Book a demo
WSOU Investments v. TP-Link Technologies — Wireless LTE Router Patent Dispute | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID6:20-cv-01022
FiledOct 2020
ClosedJan 2024
Patent Litigation

WSOU Investments v. TP-Link: LTE Router Patent Suit Dismissed With Prejudice

WSOU Investments LLC asserted US7652988B2 against TP-Link’s Archer MR400 AC1200 Wireless Dual Band 4G LTE Router in the Western District of Texas. The parties jointly moved to dismiss all claims with prejudice after more than three years of litigation, each side absorbing its own legal costs.

Resolution time
1159days
Days from filing to dismissal — over 3 years in Judge Albright’s WDTX court
Patents asserted
1
US7652988B2 — AC1200 LTE router wireless technology
Outcome
Dismissed with Prejudice
With prejudice — WSOU cannot refile the same claims against TP-Link
Cost ruling
Own costs
Each side bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees — no cost award
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

Three-year LTE router patent dispute ends by joint dismissal in WDTX

WSOU Investments LLC, a Luxembourg-based patent assertion entity holding former Nokia and Alcatel-Lucent patents, filed this infringement action on 31 October 2020 in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:20-cv-01022). The asserted patent, US7652988B2 (application no. US10/446419), was deployed against TP-Link Technologies Co., Ltd. in relation to the Archer MR400 AC1200 Wireless Dual Band 4G LTE Router — a widely distributed consumer networking product.

The case closed on 3 January 2024 when Judge Alan D. Albright granted the parties’ Joint Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice. Under the order, all claims asserted by WSOU against TP-Link are permanently extinguished, with each side bearing its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. The with-prejudice designation is legally significant: WSOU is barred from reasserting the same patent claims against TP-Link in any future proceeding.

The resolution after roughly 1,160 days — without a trial or public damages award — is consistent with a negotiated settlement or licensing arrangement reached privately, though the public record is silent on any financial terms. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement suggests neither party conceded wrongdoing and that the resolution was commercially negotiated rather than litigated to judgment. The absence of a fee-shifting order also indicates neither side successfully argued exceptional-case status under 35 U.S.C. § 285.

Case at a glance
Case no.6:20-cv-01022
CourtTexas Western
JudgeAlan D Albright
FiledOctober 31, 2020
ClosedJanuary 3, 2024
Duration1159 days
OutcomeDismissed with Prejudice
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisDismissed with Prejudice
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / Texas Western District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to filing in 1159 days

Days from filing to dismissal — over 3 years in Judge Albright’s WDTX court

Case timeline: Complaint filed May 13 2025, JUN–JUL — 1159 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in WSOU Investments, LLC v TP-Link Technologies Co., Ltd. from filing to voluntary dismissal. Source: PACER, Texas Western District Court. OCT 31 2020 Complaint filed JUN–JUL 2020 Pre-trial proceedings JAN 3 2024 Ongoing in progress 1159 DAYS TOTAL
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffWSOU Investments, LLCCompanyPatent assertion entity — holder of US7652988B2, formerly Nokia/Alcatel-Lucent portfolioSearch in Eureka ↗
DefendantTP-Link Technologies Co., Ltd.CompanyTP-Link Technologies Co., Ltd. — global consumer networking hardware manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselRaymond W. Mort , IIIAttorneyCounsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselDavid M. HoffmanAttorneyCounsel for TP-Link Technologies Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselEdward J. MayleAttorneyCounsel for TP-Link Technologies Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselJeffrey C. MokAttorneyCounsel for TP-Link Technologies Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselJohn T. JohnsonAttorneyCounsel for TP-Link Technologies Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselKristopher L. ReedAttorneyCounsel for TP-Link Technologies Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselMichael F. AutuoroAttorneyCounsel for TP-Link Technologies Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselRishi GuptaAttorneyCounsel for TP-Link Technologies Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselSarah Y. KamranAttorneyCounsel for TP-Link Technologies Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselSteven D. MooreAttorneyCounsel for TP-Link Technologies Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselWesley Ellsworth Overson, JrAttorneyCounsel for TP-Link Technologies Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge Alan D AlbrightChief JudgeTexas Western District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Stipulation of dismissal — official text

“Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice. ECF No. 78. The parties request that the Court dismiss with prejudice all claims asserted by Plaintiff against Defendant in this action, each side to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. Having considered the motion, the Court orders as follows: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the joint motion to dismiss is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all claims asserted by Plaintiff WSOU Investments LLC against Defendant TP-Link Technology Co., Ltd. in the above-captioned action are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, each side to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the case”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 6:20-cv-01022, Texas Western District Court · Filed January 3, 2024

The order grants a joint motion to dismiss with prejudice, meaning the dismissal was consensual and mutual — neither party was found liable by a court. The with-prejudice designation permanently forecloses WSOU from reasserting these specific claims against TP-Link. The each-side-bears-own-costs provision confirms no prevailing-party determination was made, consistent with a commercially negotiated resolution. The public record does not disclose any financial terms.

