Entropic v. Charter Communications: 6-Patent Cable Tech Dispute Dismissed With Prejudice
Entropic Communications, LLC filed suit against Charter Communications and two Spectrum affiliates in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting six patents covering cable modem and set-top box technologies. The case closed after 593 days with a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice before Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
Six-Patent Cable Tech Dispute Ends in With-Prejudice Dismissal
On April 27, 2022, Entropic Communications, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Charter Communications, Inc., Spectrum Advanced Services, LLC, and Spectrum Management Holding Company, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:22-cv-00125), assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap. Entropic asserted six U.S. patents — US10135682B2, US9210362B2, US8284690B2, US8223775B2, US9825826B2, and US8792008B2 — against Charter's cable modem products and a range of Spectrum-branded set-top boxes, including the Spectrum 100-, 200-, 101-, 201-, 110-, and 210-series STBs and the Arris DCX3600.
The case closed on December 11, 2023, when the parties filed a joint Stipulation of Dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The Court accepted and acknowledged the stipulation, dismissing all claims and causes of action with prejudice. The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Dismissed with Prejudice.' The docket order states the dismissal was filed jointly and that each party is to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. The specific terms underlying the parties' agreement to dismiss are not disclosed in the available record.
The case ran for 593 days before resolution, consistent with a contested multi-patent district court proceeding that reached a pre-trial resolution. The mutual own-costs arrangement and the with-prejudice character of the dismissal suggest the parties reached some form of resolution, though the specific terms are not disclosed in the available record. What prompted the timing of the stipulation — whether driven by claim construction outcomes, discovery developments, or commercial considerations — is not apparent from the public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 593 days
593 days from filing to closure — a moderately contested district court timeline for a 6-patent infringement action
US10135682B2 and five further cable modem and STB patents
Any company manufacturing, distributing, or deploying cable modems or set-top boxes compatible with DOCSIS standards — including MSOs, device OEMs, and component suppliers — should treat the Entropic cable-tech portfolio as a priority FTO target. The six patents-in-suit cover a wide functional surface across cable gateway and STB product categories, and the with-prejudice dismissal against Charter does nothing to reduce Entropic's enforcement freedom against other market participants.
Official order — verbatim text
The docket order reflects a purely ministerial acceptance of the parties' joint stipulation — the Court made no substantive ruling on infringement, validity, or claim scope. The dismissal with prejudice operates as a final disposition on the merits solely for res judicata purposes as between these parties. No findings on the technical merits of the six asserted patents are embedded in the order, and the specific basis for the parties' agreement to dismiss is not disclosed in the available record.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal with prejudice explained
A joint stipulation of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires the agreement of all parties who have appeared. Dismissal 'with prejudice' is a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes — Entropic Communications cannot re-file these same claims against Charter on these six patents. The Court's role was ministerial: it accepted and acknowledged the stipulation rather than issuing an independent ruling on the merits.
Final, no re-filing permittedEntropic's with-prejudice exit forecloses re-assertion against Charter
The with-prejudice character of the dismissal means Entropic Communications is barred from reasserting the six patents-in-suit against Charter Communications, Spectrum Advanced Services, and Spectrum Management Holding Company on the same claims. Entropic retains the patents and may assert them against other parties, but its litigation path against Charter on these specific claims is permanently closed. The specific terms of any arrangement between the parties are not disclosed in the available record.
Re-assertion against Charter barredCharter and Spectrum affiliates receive permanent release from these claims
Charter Communications and its Spectrum affiliates obtain finality: the dismissal with prejudice shields them from any future re-filing of these six patent claims by Entropic. The own-costs order means Charter does not recover its litigation spend. Whether Charter received any additional rights or protections in connection with the dismissal is not disclosed in the available record.
Permanent shield from these 6 patentsSix cable-tech patents remain active — risk for other MSOs and device makers
Dismissal with prejudice resolves only the Entropic–Charter dispute. The six asserted patents remain in force and Entropic retains full freedom to enforce them against other cable operators, cable modem manufacturers, and set-top box vendors. Companies deploying similar DOCSIS cable modem or STB technology — particularly those supplying or operating equipment comparable to the accused Spectrum and Arris products — face ongoing assertion risk from this portfolio.
