Case 2:22-cv-00477-JRG-RSP Document 98 Filed 01/12/24 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 874
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON
`WIRELESS
`
`
`
`COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`AT&T SERVICES INC.; AT&T MOBILITY
`LLC; AT&T CORP.,
`
`
`
`COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`T-MOBILE USA, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`Defendant,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`Defendants,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`Defendant,
`
` ––AND––
`
`
`CASE NO. 2:22-cv-00477-JRG-RSP
`(Lead Case)
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`T-MOBILE USA, INC.,
`
`
`
`Cobblestone Wireless LLC
`Ex. 2018, IPR2024-00137
`Page 1 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00477-JRG-RSP Document 98 Filed 01/12/24 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 875
`
`Defendant,
`
`
`
`
`NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION,
`ERICSSON INC.
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`Intervenors.
`COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`AT&T SERVICES INC.; AT&T MOBILITY
`LLC; AT&T CORP.,
`
`
`
`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,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant,
`
`
`NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION,
`ERICSSON INC.
`Intervenors.
`COBBLESTONE WIRELESS, LLC,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON
`WIRELESS
`
`
`
`NOKIA OF AMERICA CORPORATION,
`ERICSSON INC.
`Intervenors.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
`
`
`Cobblestone Wireless LLC
`Ex. 2018, IPR2024-00137
`Page 2 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00477-JRG-RSP Document 98 Filed 01/12/24 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 876
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Defendants’ motion to consolidate the Carrier 1 cases and the Carrier 2 cases, and put all
`
`cases on the same schedule as the later-filed Carrier 2 cases, is without merit and should be denied.
`
`The purpose of Rule 42 is to promote judicial economy and reduce unnecessary costs or delay. But
`
`consolidating the two sets of cases, which were filed eight months apart and thus are at completely
`
`different stages, would not meaningfully reduce costs at all. There are zero overlapping patents
`
`and the accused functionalities differ. Indeed, the ’802 patent asserted in the Carrier 2 cases is not
`
`related to the patents asserted in the Carrier 1 cases and there are no overlapping inventors. Thus,
`
`the Carrier 1 and Carrier 2 cases will require separate discovery and claim construction regardless
`
`of consolidation. And to the extent there is any overlap, the Court has already ordered cross-use of
`
`documents and source code in order to minimize duplication.
`
`Defendants attempt to downplay the substantial prejudice to Cobblestone that would result
`
`if their motion were granted by arguing that it would only set the Carrier 1 cases back by a “few
`
`months.” This is simply untrue. Trial in the Carrier 1 cases is currently set for September 2024,
`
`whereas trial in the Carrier 2 cases is in May 2025. The requested consolidation would thus delay
`
`Carrier 1 by eight months, which is substantial. Indeed, this Court recently denied consolidation
`
`where the cases had far more in common than they do here because they were “too far apart” in
`
`time. Entropic Commc’ns, LLC v. Charter Commc’ns, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00125-JRG, 2023 WL
`
`5613185, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 29, 2023). The same reasoning applies here.
`
`Notably, during the parties’ meet and confer, Cobblestone offered to put the Carrier 2 cases
`
`on the same track as the Carrier 1 cases in order to address Defendants’ purported concerns about
`
`duplication and costs. Defendants rejected this proposal, confirming that their primary goal is
`
`delay. This is improper. Their motion should be denied.
`
`
`
`1
`
`Cobblestone Wireless LLC
`Ex. 2018, IPR2024-00137
`Page 3 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00477-JRG-RSP Document 98 Filed 01/12/24 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 877
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Defendants’ motion seeks to consolidate two sets of consolidated cases, filed eight months
`
`apart, that are on different schedules and concern different patents and different accused
`
`instrumentalities. The first set of consolidated cases, which Defendants refer to as the
`
`“Cobblestone 1.0 Carrier Cases” (hereafter referred to as the “Carrier 1” cases), were filed in
`
`December 2022:
`
`• Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00477 (E.D. Tex.) (lead
`case), filed on December 16, 2022;
`
`• Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. Verizon Communications Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00478 (E.D.
`Tex.), filed on December 16, 2022; and
`
`• Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. AT&T Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00474 (E.D. Tex.), filed on
`December 15, 2022.
