IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a
`VERIZON WIRELESS,
`
`Defendant,
`
`
`COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`AT&T SERVICES INC.; AT&T
`MOBILITY LLC; AT&T CORP.,
`
`Defendants,
`
`
`
`COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`T-MOBILE USA, INC.
`
`Defendant,
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00382-JRG-RSP
`(Lead Case)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00380-JRG-RSP
`(Member Case)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00381-JRG-RSP
`(Member Case)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`-------------------------------------------------------AND-------------------------------------------------------
`
`COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`T-MOBILE USA, INC.
`
`Defendant,
`
`NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION,
`ERICSSON INC.
`
`Intervenors.
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`CASE NO. 2:22-cv-00477-JRG-RSP
`(Lead Case)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners' Ex. 1232
`Ex. 1232.00001
`
`

`

`COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`AT&T SERVICES INC.; AT&T
`MOBILITY LLC; AT&T CORP.,
`
`Defendants,
`
`NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION,
`ERICSSON INC.
`
`Intervenors.
`COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a
`VERIZON WIRELESS,
`
`Defendant,
`
`NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION,
`ERICSSON INC.
`
`Intervenors.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`CASE NO. 2:22-cv-00474-JRG-RSP
`(Member Case)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`CASE NO. 2:22-cv-00478-JRG-RSP
`(Member Case)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSED MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES1
`
`
`1 This motion is being filed in both the Cobblestone 1.0 Carrier Cases and Cobblestone 2.0
`Carrier Cases concurrently.
`
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners' Ex. 1232
`Ex. 1232.00002
`
`

`

`Over the course of eight months, Cobblestone filed six cases in this District involving the
`
`same AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile defendants (the “Carrier Defendants”), the same accused
`
`products, and similar technology. In the same timeframe, Cobblestone also sued the Carrier
`
`Defendants’ supplier, Samsung, involving the same patents, the same accused products, and the
`
`same technology. The litany of cases filed by Cobblestone involve common questions of law and
`
`fact and have created a procedural quagmire involving seven trials, three different scheduled
`
`Markman hearings, three different pre-trial conference dates, three different discovery periods, and
`
`three different rounds of potential dispositive motions before the Court. Cobblestone’s decision to
`
`file its cases in this piecemeal manner—and Cobblestone’s specific decision to sit on an issued
`
`patent and delay asserting it—will waste resources for both the Court and the parties, cause
`
`confusion, and present a situation where Cobblestone is litigating the same issues with the same
`
`parties attempting to recover twice on the same claims.
`
`Pursuant to Rule 42(a), Defendants2 request the cases against AT&T, T-Mobile, and
`
`Verizon be consolidated into a single case on the timeline of the latest filed case. In doing so, three
`
`trials would be removed from the Court’s calendar, and all claims asserted against each carrier can
`
`be resolved in a single respective trial against each carrier instead of two respective trials.
`
`Cobblestone opposes and claims prejudice, but no substantial activity has started in any of the
`
`cases. Instead, Defendants’ solution aligns the cases so that resources are used efficiently.
`
`2 Defendants as used herein refers to the named Defendants in the Cobblestone 1.0 and
`Cobblestone 2.0 cases, as well as Nokia and Ericsson who have intervened in the Cobblestone
`1.0 case and intend to intervene in the Cobblestone 2.0 cases. Nokia and Ericsson have asked
`permission from Cobblestone to intervene in Cobblestone 2.0 cases and are discussing the same
`with Cobblestone.
`
`1
`
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners' Ex. 1232
`Ex. 1232.00003
`
`

