Active Wireless Technologies v. T-Mobile: 5G NR Patent Case Settled in 188 Days
Active Wireless Technologies LLC filed suit against T-Mobile in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting two patents covering 5G New Radio base station hardware and software. The case resolved through a settlement involving Ericsson and Nokia as non-party equipment suppliers, with claims dismissed with prejudice in just 188 days.
5G NR base station dispute resolved via upstream equipment supplier settlement
On September 5, 2024, Active Wireless Technologies LLC (AWT), a patent assertion entity, filed suit against T-Mobile USA, Inc. and T-Mobile US, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. AWT asserted US10855432B2 and US10805955B2 — two patents directed at 5G New Radio technology — against T-Mobile’s deployment of 5G base stations, radio units, baseband units, and associated equipment including Extended Range and Ultra Capacity 5G installations.
The case closed on March 12, 2025 — just 188 days after filing — following a joint motion to dismiss. The settlement was driven not by T-Mobile directly, but by non-parties Ericsson Inc. and Nokia of America Corporation, the upstream equipment suppliers. Claims relating to Ericsson- and Nokia-supplied equipment were dismissed with prejudice, while all remaining claims and counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, and each party agreed to bear its own legal costs.
The 188-day resolution is notably compressed for E.D. Texas patent litigation, suggesting the upstream supplier structure accelerated settlement dynamics. The public record does not disclose financial terms. The with-prejudice dismissal on Ericsson and Nokia equipment claims bars AWT from relitigating those specific infringement allegations, though the without-prejudice dismissal on remaining claims leaves theoretical re-filing options open against different equipment ecosystems.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 188 days
188 days — notably fast for E.D. Texas patent litigation, which typically runs 2–3 years to trial
Settled via equipment supplier deal: what the dual dismissal structure means
With-prejudice dismissal bars re-litigation on Ericsson and Nokia equipment
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits, preventing AWT from bringing the same patent claims against T-Mobile for equipment supplied by Ericsson or Nokia. This is the highest-finality outcome short of a trial verdict. The without-prejudice dismissal on remaining claims preserves AWT’s theoretical right to refile if different equipment suppliers or new claim theories arise.
Rule 41 — permanent bar on Ericsson/Nokia claimsAWT secures settlement but forfeits right to relitigate core claims
AWT achieved a negotiated resolution — likely involving licensing consideration from Ericsson and/or Nokia, whose involvement as non-party payor entities is consistent with standard supplier indemnification practice. However, by accepting with-prejudice dismissal on the Ericsson and Nokia equipment claims, AWT permanently closes the door on those infringement theories against T-Mobile in any future action concerning the same supplier chain.
Likely licensed via upstream suppliersT-Mobile’s exposure extinguished for Ericsson and Nokia network equipment
T-Mobile obtains a with-prejudice dismissal covering the bulk of its 5G infrastructure — the Ericsson and Nokia equipment that underlies most major carrier deployments. This provides strong protection against AWT re-asserting these patents on the same supply chain. The without-prejudice dismissal on remaining claims signals that AWT’s patent portfolio may not yet be fully exhausted, but T-Mobile’s primary exposure is resolved.
Core network equipment claims clearedSupplier-driven settlements are reshaping 5G patent litigation economics
This case illustrates a pattern where equipment vendors (Ericsson, Nokia) resolve downstream carrier liability through portfolio cross-licenses or lump-sum settlements. For R&D teams and procurement officers, it suggests that 5G NR patent exposure at the carrier level is often managed through supplier indemnification clauses rather than direct carrier defenses — and that PAE campaigns targeting 5G infrastructure tend to settle rapidly when Tier-1 vendors engage.
Vendor indemnification model at workFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Active Wireless Technologies LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US10855432B2 and US10805955B2 covering 5G NR technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | T-Mobile | Individual | Major US wireless carrier deploying 5G NR base stations and radio infrastructure at scaleSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | T-Mobile US, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alfred Ross Fabricant | Attorney | Counsel for Active Wireless Technologies LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrea Leigh Fair | Attorney | Counsel for Active Wireless Technologies LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Charles Everingham, IV | Attorney | Counsel for Active Wireless Technologies LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Enrique William Iturralde | Attorney | Counsel for Active Wireless Technologies LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jacob Daniel Ostling | Attorney | Counsel for Active Wireless Technologies LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joseph Michael Mercadante | 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 LLP (NY) | Law Firm | Representing Active Wireless Technologies LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fabricant LLP (Rye) | Law Firm | Representing Active Wireless Technologies LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Miller Fair Henry PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Active Wireless Technologies LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Elissa Sanford | Attorney | Counsel for T-MobileSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John R. Gibson | Attorney | Counsel for T-MobileSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kevin Paul Anderson | Attorney | Counsel for T-MobileSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Matthew Sean Yungwirth | Attorney | Counsel for T-MobileSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for T-MobileSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Duane Morris LLP | Law Firm | Representing T-MobileSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Duane Morris LLP (Atlanta) | Law Firm | Representing T-MobileSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Duane Morris LLP – Washington | Law Firm | Representing T-MobileSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gillam & Smith, LLP | Law Firm | Representing T-MobileSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The joint dismissal order reflects a dual-track structure deliberately crafted to balance finality against flexibility. The with-prejudice scope is expressly limited to equipment supplied by Ericsson and Nokia — a precise carve-out that suggests the settlement consideration flowed from those vendors under indemnification obligations. The without-prejudice treatment of remaining claims is not merely procedural boilerplate; it preserves AWT’s optionality against equipment from other suppliers. The each-party-bears-own-costs provision is standard in PAE settlements and does not signal a defendant victory on the merits.
