2:24-cv-00721
Celerity IP LLC v. AT&T Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Celerity IP, LLC (Texas); ASUS Technology Licensing Inc. (Taiwan); Innovative Sonic Ltd. (Mauritius)
- Defendant: AT&T Corp., AT&T Mobility LLC, AT&T Mobility II LLC, AT&T Services, Inc.; Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless; T-Mobile USA, Inc.; and Ericsson, Inc. (Various, with significant presence in Texas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth, P.C.; Irell & Manella LLP
Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00721, E.D. Tex., 09/16/2024
Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on the defendants being registered to do business in Texas, maintaining principal places of business in Texas (AT&T and Ericsson), and the alleged harms occurring within the state.
Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant wireless service providers (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile) have engaged in an unlawful conspiracy and group boycott to collectively refuse to license Plaintiffs' portfolio of "Wireless Patents" and to artificially suppress the royalty rates for those patents, in violation of U.S. and Texas antitrust laws. Defendant Ericsson is alleged to have assisted this conspiracy and tortiously interfered with Plaintiffs' business.
Technical Context: The dispute centers on patents related to 3G, 4G, and 5G wireless communication technologies, which are fundamental to the operation of modern mobile networks and devices.
Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs, via Celerity IP, began good faith efforts to license the patent portfolio to the service providers no later than 2022, but the providers refused to engage individually. It also alleges that Ericsson has initiated or threatened foreign legal proceedings against ASUSTeK to compel a breach of its licensing obligations to Celerity.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2017-09-08 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent 10,841,914 |
| 2018-02-07 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent 10,827,487 |
| 2018-05-11 | Priority Date for U.S. Patent 10,951,383 |
| 2020-11-03 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent 10,827,487 |
| 2020-11-17 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent 10,841,914 |
| 2021-03-16 | Issue Date for U.S. Patent 10,951,383 |
| 2024-04-03 | Date Ericsson allegedly admitted knowledge of Celerity's exclusive rights |
| 2024-06-14 | Date of alleged license offer from Ericsson to ASUSTeK |
| 2024-09-16 | Complaint Filing Date |
The provided complaint is for violation of antitrust laws and does not contain counts of patent infringement. The patents referenced in the timeline were supplied with the complaint but are not asserted therein. Accordingly, Sections II, III, IV, and V, which analyze specific patent infringement claims, are not applicable and have been omitted.
II. Other Allegations
The complaint does not allege patent infringement. Instead, it brings five counts based on U.S. and Texas antitrust and tort law.
Violation of Sherman Act, Section 1 (Conspiracy in Restraint of Trade): The complaint alleges that Defendants AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon entered into a contract, combination, or conspiracy to collectively refuse to negotiate licenses for the "Wireless Patents" on competitive terms (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 48). This alleged agreement to restrain output and fix prices below market rates is claimed to have destroyed normal market forces and caused antitrust injury to the Plaintiffs (Compl. ¶¶ 49-51).
Violation of Sherman Act, Section 2 (Conspiracy to Create or Maintain a Monopsony): Plaintiffs allege that the service provider defendants have conspired to obtain and maintain monopsony power in the market for licensing the Plaintiffs' patented technology (Compl. ¶ 54). This power is allegedly used to prevent Plaintiffs from licensing their portfolio at normal market prices (Compl. ¶ 56).
Tortious Interference with Contract (against Ericsson): The complaint alleges that Ericsson willfully and intentionally interfered with the contract granting Celerity exclusive rights to license the patents (Compl. ¶¶ 61-62). This interference allegedly includes demanding that ASUSTeK grant Ericsson a royalty-free license, thereby bypassing Celerity, and making access to Ericsson's own essential patents contingent on this grant-back (Compl. ¶¶ 38, 41, 61).
Tortious Interference with Prospective Business Relationship: Plaintiffs allege a reasonable probability that they would have entered into license agreements with the service providers were it not for the defendants' anti-competitive behavior and Ericsson's alleged extortion of ASUSTeK (Compl. ¶ 65).
Unfair Competition (Texas State Law): The complaint alleges the defendants' concerted effort to impose a group boycott constitutes a per se violation of Texas state unfair competition laws (Compl. ¶¶ 70-71).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
III. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
As this is not a patent infringement case, the dispute will not turn on claim construction or technical infringement analysis. Instead, the central questions for the court will likely be:
A primary factual question will be one of conspiracy versus parallel conduct: Did the service providers' uniform refusal to license Plaintiffs' patents result from an unlawful agreement, or was it the product of independent, parallel business decisions made by companies facing a common licensor?
A key issue concerning Defendant Ericsson will be one of unlawful tying and extortion: Do Ericsson's alleged demands—making a license to its own essential patents contingent on a royalty-free grant back of Plaintiffs' patents—constitute tortious interference with Celerity's exclusive licensing rights and an illegal tying arrangement under antitrust law?
The case will also likely involve a question of market power: Do the three major U.S. wireless service providers collectively possess and unlawfully exert monopsony (buyer) power in the market for licensing standard-essential wireless patents, thereby artificially suppressing their value?