Morris Routing Technologies v. Microsoft: 7-Patent Routing Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
Morris Routing Technologies, LLC filed suit against Microsoft Corporation in the Western District of Texas asserting seven US patents covering Segment Routing technology aligned with IETF RFC standards. The case closed after just 124 days via voluntary dismissal with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs.
Seven Segment Routing Patents, One Early Exit: Microsoft Escapes Liability
On August 7, 2025, Morris Routing Technologies, LLC filed an infringement action against Microsoft Corporation in the Western District of Texas before Judge Alan D. Albright, asserting seven US patents — US10652134B1, US10757010B1, US10805204B1, US11784914B1, US10574562B1, US10652133B1, and US11757756B1 — all directed at Segment Routing (SR) technologies. The accused products were Microsoft’s implementations aligned with IETF RFC standards 8402, 8660, 8663, 8754, 8986, 9256, and 9352.
The case concluded on December 9, 2025, when Morris Routing Technologies filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The dismissal is with prejudice, meaning Morris Routing Technologies is permanently barred from re-asserting these seven patents against Microsoft on the same claims. The order further specified that each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees, suggesting no settlement payment was publicly recorded, though the public record does not foreclose a confidential resolution.
A resolution within 124 days is notably fast for a seven-patent infringement suit in the Western District of Texas, which typically sees cases run 18–30 months to trial. The speed and with-prejudice nature of the dismissal — combined with the absence of any fee-shifting — is consistent with either a confidential licensing agreement reached quickly, or a strategic decision by the plaintiff to withdraw after early case assessment. What drove the dismissal remains undisclosed in the public record.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 124 days
124 days — well under average district court resolution timeline of 2–3 years
Dismissed with prejudice: what Rule 41 means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral right to dismiss
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order if filed before the defendant serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. This is a unilateral right requiring no judicial approval. Here, the dismissal is expressly with prejudice — a stronger election than the default — meaning the plaintiff affirmatively surrendered all claims permanently against this defendant on these patents.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — with prejudiceWith prejudice: no second bite at the apple against Microsoft
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits under res judicata principles. Morris Routing Technologies cannot re-file these same patent claims against Microsoft in any US court. This is a materially different outcome from a without-prejudice dismissal, which would preserve the right to refile. The public record is silent on whether a confidential agreement accompanied this election, but the finality is absolute regardless.
Permanent bar — res judicata appliesMorris Routing: closed exposure to cost sanctions, but permanent bar created
By dismissing with prejudice before Microsoft even filed an answer, Morris Routing Technologies avoided prolonged litigation costs and the risk of an adverse claim construction or fee-shifting motion under 35 U.S.C. § 285. However, the with-prejudice election signals either a negotiated exit or a recognition that the claims against Microsoft specifically could not withstand scrutiny. The seven patents remain enforceable against other defendants.
Patents survive — against other targetsMicrosoft walks away clean — no injunction risk, no damages, own costs only
Microsoft faces no liability, injunction, or ongoing royalty obligation from this action. The with-prejudice dismissal eliminates any future re-filing of these specific claims. The own-costs order means Microsoft absorbed its own defense spend without recovery, which is consistent with a pre-answer settlement or a plaintiff withdrawal before significant defense expenditure was incurred. Microsoft’s SR/RFC-based product stack faces no judicially imposed encumbrance from this case.
Microsoft — no liability, no injunctionFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Morris Routing Technologies, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of 7 US Segment Routing network technology patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Microsoft, Co. | Company | Microsoft Corporation — global cloud and enterprise software provider accused of SR RFC implementationsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Derek F. Dahlgren | Attorney | Counsel for Morris Routing Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Timothy Devlin | Attorney | Counsel for Morris Routing Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Devlin Law Firm LLC | Law Firm | Representing Morris Routing Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal order records an unambiguous with-prejudice election by the plaintiff under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), filed before any responsive pleading by Microsoft. The own-costs rider — expressly allocating costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees to each party — is consistent with a negotiated exit or early bilateral agreement, though the public record does not confirm a financial settlement. The finality of the with-prejudice designation means no further judicial analysis of the seven patents’ validity or infringement scope against Microsoft will occur in this action.
US10652134B1 and 6 further patents — Segment Routing network forwarding technology
The seven asserted patents — US10652134B1, US10757010B1, US10805204B1, US11784914B1, US10574562B1, US10652133B1, and US11757756B1 — cover methods and systems relating to Segment Routing (SR), a modern network source-routing architecture. SR allows a network node to steer packets through a specified sequence of segments defined at ingress, reducing per-flow state in the network core. The patents span application numbers filed between 2019 and 2021, capturing innovations aligned with the IETF’s SR standardisation work under RFC 8402 (architecture), RFC 8660 and 8663 (MPLS dataplane), RFC 8754 and 8986 (SRv6), RFC 9256 and 9352 (SR Policy and SRv6 SID).