`
`In each of these cases, Cobblestone alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,891,347
`
`(“’347 patent”), 9,094,888 (“’888 patent”), 10,368,361 (“’361 patent”), and 8,554,196 (the “’196
`
`patent”). As set forth in Cobblestone’s infringement contentions served on March 13, 2022, the
`
`accused products in the Carrier 1 cases include (1) cellular base stations that support 3GPP 5G NR
`
`beamforming, handover between 4G and 5G NR wireless networks, or directional Supplementary
`
`Uplink (SUL) and/or Bandwidth Adaptation functionality, (2) cellular user equipment and Wi-Fi
`
`gateway devices that supports 3GPP 5G NR beamforming, and (3) cellular handsets, tablets, or
`
`smartwatches that support Wi-Fi-only automatic updates. Mirzaie Decl. ¶ 2. At a high level,
`
`beamforming is a technique that uses multiple antennas at the base station to form directional
`
`beams towards user devices, improving the signal quality and the spectral efficiency. Handover is
`
`the process of transferring a mobile device’s connection from one network to another, while
`
`maintaining the continuity and quality of the services. Directional supplementary uplink and/or
`
`bandwidth adaptation allows base stations to adjust the frequency spectrum utilized according to
`
`
`
`2
`
`Cobblestone Wireless LLC
`Ex. 2018, IPR2024-00137
`Page 4 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00477-JRG-RSP Document 98 Filed 01/12/24 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 878
`
`the channel conditions and mobile device requirements. Wi-Fi-only automatic updates is a feature
`
`that allows a device to update applications or software only when connected to a Wi-Fi network,
`
`thus saving cellular data and battery life. Jury selection is set to begin in the Carrier 1 cases on
`
`September 23, 2024.
`
`The second set of consolidated cases, which Defendants refer to as the “Cobblestone 2.0
`
`Carrier Cases” (hereafter referred to as the “Carrier 2” cases), were filed eight months later in
`
`August 2023:
`
`• Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, No. 2:23-cv-
`00382 (E.D. Tex.) (lead case), filed on August 25, 2023;
`
`• Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. AT&T Services Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00380 (E.D. Tex.), filed
`on August 25, 2023; and
`
`• Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00381 (E.D. Tex.), filed
`on August 25, 2023.
`
`The asserted patent in those cases, U.S. Patent No. 7,924,802 (“’802 patent”), comes from
`
`a different family than those asserted in the Carrier 1 case. As set forth in Cobblestone’s
`
`infringement contentions served on December 11, 2023, the accused products in the Carrier 2 cases
`
`include cellular base stations, mobile products, and services that support 3GPP carrier aggregation.
`
`Mirzaie Decl. ¶ 3. At a high level, 3GPP carrier aggregation is a technology that allows a device
`
`to use multiple frequency ranges simultaneously for faster and more reliable data transmission.
`
`Jury selection is currently set for May 19, 2025—eight months after the trial in the Carrier 1 cases.
`
`The accused products and accused functionalities are fundamentally different as described
`
`in detail above even if there is some general overlap between the Carrier 1 and Carrier 2 cases.
`
`Given the highly specialized settings in which these functionalities are typically developed, it is
`
`unlikely for there to be meaningful overlap in Defendants’ technical witnesses. Defendants also
`
`
`
`3
`
`Cobblestone Wireless LLC
`Ex. 2018, IPR2024-00137
`Page 5 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00477-JRG-RSP Document 98 Filed 01/12/24 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 879
`
`have not identified any technical witnesses in Carrier 2 to date, thus any purported overlap is
`
`speculative. See Mirzaie ¶ 9.
`
`Importantly, Cobblestone has already agreed to, and the Court has ordered, the cross-use
`
`of documents and source code in order to minimize duplication and Cobblestone remains open to
`
`additional streamlining proposals. See Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. Cellco Partnership d/b/a
`
`Verizon Wireless, No. 2:23-cv-00382, Dkt. No. 69 at 7 (E.D. Tex.). And during the parties’ meet
`
`and confers, Cobblestone made clear that it was amenable to putting the Carrier 2 cases on the
`
`same schedule as the Carrier 1 cases (rather than delaying the Carrier 1 cases eight months to put
`
`them on the same schedule as the Carrier 2 cases, which is what Defendants propose). Mirzaie
`
`Decl. ¶ 4. This would address Defendants’ purported concerns about “unnecessary repetition and
`
`costs” and avoid delaying trial in the Carrier 1 cases. Defendants, however, rejected this proposal.