`

`I.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Cobblestone 1.0 Carrier Cases
`
`On December 15-16, 2022, Plaintiff Cobblestone Wireless, LLC (“Cobblestone”) filed
`
`three cases against mobile network carriers AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon accusing the same
`
`products and technology of infringing four different patents:
`
` Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. T-Mobile USA, et al., Civil Action No.
`2:22-cv-00477 (E.D. Tex.) (lead);
`
` Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. Verizon Communications Inc., et al., Civil
`Action No. 2:22-cv-00478 (E.D. Tex.); and
`
` Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. AT&T Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 2:22-cv-
`00474 (E.D. Tex.).
`
`The four patents asserted are U.S. Patents No. 8,891,347 (the “’347 Patent”), 9,094,888
`
`(the “’888 Patent”), 10,368,361 (the “’361 Patent”), and 8,554,196 (the “’196 Patent”). (See e.g.,
`
`Civil Action No. 2:22-cv-477, Dkt. No. 1).
`
`Referred herein as the Cobblestone 1.0 Carrier Cases (or Cobblestone 1.0), Cobblestone
`
`has accused Nokia, Ericsson, and/or Samsung 4G and 5G base stations and mobile devices made
`
`by Samsung and Apple, among others. (Id.). The Cobblestone 1.0 Carrier Cases are currently set
`
`for trial on September 23, 2024, with the pretrial conference scheduled for August 21, 2024. (See
`
`e.g., Civil Action No. 2:22-cv-477, Dkt. No. 62). Furthermore, the Markman hearing is scheduled
`
`for April 30, 2024. (Id.).
`
`B.
`
`Cobblestone 2.0 Carrier Cases
`
`In August 2023, Cobblestone filed three more cases against the same Carrier Defendants
`
`asserting one patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,924,802 (the “’802 Patent”):
`
` Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless,
`Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-00382 (E.D. Tex.) (lead);
`
`2
`
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners' Ex. 1232
`Ex. 1232.00004
`
`

`

` Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC et al., Civil Action No.
`2:23-cv-00380 (E.D. Tex.);
`
` Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-
`00381 (E.D. Tex.).
`
`Referred to herein as the Cobblestone 2.0 Carrier Cases (or Cobblestone 2.0), Cobblestone
`
`appears to accuse (based on the Complaint) the same base stations and mobile devices that it is
`
`accusing in Cobblestone 1.0.3 As such, the accused products for the Cobblestone 2.0 Carrier Cases
`
`will likely include the same base stations manufactured by Nokia, Ericsson, and/or Samsung as
`
`well as the same mobile devices made by Samsung and Apple, among others. At the Court’s recent
`
`scheduling conference, the Court provided that the Cobblestone 2.0 Carrier Cases should be set
`
`for jury selection on May 19, 2025, pretrial conference on April 11, 2025, and Markman on
`
`November 14, 2024.4
`
`C.
`
`The Samsung Case
`
`On June 16, 2023 (right in between the filing of Cobblestone 1.0 and Cobblestone 2.0),
`
`Cobblestone directly sued the Carrier Defendants’ supplier Samsung on the same five patents, the
`
`same largely overlapping technology, the same Samsung-based 4G and 5G base stations, and the
`
`same Samsung mobile devices:
`
` Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., Civil
`Action No. 2:23-cv-00285, Dkt. No. 1 (E.D. Tex.) (the “Samsung Case”).
`
`
`3 Cobblestone has twice asked for an extension to serve detailed infringement contentions listing
`the full set of products it accuses. Cobblestone has agreed not to use Defendants’ non-opposition
`to these extensions as a basis to oppose this motion.
`
`4 Defendants have endeavored to bring this consolidation issue to the Court’s attention as soon
`as practical. In fact, Defendants have been attempting to discuss this issue with Cobblestone
`since September in an effort to present a joint motion to the Court.
`
`3
`
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners' Ex. 1232
`Ex. 1232.00005
`
`

`

`The Cobblestone Samsung Case is currently set for trial on May 5, 2025, with the pretrial
`
`conference scheduled for March 31, 2025. Furthermore, claim construction is not set to begin until
`
`July 10, 2024, with the Markman hearing scheduled for November 13, 2024. (Id.) (Civil Action
`
`No. 2:23-cv-285, Dkt. No. 30).
`
`D.
`
`The Overlap of Issues and Scheduled Proceedings
`
`The above cases revolve around overlapping issues of law and fact. First, the same products
`
`are involved. Cobblestone has not served contentions in all cases, but based on the pleadings, the
`
`same mobile devices as well as Nokia, Ericsson, and/or Samsung base stations will be involved
`
`across the cases identified above. This means the same discovery will be triplicated, the same
`
`source code will be reviewed three times, and the same issues will be litigated. Second, the same
`
`patents are involved. Across all seven cases, Cobblestone has launched a patchwork of allegations
`
`that lead to the same thing, namely, Cobblestone is litigating all five patents in Cobblestone 1.0,
`
`Cobblestone 2.0, and the Samsung Cases. Finally, the Court is poised to conduct overlapping
`
`Markman hearings and overlapping pre-trial conferences. Below is the current grid of thirteen
`
`Court-based events the Court has docketed on behalf of Cobblestone:
`
`
`Markman Hearing
`Pre-Trial Conference(s)
`Trial (Lead)
`Trial (Second Carrier)
`Trial (Third Carrier)
`
`Cobblestone 1.0
`April 30, 2024
`August 21, 2024
`September 23, 2024
`September 23, 2024
`September 23, 2024
`
`Samsung Case
`Cobblestone 2.0
`November 14, 2024 November 13, 2024
`March 31, 2025
`April 11, 2025
`May 19, 2025
`May 5, 2025
`May 19, 2025
`-
`May 19, 2025
`-
`
`
`
`Thus, in order to streamline the issues for the Court and the parties, Defendants request
`
`that the Court consolidate the Cobblestone 1.0 Carrier Cases and the Cobblestone 2.0 Carrier Cases
`
`4
`
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners' Ex. 1232
`Ex. 1232.00006
`
`

