Pegasus Wireless v. T-Mobile: 11-Patent 5G Dispute Ends in Joint Dismissal With Prejudice
Pegasus Wireless Innovation, LLC filed suit against T-Mobile and Sprint entities in the Eastern District of Texas asserting 11 5G wireless patents against a broad range of devices including Google Pixel, Motorola, Nokia, and T-Mobile REVVL handsets. After 720 days of litigation, all claims were jointly dismissed with prejudice — with each party bearing its own costs and attorneys’ fees.
Coordinated 5G SEP Campaign Against US Carriers Ends in Full Bilateral Dismissal
Pegasus Wireless Innovation, LLC filed Case No. 2:23-cv-00639 in the Eastern District of Texas on December 29, 2023, asserting 11 U.S. patents covering 5G wireless communication technologies against T-Mobile, T-Mobile USA Inc., Sprint LLC, Sprint Solutions LLC, and Sprint Spectrum LLC. The asserted patents span resource scheduling, channel estimation, and network signaling — core infrastructure functions implicated by T-Mobile’s mobile network and devices sold under its banner, including T-Mobile REVVL handsets, Google Pixel 7/8 series, and Motorola and Nokia 5G smartphones.
The case closed on December 18, 2025, via a jointly filed motion for dismissal granted by Judge Rodney Gilstrap. All of Pegasus’s claims and causes of action were dismissed with prejudice under the court order. T-Mobile’s counterclaims asserting breach of contract, failure to negotiate in good faith, and declaratory judgment of breach of FRAND obligations were likewise dismissed with prejudice. T-Mobile’s noninfringement counterclaims, however, were dismissed without prejudice — meaning they could theoretically be reasserted in future proceedings. Each party was ordered to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs.
The 720-day lifespan and bilateral structure of the dismissal — mirrored across parallel cases against AT&T (cv-00638) and Verizon (cv-00640) — strongly suggests a coordinated global settlement across all three carrier disputes. The simultaneous filing of joint dismissal motions in nine related dockets, including separate resolutions involving Ericsson and Nokia equipment, is consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a unilateral capitulation. The precise commercial terms, if any royalty or licensing agreement exists, remain confidential and outside the public record.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 720 days
720 days litigated — typical E.D. Texas patent case resolves in 18–24 months
Joint dismissal with prejudice: what the order means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice bars Pegasus from re-filing these claims
A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits — Pegasus cannot refile the same patent infringement claims against T-Mobile or Sprint entities in any U.S. court. The joint nature of the motion signals mutual agreement: both sides requested this outcome simultaneously, which is the standard mechanism used to close litigation following a confidential settlement or licensing resolution.
Res judicata appliesPegasus loses enforcement rights against T-Mobile on these patents
With all claims dismissed with prejudice, Pegasus Wireless Innovation cannot pursue T-Mobile, Sprint LLC, Sprint Solutions, T-Mobile USA, or Sprint Spectrum on the 11 asserted patents for the conduct at issue. If a licensing fee was secured before dismissal, it remains undisclosed. The simultaneous resolution across AT&T and Verizon parallel cases suggests Pegasus may have achieved its commercial objective across the full carrier landscape before agreeing to dismiss.
Enforcement extinguishedT-Mobile’s FRAND counterclaims closed; noninfringement claims preserved
T-Mobile’s counterclaims — breach of contract, failure to negotiate in good faith, and declaratory judgment of FRAND breach — were also dismissed with prejudice, preventing T-Mobile from pursuing those theories against Pegasus going forward. Critically, T-Mobile’s noninfringement counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, leaving open the possibility of reasserting them if Pegasus ever re-engages on these patents through a different litigation vehicle.
FRAND defenses closedCoordinated carrier resolution signals SEP licensing campaign conclusion
The parallel resolution across three coordinated E.D. Texas cases — against AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon — and the separate dismissals involving Ericsson and Nokia equipment suggest Pegasus ran a structured SEP licensing campaign targeting the full U.S. 5G carrier ecosystem. Companies manufacturing or distributing 5G devices on T-Mobile’s network should assess whether these patents remain live against other market participants not party to these dismissals.
SEP campaign concludedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Pegasus Wireless Innovation, LLC | Company | 5G wireless patent assertion entity — holder of US11405942B2 and 10 related SEPsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | T-Mobile | Individual | T-Mobile US and Sprint entities — major US wireless carrier and 5G network operatorSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Sprint, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Sprint Solutions, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | T-Mobile USA, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Sprint Spectrum LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrea Leigh Fair | Attorney | Counsel for Pegasus Wireless Innovation, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Bryce Thomas Barcelo | 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 | Elliott C. Riches | Attorney | Counsel for T-MobileSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jason Spotts | Attorney | Counsel for T-MobileSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for T-MobileSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Alston & Bird LLP | Law Firm | Representing T-MobileSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gillam & Smith, LLP | Law Firm | Representing T-MobileSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order grants jointly filed dismissal motions across nine related dockets simultaneously. The with-prejudice dismissal of Pegasus’s claims is final and bars re-litigation on the same patents and facts. The with-prejudice dismissal of T-Mobile’s FRAND counterclaims is equally terminal for those theories. The carve-out preserving T-Mobile’s noninfringement counterclaims without prejudice is procedurally notable — it suggests the parties deliberately left that door ajar, which is consistent with a settlement structure that does not include an explicit noninfringement admission.
