Peninsula Technologies v. DISH Wireless: 5G Patent Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
Peninsula Technologies asserted three US patents covering 3GPP 5G cellular network infrastructure against DISH Wireless, the operator of Boost Mobile-branded services. The Eastern District of Texas dismissed all claims without prejudice after 186 days, with each party bearing its own costs — leaving the door open for future litigation.
5G Infrastructure Patents Drive E.D. Texas Dispute Against Boost Mobile Operator
Peninsula Technologies, LLC filed suit against DISH Wireless, LLC — operating Boost Mobile-branded services — in the Eastern District of Texas on April 11, 2025. The complaint asserted infringement of three US patents: US11723109B2, US12144057B2, and US11570844B2, all directed to 3GPP 5G cellular network technology including cellular base stations. DISH Wireless, as one of the newer entrants to US nationwide 5G network buildout, presented a commercially significant target for 5G infrastructure patent assertions.
The parties filed a Joint Stipulated Motion for Dismissal Without Prejudice, which the court accepted on October 14, 2025, terminating all claims after 186 days. The order explicitly states each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees, and denied all pending relief requests as moot. A dismissal without prejudice means Peninsula Technologies retains the legal right to refile the same claims in the future — the merits were never adjudicated.
The 186-day timeline suggests the parties likely reached an understanding or settlement-adjacent resolution before any substantive merits ruling, though the public record is silent on the precise commercial terms. The without-prejudice structure preserves Peninsula’s enforcement leverage, which may reflect ongoing licensing negotiations or a tactical pause rather than a permanent resolution. Whether DISH Wireless secured a license, covenant not to sue, or simply called the plaintiff’s bluff remains undisclosed.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 186 days
186 days — shorter than the E.D. Texas median for patent cases proceeding to trial
Dismissed without prejudice: what the court order means for both parties
Without prejudice means the case can be refiled
A dismissal without prejudice terminates the current proceeding but does not bar Peninsula Technologies from reasserting the same three patents against DISH Wireless in the future. No merits ruling was entered, meaning patent validity, enforceability, and infringement remain entirely open questions. The joint stipulation signals mutual agreement — but the legal slate is not wiped clean for the defendant.
No merits adjudicationPublic record is silent on whether a license was granted
Unlike a dismissal with prejudice — which would permanently bar refiling — a without-prejudice dismissal leaves Peninsula’s enforcement rights intact. The order does not disclose whether the parties entered a license agreement, covenant not to sue, or any other commercial arrangement. IP professionals should not infer that DISH Wireless has cleared these three 5G patents; the basis for resolution is not publicly stated.
Enforcement rights preservedDISH Wireless avoids a merits ruling but faces residual risk
DISH Wireless (Boost Mobile) exits the case without any finding of infringement or validity. However, the without-prejudice dismissal means Peninsula retains the option to refile if negotiations break down. Baker Botts’s defense team — spanning California, Dallas, and Houston offices — suggests DISH took this assertion seriously. The own-costs order provides no signal as to which party held the stronger position at the time of settlement.
No infringement finding5G infrastructure patents remain a live risk for US network operators
This case is consistent with a broader trend of patent assertion activity targeting 3GPP 5G network buildout, particularly against operators expanding coverage using cellular base station technology. Other US carriers and MVNOs deploying 5G infrastructure should treat the three Peninsula patents as unresolved — no invalidity finding was entered. E.D. Texas remains the preferred venue for such assertions, reinforcing the need for proactive FTO analysis in 5G stack procurement.
5G patent risk remains liveFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Peninsula Technologies, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US11723109B2, US12144057B2, and US11570844B2 covering 5G cellular network technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Dish Wireless, LLC | Company | DISH Wireless, LLC — operator of Boost Mobile-branded 3GPP 5G cellular network services across the USSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brandon Gregory Moore | Attorney | Counsel for Peninsula Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Janson Westmoreland | Attorney | Counsel for Peninsula Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathan Hart Rastegar | Attorney | Counsel for Peninsula Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nathan Louis Levenson | Attorney | Counsel for Peninsula Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Patrick Joseph Conroy | Attorney | Counsel for Peninsula Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ryan P. Griffin | Attorney | Counsel for Peninsula Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC | Law Firm | Representing Peninsula Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC (Dallas) | Law Firm | Representing Peninsula Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ali Dhanani | Attorney | Counsel for Dish Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brian Hausman | Attorney | Counsel for Dish Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Charles Stephen Maule | Attorney | Counsel for Dish Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | George Hopkins Guy , III | Attorney | Counsel for Dish Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Griffin Randolph Tolle | Attorney | Counsel for Dish Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jamie Roy Lynn | Attorney | Counsel for Dish Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kurt Max Pankratz | Attorney | Counsel for Dish Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Baker Botts LLP | Law Firm | Representing Dish Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Baker Botts LLP (Cailfornia) | Law Firm | Representing Dish Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Baker Botts LLP (Dallas) | Law Firm | Representing Dish Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Baker Botts LLP (Houston) | Law Firm | Representing Dish Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order adopts the parties’ joint stipulation verbatim, accepting and acknowledging the dismissal without prejudice of all claims and causes of action. The explicit ‘WITHOUT PREJUDICE’ designation is legally significant — it imposes no res judicata bar on Peninsula’s three 5G patents. The own-costs order, while standard in stipulated dismissals, provides no inference about relative bargaining strength or which party drove the resolution. No claim construction, validity ruling, or infringement finding was entered.
