Active Wireless Technologies v. Verizon: 5G Base Station Patent Suit Settled in 188 Days
Active Wireless Technologies LLC sued Verizon Communications and Cellco Partnership in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting two patents covering 5G cellular base station technology against Verizon’s 5G Ultra Wideband network infrastructure. The case resolved in 188 days through a settlement brokered with equipment suppliers Ericsson and Nokia, with claims tied to their equipment dismissed with prejudice.
A supplier-side settlement ends a 5G infrastructure patent dispute
On September 5, 2024, Active Wireless Technologies LLC (AWT) filed suit in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, asserting US10855432B2 and US10805955B2 against Verizon Communications Inc. and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless. The accused products encompassed 5G cellular base stations, radio units, baseband units, and associated platforms including Verizon Connect and ThingSpace — the core hardware and software layer of Verizon’s 5G Ultra Wideband network.
The case closed on March 12, 2025 via a joint motion to dismiss. Critically, the settlement was reached not with Verizon directly, but with non-parties Ericsson Inc. and Nokia of America Corporation — the equipment suppliers whose hardware formed the basis of the infringement claims. Claims tied to Ericsson- and Nokia-supplied equipment were dismissed with prejudice against both Verizon and T-Mobile, while any residual claims and all counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice. Each party bears its own legal costs.
Resolution in 188 days is notably swift for E.D. Texas patent litigation, suggesting AWT’s strategy was oriented toward licensing revenue from the supply chain rather than prolonged litigation. The involvement of Ericsson and Nokia as settling non-parties is a structurally significant detail: it implies those suppliers hold or obtained licenses that effectively resolved the dispute upstream. What terms were reached and whether similar suits against other carriers or suppliers are planned remain undisclosed from the public record.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 188 days
188 days — faster than median E.D. Texas patent case resolution of ~24 months
Settled via Ericsson & Nokia: what the split dismissal structure means
A two-tier dismissal reflects upstream supply-chain resolution
The joint order creates a deliberate split: claims relating to Ericsson- and Nokia-supplied equipment are dismissed with prejudice — meaning AWT cannot re-assert those specific claims against Verizon or T-Mobile for that equipment. Remaining claims, counterclaims, and defenses are dismissed without prejudice, preserving theoretical re-filing rights on non-settled matters. This structure is consistent with a supplier-funded covenant not to sue flowing through to the carrier defendants.
Partial with-prejudice dismissalAWT achieves settlement while preserving residual enforcement rights
AWT secured a settlement from Ericsson and Nokia — two of the world’s largest 5G infrastructure suppliers — effectively monetising its patent portfolio through the supply chain. Dismissal with prejudice on the Ericsson/Nokia equipment claims closes those specific enforcement avenues, but the without-prejudice treatment of remaining claims suggests AWT retains flexibility against carriers using non-settled equipment or asserting different infringement theories in future actions.
Upstream licensing outcomeVerizon and T-Mobile insulated by supplier coverage — for now
Verizon and T-Mobile avoided a merits adjudication entirely. Their protection derives from Ericsson’s and Nokia’s settlement with AWT, which is a common indemnification or co-settlement dynamic in telecom patent disputes. Any equipment not supplied by Ericsson or Nokia remains theoretically exposed under the without-prejudice residual claims, though the practical likelihood of further action depends on the scope of the supplier licenses obtained.
Supplier-indemnified exit5G infrastructure IP risk now concentrated at the supplier tier
This outcome reinforces a structural trend in 5G patent enforcement: asserting against carriers to pressure equipment OEMs into licensing. For network operators, this case signals that 5G base station IP risk may be managed — but not eliminated — through supplier indemnities. R&D and procurement teams evaluating 5G RAN vendors should treat supplier patent coverage as a material commercial variable, particularly as AWT’s portfolio may be asserted against operators using equipment from non-settling vendors.
Supply-chain IP risk signalFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Active Wireless Technologies LLC | Company | Wireless technology patent assertion entity — holder of US10855432B2 and US10805955B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Verizon Communications, Inc. | Company | Verizon Communications Inc. and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless — U.S. 5G network operatorSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Cellco Partnership, (dba Verizon Wireless) | Individual | 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 | Kevin Paul Anderson. | Attorney | Counsel for Verizon Communications, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Duane Morris LLP – Washington | Law Firm | Representing Verizon Communications, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order reflects a carefully negotiated split disposition. The with-prejudice dismissal on Ericsson- and Nokia-equipment claims is legally final — AWT is barred from re-litigating those specific infringement theories against Verizon and T-Mobile on covered equipment. The without-prejudice treatment of residual claims is standard protective language preserving optionality but carries limited practical force absent identified non-covered equipment. The mutual cost-bearing provision, with no fee-shifting, is consistent with a commercially negotiated exit rather than a concession of weakness by either side.
