Morris Routing Technologies v. Verizon: 9-Patent Routing Dispute Settled in 519 Days
Morris Routing Technologies, LLC filed suit against Verizon Communications, Verizon Services Corporation, and Cellco Partnership (Verizon Wireless) in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting nine U.S. patents covering network routing technologies across Verizon’s 5G SA cores, vRAN, and Segment Routing infrastructure. The case resolved after 519 days, with plaintiff’s claims dismissed with prejudice and Verizon’s counterclaims dismissed without prejudice.
Nine Routing Patents, One Telecom Giant, and a Bilateral Resolution
On July 8, 2024, Morris Routing Technologies, LLC — a patent assertion entity holding a portfolio of network routing patents — filed an infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 4:24-cv-00626) before Judge Sean D. Jordan. The defendants were Verizon Communications, Inc., Verizon Services Corporation, and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless. Nine issued U.S. patents were asserted, spanning routing architecture innovations tied to Segment Routing (SR), 5G standalone cores, and virtualised RAN deployments.
The case closed on December 9, 2025 when both parties announced a resolution to the Court. Under the agreed dismissal order, plaintiff Morris Routing Technologies’ claims against Verizon were dismissed with prejudice — meaning they cannot be re-filed — while Verizon’s counterclaims and defenses were dismissed without prejudice, preserving Verizon’s ability to revive those claims if circumstances warrant. Each party agreed to bear its own fees and costs, a structure consistent with a negotiated settlement rather than a court-imposed fee award.
The 519-day duration suggests the parties engaged in meaningful discovery and likely licensing negotiations before reaching terms. The asymmetric dismissal structure — plaintiff with prejudice, defendant without — is a hallmark of confidential patent settlements where the patent holder receives value (financial or otherwise) in exchange for a permanent release of its infringement claims. The precise settlement terms remain confidential, and the public record does not disclose any royalty rate, lump-sum payment, or licensing arrangement.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 519 days
519 days — above median for E.D. Texas patent cases resolved pre-trial
Bilateral settlement dismissal: what the asymmetric order means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice signals a permanent end to plaintiff’s claims
When a plaintiff’s claims are dismissed with prejudice, the court’s order acts as a final adjudication on the merits — Morris Routing Technologies cannot re-assert these nine patents against Verizon in any future action on the same infringement theories. This finality is the core consideration Verizon would have sought in any settlement. The simultaneous dismissal of Verizon’s counterclaims without prejudice preserves optionality for Verizon, though in practice counterclaims are rarely revived post-settlement.
Permanent bar on re-filingMorris Routing Technologies closes the case — likely with undisclosed consideration
A voluntary dismissal with prejudice by a plaintiff in a patent case almost invariably reflects receipt of value — whether a lump-sum payment, ongoing royalties, or a cross-licence. The public record is silent on financial terms. Morris Routing Technologies retains its portfolio against other potential infringers, and the settlement does not constitute an admission of validity or invalidity of the asserted patents. Future enforcement actions against other network operators remain possible.
Terms undisclosed; patents surviveVerizon secures permanent release — counterclaims left live but likely dormant
Verizon’s primary objective — eliminating the threat of a damages judgment or injunction over its 5G SA cores, vRAN, and SR infrastructure — is achieved through the with-prejudice dismissal of Morris’s claims. Verizon’s own counterclaims (likely invalidity challenges) were preserved without prejudice, which is standard settlement practice and does not signal any ongoing dispute. The each-party-bears-own-costs provision avoids a fee-shifting dispute and is neutral on the merits.
Infringement threat extinguishedNine routing patents remain active — sector-wide licensing risk persists
Because no court ruled on validity or infringement, Morris Routing Technologies’ nine patents emerge from this litigation with their presumption of validity intact. Other telecommunications operators deploying Segment Routing, 5G SA architecture, or virtualised RAN solutions face similar exposure. The E.D. Texas venue, the nine-patent portfolio structure, and the PAE plaintiff profile are consistent with a broader licensing campaign. Competing carriers and network equipment vendors should assess FTO exposure against this portfolio.
Portfolio threat to sector remains liveFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Morris Routing Technologies, LLC | Company | Network routing patent assertion entity — holder of US10411997B1 and 8 related routing patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Verizon Communications, Inc. | Company | Major U.S. telecommunications operator offering 5G, vRAN, and Segment Routing network servicesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Verizon Services Corporation | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Cellco Partnership, Inc. | Company | Search 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 | Andrew Thompson (Tom) Gorham | Attorney | Counsel for Verizon Communications, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Verizon Communications, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gillam & Smith LLP | Law Firm | Representing Verizon Communications, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Sean D. Jordan | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal order is structured as a bilateral resolution rather than a unilateral withdrawal. The explicit dismissal of plaintiff’s claims with prejudice — combined with without-prejudice treatment of Verizon’s counterclaims and a mutual fee-bearing provision — is the textbook fingerprint of a confidential patent settlement. No merits determination was made on infringement, validity, or claim scope. The patents retain their statutory presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282, meaning the nine asserted patents remain fully enforceable against third parties. The order contains no admission of liability by either party.