The strategic significance of this portfolio lies in its alignment with mandatory IETF RFC compliance. Segment Routing has been widely adopted in hyperscaler, carrier, and enterprise WAN environments. If claims within these patents read on RFC-compliant SR implementations, potential infringers include not only cloud platform vendors but also network equipment manufacturers and managed service providers. The with-prejudice dismissal against Microsoft does not affect enforceability against other implementors, and the portfolio’s breadth across both SR-MPLS and SRv6 dataplane variants suggests wide potential coverage of deployed infrastructure.
Should you run an FTO against the Morris Routing Technologies SR patent portfolio?
Any organisation deploying Segment Routing in production environments — whether on cloud WAN, data centre fabrics, or carrier IP/MPLS networks — should consider freedom-to-operate analysis against these seven patents. The accused product category (SPRING SR aligned with RFC 8402, 8660, 8663, 8754, 8986, 9256, and 9352) encompasses widely deployed SR and SRv6 implementations. Network equipment vendors, cloud providers, and telcos building RFC-compliant SR stacks are directly within scope of the assertion theory presented in this case.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to map product implementations against claim-level coverage across all seven asserted patents simultaneously. By ingesting RFC specification language alongside claim text, Eureka can identify where your SR implementation may overlap with protected claim scope — and surface prior art or design-around options. Given the portfolio remains active and unencumbered against non-Microsoft targets, proactive FTO analysis now is materially lower cost than reactive defence later.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10652134B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Segment Routing and network patent cases in W.D. Texas
Explore comparable network routing and SR patent infringement actions litigated in the Western District of Texas, including cases before Judge Albright involving RFC-standard aligned assertions.
What this case signals for the Segment Routing IP landscape
A seven-patent suit resolved in 124 days with prejudice raises pointed questions about assertion strategy, claim strength, and licensing dynamics in SR networking.
Early dismissal with prejudice narrows the plaintiff’s assertion map
Morris Routing Technologies permanently closed off Microsoft as a defendant across all seven asserted patents. Any future licensing campaign for this portfolio must exclude Microsoft, which may reduce aggregate licensing value if Microsoft’s SR implementations are a primary market reference. Other potential defendants — cloud providers, router OEMs, network equipment vendors — remain fair targets, but the Microsoft precedent may affect negotiating leverage.
Seven RFC-aligned patents signal a standards-essential assertion strategy
Asserting patents against products implementing IETF RFC standards (8402, 8660, 8663, 8754, 8986, 9256, 9352) is a recognized strategy in networking IP. If any of the seven patents read on mandatory RFC compliance, the universe of potential infringers is broad. Companies implementing Segment Routing in cloud, WAN, or data centre environments should assess FTO exposure against this portfolio, particularly given the patents remain active and unencumbered by this case outcome.
Morris v Microsoft — key questions answered
Morris Routing Technologies, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Microsoft Corporation in the Western District of Texas on August 7, 2025, asserting seven Segment Routing patents. The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by the plaintiff on December 9, 2025 after 124 days, with each party bearing its own costs.
Seven US patents were asserted: US10652134B1, US10757010B1, US10805204B1, US11784914B1, US10574562B1, US10652133B1, and US11757756B1. All relate to Segment Routing (SR) technology and were alleged to be infringed by Microsoft’s implementations of IETF RFC standards 8402, 8660, 8663, 8754, 8986, 9256, and 9352.
A with-prejudice dismissal permanently bars Morris Routing Technologies from re-asserting these seven patents against Microsoft. However, the patents remain fully enforceable against all other potential infringers. The dismissal does not constitute a finding of invalidity or non-infringement — it is a plaintiff-elected termination that has no estoppel effect on third parties.
The public record does not confirm a financial settlement. The voluntary dismissal order states each party bears its own costs, which is consistent with either a confidential licensing agreement or a unilateral plaintiff withdrawal. The own-costs arrangement neither confirms nor rules out an undisclosed payment. The public record is silent on the commercial terms, if any.
Yes. The with-prejudice dismissal only forecloses claims against Microsoft. All seven patents — US10652134B1, US10757010B1, US10805204B1, US11784914B1, US10574562B1, US10652133B1, and US11757756B1 — remain in force and enforceable against other parties implementing Segment Routing technology in compliance with the cited IETF RFC standards.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.