`

`together and set the cases on the schedule that the Cobblestone 2.0 Carrier Cases were assigned at
`
`the recent December 4, 2023 Scheduling Conference.5
`
`II.
`
`GOVERNING LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure enables a court to consolidate actions
`
`pending before it if those actions involve “a common question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`42(a). “The proper solution to the problems created by the existence of two or more cases involving
`
`the same parties and issues, simultaneously pending in the same court would be to consolidate
`
`them under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Miller v. United States Postal
`
`Service, 729 F.2d 1033, 1036 (5th Cir. 1984). “The stated purpose of Rule 42(a) is to ‘avoid
`
`unnecessary costs or delay’, and hence the decision to invoke the rule is entirely within the
`
`discretion of the district court as it seeks to promote the administration of justice.” Gentry v. Smith,
`
`487 F.2d 571, 581 (5th Cir. 1973). Furthermore, the Fifth Circuit has stated that “[T]rial judges are
`
`urged to make good use of Rule 42(a)” to “expedite the trial and eliminate unnecessary repetition
`
`and confusion.” Dupont v. S. Pac. Co., 366 F.2d 193, 195-96 (5th Cir. 1966). Furthermore,
`
`“[a]ctions involving the same parties are apt candidates for consolidation.” Wright & Miller, Fed.
`
`Prac. & Proc. § 2384.
`
`III.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`Consolidating Cobblestone 1.0 into Cobblestone 2.0 would help to avoid unnecessary
`
`costs, unnecessary confusion, and remove three of the seven cases, one Markman hearing, and at
`
`least one pretrial conference from the Court’s docket. Furthermore, this consolidation will not
`
`cause any significant prejudicial delay. See Immersion Corp. v. Samsung Elec. Am., Inc., et al.,
`
`
`5 Defendants are also amendable to consolidate Cobblestone 1.0 and 2.0 with the Samsung Case
`for pretrial purposes.
`
`5
`
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners' Ex. 1232
`Ex. 1232.00007
`
`

`

`No. 2:17-cv-00572, Dkt. No. 30 (E.D. Tex., June 7, 2018) (ordering consolidation of two cases
`
`brought by the same Plaintiff against the same Defendants).
`
`A.
`
`Consolidation Will Help Avoid Unnecessary Repetition and Unnecessary
`Costs
`
`
`
`Consolidation will facilitate judicial economy and help to preserve the parties’ and Court’s
`
`resources by reducing costs and avoiding unnecessary repetition as the cases involve multiple
`
`common questions of law and fact. As an initial matter, the Cobblestone 1.0 and Cobblestone 2.0
`
`involve the same parties6 and counsel on both sides. Furthermore, while Cobblestone has yet to
`
`serve infringement contentions in the Cobblestone 2.0 cases, Defendants anticipate the accused
`
`products in both cases will be substantially the same, if not identical. See Cobblestone Wireless,
`
`LLC v. Cellco P’ship d/b/a Verizon Wireless, No. 2:23-cv-00382 (E.D. Tex.), Dkt. No. 1 at ¶12
`
`(defining “Accused Instrumentalities” as “cellular base stations, mobile products, and services that
`
`support 3GPP carrier aggregation”). In addition, the technology at issue in both cases is similar
`
`because 4G and 5G wireless standards are accused in both cases. Furthermore, there is good reason
`
`to believe that the same witnesses, source code, custodians, and documents will be relevant for
`
`both cases. Cobblestone has recognized the benefits of consolidating the five patents asserted
`
`across Cobblestone 1.0 and 2.0 as it has asserted the same five patents in a single case against
`
`Samsung (i.e., the Samsung Case). Thus, consolidating the Cobblestone 1.0 and 2.0 cases will
`
`relieve the parties and the Court of the significant burden associated with duplicative fact and
`
`expert discovery and pretrial matters.
`
`In addition, consolidating Cobblestone 1.0 into Cobblestone 2.0 will avoid unnecessary
`
`repetition and costs because Cobblestone 2.0 is scheduled directly behind the Samsung Case (e.g.,
`
`
`6 Nokia and Ericsson intend to intervene and are currently discussing their intervention in
`Cobblestone 2.0 with Cobblestone.
`
`6
`
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners' Ex. 1232
`Ex. 1232.00008
`
`

