Dali Wireless v. Corning & Verizon — DAS Patent Case Dismissed With Prejudice
Dali Wireless pursued infringement claims against Corning, Verizon, CommScope, and Ericsson affiliates over a remotely reconfigurable distributed antenna system patent. Filed in the Western District of Texas before Judge Alan Albright, the case was severed into three parallel actions before closing after 378 days, dismissed with prejudice.
Multi-defendant DAS patent dispute severed and dismissed in W.D. Texas
Dali Wireless, Inc. filed this patent infringement action on 27 December 2022 in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:22-cv-01314), asserting US8682338B2 — a patent covering remotely reconfigurable distributed antenna systems — against a broad coalition of defendants: Corning Inc., Corning Optical Communications LLC, Cellco Partnership (d/b/a Verizon Wireless), Verizon Corporate Services Group Inc., Verizon Online LLC, CommScope entities, and Ericsson entities. The asserted technology sits at the heart of modern enterprise and carrier-grade DAS deployments.
Before the case reached trial, the parties jointly stipulated to sever the single action into three distinct cases — one against Verizon and CommScope, one against Verizon and Ericsson, and one against Verizon and Corning — with consolidation for pretrial purposes. The Corning-related case (this docket) was ultimately dismissed with prejudice on 9 January 2024, meaning Dali Wireless is permanently barred from reasserting the same claims against Corning Inc. and Corning Optical Communications LLC in this court.
The 378-day duration and dismissal with prejudice — prior to any trial — suggests the parties likely reached a private resolution or that Dali elected not to proceed once the litigation landscape was restructured through severance. The public record does not disclose settlement terms, licensing arrangements, or royalty figures, if any. The concurrent fate of the severed CommScope and Ericsson actions is a separate matter not resolved on this docket.
Filing to dismissal in 378 days
378 days from filing to closure in W.D. Texas
What the with-prejudice dismissal means for Dali Wireless and Corning
Dismissed with prejudice — permanent bar on refiling
A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits. Dali Wireless cannot refile the same patent infringement claims based on US8682338B2 against Corning Inc. or Corning Optical Communications LLC in any federal court. This provides Corning with a definitive resolution and eliminates ongoing litigation risk on this specific patent and these specific claims.
Full and final dismissalSeverance into three parallel actions preceded the dismissal
Before dismissal, the parties jointly stipulated to sever the original multi-defendant case into three separate actions: Verizon–CommScope, Verizon–Ericsson, and Verizon–Corning. This structural move — consolidating for pretrial but separating for trial — is common in complex multi-defendant patent cases to manage venue, scheduling, and liability independently. The outcome recorded here applies only to the Verizon–Corning severed docket.
Severance then dismissalJudge Albright’s court and CommScope’s pending transfer motion
The case was filed before Chief Judge Alan Albright, a well-known patent-specialist jurist in the W.D. Texas. Notably, the stipulation preserved CommScope’s pending motion to transfer to the Eastern District of Texas, suggesting venue strategy remained actively contested in the parallel CommScope action. Defendants agreed not to seek additional venue transfers after severance, except for that outstanding motion.
W.D. Texas — Albright courtPre-trial closure suggests negotiated exit or strategic withdrawal
The dismissal with prejudice before any claim construction or trial ruling — combined with the absence of a public court judgment on the merits — is consistent with a confidential settlement or a strategic decision by Dali to voluntarily dismiss after restructuring the litigation. The public record does not confirm any licensing agreement, and the precise driver of the dismissal remains undisclosed.
Likely private resolutionFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Dali Wireless, Inc. | Company | Wireless technology IP company — holder of US8682338B2 covering remotely reconfigurable DASSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Corning, Inc. | Company | Corning Inc. and affiliates — global specialty glass, fiber optic, and optical communications manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrea L. Fair | Attorney | Counsel for Dali Wireless, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Claire Abernathy Henry | Attorney | Counsel for Dali Wireless, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Cliff Win , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Dali Wireless, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Cristofer Leffler | Attorney | Counsel for Dali Wireless, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David D. Schumann | Attorney | Counsel for Dali Wireless, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joseph M. Abraham | Attorney | Counsel for Dali Wireless, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Palani Pradeep Rathinasamy | Attorney | Counsel for Dali Wireless, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Stefan Szpajda | Attorney | Counsel for Dali Wireless, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Timothy Franklin Dewberry | Attorney | Counsel for Dali Wireless, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Caleb J. Bean | Attorney | Counsel for Corning, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Deron R. Dacus | Attorney | Counsel for Corning, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Katherine Grayce Rubschlager | Attorney | Counsel for Corning, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael J. Newton | Attorney | Counsel for Corning, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ross Ritter Barton | Attorney | Counsel for Corning, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Yuri Mikulka | Attorney | Counsel for Corning, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Chief Judge | Texas Western District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The court’s order addresses a joint stipulation to sever and a motion to transfer — not a merits ruling on infringement or validity. The verdict text reflects procedural restructuring agreed by all parties, not a finding against Dali. The subsequent dismissal with prejudice on this docket is the operative outcome for Corning. The severance mechanics preserved CommScope’s independent venue challenge, signalling that not all defendants were equally positioned to resolve quickly.
