Book a demo
Cobblestone Wireless v. T-Mobile: 4-Patent Wireless Dismissal | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID2:22-cv-00477
FiledDec 2022
ClosedOct 2024
Patent Litigation

Cobblestone Wireless v. T-Mobile: 4-Patent Wireless Network Dispute Resolved After 672 Days

Cobblestone Wireless, LLC brought a four-patent infringement action against T-Mobile, AT&T, and Verizon in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting patents covering adaptive resource allocation, beam-shape coverage, user-focusing, and wireless handoff. All plaintiff claims were dismissed with prejudice after the parties reported resolution, with each side bearing its own costs.

Resolution time
672days
672 days — above the E.D. Tex. median for multi-defendant patent cases
Patents asserted
4
US10368361B2 and 3 further patents asserted covering wireless network resource management
Outcome
Case Dismissed
Plaintiff’s claims closed permanently; defendants’ counterclaims dismissed without prejudice
Cost ruling
Each Side Bears Own Costs
No fee award; each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

Multi-carrier wireless patent dispute resolves quietly in East Texas

Filed in December 2022 in the Eastern District of Texas, Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v. T-Mobile (Case No. 2:22-cv-00477) is a patent infringement action targeting three of the United States’ largest wireless carriers — T-Mobile USA, AT&T (through multiple entities), and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless — along with network infrastructure intervenors Nokia of America Corporation and Ericsson Inc. Cobblestone asserted four patents directed at core wireless network technologies: adaptive communication resource allocation (US10368361B2), beam-shape coverage cycling (US9094888B2), user-focusing for wireless systems (US8554196B2), and wireless device handoff between networks (US8891347B2).

On October 18, 2024 — approximately 22 months after filing — the court granted a joint motion to dismiss. Cobblestone’s claims against all defendants were dismissed with prejudice, permanently extinguishing those causes of action. Defendants’ and intervenors’ counterclaims and defenses were dismissed without prejudice, preserving their right to assert those positions in future proceedings. The asymmetric dismissal structure is consistent with a negotiated resolution in which the plaintiff agreed to relinquish its claims while defendants retained optionality on any invalidity or non-infringement arguments they had raised.

The 672-day duration suggests the case progressed well into claim construction or discovery before the parties reached resolution, though the public record does not disclose financial terms. The involvement of Nokia and Ericsson as intervenors — typically suppliers of the accused network infrastructure — signals that the technology at issue operated at a carrier-infrastructure level, raising the stakes beyond a single defendant. What remains unknown is whether licence agreements were executed and, if so, on what terms across the three carrier defendants.

Case at a glance
Case no.2:22-cv-00477
DefendantT-Mobile
CourtTexas Eastern
JudgeN/A
FiledDecember 16, 2022
ClosedOctober 18, 2024
Duration672 days
OutcomeCase Dismissed
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisCase Dismissed
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / Texas Eastern District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to Case Dismissed in 672 days

672 days — above the E.D. Tex. median for multi-defendant patent cases

Case timeline: Complaint filed DEC 16 2022, NOV–DEC — 672 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Cobblestone Wireless, LLC v T-Mobile from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, Texas Eastern District Court. DEC 16 2022 Complaint filed Pre-trial proceedings OCT 18 2024 Case Dismissed 672 DAYS TOTAL
Dismissal terms

Asymmetric dismissal: what with- and without-prejudice mean for each party

Legal mechanism

With-prejudice dismissal bars Cobblestone from re-filing these claims

A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41. Cobblestone cannot re-file the same infringement claims against T-Mobile, AT&T, or Verizon based on the same patents and accused conduct. This finality is the hallmark of a negotiated resolution in which the plaintiff receives value in exchange for permanently releasing its litigation rights against the named defendants.

Claims extinguished permanently
Patent holder outcome

Cobblestone relinquishes future enforcement against these carriers

Dismissal with prejudice on Cobblestone’s claims suggests the plaintiff achieved its commercial objective — likely a licensing arrangement — and agreed to close the litigation permanently against these three carriers. However, the patents themselves remain in force and could be asserted against other parties not covered by the dismissal order. The public record does not confirm whether licence agreements were executed or on what royalty terms.

Patents survive; re-filing barred
Defendant outcome

Carriers’ counterclaims dismissed without prejudice, preserving optionality

Defendants and intervenors Nokia and Ericsson secured dismissal of their own counterclaims — including likely invalidity and non-infringement defences — without prejudice. This means they retain the theoretical right to pursue those arguments in future proceedings, for example in IPR petitions before the USPTO. Each party bearing its own costs also avoids any admission of fault or exposure to fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285.

