Lemko Corp. v. Microsoft: 8-Patent Mobile Core Network Dispute Administratively Closed
Lemko Corp. asserted eight patents covering mobile core network architecture against Microsoft’s Affirmed Mobile Core software in the Northern District of Texas. After 1,240 days of litigation — including a 116-page Second Amended Complaint and over 4,000 pages of attachments — the newly assigned judge administratively closed the case to review the docket before resetting trial deadlines.
Eight mobile core patents, one massive complaint, and a judge starting fresh
Lemko Corp. filed suit against Microsoft Co. on February 14, 2022 in the Northern District of Texas, asserting eight US patents — US8688111B2, US7855988B2, US9755931B2, US9332478B2, US9191980B2, US7548763B2, US8107409B2, and US7653414B2 — covering mobile core network technology. The accused product is Microsoft’s Affirmed Mobile Core software, which Microsoft and its customers deploy on servers connected to base transceiver stations including eNodeBs in 4G/5G network deployments.
On July 2, 2025, the case was randomly reassigned to a new judge under Special Order 3-249. Faced with a 116-page Second Amended Complaint, over 4,000 pages of attachments, five prior substantive rulings, and imminent Patent Scheduling Order deadlines, the new judge vacated the scheduling order and administratively closed the case. The court’s order explicitly states the closure is not a dismissal and that the case will be reopened sua sponte when the court is ready to proceed.
The 1,240-day duration reflects genuine litigation complexity: eight patents, substantial motion practice, and a second amended complaint suggest heavily contested claim and infringement issues. The administrative closure is procedurally unusual and signals that the reassigning court needed significant runway to understand the technical and legal landscape before committing to trial dates. What remains unknown is how quickly the court will reopen the matter and whether the parties will negotiate a resolution during the hiatus.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 1240 days
1,240 days — above the median for multi-patent district court cases before substantive resolution
Administrative closure explained: what this means for Lemko and Microsoft
Administrative closure is not a dismissal — the case survives
An administrative closure removes a case from the court’s active statistical docket but does not terminate it. The court’s order expressly states it ‘shall not be considered a dismissal or disposition.’ The court retains jurisdiction and will reopen the case sua sponte by separate order. All claims, defences, and prior rulings remain intact. This mechanism is used when a court needs time to absorb a complex record before setting a workable trial schedule.
Case preserved — not terminatedLemko’s claims remain live; no adverse merits ruling
The administrative closure does not prejudice Lemko’s infringement claims. All eight patents remain asserted, the Second Amended Complaint stands, and prior substantive rulings (Doc. Nos. 50, 77, 79, 90, 94) are preserved. Lemko loses no procedural rights. However, the reopening timeline is uncertain, which extends the period before any damages or injunctive relief could be awarded. Lemko must remain prepared to litigate on short notice when the court resets deadlines.
Claims live, timeline uncertainMicrosoft gains a reprieve — but no resolution of infringement risk
Microsoft avoids imminent Patent Scheduling Order deadlines during the closure period, providing temporary relief from discovery and claim construction obligations. However, the administrative closure does not resolve any infringement allegations or invalidate any of Lemko’s eight asserted patents. Microsoft’s Affirmed Mobile Core product remains under a live infringement cloud, and the company must remain ready to re-engage litigation when the court reopens the matter.
Temporary reprieve onlyMobile core software IP risk remains unresolved for the sector
With eight patents covering mobile core network architecture still asserted and no claim construction ruling yet published, operators and vendors deploying Affirmed Mobile Core or comparable 4G/5G software face unresolved FTO risk in this patent family. The complexity of Lemko’s pleadings — 116 pages plus 4,000 pages of attachments — suggests broad claim mapping across multiple network functions. Competing mobile core vendors should monitor this docket closely for reopening and any forthcoming claim construction order.
FTO risk unresolvedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Lemko, Corp. | Company | Mobile network technology IP licensor — holder of US8688111B2 and 7 related mobile core patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Microsoft, Co. | Company | Microsoft Co. — developer and deployer of the Affirmed Mobile Core software for carrier networksSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Aaron M. Frankel | Attorney | Counsel for Lemko, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Grant Kojis Schmidt | Attorney | Counsel for Lemko, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Hannah Lee | Attorney | Counsel for Lemko, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James R. Hannah | Attorney | Counsel for Lemko, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jon B. Hyland | Attorney | Counsel for Lemko, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Lisa Kobialka | Attorney | Counsel for Lemko, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Paul Joseph Andre | Attorney | Counsel for Lemko, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer US LLP | Law Firm | Representing Lemko, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Hilger Graben, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Lemko, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Hilgers Graben, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Lemko, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Kramer Levin | Law Firm | Representing Lemko, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ashley Jones Wright | Attorney | Counsel for Microsoft, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Barry Kenneth Shelton | Attorney | Counsel for Microsoft, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kelly C. Hunsaker | Attorney | Counsel for Microsoft, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | M. Brett Johnson | Attorney | Counsel for Microsoft, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael Rueckheim | Attorney | Counsel for Microsoft, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Shelton Coburn LLP | Law Firm | Representing Microsoft, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Winston Strawn LLP | Law Firm | Representing Microsoft, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order vacating the Patent Scheduling Order and administratively closing the case is explicitly non-dispositive — the judge states directly that ‘nothing in this Order shall be considered a dismissal or disposition.’ The closure is a docket management mechanism triggered by reassignment under Special Order 3-249, not a ruling on the merits of any patent claim. All prior substantive orders remain in effect. The Basis of Termination records ‘Dismissed without Prejudice,’ but the court’s own language contradicts any characterisation as a dismissal — practitioners should treat this as a temporary administrative pause, not a termination.