`
`Id.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`“Under Rule 42(a), where actions involve a common question of law or fact, ‘the court
`
`may ... consolidate the actions.’” Entropic, 2023 WL 5613185, at *1 (emphasis in original).
`
`However, “common issues do not mandate consolidation.” Network Sys. Techs., LLC v. Samsung
`
`Elecs. Co., No. 2:22-cv-00481-JRG, 2023 WL 4534358, at *3 (E.D. Tex. July 13, 2023). The rule
`
`“is permissive and vests a purely discretionary power in the district court.” Id. “Consolidation is
`
`improper if it would prejudice the rights of the parties,” or where the cases are “different stages of
`
`preparedness for trial.” St. Bernard Gen. Hosp., Inc. v. Hosp. Serv. Ass’n of New Orleans, Inc., 712
`
`F.2d 978, 889, 990 (5th Cir. 1983).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`Cobblestone Wireless LLC
`Ex. 2018, IPR2024-00137
`Page 6 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00477-JRG-RSP Document 98 Filed 01/12/24 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 880
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`As set forth below, consolidation of the Carrier 1 and Carrier 2 cases is inappropriate here.
`
`While there may be some general overlap in the issues when viewed at a high level, consolidation
`
`will not meaningfully reduce duplication or costs given that there are no overlapping patents or
`
`patent families, and the accused functionalities across the two cases are different. Thus, each set
`
`of the Carrier cases will require separate discovery and claim construction. Any minimal cost
`
`savings is far outweighed by the significant prejudice by delaying Cobblestone’s day in court for
`
`the Carrier 1 cases by eight months.
`
`A.
`
`Consolidation Will Not Meaningfully Reduce Duplication and Costs Given
`That There Are No Overlapping Patent Families and Different Accused
`Functionalities
`
`The Court has already consolidated the three Carrier 1 cases and the three Carrier 2 cases,
`
`which makes sense because the asserted patent families across the respective consolidated cases
`
`are the same. In contrast, there are zero overlapping patent families between the Carrier 1 and
`
`Carrier 2 cases. The patent asserted in the Carrier 2 cases (the ’802 patent) is not asserted in any
`
`of the Carrier 1 cases. In addition, while Defendants speculate in their motion that “the accused
`
`products in both cases will be substantially the same, if not identical” (Mot. at 6), that is simply
`
`not the case. As set forth above, the Carrier 1 cases concern products pertaining to beamforming,
`
`supplemental uplink, bandwidth adaptation, handover, and wifi-only automatic updates, whereas
`
`the Carrier 2 cases focus on products pertaining to carrier aggregation. The Carrier 1 cases also
`
`focus on mobile devices pertaining to 5G beamforming or wifi-only automatic updates, while the
`
`Carrier 2 cases, focuses on mobile devices pertaining to 4G and 5G carrier aggregation. Mirzaie
`
`Decl. ¶ 8. Defendants have not demonstrated the extent to which the accused products actually
`
`overlap or not, other than offering speculation. The mere fact that both cases generally concern 4G
`
`and 5G wireless standards is of little consequence given that the cases focus on different specific
`
`
`
`5
`
`Cobblestone Wireless LLC
`Ex. 2018, IPR2024-00137
`Page 7 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00477-JRG-RSP Document 98 Filed 01/12/24 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 881
`
`functionalities of the accused base stations and user equipment, and will thus require different
`
`discovery. And regardless, to the extent there is overlap in the issues and discovery, Cobblestone
`
`has already agreed to, and the Court has ordered, the cross-use of documents and source code in
`
`order to minimize duplication and reduce costs and Cobblestone remains open to additional
`
`streamlining proposals.
