Peninsula Tech LLC v. Cellco Partnership

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Peninsula Technologies, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (Delaware); Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (South Korea); Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (New York)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00272, E.D. Tex., 04/02/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as to Verizon and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. because they maintain regular and established places of business within the Eastern District of Texas. Venue is alleged as to Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. on the basis of it being a foreign corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' 4G and 5G mobile networks, including network equipment and software, infringe four U.S. patents related to telecommunication network management, including procedures for device handover, non-public network access, and session management.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves specific protocols and messaging within 4G/5G mobile networks that are fundamental to managing user device connectivity, particularly for advanced features like network slicing and private networks.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided pre-suit notice of infringement to Verizon, including claim charts, via letters and a private data room beginning in February 2025. Notice was also allegedly provided to Samsung in April 2026, prior to the filing of the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2017-05-04	U.S. Patent No. 11,122,470 Priority Date
2017-09-28	U.S. Patent No. 11,570,668 Priority Date
2019-03-27	U.S. Patent No. 11,197,273 Priority Date
2019-03-27	U.S. Patent No. 11,800,521 Priority Date
2021-09-14	U.S. Patent No. 11,122,470 Issued
2021-12-07	U.S. Patent No. 11,197,273 Issued
2023-01-31	U.S. Patent No. 11,570,668 Issued
2023-10-24	U.S. Patent No. 11,800,521 Issued
2025-02-10	Plaintiff notifies Verizon of asserted patents and infringement
2025-02-26	Plaintiff makes claim charts available to Verizon
2025-02-26	Verizon allegedly accesses private data room
2025-04-30	Verizon allegedly accesses private data room a second time
2026-04-01	Plaintiff notifies Samsung of asserted patents and infringement
2026-04-02	Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 11,122,470 - Network slice information for handover procedure

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: In modern mobile networks, "network slicing" allows operators to create virtual, customized networks with specific characteristics (e.g., low latency for gaming, high bandwidth for video) on a shared physical infrastructure Compl. ¶38 A technical challenge arises when a user device needs to be handed over from one base station to another while maintaining a connection to a specific network slice, especially if the original base station lacks the resources for that slice Compl. ¶39 '470 Patent, col. 17:5-12
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a method for managing this process. When a first base station (source) receives a request for a session on a specific network slice and determines it lacks the necessary resources, it initiates a handover. It sends a handover request message to a second base station (target) that explicitly contains information about the requested network slice and a "cause information element" indicating that the handover is being triggered due to the unavailability of resources for that slice at the source station '470 Patent, abstract '470 Patent, col. 19:35-51 This allows the target base station to make an informed decision about whether to accept or reject the handover based on its own capacity to support the required network slice '470 Patent, col. 20:52-65
• Technical Importance: This method provides a formal mechanism for base stations to communicate the specific reason for a slice-based handover, enabling more intelligent and efficient resource management during user mobility in 5G networks '470 Patent, col. 18:1-4

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶37
• Essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • Receiving, by a first base station from a core network entity, a first message requesting session resources for a wireless device on a first network slice.
  • Initiating, by the first base station, a handover towards a second base station, based on the requested session resources for the first network slice not being available at the first base station.
  • Sending a second message indicating a handover request to the second base station, where the second message comprises: a packet flow identifier, a network slice identifier, and a cause information element indicating that the requested session resources are not available at the first base station for the identified network slice.
  • Receiving a third message from the second base station indicating acceptance or rejection of the handover.
• The complaint expressly reserves the right to assert additional claims Compl. p. 9, n.1

U.S. Patent No. 11,197,273 - Cell information for access management

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses access management for Non-Public Networks (NPNs), which are private networks that may be integrated with public mobile networks '273 Patent, abstract A key challenge is coordinating the communication of NPN-specific information between different components of a modern, disaggregated base station-specifically, the base station central unit (CU) and the base station distributed unit (DU) '273 Patent, col. 1:49-56
• The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a method where a base station's distributed unit (DU) receives a "first indication" from its central unit (CU) that a particular cell is associated with an NPN. The DU then transmits a "second indication" over the air to inform wireless devices of this association. Subsequently, the DU is configured to receive a random access preamble from a device that is specifically associated with that NPN '273 Patent, abstract '273 Patent, claims 9, 16 This creates a structured process for a disaggregated base station to manage access to private network cells.
• Technical Importance: This invention provides a defined signaling flow for managing NPN access in a disaggregated RAN architecture, which is critical for deploying private 5G networks for enterprise and industrial use cases '273 Patent, col. 1:49-56

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 9 Compl. ¶48
• Essential elements of claim 9 (a base station distributed unit) include:
  • One or more processors and memory storing instructions.
  • Instructions cause the unit to: receive, from a base station central unit, a first indication that a cell is associated with a first non-public network (NPN).
  • Instructions cause the unit to: transmit, via the cell, a second indication that the cell is associated with the first NPN.
  • Instructions cause the unit to: receive, via the cell, a random access preamble from a wireless device that is associated with the first NPN.
• The complaint expressly reserves the right to assert additional claims Compl. p. 9, n.1

