Context: Last year, there were only two cases in the Eastern District of Texas during that entire year which plaintiffs lost. In both cases, Nokia was the defendant. On April 5, 2024, Smart Path Connections lost a jury trial over three patents and a fourth had previously been thrown out by the court on summary judgment (April 12, 2024 Alston & Bird press release). Later that year, Correct Transmissions also lost a three-patent trial against Nokia (November 6, 2024 ip fray article).
What’s new: Yesterday, Nokia did it again and defended itself successfully in the third E.D. Tex. trial in a row. In Daingean Technologies v. T-Mobile USA, only one patent out of the original half-dozen went to trial: U.S. Patent No. 8,576,803 (“Communication system”). To the extent T-Mobile uses Nokia mobile network infrastructure products, no infringement was identified. The jury didn’t clear the accused Ericsson base stations, but set the damages amount relating to those at only $2M.
Direct impact: For Daingean, an Ireland-based non-practicing entity (NPE), this is a greatly dissatisfactory outcome. Unless they succeed on appeal (which is difficult if a jury finds no infringement), they will get nothing from Nokia, and the $2M they would get from Ericsson is far short of what U.S. patent plaintiffs aspire to win.
Wider ramifications:
- Three successful defenses in E.D. Tex. trials suggest that Nokia is one of the most difficult targets for NPEs (and other patent holders) to sue.
- This litigation is just the latest example of customer lawsuits in which Nokia and Ericsson have to intervene in order to defend their products against infringement accusations. In political debates, Ericsson and Nokia are primarily viewed or characterized as major patent licensors, but the legal and commercial reality is that they are regularly on the receiving end of patent enforcement actions, which is why they simply cannot be interested in unbalanced case law that would deprive defendants of essential rights or expose them to enormous liability risks.
Here’s the verdict, stating no infringement and thus 0 damages with respect to Nokia devices, and only $2M with respect to Ericsson products:
Nokia provided the following statement just in time for this article:
“Nokia is a major contributor to cellular standards, an innovator in critical network technology, and holds one of the world’s strongest portfolios of connectivity patents. We respect other companies’ intellectual property and expect others to do the same.“
Court and counsel
Presiding Judge: United States District Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap
Counsel for Daingean Technologies: Alavi & Anaipakos PLLC’s Amir Alavi, Demetrios Anaipakos, Masood Anjom, Justin Chen, Scott Clark, Connie Flores Jones, Michael McBride, C. Ryan Pinckney; Heim, Payne & Chorush, LLP’s Blaine Larson, Allan Bullwinkel, Michael Dunbar, Eric Enger, Alden Harris and Michael Heim; and Miller Fair Henry PLLC’s Chad Everingham, Andrea L. Fair and Garrett Parish.
Counsel for defendant T-Mobile and intervenors Ericsson and Nokia: McKool Smith’s Blake Bailey, Joshua Budwin, Matthew Cameron, Alexander J. Chern, Clare Churchman, Kyra Cooper, Charles E. Fowler, Jr., Eric S. Hansen, Christopher Leone, Warren Lipschitz, Nicholas Mathews and Jennifer Truelove; The Dacus Firm, PC’s Deron Dacus; and (for T-Mobile USA Inc.) Gillam & Smith LLP’s Andrew T. “(“Tom”)” Gorbam, Melissa R. Smith and J. Travis Underwood.
(counsel listed above in the same order as on the PACER docket)