Counterclaims preserved for future use
Commercial implications

Nokia and Ericsson involvement signals infrastructure-level patent risk

The presence of Nokia and Ericsson as intervenors is commercially significant: it indicates the accused functionality resides at the RAN or core network equipment layer, not solely in the carriers’ software. This pattern is common in wireless standard-essential or near-SEP disputes, where equipment vendors have an independent interest in the outcome. Future enforcement actions by Cobblestone against other carriers or vendors should be monitored against the same patent family.

Infrastructure vendor exposure confirmed
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 2:22-cv-00477 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffCobblestone Wireless, LLCCompanyWireless patent assertion entity — holder of US10368361B2 and 3 further wireless network patentsSearch in Eureka ↗
DefendantT-MobileIndividualT-Mobile USA, Inc. — major U.S. wireless carrier accused of infringing wireless network management patentsSearch in Eureka ↗
Co-DefendantT-Mobile US, Inc.CompanySearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselAmy Elizabeth HaydenAttorneyCounsel for Cobblestone Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselAndrea Leigh FairAttorneyCounsel for Cobblestone Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselChristian W. ConkleAttorneyCounsel for Cobblestone Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJames N. PickensAttorneyCounsel for Cobblestone Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJason WietholterAttorneyCounsel for Cobblestone Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJonathan MaAttorneyCounsel for Cobblestone Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselMarc A. FensterAttorneyCounsel for Cobblestone Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselMatthew D. AicheleAttorneyCounsel for Cobblestone Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselNeil Alan RubinAttorneyCounsel for Cobblestone Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselQi TongAttorneyCounsel for Cobblestone Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselReza MirzaieAttorneyCounsel for Cobblestone Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmMiller Fair Henry PLLCLaw FirmRepresenting Cobblestone Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmRuss August & Kabat LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Cobblestone Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmRuss August & Kabat LLP (DC)Law FirmRepresenting Cobblestone Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmRuss August & Kabat LLP (Los Angeles)Law FirmRepresenting Cobblestone Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselAdam Bertram AhnhutAttorneyCounsel for T-MobileSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselAndrew Thompson (Tom) GorhamAttorneyCounsel for T-MobileSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselDarlena SubashiAttorneyCounsel for T-MobileSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselDavid S. FristAttorneyCounsel for T-MobileSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselEmily Chambers WelchAttorneyCounsel for T-MobileSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselJohn Daniel HaynesAttorneyCounsel for T-MobileSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselKatherine DonaldAttorneyCounsel for T-MobileSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselKatherine Grayce RubschlagerAttorneyCounsel for T-MobileSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselMatthew Scott StevensAttorneyCounsel for T-MobileSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselMelissa Richards SmithAttorneyCounsel for T-MobileSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselMichael Clayton DeaneAttorneyCounsel for T-MobileSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselNicolette NunezAttorneyCounsel for T-MobileSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselRoss Ritter BartonAttorneyCounsel for T-MobileSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselSloane Sueanne KyrazisAttorneyCounsel for T-MobileSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselTheodore Stevenson , IIIAttorneyCounsel for T-MobileSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmAlston & Bird LLPLaw FirmRepresenting T-MobileSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmAlston & Bird LLP (Atlanta)Law FirmRepresenting T-MobileSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmAlston & Bird LLP (Dallas)Law FirmRepresenting T-MobileSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmAlston & Bird LLP (Raleigh)Law FirmRepresenting T-MobileSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmGillam & Smith LLPLaw FirmRepresenting T-MobileSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmGillam & Smith, LLPLaw FirmRepresenting T-MobileSearch in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge N/AJudgeTexas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

“Before the Court is the Joint Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”) filed by Cobblestone Wireless, LLC (“Plaintiff”) and T-Mobile USA, Inc., AT&T Services Inc., AT&T Mobility LLC, AT&T Enterprises, LLC, and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (collectively, “Defendants”), and Intervenors Nokia of America Corporation and Ericsson Inc. (Dkt. No. 222.) In the Motion, the parties represent that the above-captioned cases have all been resolved and request dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims for relief against Defendants in the above-captioned cases WITH prejudice.1 (Id. at 2.) The parties request dismissal of Defendants’ and Intervenors’ claims, defenses, or counterclaims for relief against Plaintiff WITHOUT prejudice. (Id.) Having considered the Motion, the Court finds that it should be and hereby is GRANTED. Accordingly, all claims and causes of action asserted by Plaintiff against Defendants in the above-captioned cases are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, 2 and all claims, defenses, or counterclaims asserted by Defendants and Intervenors against Plaintiff are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Each party is to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. All pending requests for relief in the above-captioned cases not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE all the above-captioned cases as no parties or claims remain.”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 2:22-cv-00477, Texas Eastern District Court

The joint dismissal order creates a deliberate asymmetry: Cobblestone’s offensive claims are permanently extinguished (with prejudice), while the carriers and infrastructure vendors retain their defensive positions (without prejudice). This structure is commercially rational — it protects defendants from re-litigation by the plaintiff while preserving their invalidity arguments for potential USPTO proceedings. The explicit cost-neutrality clause (‘each party to bear its own costs’) removes any § 285 exposure and is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a capitulation by either side.