Portfolio remains enforceable vs. othersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Entropic Communications, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Charter Communications, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Spectrum Advanced Services, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Spectrum Management Holding Company, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alan E. Littmann | Attorney | Counsel for Entropic Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrea Leigh Fair | Attorney | Counsel for Entropic Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Charles Everingham, IV | Attorney | Counsel for Entropic Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christina N. Goodrich | Attorney | Counsel for Entropic Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Connor James Meggs | Attorney | Counsel for Entropic Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Courtney Neufeld | Attorney | Counsel for Entropic Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Darlene Fae Ghavimi | Attorney | Counsel for Entropic Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Doug Winnard | Attorney | Counsel for Entropic Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | George C. Summerfield | Attorney | Counsel for Entropic Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jack Wesley Hill | Attorney | Counsel for Entropic Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James A. Shimota | Attorney | Counsel for Entropic Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jason A. Engel | Attorney | Counsel for Entropic Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jennifer M. Hartjes | Attorney | Counsel for Entropic Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Johnny Ward , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Entropic Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Katherine L. Allor | Attorney | Counsel for Entropic Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kenneth H. Bridges | Attorney | Counsel for Entropic Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ketajh Brown | Attorney | Counsel for Entropic Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew Alexander Blair | Attorney | Counsel for Entropic Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael T. Pieja | Attorney | Counsel for Entropic Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nicholas F. Lenning | Attorney | Counsel for Entropic Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Peter E. Soskin | Attorney | Counsel for Entropic Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Samuel Patrick Richey | Attorney | Counsel for Entropic Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Shaun Zhang | Attorney | Counsel for Entropic Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Bridges IP Consulting | Law Firm | Representing Entropic Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Goldman Ismail Tomaselli Brennan & Baum LLP | Law Firm | Representing Entropic Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Goldman Ismail Tomaselli Brennan & Baum LLP (Chicago) | Law Firm | Representing Entropic Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | K&L Gates LLP (Chicago) | Law Firm | Representing Entropic Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | K&L Gates LLP | Law Firm | Representing Entropic Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | K&L Gates LLP (San Francisco) | Law Firm | Representing Entropic Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Entropic Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Albert John Boardman | Attorney | Counsel for Charter Communications, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Amy L. DeWitt | Attorney | Counsel for Charter Communications, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Daniel Reisner | Attorney | Counsel for Charter Communications, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David Eric Shapland | Attorney | Counsel for Charter Communications, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David S. Benyacar | Attorney | Counsel for Charter Communications, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Deron R. Dacus | Attorney | Counsel for Charter Communications, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Elizabeth Anne Long | Attorney | Counsel for Charter Communications, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jacob Michael Bass | Attorney | Counsel for Charter Communications, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Marc A. Cohn | Attorney | Counsel for Charter Communications, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Melissa A. Brown | Attorney | Counsel for Charter Communications, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Natalie Steiert | Attorney | Counsel for Charter Communications, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Palak Mayani Parikh | Attorney | Counsel for Charter Communications, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Paul Isaac Margulies | Attorney | Counsel for Charter Communications, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Thomas J. Carr | Attorney | Counsel for Charter Communications, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | William Louden | Attorney | Counsel for Charter Communications, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | William Owen Young, Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Charter Communications, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Zachary Nemirovsky | Attorney | Counsel for Charter Communications, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Arnold & Porter LLP | Law Firm | Representing Charter Communications, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Arnold & Porter, LLP (Washington DC) | Law Firm | Representing Charter Communications, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP | Law Firm | Representing Charter Communications, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, LLP (New York) | Law Firm | Representing Charter Communications, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP (Wash DC) | Law Firm | Representing Charter Communications, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Kaye Scholer LLP (New York) | Law Firm | Representing Charter Communications, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | The Dacus Firm PC | Law Firm | Representing Charter Communications, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the cable modem and set-top box patent space
Forward-looking patent intelligence derived from Entropic's six-patent assertion against Charter's Spectrum cable modem and STB product lines.
