AGIS Software v. Samsung: Location-Sharing Patent Suit Ends With Prejudice After 546 Days
AGIS Software Development LLC asserted two patents covering map-based communication and location-sharing technology against Samsung’s vast Android device portfolio — spanning Galaxy smartphones, tablets, and smartwatches. The parties jointly stipulated to dismissal with prejudice after 546 days, with each side bearing its own costs and fees.
AGIS’s Galaxy-Wide Location Patent Assault Ends in Stipulated Dismissal
Filed on 23 August 2022 in the Northern District of California, this action saw AGIS Software Development LLC assert US9749829B2 and US9820123B2 — two patents covering map-based communication features and location-sharing capabilities — against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and its U.S. subsidiary. The accused product list was exceptionally broad, encompassing virtually the entire Galaxy lineup: hundreds of smartphones, tablets, and smartwatches pre-configured with applications such as Google Maps, Find My Device, Messages, Hangouts, and Google Chrome.
The case closed on 20 February 2024 via a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal. Critically, the dismissal is asymmetric: all of AGIS’s infringement claims — including those it could have raised but did not — are dismissed with prejudice, permanently barring re-litigation of those claims against Samsung on the same patents. Samsung’s counterclaims and defenses, however, are dismissed without prejudice, leaving those positions formally unresolved and potentially available in other forums.
The 546-day duration — combined with a mutual cost-bearing arrangement and no public damages figure — is consistent with a negotiated resolution, potentially a licence or cross-licence, though the public record is silent on any financial terms. The ‘with prejudice’ bar on AGIS’s claims is commercially significant: it signals either a business arrangement that rendered continued litigation unnecessary, or a recognition that the claims faced substantive challenges that made settlement preferable to trial.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 546 days
546 days — above the median for N.D. California patent cases that resolve pre-trial
Asymmetric dismissal: what the with/without prejudice split means for both sides
Rule 41 stipulated dismissal — agreed exit, not a merits ruling
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal is a joint stipulation — both parties agreed to end the case without a court judgment on the merits. No finding of infringement or invalidity was made. The ‘with prejudice’ designation for plaintiff’s claims is the operative legal consequence: it has the force of a final adjudication, permanently barring AGIS from reasserting the same infringement claims against Samsung on US9749829B2 and US9820123B2.
No merits adjudicationAGIS permanently barred from re-suing Samsung on these patents
The with-prejudice dismissal of all claims AGIS ‘raised or could have raised’ is a broad preclusion. AGIS cannot re-file against Samsung on US9749829B2 or US9820123B2 in any U.S. district court. This is consistent with either a confidential licence resolving the economic dispute, or AGIS concluding that the litigation risk outweighed continued prosecution. The public record does not disclose which.
Claims permanently extinguishedSamsung’s counterclaims survive — dismissed without prejudice
Samsung’s counterclaims and defenses — which in patent cases typically include invalidity and unenforceability arguments — were dismissed without prejudice. This means Samsung preserved the right to raise those positions in future proceedings. Should AGIS assert the same patents against Samsung’s supply chain or customers, Samsung’s invalidity arguments remain available. This asymmetry typically reflects a negotiated compromise on exit terms.
Counterclaims preservedPatents remain enforceable — but AGIS’s Samsung campaign is closed
US9749829B2 and US9820123B2 were not invalidated; no court ruled on their scope or validity. Both patents remain in force and AGIS retains the right to assert them against other Android device makers, app developers, or mapping service providers. Companies with products incorporating similar location-sharing or map-based messaging features should treat these patents as live enforcement risks and consider FTO analysis.
Patents remain active threatsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Agis Software Development, LLC | Company | Patent licensing entity — holder of US9749829B2 and US9820123B2 covering location-sharing and map-based messagingSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Company | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. — global manufacturer of Galaxy Android devicesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Samsung Electronics America, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alfred Ross Fabricant | Attorney | Counsel for Agis Software Development, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Benjamin T. Wang | Attorney | Counsel for Agis Software Development, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Enrique Iturralde | Attorney | Counsel for Agis Software Development, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Enrique William Iturralde | Attorney | Counsel for Agis Software Development, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Minna Y. Chan | Attorney | Counsel for Agis Software Development, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Peter Lambrianakos | Attorney | Counsel for Agis Software Development, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Samuel Franklin Baxter | Attorney | Counsel for Agis Software Development, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sarah Gabrielle Hartman | Attorney | Counsel for Agis Software Development, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Vincent J. Rubino , III | Attorney | Counsel for Agis Software Development, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Vincent Joseph Rubino, III | Attorney | Counsel for Agis Software Development, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fabricant LLP | Law Firm | Representing Agis Software Development, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fabricant LLP (NY) | Law Firm | Representing Agis Software Development, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP | Law Firm | Representing Agis Software Development, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | McKool Smith PC | Law Firm | Representing Agis Software Development, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Russ, August & Kabat LLP | Law Firm | Representing Agis Software Development, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Amy K. Liang | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Andrew Bledsoe | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Bill Trac | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Darin Walter Snyder | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David S. Almeling | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Gregory Blake Thompson | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | James Mark Mann | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kevin Marshall Sadler | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Luann Loraine Simmons | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Margaret McInerney Welsh | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Mark Liang | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Neil Phillip Sirota | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert Lawrence Maier | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Sorin Zaharia | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Stacy Yae | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Baker Botts LLP | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Baker Botts LLP (New York) | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gillam & Smith, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Mann Tindel & Thompson | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | O’Melveny & Myers – San Francisco | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | O’Melveny & Myers LLP | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | O’Melveny & Myers LLP (LA) | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation’s language — ‘raised or could have raised’ — is broader than a standard claim-by-claim dismissal. This res judicata-style formulation forecloses AGIS from re-characterising its infringement theory against Samsung on these patents. The without-prejudice carve-out for Samsung’s counterclaims is a deliberate asymmetry, suggesting Samsung insisted on preserving its invalidity positions as a condition of the deal. No royalty, damages figure, or licence term appears in the public record.
