Litigation Details for Cutting Edge Vision, LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. (W.D. Tex. 2024)

Cutting Edge Vision, LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. (W.D. Tex. 2024)

Docket		Date Filed	2024-05-20
Court	District Court, W.D. Texas	Date Terminated	2025-06-16
Cause	28:1331 Fed. Question	Assigned To	Alia Moses
Jury Demand	Both	Referred To	Derek T. Gilliland
Patents	10,155,002; 9,108,002
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for Cutting Edge Vision, LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. (W.D. Tex. 2024)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2024-05-20				External link to document

Litigation summary and analysis for: Cutting Edge Vision, LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. (W.D. Tex. 2024)

Last updated: July 6, 2026

Litigation summary and analysis for Cutting Edge Vision, LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. | 6:24-cv-00270

What lawsuit is Cutting Edge Vision, LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. (6:24-cv-00270) about?

The case caption indicates a patent dispute brought by Cutting Edge Vision, LLC against T-Mobile US, Inc. in the Northern District of Texas (case number 6:24-cv-00270). The available docket identifier alone does not provide the asserted patents, claim scope, or causes of action (e.g., infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271, declaratory judgment, or ITC-related claims).

The litigation’s parties and docket number are consistent with a typical US patent infringement filing, but no complaint text, asserted claim tables, or scheduling order content is available in the provided information to support an infringement-content summary.

When was 6:24-cv-00270 filed and what is the procedural posture?

A full procedural posture requires at least one of: the complaint filing date, the assigned judge, the docket entry history (Rule 16 scheduling, motions to dismiss, early claim construction, transfer motions), or the most recent status order. None of those docket specifics are contained in the input, so a case timeline cannot be stated accurately.

What patents are asserted and what claims are at issue?

A litigation summary for a patent case requires:

• asserted patent publication numbers / patent numbers
• earliest priority, remaining term, and expiration windows
• claim chart structure (independent claims asserted, dependent claims, and theory of infringement)
• accused instrumentalities (networks, devices, features, software services)
• infringement theories (direct, indirect, inducement, contributory)

Those elements are not included in the provided material, so no accurate patent-by-patent analysis can be produced.

What is Cutting Edge Vision’s infringement theory against T-Mobile?

In patent litigations against a carrier, the typical fact patterns include mobile networking features, advertising/marketing technology, identity/authentication flows, messaging, data connectivity, location, or device management. But without the complaint’s “Accused Products and Services” section and the infringement contentions, any theory attribution would be speculative.

No infringement theory details are available from the docket number alone.

What defenses does T-Mobile US typically raise in cases like this, and what is asserted here?

Standard defenses in US patent cases include:

• non-infringement of each limitation
• invalidity (35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, 112)
• unenforceability (inequitable conduct), prosecution laches
• lack of standing or improper venue
• patent exhaustion or permission/license (if applicable)

However, a defensibility analysis requires the actual responsive pleadings and any PTAB or IPR filings, none of which are provided.

What is the Markman and claim-construction outlook for 6:24-cv-00270?

Claim construction timing is typically set through a Rule 16 scheduling order with deadlines for:

• initial disclosures and claim construction proposals
• opening claim construction brief
• any expert reports (depending on court track)

No scheduling dates, case management order, or claim construction plan are available here.

What does the case indicate about settlement risk and litigation leverage?

Settlement leverage in patent cases is driven by:

• how many asserted patents survive any early motion practice
• strength of non-infringement positions based on accused technology
• validity challenges viability (especially § 101 and § 103)
• damages models and the litigation “runway” given time-to-trial

Without the asserted patent set, claim scope, or any motion outcomes, a settlement and leverage assessment cannot be tied to facts.

Are there related PTAB proceedings (IPR/PGR/CBM) tied to the asserted patents?

Patent validity in parallel PTAB proceedings can materially affect case strategy, stay likelihood, and settlement. The docket number alone does not show whether IPRs were filed, instituted, or whether any stay was sought.

No information is provided to list PTAB case numbers, petition grounds, or institution outcomes.

What is the damage posture (reasonable royalty vs. lost profits) if damages are pled?

A damages analysis requires:

• the asserted royalty theory (book-of-business, comparable licenses, Georgia-Pacific factors)
• apportionment arguments
• “date when infringement began” and notice period
• any offers for license or marking disputes

None of those details are present.

Does 6:24-cv-00270 involve an injunction request?

In patent cases, plaintiffs often request permanent injunctive relief after a potential infringement finding, plus enhanced damages under § 284 and attorneys’ fees under § 285. Whether the complaint includes such relief, and what the post-Tillman or post-eBay standards analysis might be, depends on the specific pleading and the asserted case law.

No complaint relief language is available.

Key timeline table (what is known vs. not shown)

Item	Status	Source-backed details
Court / docket	Known	“6:24-cv-00270” and parties “Cutting Edge Vision, LLC” vs “T-Mobile US, Inc.”
Filed date	Not provided	Not available in the input
Judge / division	Not provided	Not available in the input
Asserted patents	Not provided	Not available in the input
Claim scope / infringement theories	Not provided	Not available in the input
Motion practice / orders	Not provided	Not available in the input
Trial / Markman dates	Not provided	Not available in the input
PTAB related cases	Not provided	Not available in the input

Litigation analysis focused on decision-useful variables

Given only the docket identifier and party names, the only decision-useful analysis that can be stated is structural: the case is a patent dispute in federal court with carrier as defendant, but no factual or legal content can be extracted to support:

• patent-by-patent invalidity/infringement evaluation
• assessment of claim strength and enforceability
• prediction of schedule impacts (stay, transfer, early dispositive motions)
• damages exposure quantification

No further analysis is warranted without docket-specific filings.

Key Takeaways

• Cutting Edge Vision, LLC has brought a patent litigation against T-Mobile US, Inc. in federal court under docket 6:24-cv-00270.
• The provided information does not include asserted patents, claim limitations, infringement theories, or procedural history, so no substantive claim construction, invalidity, infringement, or damages analysis can be produced from the input alone.

FAQs

1. What court and jurisdiction is associated with Cutting Edge Vision, LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. (6:24-cv-00270)?
2. Which parties are named in 6:24-cv-00270 and what are their roles?
3. Does 6:24-cv-00270 typically include Markman/claim construction in the schedule?
4. Are there likely PTAB IPRs or related validity challenges in carrier patent disputes?
5. What factors most influence settlement timing in patent cases involving mobile carriers?

References

1. U.S. District Court docket entry identifier as provided in the prompt: Cutting Edge Vision, LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc., No. 6:24-cv-00270.