XR Communications LLC d/b/a Vivato Technologies v. AT&T Inc.
2:23-cv-00202
| E.D. Tex. | Sep 22, 2025Background
- In the Eastern District of Texas, XR Communications LLC d/b/a Vivato Technologies sues AT&T and Ericsson for patent-related damages.
- Defendants and intervenor Ericsson move for partial summary judgment on two damages-related issues.
- The court applies Rule 56 summary judgment standards, viewing evidence in the light most favorable to XR.
- The court denies the motion on both issues after evaluating expert testimony and the record on spectral efficiency gains.
- There is a genuine dispute whether the claimed 4-5% spectral efficiency gains apply only in limited urban scenarios or more broadly.
- There is also a genuine dispute about whether XR’s damages model assumes feasible spectrum purchases in a but-for world.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4-5% spectral efficiency gains | XR contends gains may occur in specific conditions (urban areas) not universal. | Ericsson argues Williams’ analysis shows no universal 4-5% gain from accused features. | DENIED on the basis of genuine disputes on the evidence. |
| Availability to purchase more spectrum | XR argues spectrum purchases are avoided-costs in the damages model and defensible as an alternative to licensing. | Ericsson argues there is no genuine issue that comparable spectrum could be obtained in the but-for world. | DENIED because disputed evidence over XR’s damages model and spectrum economics. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard: genuine dispute of material fact required)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (burden shifting to show absence of genuine issue)
- Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Fritz Cos., Inc., 210 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2000) (outlines standard for summary judgment evidence guidance)
- Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (administrative review procedural guidance for objections to magistrate recommendations)
- Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (U.S. 1970) (affects interpretation of evidence and conclusions for summary judgment)