Cobblestone Wireless v. HP & Aruba Networks: Wi-Fi 6E Patent Claims Dismissed With Prejudice
Cobblestone Wireless brought patent infringement claims in the Eastern District of Texas against Hewlett-Packard and Aruba Networks over US7924802B2, a patent covering 80+80 MHz channel width technology used in 802.11ac and 802.11ax Wi-Fi products. The parties jointly moved to dismiss after 612 days, with plaintiff’s claims extinguished with prejudice.
A Wi-Fi 6E channel-width patent battle ends in a split-prejudice dismissal
Filed on 29 September 2023 in the Eastern District of Texas, Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co. and Aruba Networks, LLC (Case No. 2:23-cv-00457) centred on alleged infringement of US7924802B2, a patent covering 802.11ac and 802.11ax station and access point products that support 80+80 MHz channel width. The targeted products included Aruba’s 650 Series Wi-Fi 6E Campus Access Points, a flagship enterprise wireless infrastructure line. Russ August & Kabat LLP represented the plaintiff, while defendants retained Duane Morris LLP and Haltom & Doan LLP.
The case closed on 2 June 2025 via a joint motion to dismiss. The court granted the motion on its terms: Cobblestone’s infringement claims against HP and Aruba were dismissed with prejudice, permanently barring re-filing of the same claims. Defendants’ counterclaims and defences were dismissed without prejudice, leaving them free to assert those positions in any future proceeding. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees, a cost structure that neither acknowledges liability nor signals a damages payment in the public record.
At 612 days, the litigation ran longer than many E.D. Texas cases that settle early, yet it concluded before trial — consistent with a negotiated resolution reached during or after claim construction. The split-prejudice structure of the dismissal is notable: it suggests the parties reached a commercial accommodation while preserving defendants’ IP defences. Whether the resolution involved a licence, a covenant not to sue, or a pure walk-away is not disclosed in the public record. Cobblestone, widely regarded as a patent assertion entity, has pursued parallel actions in this court, meaning the broader portfolio pressure on Wi-Fi vendors may persist.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 612 days
612 days — above median for E.D. Texas patent cases resolved before trial
Split-prejudice dismissal: what each party’s outcome actually means
What ‘dismissed with prejudice’ means for Cobblestone’s claims
A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits for procedural purposes. Cobblestone cannot re-file the same infringement claims based on US7924802B2 against HP and Aruba in any court. The joint motion signals the parties agreed to this finality, typically in exchange for a commercial resolution. Rule 41 voluntary dismissals with prejudice are treated as a judgment against the plaintiff.
Claims extinguished permanentlyCobblestone relinquishes claims — but on its own terms
Dismissal with prejudice, when jointly filed, strongly suggests Cobblestone received some form of commercial consideration — whether a licence fee, lump-sum payment, or covenant. The public record is silent on financial terms. Cobblestone retains US7924802B2 and can continue asserting it against other Wi-Fi vendors not covered by this dismissal. The ‘each party bears own costs’ order is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a litigated defeat.
Patent survives; terms undisclosedHP and Aruba’s counterclaims preserved without prejudice
Defendants secured dismissal of plaintiff’s claims with prejudice while retaining their own counterclaims and defences without prejudice. This asymmetric structure preserves HP and Aruba’s ability to assert invalidity, non-infringement, or other defences if Cobblestone re-engages via a related patent or related entity. It is a commercially protective posture — defendants did not waive any IP defences they had developed during 612 days of litigation.
Defences preserved for future useWi-Fi 6E infrastructure vendors face ongoing PAE portfolio risk
US7924802B2 remains active and enforceable. Cobblestone’s willingness to litigate 612 days before resolving suggests it views the patent as commercially valuable for assertion. Enterprise Wi-Fi vendors — particularly those deploying 802.11ax access points with 80+80 MHz channel support — should monitor Cobblestone’s filing activity and consider FTO analysis against this patent family. The E.D. Texas venue preference and Russ August & Kabat representation pattern are consistent with continued assertion.
PAE pressure on Wi-Fi sector continuesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Cobblestone Wireless, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US7924802B2 covering 802.11ac/ax 80+80 MHz Wi-Fi channel technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Hewlett-Parkard, Co. | Company | Enterprise networking and Wi-Fi infrastructure provider; Aruba Networks is an HP subsidiarySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Aruba Networks, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jacob Buczko | Attorney | Counsel for Cobblestone Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathan Ma | Attorney | Counsel for Cobblestone Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Marc A. Fenster | Attorney | Counsel for Cobblestone Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew D. Aichele | Attorney | Counsel for Cobblestone Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Neil Alan Rubin | Attorney | Counsel for Cobblestone Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Qi Tong | Attorney | Counsel for Cobblestone Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Reza Mirzaie | Attorney | Counsel for Cobblestone Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Russ August & Kabat LLP | Law Firm | Representing Cobblestone Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Russ August & Kabat LLP (Los Angeles) | Law Firm | Representing Cobblestone Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jennifer Haltom Doan | Attorney | Counsel for Hewlett-Parkard, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joshua Reed Thane | Attorney | Counsel for Hewlett-Parkard, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Tyler Robert Marandola | Attorney | Counsel for Hewlett-Parkard, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Duane Morris LLP | Law Firm | Representing Hewlett-Parkard, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Haltom & Doan LLP | Law Firm | Representing Hewlett-Parkard, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order mirrors the joint motion verbatim, granting dismissal with prejudice of plaintiff’s claims and without prejudice of defendants’ counterclaims. The asymmetric prejudice structure is legally significant: it creates a final bar against Cobblestone re-asserting the same US7924802B2 claims against these defendants, while HP and Aruba retain every invalidity and non-infringement argument they developed. The ‘each party bears its own costs’ provision removes any fee-shifting signal, leaving commercial terms entirely outside the public record.