PACER case 2:22-cv-00477 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

US10368361B2 — Adaptive wireless resource allocation and 3 related patents

Publication No.US10368361B2
Application No.US15/500928
Patent details
ProductAdaptive communication resource allocation in a wireless network
Cited in actionDecember 16, 2022

Publication No.US9094888B2
Application No.US13/263835
Patent details
ProductNetwork coverage cycling through beam shape configurations
Cited in actionDecember 16, 2022

Publication No.US8554196B2
Application No.US13/321792
Patent details
ProductUser-focusing technique for wireless communication systems
Cited in actionDecember 16, 2022

Publication No.US8891347B2
Application No.US13/522422
Patent details
ProductWireless device handoff between wireless networks
Cited in actionDecember 16, 2022

US10368361B2 (App. No. 15/500928) covers adaptive communication resource allocation in wireless networks — a foundational capability for dynamic spectrum and channel management in 4G LTE and 5G NR deployments. The three companion patents address beam-shape coverage cycling (US9094888B2, App. 13/263835), user-focusing techniques (US8554196B2, App. 13/321792), and inter-network device handoff (US8891347B2, App. 13/522422). The application dates suggest a patent family originating from international PCT filings, consistent with inventions conceived during the LTE standardisation era.

Collectively, these four patents map directly onto RAN-layer functions that every major U.S. carrier and their equipment vendors — including Nokia and Ericsson — implement as standard features of modern wireless networks. This alignment with commercially ubiquitous functionality explains why three national carriers and two global equipment suppliers all became parties to the litigation. Any operator or vendor deploying adaptive scheduling, beamforming-adjacent coverage management, or seamless handoff mechanisms should assess these patents as live enforcement risks until their expiry dates are confirmed.

Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Freedom to operate

Should you run an FTO against US10368361B2 and Cobblestone’s wireless patents?

R&D and product teams at wireless carriers, MVNO operators, RAN vendors, and 5G infrastructure suppliers should treat Cobblestone’s four-patent portfolio as a live FTO priority. The patents cover adaptive resource allocation, beam-shape coverage, user-focusing, and handoff — functions that are deeply embedded in standard LTE and 5G NR implementations. The fact that T-Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, Nokia, and Ericsson were all drawn into a single litigation underscores how broadly these claims read across the supply chain.

PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows IP and engineering teams to map each claim of US10368361B2, US9094888B2, US8554196B2, and US8891347B2 against your product architecture in minutes. Eureka cross-references prosecution history, forward citations, and related family members to flag design-around opportunities and identify prior art that was not raised during this litigation — including art potentially relevant to an IPR petition strategy against the surviving patent claims.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10368361B2 to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

Similar wireless network patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas

Cases involving wireless resource allocation and beam management patents litigated in the Eastern District of Texas against major U.S. carriers and RAN infrastructure vendors.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Cobblestone Wireless, LLC patent enforcement history, Texas Eastern case history, Cobblestone Wireless, LLC’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
Cobblestone v. AT&T filingsE.D. Tex. wireless PAE trendsBeam management patent disputesNokia/Ericsson intervenor cases
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this case signals for the wireless network IP landscape

A multi-carrier, multi-vendor resolution in E.D. Tex. highlights the systemic risk that wireless resource-management patents pose across the entire 4G/5G supply chain.

Asymmetric dismissal language is a reliable signal of paid settlement

When plaintiff claims are dropped with prejudice and defendant counterclaims without, it strongly suggests the plaintiff received consideration — typically a licence fee — and agreed to release its enforcement rights. IP teams monitoring Cobblestone’s portfolio should assume these carriers hold licences and assess whether comparable exposure exists for unlicensed parties.

Intervenor presence elevates the case from carrier dispute to supply chain risk

Nokia and Ericsson’s intervention confirms the accused technology is embedded in network infrastructure sold to carriers. Any vendor supplying beam-management, resource allocation, or handoff functionality to U.S. carriers should conduct FTO analysis against Cobblestone’s four asserted patents before the next procurement cycle.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock carrier and vendor-level risk analysis for this E.D. Tex. wireless network patent dispute across the 4G/5G supply chain.
Cobblestone licensing exposureIPR petition strategyVendor indemnification risk
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Cobblestone v T-Mobile — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

Track wireless network patent enforcement before your next product launch

Use PatSnap Eureka to run FTO searches across Cobblestone’s wireless patent family and monitor new assertions against RAN and carrier infrastructure. Set alerts for new filings involving US10368361B2 and related patents to stay ahead of enforcement risk.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.