Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
ACQIS LLC v. Sony Group — PCIe & USB 3.x Patent Infringement | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID1:23-cv-00822
FiledApr 2022
ClosedSep 2025
Patent Litigation

ACQIS LLC v. Sony Group: PCIe & USB 3.x Patent Dispute Ends in Dismissal With Prejudice

ACQIS LLC, a patent licensing entity, sued Sony Group Corporation in the Western District of Texas asserting five patents covering PCIe and USB 3.x interconnect functionality in Sony video game consoles. After 1,252 days of litigation, the parties filed a joint stipulation on December 23, 2024, dismissing all of ACQIS’s claims with prejudice — foreclosing any re-filing of those claims.

Resolution time
1252days
1,252-day case duration — well above the median WDTX patent case to termination
Patents asserted
5
USRE044654E, USRE045140E, US8977797B2, US9529768B2, US9703750B2 — 5 PCIe/USB 3.x interconnect patents asserted
Outcome
Case Dismissed
All ACQIS claims dismissed with prejudice; Sony defenses dismissed without prejudice
Cost ruling
N/A
No cost or fee-shifting ruling recorded on the public docket
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

A High-Stakes PCIe Licensing Play Against Sony’s Console Portfolio

ACQIS LLC filed suit against Sony Group Corporation on April 14, 2022 in the Western District of Texas before Judge Alan D. Albright, asserting infringement of five patents — two reissue patents (USRE044654E and USRE045140E) and three utility patents (US8977797B2, US9529768B2, US9703750B2) — covering PCIe and USB 3.x interconnect architecture embedded in Sony’s video game consoles. The asserted technology relates to high-speed serial bus interconnects, a foundational layer in modern consumer electronics and gaming hardware.

The case concluded on December 23, 2024, when the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): all of ACQIS’s claims were dismissed with prejudice, while all of Sony’s defenses — including any invalidity or non-infringement positions — were dismissed without prejudice. Judge Albright noted that the stipulation divested the court of jurisdiction without requiring a court order, and directed the Clerk to close the case. The asymmetric dismissal structure is consistent with a negotiated resolution, likely a settlement, though no financial terms appear on the public record.

The 1,252-day duration — spanning over three and a half years — suggests protracted claim construction, discovery disputes, or parallel IPR proceedings that may have shaped the parties’ calculus before reaching resolution. ACQIS has a history of asserting PCIe-related patents across multiple defendants, and the with-prejudice dismissal of its claims here may reflect either a licensing agreement or a strategic decision to conserve resources. What drove the specific timing in late 2024, and whether any monetary consideration changed hands, remains undisclosed from the public record.

Case at a glance
Case no.1:23-cv-00822
PlaintiffACQIS, LLC
CourtTexas Western
JudgeAlan D Albright
FiledApril 14, 2022
ClosedSeptember 17, 2025
Duration1252 days
OutcomeCase Dismissed
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisCase Dismissed
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / Texas Western District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to Case Dismissed in 1252 days

1,252-day case duration — well above the median WDTX patent case to termination

Case timeline: Complaint filed APR 14 2022, DEC–JAN — 1252 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in ACQIS, LLC v Sony Group Corporation from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, Texas Western District Court. APR 14 2022 Complaint filed Pre-trial proceedings SEP 17 2025 Case Dismissed 1252 DAYS TOTAL
Dismissal terms

Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties

Legal mechanism

Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal: no court order required

A joint stipulation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) takes effect automatically upon filing — no judicial approval is needed. Judge Albright confirmed the court lost jurisdiction the moment the stipulation was filed, citing Fifth Circuit precedent. This mechanism is commonly used when parties have reached a private resolution and wish to exit litigation cleanly, without creating a merits-based precedent that could affect future cases.

Rule 41 stipulated dismissal
Plaintiff outcome

With-prejudice dismissal bars ACQIS from re-asserting these claims against Sony

Dismissal with prejudice of ACQIS’s claims operates as a final adjudication on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes. ACQIS cannot re-file the same infringement claims against Sony on these five patents for conduct already at issue. This is a meaningful concession from the patent holder’s perspective, and typically signals either a licensing payment received in exchange, or a strategic decision that the litigation risk outweighed expected recovery. The public record does not confirm which scenario applies.

Claim preclusion applies to ACQIS
Defendant outcome

Sony’s defenses exit without prejudice — invalidity positions preserved

Sony’s defenses — including non-infringement, invalidity, and any IPR-related arguments — were dismissed without prejudice, meaning Sony retains those positions for any future litigation involving these patents. This asymmetric structure benefits Sony: it faces no res judicata bar on its defensive theories and could raise them again if ACQIS were to assert these patents in a different context or against Sony’s future products. It also suggests Sony successfully negotiated a favourable dismissal structure.