`

`the Samsung Case has a May 5, 2025 trial date and Cobblestone 2.0 has a May 19, 2025 trial date).
`
`The Federal Circuit has expressed favor with Courts that resolve claims against the
`
`manufacturer/supplier (Samsung) before the customer (the Carrier Defendants) under the
`
`customer-suit exception. See Katz v. Lear Siegler, 909 F.2d 1459, 1464 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
`
`(“[L]itigation against . . . the manufacturer of infringing goods takes precedence over a suit by the
`
`patent owner against customers of the manufacturer.”); Spread Spectrum Screenings, LLC v.
`
`Eastman Kodak Co., 657 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[T]he guiding principles in the
`
`customer suit exception cases are efficiency and judicial economy.”). Cobblestone cannot collect
`
`damages twice for the same patent on the same products, so Cobblestone will have to address this
`
`issue at some point regardless of the outcome of this Motion. Tex. Advanced Optoelectronic Sols.,
`
`Inc. v. Renesas Elecs. Am., Inc., 895 F.3d 1304, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[D]ouble recovery for the
`
`same injury is inappropriate.”); see also Aero Prods. Int'l, Inc. v. Intex Recreation Corp., 466 F.3d
`
`1000, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
`
`B.
`
`Consolidation Will Reduce Confusion
`
`Consolidation of Cobblestone 1.0 into Cobblestone 2.0 will reduce confusion and the
`
`potential for inconsistent outcomes. For example, Cobblestone’s licensing history and discussions
`
`with each Carrier Defendant are common questions of fact across both Cobblestone 1.0 and 2.0.
`
`These common questions of fact will play a role in the Carrier Defendants’ defense against
`
`Cobblestone’s damages case. Trying these same common issues to a jury in two separate trials for
`
`each Carrier could lead to inconsistent outcomes that will unnecessarily confuse and complicate
`
`the litigation. Likewise, Defendants have raised other defenses with common issues of fact, such
`
`as patent ownership, which if tried twice by each Carrier Defendant could lead to an inconsistent
`
`result that would be both difficult and confusing to resolve.
`
`7
`
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners' Ex. 1232
`Ex. 1232.00009
`
`

`

`C.
`
`Consolidation Will Not Prejudice Cobblestone.
`
`
`
`Finally, Cobblestone is not prejudiced by consolidation. Consolidation will only cause a
`
`delay of mere months for the resolution of the Cobblestone 1.0 Carrier Cases, and even so, that
`
`delay is the result of Cobblestone’s own actions. First, Cobblestone could have asserted the ’802
`
`Patent against the Carrier Defendants earlier, but instead, Cobblestone sat on the patent for five
`
`months and waited until August 2023 to assert it. Cobblestone was assigned the ’802 Patent in
`
`April 2023. Cobblestone filed suit against Samsung on the ’802 Patent in June 2023. Either of
`
`those times it could have addressed this patent with the Carrier Defendants or attempted to add the
`
`patent to Cobblestone 1.0. Instead, Cobblestone waited until August 2023 to file Cobblestone 2.0.
`
`Indeed, shortly after the Cobblestone 2.0 Carrier Cases were filed, Defendants’ counsel contacted
`
`Cobblestone to discuss the issues raised by the filing of the Cobblestone 2.0 Carrier Cases that are
`
`now the subject of this Motion. Ex. A (E-mail from Barton to Mirzaie). Cobblestone did not
`
`respond to any of the issues until Defendants gave notice of the instant Motion and requested a
`
`meet-and-confer consistent with the Court’s local rules. Ex. B (E-mail from Barton to Mirzaie);
`
`Ex. C (E-mail from Deane to Ma). Thus, any delay that may be experienced now by consolidating
`
`Cobblestone 1.0 into Cobblestone 2.0 is a result of Cobblestone’s failure to assert the ’802 Patent
`
`when it first could have and failure to engage with Defendants once it did.
`
`
`
`Second, Cobblestone cannot argue that it will be prejudiced by having to litigate all five
`
`patents at the same time. By asserting all five patents against Samsung and accusing the same
`
`technology, Cobblestone has evidenced that it is capable of litigating all five patents at the same
`
`time in a single trial. Thus, Cobblestone cannot now complain that litigating five patents against
`
`AT&T, T-Mobile, or Verizon, would be burdensome.
`
`
`
`Third, the delay is not substantial and is dramatically offset by other benefits. Defendants
`
`are only requesting to move Cobblestone 1.0 back by a few months. Meanwhile, consolidating the
`
`8
`
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners' Ex. 1232
`Ex. 1232.00010
`
`