US10855432B2 & US10805955B2 — 5G cellular base station technology patents
US10855432B2 (App. No. US16/244722) and US10805955B2 (App. No. US16/324152) are granted U.S. patents asserted against Verizon’s 5G Ultra Wideband infrastructure, including base stations, radio units, baseband units, and connected platforms. Both patents fall within the 5G NR (New Radio) cellular infrastructure domain — a technology space undergoing intensive standardisation and commercialisation as carriers build out nationwide 5G networks. Their application numbers suggest filing periods aligned with early 5G standardisation timelines.
For network equipment OEMs and 5G RAN suppliers, these patents represent active enforcement risk now demonstrated against Tier-1 U.S. carriers. The fact that Ericsson and Nokia — two of the three dominant global RAN suppliers — resolved the dispute as non-party settlers strongly suggests the patents read on widely deployed 5G base station architectures. Any vendor supplying 5G hardware to U.S. operators should treat AWT’s portfolio as an active clearance item, particularly as the without-prejudice residual creates a live re-filing pathway.
Should you run an FTO against US10855432B2 and US10805955B2?
If your organisation designs, manufactures, or deploys 5G base station hardware — including radio units, baseband units, or integrated RAN platforms — these two AWT patents demand FTO attention. The Ericsson and Nokia settlements confirm the patents were taken seriously by two of the most sophisticated IP defendants in the industry. Carriers evaluating RAN vendor proposals and OEMs developing Open RAN or private 5G solutions are particularly exposed if not covered by the supplier-level licences obtained in this settlement.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US10855432B2 and US10805955B2 against your product architecture, identify prior art that could support invalidity arguments, and surface related AWT portfolio assets that may present additional risk. Eureka’s litigation monitoring layer also tracks new filings by AWT and related entities, giving your IP team early warning before a demand letter arrives.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10855432B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar 5G infrastructure patent suits in E.D. Texas
Cases involving 5G base station and RAN patent assertions before Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas against major U.S. carriers and their equipment suppliers.
What this case signals for the 5G infrastructure IP landscape
The AWT v. Verizon settlement pattern reveals how patent asserters are targeting 5G network operators to extract value from equipment OEMs.
Carriers are increasingly collateral targets in 5G patent enforcement
AWT’s strategy — suing Verizon and T-Mobile to trigger Ericsson and Nokia settlements — is a textbook supply-chain enforcement play. Network operators should audit the indemnification scope in their equipment supply agreements for 5G RAN components, particularly where vendor coverage may not extend to all asserted patent families.
E.D. Texas remains the jurisdiction of choice for wireless infrastructure assertions
Judge Gilstrap’s docket in Marshall, Texas continues to attract high-volume wireless patent cases. The 188-day resolution here reflects a plaintiff-side willingness to settle quickly once supplier negotiations crystallise — patent teams monitoring AWT’s portfolio should track future filings in this district.
Active v Verizon — key questions answered
AWT asserted US10855432B2 (App. No. US16/244722) and US10805955B2 (App. No. US16/324152) against Verizon Communications Inc. and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless. The patents cover 5G cellular base station technology, including radio units, baseband units, and associated hardware and software infrastructure.
The case settled after 188 days through a joint motion to dismiss. Non-parties Ericsson Inc. and Nokia of America Corporation settled the claims on behalf of Verizon and T-Mobile. Claims relating to Ericsson- and Nokia-supplied equipment were dismissed with prejudice; all remaining claims and counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice. Each party bears its own legal costs.
The court order identifies Ericsson and Nokia as non-party settlers, which is consistent with standard OEM indemnification practice in telecom patent disputes. Equipment suppliers often carry contractual obligations to defend carrier customers against patent claims on supplied hardware. The settlement structure suggests Ericsson and Nokia obtained a licence or covenant covering their equipment, which then protected the carrier defendants.
Claims against Verizon and T-Mobile relating to Ericsson- and Nokia-supplied equipment were dismissed with prejudice, permanently barring re-assertion of those specific claims on that equipment. All remaining AWT claims and all counterclaims by the defendants were dismissed without prejudice, meaning they could theoretically be refiled. The practical scope of residual exposure depends on whether any deployed 5G equipment falls outside the Ericsson/Nokia settlement coverage.
AWT was represented by Fabricant LLP (including partners Alfred Ross Fabricant, Peter Lambrianakos, Vincent J. Rubino III, and others) and Miller Fair Henry PLLC (including Andrea Leigh Fair and Charles Everingham IV). Verizon was represented by Kevin Paul Anderson of Duane Morris LLP’s Washington office. The case was assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.