Sony defenses preserved
Commercial implications

PCIe licensing risk remains live for the broader gaming hardware sector

ACQIS’s five asserted patents covering PCIe and USB 3.x interconnects remain enforceable against other defendants. The with-prejudice dismissal here does not affect the patents’ validity or scope — it only resolves the Sony dispute. Companies shipping gaming consoles, embedded PCs, or other devices with PCIe or USB 3.x interfaces should treat this outcome as a signal that ACQIS actively enforces this portfolio and has the litigation resources to run multi-year campaigns. An FTO analysis against ACQIS’s interconnect patents is warranted for product teams in this space.

ACQIS portfolio remains active
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 1:23-cv-00822 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffACQIS, LLCCompanyPatent licensing entity — holder of PCIe and USB 3.x interconnect patents including USRE044654ESearch in Eureka ↗
DefendantSony Group CorporationCompanySony Group Corporation — global consumer electronics and gaming hardware manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselAaron R. FahrenkrogAttorneyCounsel for ACQIS, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselAndrea L. FairAttorneyCounsel for ACQIS, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselLogan James DrewAttorneyCounsel for ACQIS, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselRonald J. SchutzAttorneyCounsel for ACQIS, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselT. John Ward , Jr.AttorneyCounsel for ACQIS, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselWilliam R. JonesAttorneyCounsel for ACQIS, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmMiller Fair Henry PLLCLaw FirmRepresenting ACQIS, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmRobins Kaplan, LLPLaw FirmRepresenting ACQIS, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselAbran J. KeanAttorneyCounsel for Sony Group CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselAmy K. WigmoreAttorneyCounsel for Sony Group CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselAnna MizziAttorneyCounsel for Sony Group CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselCarrie M. MontgomeryAttorneyCounsel for Sony Group CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselDominic E. MassaAttorneyCounsel for Sony Group CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselEmerald Sundai IottAttorneyCounsel for Sony Group CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselEric A. BureshAttorneyCounsel for Sony Group CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselHeath A. BrooksAttorneyCounsel for Sony Group CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselJennifer Weng GaoAttorneyCounsel for Sony Group CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselJosefina B. GarciaAttorneyCounsel for Sony Group CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselJoseph J. MuellerAttorneyCounsel for Sony Group CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselMary V. SooterAttorneyCounsel for Sony Group CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselNatalie M. MorrisseyAttorneyCounsel for Sony Group CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselRachel S. BierAttorneyCounsel for Sony Group CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselScott W. BertulliAttorneyCounsel for Sony Group CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmErise, IP PALaw FirmRepresenting Sony Group CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmWilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Sony Group CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge Alan D AlbrightJudgeTexas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

“On December 23, 2024, Plaintiff, ACQUIS LLC, and Defendants, SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC and SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT INC., filed a joint stipulation for dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) for all claims asserted by Plaintiff and dismissal without prejudice all defenses asserted by Defendants. ECF No. 183. In light of the dismissal stipulation, this court no longer has jurisdiction over this action. “The court lost jurisdiction when the parties voluntarily dismissed the entire suit under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii).” Def. Distributed v. United States Dep’t of State, 947 F.3d 870, 872 (5th Cir. 2020). A stipulation of dismissal dismisses the action “without a court order.” Id. at 873 (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)). Accordingly, the Clerk’s Office is directed to CLOSE this case.”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 1:23-cv-00822, Texas Western District Court

The joint stipulation recites dismissal of ACQIS’s claims ‘with prejudice’ and Sony’s defenses ‘without prejudice’ — an asymmetric structure that has concrete legal consequences. The with-prejudice disposition of ACQIS’s claims functions as a final judgment for res judicata purposes, barring re-litigation of those specific infringement claims against Sony. Judge Albright’s order emphasises that no court action was required to effectuate the dismissal, consistent with Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The phrasing is consistent with a negotiated resolution, though the public record does not confirm the existence or terms of any settlement agreement.

