ACQIS LLC v. Adlink Technology: 9-Patent PCIe & USB 3.x Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
ACQIS LLC, a patent licensing entity holding a deep portfolio of computer bus interface patents, sued Adlink Technology over PCIe and USB 3.x functionality in the MXC-6400 Series. Filed in the Western District of Texas before Judge Alan Albright, the case ended in a Rule 41 dismissal with prejudice after 342 days — extinguishing all asserted and potential infringement claims.
Nine-Patent PCIe Portfolio Assertion Ends Before First Responsive Pleading
On May 10, 2024, ACQIS LLC filed suit against Adlink Technology, Inc. and Adlink Technology (China) Co. Ltd. in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:24-cv-00248), asserting nine patents directed at computer bus interface technology — specifically PCIe and USB 3.x functionality — against Adlink’s MXC-6400 Series industrial computing modules. The case was assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright, a venue known for its patent-friendly docket management.
The case concluded on April 17, 2025, when ACQIS filed a unilateral stipulation of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Critically, the stipulation was filed before Adlink had filed any answer or motion for summary judgment, making unilateral dismissal procedurally available to the plaintiff. The dismissal was explicitly entered with prejudice, meaning ACQIS is permanently barred from reasserting any of the nine patents or related claims against Adlink for the accused MXC-6400 products. Each party agreed to bear its own costs.
A 342-day lifespan without a single responsive pleading from Adlink suggests the parties likely reached a commercial resolution — whether a license, covenant not to sue, or settlement — that made continued litigation unnecessary. The public record does not disclose any financial terms. The with-prejudice designation is notable: it goes beyond what Rule 41 strictly required at this procedural stage, suggesting ACQIS made a deliberate choice to permanently close the door, possibly as a concession in exchange for undisclosed consideration from Adlink.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 342 days
342 days — resolved before defendant filed any answer or dispositive motion
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits unilateral dismissal — but ACQIS chose prejudice
Federal Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order if filed before the defendant serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. Adlink had filed neither, so ACQIS had the right to a no-prejudice dismissal. Instead, ACQIS explicitly stipulated to dismissal with prejudice — a stronger, self-imposed bar that permanently forecloses re-litigation of any asserted or assertable claims from these nine patents against Adlink.
Voluntary — with prejudice electionACQIS permanently surrenders all nine patent claims against Adlink
By stipulating to dismissal with prejudice, ACQIS loses the right to bring any of the nine asserted patents — or claims it could have raised — against Adlink or the MXC-6400 Series in any future proceeding. This is a material strategic concession. However, because no merits ruling was issued, the patents themselves remain valid and enforceable against other parties. The with-prejudice scope is limited to ACQIS’s claims against Adlink specifically.
Patents survive; Adlink-specific barAdlink secures permanent immunity without filing a single pleading
Adlink Technology and its Chinese affiliate achieved a highly favourable outcome: permanent dismissal of a nine-patent infringement action without having to file an answer, engage in claim construction, or seek summary judgment. No invalidity findings were made, but Adlink faces no further litigation risk from ACQIS on these patents for the MXC-6400 Series. Each party bearing its own costs means Adlink recovered no attorneys’ fees despite the favourable resolution.
Full immunity — no fee recoveryACQIS portfolio remains active threat to other PCIe and USB 3.x implementers
The dismissal with prejudice against Adlink does not diminish the ACQIS portfolio’s enforceability against the broader market. Nine patents covering PCIe and USB 3.x bus interface functionality remain available for assertion against other industrial computing, embedded systems, and edge computing vendors. Companies shipping products that leverage PCIe or USB 3.x interconnects — particularly in industrial module form factors similar to MXC-6400 — should treat this case as a signal of active enforcement strategy by ACQIS.
Portfolio enforcement risk remainsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | ACQIS, LLC | Company | Patent licensing entity — holder of US8756359B2 and 8 further PCIe/USB bus interface patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Adlink Technology, Inc. | Company | Industrial computing hardware manufacturer; maker of the accused MXC-6400 Series modulesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Adlink Technology (China) Co Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Case L. Collard | Attorney | Counsel for ACQIS, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Paige Arnette Amstutz | Attorney | Counsel for ACQIS, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dorsey & Whitnay, LLP | Law Firm | Representing ACQIS, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Scott, Douglass & McConnico LLP | Law Firm | Representing ACQIS, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation’s explicit language — ‘dismissed WITH PREJUDICE’ and ‘all claims of infringement that Plaintiff raised or could have raised’ — is broader than the minimum required by Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). This phrasing forecloses not only the specific claims asserted but any claim ACQIS could theoretically have brought. No merits determination was made, leaving patent validity intact. The ‘each party bears its own costs’ provision eliminates any fee-shifting risk under 35 U.S.C. § 285, suggesting neither party sought an exceptional-case finding.
