Woodbury Wireless v. AT&T: 7-Patent LTE/5G Dispute Ends in Dismissal With Prejudice
Woodbury Wireless LLC filed suit against AT&T Inc. and its affiliates in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting seven patents covering LTE and 5G wireless network technology against AT&T’s commercial network infrastructure. After 405 days of litigation, the parties jointly moved to dismiss all claims with prejudice, with each side bearing its own costs.
A 7-patent LTE/5G assertion against AT&T ends at the pretrial stage
Woodbury Wireless LLC, a patent assertion entity holding a portfolio of wireless communications patents, filed suit on February 13, 2024 against AT&T Inc., AT&T Mobility LLC, AT&T Mobility LLC II, and AT&T Services Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The complaint asserted seven US patents — US9503163B2, US9859963B2, US10211895B2, US11108443B2, US9496930B2, US10516451B2, and US9584197B2 — against AT&T’s LTE, 4G, 5G, and 5G+ commercial wireless networks, as well as consumer devices and hotspots operating on those networks.
On March 24, 2025, the Court granted a joint motion to dismiss all claims with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Both Woodbury Wireless’s infringement claims and AT&T’s counterclaims were dismissed with prejudice, and the order specified that each side shall bear its own costs and fees. The dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits as a matter of law, meaning Woodbury Wireless is permanently barred from reasserting these seven patents against AT&T on the same grounds.
The 405-day duration suggests the parties engaged in meaningful pretrial activity — likely including claim construction briefing and discovery exchanges — before reaching resolution. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement and joint nature of the motion are consistent with a negotiated settlement, though the public record does not disclose any financial terms or licensing agreement. The Lead Case No. 2:24-cv-00088-JRG was expressly maintained as open, suggesting parallel proceedings against other defendants in the same patent portfolio campaign remain active.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 405 days
405 days — above the median for E.D. Texas patent cases resolved without trial
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint Rule 41 order means for both parties
Rule 41 dismissal with prejudice is a final bar on re-litigation
Under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a joint motion to dismiss with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits. Woodbury Wireless cannot refile these claims against AT&T in any forum. The order extinguishes all asserted patent claims and AT&T’s counterclaims simultaneously, providing bilateral finality. This is distinct from a dismissal without prejudice, which would preserve the plaintiff’s right to refile.
Permanent bar on re-filingWoodbury Wireless permanently foreclosed against AT&T on these 7 patents
The with-prejudice dismissal means Woodbury Wireless has exhausted its enforcement rights against AT&T for all seven asserted patents. While the patents themselves remain valid and enforceable against third parties, AT&T has effectively obtained a litigation release on these specific claims. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement suggests neither party extracted a dominant concession, though undisclosed licensing terms cannot be ruled out.
Claims extinguished vs. AT&TAT&T secures finality on all seven patent claims
AT&T and its affiliates — AT&T Mobility LLC, AT&T Mobility LLC II, and AT&T Services Inc. — emerge with a permanent dismissal of the infringement claims across AT&T’s entire network portfolio including LTE, 5G, and 5G+ infrastructure. AT&T’s own counterclaims were also dismissed, consistent with a clean bilateral resolution. The order does not assign fault or validity findings, leaving the patents’ legal status intact for enforcement against others.
Full network portfolio protectedLead case stays open — other wireless carriers may still face exposure
The Court’s order expressly keeps Lead Case No. 2:24-cv-00088-JRG open, signalling that Woodbury Wireless’s broader LTE/5G patent campaign continues against other defendants. Companies operating LTE and 5G infrastructure, particularly those deploying 5G NR and legacy 4G networks, should monitor this portfolio. The E.D. Texas venue and Judge Gilstrap’s docket suggest Woodbury Wireless is a systematic patent asserter with multi-defendant strategy.
Broader campaign ongoingFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Woodbury Wireless, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of 7 LTE/5G wireless network patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | AT&T, Inc. | Company | AT&T Inc. and affiliates — US wireless carrier operating LTE, 4G, 5G, and 5G+ networksSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | At & T Mobility LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | AT & T Mobility, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | AT & T Services, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Clifford Chad Henson | Attorney | Counsel for Woodbury Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Derek Dahlgren | Attorney | Counsel for Woodbury Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Devlin Law Firm LLC (Wilmington) | Law Firm | Representing Woodbury Wireless, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Deron R. Dacus | Attorney | Counsel for AT&T, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Matthew Sean Yungwirth | Attorney | Counsel for AT&T, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | William Andrew Liddell | Attorney | Counsel for AT&T, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Duane Morris LLP (Atlanta) | Law Firm | Representing AT&T, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | EdTech Law Center PLLC | Law Firm | Representing 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 grants the joint Rule 41 motion in full, dismissing all claims by both Woodbury Wireless and AT&T with prejudice and denying all pending relief as moot. The bilateral structure — extinguishing both plaintiff’s infringement claims and defendant’s counterclaims simultaneously — is legally significant: it prevents either party from relitigating these disputes and forecloses any invalidity findings that could have been used offensively against the patent portfolio in future proceedings against other defendants. The express instruction to maintain the lead case open confirms this dismissal is scoped solely to the AT&T member case.
US9503163B2 and 6 further patents — LTE/5G wireless network transmission technology
The seven asserted patents — US9503163B2, US9859963B2, US10211895B2, US11108443B2, US9496930B2, US10516451B2, and US9584197B2 — form a continuation portfolio with application dates spanning 2014 to 2019, covering the transition from LTE-Advanced to early 5G NR standardisation. The patents relate to wireless network data transmission methods and signal processing techniques implicated by commercial LTE, 4G, and 5G network deployments. The portfolio’s spread across multiple application numbers suggests a deliberate continuation strategy designed to maintain coverage as network standards evolved.
Strategically, this portfolio is positioned to assert against any carrier or equipment vendor deploying LTE, 4G LTE, 5GE, or 5G NR infrastructure — a scope that encompasses virtually every major US wireless operator and a substantial portion of the global handset and base station supply chain. The continuation structure means that claim scope may differ materially across the seven patents, creating both enforcement flexibility for the holder and differentiated invalidity risk profiles for potential defendants. Companies in the 5G infrastructure, chipset, and device ecosystem should treat this portfolio as an ongoing enforcement risk.
Should you run an FTO against US9503163B2 and the Woodbury Wireless LTE/5G portfolio?
Any company developing, deploying, or commercialising LTE, 4G, 5G NR, or 5G SA/NSA wireless network infrastructure, handsets, hotspots, or related chipsets should assess freedom to operate against this portfolio. The asserted claims were applied to AT&T’s commercial LTE and 5G networks as well as consumer devices — a scope broad enough to implicate network equipment vendors, MVNO operators, private LTE network operators, and IoT device manufacturers operating on licensed spectrum.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of all seven patents against your product specifications, flag relevant prior art for invalidity analysis, and identify related continuation applications that may not yet have issued. Eureka also monitors prosecution history and post-grant proceedings — critical for a portfolio that spans multiple continuation chains — so your legal team receives real-time alerts if new claims issue that could affect your clearance position.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9503163B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar LTE/5G patent infringement cases in E.D. Texas
Explore related wireless network patent assertions before Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas involving LTE and 5G infrastructure claims.
What this case signals for the wireless network IP landscape
A 7-patent LTE/5G assertion against a Tier-1 carrier resolved bilaterally — but the campaign is not over.
E.D. Texas remains the preferred venue for wireless patent campaigns
Woodbury Wireless’s choice of Judge Gilstrap’s docket in the Eastern District of Texas is consistent with the venue’s reputation for predictable patent litigation timelines and plaintiff-friendly procedural history. Wireless carriers and equipment vendors should maintain active docket monitoring for new filings in E.D. Texas against comparable LTE/5G portfolios.
Multi-defendant strategies signal a broader licensing programme, not isolated enforcement
The retention of Lead Case No. 2:24-cv-00088-JRG confirms Woodbury Wireless is running a coordinated multi-defendant campaign. This pattern — filing member cases per defendant and maintaining a lead docket — is a hallmark of patent assertion entities seeking portfolio licences at scale. Other wireless carriers and network operators should assess their exposure to these seven patents proactively.
Woodbury v AT&T — key questions answered
The dismissal with prejudice, entered March 24, 2025, permanently bars Woodbury Wireless from reasserting any of the seven patents against AT&T and its affiliates in any court. AT&T’s counterclaims were simultaneously dismissed. The order does not invalidate the patents — they remain enforceable against other parties.
Woodbury Wireless asserted seven patents: US9503163B2, US9859963B2, US10211895B2, US11108443B2, US9496930B2, US10516451B2, and US9584197B2. The asserted products included AT&T’s LTE, 4G, 4G LTE, 5GE, 5G, and 5G+ networks, as well as consumer devices and hotspots operating on those networks.
Yes. The March 24, 2025 order expressly maintained Lead Case No. 2:24-cv-00088-JRG as open, confirming that Woodbury Wireless’s litigation against other defendants in the same E.D. Texas docket continues. The AT&T dismissal is limited to the member case 2:24-cv-00099.
Woodbury Wireless was represented by Devlin Law Firm LLC (Wilmington), with attorneys Clifford Chad Henson and Derek Dahlgren. AT&T was represented by Duane Morris LLP (Atlanta), EdTech Law Center PLLC, and The Dacus Firm PC, with attorneys Deron R. Dacus, Matthew Sean Yungwirth, and William Andrew Liddell.
The public record shows only that each side bears its own costs — no financial terms are disclosed. A mutual cost-bearing arrangement in a joint Rule 41 dismissal with prejudice is consistent with a negotiated resolution, potentially including a licence or covenant not to sue, but the record does not confirm this. The absence of a fee-shifting award suggests neither party sought an exceptional case finding.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.