US7924802B2 — 802.11ac/ax 80+80 MHz Wi-Fi channel width technology
US7924802B2, filed under application number US12/018370, covers inventions relating to wireless LAN station and access point operation under the 802.11ac and 802.11ax standards — specifically configurations that support 80+80 MHz non-contiguous channel bonding. This channel aggregation technique is foundational to Wi-Fi 5 and Wi-Fi 6/6E high-throughput operation, enabling devices to combine two separate 80 MHz bands for peak data rates. The patent’s technical scope places it squarely within the feature sets deployed in modern enterprise access points.
From a competitive standpoint, US7924802B2 is strategically positioned against the enterprise networking market’s transition to Wi-Fi 6E. Aruba’s 650 Series — explicitly named in the complaint — represents a high-ASP, high-volume enterprise product category. Any vendor building 802.11ax access points with 80+80 MHz support is potentially within claim scope. Cobblestone’s willingness to litigate over 600 days before resolving suggests confidence in the patent’s enforceability, and the patent’s continued validity makes it a live risk for the broader Wi-Fi infrastructure supply chain.
Should you run an FTO against US7924802B2?
If your organisation designs, manufactures, or deploys 802.11ac or 802.11ax access points or client devices that support 80+80 MHz non-contiguous channel bonding, US7924802B2 warrants a formal freedom-to-operate assessment. The Aruba 650 Series precedent shows that enterprise-grade hardware — including campus and data centre Wi-Fi 6E deployments — is squarely within Cobblestone’s assertion targets. R&D teams working on next-generation Wi-Fi platforms should also assess continuation risk from the US12/018370 application family.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables IP and R&D teams to map claim scope against your product architecture in minutes. Run a claim-by-claim analysis of US7924802B2 against your 80+80 MHz implementation, identify prior art that could support an IPR petition, and monitor the full Cobblestone patent family for new grants or continuations. Eureka’s litigation overlay also surfaces co-pending cases involving the same patent, so your team can benchmark settlement postures across defendants.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7924802B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Wi-Fi patent infringement cases in the Eastern District of Texas
Cases involving 802.11ac/ax patent assertion by PAEs in the Eastern District of Texas, targeting enterprise access point and Wi-Fi infrastructure vendors.
What this case signals for the enterprise Wi-Fi IP landscape
A PAE extracting value from core 802.11ax features is a signal for every vendor shipping Wi-Fi 6 and 6E hardware.
80+80 MHz channel width is a litigation target in enterprise Wi-Fi
Cobblestone’s targeting of Aruba’s 650 Series access points — a high-volume enterprise SKU — signals that 802.11ax channel bonding features carry real assertion risk. Any vendor shipping Wi-Fi 6 or 6E access points with 80+80 MHz support should treat US7924802B2 as a live FTO priority. The patent remains valid and enforceable after this dismissal.
Split-prejudice structures reveal negotiated outcomes, not courtroom victories
When plaintiff’s claims are dismissed with prejudice but defendant’s counterclaims are dismissed without prejudice, it almost always reflects a commercial deal. In-house teams tracking Cobblestone’s portfolio should assume a licence or covenant was granted to HP/Aruba — and that other vendors without such coverage remain exposed. Monitor for downstream assertion against non-settling Wi-Fi access point manufacturers.
Cobblestone v Hewlett-Parkard — key questions answered
The case was dismissed via joint motion on 2 June 2025. Cobblestone’s infringement claims were dismissed with prejudice, barring re-filing against HP and Aruba. Defendants’ counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice. Each party bore its own costs. No financial terms were disclosed in the public record.
Cobblestone asserted US7924802B2, filed under application number US12/018370. The patent covers 802.11ac and 802.11ax station and access point products that support 80+80 MHz non-contiguous channel width — a key feature in Wi-Fi 5 and Wi-Fi 6/6E high-throughput enterprise hardware, including Aruba’s 650 Series Wi-Fi 6E Campus Access Points.
A dismissal with prejudice is a final, permanent bar on re-filing the same claims. Cobblestone cannot re-assert the same US7924802B2 infringement claims against HP or Aruba Networks in any court. The patent itself remains valid and enforceable against other parties, but these specific defendants are protected from the same claims.
The asymmetric prejudice structure reflects the parties’ negotiated terms. By dismissing defendants’ counterclaims — likely invalidity and non-infringement arguments — without prejudice, HP and Aruba preserved their ability to reassert those defences if Cobblestone or a related entity pursues them again via a continuation patent or related assertion. This is a standard protective posture in PAE settlements.
Yes. The dismissal only covers HP and Aruba Networks. US7924802B2 remains valid and enforceable, and Cobblestone retains the right to assert it against any other vendor deploying 802.11ax products with 80+80 MHz channel support. Vendors not party to this case should conduct an FTO review and monitor Cobblestone’s filing activity for new assertions.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.