Redwood Technologies v. Netgear: Five Wireless Patents, Dismissed Without Prejudice
Redwood Technologies, LLC filed suit against Netgear, Inc. in Delaware District Court asserting five patents covering MIMO-OFDM transmission, CTS signalling, and modulation signal generation. The case ran for 980 days before ending on a stipulated dismissal without prejudice — leaving all claims legally unresolved and refiling rights intact.
A 980-Day Wireless Patent Battle That Left All Claims Open
On 27 September 2022, Redwood Technologies, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Netgear, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware before Judge Gregory B. Williams. Redwood asserted five patents — US9628300B2, US8005165B2, US10341071B2, US10075272B2, and US8654754B2 — covering core wireless communication technologies including MIMO-OFDM transmission, clear-to-send (CTS) signal framing, modulation signal generation, and radio transmission methods relevant to Netgear’s networking product lines.
After 980 days of litigation, the parties filed a Stipulation of Dismissal Without Prejudice, and the court closed the case on 3 June 2025. A dismissal without prejudice means the court issued no ruling on the merits of any infringement, validity, or damages claim. Redwood retains the legal right to refile suit on the same patents against Netgear, and Netgear has received no judicial finding of non-infringement or invalidity that it could invoke as a defence in future proceedings.
The nearly three-year duration before a non-merits dismissal is notable and suggests the parties likely engaged in substantial discovery or licensing negotiations before reaching resolution — though the public record is silent on any settlement terms. The simultaneous multi-patent assertion across MIMO-OFDM and related signalling technology is consistent with a licensing-focused enforcement strategy, and the without-prejudice posture leaves open the possibility of future enforcement against Netgear or similarly situated wireless equipment manufacturers.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 980 days
980 days — notably long for a case ending without a merits ruling
Dismissed without prejudice: what the stipulation means for both parties
Stipulated dismissal without prejudice — no merits ruling
A stipulation of dismissal without prejudice is a mutual agreement by both parties to end the litigation without a court ruling on infringement, validity, or damages. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, the claims are treated as if they were never finally adjudicated. Neither party concedes anything on the merits, and no binding precedent is established. The court simply closes the docket.
No merits adjudicationRedwood retains the right to sue again on all five patents
Because the dismissal is without prejudice, Redwood Technologies is not barred from bringing a new action against Netgear on any or all of the five asserted patents. Netgear cannot invoke claim or issue preclusion based on this outcome. This preserves maximum optionality for Redwood and means the commercial risk for Netgear has not been formally extinguished. The public record does not disclose whether a licence, covenant not to sue, or other commercial arrangement underpins the dismissal.
Refiling rights preservedNetgear obtains no invalidity or non-infringement finding
Netgear exits this case without any judicial declaration that it does not infringe, or that the five asserted patents are invalid or unenforceable. This is a meaningful distinction from a defendant win on the merits. Should Redwood refile — or assert the same patents against other wireless equipment vendors — Netgear cannot point to this dismissal as dispositive protection. The stipulated nature of the exit does suggest some form of negotiated resolution, but the terms are not public.
No protective finding for NetgearFive MIMO-OFDM patents remain live enforcement risk for Wi-Fi ecosystem
The five patents in suit cover foundational wireless communication techniques — MIMO-OFDM transmission, CTS signalling, and modulation signal generation — that are broadly relevant to Wi-Fi and cellular equipment manufacturers. Because no claim was invalidated or adjudicated, these patents remain fully enforceable. Other wireless networking vendors producing similar products to Netgear should treat these patents as active IP risk until a final invalidity ruling or expiry removes them from the landscape.
Patents remain enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Redwood Technologies, LLC | Company | Wireless communications patent licensor — holder of US9628300B2 and four related patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Netgear, Inc. | Company | Netgear, Inc. — US-based manufacturer of consumer and enterprise networking equipmentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John P. Murphy | Attorney | Counsel for Redwood Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathan H. Rastegar | Attorney | Counsel for Redwood Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Patrick J. Conroy | Attorney | Counsel for Redwood Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ronald P. Golden , III | Attorney | Counsel for Redwood Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Stephen B. Brauerman | Attorney | Counsel for Redwood Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Thomas W. Kennedy | Attorney | Counsel for Redwood Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Bayard PA | Law Firm | Representing Redwood Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brock S. Weber | Attorney | Counsel for Netgear, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christopher Kao | Attorney | Counsel for Netgear, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Steven J. Balick | Attorney | Counsel for Netgear, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Ashby & Geddes PC | Law Firm | Representing Netgear, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Gregory B. Williams | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation of dismissal without prejudice is a procedural endpoint, not a substantive ruling. The phrasing confirms both parties agreed to terminate — neither was compelled by the court. Critically, this means Judge Williams issued no claim construction order, no summary judgment, and no infringement finding that either party can leverage in future proceedings. For Redwood, the five patents emerge with their enforceability legally intact. For Netgear, the absence of an invalidity or non-infringement finding means this docket entry provides no shield against reassertion.
