RightQuestion v. AT&T: STIR/SHAKEN Patent Dispute Dismissed With Prejudice
RightQuestion, LLC brought a three-patent infringement action against AT&T and affiliated entities in the Eastern District of Texas, targeting the STIR/SHAKEN call authentication framework. After 648 days of litigation, the parties jointly moved to dismiss all claims with prejudice, signalling a confidential resolution between the parties.
Three call-authentication patents, one joint dismissal, and a confidential exit
Filed on 12 February 2024 before Judge Rodney Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas, RightQuestion, LLC v. AT&T, Inc. et al. (Case No. 2:24-cv-00094) is a patent infringement action in which RightQuestion asserted three patents — US11856132B2, US10674009B1, and US11005989B1 — against AT&T, Inc. and four AT&T-affiliated entities. The asserted patents cover STIR/SHAKEN technology, the FCC-mandated call authentication framework designed to combat robocall spoofing across carrier networks.
The case closed on 21 November 2025 when the Court granted the parties’ Joint Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 232), dismissing all claims and causes of action with prejudice. A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits that permanently bars RightQuestion from re-filing the same claims against the AT&T defendants in any court. The joint nature of the motion and the explicit statement that ‘the above-captioned cases have been resolved’ strongly suggests a confidential settlement was reached, though no financial terms appear in the public record.
At 648 days, the case ran long enough to encompass substantial claim construction and discovery activity before resolution — consistent with a negotiated exit timed to avoid trial. The involvement of multiple AT&T corporate entities (AT&T Corp., AT&T Mobility LLC, AT&T Mobility II LLC, and AT&T Services, Inc.) alongside the parent suggests RightQuestion sought broad coverage across AT&T’s STIR/SHAKEN-compliant network infrastructure. What drove the final terms, and whether RightQuestion holds parallel actions against other carriers, remains outside the public record.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 648 days
648 days — above the E.D. Tex. median for patent cases resolved before trial
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint motion means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice is a final, permanent bar to re-filing
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), a dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits. RightQuestion cannot reassert the same three STIR/SHAKEN patents against these AT&T entities in any future proceeding. The joint nature of the motion — filed by both parties — distinguishes this from a unilateral withdrawal and is the hallmark of a negotiated resolution, typically a confidential settlement.
Rule 41(b) — permanent barRightQuestion exits with prejudice — suggesting negotiated value extracted
Agreeing to a with-prejudice dismissal is an unusually strong concession for a plaintiff — it permanently forecloses re-litigation against these defendants. Patent holders typically accept this only when adequate consideration has been received. The public record is silent on financial terms, but the joint framing of ‘cases have been resolved’ is consistent with a licensing or settlement payment. RightQuestion’s three patents remain valid and potentially asserted against other carriers.
Patents survive — other defendants at riskAT&T secures a permanent release from these three patents
All five AT&T entities named in the action receive the benefit of the with-prejudice dismissal, shielding them permanently from RightQuestion’s three STIR/SHAKEN patents. AT&T avoided a trial verdict, preserving optionality on claim construction positions that could have had sector-wide implications. Any settlement payment would represent a fixed, bounded cost against the risk of a damages award across STIR/SHAKEN deployments at carrier scale.
Full release — all AT&T entities coveredOther carriers face residual exposure to the same patent family
STIR/SHAKEN compliance is mandatory for U.S. carriers under FCC rules, meaning virtually every domestic carrier has deployed technology within the scope of RightQuestion’s asserted claims. A with-prejudice dismissal against AT&T does not bind other defendants. RightQuestion’s patents — US11856132B2, US10674009B1, and US11005989B1 — remain live threats to Verizon (separately named in the joint motion), T-Mobile, and smaller CLECs operating STIR/SHAKEN infrastructure.
Industry-wide STIR/SHAKEN exposureFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | RightQuestion, LLC | Company | Call-authentication IP licensor — holder of US11856132B2, US10674009B1, and US11005989B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | AT&T, Inc. | Company | AT&T, Inc. and four affiliated entities operating STIR/SHAKEN-compliant carrier networksSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | At & T Services, Inc. | 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 ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrea Leigh Fair | Attorney | Counsel for RightQuestion, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David Alberti | Attorney | Counsel for RightQuestion, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jeremiah A. Armstrong | Attorney | Counsel for RightQuestion, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michele R. Woodruff Lyons | Attorney | Counsel for RightQuestion, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert C. Mattson | Attorney | Counsel for RightQuestion, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert F. Kramer | Attorney | Counsel for RightQuestion, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Russell Steven Tonkovich | Attorney | Counsel for RightQuestion, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sal Lim | Attorney | Counsel for RightQuestion, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Kramer Alberti Lim & Tonkovich LLP | Law Firm | Representing RightQuestion, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Miller Fair Henry PLLC | Law Firm | Representing RightQuestion, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Deron R. Dacus | Attorney | Counsel for 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 Court’s order adopts the parties’ joint characterisation that the cases ‘have been resolved,’ granting dismissal with prejudice across all claims and causes of action. The with-prejudice designation is legally significant: it constitutes a final disposition on the merits, permanently extinguishing RightQuestion’s right to re-assert these three patents against the named AT&T entities. The joint motion — covering AT&T and, as noted in the order, Verizon-affiliated defendants in the same instrument — is consistent with a coordinated, multi-defendant settlement rather than independent capitulation by either party.