US9749829B2 & US9820123B2 — Map-Based Communication and Location-Sharing Technology
US9749829B2 (application US14/633764) and US9820123B2 (application US15/255046) both sit in the domain of location-aware communication technology — specifically, systems and methods that enable mobile devices to share location data and communicate via map-based interfaces. These patents cover functionality now deeply embedded in mainstream Android applications, including Find My Device, Google Maps, and location-sharing within messaging platforms. Their application dates place them in the early-to-mid 2010s, a period when real-time location sharing on mobile devices was transitioning from novelty to default feature.
The strategic risk posed by these patents extends well beyond Samsung. Any Android OEM, messaging app developer, or mapping service provider whose product enables users to share location data or communicate through a map interface is a potential target. The patents were asserted against one of the world’s largest device manufacturers without achieving invalidation — which means they retain presumptive validity. Companies building location features into wearables, fleet management systems, family safety apps, or enterprise mobility solutions should treat these as live risk assets.
Should your product team run an FTO against US9749829B2 and US9820123B2?
If your product incorporates real-time location sharing, map-based group messaging, device tracking via applications like Find My Device or equivalent, or any feature that displays user locations on an interactive map, these two patents are directly relevant. The fact that AGIS successfully filed against Samsung’s entire Galaxy ecosystem — and resolved without invalidation — confirms these patents are being actively enforced. Android OEMs, wearable manufacturers, enterprise mobility vendors, and location-API developers are all potential next targets.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US9749829B2 and US9820123B2 against your product’s feature set, identify prior art that may support IPR petitions, and surface AGIS’s full assertion history across U.S. districts. Running a structured FTO now — before a demand letter arrives — puts your legal and product teams in a far stronger negotiating position and can identify design-around options before product launch.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9749829B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Location-Sharing Patent Cases in N.D. California and Related Courts
Explore comparable location-technology and map-based communication patent assertions filed in N.D. California and other major patent districts against Android device makers.
What this case signals for the location-tech and Android IP landscape
A broad, asymmetric dismissal against Samsung suggests a sophisticated exit — and leaves the patents live for future targets.
Broad product lists are a litigation strategy, not just a damages calculation
AGIS named hundreds of Galaxy devices across every product category — a tactic that maximises leverage by forcing Samsung to defend a sweeping portfolio. Companies with large Android device portfolios should audit which features — particularly location-sharing, Find My Device, and map-based messaging — are covered by third-party patents now that these two patents remain valid and enforceable.
With-prejudice dismissal signals the deal got done — patents still threaten others
The permanent bar on AGIS’s Samsung claims is consistent with a licensing arrangement, though no terms are public. Critically, the patents were not invalidated. Other Android OEMs, app developers integrating Google Maps or location APIs, and wearable manufacturers should assess their exposure to US9749829B2 and US9820123B2 before AGIS’s next filing.
Agis v Samsung — key questions answered
The case was dismissed by stipulation on 20 February 2024 after 546 days. AGIS’s infringement claims were dismissed with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), permanently barring re-filing against Samsung on US9749829B2 and US9820123B2. Samsung’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice. Each party bore its own costs.
Yes. A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41 does not constitute a ruling on validity or enforceability. No court adjudicated the merits of AGIS’s patents. Both US9749829B2 and US9820123B2 remain presumptively valid and can be asserted against other defendants.
Dismissal with prejudice operates as a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes. AGIS is permanently barred from asserting the same infringement claims — including claims it ‘raised or could have raised’ — against Samsung on these patents. It cannot re-file the same suit in any U.S. court.
This asymmetry is a negotiated outcome. Samsung’s invalidity and other defenses remain available for future use — for example, if AGIS sues Samsung’s partners or customers. The without-prejudice carve-out is consistent with Samsung protecting its legal position as a condition of agreeing to the dismissal.
The accused product list was exceptionally broad, covering the Galaxy S series (S through S10+), Galaxy A, C, J, M, and E series smartphones, Galaxy Note series, Galaxy Tab tablets, Galaxy Gear and Watch wearables, and Galaxy Book devices — all pre-configured with map-based and location-sharing applications including Google Maps, Find My Device, Messages, Hangouts, and Google Chrome.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.