Active Wireless Technologies v. HTC Corp. — Dismissed Without Prejudice After 173 Days
Active Wireless Technologies LLC filed suit against HTC Corporation in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting six patents against HTC's 5G device lineup including the U20, U23 Pro, and U24 Pro. The parties jointly moved to dismiss without prejudice after 173 days, with each side bearing its own costs and no disclosed resolution terms.
Six 5G SEPs, One Joint Dismissal, and an Open Door to Refile
Active Wireless Technologies LLC filed this infringement action on 26 November 2025 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, asserting six U.S. patents — US10785764B2, US10531443B2, US10855432B2, US10805955B2, US11019557D2, and US10601566B2 — against HTC Corporation. The accused products are HTC's 5G-capable smartphones and hub devices, specifically the HTC U20 5G, Desire 21 Pro 5G, Desire 22 Pro 5G, U23 Pro 5G, U24 Pro 5G, and HTC 5G Hub, all alleged to implement 3GPP Release 15/16 standards including TS 38.213, TS 38.214, TS 38.331, and TS 38.321.
The case closed on 18 May 2026 — 173 days after filing — when the parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss representing that the matter had been resolved. The Court granted the motion and dismissed all claims and causes of action without prejudice. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. The recorded basis of termination is 'Dismissed without Prejudice'; the docket order states that the case 'has been resolved' but the specific terms of that resolution are not disclosed in the available record.
A dismissal without prejudice preserves Active Wireless Technologies' right to refile the same claims, which distinguishes this outcome from a with-prejudice dismissal or a consent judgment. The 173-day timeline is relatively brief for a multi-patent 5G dispute in E.D. Texas, suggesting early-stage resolution before significant claim construction activity. What drove the resolution — and whether any commercial arrangement underlies the joint motion — is not disclosed in the public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 173 days
173 days — from filing to dismissal in E.D. Texas
US10785764B2 — 5G NR scheduling and resource allocation (+ 5 co-asserted patents)
Any organisation designing, manufacturing, or distributing products that implement 3GPP NR specifications — particularly TS 38.213, TS 38.214, TS 38.331, or TS 38.321 — should assess freedom to operate against the six patents asserted in this case. This includes 5G smartphone OEMs, mobile chipset vendors, fixed wireless access device makers, and network infrastructure suppliers whose products implement NR scheduling, HARQ, RRC, or power control procedures.
Official order — verbatim text
The Court's order grants the parties' joint motion and dismisses all claims without prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs. The order's phrasing — that the matter 'has been resolved' — is drawn directly from the parties' representation in the motion; the Court makes no independent merits finding. The without-prejudice designation means no claim preclusion or issue preclusion attaches, and the six asserted patents remain fully enforceable.
Dismissed without prejudice: what the joint dismissal means for both parties
Dismissal without prejudice leaves claims legally alive
A dismissal without prejudice means the Court has not adjudicated the merits of any claim. Active Wireless Technologies retains the right to refile identical infringement claims against HTC at a future date, subject to applicable statutes of limitations. The joint motion represented that the matter was 'resolved,' but no consent judgment or with-prejudice bar was entered, so no preclusive effect arises from this dismissal.
No merits adjudicationActive Wireless retains full right to refile
Because the dismissal is without prejudice, Active Wireless Technologies preserves all six patent claims for potential future enforcement — against HTC or other 5G device makers. The public record does not disclose whether any licensing arrangement, covenant not to sue, or payment underlies the joint motion. The specific terms are not disclosed in the available record.
Refiling right preservedHTC faces no injunction or damages award — but no formal clearance either
HTC Corporation exits this proceeding without an adverse judgment, and each party bears its own costs. However, the without-prejudice dismissal means HTC received no declaratory judgment of non-infringement or invalidity. The six asserted patents remain in force, and HTC's 5G products could in principle be subject to renewed claims if the underlying matter has not been fully resolved by agreement.
No preclusive clearance5G SEP enforcement in E.D. Texas: early resolution is common but not final
This case is consistent with a broader pattern of 5G standard-essential patent assertions in E.D. Texas resolving before claim construction. Other 5G device makers implementing TS 38.213, TS 38.214, TS 38.331, or TS 38.321 should note that the asserted patents remain active and enforceable. The without-prejudice posture suggests Active Wireless Technologies retains optionality to pursue further enforcement across its six-patent portfolio.
