Asus Technology Licensing Inc. et al v. AT&T Inc. et al, No. 2:23-cv-00486 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 11, 2026)

Before the Court are several related motions, memorandum orders and a report and recommendation. Plaintiffs ASUS Technology Licensing Inc., Celerity IP, LLC, Innovative Sonic Limited (“Plaintiffs”), and Third Party Defendant ASUSTeK Computer Inc. (“ASUSTeK”) previously filed a Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Breach of FRAND Claims (“MSJ”). (Dkt. No. 611). Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 899), recommending denial of Plaintiffs’ and ASUSTeK’s MSJ and an affirmative finding that a FRAND obligation runs with all remaining asserted patents. (id. at 10). Plaintiffs and ASUSTeK have now filed Objections. (Dkt. No. 1036).

After conducting a de novo review of the briefing on the MSJ, the Report and Recommendation, and the briefing on Plaintiffs’ and ASUSTeK’s Objections, the Court agrees with the reasoning provided within the Report and Recommendation and concludes that the Objections fail to show that the Report and Recommendation was erroneous. Consequently, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs’ and ASUSTeK’s Objections and ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation. The Court therefore ORDERS that the MSJ (Dkt. No. 611) is DENIED and affirmatively finds that a FRAND obligation runs with all remaining asserted patents.

2Defendants AT&T Corp., AT&T Mobility LLC, AT&T Mobility II LLC, AT&T Services Inc., T-Mobile USA, Inc., Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (“Defendants”) and Intervenors Nokia of America Corporation and Ericsson Inc. (“Intervenors”) previously filed a Motion to Strike #1: Motion to Exclude Damages Expert Opinions of David Kennedy (“Kennedy Motion”) (Dkt. No. 579), a Motion to Strike #2: Motion to Strike the Opinions of Plaintiffs’ Expert Dr. Gary Lomp (“Lomp Motion”) (Dkt. No. 580), a Motion to Strike #3: Daubert Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Dr. Martin Feuerstein (“Feuerstein Motion”) (Dkt. No. 581), and a Motion to Strike #6: Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Mr. Stefan Boedeker (“Boedeker Motion”) (Dkt. No. 584) (collective, “Motions”).

Magistrate Judge Payne entered memorandum orders granting in part the Kennedy Motion and denying it otherwise (“Kennedy Order”) (Dkt. No. 885 at 5), granting the Lomp Motion as to Dr. Lomp’s opinions attributing the full 24% throughput benefit to the ’559 and ’883 Patents and denying it otherwise (“Lomp Order”) (Dkt. No. 888 at 8), granting the Feuerstein Motion as to Dr. Feuerstein’s opinions on good faith and technical benefits and denying it otherwise (“Feuerstein Order”) (Dkt. No. 889 at 9), and granting the Boedeker Motion (“Boedeker Order”) (Dkt. No. 891 at 11) (collective, “Orders”). In each, apart from the Boedeker Order, Judge Payne also set a briefing schedule to allow the parties to address any deficiencies he identified and struck in the experts’ reports.

Since those orders have been filed, Defendants and Intervenors have filed Objections to the Kennedy Order (Dkt. No. 945), the Lomp Order (Dkt. No. 971), the Feuerstein Order (Dkt. No. 970). Likewise, Plaintiffs and ASUSTeK have filed Objections to the Kennedy Order (Dkt. No. 944), the Lomp Order (Dkt. No. 974), the Feuerstein Order (Dkt. No. 975), and the Boedeker Order (Dkt. No. 976) (collectively, “Objections”).

3.

After reviewing the briefing on the parties’ Motions, Judge Payne’s Orders, and the briefing on the parties’ Objections, the Court agrees with the reasoning provided within the Orders and concludes that the Objections fail to show that the Orders were clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Consequently, the Court OVERRULES the parties’ Objections (Dkt. Nos. 944, 945, 970, 971, 974, 975, 976) and ADOPTS Judge Payne’s Orders (Dkt. Nos. 885, 888, 889, 891).

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 11th day of August, 2026.

RODNEY GILSTRAP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE