Pegasus Wireless v. AT&T: 11-Patent Wireless Infringement Suit Ends in Dismissal With Prejudice
Pegasus Wireless Innovation asserted 11 LTE/5G patents against AT&T and its affiliates in the Eastern District of Texas, targeting AT&T’s mobile network and devices including Google Pixel and Motorola handsets. After 720 days of litigation — and parallel cases against T-Mobile and Verizon — all claims were dismissed with prejudice by joint motion, with each party bearing its own costs.
An 11-patent 5G/LTE assertion against AT&T that ended at the negotiating table
Filed on 29 December 2023 before Judge Rodney Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas, Pegasus Wireless Innovation, LLC brought an infringement action against AT&T, Inc. and five affiliated AT&T entities — including New Cingular Wireless PCS, AT&T Mobility LLC, and AT&T Services — asserting eleven US patents directed at LTE and 5G wireless network technologies. The accused products included AT&T’s mobile network infrastructure and a range of consumer handsets sold on the network, among them Google Pixel 6 through Pixel 8 Pro, Google Pixel Fold, and Motorola Razr and Moto G Stylus 5G devices.
The case closed on 18 December 2025, 720 days after filing, via a jointly filed motion to dismiss. The court granted the motion in full: all of Pegasus’s claims and causes of action were dismissed with prejudice, foreclosing any re-filing on the same grounds. AT&T’s counterclaims for breach of contract, failure to negotiate in good faith, and declaratory judgment of breach of FRAND obligations were also dismissed with prejudice. AT&T’s noninfringement counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, preserving the technical invalidity positions for potential future proceedings. Each party was ordered to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs.
The simultaneous dismissal across three coordinated cases — against AT&T, T-Mobile (2:23-cv-00639), and Verizon (2:23-cv-00640) — along with separate dismissals of claims against equipment suppliers Ericsson and Nokia, is consistent with a global licensing resolution, though the public record does not confirm settlement terms or any monetary exchange. The FRAND-related counterclaims, which suggest Pegasus’s patents may be standard-essential or declared to a standards body, add a layer of strategic complexity: their with-prejudice dismissal suggests the parties resolved or abandoned any royalty-rate dispute under FRAND principles. The mutual cost-bearing order further supports a negotiated resolution rather than a judicial determination on the merits.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 720 days
720 days — above the median E.D. Texas district court patent case lifespan, suggesting protracted pre-trial proceedings before resolution
Dismissed with prejudice by joint motion: what the dual-track ruling means for both parties
Joint dismissal with prejudice bars Pegasus from re-filing these claims
A dismissal with prejudice entered on a joint motion operates as a final judgment on the merits. Pegasus cannot refile the same patent claims against AT&T on the same accused products. The with-prejudice scope covering all claims, counterclaims, and causes of action is unusually broad, suggesting the parties negotiated a comprehensive release. AT&T’s noninfringement counterclaims were carved out and dismissed without prejudice — those positions remain available if needed in future proceedings.
Rule 41 joint dismissalPegasus exits with no public judgment against it — but loses right to re-assert
Pegasus avoids an adverse merits ruling or invalidity finding on the record, which protects the patents’ enforceability against other defendants. However, the with-prejudice dismissal permanently closes the door against AT&T and its affiliates. If a licensing deal was struck — consistent with the simultaneous dismissals across AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon — Pegasus may have achieved its commercial objective without trial risk. The absence of a cost award suggests neither side achieved a dominant litigation position.
Patents survive for third-party useAT&T secures closure — FRAND counterclaims end with prejudice
AT&T and its affiliates obtain a final, court-endorsed dismissal of all infringement claims, eliminating the uncertainty of a trial on 11 asserted wireless patents. The with-prejudice dismissal of FRAND-related counterclaims (breach of contract, failure to negotiate in good faith, declaratory judgment of FRAND breach) is significant: those claims are also extinguished permanently, suggesting the parties mutually agreed to drop licensing-conduct disputes. Noninfringement counterclaims survive without prejudice, preserving AT&T’s technical defences.
FRAND dispute fully resolvedCoordinated resolution across three carriers signals potential industry-wide licensing deal
The simultaneous dismissal of parallel cases against AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon — alongside supplier-level claims against Ericsson and Nokia — is structurally consistent with a multi-party licensing resolution covering the full LTE/5G supply chain. For wireless OEMs and network operators, the involvement of FRAND counterclaims signals that Pegasus’s patents may be declared standard-essential, raising questions about portfolio valuation and royalty stack exposure for any operator yet to resolve licensing with Pegasus.
SEP/FRAND licensing resolvedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Pegasus Wireless Innovation, LLC | Company | Wireless IP licensing entity — holder of 11 LTE/5G standard-related wireless network patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | AT&T, Inc. | Company | AT&T, Inc. and five AT&T affiliates — US mobile network operator and wireless services providerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | At & T Mobility II, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | AT & T, Corp. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | AT & T Mobility, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | AT & T Services, Inc. | 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 | Jordan Mikhail Rux | 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 counsel | Elliott C. Riches | Attorney | Counsel for AT&T, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jason Spotts | Attorney | Counsel for AT&T, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Thomas W. Davison | Attorney | Counsel for AT&T, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Alston & Bird LLP | Law Firm | Representing AT&T, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Alston & Bird LLP (Washington) | Law Firm | Representing 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 order is notable for its layered structure: Pegasus’s claims are dismissed with prejudice across all three carrier cases, permanently extinguishing re-filing rights. FRAND counterclaims from AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, Ericsson, and Nokia — alleging breach of standard-essential patent licensing obligations — are also dismissed with prejudice, indicating mutual resolution of licensing-conduct disputes. The carve-out for noninfringement counterclaims, dismissed only without prejudice, suggests the parties deliberately preserved those technical positions while closing all commercial and infringement issues. The mutual cost-bearing order reinforces that no party achieved a dominant litigation outcome.
