Morris Routing Technologies v. T-Mobile: 10-Patent Segment Routing Dispute Dismissed
Morris Routing Technologies asserted 10 US patents covering segment routing technologies — including SR-MPLS and SRv6 — against T-Mobile’s core network infrastructure. Filed in the Eastern District of Texas, all plaintiff claims were dismissed with prejudice after 532 days, while T-Mobile’s counterclaims were preserved via dismissal without prejudice.
A 10-patent segment routing assault on T-Mobile ends with split dismissal
Morris Routing Technologies, LLC filed suit against T-Mobile on July 8, 2024, in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Sean D. Jordan, asserting infringement of ten US patents spanning segment routing architectures — covering SR-MPLS, SRv6, and functionality defined in the IETF segment routing RFCs. The accused products encompassed T-Mobile’s production network infrastructure wherever it implemented segment routing protocols.
The case closed on December 22, 2025 — 532 days after filing — with a split outcome. All of Morris Routing Technologies’ claims for relief were dismissed with prejudice, meaning those specific claims cannot be refiled. T-Mobile’s own counterclaims and defenses, however, were dismissed without prejudice, leaving those positions legally viable for any future proceeding. The asymmetry is commercially significant: T-Mobile retains the ability to assert invalidity or non-infringement positions in subsequent litigation.
The 532-day duration suggests the parties likely engaged in substantial claim construction and discovery before reaching resolution, though the precise trigger — whether settlement, a dispositive ruling, or strategic withdrawal — is not disclosed in the public termination record. The with-prejudice dismissal of plaintiff’s claims is consistent with either a confidential settlement containing a covenant not to sue or a voluntary decision to terminate following adverse case developments. The public record is silent on financial terms.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 532 days
532 days — above average for an E.D. Texas patent case that closed before trial
Split dismissal: plaintiff’s claims end, T-Mobile’s counterclaims survive
With-prejudice dismissal bars plaintiff from refiling these claims
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits for the dismissed claims. Morris Routing Technologies cannot refile these same infringement claims against T-Mobile on these ten patents. This is the most conclusive form of termination short of a full trial verdict, and typically signals either a negotiated covenant not to sue or a strategic withdrawal following case-dispositive developments.
Plaintiff claims: permanently closedT-Mobile’s counterclaims dismissed without prejudice — a key distinction
The split nature of this dismissal is notable. While plaintiff’s claims are extinguished with prejudice, T-Mobile’s counterclaims and defenses were dismissed without prejudice — meaning T-Mobile did not relinquish its invalidity or non-infringement positions. If Morris Routing Technologies were to assert related patents or revive claims through successors, T-Mobile’s preserved positions could be deployed. This asymmetry is consistent with a defendant-favorable resolution.
T-Mobile counterclaims: preservedEnforcement of these 10 patents against T-Mobile is effectively over
The with-prejudice dismissal means Morris Routing Technologies cannot pursue these specific infringement claims against T-Mobile again. For an NPE whose business model depends on licensing or litigation monetisation, a with-prejudice exit without publicly disclosed compensation suggests limited leverage was achieved in this proceeding. The patents remain in force and could theoretically be asserted against other carriers or network operators.
T-Mobile: effectively clearedSegment routing patent risk remains live for other network operators
The dismissal resolves only T-Mobile’s exposure to these ten patents. The segment routing patent portfolio held by Morris Routing Technologies — covering SR-MPLS, SRv6, and IETF RFC-compliant implementations — could be directed at other wireless carriers, ISPs, or enterprise network operators deploying segment routing. Companies with SR-based infrastructure should monitor this portfolio and consider FTO assessments against the remaining patents.
SR operators: monitor this portfolioFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Morris Routing Technologies, LLC | Company | NPE patent licensing entity — holder of US10708168B1 and 9 segment routing patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | T-Mobile | Individual | T-Mobile: major US wireless carrier operating SR-MPLS and SRv6 network infrastructureSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew James Sherman | Attorney | Counsel for Morris Routing Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Clifford Chad Henson | Attorney | Counsel for Morris Routing Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Derek Dahlgren | Attorney | Counsel for Morris Routing Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jedediah Phillips | 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 | Arnold & Porter, LLP (Palo Alto) | Law Firm | Representing 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 | Albert M. Suarez , IV | Attorney | Counsel for T-MobileSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Andrew Thompson (Tom) Gorham | Attorney | Counsel for T-MobileSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brian Ashley Rosenthal | Attorney | Counsel for T-MobileSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Josh A. Krevitt | Attorney | Counsel for T-MobileSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Katherine Dominguez | Attorney | Counsel for T-MobileSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for T-MobileSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP – NYC | Law Firm | Representing T-MobileSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP | Law Firm | Representing T-MobileSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gilliam & Smith LLP | Law Firm | Representing T-MobileSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Sean D. Jordan | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The verdict language creates an intentional asymmetry: plaintiff’s claims are dismissed with prejudice — a final bar to re-litigation — while T-Mobile’s counterclaims and defences are dismissed without prejudice, explicitly preserving them. This phrasing is consistent with a negotiated exit in which T-Mobile extracted a covenant not to sue while refusing to waive its invalidity positions. The structure protects T-Mobile against future assertion of these same patents while leaving Morris Routing Technologies’ broader portfolio legally intact for deployment against third parties.