US9628300B2 — CTS signalling and MIMO-OFDM wireless communication patents
The five asserted patents span core wireless communication stack technologies. US9628300B2 covers CTS signal framing — a MAC-layer coordination mechanism essential to collision avoidance in Wi-Fi networks. US8005165B2 targets MIMO-OFDM transmission and reception, the foundational physical-layer technology behind 802.11n and later Wi-Fi standards. US10341071B2 addresses modulation signal generation, US10075272B2 covers radio transmission apparatus and methods, and US8654754B2 relates to transmission and reception signal generation. Application dates span from the 12/840024 filing through to 15/811954, reflecting a portfolio built across multiple prosecution generations.
Collectively, these patents touch technologies embedded across the modern Wi-Fi hardware ecosystem — from consumer routers to enterprise access points and Wi-Fi chipsets. Assertions of this kind against a major networking OEM like Netgear suggest the portfolio holder believes implementation-level infringement exists in commercial products. For chipset designers, router manufacturers, and wireless module vendors, the breadth of the portfolio — spanning MAC-layer signalling through physical-layer modulation — means exposure is not limited to a single product component. Any firm shipping 802.11n/ac/ax compliant hardware should assess whether its implementation falls within the scope of these claims.
Should you run an FTO against US9628300B2 and the Redwood wireless patent portfolio?
If your organisation designs, manufactures, or sells Wi-Fi routers, access points, wireless chipsets, or MIMO-OFDM-enabled networking equipment, the five patents asserted in this case represent a directly relevant FTO risk. The dismissal without prejudice in the Netgear case does not extinguish these patents or create any safe harbour for third parties. R&D and product teams shipping 802.11n, ac, or ax products should specifically assess CTS signalling implementation, MIMO-OFDM physical layer design, and modulation signal generation circuitry against each of the five patent claim sets.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can run automated claim mapping across all five patents in this portfolio — US9628300B2, US8005165B2, US10341071B2, US10075272B2, and US8654754B2 — against your product specifications and prior art landscape. Eureka can surface claim-by-claim similarity scores, identify cited prior art that may support invalidity arguments, and flag prosecution history estoppel risks. For IP teams monitoring Redwood Technologies’ broader assertion activity, Eureka’s portfolio tracking tools provide real-time alerts on new filings, continuations, and related litigation.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9628300B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar MIMO-OFDM and wireless patent infringement cases in Delaware District Court
Explore related patent infringement actions involving MIMO-OFDM, CTS signalling, and wireless communication patents litigated in Delaware District Court.
What this case signals for the wireless communications IP landscape
A 980-day multi-patent assertion ending without prejudice is a pattern worth watching across the Wi-Fi and MIMO-OFDM sector.
Without-prejudice exits after lengthy litigation suggest negotiated licensing
When a patent assertion case runs nearly three years and terminates by stipulation without prejudice, the most commercially plausible explanation is a licensing arrangement or covenant not to sue. Companies operating in the MIMO-OFDM or Wi-Fi hardware space should treat this outcome as consistent with an ongoing licensing programme rather than a dropped case.
All five patents remain unscathed — no IPR outcome on public record
None of the five asserted patents — US9628300B2, US8005165B2, US10341071B2, US10075272B2, or US8654754B2 — received a merits ruling on validity or infringement in this case. Wireless equipment manufacturers and their IP teams should independently assess exposure before assuming the dismissal signals patent weakness.
Redwood v Netgear — key questions answered
The case was dismissed without prejudice by stipulation of the parties on 3 June 2025, after 980 days of litigation. No merits ruling was issued on infringement, validity, or damages. Redwood Technologies retains the right to refile suit against Netgear on the same five patents.
Redwood asserted five patents: US9628300B2 (CTS signal framing), US8005165B2 (MIMO-OFDM transmission and reception), US10341071B2 (modulation signal generation), US10075272B2 (radio transmission apparatus), and US8654754B2 (transmission and reception signal generation). All five remain enforceable following the without-prejudice dismissal.
No. A dismissal without prejudice creates no precedent and establishes no invalidity or non-infringement finding. Third parties — including other wireless networking equipment manufacturers — cannot rely on this dismissal as a shield against assertion of the same five patents. Each potential defendant must independently assess its own exposure.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, a stipulation of dismissal without prejudice terminates the litigation by mutual agreement without any court ruling on the merits. The plaintiff retains the right to refile the same claims. No claim preclusion, issue preclusion, or invalidity finding arises. It is distinct from a voluntary dismissal with prejudice, which would permanently bar refiling.
The public record does not disclose the specific reasons. A 980-day duration prior to a stipulated non-merits dismissal is consistent with extensive discovery, claim construction proceedings, or prolonged licensing negotiations. The without-prejudice posture suggests the parties may have reached a commercial resolution — potentially a licence or covenant — though no settlement terms are publicly available.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.