US11723109B2, US12144057B2 & US11570844B2 — 3GPP 5G Cellular Network Technology
The three asserted patents — US11723109B2 (App. No. US17/973830), US12144057B2 (App. No. US18/103393), and US11570844B2 (App. No. US17/709691) — are directed to 3GPP 5G cellular network technology, with the accused products specifically including cellular base stations used to deliver Boost Mobile-branded services. The application numbers suggest relatively recent filings timed to the commercial rollout of 5G infrastructure in the United States, positioning these patents squarely in the current network buildout cycle.
DISH Wireless represents one of the most significant 5G buildout programs in US telecoms, having committed to nationwide 5G coverage as a condition of regulatory approval for prior spectrum acquisitions. Asserting 5G cellular network patents against DISH carries strategic weight beyond this single defendant — a licensing outcome or adverse ruling would set pricing precedent for the broader industry. Peninsula’s three-patent portfolio, covering base station-level technology, creates risk for any operator or equipment vendor deploying 3GPP-compliant 5G infrastructure.
Should you run an FTO against US11723109B2, US12144057B2, and US11570844B2?
Any company deploying, selling, or integrating 3GPP 5G cellular base station technology in the United States faces potential exposure to Peninsula Technologies’ three asserted patents. This includes mobile network operators, tower companies, RAN equipment vendors, and MVNOs deploying Boost Mobile-equivalent services. Because the case closed without any invalidity finding, all three patents remain fully enforceable — and Peninsula retains the right to refile against DISH or assert against new targets.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product specifications against the claim scope of US11723109B2, US12144057B2, and US11570844B2, flag design-around opportunities, and identify prior art that could support an IPR petition if you face a similar assertion. Monitoring alerts on Peninsula Technologies’ portfolio will flag any continuation filings or new litigation activity before it reaches your legal team reactively.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11723109B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar 5G Network Patent Cases in the Eastern District of Texas
Browse related 3GPP 5G cellular infrastructure patent assertions filed in the Eastern District of Texas, including cases involving base station technology and wireless network operators.
What this case signals for the 5G cellular infrastructure IP landscape
Peninsula v. DISH Wireless reflects escalating patent assertion pressure on US 5G network operators — with no judicial resolution to guide the market.
Without-prejudice dismissals preserve the plaintiff’s next move
Patent holders increasingly use dismissals without prejudice as a negotiating tool — exiting court while retaining the right to refile. Operators in the 5G space should treat this outcome as a pause, not a resolution. If licensing terms were not agreed, Peninsula could reassert these patents against DISH or other carriers at any time.
E.D. Texas remains the dominant venue for 5G infrastructure patent cases
Filing in the Eastern District of Texas signals a plaintiff confident in local procedural advantages, including speed to trial and plaintiff-friendly case management. Network operators and equipment vendors building 3GPP 5G infrastructure should actively monitor E.D. Texas dockets for similar assertions targeting cellular base station deployments.
Peninsula v Dish — key questions answered
Peninsula Technologies asserted three US patents: US11723109B2, US12144057B2, and US11570844B2, all covering 3GPP 5G cellular network technology. The accused products included cellular base stations used to deliver Boost Mobile-branded services by DISH Wireless.
The parties filed a Joint Stipulated Motion for Dismissal Without Prejudice, which the Eastern District of Texas accepted on October 14, 2025. The public record does not disclose the commercial terms behind the resolution — it is unknown whether a license, covenant not to sue, or other arrangement was reached. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
A dismissal without prejudice means no merits ruling was entered on patent validity or infringement. DISH Wireless (Boost Mobile) avoids a finding of liability, but Peninsula Technologies retains the legal right to refile the same three 5G patents against DISH or other parties in the future. The dismissal does not clear the patents for any other market participant.
Peninsula Technologies was represented by Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC, including attorneys Brandon Gregory Moore, Jonathan Hart Rastegar, Patrick Joseph Conroy, and others. DISH Wireless was defended by Baker Botts LLP across Dallas, Houston, and California offices, with attorneys including Kurt Max Pankratz, George Hopkins Guy III, and Ali Dhanani.
Yes, meaningfully. Because the case resolved without any invalidity or non-infringement ruling, all three Peninsula patents — US11723109B2, US12144057B2, and US11570844B2 — remain fully enforceable. Other US carriers, RAN vendors, and MVNOs deploying 3GPP 5G base station technology retain exposure and should consider FTO analysis and IPR monitoring for these patent numbers.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.