`
`Defendants’ assertion that consolidation of the Carrier 1 and Carrier 2 cases “would remove
`
`three trials, a Markman hearing, and at least one pretrial conference” (Mot. at 9) does not mean
`
`the issues would be reduced; it simply means Cobblestone’s day in court will be delayed, and the
`
`Court and the jury would have to deal with more unrelated issues at once. Further, combining the
`
`Markman hearings and pretrial conferences will not reduce efforts or costs given the different
`
`asserted patent families, claim terms, and accused functionalities. For example, the parties will
`
`still have to litigate, and the Court will still have to separately construe, the disputed terms of the
`
`’802 patent regardless of whether the Markman hearing in the Carrier 2 cases is held at the same
`
`time as the Markman in the Carrier 1 cases.
`
`Defendants further argue that consolidation “will avoid unnecessary repetition and costs
`
`because Cobblestone 2.0 is scheduled directly behind the Samsung Case,” and that litigation of
`
`claims against the manufacturer should take precedence over the customer defendants. Mot. at 6–
`
`7. By “Samsung Case,” Defendants are referring to Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. Samsung
`
`Electronics, Co., No. 2L23-cv-00285-JRG (E.D. Tex.). Defendants’ argument fails for multiple
`
`reasons. As an initial matter, the cases cited by Defendants concern staying the claims against the
`
`customer defendants pending resolution of the manufacturer suit. A motion to stay based on the
`
`customer suit exception involves a completely different standard than a motion to consolidate, and
`
`requires consideration of several factors, including whether the customer defendants have agreed
`
`
`
`6
`
`Cobblestone Wireless LLC
`Ex. 2018, IPR2024-00137
`Page 8 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00477-JRG-RSP Document 98 Filed 01/12/24 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 882
`
`to be bound by the outcome of the manufacturer suit. See, e.g., Spread Spectrum Screening LLC v.
`
`Eastman Kodak Co., 657 F.3d 1349, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Defendants have not made any showing
`
`that the case against Samsung will resolve any of the issues in the carrier cases. Nor can they, given
`
`that Samsung is not the only manufacturer/supplier of accused products; others include Nokia,
`
`Ericsson (both of which have intervened in both sets of Carrier cases), and Apple. See, e.g., Ex. 3
`
`at 2. Additionally, customer-suit stays are typically where the customer is a “mere reseller” (see,
`
`e.g., id. at 1357), and here, the Carrier Defendants typically implement the accused products in
`
`highly customized networks, such that their use of the equipment is often highly customized to
`
`their particular network needs. Furthermore, Defendants have not agreed to be bound by any
`
`decisions in the Samsung case. Mirzaie Decl. ¶ 5. But perhaps more fundamentally, it is simply
`
`inappropriate for Defendants to use a motion to consolidate as a means to obtain their preference
`
`to have the Samsung claims tried first.
`
`Finally, Defendants’ concerns about potential jury confusion and inconsistent results are
`
`overblown. Defendants only vaguely allude to common defenses with “common issues of fact”
`
`such as “Cobblestone’s licensing history and discussions with each Carrier Defendant.” Mot. at 7.
`
`But Defendants fail to explain how the mere presence of such highly generalized alleged “common
`
`issues of fact” could confuse the jury. And even assuming this is a legitimate concern, the Court
`
`can “instruct the jury and cabin party arguments to limit jury confusion, which is an inherent risk
`
`when any single case from a group of complex cases goes to trial.” Entropic, 2023 WL 5613185,
`
`at *2. Furthermore, the doctrine of collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) should sufficiently protect
`
`against the danger of inconsistent outcomes should the same issues arise in the Carrier 2 cases. See
`
`id. (noting that defendant “may litigate … issue preclusion if it wishes” and “it is not unfair to
`
`[defendant] to ask it to defend itself”).
`
`
`
`7
`
`Cobblestone Wireless LLC
`Ex. 2018, IPR2024-00137
`Page 9 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00477-JRG-RSP Document 98 Filed 01/12/24 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 883
`
`B.
`
`Consolidation Will Substantially Prejudice Cobblestone by Delaying Trial in
`the Carrier 1 Cases for Eight Months
`
`It is well-established that consolidation is inappropriate where it would result in prejudice
`
`or where the cases are “different stages of preparedness for trial.” St. Bernard, 712 F.2d at 889,
`
`990. And here, it is clear that the two sets of cases are at different stages, as they were filed eight
`
`months apart and thus have different schedules with different deadlines and different trial dates.
