IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
§
SMART RF INC.,
§
Plaintiff, §
§ CASE NO. 2:24-CV-00195-JRG-RSP v.
§ (Lead Case) AT&T MOBILITY LLC,
§ §
Defendant.
§ §
SMART RF INC.,
§ §
Plaintiff,
§
v. CASE NO. 2:24-CV-00196-JRG-RSP
§
(Member Case) CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A §
VERIZON WIRELESS, §
§
Defendant.
§ §
SMART RF INC.,
§
Plaintiff, §
§ CASE NO. 2:24-CV-00197-JRG-RSP v.
§ (Member Case) T-MOBILE USA, INC., §
§
Defendant.
§
ORDER
Plaintiff Smart RF Inc. (“Plaintiff”) previously filed an Opposed Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 41 (“Rule 41 Motion”) (Dkt. No. 100.) Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 295), recommending grant of Plaintiff’s Rule 41 Motion. Defendants AT&T Mobility LLC, Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, and T-Mobile USA, Inc. (“Defendants”) have now filed Objections (Dkt. No. 298.)
Additionally, Defendants previously filed a Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity Regarding U.S. Patent No. 9,641,204 (“’204 Invalidity MSJ”) (Dkt. No. 106) and a Motion for2 Summary Judgment of Invalidity Regarding U.S. Patent No. 10,958,296 (“’296 Invalidity MSJ”) (Dkt. No. 109.) Magistrate Judge Payne entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 296), recommending denial of Defendants’ ’204 and ’296 Invalidity MSJs. Defendants have now filed Objections (Dkt. No. 297.)
After conducting a de novo review of the briefing on the Rule 41 Motion, the ’204 Invalidity MSJ, and the ’296 Invalidity MSJ, the Reports and Recommendations, and the briefing on Defendants’ Objections, the Court agrees with the reasoning provided within the Reports and Recommendations and concludes that the Objections fail to show that the Reports and Recommendations were erroneous. Consequently, the Court OVERRULES Defendants’ Objections and ADOPTS the Reports and Recommendations and ORDERS the following: The . Rule 41 Motion (Dkt. No. 100) is GRANTED as to the requested dismissal without prejudice of Claims 3 and 10 of the U.S. Patent No. 8,767,857 (“’857 Patent”), as to dismissal of the U.S. Patent No. 7,035,345 (“’345 Patent”),1 and Defendants’ associated affirmative defenses, but DENIED as to the requested dismissal of Defendants’ associated counterclaims for declaratory judgment of invalidity and noninfringement; the ’204 Invalidity MSJ (Dkt. No. 106) and the ’296 Invalidity MSJ (Dkt. No. 109) are DENIED.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 30th day of March, 2026.
RODNEY GILSTRAP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Footnotes
- ↩ 1 Relief is granted as to the ’345 Patent with the express condition that, if a new suit is filed by Plaintiff against Defendants alleging infringement of the ’345 Patent, Plaintiff will be required to pay all Defendants’ costs associated with the defense against the ’345 Patent in this action.