U.S. Patent No. 11,570,668 - Release of a second session of a wireless device by an access and mobility management function

• Issued: January 31, 2023 (the "'668 Patent")
• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method within the 5G core network for managing the release of a user's data session during a handover between different Access and Mobility Management Functions (AMFs). It details the signaling process where a source AMF, after being notified of a successful handover by a target AMF, sends a request to the source Session Management Function (SMF) to release the old session resources, ensuring a clean and efficient transition '668 Patent, abstract
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶58
• Accused Features: The accused features are the inter-AMF handover procedures within Verizon's 5G core network, specifically the sequence of messages sent between the source AMF, target AMF, and source SMF to release a Packet Data Unit (PDU) session after a handover Compl. ¶¶59-63

U.S. Patent No. 11,800,521 - Cell configuration

• Issued: October 24, 2023 (the "'521 Patent")
• Technology Synopsis: This patent relates to cell configuration for Non-Public Networks (NPNs) in a disaggregated base station architecture. The invention involves a base station central unit (CU) sending an NPN indication for a cell to its distributed unit (DU). The CU then receives an indication from the core network (AMF) that a specific wireless device supports that NPN and, based on this knowledge, sends a request to the DU to configure the cell specifically for that device '521 Patent, abstract
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶70
• Accused Features: The accused features are the cell configuration procedures in Verizon's 5G network where a gNB-CU, after receiving NPN support information for a device from an AMF, sends a UE Context Setup Request to a gNB-DU to prepare a cell for that specific NPN-capable device Compl. ¶¶71-73

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are Verizon's 4G and 5G cellular networks, including core network equipment, base station equipment (such as Next Generation Node Bs or gNBs), and related software, some of which is allegedly supplied by Samsung (Compl. ¶¶37; Compl. ¶48; Compl. ¶58; Compl. ¶70). These are collectively referred to in the complaint by patent, e.g., the "'470 Accused Instrumentalities" Compl. ¶37

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that Verizon's networks operate in compliance with 3GPP standards for 4G and 5G, including Releases 15, 16, and 17 Compl. ¶22 The relevant functionality includes the systems and methods for managing user sessions and mobility, such as network slicing procedures for handovers, access management for Non-Public Networks (NPNs), and core network messaging to release sessions post-handover (Compl. ¶¶38; Compl. ¶49; Compl. ¶59; Compl. ¶71). The complaint illustrates this functionality with diagrams from 3GPP technical specifications, alleging that the accused networks implement these standardized procedures Compl. pp. 11-15 Compl. pp. 18-24 The diagram on page 11 of the complaint, for instance, shows the PDU Session Resource Setup procedure where a core network entity (AMF) sends a request to a base station (NG-RAN node) Compl. p. 11
• The complaint positions Verizon as the largest mobile network operator in the United States, serving over 146 million subscribers with an estimated 80,000 active cell sites Compl. ¶¶20-21 Samsung is identified as a provider of equipment and software for Verizon's 5G radio access network (RAN) Compl. ¶23

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'470 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
receiving, by a first base station from a core network entity, a first message indicating a request for session resources for a wireless device, wherein the session resources are for a first network slice	A base station (gNB) receives a "PDU Session Resource Setup Request" message from an Access and Mobility Management Function (AMF), which contains an S-NSSAI information element identifying the network slice.	¶38	col. 27:20-25
initiating, by the first base station and based on the requested session resources for the first network slice not being available for the wireless device at the first base station, a handover for the wireless device towards a first cell of a second base station	Upon determining that resources for the requested network slice are unavailable, the source base station (NG-RAN) initiates a handover procedure to a target base station.	¶39	col. 27:26-32
sending, to the second base station and based on the initiating, a second message indicating a handover request...	The source base station sends a "Handover Request" message to the target base station to prepare resources for the handover. A diagram in the complaint shows this message flow between a source and target NG-RAN node Compl. p. 12	¶39	col. 27:33-44
...the second message comprising: a packet flow identifier of a packet flow associated with the first network slice; a network slice identifier of the first network slice for the handover request; and a cause information element indicating that a cause for the handover request is that the requested session resources are not available...	The "Handover Request" message allegedly includes a PDU Session ID (packet flow identifier), an S-NSSAI IE (network slice identifier), and a Cause IE indicating a reason such as "Radio resources not available" or "Slice(s) not supported."	¶40	col. 27:37-44
receiving, from the second base station, a third message indicating an acceptance or a rejection based on the second message	The source base station receives either a "Handover Request Acknowledgement" message (acceptance) or a "Handover Preparation Failure" message (rejection) from the target base station.	¶41	col. 27:45-48

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Questions: A primary technical question will be whether the general cause values cited from the 3GPP standard (e.g., "Radio resources not available," "Slice(s) not supported") functionally meet the claim limitation that the cause is that the requested session resources are not available...for the first network slice identified by the network slice identifier. Defendants may argue that these are general error codes not specific to network slice resource unavailability as required by the claim.
• Scope Questions: The case may raise the question of whether compliance with a 3GPP standard necessarily equates to infringement of the patent claims, or if the specific implementation within the accused network deviates in a material way from the patent's requirements.

