Morris Routing Technologies v. Dish Network: 7 SR Patents, 126-Day Campaign
Morris Routing Technologies, LLC filed suit against Dish Network Corp in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting seven patents covering segment routing (SR) protocols against Dish’s nationwide 5G Boost Mobile and enterprise Open RAN networks. The parties stipulated to dismissal without prejudice after just 126 days, leaving all claims legally unresolved and the door open for refiling.
Seven SR patents, one 5G network, and a swift consensual exit
On August 8, 2025, Morris Routing Technologies, LLC — a patent assertion entity holding a portfolio of segment routing (SR) patents — filed suit against Dish Network Corp in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Sean D. Jordan. The complaint asserted seven patents (US10652134B1, US10757010B1, US10805204B1, US11784914B1, US10574562B1, US10652133B1, and US11757756B1) covering SR protocol implementations specified in RFCs 8402, 8660, 8663, 8754, 8986, 9256, 9352, and 9352 — the foundational standards of modern segment routing.
The case closed on December 12, 2025, when the parties filed a joint stipulation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissing all claims and counterclaims without prejudice, with each side bearing its own attorneys’ fees and costs. A dismissal without prejudice means neither party obtained a ruling on the merits; Morris Routing retains the right to refile the same claims, and Dish Network receives no res judicata protection from the underlying patents.
The 126-day lifecycle — from filing to closure — is notably short even for pre-trial resolutions, suggesting the parties reached an understanding (settlement, licensing arrangement, or strategic retreat) before any substantive motion practice. Because the dismissal is silent on any financial terms, the public record does not confirm whether a licensing agreement was reached. The lack of a fee award to either side is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a unilateral withdrawal.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 126 days
126 days — well below the median E.D. Texas patent case lifespan of ~2 years
Dismissed without prejudice: what the stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): consensual stipulated dismissal
A dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires agreement of all parties who have appeared. Unlike a unilateral voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), this route signals both sides consented. No court order is needed — the filing itself terminates the action. Without prejudice means no adjudication on the merits occurred, preserving the plaintiff’s right to refile identical claims subject to any applicable statute of limitations.
Consensual — no merits rulingMorris Routing’s patents remain live and enforceable
Because the dismissal is without prejudice, Morris Routing Technologies retains full enforcement rights across all seven SR patents. The patents were neither invalidated nor found non-infringed. Morris Routing can refile against Dish Network or bring identical claims against other 5G/SR network operators who implement the same RFC-specified segment routing protocols. The ‘each party bears own costs’ term is neutral and does not signal a weakness in Morris Routing’s litigation position.
Patents intact — refiling right preservedDish Network exits without prejudice protection
Dish Network obtains no res judicata or collateral estoppel shield from this dismissal. All seven asserted patents remain valid on their face, and Dish’s segment routing infrastructure — including its Boost Mobile 5G network and Open RAN architecture sourcing equipment from Nokia, Cisco, Samsung, and AWS — could face renewed assertions. If a licensing agreement was reached (not confirmed in the public record), Dish would have commercially resolved the risk. If not, exposure persists.
No invalidity finding — risk persistsSR protocol patents pose systemic risk for 5G operators
The seven asserted patents map directly onto IETF segment routing RFCs that are implemented across virtually all modern 5G and carrier-grade IP networks. Any operator deploying SR-MPLS or SRv6 — standard building blocks of 5G transport and core — may fall within the same claim scope. The swift resolution without prejudice, and without a public license, suggests this patent portfolio will remain an active enforcement tool. Other 5G network operators and O-RAN integrators should treat this outcome as a signal to assess SR-related FTO exposure.
Systemic SR/5G risk — assess FTOFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Morris Routing Technologies, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of 7 segment routing protocol patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Dish Network Corp | Company | Dish Network Corp — operator of nationwide 5G Boost Mobile and enterprise Open RAN networksSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Timothy Devlin | Attorney | Counsel for Morris Routing Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Devlin Law Firm LLC (Wilmington) | Law Firm | Representing Morris Routing Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ali Dhanani | Attorney | Counsel for Dish Network CorpSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | George Hopkins Guy , III | Attorney | Counsel for Dish Network CorpSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jamie Roy Lynn | Attorney | Counsel for Dish Network CorpSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kurt Max Pankratz | Attorney | Counsel for Dish Network CorpSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Zacharias Shepard | Attorney | Counsel for Dish Network CorpSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Baker Botts LLP | Law Firm | Representing Dish Network CorpSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Baker Botts LLP (Cailfornia) | Law Firm | Representing Dish Network CorpSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Baker Botts LLP (Dallas) | Law Firm | Representing Dish Network CorpSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Baker Botts LLP (Houston) | Law Firm | Representing Dish Network CorpSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Sean D. Jordan | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation’s language — ‘all claims and counterclaims be dismissed without prejudice, with each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses’ — is deliberately neutral. It creates no legal precedent, resolves no claim on the merits, and provides Dish Network with no invalidity or non-infringement finding that could be used defensively. The symmetric cost allocation is typical of a negotiated exit and neither confirms nor excludes a private licensing arrangement. The public record is silent on financial terms.
