RightQuestion v. Verizon: STIR/SHAKEN Patent Case Dismissed With Prejudice
RightQuestion, LLC filed suit against Verizon and four of its subsidiaries in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting three patents covering STIR/SHAKEN call authentication technology. After 651 days of litigation, the parties jointly moved to dismiss all claims with prejudice, with each side bearing its own costs.
Three STIR/SHAKEN patents, five Verizon entities, one joint dismissal
RightQuestion, LLC filed this infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas on February 9, 2024, naming Verizon Communications, Inc. and four affiliated entities — Verizon Corporate Services Group Inc., TracFone Wireless, Inc., Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, and Verizon Business Network Services, LLC — as defendants. The suit asserted three patents: US11856132B2, US10674009B1, and US11005989B1, all directed to STIR/SHAKEN call authentication technology used to combat robocalls and caller ID spoofing across carrier networks.
The case closed on November 21, 2025, via a joint motion to dismiss filed by all parties. The court granted the motion and dismissed all claims and causes of action with prejudice, meaning RightQuestion cannot refile the same claims against these defendants. The order also specified that each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees — a term that typically signals a negotiated resolution rather than a unilateral capitulation, as fee-shifting would otherwise be on the table.
At 651 days, the case ran well past the typical timeline for agreed dismissals, suggesting substantive discovery or claim construction activity preceded any resolution. The public record does not disclose whether a licensing agreement, cross-license, or financial settlement accompanied the dismissal; the ‘cases have been resolved’ language in the joint motion is consistent with a confidential commercial settlement. Notably, the same joint motion also resolved a companion AT&T case, suggesting a broader multi-carrier resolution may have been negotiated simultaneously.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 651 days
651 days — longer than the median E.D. Tex. patent case resolution of roughly 400–500 days
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint order means for both parties
With-prejudice dismissal bars refiling these claims
A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits for preclusion purposes. RightQuestion cannot refile the same patent infringement claims against these Verizon entities in any court. The joint nature of the motion — filed by both parties — is the procedural hallmark of a negotiated resolution, distinguishing it from a unilateral concession or adverse ruling.
Rule 41(a)(2) joint dismissalRightQuestion’s patents remain valid but enforcement is foreclosed against Verizon
The dismissal with prejudice extinguishes RightQuestion’s right to pursue these three STIR/SHAKEN patents against the named Verizon entities. However, the patents themselves are not invalidated — no court finding of invalidity or non-infringement was made. RightQuestion retains the ability to assert the same patents against other carriers or third parties, and the ‘cases resolved’ language suggests it may have received consideration in exchange.
Patents remain in forceVerizon entities obtain permanent protection from these specific claims
All five Verizon entities — including TracFone and Cellco Partnership — receive res judicata protection against RightQuestion’s three asserted patents. This provides operational certainty for their STIR/SHAKEN implementations. The ‘each party bears own costs’ term is consistent with Verizon having agreed to pay something in settlement, as defendants who prevail outright often seek fee recovery under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
Res judicata protection obtainedMulti-carrier resolution signals RightQuestion’s broader licensing strategy
The simultaneous resolution of companion AT&T litigation — evident from the joint motion’s reference to both Lead and Member Cases — suggests RightQuestion pursued a coordinated licensing campaign across major U.S. carriers. For other telecom operators running STIR/SHAKEN infrastructure, the three asserted patents remain active and potentially enforceable, making freedom-to-operate analysis against RightQuestion’s portfolio commercially relevant.
Broader carrier exposure likelyFull 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 | Verizon Communications, Inc. | Company | Major U.S. telecommunications carrier and its subsidiaries, including TracFone and Verizon WirelessSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Verizon Corporate Services Group Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Tracfone Wireless, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Cellco Partnership, (dba Verizon Wireless) | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Verizon Business Network Services, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Aidan McKenzie Brewster | Attorney | Counsel for RightQuestion, LLCSearch 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 | James Paul Barabas | 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 | Nicole E. Glauser | 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 | Brian H. Pandya | Attorney | Counsel for Verizon Communications, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Deron R. Dacus | Attorney | Counsel for Verizon Communications, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Duane Morris LLP | Law Firm | Representing Verizon Communications, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | The Dacus Firm PC | Law Firm | Representing Verizon Communications, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order grants the joint motion in full, dismissing all claims and causes of action with prejudice on the parties’ own representation that the cases ‘have been resolved.’ No merits finding — on infringement, validity, or claim construction — was made. The phrase ‘each party to bear its own costs’ is a negotiated term, not a default; its inclusion alongside a with-prejudice dismissal is a strong signal that a commercial resolution preceded the filing. The simultaneous closure of Lead and Member Cases confirms the AT&T and Verizon litigations were resolved in a single coordinated transaction.
