ACQIS LLC v. Advantech Co. — Five-Patent PCIe Bus Dispute Dismissed With Prejudice
ACQIS LLC, a patent licensing entity holding a portfolio of PCIe bus interface and USB channel patents, sued Advantech Co., Ltd. in the Western District of Texas alleging infringement across a broad range of embedded PC and industrial computing products. The parties jointly stipulated to dismissal with prejudice after 602 days of litigation, with each side bearing its own costs.
PCIe Bus Patent Portfolio Assertion Against Industrial Computing Giant Ends in Stipulated Dismissal
On December 22, 2023, ACQIS LLC filed a patent infringement action against Advantech Co., Ltd. in the Western District of Texas before Judge Alan D. Albright, asserting five patents — US9529769B2, USRE044654E, USRE045140E, US8977797B2, and US9703750B2 — covering PCIe bus interface channel and USB 3.x interconnect technologies. The accused products spanned virtually Advantech’s entire industrial computing portfolio, including embedded PCs, single board computers, computer-on-modules, industrial panel PCs, server and gateway hardware, medical terminals, and EDGE controllers, among others.
The case closed on August 15, 2025, via a Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal. All claims asserted by ACQIS were dismissed with prejudice — meaning ACQIS cannot reassert these specific claims against Advantech on these patents again. Advantech’s defenses were dismissed without prejudice, preserving its right to raise invalidity or non-infringement arguments should ACQIS or a successor assert the same patents in future proceedings. Each party agreed to bear its own legal costs, suggesting a negotiated resolution rather than a contested judgment.
The 602-day duration is consistent with litigation that progressed through substantial pretrial activity before resolution, potentially involving claim construction or discovery exchanges that informed the settlement calculus. The asymmetric dismissal terms — plaintiff’s claims with prejudice, defendant’s defenses without — is a structurally typical settlement formulation that frequently signals a confidential licensing arrangement, though the public record does not confirm this. What remains unknown is whether any financial consideration passed between the parties and whether Advantech obtained a license to the asserted ACQIS patent portfolio.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 602 days
602 days — above the median for multi-patent district court cases in W.D. Texas
Stipulated dismissal with prejudice: what the asymmetric terms mean for both parties
Rule 41 stipulated dismissal: plaintiff’s claims permanently barred
A Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal requires agreement of all parties who have appeared. Dismissal with prejudice of plaintiff’s claims operates as an adjudication on the merits — ACQIS cannot re-file the same infringement claims against Advantech under these five patents. This is the strongest form of closure a defendant can obtain short of a full trial victory.
Claims permanently extinguishedDefendant’s defenses preserved: a deliberate and meaningful distinction
While ACQIS’s claims are dismissed with prejudice, Advantech’s defenses — including invalidity and non-infringement — are dismissed without prejudice. This asymmetry is legally significant: it means Advantech retains the ability to contest these patents if they are later asserted by ACQIS or any assignee in a different context. This structure typically signals a negotiated outcome designed to protect both parties’ future flexibility.
Defenses survive for future useACQIS forecloses Advantech litigation but retains portfolio for others
The with-prejudice dismissal against Advantech closes this enforcement avenue permanently. However, ACQIS’s five patents remain active and enforceable against other parties in the industrial computing and embedded hardware space. The own-costs provision suggests ACQIS did not extract a publicly disclosed damages award, but a confidential licensing fee is consistent with this settlement structure and cannot be ruled out from the public record.
Portfolio remains live against othersAdvantech secures litigation closure, but sector risk from ACQIS portfolio persists
Advantech’s resolution — whatever its confidential terms — removes the immediate litigation burden. For the broader industrial computing and embedded PC sector, the ACQIS PCIe and USB interface portfolio remains a live assertion risk. Competitors using PCIe bus interconnects, USB 3.x channels, or backplane architectures in similar product categories should treat this case as a signal to review their FTO exposure against the five asserted patents.
Sector-wide FTO risk remainsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | ACQIS, LLC | Company | Patent licensing entity — holder of US9529769B2 and four related PCIe/USB interface patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Advantech Co., Ltd. | Company | Advantech Co., Ltd. — Taiwan-headquartered global manufacturer of industrial computing and embedded hardwareSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ann Marie Byers | Attorney | Counsel for ACQIS, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Case L. Collard | Attorney | Counsel for ACQIS, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Dana M. Herberholz | Attorney | Counsel for ACQIS, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Elliot J. Hales | Attorney | Counsel for ACQIS, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Gregory S. Tamkin | Attorney | Counsel for ACQIS, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Paige Arnette Amstutz | Attorney | Counsel for ACQIS, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert Pierce Earle | Attorney | Counsel for ACQIS, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dorsey & Whitnay, LLP | Law Firm | Representing ACQIS, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dorsey & Whitney LLP | Law Firm | Representing ACQIS, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Scott Douglass & McConnico LLP | Law Firm | Representing ACQIS, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Caroline M. Vermillion | Attorney | Counsel for Advantech Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jonathan Peter Hersey | Attorney | Counsel for Advantech Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Matthew Alexander Blair | Attorney | Counsel for Advantech Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | K&L Gates, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Advantech Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation’s deliberate asymmetry — plaintiff’s claims dismissed with prejudice, defendant’s defenses without — is a structurally purposeful drafting choice. Dismissal with prejudice of ACQIS’s claims functions as a final adjudication, permanently precluding re-litigation of these specific claims against Advantech. The without-prejudice treatment of Advantech’s defenses preserves optionality for future patent challenges. The own-costs provision removes any public fee-shifting signal, leaving the financial resolution, if any, entirely confidential.