PACER case 6:20-cv-01022 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

US7652988B2 — Wireless LTE and Dual-Band Router Technology

Publication No.US7652988B2
Application No.US10/446419
Patent details
AssigneeWSOU Investments, LLC
ProductUS7652988B2 — AC1200 Dual Band 4G LTE Router (Archer MR400)
Publication typeB2 — grant (with prior publication)
Cited in actionOctober 31, 2020

US7652988B2 (application no. US10/446419) is a US utility patent originating from the Nokia and/or Alcatel-Lucent legacy portfolio, subsequently acquired and asserted by WSOU Investments LLC. The patent was asserted in the context of LTE wireless routing and dual-band networking technology, as exemplified by its application against the TP-Link Archer MR400 — a consumer 4G LTE router with AC1200 dual-band Wi-Fi. The application number prefix suggests filing in the early-to-mid 2000s, placing it firmly in the foundational era of 4G/LTE protocol development.

For the networking hardware sector, US7652988B2 represents the broader category of legacy telecom patents being monetised through assertion entities. WSOU filed numerous concurrent actions in WDTX against networking OEMs and equipment vendors, signalling that this patent — and related family members — is considered broadly applicable to LTE-capable consumer and enterprise devices. Companies selling dual-band LTE routers, CPE gateways, or mobile broadband devices in the US market face continued exposure until the patent expires or is invalidated.

Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Freedom to operate

Should your LTE router product line be cleared against US7652988B2?

If your company designs, manufactures, or distributes 4G LTE routers, dual-band Wi-Fi gateways, or multi-WAN CPE devices for the US market, US7652988B2 warrants attention. WSOU’s assertion against the TP-Link Archer MR400 establishes that consumer-grade LTE routers are within scope of the patent holder’s enforcement strategy. Companies that have not yet received a demand letter should not assume they are outside the assertion perimeter — WSOU’s concurrent WDTX campaigns targeted multiple OEMs simultaneously.

PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claims of US7652988B2 against your current product specifications, flag relevant prior art that could support an IPR petition, and monitor prosecution history for continuation filings that could extend the family’s reach. Claim monitoring alerts will notify your team if related WSOU patents are asserted against your competitors, giving you early-warning intelligence to prepare a response before litigation is filed.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7652988B2 to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

Similar LTE and wireless router patent cases in WDTX and beyond

PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
WSOU Investments, LLC patent enforcement history, Texas Western case history, WSOU Investments, LLC’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
WSOU v. Huawei (WDTX)WSOU v. ZTE — LTE patentsNokia patent PAE actionsLTE router WDTX dismissals
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this case signals for the LTE networking IP landscape

WSOU’s WDTX campaign against networking OEMs reveals durable assertion risk for LTE/wireless router makers. Here is what to watch.

LTE router makers face persistent assertion risk from legacy telecom patents

US7652988B2 originates from the Nokia/Alcatel-Lucent portfolio — a deep reservoir of wireless infrastructure and device patents that WSOU has systematically asserted. Companies commercialising LTE and Wi-Fi router products should proactively audit freedom-to-operate against this patent family and related assets before market entry, not after receiving a complaint.

WDTX joint dismissals often mask confidential licence agreements

When a PAE and a defendant jointly dismiss with prejudice and each bears own costs, the most commercially logical inference is a private licence. For competitors of TP-Link, this matters: if TP-Link secured a licence to US7652988B2, those without one may now be higher-priority targets. Monitoring WSOU’s remaining active dockets can signal where assertion pressure is shifting.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Includes sector IP trends, Judge Treadwell’s case history, and FTO risk assessment for the truck equipment space
WSOU licensing rate signalsParallel WDTX docket mapUS7652988B2 claim scope risk
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

WSOU v TP-Link — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

Run your own FTO and litigation risk analysis for LTE networking patents

Use PatSnap Eureka to map US7652988B2 claims against your product line, identify invalidation prior art, and monitor WSOU’s remaining active cases. Stay ahead of assertion campaigns before a complaint lands.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.