Hyperlync Files Redux of Dismissed Breach of Contract Suit vs. T-Mobile

Following a Northern California judge’s dismissal (docket 2:23-cv-00734) in June of Hyperlync's January 2023 fraud complaint vs. T-Mobile, the cloud product company filed a nearly identical complaint (docket 2:24-cv-00138) Wednesday in U.S. District Court for Western Washington in Seattle.

The new suit was filed on Hyperlync's behalf by Seattle-based Lasher Holzapfel. A pro hac vice application is pending for Barrera & Associates counsel Patricio Barrera and Ryan Fowler, who filed the 2023 complaint.

U.S. District Judge John Kronstadt granted T-Mobile’s March 31 motion to dismiss on June 1 for lack of jurisdiction, erroneously naming the proceedings an “Order Re Hyperlync’s Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction,” rather than T-Mobile’s motion. Kronstadt ruled Hyperlync didn’t meet its burden to show that its claims arose out of or related to contracts T-Mobile had with California. The plaintiff’s argument that one of its consultants resided in California while an agreement between the companies was being negotiated was “an unpersuasive one,” said the judge.

The suit stems from a disagreement over terms of an April 2016 master agreement involving an “Unlimited Cloud” Hyperlync was to develop for Sprint, prior to the telco's announcement it was combining with T-Mobile in April 2018 and the completion of that transaction in April 2020. The agreement, which is “enforceable against 'Sprint’ and 'Sprint Affiliates,'” acknowledges Hyperlync developed technology to be made available to Sprint subscribers, said the complaint. The agreement is “binding on and enforceable by each party’s permitted successors and assigns,” it said.

Though the agreement allowed Sprint to terminate the contract in the event of a change in control, Sprint “did not terminate it at that time and continued operating under it,” the complaint said. “In fact, Sprint entered into several amendments” to the agreement during the parties’ “successful business relationship,” it said. The parties drafted memorandums of understanding to reflect contract activity, but then Sprint terminated the agreement Nov. 1, 2022, it said.

Sprint representatives met with Hyperlync employees in April 2019 to discuss terms of Hyperlync developing a “digital vault” for Sprint, the complaint said. “Emails were exchanged to discuss pricing and capabilities,” and in May, the parties agreed Hyperlync would develop a customized version of its Digital Vault and license it to Sprint/T-Mobile for a three-year term, said the complaint. After several emails confirming the companies were “aligned,” Hyperlync understood that as of July 2019 it had “the green light to work on this project” and “stopped all other work to get the product done on time to work on the solution,” it said.

A Sprint representative emailed in September 2019, referencing “final approval” and apologizing for a delay regarding “the billing system only,” the complaint said. Additional emails encouraged Hyperlync “to keep things moving,” it said. Central deal points of the agreement “were not in dispute,” it said. In May 2020, a T-Mobile representative confirmed Hyperlync met its criteria for an approved vendor. An October 2020 email indicated a new T-Mobile leader “gained agreement” to move forward with the cloud product launch in 2021, it said. Hyperlync continued working on the solution, it said.

After a December 2020 email that “Cloud has been officially prioritized as 2021 project,” T-Mobile “ignored Hyperlync” over subsequent months, the complaint said. A May 2021 update told Hyperlync to “keep things moving,” it said, but in April 2022, a Sprint representative told Hyperlync, "for the first time," that “T-Mobile does not have any interest in the Digital Vault Product or IP.” When Hyperlync invoiced T-Mobile in August 2022 for “services performed and demanded payment,” T-Mobile “refused to pay,” it said.

Hyperlync’s claims for damages alleging breach of contract, quantum meruit and account stated remain the same as in the January 2023 complaint. The cloud product provider seeks compensatory damages of $6.22 million for “reasonable value of work, labor and services rendered,” interest, lost profits “with respect to profits to be shared with Plaintiff for $1 to $1.35 per T-Mobile customers’ devices,” attorneys’ fees and legal costs. T-Mobile didn’t comment Friday.