`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-00102-JRG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`AT&T SERVICES, INC., AT&T MOBILITY
`LLC,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`Before the Court is Ericsson Inc.’s (“Ericsson”) Unopposed Motion to Intervene as a
`
`Defendant (the “Motion”). (Dkt. No. 32.) Ericsson moved to intervene pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`24(a)(2) or, in the alternative, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b). Having considered the Motion, its
`
`unopposed nature, and the relevant authorities,1 the Court finds the Motion should be and hereby
`
`is GRANTED pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) or, in the alternative 24(b). Accordingly,
`
`Ericsson is permitted to intervene in this action and is GRANTED LEAVE to file its Answer in
`
`Intervention in Case No. 2:19-cv-102, which it shall do within fourteen (14) days of this Order.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 See, e.g., Team Worldwide Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2:17-cv-00235-JRG, 2017 WL
`6059303 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 7, 2017) (applying relevant authorities where requested intervenors
`were manufacturers or product suppliers seeking to intervene in a patent infringement suit
`against a retailer, similar to this case). Here, Ericsson contends that it designs and manufacturers
`the accused products, which are then used by AT&T. (See generally Dkt. No. 32.)
`
`ERICSSON v. UNILOC
`Ex. 1028 / Page 1 of 2
`
`
`
`
`
`‘1
`
`RODNEY GI Y
`
`UNITED STAT ' DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`2
`
`So Ordered this
`Sep 16, 2019
`
`ERICSSON v. UNILOC
`Ex. 1028 / Page 2 of 2
`
`