Omnitek Partners v. Garmin — Voluntarily Dismissed Without Prejudice in 11 Days
Omnitek Partners, LLC asserted US7118825B2, a conformal power supply patent, against navigation and electronics giant Garmin, Ltd. in the Southern District of Texas. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its own claims without prejudice just 11 days after filing — one of the shortest-lived patent actions on record.
An 11-day patent filing against Garmin in the conformal power supply space
On 9 February 2024, Omnitek Partners, LLC filed an infringement action against Garmin, Ltd. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, before Chief Judge Keith P. Ellison. The sole patent asserted was US7118825B2, directed to conformal power supply technology — a product category relevant to compact, portable, and wearable electronics devices of the type Garmin manufactures.
Just 11 days after filing, on 20 February 2024, Omnitek Partners filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court formally dismissed the plaintiff’s claims without prejudice, meaning Omnitek retains the legal right to refile substantially the same claims against Garmin in a future action, subject to applicable statutes of limitations.
An 11-day lifecycle is exceptionally brief even by the standards of early-exit patent litigation. The absence of defendant filings, no docketed answer, and dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — which requires no court order when filed before the defendant has answered — suggests the plaintiff acted unilaterally. Whether this reflects a pre-litigation settlement, a refiling strategy, or a decision to pursue a different venue remains unknown from the public record.
Filing to voluntary dismissal in 11 days
Case closed in 11 days — among the fastest dispositions in patent litigation
Voluntary dismissal without prejudice — what the record shows
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): Plaintiff’s unilateral exit right
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss its own action without a court order at any time before the defendant has served either an answer or a motion for summary judgment. No defendant filings appear on this docket, making this route available to Omnitek. The court’s order is confirmatory rather than discretionary — reflecting the plaintiff’s procedural right, not a judicial evaluation of the merits.
No court order requiredWithout prejudice: the refiling door stays open
A dismissal without prejudice means Omnitek’s claims are not adjudicated on the merits and are not barred from being refiled. Garmin receives no preclusive protection from this outcome. However, the public record is silent on whether any private agreement — such as a licensing deal, covenant not to sue, or settlement — accompanied this dismissal and may have resolved the dispute commercially, even if no such terms appear on the docket.
Omnitek may refile11 days: what an ultra-short lifecycle typically signals
Patent cases resolved in under two weeks before any substantive defendant engagement are statistically rare. This pattern is consistent with one of three scenarios: a rapid pre-suit resolution materialising after the complaint was filed, a strategic pivot to a different venue or defendant, or a filing error requiring immediate withdrawal. None can be confirmed from the public record alone, but the absence of any defendant counsel appearance is a meaningful data point.
Pre-answer dismissalNo cost award — each party bears its own expenses
Rule 41(a)(1) voluntary dismissals do not automatically trigger fee-shifting. No motion for attorneys’ fees or costs appears on this docket. In exceptional patent cases, defendants may later seek fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, but this typically requires a filed motion and judicial finding — neither of which occurred here. Garmin’s litigation exposure on costs appears to have been minimal given the 11-day window.
No fee shifting recordedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Typ | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kläger | Omnitek Partners, LLC | Unternehmen | Patent licensing entity — holder of US7118825B2, conformal power supply technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Beklagter | Garmin, Ltd. | Unternehmen | Garmin, Ltd. — global navigation and wearable electronics manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William P. Ramey , III | Attorney | Counsel for Omnitek Partners, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Keith P Ellison | Oberster Richter | Texas Southern District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The court’s order confirms dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) without prejudice, following Omnitek’s own Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (ECF No. 9). This language carries no merits determination — the court made no finding on infringement, validity, or claim construction. For Garmin, the dismissal provides temporary relief but no preclusive shield. For Omnitek, the without-prejudice designation preserves full optionality to reassert US7118825B2 in any competent forum.
US7118825B2 — Conformal Power Supply Technology
US7118825B2, filed under application number US10/236005, protects conformal power supply technology — a design approach in which the power supply conforms to the physical geometry of the device or housing it powers, rather than occupying a fixed rectangular form factor. This architecture is particularly relevant to compact, space-constrained electronics including wearables, portable navigation units, avionics systems, and military hardware. The patent’s issuance history places it in a generation of power electronics innovation focused on miniaturisation and integration.
From a competitive standpoint, US7118825B2 sits in a technology space that intersects consumer electronics, defence, and industrial IoT — all sectors experiencing sustained growth in demand for compact, efficient power architectures. Garmin’s product portfolio, spanning GPS devices, smartwatches, and aviation electronics, makes it a commercially logical defendant for a conformal power supply assertion. Any company developing or sourcing similar power supply architectures should assess their exposure to this patent’s claim scope independently.
Should your team run an FTO analysis against US7118825B2?
If your organisation develops, manufactures, or integrates conformal power supply architectures — particularly in wearables, portable navigation, avionics, or compact IoT devices — US7118825B2 is a relevant FTO reference. The fact that Omnitek has already filed against a major OEM like Garmin suggests active enforcement intent. A claim-level FTO analysis is advisable before commercialising products in these categories, even if your product design differs from Garmin’s.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map US7118825B2’s independent claims against your product specifications, flag overlapping prior art, and identify design-around options. Eureka’s claim monitoring tools can also alert your team if Omnitek refiles or asserts this patent against additional defendants — giving your IP and R&D teams the early warning needed to adapt product strategy or prepare a freedom-to-operate position before litigation risk escalates.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7118825B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar conformal power supply and electronics patent infringement cases
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the power electronics IP landscape
Ultra-brief patent filings against major electronics OEMs carry distinct signals for competitors, licensees, and FTO analysts.
Dismissal without prejudice preserves Omnitek’s litigation leverage over Garmin
Omnitek retains every right to refile US7118825B2 claims against Garmin. Companies in the navigation, wearable, and portable electronics sectors that supply or compete with Garmin should treat this dismissal as a pause, not a resolution. Monitoring Omnitek’s filing activity across districts is advisable.
Conformal power supply patents cover a broad and active electronics product category
Conformal power supply technology is relevant across wearables, avionics, military electronics, and compact consumer devices. US7118825B2 may present FTO risk for any company commercialising power supply architectures in these segments — not just Garmin. An independent claim analysis is warranted before product launch in adjacent categories.
Omnitek v Garmin — key questions answered
Omnitek Partners, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Garmin, Ltd. in the Southern District of Texas on 9 February 2024, asserting US7118825B2 relating to conformal power supplies. Eleven days later, Omnitek voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), meaning it can refile the same claims in future.
Dismissed without prejudice means the court made no ruling on the merits of Omnitek’s infringement claims. Garmin received no preclusive protection — Omnitek retains the right to refile US7118825B2 claims against Garmin in any competent court, subject to applicable statutes of limitations. Garmin cannot rely on this dismissal as a bar to future litigation.
Omnitek Partners asserted US7118825B2, covering conformal power supply technology — a design approach where the power supply conforms to device geometry rather than a fixed form factor. This is relevant to compact electronics including wearables, portable navigation units, and avionics, all areas where Garmin operates commercially.
The 11-day duration reflects Omnitek’s voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which allows a plaintiff to exit unilaterally before the defendant has filed an answer or summary judgment motion. No defendant filings appear on this docket. The precise reason — whether settlement, strategic refilng, or another factor — is not disclosed in the public record.
Omnitek Partners was represented by William P. Ramey III of Ramey LLP. No defendant counsel appearances are recorded on the docket, consistent with the case closing before Garmin filed any responsive pleading.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.