US9529769B2 — PCIe bus interface channel and USB interconnect patent portfolio
The five asserted patents — US9529769B2, USRE044654E, USRE045140E, US8977797B2, and US9703750B2 — collectively protect methods and architectures for implementing PCIe (PCI Express) serial bus interface channels and USB 3.x interconnect technologies in modular and embedded computing environments. Two of the five are reissue patents, indicating ACQIS pursued broadened claim scope through the USPTO reissue process. The underlying application dates suggest a foundational portfolio built around the early commercialisation of PCIe as the dominant high-speed serial bus standard in industrial and embedded hardware.
For the industrial computing sector, these patents carry significant strategic weight. PCIe is ubiquitous across embedded PCs, single board computers, computer-on-modules, backplane architectures, and server hardware — precisely the product categories Advantech sells at scale. ACQIS has a documented history of asserting this portfolio against major computing OEMs, suggesting a systematic licensing programme. The reissue patents in particular warrant close examination by any company shipping PCIe-enabled industrial hardware, as broadened reissue claims may capture product designs not covered by the original patent claims.
Should your team run an FTO against the ACQIS PCIe patent portfolio?
If your organisation designs or manufactures products incorporating PCIe bus interfaces, USB 3.x channels, backplane interconnects, or computer-on-module architectures, the five patents asserted in this case are directly relevant to your freedom-to-operate position. Advantech’s product list — spanning embedded PCs, single board computers, industrial panel PCs, EDGE controllers, and medical terminals — maps closely to standard industrial computing hardware categories. If your products fall into any of these categories, a targeted FTO review against US9529769B2, USRE044654E, USRE045140E, US8977797B2, and US9703750B2 is advisable before launching new PCIe-enabled product lines.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can rapidly map your product’s technical features against the claim language of all five ACQIS patents, flag claim elements with the highest infringement risk, and surface prior art relevant to invalidity arguments — including prior art that may support intervening rights defences against the two reissue patents. Eureka also tracks the full ACQIS assertion history, enabling your team to benchmark licensing exposure against prior settlement patterns across the portfolio.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9529769B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar PCIe and embedded computing patent cases in W.D. Texas
Browse patent infringement actions involving PCIe bus interface and industrial computing patents litigated before Judge Albright in the Western District of Texas.
What this case signals for the industrial computing and PCIe IP landscape
A five-patent PCIe portfolio assertion against a major embedded hardware OEM ending in stipulated dismissal has clear read-across implications for the sector.
PCIe bus interface patents are active enforcement tools in industrial computing
ACQIS’s willingness to assert five patents across Advantech’s entire product range — from medical terminals to EDGE controllers — demonstrates that PCIe and USB channel IP is being actively enforced against industrial hardware OEMs. Any company shipping products with PCIe-connected CPUs, USB 3.x channels, or backplane architectures should audit exposure against this portfolio.
W.D. Texas and Judge Albright remain a preferred venue for NPE patent assertions
Filing before Judge Albright in the Western District of Texas is a deliberate strategic choice by patent assertion entities. His docket management practices and scheduling orders create settlement pressure. Companies receiving demand letters from ACQIS or similar NPEs should factor W.D. Texas procedural dynamics into their early case assessment and response timeline.
ACQIS v Advantech — key questions answered
ACQIS LLC asserted five patents covering PCIe bus interface channel and USB 3.x technologies against Advantech Co., Ltd. in the Western District of Texas. The accused products included Advantech’s embedded PCs, single board computers, computer-on-modules, industrial panel PCs, EDGE controllers, and medical terminals. The case was filed December 22, 2023, and closed August 15, 2025, via stipulated dismissal.
Dismissal with prejudice of ACQIS’s claims means ACQIS cannot re-file the same infringement claims against Advantech under the five asserted patents. It operates as a final adjudication on the merits. However, the patents remain valid and enforceable against other defendants, so ACQIS retains the ability to assert this portfolio against other industrial computing companies.
This asymmetric structure is a deliberate drafting choice common in patent litigation settlements. Dismissing defendant’s defenses without prejudice preserves Advantech’s right to raise invalidity or non-infringement arguments if the same patents are later asserted against it by ACQIS or a successor entity. It is consistent with a negotiated resolution designed to protect both parties’ future flexibility, though the specific terms of any agreement are not public.
ACQIS asserted five patents: US9529769B2, USRE044654E, USRE045140E, US8977797B2, and US9703750B2. Two are reissue patents (USRE044654E and USRE045140E), indicating ACQIS sought broadened claim coverage through the USPTO reissue process. The portfolio covers PCIe serial bus interface channel and USB 3.x interconnect architectures in modular and embedded computing systems.
The public record — a stipulated Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal with each party bearing its own costs — does not confirm a financial settlement or license. However, this dismissal structure, particularly the with-prejudice treatment of plaintiff’s claims combined with own-costs provisions and without-prejudice treatment of defenses, is structurally consistent with a confidential licensing arrangement. No financial terms have been disclosed in the public docket.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.