Active Wireless Technologies LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc. et al

On May 31, 2023, Active Wireless Technologies LLC (“Plaintiff”), represented by Alfred R. Fabricant, Peter Lambrianakos, and Vincent J. Rubino III of Fabricant LLP, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against T-Mobile USA, Inc. and T-Mobile US, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”), seeking damages for alleged patent infringement. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

In the complaint, the plaintiff stated, “T-Mobile operates cellular wireless networks employing several wireless communication technologies including, but not limited to, 5G and NB-IoT technologies. T-Mobile also sells and offers for sale a variety of devices that make use of these same wireless communication technologies.” 

The plaintiff then alleged, “The products accused of infringing the Patents-in-Suit include, but are not limited to, at least Defendants’ NB-IoT cellular stations, 5G cellular base stations (including Extended Range (XR) 5G and Ultra Capacity (UC) 5G base stations), 5G New Radio (NR) hardware, software, radio units, and baseband units, and associated equipment (e.g., IoT Access packs) and services (e.g., T-Mobile Connect) (collectively, the ‘Accused Products’).”

Plaintiff also alleged, “Defendants have and continue to directly infringe the ’443 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, without authority and in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, by making, using, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing into the United States products that satisfy each and every limitation of one or more claims of the ’443 Patent. Such products include at least the Accused Products.”

Plaintiff further alleged, “Defendants have and continue to directly infringe the ’557 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, without authority and in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, by making, using, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing into the United States products that satisfy each and every limitation of one or more claims of the ’557 Patent. Such products include at least the Accused Products.”

Additionally, the plaintiff alleged, “Defendants have and continue to directly infringe the ’764 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, without authority and in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, by making, using, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing into the United States products that satisfy each and every limitation of one or more claims of the ’764 Patent. Such products include at least the Accused Products.”

The plaintiff then alleged, “Defendants have and continue to directly infringe the ’566 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, without authority and in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, by making, using, offering to sell, selling, and/or importing into the United States products that satisfy each and every limitation of one or more claims of the ’566 Patent. Such products include at least the Accused Products.”

Plaintiff presented four claims for relief from alleged infringement of the patents-in-suit.

In the prayer for relief, the plaintiff requested an award of damages sufficient to compensate AWT for Defendants’ infringement of the Patents-in-Suit, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs.

This is a summary of a legal complaint. All statements, claims, and allegations listed herein reflect the position of the plaintiff only and do not represent the position of UniCourt. Additionally, this case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the current status of this case. To view the latest case updates and court documents, please sign up for a UniCourt account.