US10708168B1 and 9 further patents — segment routing network architecture
The ten asserted patents — issued between 2019 and 2024 across application families filed from 2014 onwards — collectively cover segment routing architectures as standardised by the IETF. Segment routing is a source-routing paradigm in which a network node steers packets through a predefined sequence of instructions encoded in the packet header, eliminating the need for per-flow state in intermediate nodes. The portfolio spans both MPLS and IPv6 dataplanes (SR-MPLS and SRv6), as well as functionality directly specified in the IETF SR RFC series.
The strategic significance of this portfolio lies in its alignment with IETF standards: if valid, claims mapped to RFC-specified behaviour create exposure for any operator deploying compliant implementations. T-Mobile’s 5G network, like those of other major US carriers, increasingly relies on segment routing for traffic engineering, network slicing, and inter-domain routing. The breadth of ten patents across overlapping SR sub-technologies suggests a portfolio engineered to create licensing pressure across the carrier and enterprise networking ecosystem.
Should you run an FTO against US10708168B1 and the Morris Routing SR portfolio?
Any network operator, equipment vendor, or cloud provider deploying SR-MPLS, SRv6, or IETF RFC-compliant segment routing functionality should assess exposure to this portfolio. The ten patents cover a wide surface area of SR architecture — from label stack operations to control plane methods — meaning that standard-compliant implementations in routers, SDN controllers, and 5G transport networks may fall within claim scope. The fact that these patents were asserted against T-Mobile’s production network makes the risk concrete rather than theoretical.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map each of the ten Morris Routing Technologies patents against your specific network architecture, identify claim elements that read on SR-MPLS or SRv6 deployments, and surface prior art that may support invalidity arguments. Eureka also tracks the litigation history of each patent family — including this E.D. Texas proceeding — so your IP and engineering teams can make informed deployment and design-around decisions before receiving a demand letter.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10708168B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar segment routing and network protocol patent cases in E.D. Texas
Cases involving NPE assertion of IETF-aligned network routing patents against US carriers in the Eastern District of Texas, with comparable portfolio breadth.
What this case signals for the segment routing IP landscape
A 10-patent NPE campaign against a Tier-1 carrier’s SR infrastructure ends with plaintiff claims extinguished — but the portfolio lives on.
E.D. Texas remains the venue of choice for NPE network patent campaigns
Morris Routing Technologies’ decision to file in the Eastern District of Texas is consistent with continued NPE activity in that jurisdiction for network infrastructure patents. Carriers and equipment vendors deploying segment routing should treat E.D. Texas filings as a baseline risk in their IP monitoring programs.
SR-MPLS and SRv6 deployments carry identifiable patent exposure
This case demonstrates that IETF-standardised segment routing implementations — including RFC-compliant SR-MPLS and SRv6 — are being mapped to patent claims by NPEs. Network operators implementing these protocols should conduct FTO reviews against the Morris Routing Technologies portfolio, particularly as 5G backbones increasingly rely on SR architectures.
Morris v T-Mobile — key questions answered
All of Morris Routing Technologies’ claims against T-Mobile were dismissed with prejudice on December 22, 2025, barring re-litigation of those specific claims. T-Mobile’s counterclaims and defences were dismissed without prejudice, preserving them for potential future use. The case ran for 532 days in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Sean D. Jordan.
Morris Routing Technologies asserted ten US patents: US10708168B1, US10785143B1, US10212076B1, US10397100B1, US10904144B2, US10587505B1, US12058042B1, US11012344B1, US10404583B1, and US10374938B1. The patents collectively cover segment routing architectures including SR-MPLS, SRv6, and functionality specified in the IETF segment routing RFC series.
Dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication: Morris Routing Technologies cannot refile the same infringement claims against T-Mobile on these ten patents. However, the patents remain in force and can be asserted against other defendants — such as other carriers, ISPs, or network equipment vendors deploying segment routing. The dismissal is specific to the T-Mobile proceeding.
The public record does not specify the reason for the asymmetric treatment. However, dismissal of defendant counterclaims without prejudice is consistent with a negotiated resolution in which the defendant obtains a covenant not to sue from the plaintiff while retaining the right to assert invalidity or non-infringement positions if related patents are asserted in the future. T-Mobile’s positions developed over 532 days of litigation remain legally available.
The portfolio’s alignment with IETF SR standards — SR-MPLS and SRv6 — means any carrier or network operator with RFC-compliant segment routing deployments could face similar assertions. The with-prejudice dismissal resolves only T-Mobile’s exposure. Operators should consider FTO analysis against the ten asserted patents and monitor for future filings by Morris Routing Technologies against other defendants in the segment routing space.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.