Entropic Communications v. Charter Communications — Dismissed With Prejudice After 350 Days
Entropic Communications, LLC asserted three cable television signal patents against Charter Communications, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed via stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with each party bearing its own costs — suggesting a private settlement rather than a court-adjudicated outcome.
Stipulated exit in a three-patent cable TV signal dispute
On February 10, 2023, Entropic Communications, LLC filed an infringement action against Charter Communications, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas before Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap, one of the country’s most active patent benches. Entropic asserted three U.S. patents — US11381866B2, US11399206B2, and US11785275B2 — directed at cable television device technology and methods for receiving television signals, targeting Charter’s cable infrastructure and set-top device ecosystem.
The case closed on January 26, 2024, via a joint stipulation of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), accepted by the Court. All claims were dismissed with prejudice, and both parties were ordered to bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees. Dismissal with prejudice carries full res judicata effect, meaning Entropic is permanently barred from reasserting these three patents against Charter on the same claims in any future federal action.
At 350 days, the case resolved faster than many comparable multi-patent infringement actions in the Eastern District of Texas, which often extend well beyond 18 months to trial. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement and the use of a joint stipulation — rather than a unilateral voluntary dismissal — strongly suggests the parties reached a confidential settlement, the terms of which are not reflected in the public record. What drove resolution at this juncture, and whether any licensing arrangement was reached, remains unknown.
Filing to dismissal in 350 days
Case duration — closed within roughly one year of filing
What the Rule 41 stipulated dismissal with prejudice means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) — joint stipulation, no court intervention needed
A dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires agreement from all parties who have appeared and does not require a court order to take effect — the court here formally acknowledged and accepted the stipulation. This bilateral mechanism signals both sides had sufficient leverage to negotiate exit terms without requiring a judicial ruling on the merits.
Bilateral stipulated dismissalWith prejudice — Entropic’s patent claims against Charter are permanently closed
Unlike a dismissal without prejudice, a with-prejudice dismissal carries full res judicata effect. Entropic Communications cannot refile these specific infringement claims against Charter Communications based on US11381866B2, US11399206B2, or US11785275B2. This is a meaningful concession by the plaintiff and is consistent with a negotiated resolution in which both parties agreed to a clean break.
Permanent bar on refilingEach party bears own costs — no fee-shifting under § 285
The court’s directive that each party bears its own costs and attorneys’ fees means no exceptional-case fee award was sought or granted under 35 U.S.C. § 285. In patent litigation, mutual cost-bearing in a stipulated dismissal is a common feature of negotiated exits, as it avoids the satellite litigation risk of a fee motion and suggests neither party viewed the other’s conduct as sufficiently egregious to pursue sanctions.
No § 285 fee awardPrivate resolution strongly suggested — terms not in the public record
The combination of a joint stipulation, dismissal with prejudice, and mutual cost-bearing is a classic signature of a confidential settlement. The parties’ agreement to close with prejudice — rather than without — suggests Entropic received some form of consideration. Whether that involved a license, royalty payment, or cross-agreement is not disclosed in court filings and cannot be confirmed from available public data.
Likely confidential settlementFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Entropic Communications, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US11381866B2, US11399206B2 & US11785275B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Charter Communications, Inc. | Company | Charter Communications, Inc. — major U.S. cable television and broadband operatorSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrea Leigh Fair | Attorney | Counsel for Entropic Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Darlene Fae Ghavimi | 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 | Kenneth H. Bridges | Attorney | Counsel for Entropic Communications, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Peter E. Soskin | Attorney | Counsel for 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 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 | Melissa A. Brown | Attorney | Counsel for Charter Communications, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Chief Judge | Texas Eastern District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The court’s acceptance of the parties’ Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation reflects a purely procedural closure — no merits determination was made on infringement, validity, or damages. The ‘dismissed with prejudice’ language is legally significant: it permanently extinguishes Entropic’s ability to refile these three patent claims against Charter. The mutual cost-bearing order eliminates any fee-shifting risk for either party, consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a litigated outcome.
