`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`SMART RF INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`AT&T MOBILITY LLC,
`Defendant,
`
`SMART RF INC.,
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`PARTNERSHIP
`CELLCO
`VERIZON WIRELESS,
`Defendant,
`
`D/B/A
`
`SMART RF INC.,
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`T-MOBILE USA, INC. et al.,
`Defendants,
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`CASE NO. 2:24-cv-00195-JRG
`(Lead Case)
`
`CASE NO. 2:24-cv-00196-JRG
`(Member Case)
`
`CASE NO. 2:24-cv-00197-JRG
`(Member Case)
`
`ORDER
`Before the Court is Movant-Intervenor Nokia of America Corporation’s (“Nokia”)
`
`Unopposed Motion for Leave to Intervene (the “Motion”). (Dkt. No. 51.) In the Motion, Nokia
`
`requests leave to intervene in the above-captioned case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. (“Rule”) 24(a)
`
`or, in the alternative, Rule 24(b). (Id. at 2.) Nokia further represents that this Motion is unopposed.
`
`(Id. at 1.) Nokia filed with the Motion Nokia’s Answer in Intervention (Dkt. Nos. 52, 53, 54) in
`
`compliance with Rule 24(c).
`
`PETITIONERS EXHIBIT 1031
`Page 1 of 2
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-00195-JRG Document 57 Filed 08/08/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 531
`
`Having considered the Motion, and noting its unopposed nature, the Court finds that it
`
`should be and hereby is GRANTED. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Nokia is permitted to
`
`intervene in the above-captioned case pursuant to Rule 24(a) or, in the alternative, Rule 24(b).
`
`.
`
`____________________________________
`RODNEY GILSTRAP
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`So ORDERED and SIGNED this 8th day of August, 2024.
`
`PETITIONERS EXHIBIT 1031
`Page 2 of 2
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