`

`cases would reduce the number of Court hearings (e.g., consolidation would remove three trials, a
`
`Markman hearing, and at least one pretrial conference). Thus, the benefits from consolidating
`
`Cobblestone 1.0 and the Cobblestone 2.0 together far outweigh any prejudice that may be
`
`experienced by Cobblestone.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`As explained above, consolidation of the Cobblestone 1.0 Carrier Cases and Cobblestone
`
`2.0 Carrier Cases will promote efficiency, conserve judicial and party resources, eliminate the need
`
`for duplicative discovery, and aid in the just resolution of this matter. As such, Defendants
`
`respectfully request that the Court consolidate Cobblestone 1.0 and Cobblestone 2.0 and adopt the
`
`Docket Control Order for Cobblestone 2.0.
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners' Ex. 1232
`Ex. 1232.00011
`
`

`

`Respectfully submitted: December 15, 2023
`
`
`
`/s/ David S. Frist
`David S. Frist
` David.Frist@alston.com
`John Daniel Haynes
` John.Haynes@alston.com
`Emily Welch
` Emily.Welch@alston.com
`Michael Clayton Deane
` Michael.Deane@alston.com
`Sloane Sueanne Kyrazis
` Sloane.Kyrazis@alston.com
`ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`1201 West Peachtree Street NW
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`404-881-7000
`Fax: 404-881-7777
`
`Ross Ritter Barton
` Ross.Barton@alston.com
`ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`1120 South Tryon Street
`Suite 300
`Charlotte, NC 28203
`704-444-1287
`Fax: 704-444-1111
`
`Theodore Stevenson, III
` Ted.Stevenson@alston.com
`Adam Ahnhut
` Adam.ahnhut@alston.com
`ALSTON & BIRD LLP
`2200 Ross Ave
`Suite 2300
`Dallas, TX 75201
`214-922-3507
`Fax: 214-922-3899
`
`Attorneys for AT&T Services, Inc., AT&T
`Corp., AT&T Mobility LLC, T-Mobile USA,
`Inc., and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon
`Wireless, Ericsson Inc. and Nokia of America
`Corporation
`
`10
`
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners' Ex. 1232
`Ex. 1232.00012
`
`

`

`Deron Dacus
`ddacus@dacusfirm.com
`The Dacus Firm
`821 ESE Loop 323, Suite 430
`Tyler, TX 75701
`903-705-1117
`Fax: 903-581-2543
`
`Attorney for AT&T Services, Inc., AT&T
`Corp., AT&T Mobility LLC, Cellco
`Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Ericsson
`Inc. and Nokia of America Corporation
`
`Melissa R. Smith
`melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`Tom Gorham
`tom@gillamsmithlaw.com
`Gillam & Smith LLP
`102 N. College, Suite 800
`Tyler, TX 75702
`903-934-8450
`Fax: 903-934-9257
`
`Attorneys for T-Mobile USA, Inc.
`
`
`
`11
`
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners' Ex. 1232
`Ex. 1232.00013
`
`

`

`CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
`
`I hereby certify that the parties met and conferred on November 30, 2023, pursuant to Local
`
`Rule CV-7(h). The personal conference required by Local Rule CV-7(h) was conducted
`
`telephonically between John Ma, for Cobblestone, and Michael Deane and David First, for
`
`Defendants. Despite the parties’ efforts, the parties were not able to come to an agreement on the
`
`relief requested in this motion. As such, this motion is opposed.
`
`/s/ David S. Frist
`David S. Frist
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document has been
`
`served on December 15, 2023, on the counsel of record via electronic mail.
`
`/s/ David S. Frist
`David S. Frist
`
`12
`
`IPR2024-00137
`Petitioners' Ex. 1232
`Ex. 1232.00014
`
`