US11381866B2, US11399206B2 & US11785275B2 — Cable TV Signal Reception Patents
The three asserted patents — US11381866B2, US11399206B2, and US11785275B2 — cover technology directed at cable television devices and methods for receiving television signals. Their underlying applications (US17/587415, US17/587462, and US17/956889) were filed in January and September 2022, suggesting they are relatively recent grants in an established cable/broadband technology domain. Entropic Communications, associated historically with cable modem and MoCA (Multimedia over Coax Alliance) technology, has built a patent assertion portfolio in this space.
For cable operators and device manufacturers, these patents represent a meaningful enforcement risk across set-top box design, cable modem termination systems, and signal processing workflows. The fact that Entropic filed three patents in the same district in a single complaint — rather than asserting one and licensing separately — suggests a portfolio pressure strategy intended to maximise settlement value. Any manufacturer or operator deploying cable TV signal reception technology should evaluate their exposure to this patent family, particularly given Entropic’s documented history of multi-defendant enforcement campaigns.
Should your product team run an FTO against US11381866B2 and the related Entropic patents?
If your organisation manufactures, deploys, or integrates cable television devices or signal reception infrastructure — including set-top boxes, cable modems, IPTV gateways, or MoCA-based home networking equipment — these three patents warrant an FTO review. Entropic’s enforcement history in E.D. Tex. and the multi-patent complaint model it employs suggests it is willing to litigate rather than simply send licensing letters. R&D and product teams should assess their signal reception architectures against the claims of US11381866B2, US11399206B2, and US11785275B2 before product launch or market expansion.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s technical features against the independent and dependent claims of all three patents, flag prosecution history estoppel, and surface related family members that may present further risk. Claim monitoring alerts allow your IP team to track any new continuations or divisionals filed from the same application series — a critical capability given the January–September 2022 filing cluster that produced these three granted patents in rapid succession.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11381866B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar cable TV patent infringement cases in E.D. Texas
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 cable TV and broadband IP landscape
Entropic’s multi-patent filing strategy against a major U.S. cable operator offers useful signals for IP teams in the broadband and pay-TV sector.
Entropic is an active asserter targeting cable infrastructure patents
This case is one of multiple Entropic Communications actions filed in the Eastern District of Texas. Patent assertion entities with focused cable/broadband portfolios represent a sustained enforcement risk for operators. Charter’s legal team — led by Arnold & Porter — mounted a full defence before the joint stipulation was filed, suggesting the case had genuine merit and cost pressure on both sides.
Eastern District of Texas remains a high-velocity venue for cable patent claims
Chief Judge Gilstrap’s docket is among the most active for patent infringement in the U.S. Cable and broadband operators facing suit in this venue should anticipate aggressive scheduling. The 350-day resolution here is relatively swift — pre-trial pressure in E.D. Tex. is a known driver of early settlement, and product teams should have FTO documentation ready before litigation exposure materialises.
Entropic v Charter — key questions answered
Entropic Communications, LLC sued Charter Communications, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas on February 10, 2023, asserting three cable TV signal patents. The case was dismissed with prejudice on January 26, 2024 by joint stipulation under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with each party bearing its own costs. No merits ruling was issued.
Entropic asserted US11381866B2 (application US17/587415), US11399206B2 (application US17/587462), and US11785275B2 (application US17/956889). All three are directed at cable television devices and methods for receiving television signals, with underlying applications filed in January and September 2022.
Dismissed with prejudice means Entropic Communications is permanently barred from reasserting US11381866B2, US11399206B2, and US11785275B2 against Charter Communications on the same claims in any future federal court action. It carries full res judicata effect. No court ruling on infringement or validity was made.
The public record does not confirm a settlement. However, the combination of a joint stipulation, dismissal with prejudice, and mutual cost-bearing is strongly consistent with a confidential private resolution. Whether any licence, royalty, or other consideration was exchanged is not disclosed in court filings.
Entropic was represented by K&L Gates LLP (with offices in Chicago, San Francisco, and nationally), Ward, Smith & Hill PLLC, and Bridges IP Consulting. Charter was represented by Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP and The Dacus Firm PC. Lead attorneys included James Shimota and Kenneth Bridges for Entropic, and Daniel Reisner and Deron Dacus for Charter.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.