Pegasus Wireless Innovation v. AT&T: Five-Patent 5G Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
Pegasus Wireless Innovation, LLC filed suit against AT&T, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas asserting five patents covering 4G/LTE and 5G wireless communications across devices including Google Pixel and Motorola product lines. The case was dismissed without prejudice after 281 days — leaving the door open for refiling.
Five 5G Patents, One Telecom Giant, and an Open Door in East Texas
On March 12, 2025, Pegasus Wireless Innovation, LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against AT&T, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:25-cv-00290), presided over by Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The assertion covered five US patents — US10897720B2, US11671218B2, US10791530B2, US11569958B2, and US10925079B2 — all directed at wireless communication technology conforming to 3GPP Releases 8 through 15, the technical backbone of 4G/LTE and 5G standards.
The case was closed on December 18, 2025, via a dismissal without prejudice — meaning the court did not adjudicate the infringement claims on their merits. A dismissal without prejudice allows the plaintiff to refile the same claims, subject to applicable statutes of limitations and any procedural conditions the parties may have negotiated privately. No damages award or injunctive relief was entered, and no costs or attorney fee rulings appear in the public record.
The 281-day duration — from filing to closure — is shorter than the typical contested patent litigation timeline in the Eastern District of Texas, suggesting the parties likely reached a private resolution or agreed to dismiss for strategic reasons before significant merits briefing. The absence of a prejudice designation means the public record is silent on whether a settlement, license, or other agreement underlies the dismissal, which is consistent with confidential resolution practices common in standard-essential patent disputes.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 281 days
281 days — below the median patent trial timeline in E.D. Texas, suggesting early resolution
Dismissed without prejudice: what the termination means for both parties
Without prejudice means the merits were never reached
A dismissal without prejudice terminates the current proceeding but does not bar the plaintiff from refiling the same claims. Unlike a dismissal with prejudice, no res judicata effect attaches — Pegasus retains the ability to reassert these five patents against AT&T in a future action, provided applicable time limits are met. This mechanism is commonly used to close a case while a licensing arrangement or settlement is formalised.
No merits adjudicationPegasus preserves its right to refile against AT&T
Because the dismissal carries no prejudice, Pegasus Wireless Innovation’s patent portfolio remains fully intact and enforceable. The five asserted patents have not been declared invalid, unenforceable, or non-infringed by any court order. Pegasus retains strategic flexibility to refile, assert the same patents against other carriers or device manufacturers, or leverage the case history in licensing negotiations. The public record does not confirm whether a settlement or licence underpins the dismissal.
Patents remain enforceableAT&T exits without an adverse ruling — but exposure persists
AT&T obtains closure of this specific proceeding without any finding of infringement and without a damages award. However, the without-prejudice nature means AT&T has not secured immunity from future suit on these same patents. If no licence or covenant-not-to-sue was secured privately, AT&T and its device ecosystem — including the Google Pixel and Motorola devices named in the complaint — remain theoretically exposed to reassertion of all five patents.
No immunity from refiling5G standard-essential patent risk remains live for device distributors
The named accused products span two major Android OEM lineups — Google Pixel and Motorola — sold through AT&T’s distribution network. The dismissal without prejudice does nothing to resolve the underlying question of whether these 4G/5G devices infringe the Pegasus portfolio. Carriers and device makers operating under 3GPP Releases 8–15 should treat this case as a signal of continued assertion risk from wireless IP holders operating in the Eastern District of Texas.
Wireless IP risk remains openFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Pegasus Wireless Innovation, LLC | Company | Wireless IP assertion entity — holder of US10897720B2 and four related 4G/5G patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | AT&T, Inc. | Company | AT&T, Inc. — major US telecommunications carrier and distributor of 4G/5G mobile devicesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrea Leigh Fair | Attorney | Counsel for Pegasus Wireless Innovation, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Corey Martin Lipschutz | Attorney | Counsel for Pegasus Wireless Innovation, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Daniel J Shih | Attorney | Counsel for Pegasus Wireless Innovation, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joseph Samuel Grinstein | Attorney | Counsel for Pegasus Wireless Innovation, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kalpana Srinivasan | Attorney | Counsel for Pegasus Wireless Innovation, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Max Lalon Tribble , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Pegasus Wireless Innovation, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert Greenfeld | Attorney | Counsel for Pegasus Wireless Innovation, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William Jeffrey Melsheimer | Attorney | Counsel for Pegasus Wireless Innovation, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Yoonhee Gloria Park | Attorney | Counsel for Pegasus Wireless Innovation, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Miller Fair Henry PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Pegasus Wireless Innovation, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Susman Godfrey LLP | Law Firm | Representing Pegasus Wireless Innovation, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Susman Godfrey LLP (Los Angeles) | Law Firm | Representing Pegasus Wireless Innovation, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Susman Godfrey LLP (Houston) | Law Firm | Representing Pegasus Wireless Innovation, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Deron R. Dacus | Attorney | Counsel for AT&T, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | The Dacus Firm PC | Law Firm | Representing AT&T, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal without prejudice terminates Case No. 2:25-cv-00290 without any ruling on infringement, validity, or damages. Under this disposition, no issue preclusion or claim preclusion attaches — Pegasus retains full standing to reassert US10897720B2 and the four co-asserted patents in a subsequent action. For AT&T, the termination provides immediate relief from the current proceeding but does not constitute a legal clearance. The absence of a cost award is consistent with a privately negotiated resolution rather than a court-ordered dismissal for procedural default.