US10411997B1 — Network Segment Routing and Traffic Engineering Patents
The nine asserted patents — led by US10411997B1 (application no. US16/101380) — form a tightly clustered portfolio filed across application numbers in the US16/101xxx, US16/153xxx, US16/195xxx, US16/417xxx, and US16/691xxx series. The patents cover routing architecture innovations consistent with Segment Routing (SR) technology: methods for computing, encoding, and enforcing network paths using label stacks, applicable to modern IP/MPLS and SRv6 deployments. The portfolio’s filing timeline suggests development contemporaneous with the IETF’s standardisation of SR RFCs, positioning it strategically against standard-essential or standards-adjacent implementations.
The strategic value of this portfolio lies in its alignment with technologies that have become foundational to 5G standalone core architecture, virtualised RAN transport, and cloud-native network functions. Verizon’s named accused products — SR RFC-compliant networks, 5G SA cores, and vRAN — are precisely the infrastructure investments that Tier 1 carriers have spent billions deploying. A portfolio that reads on SR standards creates leverage across virtually every major network operator globally. The settlement without validity adjudication means competing carriers — AT&T, T-Mobile, Lumen, and international operators deploying SR — face residual exposure from this still-live patent family.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US10411997B1 and the Morris Routing portfolio?
Any organisation deploying Segment Routing (SR), SRv6, 5G standalone core, or virtualised RAN infrastructure should treat this nine-patent portfolio as a priority FTO target. The portfolio was sufficiently credible to extract a settlement from Verizon — one of the most well-resourced patent defendants in the U.S. — without a single claim being invalidated. Network equipment vendors supplying SR-capable routers, SDN controllers, or 5G core software, as well as cloud providers running SR-enabled backbone networks, face comparable exposure profiles.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map each of the nine asserted patents against your specific product architecture — identifying which claim elements read on SR label stack operations, path computation engines, or vRAN transport layers in your deployment. Eureka’s claim chart automation and prior art discovery tools allow your IP and engineering teams to assess invalidity risk across the full nine-patent cluster in a fraction of the time required for manual analysis, enabling faster and better-informed licensing versus litigation decisions.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10411997B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Segment Routing and 5G Network Routing Patent Cases in E.D. Texas
Cases involving segment routing, 5G core, and network path computation patents litigated in the Eastern District of Texas against major U.S. telecommunications carriers.
What this case signals for the network routing and 5G IP landscape
A nine-patent routing portfolio extracted a settlement from one of the largest U.S. carriers. The implications extend across the telecom infrastructure sector.
Segment Routing and 5G SA cores are now confirmed litigation targets
This case explicitly names Verizon’s SR RFC-compliant networks, 5G standalone cores, and vRAN as accused products. Any operator or vendor deploying these technologies — now mainstream across Tier 1 carriers — should treat this portfolio as a live FTO consideration. The settlement without invalidity ruling leaves the patents actionable against the next defendant.
E.D. Texas remains the venue of choice for network routing PAE actions
Judge Sean D. Jordan’s docket in Sherman, Texas continues to attract patent assertion actions targeting major telecoms. The Eastern District’s scheduling norms and plaintiff-friendly venue reputation consistently draw routing and networking patent cases. Defendants should factor in E.D. Texas litigation costs and timeline when evaluating early settlement versus full defence strategies.
Morris v Verizon — key questions answered
The case was dismissed on December 9, 2025 pursuant to a joint request following settlement. Morris Routing Technologies’ claims against Verizon were dismissed with prejudice, and Verizon’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice. Each party bears its own attorneys’ fees and costs. No merits ruling on infringement or validity was issued.
Nine U.S. patents were asserted: US10411997B1, US10382327B1, US10841198B1, US10404582B1, US12058042B1, US10389625B1, US10367737B1, US10419334B1, and US10389624B1. The patents cover network routing technologies including Segment Routing (SR) methods applicable to 5G SA cores, vRAN, and SR RFC-compliant networks.
Dismissal with prejudice operates as a final judgment on the merits — Morris Routing Technologies cannot re-file infringement claims against Verizon based on these nine patents for the same accused products. However, the patents themselves remain valid and enforceable against other parties, and Morris retains the right to assert them against other network operators or vendors.
In patent settlements, it is standard practice for the defendant’s invalidity counterclaims to be dismissed without prejudice — meaning Verizon could theoretically revive them — while the plaintiff’s infringement claims are dismissed with prejudice. This asymmetric structure typically reflects the fact that the plaintiff (patent holder) received consideration, making the without-prejudice treatment of counterclaims a largely theoretical preservation of Verizon’s options rather than a substantive continuation.
Yes. Because the case settled without any invalidity ruling, all nine Morris Routing patents retain their presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282. Other carriers and vendors deploying Segment Routing, 5G standalone cores, or virtualised RAN infrastructure remain exposed to potential infringement assertions from this portfolio. The settlement does not bind or protect any third party, and Morris Routing Technologies may pursue other defendants.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.