US11405942B2 and 10 further patents — 5G wireless resource scheduling and signaling
The 11 asserted U.S. patents — led by US11405942B2 (application US16/349874) — cover foundational 5G wireless communication technologies including resource scheduling, channel estimation, reference signal design, uplink/downlink transmission management, and control signaling. These patents were filed across a range of application dates corresponding to the 4G LTE-to-5G NR transition period, suggesting they may be positioned as standards-essential patents (SEPs) relevant to 3GPP specifications underlying commercial 5G networks.
For companies operating or supplying equipment for U.S. 5G networks, this portfolio presents ongoing relevance. The simultaneous assertion against T-Mobile, AT&T, and Verizon — combined with equipment-level claims against Ericsson and Nokia — indicates Pegasus believes these patents read broadly on standard 5G network operations. Any entity commercialising 5G NR infrastructure, handsets, or network services in the U.S. should evaluate whether their products or methods fall within the scope of these claims, particularly given that the dismissals are party-specific and do not bind third parties.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US11405942B2 and related 5G patents?
Any company manufacturing 5G devices sold through U.S. carrier channels, supplying 5G RAN equipment, or operating 5G network services should treat this portfolio as a live enforcement risk. The dismissals in these cases bind only T-Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, Ericsson, and Nokia — they do not extend to other OEMs, MVNOs, or infrastructure vendors. Device brands including those selling 5G smartphones, routers, or IoT modules on U.S. networks remain potentially exposed.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map each of the 11 asserted patents against your product’s technical specifications, identify independent and dependent claim scope, flag prior art already cited in prosecution, and surface any IPR or PGR proceedings that may affect enforceability. For SEP-adjacent portfolios like this one, Eureka can also identify 3GPP standard contributions that may support or undermine essentiality arguments — enabling faster, more defensible FTO conclusions for your product and legal teams.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11405942B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar 5G SEP patent cases in E.D. Texas against U.S. wireless carriers
Browse parallel and comparable 5G standards-essential patent infringement cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas targeting major U.S. wireless carriers and network equipment vendors.
What this case signals for the 5G SEP licensing IP landscape
Pegasus’s coordinated three-carrier campaign illustrates how PAEs are deploying SEP portfolios across the entire U.S. 5G ecosystem simultaneously.
Simultaneous carrier targeting is a hallmark of SEP assertion campaigns
Filing near-identical suits against AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon on the same patent portfolio — in the same court, at the same time — maximises leverage while minimising the risk that any single defendant invalidates the portfolio before others settle. Product and IP teams at network equipment and device companies should treat coordinated multi-carrier filings as an early indicator of an impending licensing demand.
FRAND counterclaims as defence strategy are increasingly common in SEP cases
T-Mobile’s assertion of breach of contract, failure to negotiate in good faith, and FRAND declaratory judgment reflects an established carrier playbook for resisting PAE-driven SEP campaigns. The fact that these counterclaims were dismissed with prejudice — not litigated to a merits decision — means no binding FRAND rate or obligation was publicly adjudicated, leaving the licensing landscape for these patents unresolved on principle.
Pegasus v T-Mobile — key questions answered
All of Pegasus’s patent infringement claims were dismissed with prejudice by joint motion on December 18, 2025. T-Mobile’s FRAND-related counterclaims were also dismissed with prejudice. T-Mobile’s noninfringement counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice. Each party bears its own costs and attorneys’ fees. No merits verdict was issued.
Pegasus asserted 11 U.S. patents including US11405942B2, US11540272B2, US10009161B2, US9894644B2, US10616932B2, US10594460B2, US10181931B2, US10638463B2, US11219000B2, US11627631B2, and US10721118B2. These patents cover 5G wireless resource scheduling, channel estimation, reference signal design, and network signaling technologies consistent with 3GPP 5G NR standards.
Dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits for the claims asserted. Pegasus cannot refile the same infringement claims against T-Mobile, Sprint LLC, Sprint Solutions, T-Mobile USA, or Sprint Spectrum based on the same patents and same alleged conduct. The patents themselves remain valid and potentially enforceable against third parties not party to this dismissal.
Yes. The court’s order references simultaneous dismissals in Case No. 2:23-cv-00638 (against AT&T) and Case No. 2:23-cv-00640 (against Verizon), as well as separate dismissals of claims against Ericsson and Nokia equipment across all three cases. All were resolved through jointly filed motions granted on December 18, 2025, suggesting a coordinated global resolution.
T-Mobile asserted counterclaims for breach of contract, failure to negotiate in good faith, and declaratory judgment that Pegasus breached its FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory) licensing obligations. These claims are typical carrier defences in SEP assertion cases, premised on the theory that Pegasus held standards-essential patents subject to FRAND commitments and failed to offer acceptable licensing terms. These counterclaims were dismissed with prejudice without a merits ruling.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.