US10897720B2 and Four Co-Asserted Wireless Communication Patents
The five asserted patents — US10897720B2, US11671218B2, US10791530B2, US11569958B2, and US10925079B2 — are directed at wireless communication technologies aligned with the 3GPP standards framework, specifically Releases 8 through 15, which define the technical specifications for 4G LTE and 5G NR networks. The application numbers suggest a filing strategy spanning multiple continuation or related application chains, with issue dates staggered across at least two patent families. These patents collectively cover methods and systems that are, or may be, implemented in commercially available smartphones and the network infrastructure they connect through.
Patents aligned with 3GPP Release compliance occupy a strategically significant position in the wireless IP landscape because every LTE- or 5G-capable device sold in the US is potentially within scope of such claims. Pegasus Wireless Innovation’s decision to name specific handset models — including current-generation Google Pixel and Motorola devices — rather than only the carrier, suggests the portfolio was drafted or acquired with product-level enforcement in mind. For device OEMs, network operators, and chipset suppliers operating in the 4G/5G stack, this portfolio warrants close attention pending any inter partes review or continuation activity.
Should your 5G product team run an FTO against US10897720B2?
Any organisation designing, manufacturing, importing, or distributing mobile devices that support 4G LTE or 5G NR — including smartphones, tablets, mobile hotspots, or IoT modules conforming to 3GPP Releases 8–15 — should consider a freedom-to-operate analysis against this Pegasus Wireless Innovation portfolio. The complaint specifically named devices from two major Android OEM brands sold through a top-three US carrier, demonstrating that the patent holder is willing to enforce against commercially prominent products rather than targeting only smaller market participants.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US10897720B2 and its four co-asserted patents against your product’s technical specification, flag overlapping claim elements, and surface any post-grant proceedings — including IPR petitions or ex parte reexamination requests — that may affect enforceability. Given that all five patents remain granted with no public record of validity challenge in this proceeding, proactive FTO analysis is the lowest-cost risk mitigation step available to teams shipping 3GPP-compliant devices into the US market.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10897720B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar 4G/5G Patent Infringement Cases in E.D. Texas
Explore comparable wireless communication patent assertions filed in the Eastern District of Texas targeting carriers and device manufacturers under 3GPP LTE and 5G standards.
What this case signals for the 5G wireless IP landscape
Five asserted 5G patents, a major carrier defendant, and a silent dismissal — the pattern is worth watching closely.
E.D. Texas remains a preferred venue for wireless SEP-style assertions
Judge Gilstrap’s docket in the Eastern District of Texas continues to attract multi-patent wireless assertions targeting major carriers. Pegasus filing here — and the case resolving quietly — is consistent with the venue’s reputation for plaintiff-friendly procedural posture and efficient docket management. Companies distributing 4G/5G devices through US carriers should maintain active docket monitoring in E.D. Texas.
Five-patent portfolios targeting 3GPP standards are a recurring enforcement model
Pegasus asserted patents spanning multiple application numbers and continuation chains, all converging on 3GPP Releases 8–15 compliance. This portfolio-assertion strategy — filing multiple related patents against a single defendant — is typical of standard-adjacent IP holders seeking maximum licensing leverage. Any company selling or distributing LTE or 5G NR-capable devices in the US should audit exposure to similarly structured portfolios.
Pegasus v AT&T — key questions answered
Pegasus Wireless Innovation asserted five US patents: US10897720B2, US11671218B2, US10791530B2, US11569958B2, and US10925079B2. All five are directed at wireless communication technology conforming to 3GPP Releases 8–15, covering 4G LTE and 5G NR standards. The accused products included Google Pixel 9, Pixel 7a, Pixel 8, Motorola razr+ 2024, and multiple Motorola moto g stylus 5G variants.
The public record reflects a dismissal without prejudice as the basis of termination, but does not disclose the underlying reason. A without-prejudice dismissal is commonly associated with a confidential settlement, licence agreement, or covenant-not-to-sue. It may also reflect a strategic decision to refile in a different venue or after additional patent prosecution. The court made no ruling on the merits of the infringement claims.
No. A dismissal without prejudice carries no preclusive effect on the merits. No court found that AT&T’s products do not infringe, nor were any of the five asserted patents declared invalid or unenforceable. AT&T’s devices and distribution activities remain theoretically within the scope of the Pegasus portfolio unless a licence or covenant-not-to-sue was secured as part of any private arrangement underlying the dismissal.
3GPP Releases 8–15 define the technical specifications for 4G LTE and early 5G NR networks. Compliance with these releases is a prerequisite for any smartphone or mobile device connecting to modern cellular networks in the US. This framing in the complaint suggests that the asserted patents may claim methods or techniques that are necessarily implemented by any standard-compliant device, which is characteristic of standard-essential or standard-adjacent patent assertions.
Pegasus Wireless Innovation was represented by Miller Fair Henry PLLC alongside Susman Godfrey LLP, with attorneys including Kalpana Srinivasan, Max Lalon Tribble Jr., and William Jeffrey Melsheimer among others. AT&T was represented by The Dacus Firm PC, with Deron R. Dacus as lead counsel. Both firms have significant patent litigation experience in the Eastern District of Texas.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.