US11856132B2, US10674009B1, US11005989B1 — STIR/SHAKEN call authentication
The three asserted patents — US11856132B2, US10674009B1, and US11005989B1, filed on application numbers US17/228566, US16/180373, and US16/785423 respectively — cover the STIR/SHAKEN (Secure Telephone Identity Revisited / Signature-based Handling of Asserted information using toKENs) framework. This FCC-mandated technology enables originating carriers to cryptographically attest to the legitimacy of caller ID information, passing signed tokens through the call-signalling chain to terminating carriers for verification. The patents span core aspects of attestation, token generation, and verification within this architecture.
From a competitive intelligence standpoint, these patents sit at the centre of a regulatory mandate: all U.S. voice carriers were required to implement STIR/SHAKEN under the TRACED Act and FCC orders. This creates an unusually broad addressable defendant universe — effectively the entire domestic carrier industry. RightQuestion’s decision to assert all three patents against AT&T’s full corporate structure, and simultaneously against Verizon entities, suggests a licensing-first strategy with litigation as leverage rather than a one-off enforcement action. The survival of these patents post-settlement preserves that leverage against remaining market participants.
Should you run an FTO against US11856132B2, US10674009B1, and US11005989B1?
Any organisation deploying, integrating, or building on STIR/SHAKEN infrastructure — including CLECs, UCaaS platforms, CPaaS providers, and voice-over-IP carriers — should treat RightQuestion’s three-patent portfolio as an active enforcement risk. The settlement with AT&T and Verizon does not create any estoppel or licence in favour of third parties. If your product stack touches call authentication, attestation, or token-based caller ID verification, a targeted FTO analysis is warranted before commercial scale-up.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your STIR/SHAKEN implementation against the claim landscapes of US11856132B2, US10674009B1, and US11005989B1 in minutes — surfacing claim overlaps, continuation applications in prosecution, and prior art that could inform invalidity positions. For in-house teams monitoring this portfolio, Eureka’s patent watch alerts will flag any new RightQuestion continuation filings before they issue and create additional enforcement risk.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11856132B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar STIR/SHAKEN and call-authentication patent cases in E.D. Tex.
Cases involving STIR/SHAKEN, robocall mitigation, and call-authentication patents before Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the STIR/SHAKEN and call-authentication IP landscape
RightQuestion’s multi-defendant strategy and negotiated exit reveal a calculated licensing campaign targeting FCC-mandated call authentication infrastructure.
STIR/SHAKEN compliance creates unavoidable patent exposure for all U.S. carriers
Because STIR/SHAKEN deployment is legally mandated by the FCC, carriers cannot design around the technology to avoid infringement risk. Any patent holder with valid claims over core call-authentication architecture sits in a structurally advantaged enforcement position. RightQuestion’s three-patent portfolio appears calibrated precisely for this leverage.
Joint dismissal with prejudice is the signature of a paid-up licence, not a capitulation
Patent holders rarely agree to with-prejudice dismissals without receiving value in return. The coordinated filing covering both the RightQuestion–AT&T case and the parallel Verizon action in the same motion (Dkt. No. 232) suggests a structured, potentially multi-defendant settlement — a pattern consistent with serial licensing campaigns in telecoms infrastructure.
RightQuestion v AT&T — key questions answered
RightQuestion, LLC filed a patent infringement action against AT&T, Inc. and four affiliated AT&T entities in the Eastern District of Texas on 12 February 2024, asserting three STIR/SHAKEN call authentication patents (US11856132B2, US10674009B1, US11005989B1). The case closed on 21 November 2025 when Judge Gilstrap granted the parties’ Joint Motion to Dismiss all claims with prejudice, indicating the dispute had been privately resolved.
A with-prejudice dismissal permanently bars RightQuestion from re-asserting the same three patents against the named AT&T entities. However, the patents themselves remain valid and enforceable against all other parties. RightQuestion retains the right to assert US11856132B2, US10674009B1, and US11005989B1 against other carriers, UCaaS providers, or CPaaS platforms that implement STIR/SHAKEN technology.
Five AT&T-affiliated entities were named: AT&T, Inc. (parent), AT&T Corp., AT&T Mobility LLC, AT&T Mobility II LLC, and AT&T Services, Inc. The breadth of named defendants suggests RightQuestion sought to capture STIR/SHAKEN deployments across AT&T’s wireline, wireless, and enterprise service divisions.
STIR/SHAKEN (Secure Telephone Identity Revisited / Signature-based Handling of Asserted information using toKENs) is a cryptographic call-authentication framework mandated by the FCC under the TRACED Act to combat robocall spoofing. Because compliance is legally required for U.S. voice carriers, patent holders asserting claims over core STIR/SHAKEN methods hold structural enforcement leverage — carriers cannot simply design around the technology without violating regulatory obligations.
The Joint Motion to Dismiss states that ‘the above-captioned cases have been resolved,’ which strongly suggests a settlement was reached. However, no financial terms, licence fees, or royalty rates appear in the public record. The with-prejudice nature of the dismissal is consistent with a paid-up licence or lump-sum payment, but this cannot be confirmed from public filings alone.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.