Entropic's cable-tech portfolio: breadth beyond the six asserted patents
Entropic Communications holds patents spanning cable modem, set-top box, and broader home networking technologies. The six patents asserted against Charter represent a subset of a larger portfolio. R&D and IP teams at MSOs and device manufacturers should map the full Entropic filing footprint — including continuation and divisional applications — to anticipate future assertion waves beyond the patents resolved in this case.
Entropic portfolio scopeDOCSIS cable modem patent filing trends: who is innovating and where
The DOCSIS cable modem and STB technology domain continues to attract patent filings from equipment OEMs, chipset vendors, and cable operators. Understanding the current filing landscape — including activity around DOCSIS 3.1 and emerging DOCSIS 4.0 specifications — helps R&D teams identify both white-space opportunities and densely contested claim areas before launching new product development.
DOCSIS filing trendsCharter's own patent activity in cable access and home networking
Charter Communications and its Spectrum affiliates maintain their own patent portfolios in cable access, home networking, and video delivery technology. Tracking Charter's filing activity provides insight into where the company is investing defensively and offensively in the cable-tech stack — relevant for vendors, competitors, and potential licensing partners assessing their own IP position relative to a major MSO.
Charter IP filing activityAdjacent claim space: where cable modem and STB innovation is underpatented
Despite dense patenting in core DOCSIS modem and STB signal processing functions, adjacent areas — including energy-efficient STB standby modes, cloud-DVR delivery integration, and DOCSIS-Wi-Fi convergence at the gateway level — show relatively lower claim density. These represent potential white-space opportunities for R&D teams building next-generation cable access and home networking products.
Cable-tech white spaceSimilar cable modem and STB patent cases in E.D. Texas
Explore related patent infringement actions involving cable modem, DOCSIS, and set-top box technology filed in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Gilstrap.
What this case signals for the cable technology IP landscape
A six-patent cable-tech assertion against a top-three U.S. MSO, closed with prejudice in under two years, carries clear signals for the broader sector.
Entropic's portfolio remains active — other cable operators are exposed
The with-prejudice dismissal resolves only the Charter dispute. Entropic's six patents covering cable modem and STB technology remain in force. Other major MSOs, DOCSIS equipment manufacturers, and STB vendors operating comparable technology should treat this portfolio as a live enforcement risk and consider proactive FTO analysis.
Eastern District of Texas remains the venue of choice for cable-tech PAE actions
Filing before Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas reflects continued PAE preference for this venue in complex multi-patent telecoms disputes. Companies receiving demand letters or complaints in E.D. Texas on cable/DOCSIS patents should engage experienced local counsel early — the district's scheduling orders move quickly regardless of patent count.
Entropic v Charter — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on December 11, 2023, after 593 days of litigation. The parties filed a joint Stipulation of Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The Court accepted the stipulation and ordered each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. The specific terms underlying the dismissal are not disclosed in the available record.
Entropic asserted six U.S. patents: US10135682B2, US9210362B2, US8284690B2, US8223775B2, US9825826B2, and US8792008B2. The patents relate to cable modem and set-top box technology. The accused products included Spectrum 100-, 200-, 101-, 201-, 110-, and 210-series STBs, the Arris DCX3600, the Arris SB6183 cable modem, and the Spectrum EU2251 cable modem.
Dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes. Entropic Communications is permanently barred from re-filing these same claims against Charter Communications, Spectrum Advanced Services, and Spectrum Management Holding Company. However, Entropic retains the patents and may enforce them against other defendants not party to this action.
The defendants were Charter Communications, Inc., Spectrum Advanced Services, LLC, and Spectrum Management Holding Company, LLC. Charter is one of the largest U.S. cable operators, and the Spectrum-branded entities are affiliates involved in the distribution of cable modem and set-top box products to subscribers.
The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap, one of the most experienced patent trial judges in the country. The Eastern District of Texas is a frequently selected venue for complex multi-patent infringement actions, particularly those involving telecommunications and cable technology.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.