokia in the consolidated EDTX case, while Alston & Bird appears in Nokia PTAB filings. I need to pin down who appeared in this docket.

Now let me find the actual docket entries and signature blocks in 2:25-cv-00979.

Defendant's counsel of record — Nokia of America Corporation (No. 2:25-cv-00979-JRG-RSP)

Verification status (read first). There is no free, machine-readable appearance list for this docket. The Ex Parte AI docket mirror for 2:25-cv-00979 shows "No Attorneys," and the govinfo/USCOURTS collection for this case number contains only one document — Judge Gilstrap's 09/29/2026 order (Dkt. 43) — which is court-signed and carries no counsel signature block. CourtListener/RECAP has no indexed docket for 2:25-cv-00979 (its txed.222063 RECAP entry is the 2023 consolidated case). So the roster below is not a verbatim read of this docket sheet. It is built from (a) signed notices of appearance and signature blocks filed by Nokia's counsel in the immediately related E.D. Tex. matters, (b) Nokia's PTAB power of attorney and papers in IPR2024-00868 — the very IPR on the very patent asserted here — and (c) related-case docket records. I flag confidence per attorney rather than inventing appearances.

---

1. Duane Morris LLP — the team that has actually represented Nokia in this patent fight (high confidence)

Duane Morris is Nokia's counsel of record in the 2023 Vivato consolidated case and Nokia's appointed counsel in the '511 IPR. Because the 2025 suit is a re-file against Nokia after the June 2025 stipulation dismissing Nokia products from the consolidated case, continuity of this team is the strongly indicated (but not docket-verified) staffing.

Corroboration that Duane Morris signs as Nokia's counsel in the district court: the consolidated-case filing at No. 2:23-cv-00202, Dkt. 76 is signed "DUANE MORRIS LLP … Attorneys for Intervenor Ericsson, Inc. and Nokia of America Corporation."

Caveat: I could not verify that any of these five has filed a notice of appearance in 2:25-cv-00979 specifically. Nokia plainly has counsel of record — it filed the Rule 12(b)(6) motion (Dkt. 16), the R&R recommended denial (Dkt. 41), Nokia objected (Dkt. 42), and Judge Gilstrap denied the motion (Dkt. 43) — but the signature blocks on Dkts. 16, 41 and 42 are not in any free source I could reach.

2. Alston & Bird LLP — Nokia's other national patent litigation firm (real, but not confirmed for this docket)

Nokia splits its patent work; Alston & Bird is its long-standing trial/PTAB firm for Nokia of America, and it is the firm named on Nokia's PTAB powers of attorney in other matters. I found no Alston & Bird appearance tying it to 2:25-cv-00979, and I would not assume it.

Firm-level Nokia track record (from Alston & Bird's own press releases, useful if they are in fact the trial team here): an 11/08/2024 defense verdict for Nokia of America in Correct Transmission; a 04/12/2024 jury verdict defeating **Smart Path