US8688111B2 — Mobile Core Network Architecture Patent Portfolio
The eight patents asserted by Lemko span application numbers filed between 2006 (US11/105173) and 2014 (US14/184120), covering a range of mobile core network functionalities including control plane signalling, base station coordination, session management, and mobility procedures. These patent families are directed at software-implemented mobile network infrastructure — the type of technology central to virtualised and cloud-native core deployments used in 4G LTE and 5G networks. The breadth of filing dates suggests iterative innovation or continuation strategy by Lemko.
The accused product — Microsoft’s Affirmed Mobile Core — is a cloud-native mobile packet core platform acquired by Microsoft through its 2020 acquisition of Affirmed Networks. It is deployed by carriers to connect eNodeBs and gNodeBs to the core network. The assertion of eight patents against a single product suggests Lemko contends that Affirmed Mobile Core’s architecture infringes across multiple functional layers — from bearer management to mobility signalling. For the broader mobile core software sector, the outcome of claim construction in this case could define enforceable boundaries across virtualised core technology.
Should you run an FTO against Lemko’s mobile core patent portfolio?
Any organisation developing, licensing, or deploying mobile core software — including virtualised EPC, 5G standalone core, or cloud-native RAN integration layers — should assess exposure to Lemko’s eight-patent family. The portfolio spans application dates from 2006 to 2014, meaning some patents may be approaching or have reached expiry, while others remain in force. Given that no claim construction ruling has been published in this case, the enforceable scope of each patent remains uncertain — making proactive FTO analysis especially valuable before the court reopens proceedings.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map each of the eight Lemko patents against your product’s technical architecture, flag claim elements most likely to read on virtualised core or RAN software, and identify prior art that could support invalidity arguments. With the case administratively closed but legally alive, the window before reopening represents an optimal time to assess your position, build design-around options, and monitor for claim construction orders that will define the patents’ enforced boundaries.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8688111B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar mobile core network patent infringement cases in US district courts
Explore patent infringement cases involving mobile core network software and 4G/5G infrastructure patents litigated in US district courts, similar to Lemko v. Microsoft.
What this case signals for the mobile core network IP landscape
Eight patents, a reassigned judge, and an administratively closed docket — this case carries significant forward-looking risk for the 5G software infrastructure market.
Administrative closure creates a litigation watch obligation for mobile core vendors
The court explicitly committed to reopening this case sua sponte. Competitors and partners of Microsoft deploying similar mobile core software architectures — particularly those using vRAN or cloud-native core solutions — should monitor this docket for the reopening order and any claim construction ruling that follows, as it will define the scope of Lemko’s eight-patent portfolio.
Five prior substantive rulings signal an advanced, contested litigation posture
Doc. Nos. 50, 77, 79, 90, and 94 represent substantive court activity before the closure. This suggests motion-to-dismiss, claim construction, or discovery disputes have already shaped the case. Parties entering the mobile core network IP space should review publicly available rulings to understand which claim elements survived early challenge.
Lemko v Microsoft — key questions answered
As of July 8, 2025, the case is administratively closed. A new judge reassigned under Special Order 3-249 vacated the Patent Scheduling Order and administratively closed the docket to review the complex record. The court explicitly stated the closure is not a dismissal — all claims remain live and the case will be reopened by separate order.
Lemko asserted eight US patents: US8688111B2, US7855988B2, US9755931B2, US9332478B2, US9191980B2, US7548763B2, US8107409B2, and US7653414B2. These patents cover mobile core network architecture, base station coordination, session management, and mobility procedures relevant to virtualised and cloud-native mobile core deployments.
No. The court’s July 8, 2025 order expressly states that the administrative closure ‘shall not be considered a dismissal or disposition.’ The case is removed from the court’s active statistical docket for administrative purposes, but jurisdiction is retained. The court committed to reopening the case sua sponte by separate order, at which point proceedings resume as if the closure never occurred.
The case was randomly reassigned pursuant to Special Order 3-249 on July 2, 2025. The new judge cited the complexity of the docket — including a 116-page Second Amended Complaint with over 4,000 pages of attachments and five prior substantive rulings — as the basis for vacating scheduled deadlines and administratively closing the case while reviewing the record.
Yes. The administrative closure does not narrow, invalidate, or limit any of Lemko’s eight asserted patents. No claim construction order has been published. For vendors deploying mobile core software similar to Microsoft’s Affirmed Mobile Core — particularly vEPC or 5G standalone core products — Lemko’s patent family represents unresolved FTO risk. The closure provides a window to conduct proactive analysis before the court resets proceedings.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.