Advanced Broadband LLC v. T Mobile USA Inc

Case Overview: Advanced Broadband's Assertion in the Eastern District of Texas

In a recent lawsuit filed on April 20, 2026, Advanced Broadband LLC has accused T-Mobile USA Inc. of infringing three patents related to advanced wireless network technologies. The plaintiff, Advanced Broadband LLC, is a non-practicing entity (NPE) with ties to the prolific patent monetization firm IP Edge LLC. This affiliation suggests a strategy of acquiring patents for the primary purpose of asserting them against operating companies. The defendant, T-Mobile, is a major US telecommunications carrier providing wireless voice and data services nationwide. The lawsuit targets core features of T-Mobile's advanced LTE network, specifically services that manage how users share radio spectrum and technologies that combine multiple radio channels to boost data speeds, a feature commonly known as carrier aggregation.

The complaint asserts three patents: U.S. Patent No. 8,730,833, which relates to the coordination of co-spectrum users with wireless broadband networks; U.S. Patent No. 10,615,928, which describes methods for providing services to user equipment in a wireless communication system; and U.S. Patent No. 9,320,041, which covers the dynamic assignment of carriers for carrier aggregation in an LTE-Advanced system. This case (2:26-cv-00315) is filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and has been assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap. This venue is historically favored by patent plaintiffs, including NPEs, for its expertise in patent matters and case management procedures that are often seen as beneficial to patent holders.

This litigation is notable as it represents a classic example of an NPE asserting patents, which reportedly originated with Empire Technology Development LLC, against a major technology operator. The involvement of IP Edge points to a sophisticated and experienced monetization effort. The case will likely be closely watched within the telecommunications industry, as the patents-in-suit relate to fundamental aspects of modern high-speed wireless networks. As of early May 2026, there is no public record of any parallel Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for the asserted patents, though this could change as the litigation progresses.

Case Developments: Early Stages of Litigation

As of May 3, 2026, litigation in Advanced Broadband LLC v. T-Mobile USA Inc. (2:26-cv-00315) is in its preliminary phase, with no substantive legal rulings or significant filings beyond the initial complaint. The case remains open in the Eastern District of Texas, assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap.

A chronological summary of events and expected next steps is as follows:

• 2026-04-20: Complaint Filed
  Advanced Broadband LLC filed its patent infringement complaint against T-Mobile USA, Inc. The plaintiff alleges that features of T-Mobile's advanced LTE wireless networks, including carrier aggregation, infringe on U.S. Patent Nos. 8,730,833, 10,615,928, and 9,320,041. The plaintiff entity, Advanced Broadband, reportedly received the patents from IP Edge LLC, a well-known patent monetization firm.

• Next Steps: Answer or Responsive Pleading
  T-Mobile's deadline to file an answer or other responsive pleading (such as a motion to dismiss) is imminent. Typically, a defendant has 21 days after service of the complaint to respond. Given the filing date, a response is expected in mid-May 2026. As of May 3, 2026, no counsel has formally appeared for T-Mobile, and no answer has been filed.

Future Proceedings and Expected Timeline

Based on the local patent rules for the Eastern District of Texas and Judge Gilstrap's standing orders, the case is expected to follow a structured schedule leading toward a potential claim construction hearing.

• Initial Case Management: Once T-Mobile appears and answers the complaint, the court will likely issue a Docket Control Order setting key deadlines. The parties will confer and file a joint case management statement.
• Infringement and Invalidity Contentions: A standard schedule will require Advanced Broadband to serve detailed infringement contentions, followed by T-Mobile's invalidity contentions within a set timeframe, often 45 days later.
• Claim Construction (Markman): Following the exchange of contentions, the parties will engage in the claim construction process. This involves exchanging proposed term constructions, filing a joint claim construction statement, and briefing the disputed terms for the court. A Markman hearing, where the parties argue their proposed constructions, is a critical milestone that typically occurs several months into the case.
• Substantive Motions: T-Mobile may file pre-trial motions, such as a motion to dismiss (potentially arguing patent ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101) or a motion to transfer the case to a different venue. Under Judge Gilstrap's rules, parties must serve "Eligibility Contentions" concurrently with invalidity contentions if they plan to challenge patent eligibility.
• Discovery: Fact and expert discovery will proceed in parallel with these events, governed by the deadlines in the scheduling order.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

• No PTAB Proceedings Initiated (as of 2026-05-03): A search of the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) records indicates that no Inter Partes Review (IPR) or other post-grant proceedings have been filed against the three asserted patents. It is common for defendants in patent litigation to file IPR petitions challenging the validity of the asserted patents. Should T-Mobile file IPRs, it would likely also file a motion to stay the district court case pending the PTAB's review. Per Judge Gilstrap's standing orders, parties must notify the court within three days of any material developments in related proceedings, such as a PTAB institution decision.

At this early stage, the case's trajectory has not yet been established. The next significant development will be T-Mobile's appearance and response to the complaint, which will clarify its initial defense strategy.

Plaintiff Counsel of Record: Advanced Broadband LLC

Based on the initial complaint filed on April 20, 2026, the following attorneys are counsel of record for the plaintiff, Advanced Broadband LLC.

---

Marc C. Belloli

• Role: Lead Counsel
• Firm: Bunsow De Mory LLP (Redwood City, California)
• Note: Belloli is a trial lawyer with a practice focused on patent litigation and monetization, representing both plaintiffs and defendants. His notable successes include securing a $172.5 million jury verdict for Wapp Technologies against Micro Focus and serving as lead counsel in a case for Garrity Power Services against Samsung that settled on the eve of trial.

Andrea Leigh Fair

• Role: Local Counsel
• Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC (Longview, Texas)
• Note: Fair is a seasoned patent litigator with extensive experience in the Eastern District of Texas. She has been part of trial teams that have secured numerous high-value verdicts, including a $121.95 million verdict against Amazon, a $62.7 million verdict against Samsung, and a $43 million verdict against T-Mobile and Ericsson. Her firm, formerly Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, is recognized for its expertise in high-stakes patent litigation in the district.

As of May 3, 2026, counsel for the defendant, T-Mobile USA Inc., has not yet formally appeared on the docket for Advanced Broadband LLC v. T-Mobile USA Inc., case number 2:26-cv-00315, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.

The complaint was filed on April 20, 2026. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a defendant typically has 21 days to respond to a summons and complaint, though this can be extended. Given the recent filing date, T-Mobile's legal team has not yet filed a notice of appearance or an answer to the complaint.

Information regarding the specific attorneys and law firms that will represent T-Mobile in this matter will become publicly available on the case docket once they make their official appearance. It is common for large corporations like T-Mobile to retain both national counsel with deep expertise in patent litigation and local counsel familiar with the specific practices of the Eastern District of Texas. Until those filings are made, the counsel of record remains unknown.