US8756359B2 and 8 further ACQIS patents — PCIe & USB 3.x bus interface technology
The nine asserted patents — including three reissue patents (USRE044739E, USRE044654E, USRE045140E) — collectively cover methods and systems for high-speed serial bus interface technology, specifically the PCIe (Peripheral Component Interconnect Express) and USB 3.x communication architectures central to modern embedded and industrial computing. The portfolio spans application filings from 2012 to 2014, with reissue patents indicating ACQIS deliberately broadened or corrected original claim scope post-grant to strengthen enforceability.
PCIe and USB 3.x are foundational interconnect standards embedded in virtually every modern computing platform, from industrial modules like the Adlink MXC-6400 Series to edge AI accelerators and embedded controllers. An entity holding enforceable patents on core bus interface functionality occupies significant licensing leverage across the entire hardware supply chain. The ACQIS portfolio — spanning nine grants with reissue coverage — represents a structured enforcement asset that has previously been asserted in multiple proceedings, making FTO analysis essential for any vendor shipping PCIe- or USB 3.x-enabled hardware.
Should you run an FTO analysis against the ACQIS PCIe and USB 3.x patent portfolio?
Any company shipping industrial computing modules, embedded systems, edge servers, or PCIe/USB 3.x-enabled hardware should treat the ACQIS portfolio as an active enforcement risk. This case confirms ACQIS is willing to assert all nine patents simultaneously in W.D. Texas — a jurisdiction with a compressed litigation schedule that increases settlement pressure on defendants. R&D and product teams integrating PCIe or USB 3.x interfaces into new product lines should conduct FTO analysis before launch, not after receiving a demand letter.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s PCIe and USB 3.x interface architecture against all nine ACQIS patents, identify claim elements most likely to read on your design, and surface prior art relevant to reissue claim validity. Eureka’s portfolio monitoring tools also flag new ACQIS filings and continuation applications — critical for tracking whether the portfolio is being extended into new interconnect standards such as PCIe 5.0 or USB4.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8756359B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar PCIe and USB patent infringement cases in W.D. Texas
Cases asserting PCIe and USB bus interface patents before Judge Albright in the Western District of Texas, including other ACQIS enforcement actions.
What this case signals for the PCIe and USB 3.x industrial computing IP landscape
ACQIS’s nine-patent assertion against Adlink follows a recognisable NPE enforcement pattern — and the resolution carries lessons for any hardware vendor in the bus interface space.
W.D. Texas remains a favoured venue for multi-patent NPE assertions
Filing nine patents in a single action before Judge Albright in Waco is a deliberate venue strategy. Despite post-TC Heartland shifts, W.D. Texas continues to attract NPE filings for its predictable scheduling and Albright’s patent-sympathetic reputation. Defendants in the industrial computing sector should monitor and prepare venue-transfer arguments early when sued there.
With-prejudice dismissal before first pleading strongly suggests a private resolution
ACQIS had no obligation to accept prejudice under Rule 41 at this stage. Electing it signals a negotiated outcome — likely a licence or covenant not to sue — in which Adlink received finality in exchange for undisclosed consideration. Companies receiving NPE demand letters should assess the cost-benefit of early licensing against the litigation runway before first responsive pleadings.
ACQIS v Adlink — key questions answered
ACQIS asserted nine patents: US8756359B2, USRE044739E, US8626977B2, USRE044654E, USRE045140E, US8977797B2, US9529768B2, US9703750B2, and US8234436B2. All relate to PCIe and USB 3.x bus interface technology and were asserted against Adlink’s MXC-6400 Series industrial computing modules in the Western District of Texas.
Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), ACQIS could have dismissed without prejudice since Adlink had not filed an answer. Instead, ACQIS elected dismissal with prejudice, permanently barring reassertion of all nine patents against Adlink. This voluntary choice strongly suggests a private resolution — likely a licence or covenant not to sue — in which Adlink received finality as part of the agreement.
The dismissal is specific to ACQIS’s claims against Adlink. The nine patents remain valid and enforceable against all other parties. Companies shipping PCIe- or USB 3.x-enabled hardware — especially industrial computing modules — remain exposed to assertion by ACQIS. The case confirms ACQIS’s willingness to file multi-patent actions in W.D. Texas and pursue resolution through pre-answer licensing pressure.
Three of the nine asserted patents are reissues: USRE044739E, USRE044654E, and USRE045140E. Reissue patents are granted when the USPTO corrects or broadens original claims post-grant. They carry expanded prosecution histories, making invalidity arguments more complex. Defendants facing reissue patents must account for claim broadening during reissue prosecution when constructing prior art or obviousness defences.
ACQIS was represented by attorneys Case L. Collard and Paige Arnette Amstutz, with counsel from Dorsey & Whitney LLP and Scott, Douglass & McConnico LLP. No defendant counsel was listed in the public record, consistent with the case resolving before Adlink filed any responsive pleading. Each party agreed to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.