General Access Solutions, Ltd. V. Cellco Partnership D/B/A Verizon Wireless, Et Al

On June 28, 2024, the jury awarded $767 million to the Plaintiff in the Patent Infringement case against Verizon.

Case Background

General Access Solutions, Ltd. filed the lawsuit on October 10, 2022, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division (Case number: 2:22-cv-00394). District Judge Rodney Gilstrap presided over the case. General Access Solutions brought the suit against Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless and other Verizon entities. The plaintiff alleged patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,230,931 and U.S. Patent No. 9,426,794.

Cause

The lawsuit alleged infringement of two patents: U.S. Patent No. 7,230,931 (‘931 patent) and U.S. Patent No. 9,426,794 (‘794 patent). These patents originated from work done by Paul Struhsaker at Raze Technologies in the early 2000s on next-generation wireless communication technologies. The ‘931 patent, issued in 2007, covered beamforming technology for use in Time Division Duplex (TDD) cellular networks. The ‘794 patent, issued in 2016, related to wireless devices that receive cellular signals and route information to mobile stations using WiFi.

General Access alleged that Verizon’s 5G network equipment infringed claims 28 and 29 of the ‘931 patent. Specifically, the complaint accused Verizon’s 5G base stations of using beamforming technology in TDD frames as claimed in the patent. For the ‘794 patent, General Access alleged infringement of claim 1 by Verizon’s WiFi hotspot devices, home routers, and smartphones that connect to cellular networks and redistribute data via WiFi. The complaint provided detailed infringement allegations, mapping the claim elements to Verizon’s accused products and services.

Injuries

General Access claimed it suffered harm from Verizon’s alleged unauthorized use of its patented technologies. As the owner of all rights to the asserted patents, General Access contended that Verizon’s widespread deployment of 5G networks and sale of WiFi hotspot devices incorporating the patented technologies deprived General Access of the exclusive rights granted by the patents. The complaint emphasized that the patents covered fundamental wireless communication technologies developed through significant research and development efforts by the company’s predecessor in the early 2000s.

Damages

The plaintiff sought monetary damages to compensate for Verizon’s past and ongoing infringement of both patents. This included a request for lost profits or a reasonable royalty to account for Verizon’s unauthorized use of the patented technologies in its 5G networks and wireless devices. For the ‘931 patent, General Access also asked for enhanced damages up to three times the amount of compensatory damages, alleging that Verizon’s infringement was willful. The complaint further requested pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on any damages awarded, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in the litigation.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal representation

  • Plaintiff(s): General Access Solutions, Ltd.
    • Counsel for Plaintiff: Glen Eric Summers | Giovanni J. Sanchez| John M. Hughes | Luke Beasley | Michael John Valaik | Nosson Knobloch | Sten A. Jernudd | Taylor James Kelson | Amy J. Wildermuth | Charles Everingham, IV | Claire Abernathy Henry | Johnny Ward, Jr. | Andrea Leigh Fair

 

  • Defendant(s):Verizon Communications, Inc. | Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless | Verizon Services Corp. | Verizon Business Global, LLC | Verizon Business Network Services, LLC | Verizon Corporate Services Group Inc. | Verizon Data Services, LLC | Verizon Online, LLC
    • Counsel for Defendants: Josh A. Krevitt | Andrew William Robb| Ashbey N. Morgan | Brian Ashley Rosenthal | Jaysen S. Chung | Katherine Dominguez | Sung Bin Lee | Deron R. Dacus | Ryan Iwahashi
    • Experts for Defendant(s): John Grabner | Mark Goode | Dr. Jeffrey Andrews

 Claims

The complaint asserted two counts of patent infringement against Verizon:

  1. Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,230,931 – General Access alleged Verizon directly infringed claims 28 and 29 of this patent through its 5G network equipment and operations. The plaintiff also accused Verizon of inducing infringement by its customers and partners who used the 5G network, as well as contributory infringement through the sale of specially adapted 5G equipment. The complaint contended that Verizon’s infringement was willful, justifying enhanced damages.
  2. Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,426,794 – The plaintiff accused Verizon of directly infringing claim 1 of this patent through its WiFi hotspot devices, home routers, and smartphones that connect to cellular networks and redistribute data via WiFi. General Access provided detailed infringement contentions mapping the elements of claim 1 to features of Verizon’s accused products.

 

Defense

Verizon denied infringing any valid and enforceable claims of the asserted patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,230,931 and 9,426,794). They asserted that the patent claims were invalid for failing to meet the requirements of patent law. Verizon argued that GAS’s claims were barred or limited by various legal doctrines, including prosecution history estoppel, failure to mark, equitable defenses, and limitations on damages. They denied this was an exceptional case justifying attorney fees. Verizon also claimed improper venue and lack of personal jurisdiction for some defendants.

Verizon filed counterclaims seeking declaratory judgments of non-infringement and invalidity for both asserted patents. They argued there was an actual controversy regarding infringement and validity that required judicial declaration to resolve. Verizon requested dismissal of GAS’s complaint, a finding of non-infringement and invalidity, and an award of attorney fees. They demanded a jury trial on all triable issues.

Expert Testimony

John Grabner and Mark Goode served as potential prior art witnesses in this case. Grabner, the former VP of Engineering at Navini Networks, possessed knowledge about the Ripwave System, which was considered prior art to the ‘931 Patent. Goode, the former CEO of MobileStar Networks, had information about the MobileStar System, deemed prior art to the ‘794 Patent. Further, Dr. Jeffrey Andrews argued that the asserted claims of the ‘931 Patent recited well-understood, routine, and conventional subject matter in the relevant industry at the time of filing.

Jury Verdict

On June 28, 2024, the jury found that Verizon infringed both the ‘931 and ‘794 patents asserted by General Access. The jury determined that Verizon failed to prove the asserted claims of either patent were invalid due to lack of written description or enablement. As compensation for Verizon’s infringement, the jury awarded General Access $503 million in damages for the ‘931 patent and $264 million for the ‘794 patent. These amounts were deemed reasonable royalties to compensate General Access for its damages resulting from Verizon’s patent infringement.

Court Documents:

Available Upon Request