US11405942B2 and 10 further patents — LTE/5G wireless network signalling and resource management
The eleven patents asserted — spanning grant numbers US11405942B2, US11540272B2, US10009161B2, US9894644B2, US10616932B2, US10594460B2, US10181931B2, US10638463B2, US11219000B2, US11627631B2, and US10721118B2 — cover a range of LTE and 5G New Radio wireless network technologies including resource scheduling, signalling procedures, channel configuration, and data transmission methods. The application numbers span filings from the mid-2010s through 2021, suggesting a portfolio assembled to track the evolution of 4G LTE through 5G NR standardisation cycles. The FRAND counterclaims raised by all defendants are consistent with these patents being declared or potentially declarable to standards bodies such as ETSI.
From a competitive intelligence perspective, an 11-patent wireless portfolio targeting all three major US carriers simultaneously — alongside equipment suppliers Ericsson and Nokia — represents a high-leverage assertion strategy targeting the full LTE/5G ecosystem. The accused products range from AT&T’s network infrastructure to flagship consumer handsets including Google Pixel and Motorola devices, indicating the patents are asserted at the network-practice level rather than device-specific implementation. For wireless OEMs, network operators, and infrastructure vendors, this portfolio represents ongoing royalty exposure if Pegasus pursues additional licensees.
Should you run an FTO against Pegasus Wireless’s LTE/5G patent portfolio?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or deploying LTE or 5G NR wireless equipment, handsets, or network infrastructure — including chipset vendors, OEMs, network operators, and MVNO operators — should assess exposure to Pegasus Wireless’s 11-patent portfolio. The coordinated assertion against AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, Ericsson, and Nokia demonstrates a systematic licensing campaign. Patents covering resource scheduling, channel configuration, and signalling procedures are frequently implicated by standard-compliant implementations, making FTO analysis against these grants commercially material.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map each of the 11 Pegasus patents against current claim scope, identify family members across jurisdictions, track inter partes review history, and benchmark against standard-essential patent declarations. With the noninfringement counterclaims preserved without prejudice, no binding technical finding of non-infringement exists on the public record — making independent FTO analysis essential for any operator or OEM yet to engage with this portfolio.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11405942B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar LTE/5G patent infringement cases in E.D. Texas against wireless carriers
Cases involving LTE/5G wireless network patent assertions against major US carriers in the Eastern District of Texas, including FRAND and standard-essential patent disputes.
What this case signals for the wireless SEP and 5G licensing IP landscape
A coordinated three-carrier dismissal with FRAND counterclaims resolved suggests the wireless patent licensing market is clearing through negotiation, not litigation.
FRAND counterclaims signal potential standard-essential patent exposure
AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon each filed FRAND-related counterclaims — breach of contract, failure to negotiate in good faith, and declaratory judgment of FRAND breach. Their presence suggests Pegasus’s patents are or were declared to a standards body. Any wireless operator or OEM engaging with LTE/5G technology should assess whether Pegasus’s 11-patent portfolio creates royalty exposure under FRAND licensing obligations.
Simultaneous multi-party dismissal is consistent with a portfolio licensing deal
Cases against AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, Ericsson, and Nokia were all dismissed within the same court order. This structural pattern — covering both network operators and infrastructure suppliers — is consistent with a global patent licence, though no terms are public. Companies in the LTE/5G supply chain should monitor whether Pegasus pursues additional defendants with the same portfolio.
Pegasus v AT&T — key questions answered
All claims were dismissed with prejudice by joint motion on 18 December 2025. Pegasus Wireless asserted 11 LTE/5G patents against AT&T and five affiliates in the Eastern District of Texas. The court granted the joint motion, dismissing all of Pegasus’s claims and AT&T’s FRAND counterclaims with prejudice, while AT&T’s noninfringement counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice. Each party bore its own costs.
Pegasus asserted eleven US patents: US11405942B2, US11540272B2, US10009161B2, US9894644B2, US10616932B2, US10594460B2, US10181931B2, US10638463B2, US11219000B2, US11627631B2, and US10721118B2. These patents cover LTE and 5G NR wireless network technologies including resource scheduling, channel configuration, and signalling procedures, with application filings spanning the mid-2010s to 2021.
The public record does not confirm standard-essential patent status, but the presence of FRAND-related counterclaims from AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, Ericsson, and Nokia — alleging breach of contract, failure to negotiate in good faith, and declaratory judgment of FRAND breach — is consistent with the patents being declared or potentially declarable to a standards body such as ETSI. These counterclaims were ultimately dismissed with prejudice.
The case was dismissed via joint motion with each party bearing its own costs, which is structurally consistent with a negotiated resolution, though no settlement terms are publicly confirmed. Parallel cases were filed simultaneously against T-Mobile (2:23-cv-00639) and Verizon (2:23-cv-00640), and all three were dismissed in the same court order, alongside claims against equipment vendors Ericsson and Nokia, suggesting a coordinated multi-party resolution.
The accused products included AT&T’s mobile network infrastructure and a range of consumer handsets offered on the AT&T network: Google Pixel 6, 6a, 7, 7 Pro, 7a, 8, 8 Pro, and Pixel Fold; Motorola Moto G Stylus 5G (2023), Motorola Razr (2023), Motorola Razr+; and the Sonim XP10. The breadth of accused handsets suggests the infringement theory is directed at network-level LTE/5G standard implementation rather than device-specific features.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.