US8682338B2 — Remotely Reconfigurable Distributed Antenna System
US8682338B2, filed under application number US13/211243, protects methods and systems for remotely reconfiguring distributed antenna systems — a class of infrastructure critical to in-building and enterprise wireless coverage. The patent covers the ability to dynamically adjust DAS configurations without physical intervention at antenna units, a capability that underpins modern scalable wireless deployments across carrier and enterprise environments. The technology domain intersects with 4G LTE and 5G indoor coverage infrastructure.
This patent carries strategic weight because remotely reconfigurable DAS is foundational to how carriers and building operators manage indoor wireless capacity. Corning, CommScope, and Ericsson are among the largest suppliers of DAS hardware and software globally; Verizon is a major network operator deploying such systems at scale. Assertion against this group simultaneously suggests Dali views US8682338B2 as broadly applicable to commercially deployed DAS architectures. Companies developing or deploying next-generation DAS should treat this patent as a monitoring priority.
Should your DAS product team run an FTO against US8682338B2?
Any company manufacturing, deploying, or integrating remotely reconfigurable distributed antenna systems should evaluate their freedom to operate against US8682338B2. The claims scope — covering remote reconfiguration methods, not merely hardware — means software-defined DAS platforms, DAS controllers, and network management layers may each independently trigger infringement risk. This is relevant to equipment vendors, systems integrators, neutral host operators, and network carriers alike.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim language of US8682338B2 against your product architecture, identify prosecution history estoppel, and surface related continuation applications that may extend the claim scope. Setting up a claim monitoring alert for Dali Wireless’s patent family ensures your team is notified of any new grants or published applications before they become enforcement instruments.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8682338B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar DAS and wireless infrastructure patent infringement cases
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the distributed antenna systems IP landscape
DAS patent enforcement is intensifying. Multi-defendant campaigns targeting infrastructure vendors and carriers simultaneously carry distinct legal risks and leverage dynamics.
DAS patent holders are targeting the full supply chain simultaneously
Dali’s strategy of suing infrastructure vendors (Corning, CommScope), technology suppliers (Ericsson), and network operators (Verizon) in a single action is increasingly common in wireless infrastructure IP disputes. Companies anywhere in the DAS supply chain — from component manufacturers to network operators — should assess their exposure to US8682338B2 and related Dali portfolio patents.
Severance into parallel dockets increases settlement pressure on individual defendants
The court-approved severance into three cases means each defendant group faces independent litigation timelines and costs. This structure typically increases pressure on individual defendants to settle separately, potentially on different terms. Corning’s with-prejudice dismissal suggests it resolved its position independently, without waiting for the CommScope or Ericsson dockets to conclude.
Dali v Corning — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on 9 January 2024. This means Dali Wireless cannot refile the same patent infringement claims against Corning Inc. and Corning Optical Communications LLC based on US8682338B2. The dismissal followed a court-approved severance of the original multi-defendant case into three separate actions.
Dali Wireless asserted US8682338B2, titled to cover remotely reconfigurable distributed antenna systems and methods (application no. US13/211243). The patent protects technology enabling remote configuration of DAS infrastructure without physical intervention at individual antenna units — a capability relevant to enterprise and carrier-grade indoor wireless deployments.
The parties jointly stipulated to sever the original single action into three cases — Verizon–CommScope, Verizon–Ericsson, and Verizon–Corning — to manage distinct defendant groups independently. The severance allowed consolidation for pretrial purposes while separating trial and venue issues for each defendant group. CommScope’s pending motion to transfer to the Eastern District of Texas was preserved through the stipulation.
A dismissal with prejudice is a permanent bar. Dali Wireless cannot re-assert the same claims under US8682338B2 against Corning Inc. or Corning Optical Communications LLC in federal court. However, related continuation patents sharing the same priority date, if any exist in Dali’s portfolio, would not necessarily be extinguished by this dismissal and could support separate future assertions.
The original complaint named Corning Inc., Corning Optical Communications LLC, Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Verizon Corporate Services Group Inc., Verizon Online LLC, CommScope Holding Company, CommScope Inc., CommScope Technologies LLC, Ericsson Inc., and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson. The case was filed in the Western District of Texas before Chief Judge Alan Albright on 27 December 2022.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.