“Before the Court are three (3) Joint Motions to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 63, Dkt. No. 64, Dkt. No. 65) filed collectively by all Parties to the above-captioned cases. In the Motions, the Parties seek dismissal of all claims asserted in the above-captioned cases pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). Specifically, the Parties seek dismissal of the following claims with prejudice: • “[A]ll of Pegasus’s claims, counterclaims, and causes of action asserted in Case No. 2:25- cv-00290-JRG” (Dkt. No. 63, at 2);1 • “AT&T’s counterclaims as to breach of contract, failure to negotiate in good faith, and declaratory judgment of breach of FRAND” in such case (id.);2 • “[A]ll of Pegasus’s claims, counterclaims, and causes of action asserted in Case No. 2:25- cv-00289-JRG” (Dkt. No. 64, at 2); • “T-Mobile’s counterclaims as to breach of contract, failure to negotiate in good faith, and declaratory judgment of breach of FRAND” in such case” (id.);3 1 “Pegasus” refers to Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant Pegasus Wireless Innovations LLC. (E.g., Dkt. No. 63, at 2). 2 “AT&T” refers collectively to Defendants and Counterclaim-Plaintiffs AT&T Corp., AT&T Services, Inc., AT&T Mobility LLC, AT&T Mobility II LLC, New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, and Cricket Wireless LLC. (E.g., Dkt. No. 63, at 2). 3 “T-Mobile” refers collectively to Defendants and Counterclaim-Plaintiffs T-Mobile USA, Inc., Sprint Solutions LLC, and Sprint Spectrum LLC. (E.g., Dkt. No. 64, at 3). Case 2:25-cv-00288-JRG Document 37 Filed 12/18/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 448 3 • “[A]ll of Pegasus’s claims, counterclaims, and causes of action asserted in Case No. 2:25- cv-00288-JRG” (Dkt. No. 65, at 2); and • “Verizon’s counterclaims as to breach of contract, failure to negotiate in good faith, and declaratory judgment of breach of FRAND” in such case (id.).4 Further, the Parties seek dismissal of the following claims without prejudice: • “AT&T’s counterclaims as to noninfringement” (Dkt. No. 63, at 2); • “T-Mobile’s counterclaims as to noninfringement” (Dkt. No. 64, at 2); and • “Verizon’s counterclaims as to noninfringement” (Dkt. No. 65, at 2). • Collectively, the above-enumerated claims and counterclaims comprise all claims asserted in the above-captioned cases. Having considered the Motion, and noting that it was filed jointly, the Court finds that it should be and hereby is GRANTED. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the following claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE: • “[A]ll of Pegasus’s claims, counterclaims, and causes of action asserted in Case No. 2:25- cv-00290-JRG” (Dkt. No. 63, at 2); • “AT&T’s counterclaims as to breach of contract, failure to negotiate in good faith, and declaratory judgment of breach of FRAND” in such case (id.); • “[A]ll of Pegasus’s claims, counterclaims, and causes of action asserted in Case No. 2:25- cv-00289-JRG” (Dkt. No. 64, at 2); • “T-Mobile’s counterclaims as to breach of contract, failure to negotiate in good faith, and declaratory judgment of breach of FRAND” in such case” (id.); 4 “Verizon” refers collectively to Defendants and Counterclaim-Plaintiffs Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Verizon Business Network Services LLC, Verizon Corporate Services Group Inc., and TracFone Wireless, Inc. (E.g., Dkt. No. 65, at 2). Case 2:25-cv-00288-JRG Document 37 Filed 12/18/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 449 4 • “[A]ll of Pegasus’s claims, counterclaims, and causes of action asserted in Case No. 2:25- cv-00288-JRG” (Dkt. No. 65, at 2); and • “Verizon’s counterclaims as to breach of contract, failure to negotiate in good faith, and declaratory judgment of breach of FRAND” in such case (id.). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the following claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE: • “AT&T’s counterclaims as to noninfringement” (Dkt. No. 63, at 2); • “T-Mobile’s counterclaims as to noninfringement” (Dkt. No. 64, at 2); and • “Verizon’s counterclaims as to noninfringement” (Dkt. No. 65, at 2). All requests for relief in the above-captioned cases not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT. Each party is to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the above-captioned cases.”