`
`Trial in the Carrier 1 cases is set for September 2024, and trial in the Carrier 2 cases is set eight
`
`months later in May 2025. Mirzaie Decl. ¶ 6. In the Carrier 1 cases, the parties have already
`
`completed certain claim construction disclosures, fact discovery is well underway and set to close
`
`in under four months, and expert discovery is set to close in under five months. See Id.; Dkt. No.
`
`62 (Carrier 1 lead case). By contrast, the Carrier 2 cases are still in the pleading stage and, for
`
`example, claim construction disclosures are not even set to begin until July (after the close of
`
`expert discovery in the Carrier 1 cases). See Mirzaie Decl. ¶ 6; Dkt. No. 66 (Carrier 2 lead case).
`
`Thus, there can be no question that the cases are at different stages of preparedness for trial. See
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Waze Mobile Ltd., No. 2:19-cv-00359-JRG, 2022 WL 1608047, at *4
`
`(E.D. Tex. May 20, 2022) (denying motion to consolidate where the cases had “different trial
`
`schedules … with varying deadlines, and consequently, they ‘are at different stages of
`
`preparedness for trial’”).
`
`Defendants attempt to downplay the delay that would result from their requested
`
`consolidation, asserting that they only want to “move Cobblestone 1.0 back by a few months.”
`
`Mot. at 8. This is a gross understatement. Consolidation would delay the Carrier 1 cases by eight
`
`months. Defendants’ proposal would derail the discovery progress in the Carrier 1 cases. Discovery
`
`has been open since April 2023 and is set to close soon, in May 2024. Mirzaie Decl. ¶ 7. Defendants
`
`and Intervenors Ericsson and Nokia have responded to numerous interrogatories and have
`
`
`
`8
`
`Cobblestone Wireless LLC
`Ex. 2018, IPR2024-00137
`Page 10 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00477-JRG-RSP Document 98 Filed 01/12/24 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 884
`
`produced hundreds of thousands of pages of documents. Id. The parties have engaged in multiple
`
`rounds of discovery correspondence. Id. Cobblestone’s source code expert has conducted code
`
`review multiple times. Id. In contrast, discovery has just opened in the Carrier 2 cases. Id.
`
`Defendants’ proposal to delay Cobblestone’s day in Court for eight months, in view of a case where
`
`discovery has just opened, does not make logical sense and is unduly prejudicial to Cobblestone.
`
`For example, in Entropic, this Court denied consolidation despite the patents in the two
`
`actions sharing the same specification and inventors, and despite the accused products and services
`
`sharing the “same definition,” because the cases were “simply too far apart for it to be practical to
`
`consolidate them.” 2023 WL 5613185, at *1-2. In that case, the trials were ten months apart, which
`
`is similar to the eight-month difference between the Carrier 1 and Carrier 2 trials here. The
`
`Entropic Court found that plaintiff “should not have to delay in bringing its case to trial before a
`
`jury.” Id. at *2. The Court also rejected the defendant’s concerns about “litigat[ing] the same case
`
`twice” and potential jury confusion, explaining that “discovery between these actions will overlap,
`
`such that discovery does not have to be wholly duplicative between the First and Second Actions,”
`
`and that the similarities between the patents-in-suit will actually “simplify claim construction” in
`
`the second action. Id. The Court further explained any potential jury confusion can be remedied
`
`with appropriate jury instructions, and that defendants have the option to litigate issue preclusion
`
`if they so choose. Id. In conclusion, the Entropic Court recognized that any additional costs that
`
`may result from denying consolidation are “insufficient to overcome the burdens of consolidating
`
`two cases that are at very different stages of development and readiness.” Id.
`
`The same analysis applies here. Indeed, there is even less reason to consolidate the Carrier
`
`1 and Carrier 2 given that, unlike Entropic, the ’802 patent family is not related to the patent
`
`families asserted in the Carrier 1 cases, there are no overlapping inventors, and the accused
`
`
`
`9
`
`Cobblestone Wireless LLC
`Ex. 2018, IPR2024-00137
`Page 11 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00477-JRG-RSP Document 98 Filed 01/12/24 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 885
`
`instrumentalities are different. As in Entropic, Defendants’ purported concerns about duplication
`
`and jury confusion can easily be remedied through cross-use agreements, issue preclusion, and
`
`jury instructions.
