Pegasus Wireless Innovation v. T-Mobile — Five 5G Patents Dismissed Without Prejudice
Pegasus Wireless Innovation, LLC filed suit against T-Mobile in the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of five wireless network patents across the T-Mobile REVVL, Google Pixel 9, and Motorola device lines. The case was dismissed without prejudice after 281 days, leaving the door open for future re-filing.
Five 5G Patents, One Major Carrier, and a Door Left Open
Pegasus Wireless Innovation, LLC filed this infringement action on 12 March 2025 in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap — one of the most active patent benches in the country. The complaint asserted five U.S. patents (US10897720B2, US11671218B2, US10791530B2, US11569958B2, and US10925079B2) against T-Mobile, targeting a broad portfolio of 4G/LTE and 5G-capable handsets including T-Mobile’s own REVVL lineup, multiple Google Pixel 9 variants, and the Motorola razr and edge families.
The case was terminated on 18 December 2025 — 281 days after filing — via dismissal without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice means the court did not reach the merits of the infringement or validity questions; neither party obtained a substantive win or loss. Pegasus retains the right to re-file the same claims subject to applicable statutes of limitations, and T-Mobile walks away without a judgment of non-infringement or invalidity that could be used defensively in future proceedings.
The relatively swift resolution — under nine months in E.D. Texas — is consistent with early-stage settlement negotiations or a licensing agreement reached before substantial claim construction activity. The public record does not disclose the terms of any settlement, and the dismissal without prejudice leaves the strategic relationship between the parties, and the five asserted patents, legally unresolved. Competitors operating in the 5G device and network space should treat these patents as still viable enforcement assets.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 281 days
281 days — resolved before trial in E.D. Texas, where median patent case duration typically exceeds 2 years
Dismissed without prejudice: what this outcome means for both parties
Dismissal without prejudice leaves all claims legally alive
A dismissal without prejudice is a procedural termination that does not adjudicate the underlying merits. No finding of infringement, non-infringement, or invalidity was entered. Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Pegasus Wireless retains the right to re-file the same infringement claims against T-Mobile or other defendants, subject only to the applicable six-year statute of limitations on patent damages.
No merits rulingPegasus retains enforcement rights across all five patents
Pegasus Wireless exits the case with its entire patent portfolio intact and no adverse ruling on validity or claim scope. The dismissal without prejudice preserves maximum optionality: Pegasus can re-file against T-Mobile, pursue the same patents against other wireless carriers or device OEMs, or use the litigation as leverage in licensing discussions. The five patents covering 4G/LTE and 5G network technology remain fully enforceable assets.
Patents remain enforceableT-Mobile avoids judgment but gains no invalidity shield
T-Mobile’s dismissal without prejudice provides immediate relief from litigation costs and the risk of an injunction or damages award, but it does not extinguish future exposure. Without a judgment of invalidity or non-infringement, T-Mobile cannot invoke res judicata or collateral estoppel to block a re-filed suit. The REVVL, Pixel, and Motorola device lines remain potentially exposed if Pegasus re-files or pursues licensing demands.
No invalidity shield obtained5G device ecosystem faces ongoing licensing pressure from these patents
The breadth of accused products — spanning T-Mobile’s own branded devices, Google Pixel 9, and multiple Motorola lines — signals that Pegasus’s licensing strategy targets the entire 5G handset distribution chain. Other wireless carriers and device retailers selling 4G/LTE and 5G-capable handsets should assess exposure to the same patent family. The unresolved dismissal suggests commercial resolution is possible, but the terms and scope of any agreement remain undisclosed.
Broader sector exposure likelyFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Pegasus Wireless Innovation, LLC | Company | Wireless IP licensing entity — holder of US10897720B2 and four related 5G/LTE network patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | T-Mobile | Individual | T-Mobile — major U.S. wireless carrier and retailer of 4G/5G handsets including the REVVL device lineSearch 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 | 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 | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for 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 verdict entry — ‘DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE’ — reflects a procedural termination with no adjudication of infringement, validity, or claim construction. The phrasing is unambiguous: neither party is bound by a merits finding. For Pegasus, the five asserted patents emerge from this litigation with their full legal force intact. For T-Mobile, there is no estoppel protection. The basis of termination is consistent with a negotiated resolution, though no settlement terms are on the public docket.
