`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-00102-JRG
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`AT&T SERVICES, INC., AT&T
`MOBILITY LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`Before the Court is Uniloc 2017 LLC (“Uniloc”), Defendants AT&T Services, Inc. and
`
`AT&T Mobility LLC (collectively, “AT&T”), and Intervenor Defendant Ericsson Inc.’s
`
`(“Ericsson”) (together with AT&T and Uniloc, the “Parties”) Joint Stipulation and Motion for Stay
`
`(the “Motion”). (Dkt. No. 45.) In the Motion, the Parties move for a stay of all proceedings in the
`
`above-captioned case agree and stipulate that:
`
`1. There are four instituted IPRs concerning U.S. Patent No. 7,167,487 (“the ’487 patent”):
`
`IPR2019-00222; IPR2019-00252; IPR2019-01282; IPR2019-01283. The asserted claims
`
`of the ’487 patent are claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12 and 13. The instituted IPRs concerning the
`
`’487 patent cover all asserted claims.
`
`2. There is one instituted IPR concerning U.S. Patent No. 7,075,917 (“the ’917 patent”):
`
`IPR2019-00973. The asserted claims of the ’917 patent are claims 1, 2 and 10. The
`
`instituted IPR concerning the ’917 patent covers all asserted claims.
`
`3. There is one instituted IPR concerning U.S. Patent No. 6,868,079 (“the ’079 patent”):
`
`IPR2019-00510. The asserted claims of the ’079 patent are claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 17.
`
`ERICSSON v. UNILOC
`Ex. 1042 / Page 1 of 2
`
`
`
`The instituted IPR concerning the ’079 patent covers claim 17, which is one of the two
`
`asserted independent claims.
`
`4. Ericsson has identified Tomas Landahl, a former Ericsson employee currently residing in
`
`Helsingborg, Sweden. Ericsson contends that Mr. Landahl has personal knowledge
`
`regarding a license entered into between Ericsson and N.V. Philips’ Gloeilampenfabrieken,
`
`a predecessor-in-interest to the ’079 patent. Ericsson contends that such license provides a
`
`complete defense to Uniloc’s ’079 patent infringment claim with regard to Ericsson
`
`products. (See Dkt. No. 37 at 13.) Because Mr. Landahl is of advanced age, Ericsson seeks
`
`to take his deposition during the pendency of the stay to preserve his testimony
`
`Considering the joint and agreed nature of the Motion as between the Parties and the
`
`stipulations contained therein, the Court is of the opinion that the Motion should be and hereby is
`
`GRANTED. It is ORDERED that the above-captioned action is STAYED until further order of
`
`the Court. It is further ORDERED that the Parties file a joint status report within thirty (30) days
`
`of completion of any of these IPR proceedings for the three discreet patents-in-suit. The joint status
`
`report shall include attached to it as an exhibit a proposed docket control order for the Court’s
`
`consideration. All other relief requested by the Parties not expressly granted is DENIED.
`
`2
`
`So Ordered this
`Dec 4, 2019
`
`ERICSSON v. UNILOC
`Ex. 1042 / Page 2 of 2
`
`