'273 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 9)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
[a] base station distributed unit... receive, from a base station central unit, a first indication that a cell is associated with a first non-public network (NPN)	A gNB Distributed Unit (gNB-DU) receives a "GNB-DU Configuration Update Acknowledge" message from a gNB Central Unit (gNB-CU). This message allegedly includes an "Available SNPN ID List" information element, serving as the first indication.	¶49	col. 59:42-45
transmit, via the cell, a second indication that the cell is associated with the first NPN	The gNB-DU transmits a System Information Block 1 (SIB1) message via the cell's Broadcast Control Channel (BCCH). The complaint alleges this SIB1 includes an "npn-IdentityInfoList" IE, which serves as the second indication. The diagram on page 20 illustrates the SIB1 message structure Compl. p. 20	¶50	col. 59:46-48
receive, via the cell, a random access preamble from a wireless device that is associated with the first NPN	The gNB-DU receives a random access preamble on the Physical Random Access Channel (PRACH) from an NPN-capable wireless device that has identified the cell as an NPN-only cell from the broadcasted SIB1 message.	¶51	col. 59:49-52

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Questions: The infringement theory relies on a specific sequence of messages between the CU and DU, and then from the DU to the device. A key evidentiary question will be whether Defendants' equipment actually implements this precise flow. For example, what evidence demonstrates that the "Available SNPN ID List" IE in the F1-C interface message (between CU-DU) directly causes the transmission of the "npn-IdentityInfoList" IE in the SIB1 message (over the air)?
• Scope Questions: The analysis may focus on whether the term "non-public network" as used in the patent is coextensive with the 3GPP definitions of SNPNs and PNI-NPNs, and whether the accused network features fall within that scope.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the '470 Patent

• The Term: "cause information element indicating that a cause for the handover request is that the requested session resources are not available, at the first base station, for the first network slice identified by the network slice identifier" (from claim 1).
• Context and Importance: This term is the central inventive concept distinguishing the claimed handover from a generic one. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the alleged "Cause IE" values from the 3GPP standard (e.g., "Radio resources not available") are construed to meet this specific functional requirement. Practitioners may focus on this term because the plaintiff's theory maps a general standard-defined reason code to a very specific claim limitation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification may describe "unavailability of resources" in a way that is not strictly limited to slice-specific resources, which could support an argument that any resource-related cause code suffices.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's abstract states the cause information element indicates "that the handover request is to provide at least one network slice for the wireless device" '470 Patent, abstract This language, along with the detailed claim language, suggests the cause must be directly and explicitly linked to the network slice itself, not just general resource issues.

For the '273 Patent

• The Term: "first indication" (received by the DU from the CU) and "second indication" (transmitted by the DU) (from claim 9).
• Context and Importance: These terms define the critical information flow in the claimed method. The dispute will likely center on whether the alleged standard-compliant messages ("GNB-DU Configuration Update Acknowledge" and "SIB1") are properly considered the "indications" required by the claim. Practitioners may focus on these terms to determine if there is a direct and causal link between the internal CU-DU message and the subsequent over-the-air broadcast, as the claim structure implies.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent may use the term "indication" without specifying a particular message format, potentially allowing any form of signal or data that conveys the necessary information to satisfy the limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification's embodiments may describe the "indications" as specific, purpose-built messages or information elements, suggesting that general-purpose configuration or system information messages that happen to contain NPN data are not what the patent claims '273 Patent, FIG. 18

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes boilerplate allegations of induced and contributory infringement for each asserted patent but does not plead specific facts, such as referencing user manuals or technical documentation, that would support the requisite knowledge and intent for these claims Compl. ¶44 Compl. ¶54 Compl. ¶66 Compl. ¶76
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants' infringement has been and continues to be willful. This allegation is factually supported by claims that Plaintiff provided pre-suit notice to both Verizon and Samsung. Specifically, the complaint alleges that notice was provided to Verizon on February 10, 2025, and that Verizon subsequently accessed a data room containing claim charts on February 26, 2025, and April 30, 2025 Compl. ¶31 Compl. ¶32 Notice was allegedly provided to Samsung on April 1, 2026 Compl. ¶33

VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

1. A key evidentiary question will be one of functional specificity: Do the general-purpose "Cause" codes in the accused handover messages (e.g., "Radio resources not available") perform the specific, claimed function of indicating unavailability of resources for a particular network slice as required by the '470 Patent, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation and purpose?
2. The case will present a central question of standards-essentiality and implementation: Given that the infringement allegations for all four patents are mapped to 3GPP standard procedures, a core issue will be whether the patents claim inventions that are essential to the cited standards and, more critically, whether Plaintiff can prove that Defendants' live, commercial network equipment actually implements these optional and specific standardized features in an infringing manner.
3. A significant issue will be one of knowledge and willfulness: The complaint pleads specific facts regarding pre-suit notice and Defendants' alleged access to claim charts. This raises a critical question for trial: did Defendants' continued operation of their networks after being put on notice constitute "an unjustifiably high risk of infringement" sufficient to support a finding of willfulness and potential enhanced damages?