US10855432B2 & US10805955B2 — 5G New Radio base station and radio unit technology
US10855432B2 (application no. US16/244722) and US10805955B2 (application no. US16/324152) are granted US patents covering technology in the 5G New Radio (NR) domain — specifically directed at base station hardware, software, radio units, and associated baseband equipment. The patents were asserted against T-Mobile’s Extended Range (XR) 5G and Ultra Capacity (UC) 5G base station deployments, placing the claimed inventions squarely in the commercial 5G RAN infrastructure space.
These patents carry strategic weight because 5G NR base station infrastructure is the foundational layer of carrier network buildouts. Ericsson and Nokia — the two dominant global RAN vendors — chose to resolve the claims rather than contest them at trial, which may suggest the patents presented a credible infringement read on deployed equipment. Any company deploying, selling, or integrating 5G RAN equipment should assess whether these patents create FTO concerns, particularly given the without-prejudice carve-out that may leave non-Ericsson/Nokia supply chains exposed.
Should you run an FTO against US10855432B2 and US10805955B2?
If your organisation designs, manufactures, integrates, or procures 5G NR base station equipment — including radio units, baseband units, or associated network infrastructure — these patents warrant a freedom-to-operate assessment. The settlement covered Ericsson and Nokia supply chains, but the without-prejudice dismissal of remaining claims suggests AWT may continue enforcement against equipment from other vendors. Samsung, Fujitsu, and other alternative RAN suppliers are not expressly covered by the dismissal order.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US10855432B2 and US10805955B2 against your product specifications, identify prior art that may limit enforceability, and flag related AWT patents in the same family. Given AWT’s active assertion posture and the rapid settlement achieved here, early FTO clearance is a commercially prudent step for any 5G RAN programme.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10855432B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar 5G NR patent infringement cases in E.D. Texas
Cases involving 5G New Radio base station patents before Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas, including PAE actions against major wireless carriers.
What this case signals for the 5G wireless infrastructure IP landscape
The AWT v. T-Mobile resolution in under 200 days reveals how upstream supplier settlements are compressing PAE litigation timelines in 5G NR.
Upstream suppliers are the real 5G patent litigation battleground
When Ericsson and Nokia stepped in to resolve AWT’s claims against T-Mobile, they demonstrated the standard indemnification dynamic in 5G infrastructure. Carriers increasingly rely on vendor IP warranties — meaning PAE strategy in this sector must account for well-capitalised equipment makers who can settle quickly and neutralise downstream exposure.
With-prejudice scope signals a clean patent license — not just a nuisance payment
AWT agreed to with-prejudice dismissal specifically scoped to Ericsson and Nokia equipment. This specificity suggests a structured license covering identified patent claims and identified supply chains — not a simple walk-away. IP teams monitoring AWT’s assertion activity should note that US10855432 and US10805955 may now carry encumbered licensing history across major 5G vendor chains.
Active v T-Mobile — key questions answered
AWT asserted US10855432B2 and US10805955B2 against T-Mobile. Both patents cover 5G New Radio technology, specifically directed at base station hardware, software, radio units, baseband units, and associated 5G infrastructure equipment including Extended Range and Ultra Capacity 5G base stations.
The verdict order identifies Ericsson and Nokia as non-party equipment suppliers whose involvement drove the settlement. This is consistent with standard vendor indemnification practice: equipment suppliers often carry contractual obligations to resolve downstream patent claims when their equipment is accused of infringement, allowing carriers like T-Mobile to be indemnified through supplier-level licensing.
The with-prejudice dismissal bars AWT from reasserting the same patent claims against T-Mobile specifically for equipment supplied by Ericsson and Nokia. This is a permanent legal bar. However, claims relating to equipment from other suppliers were dismissed without prejudice, meaning AWT retains the theoretical right to refile infringement claims tied to different supply chains.
The case lasted 188 days from filing (September 5, 2024) to closure (March 12, 2025). This is notably fast for patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas, where cases typically take 2–3 years to reach trial. The rapid resolution suggests the upstream supplier settlement mechanism — involving Ericsson and Nokia — significantly compressed the litigation timeline.
Plaintiff AWT was represented by Fabricant LLP and Miller Fair Henry PLLC. Defendant T-Mobile was represented by Duane Morris LLP and Gillam & Smith, LLP. Alfred Ross Fabricant led AWT’s counsel team, while Melissa Richards Smith of Gillam & Smith represented T-Mobile’s local counsel interests in the Eastern District of Texas.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.