PACER case 1:23-cv-00822 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

USRE044654E, USRE045140E, US8977797B2, US9529768B2, US9703750B2 — PCIe & USB 3.x Interconnect Patents

Publication No.USRE044654E
Application No.US13/649078
Patent details
ProductReissue patent covering PCIe serial bus interconnect architecture
Cited in actionApril 14, 2022

Publication No.USRE045140E
Application No.US14/109749
Patent details
ProductReissue patent covering PCIe/USB 3.x interconnect interface methods
Cited in actionApril 14, 2022

Publication No.US8977797B2
Application No.US13/649084
Patent details
ProductUSB and PCIe peripheral component interconnect for computing systems
Cited in actionApril 14, 2022

Publication No.US9529768B2
Application No.US14/209922
Patent details
ProductHigh-speed serial interconnect data transfer architecture
Cited in actionApril 14, 2022

Publication No.US9703750B2
Application No.US14/511093
Patent details
ProductPCIe/USB 3.x bus interface and control circuitry
Cited in actionApril 14, 2022

The five asserted patents — USRE044654E, USRE045140E, US8977797B2, US9529768B2, and US9703750B2 — collectively cover PCIe (Peripheral Component Interconnect Express) and USB 3.x high-speed serial interconnect technologies. Two are reissue patents, indicating ACQIS sought to broaden or correct their original claim scope after grant, which can expand the addressable product footprint significantly. The application numbers span multiple filing windows, suggesting a staggered continuation strategy designed to maintain coverage as PCIe and USB specifications evolved from Gen 1 through Gen 3 and beyond.

PCIe and USB 3.x are foundational to virtually every modern computing platform — from gaming consoles and embedded PCs to server infrastructure. ACQIS’s portfolio is positioned at this architectural chokepoint, making it commercially threatening to a wide range of hardware manufacturers. The Sony case demonstrates that ACQIS is willing to pursue multi-year litigation against major OEMs. Competitors of Sony in the gaming and consumer electronics space — as well as suppliers of PCIe-connected components — should treat this portfolio as an active enforcement risk and conduct thorough claim mapping.

Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Freedom to operate

Should your team run an FTO against ACQIS’s PCIe and USB 3.x patents?

Any R&D or product team developing devices that implement PCIe Gen 3+, USB 3.x host or device controllers, or serial bus interconnects should assess their exposure to ACQIS’s five asserted patents and the broader ACQIS portfolio. Gaming consoles are the named product category here, but the underlying interconnect claims are technology-agnostic and potentially reach embedded PCs, automotive infotainment systems, and enterprise compute platforms incorporating PCIe fabric.

PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s PCIe and USB 3.x implementation against ACQIS’s full patent family — including granted claims, continuations, and reissue scope. Eureka surfaces claim-level overlap risks, flags co-pending applications that may mature into additional assertions, and benchmarks your exposure against comparable NPE enforcement patterns in the WDTX. This analysis is most valuable before a product launch or major component redesign.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USRE044654E to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

Related PCIe & USB Patent Infringement Cases in WDTX

Cases involving PCIe and USB 3.x interconnect patent assertions in the Western District of Texas, including other ACQIS enforcement actions against consumer electronics defendants.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
ACQIS, LLC patent enforcement history, Texas Western case history, ACQIS, LLC’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
Other ACQIS defendantsPCIe patent outcomes WDTXAlbright NPE case patternsUSB 3.x infringement suits
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this case signals for the PCIe and gaming hardware IP landscape

ACQIS’s multi-year enforcement campaign against Sony illustrates the sustained licensing risk posed by reissue patent portfolios in high-speed interconnect technology.

Reissue patents in interconnect tech carry elevated litigation risk

Two of the five asserted patents are reissue patents — a designation that signals the patentee broadened or corrected claim scope post-grant. Reissue patents can cover a wider product footprint than the original grant, making them particularly potent for licensing campaigns. Product teams working on PCIe or USB 3.x implementations should audit their exposure to ACQIS’s reissue portfolio specifically.

Asymmetric dismissal terms suggest Sony negotiated from a position of strength

The structure — ACQIS’s claims dismissed with prejudice, Sony’s defenses without — is not a neutral outcome. It reflects either a paid licence or a recognition by ACQIS that its infringement case faced headwinds. For defendants in similar NPE litigation, this pattern suggests that sustained, well-resourced defence through claim construction can shift bargaining dynamics materially before trial.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock PCIe and USB 3.x NPE enforcement trends, WDTX district court patterns, and ACQIS portfolio continuations analysis.
ACQIS portfolio mapParallel IPR risk signalsComparable NPE settlements
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

ACQIS v Sony — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

Map your PCIe and USB 3.x exposure before the next ACQIS filing

ACQIS’s interconnect patent portfolio remains active and enforceable. Run an FTO search against ACQIS’s reissue and utility patents in PatSnap Eureka and set enforcement monitoring alerts to track new filings before they reach your product line.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.