Portfolio enforcement risk persistsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Active Wireless Technologies LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | HTC Corp. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alfred Ross Fabricant | Attorney | Counsel for Active Wireless Technologies LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Julian Glenn Pymento | Attorney | Counsel for Active Wireless Technologies LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Peter Lambrianakos | Attorney | Counsel for Active Wireless Technologies LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Vincent J. Rubino , III | Attorney | Counsel for Active Wireless Technologies LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fabricant LLP | Law Firm | Representing Active Wireless Technologies LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fabricant, Rubino & Lambrianakos LLP | Law Firm | Representing Active Wireless Technologies LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the 5G NR standard-essential patent space
Forward-looking patent and R&D intelligence derived from Active Wireless Technologies' six-patent 5G NR assertion against HTC's 5G device portfolio.
Active Wireless Technologies' 5G NR filing activity
Active Wireless Technologies has assembled a portfolio of at least six granted U.S. patents mapped to core 3GPP NR specifications. Tracking continuation filings, related application families, and any new grants from the same inventors or assignee may indicate the scope of future enforcement campaigns against 5G device and chipset companies.
SEP portfolio monitoring3GPP NR scheduling and HARQ patent filing trends
The 3GPP NR procedures cited in this case — TS 38.213, TS 38.214, TS 38.331, TS 38.321 — are among the most heavily patented areas of the 5G stack. Filing activity in NR scheduling, power control, and RRC signalling has intensified as 5G Advanced (Release 18+) standardisation proceeds, creating layered SEP exposure for implementers across the device and infrastructure supply chain.
5G NR filing densityHTC's patent portfolio in 5G NR communications
HTC Corporation holds its own patent portfolio in wireless communications and 5G technologies. Understanding HTC's defensive patent assets in the NR space — including any declared SEPs or cross-licensing positions — is relevant for companies assessing the competitive IP dynamics between device OEMs and patent assertion entities active in the 5G space.
OEM defensive postureAdjacent 5G NR innovation gaps near the asserted patent claims
The asserted patents focus on Release 15/16 NR procedures. As the industry transitions to 5G Advanced (Release 17/18) and early 6G research, there is potential white space in enhanced scheduling algorithms, AI-driven resource allocation, and NR sidelink communications that extends beyond the specific claim boundaries of the six asserted patents. R&D teams can use this case to calibrate claim-free design space.
5G Advanced white spaceSimilar 5G SEP infringement cases in E.D. Texas
Explore comparable 5G standard-essential patent infringement actions filed in the Eastern District of Texas involving 3GPP NR standard implementations and handset OEM defendants.
What this case signals for the 5G SEP enforcement landscape
Six 5G NR patents, a swift joint dismissal, and no disclosed terms — this case raises questions every 5G device maker should be asking.
E.D. Texas remains a preferred venue for 5G SEP assertions
Active Wireless Technologies filed in the Eastern District of Texas — a venue with established 5G patent litigation precedent and plaintiff-friendly procedural timelines. Companies shipping 5G devices to U.S. markets should factor E.D. Texas exposure into their standard-essential patent risk assessments, particularly for 3GPP Release 15/16 implementations.
Without-prejudice dismissal is not clearance — monitor for re-assertion
All six asserted patents remain valid and enforceable after this dismissal. Any company implementing TS 38.213, TS 38.214, TS 38.331, or TS 38.321 in consumer or enterprise 5G hardware should track Active Wireless Technologies' filing activity. A without-prejudice exit leaves the full enforcement optionality intact and is a common precursor to broader multi-defendant campaigns.
Active v HTC — key questions answered
Active Wireless Technologies asserted six U.S. patents: US10785764B2, US10531443B2, US10855432B2, US10805955B2, US11019557B2, and US10601566B2. All are directed to 5G NR wireless communication methods and are alleged to be implemented by HTC's 5G devices through 3GPP standards TS 38.213, TS 38.214, TS 38.331, and TS 38.321.
The parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss representing that the case 'has been resolved' and requesting dismissal without prejudice. The Court granted the motion. The specific terms of the resolution are not disclosed in the available public record. A without-prejudice dismissal means Active Wireless Technologies retains the right to refile the same claims in future.
The accused products are the HTC U20 5G, HTC Desire 21 Pro 5G, HTC Desire 22 Pro 5G, HTC U23 Pro 5G, HTC U24 Pro 5G, and the HTC 5G Hub — all alleged to implement 3GPP NR standards TS 38.213, TS 38.214, TS 38.331, and TS 38.321.
No. A dismissal without prejudice does not adjudicate the merits of any claim and creates no claim preclusion or issue preclusion in favour of either party. The six asserted patents remain valid and enforceable, and Active Wireless Technologies is not barred from refiling identical claims against HTC or asserting the same patents against other defendants.
Active Wireless Technologies was represented by attorneys Alfred Ross Fabricant, Julian Glenn Pymento, Peter Lambrianakos, and Vincent J. Rubino III of Fabricant LLP (also listed as Fabricant, Rubino & Lambrianakos LLP). No defendant law firm or agents are listed in the available case record for HTC Corporation.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.