US10897720B2 and four co-asserted 5G/LTE wireless network patents
The five asserted patents — US10897720B2, US11671218B2, US10791530B2, US11569958B2, and US10925079B2 — form a related family directed at wireless network communication technology spanning 4G LTE and 5G implementations. The patents issued between 2020 and 2023 based on applications filed from 2018 onwards, placing their priority dates in the period when 5G standardisation and commercial rollout were accelerating. The technical domain covers network signalling, resource management, and device-to-network communication protocols relevant to commercially deployed handsets.
For the wireless sector, this patent family represents meaningful risk because the claims appear to target implementation-level functionality present across device categories — not a single OEM’s proprietary design. The assertion against T-Mobile’s REVVL line, Google Pixel 9 variants, and Motorola devices simultaneously suggests broad claim coverage that could apply to any handset implementing standard 4G/5G air interface protocols. Carriers, device OEMs, and chipset suppliers whose products support LTE and 5G should assess whether their implementations fall within the scope of this family.
Should your 5G device portfolio be assessed against US10897720B2 and family?
Any organisation developing, manufacturing, importing, or distributing 4G LTE or 5G-capable handsets in the U.S. market should treat this patent family as an active FTO concern. The case named T-Mobile’s branded REVVL devices, Google Pixel 9 series, and multiple Motorola lines — covering the full spectrum from carrier-branded to flagship OEM handsets. If your product line overlaps with any of these categories, a claims-to-implementation mapping exercise is warranted before Pegasus’s licensing programme reaches your business.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent claims of US10897720B2 and its co-asserted family members against published technical specifications of 5G devices and LTE network implementations, flag prosecution history estoppel, and identify prior art that could support an IPR petition. For in-house IP teams managing 5G product portfolios, Eureka can also monitor Pegasus Wireless Innovation’s filing activity and litigation history to provide early warning of new assertions in this family.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10897720B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar 5G wireless patent infringement cases in E.D. Texas
Cases involving 5G and LTE wireless network patent assertions against carriers and device OEMs before Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the 5G wireless IP licensing landscape
A five-patent assertion against T-Mobile’s entire device lineup — resolved quietly in under nine months — carries clear signals for the wireless sector.
Dismissal without prejudice is not a safe harbour for defendants
T-Mobile’s exit without a merits ruling means every accused product line remains exposed. Companies in similar positions — carriers, device OEMs, retailers — should not treat a WOP dismissal as resolution. The same patents can be re-filed, and without an IPR or declaratory judgment win, there is no structural defence against re-assertion.
E.D. Texas remains the jurisdiction of choice for wireless patent NPEs
Pegasus filed before Judge Gilstrap in Marshall — a deliberate choice reflecting the court’s plaintiff-friendly reputation and efficient docket management. Wireless IP holders consistently choose E.D. Texas for 5G-related assertions. Defendants operating in this space should treat E.D. Texas filings as a standing risk and maintain pre-litigation readiness.
Pegasus v T-Mobile — key questions answered
The case was dismissed without prejudice on 18 December 2025, 281 days after filing. Pegasus Wireless Innovation asserted five wireless patents against T-Mobile in the Eastern District of Texas. No merits ruling on infringement or validity was entered, and the terms of any resolution are not on the public record.
Pegasus asserted five patents: US10897720B2, US11671218B2, US10791530B2, US11569958B2, and US10925079B2. All five relate to wireless network communication technology covering 4G LTE and 5G implementations, with applications filed between 2018 and 2021 and grants between 2020 and 2023.
Accused products included the T-Mobile REVVL 6x 5G, REVVL 6x PRO 5G, REVVL 7 5G, REVVL 7 PRO 5G, Google Pixel 8a, Pixel 9, Pixel 9 Pro, Pixel 9 Pro Fold, Pixel 9 Pro XL, and multiple Motorola models including the razr 2024, razr+ 2024, edge 2024, moto g power 5G 2024, and moto g 5G 2024, among others.
No. A dismissal without prejudice does not create a judgment of non-infringement or invalidity, so T-Mobile cannot invoke res judicata or collateral estoppel. Pegasus retains the right to re-file the same claims subject to the patent damages statute of limitations. T-Mobile has not obtained an IPR or declaratory judgment that would provide a structural defence.
The Eastern District of Texas, particularly before Judge Rodney Gilstrap in Marshall, is a preferred venue for NPE patent assertions due to its plaintiff-friendly procedural history, experienced patent bench, and relatively efficient docket management. Wireless IP holders frequently file 5G and LTE-related infringement actions there, making it a consistent risk jurisdiction for carriers and device OEMs operating in the U.S. market.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.