`
`Defendants’ assertion that the delay that would result from consolidation is somehow
`
`Cobblestone’s fault because it waited until August 2023 to assert the ’802 patent against them
`
`(Mot. at 8) is nonsensical. As noted by Defendants, the ’802 patent was not assigned to
`
`Cobblestone until April 2023—four months after it filed the Carrier 1 cases. Accordingly,
`
`Cobblestone opted to file a new case rather than seek amendment, as it was fully within its rights
`
`to do. Not surprisingly, Defendants cite no authority to support the proposition that Cobblestone
`
`was somehow obligated to seek to amend the Carrier 1 cases to add the ’802 patent—which is
`
`unrelated to any of the Carrier 1 patents. Nor do they cite any authority to support the notion that
`
`filing complaints a mere four months after acquiring the patent was somehow unreasonable.
`
`Instead, Defendants offer only attorney argument, claiming that “[b]y 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.” Mot. at 8. This misses the
`
`point. Whether Cobblestone is “capable” of litigating all five patents together is irrelevant and does
`
`not change the fact that the requested consolidation would substantially delay the Carrier 1 cases
`
`and prejudice Cobblestone’s right to a timely trial. Indeed, in Entropic the Court rejected a nearly
`
`identical argument. See 2023 WL 5613185, at *2 (rejecting argument that plaintiff “filed a case in
`
`California that included all eight patents from both the First and Second Actions here” and denying
`
`consolidation because the cases were “too far apart”).
`
`Notably, Defendants fail to mention that Cobblestone offered to put the Carrier 2 cases on
`
`the same schedule as the Carrier 1 cases, which would address their purported concerns about
`
`
`
`10
`
`Cobblestone Wireless LLC
`Ex. 2018, IPR2024-00137
`Page 12 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00477-JRG-RSP Document 98 Filed 01/12/24 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: 886
`
`duplication and inconsistent results while also avoiding any delay and prejudice to Cobblestone.
`
`See Mirzaie Decl. ¶ 4. Defendants rejected this proposal, which confirms that their primary goal
`
`is delay, not efficiency. See id. Where, as here, Defendants’ motion “appears to be nothing more
`
`than a veiled attempt to delay trial” in the Carrier 1 cases, “proceeding with the order of trials as
`
`currently scheduled avoids prejudice and delay, ensures judicial economy, and safeguards
`
`principles of fundamental fairness.” AGIS Software, 2022 WL 1608047, at *4 (cleaned up).
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to consolidate should be denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: January 12, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Reza Mirzaie
`
`
`
`Reza Mirzaie
`CA State Bar No. 246953
`Marc A. Fenster
`CA State Bar No. 181067
`Neil A. Rubin
`CA State Bar No. 250761
`Amy E. Hayden
`CA State Bar No. 287026
`Christian W. Conkle
`CA State Bar No. 306374
`Jonathan Ma
`CA State Bar No. 312773
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th
`Floor Los Angeles, CA 90025
`Telephone: 310-826-7474
`Email: rmirzaie@raklaw.com
`Email: mfenster@raklaw.com
`Email: nrubin@raklaw.com
`Email: ahayden@raklaw.com
`
`
`
`11
`
`Cobblestone Wireless LLC
`Ex. 2018, IPR2024-00137
`Page 13 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00477-JRG-RSP Document 98 Filed 01/12/24 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 887
`
`Email: cconkle@raklaw.com
`Email: jma@raklaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`Cobblestone Wireless LLC
`Ex. 2018, IPR2024-00137
`Page 14 of 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00477-JRG-RSP Document 98 Filed 01/12/24 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 888
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was filed electronically in
`
`compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a) and served via email on all counsel of record January 12,
`
`2024.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Reza Mirzaie
`Reza Mirzaie
`
`13
`
`Cobblestone Wireless LLC
`Ex. 2018, IPR2024-00137
`Page 15 of 15
`
`