Peninsula Technologies v. Dish Wireless: Four-Patent Wireless Dispute Ends in Joint Dismissal
Peninsula Technologies, LLC sued Dish Wireless, LLC — the operator behind Boost Mobile — asserting four US wireless network patents in the Eastern District of Texas. The parties jointly moved to dismiss all claims without prejudice after 189 days, with each side bearing its own costs.
Joint dismissal in Boost Mobile patent dispute leaves door open for refiling
Peninsula Technologies, LLC filed Case No. 2:25-cv-00386 in the Eastern District of Texas on April 11, 2025, asserting infringement of four US patents — US11824810B2, US11792743B2, US9844009B2, and US11917549B2 — against Dish Wireless, LLC, the entity operating the Boost Mobile wireless service. The complaint targeted Boost Mobile’s consumer-facing wireless offerings, putting four distinct patent families covering wireless network technologies squarely at issue.
On October 17, 2025, the court granted a Joint Stipulated Motion for Dismissal without Prejudice filed by both parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). All claims were dismissed without prejudice, meaning Peninsula Technologies retains the legal right to refile the same infringement claims. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees — a cost-neutral resolution that neither confirms nor denies the merits of the underlying patent assertions.
The case resolved in 189 days — well before any scheduled trial or claim construction hearing would typically occur in E.D. Texas, suggesting settlement discussions or licensing negotiations may have run in parallel with the litigation. Because the dismissal is without prejudice and on joint motion, the public record does not disclose whether a licensing agreement, a covenant not to sue, or some other commercial arrangement underlies the resolution. The four asserted patents remain enforceable and could be asserted again.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 189 days
189-day lifespan — below the E.D. Texas median for patent cases proceeding to trial
Dismissed without prejudice: what the joint order means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal without prejudice explained
A dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) terminates the current action without resolving the merits. Critically, it does not bar the plaintiff from filing a new action on the same patents. The joint nature of the motion signals mutual agreement — neither party forced the other’s hand — but the court’s order is silent on any underlying terms.
Claims survive; may be refiledPeninsula Technologies preserves all four patent assertions
Because the dismissal is without prejudice, Peninsula Technologies retains the ability to reassert US11824810B2, US11792743B2, US9844009B2, and US11917549B2 against Dish Wireless or any other party. No adverse ruling on validity or infringement was entered. The patents remain active and enforceable, and Peninsula’s litigation posture is substantively unchanged.
Patents remain enforceableDish Wireless exits without a merits finding — but no permanent shield
Dish Wireless secures an exit from this specific action without any finding of infringement, but without prejudice dismissal means it has not obtained a declaratory judgment of non-infringement or invalidity. Should no licensing or covenant-not-to-sue arrangement underlie this resolution, Boost Mobile’s services remain exposed to future assertion of the same four patents. The cost-neutral order avoids any financial penalty.
No infringement finding; no shieldSettlement or licensing deal likely — but public record is silent
Joint dismissals without prejudice at this stage of E.D. Texas proceedings typically suggest a commercial resolution — commonly a licensing agreement or structured covenant not to sue — negotiated between the parties. However, none of those terms are disclosed in the public docket. Competitors and investors in the Boost Mobile or broader MVNO market cannot confirm whether a royalty obligation or technology agreement was reached.
Terms undisclosed; monitor for refilingFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Peninsula Technologies, LLC | Company | Wireless patent licensing entity — holder of US11824810B2 and three related wireless network patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Dish Wireless, LLC | Company | Dish Wireless, LLC d/b/a Boost Mobile — US consumer wireless carrier and MVNO operatorSearch 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, granting dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2) and ordering each side to bear its own costs. The phrasing ‘all claims in this action are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE’ is unambiguous: no merits adjudication occurred, no patent was held valid or invalid, and no infringement was found or denied. The cost-neutrality clause — rather than any fee award — reinforces the cooperative nature of the exit and is consistent with a negotiated commercial resolution reached outside the court’s visibility.