US10652134B1 — Segment Routing Protocol Portfolio (7 Patents)
The seven asserted patents — filed across application numbers US16/454043, US16/803978, US16/796937, US17/235923, US16/454030, US16/454040, and US17/525840 — form a cohesive portfolio directed at segment routing (SR) network architectures. Segment routing is a source-routing paradigm in which a node steers packets through a network by encoding a sequence of routing instructions (segments) directly in the packet header, eliminating the need for per-flow state at intermediate nodes. The portfolio spans SR-MPLS and SRv6 implementations and maps directly onto the IETF SR RFC stack that underpins modern 5G transport, IP/MPLS backbones, and cloud-native network functions.
The strategic significance of this portfolio lies in its alignment with mandatory SR standards. Because RFC 8402 (the SR architecture RFC) and its companion RFCs define the interoperability baseline for all compliant SR deployments, any operator or vendor implementing conformant SR functionality is potentially within scope of these claims. The portfolio’s breadth — seven granted US patents across multiple application families — suggests an offensive licensing strategy targeting 5G network operators, O-RAN integrators, and the equipment vendors (Nokia, Cisco, Samsung, and cloud providers like AWS) that supply SR-capable infrastructure.
Should your 5G or SR network deployment trigger an FTO review of this portfolio?
Any enterprise or carrier deploying SR-MPLS or SRv6 in a 5G transport, backhaul, or core network should treat this case as a direct FTO signal. The asserted patents cover fundamental SR path computation and forwarding methods embedded in equipment from leading vendors. R&D teams building on O-RAN architectures, SD-WAN platforms, or cloud-native 5G cores that rely on Nokia, Cisco, Samsung, or AWS networking stacks should specifically map claim language against their SR configuration and forwarding-plane implementations.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim language of US10652134B1 and its six sibling patents against your product architecture, flag related pending continuations in the US16/454043 family, and surface any inter partes review (IPR) filings that may affect patent validity. Given that the dismissal was without prejudice — leaving all seven patents enforceable — proactive clearance analysis now is materially cheaper than reactive defence in E.D. Texas.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10652134B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar segment routing and 5G network patent cases in E.D. Texas
Cases involving segment routing, SR-MPLS, SRv6, and 5G network infrastructure patents litigated in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Sean D. Jordan.
What this case signals for the 5G segment routing IP landscape
Seven SR patents, a 126-day campaign, and a no-prejudice exit: the pattern is consistent with an active licensing programme targeting 5G operators.
SR RFC compliance does not equal patent safety
Implementing IETF-standardised segment routing RFCs (8402, 8660, 8663, 8754, 8986, 9256, 9352) does not automatically confer freedom to operate. Morris Routing’s claims are mapped to these very standards, meaning standards-compliance may be evidence of infringement rather than a defence. 5G operators and their equipment vendors should conduct patent-specific FTO analysis, not just standards-compliance reviews.
Patent assertion entities are actively targeting 5G infrastructure owners
This case is consistent with a broader PAE enforcement pattern in which SR and routing protocol patents are asserted against mobile network operators that rely on third-party vendors for equipment. Dish’s Open RAN model — integrating Nokia, Cisco, Samsung, and AWS — creates complex indemnification chains. Operators should clarify indemnification obligations with equipment vendors before litigation risk materialises.
Morris v Dish — key questions answered
Morris Routing Technologies asserted seven US patents: US10652134B1, US10757010B1, US10805204B1, US11784914B1, US10574562B1, US10652133B1, and US11757756B1. All seven relate to segment routing (SR) protocol implementations corresponding to IETF RFCs 8402, 8660, 8663, 8754, 8986, 9256, and 9352, which define the foundational architecture of SR-MPLS and SRv6 networks.
The parties filed a joint stipulation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) agreeing to dismiss all claims and counterclaims without prejudice, with each side bearing its own costs. A without-prejudice dismissal means no merits ruling was entered — the patents remain valid and enforceable, and Morris Routing retains the right to refile the same claims. The public record does not disclose whether a licensing agreement was reached.
Segment routing (SR) is a source-routing architecture in which forwarding instructions are encoded in packet headers as ordered lists of segments, removing the need for per-flow state in the network core. SR is a foundational technology in 5G transport networks, IP/MPLS backbones, and O-RAN architectures. Because SR is standardised through IETF RFCs, implementing standards-compliant SR functionality may itself give rise to patent infringement exposure where patents are mapped to those standards.
No. A dismissal without prejudice provides Dish Network with no res judicata or collateral estoppel protection. All seven asserted patents remain valid on their face, and Dish’s 5G infrastructure — including Boost Mobile’s nationwide 5G network and its Open RAN architecture — could face renewed assertion. If no private licensing agreement was reached (which the public record does not confirm), Dish’s exposure to these specific patents persists.
The complaint identified Dish’s use of segment routing pursuant to RFC 8402 (SR architecture), RFC 8660 (SR-MPLS), RFC 8663 (SR-MPLS for transport), RFC 8754 (SRv6 network programming), RFC 8986 (SRv6 segment endpoint behaviors), RFC 9256 (SR policy), and RFC 9352 (IS-IS extensions for SRv6). These RFCs collectively define the interoperability standards for both SR-MPLS and SRv6 deployments in 5G and carrier networks.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.