Near Field Electronics v. PPG Industries: NFC Patent Case Ends in Voluntary Dismissal

Updated on Dec. 1, 2025 | Written by Patsnap Team

Introduction

Near Field Electronics LLC’s patent infringement action against PPG Industries, Inc. concluded abruptly on September 17, 2025, when the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims without prejudice after just 91 days of litigation in the Texas Eastern District Court.

The case, styled 1:25-cv-00324, involved five patents related to near-field communication (NFC) technology, with allegations centered on credit card reader devices equipped with NXP PN512 NFC front-end components. Chief Judge Michael J. Truncale acknowledged the dismissal, vacating all court dates and denying pending motions as moot.

For IP professionals monitoring NFC patent litigation trends, this swift resolution raises important questions about assertion strategies and the evolving landscape of wireless communication patent disputes in 2025.

Case Summary

Case Overview

The Parties

Near Field Electronics LLC initiated this action as the patent holder and plaintiff, asserting rights in NFC-related intellectual property.

PPG Industries, Inc., the defendant, is a global supplier of paints, coatings, and specialty materials. PPG’s involvement in this NFC patent dispute likely relates to industrial or commercial applications utilizing contactless payment or identification systems.

The Patents at Issue

Five U.S. patents formed the basis of infringement allegations, covering various aspects of near-field communication technology—a cornerstone of modern contactless payment systems. Research these patent families on Patsnap Eureka IP to understand the broader NFC patent landscape.

The Accused Products

The complaint targeted credit card reader devices equipped with NXP PN512 NFC Front-End components. The PN512 is a widely-deployed transmission module, making this case potentially relevant to numerous manufacturers in the payment technology sector.

Legal Representation

Plaintiff was represented by Robert Dean Kiddie, Jr. and Trevor James Beaty of Devlin Law Firm LLC (Wilmington) and Shea Beaty. Defendant PPG Industries’ legal representation was not disclosed in available court records.

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

Near Field Electronics filed suit on June 18, 2025, in the Eastern District of Texas—a jurisdiction with extensive experience in patent litigation. Access the case docket via PACER.

💡 Key Insight: The 91-day case duration indicates resolution before substantive proceedings. No claim construction, discovery, or dispositive motions were addressed before dismissal—suggesting early settlement or strategic withdrawal.

Chief Judge Michael J. Truncale presided over the matter. The case terminated via plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal without prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), filed before defendant formally responded.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

On September 17, 2025, the Court entered an order acknowledging dismissal:

• ⚖️ All claims dismissed without prejudice
• ⚖️ Each party bears its own attorney’s fees and costs
• ⚖️ All court dates vacated; pending motions denied as moot

No damages were awarded, no injunction was issued, and no ruling on the merits occurred.

Dismissal Analysis

The “without prejudice” designation is significant—it preserves Near Field Electronics’ right to refile against PPG Industries or pursue similar actions against other defendants. Track similar litigation trends with Patsnap Eureka IP.

Several strategic scenarios may explain this Near Field Electronics PPG Industries patent case outcome:

Confidential Settlement: A common explanation for voluntary dismissals. Parties may have reached a licensing agreement with terms requiring case termination.

Strategic Repositioning: Plaintiffs sometimes dismiss to refile in a different venue, amend claims, or gather additional evidence.

Economic Calculation: The plaintiff may have determined continued prosecution was not cost-effective given anticipated defense resources.

Strategic Observations

⚖️ For Patent Holders:

• Early dismissal without prejudice preserves optionality for future assertion
• Settlement timing before significant litigation investment may maximize efficiency
• Texas Eastern District patent cases remain strategically significant

⚖️ For Accused Infringers:

• Monitoring dismissed cases for potential refiling may be prudent, especially “without prejudice” terminations
• Proactive licensing discussions may warrant consideration versus awaiting litigation
• Documenting patent validity and non-infringement positions early may prove valuable

🔬 For R&D Teams:

• NFC component selection may carry freedom-to-operate (FTO) considerations
• Prior art analysis before deploying third-party components may reduce risk
• Analyze patent landscapes on Patsnap Eureka IP for comprehensive assessment

Industry & Competitive Implications

Market Impact

PPG Industries avoided protracted NFC patent infringement litigation and associated operational distraction. Near Field Electronics retains its patent portfolio and ability to pursue other NFC technology implementers.

Broader Technology Sector

The NFC and contactless payment ecosystem involves numerous stakeholders: semiconductor manufacturers, device integrators, payment processors, and end-user enterprises. Patent assertions targeting component-level technology can affect supply chains.

📊 Industry Note: This case indicates NFC patents remain actively asserted in 2025. Companies deploying NXP PN512 or similar front-end modules may benefit from reviewing potential exposure through patent research on Patsnap Eureka IP.

Voluntary dismissals often accompany licensing negotiations, potentially establishing informal benchmarks for NFC technology licensing.

Key Takeaways

⚖️ For Patent Attorneys:

• Voluntary dismissals may require client counseling on refiling risks and limitations periods
• Texas Eastern District remains active for patent litigation
• Component-level assertions continue in payment technology sectors

📊 For IP Professionals:

• Tracking “without prejudice” dismissals may reveal portfolio reassertion patterns
• Proactive licensing for widely-deployed components warrants consideration
• Monitoring Near Field Electronics’ activity may indicate related filings

🔬 For R&D Teams:

• FTO reviews for NFC implementations, particularly NXP PN512 deployments, may be advisable
• Documenting design choices may support non-infringement positions
• Early IP counsel engagement when selecting third-party components may reduce risk

FAQ

What patents were involved in Near Field Electronics v. PPG Industries? Five NFC-related patents: US6996727B1, US6959350B1, US6742071B1, US6691201B1, and US7373531B2. View specifications on the USPTO Patent Database.

Why was the case dismissed? Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims without prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The specific reason was not disclosed in court records.

Can Near Field Electronics refile this case? Dismissal without prejudice generally preserves the right to reassert claims, subject to applicable statutes of limitations.

External Resources: USPTO Patent Database | PACER | TXED Court | Cornell LII – FRCP

Start your patent research on Patsnap Eureka IP — Track NFC patent litigation, analyze competitive landscapes, and strengthen your IP strategy.

DISCLAIMER: This article is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The analysis presented reflects publicly available case information and should not be relied upon as a substitute for consultation with a qualified patent attorney. Readers should seek professional legal counsel for advice on specific legal matters. The authors and publishers make no representations regarding the accuracy or completeness of the information provided.