US11824810B2, US11792743B2, US9844009B2 & US11917549B2 — Wireless Network Technologies
The four patents asserted in this action — US11824810B2 (App. No. US17/313724), US11792743B2 (App. No. US18/056452), US9844009B2 (App. No. US15/470145), and US11917549B2 (App. No. US17/864010) — collectively cover wireless network communication technologies relevant to consumer mobile service delivery. The application numbers span multiple filing windows, suggesting a prosecution strategy designed to build a layered portfolio across successive wireless technology generations.
Asserting this four-patent portfolio against Boost Mobile — a significant MVNO and one of the more disruptive entrants in the US consumer wireless market — signals that Peninsula Technologies views the Dish Wireless network stack as materially overlapping with its claimed inventions. For wireless carriers, MVNOs, and network equipment vendors, the breadth of this portfolio across multiple application dates raises a meaningful risk that commercially deployed wireless network features could be captured within at least some of the asserted claims.
Should you run an FTO against US11824810B2 and the Peninsula Technologies portfolio?
Any company deploying consumer-facing wireless services, operating as an MVNO, or supplying network equipment to US mobile carriers should treat this four-patent portfolio as a live FTO concern. The dismissal without prejudice does not retire the patents. If your product roadmap includes wireless network management, data transmission, or mobile connectivity features that overlap with the claimed technologies, a proactive FTO assessment is warranted before commercial deployment or expansion.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to map product features against the full claim scope of US11824810B2, US11792743B2, US9844009B2, and US11917549B2 simultaneously. Eureka surfaces relevant prior art, identifies claim differentiation opportunities, and flags prosecution history estoppel — giving your team an evidence-based foundation for design-around decisions and licensing strategy before you face a complaint in E.D. Texas.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11824810B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar wireless network patent cases in E.D. Texas and related venues
Explore comparable patent infringement actions involving wireless network technologies and MVNO operators in the Eastern District of Texas and similar venues.
What this case signals for the wireless and MVNO IP landscape
Four wireless network patents, a major MVNO operator, and a cost-neutral joint dismissal — the signals here matter for anyone operating in the US wireless space.
E.D. Texas remains a preferred venue for wireless patent assertions
Peninsula Technologies selected the Eastern District of Texas — consistently one of the most plaintiff-friendly venues for patent litigation. Companies operating consumer wireless services, including MVNOs like Boost Mobile, should treat E.D. Texas filings as a high-priority litigation risk indicator and ensure FTO coverage for core network technologies.
Without-prejudice dismissal means the four patents are still in play
The joint dismissal without prejudice leaves US11824810B2, US11792743B2, US9844009B2, and US11917549B2 fully enforceable. Wireless carriers, network equipment vendors, and MVNOs whose products touch the technical claims of these patent families should conduct or refresh freedom-to-operate analysis before assuming this dispute is over.
Peninsula v Dish — key questions answered
Peninsula Technologies, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Dish Wireless, LLC d/b/a Boost Mobile in the Eastern District of Texas on April 11, 2025, asserting four wireless network patents. The case was jointly dismissed without prejudice on October 17, 2025, after 189 days, with each party bearing its own costs. No merits determination was made.
Peninsula Technologies asserted US11824810B2, US11792743B2, US9844009B2, and US11917549B2 — four patents covering wireless network communication technologies. The corresponding application numbers are US17/313724, US18/056452, US15/470145, and US17/864010 respectively. All four patents remain enforceable following the dismissal.
A dismissal without prejudice means the court terminated the case without ruling on the merits. Peninsula Technologies retains the legal right to refile infringement claims based on the same four patents against Dish Wireless or any other party. No finding of infringement, validity, or invalidity was made, and the patents remain active and potentially assertable.
The public docket does not disclose whether a settlement, licensing agreement, or covenant not to sue was reached. The joint nature of the dismissal motion and the cost-neutral order — each party bears its own fees — is consistent with a negotiated resolution, but no financial terms or licensing arrangements have been publicly confirmed.
The Eastern District of Texas is one of the most frequently chosen venues for patent infringement actions in the United States, particularly by patent assertion entities. Its established patent case procedures, experienced judiciary, and historically plaintiff-favorable statistics make it a strategically attractive filing jurisdiction for IP holders asserting wireless and technology patents against major commercial defendants.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.