US11856132B2, US10674009B1 & US11005989B1 — STIR/SHAKEN Call Authentication
The three asserted patents — US11856132B2, US10674009B1, and US11005989B1 — cover technology in the STIR/SHAKEN framework, the FCC-mandated call authentication standard designed to verify caller ID information and reduce robocall fraud. The applications were filed between 2018 and 2021, placing them squarely in the period when the TRACED Act (2019) and subsequent FCC rules were compelling all major U.S. carriers to implement STIR/SHAKEN across their voice networks. The patents claim methods and systems for authenticating telephone calls at the carrier infrastructure level.
Because STIR/SHAKEN compliance is now mandated for all U.S. voice service providers, patents covering core authentication and attestation workflows in this framework carry unusually broad potential exposure across the telecom industry. Any carrier, VoIP provider, or analytics vendor building on the STIR/SHAKEN protocol stack may face overlap with RightQuestion’s portfolio. The simultaneous assertion against Verizon and AT&T — two of the three largest U.S. carriers — suggests RightQuestion views its patents as reading broadly on commercially deployed implementations, not merely on niche configurations.
Should you run an FTO against US11856132B2, US10674009B1, and US11005989B1?
Any company deploying STIR/SHAKEN call authentication infrastructure — whether a Tier 2 carrier, a cloud communications platform, a CPaaS provider, or a robocall analytics vendor — should assess its exposure to RightQuestion’s three asserted patents. The resolution of both the Verizon and AT&T cases without invalidity findings means these patents have survived major-carrier litigation intact. No IPR or post-grant proceeding outcome has been disclosed in the public record of this case.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claims of US11856132B2, US10674009B1, and US11005989B1 against your product’s call authentication workflow, flag overlapping claim language, and surface prior art that was not cited during prosecution. Eureka can also monitor RightQuestion’s litigation and prosecution activity in real time, alerting your team if new continuation patents or demand letters emerge targeting STIR/SHAKEN implementers.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11856132B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar STIR/SHAKEN and telecom call authentication patent cases in E.D. Tex.
Cases involving STIR/SHAKEN, robocall mitigation, and carrier-level call authentication patents litigated in the Eastern District of Texas and related venues.
What this case signals for the STIR/SHAKEN and telecom IP landscape
A coordinated multi-carrier patent campaign ending in confidential resolution raises the stakes for all STIR/SHAKEN implementers.
RightQuestion’s three patents remain live enforcement tools after this dismissal
No invalidity finding was made. The dismissal with prejudice only bars RightQuestion from suing these Verizon entities again — the patents are fully enforceable against any other carrier or vendor implementing STIR/SHAKEN call authentication protocols. Mid-tier carriers and VoIP providers should treat these patents as active risks.
Simultaneous AT&T resolution points to a coordinated licensing programme
The joint motion explicitly references companion AT&T cases being resolved in the same order. This pattern — asserting identical patents against multiple major carriers and resolving them concurrently — is consistent with a structured patent licensing campaign. Other carriers may already have received or may soon receive demand letters from RightQuestion.
RightQuestion v Verizon — key questions answered
RightQuestion asserted three patents: US11856132B2, US10674009B1, and US11005989B1. All three relate to STIR/SHAKEN call authentication technology used to verify caller ID and combat robocall fraud across carrier voice networks.
The case was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a joint motion filed by all parties. The motion states the cases ‘have been resolved,’ which is consistent with a confidential settlement. No trial verdict, claim construction ruling, or merits finding appears in the public record.
No. A dismissal with prejudice ends the litigation and bars RightQuestion from suing the same Verizon entities on the same claims, but it does not constitute a finding of invalidity or non-infringement. The three STIR/SHAKEN patents remain in force and enforceable against third parties.
Yes. The joint motion to dismiss in Case No. 2:24-cv-00091 references AT&T Corp., AT&T Mobility LLC, AT&T Mobility II LLC, and AT&T Services, Inc. as defendants in companion cases. Both the Verizon and AT&T cases were resolved and closed simultaneously under the same order.
It means neither party was ordered to pay the other’s legal fees or litigation costs. In patent cases, a winning defendant may seek fee recovery under 35 U.S.C. § 285. The mutual cost-bearing clause here, paired with a with-prejudice dismissal, typically signals a negotiated commercial resolution rather than an outright defendant win.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.