ACQIS LLC v. ZT Group Int’l: 6-Patent PCI Bus Dispute Ends in Stipulated Dismissal
ACQIS LLC, a serial patent licensor holding a portfolio of PCI bus serial interface and LVDS channel patents, sued ZT Group International in the Western District of Texas over six patents covering computer interconnect architecture. After 609 days of litigation, both parties jointly stipulated to dismiss all claims with prejudice — each bearing its own legal costs.
Six-Patent LVDS and PCI Bus Portfolio Dispute Ends by Mutual Stipulation
ACQIS LLC filed suit on 22 December 2023 in the Western District of Texas — Waco Division — before Judge Alan D. Albright, one of the most prominent patent trial judges in the United States. The complaint asserted six patents covering computer interconnect architecture: USRE046947E, USRE044654E, US8977797B2, US9529768B2, US9703750B2, and US8234436B2. The accused products relate to computer systems using CPU or peripheral bridges connected to low-voltage differential signal (LVDS) channels that communicate serial bits of PCI bus transactions — a foundational area of server and embedded computing design.
The case concluded on 22 August 2025 when ACQIS and ZT Group International jointly filed a stipulation of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). All claims asserted by ACQIS were dismissed with prejudice, meaning ACQIS cannot re-file the same claims against ZT Group on these patents. ZT Group’s affirmative defenses — which typically include invalidity and non-infringement contentions — were dismissed without prejudice, preserving ZT Group’s ability to raise those defences in future proceedings involving these patents.
A 609-day lifespan before a stipulated dismissal — with no public cost award — is consistent with a negotiated resolution, though the precise terms remain confidential. The asymmetry between claim dismissal with prejudice and defence dismissal without prejudice is a standard settlement structure that suggests the parties reached a commercial arrangement. What drove the resolution — whether licensing, design-around, or litigation cost calculus — is not disclosed in the public record. ACQIS has historically pursued broad licensing programmes across the computer interconnect space, and this outcome is consistent with that enforcement strategy.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 609 days
609 days — above median duration for W.D. Texas patent cases resolved before trial
Stipulated dismissal with prejudice: what each party gains and loses
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): joint stipulation of dismissal explained
A dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires the signatures of all parties who have appeared. Unlike a unilateral voluntary dismissal, this stipulation is jointly agreed and final upon filing — no court order is needed. Here, the stipulation expressly provides that ACQIS’s claims are dismissed with prejudice, which carries the same preclusive effect as a final judgment on the merits.
Joint stipulation — no court order neededClaims out with prejudice; defences preserved without prejudice
The stipulation applies different standards to each side: ACQIS’s infringement claims against ZT Group are extinguished permanently under claim preclusion principles. ZT Group’s defences — likely including invalidity and non-infringement — are dismissed without prejudice, meaning ZT Group retains the option to assert those defences if ACQIS pursues enforcement against it or related entities on these patents in the future. This asymmetry is a hallmark of a negotiated exit.
Claims: final. Defences: preserved.Each party bears its own fees — no prevailing party finding
The stipulation explicitly states that each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. This means no fee-shifting motion under 35 U.S.C. § 285 was pursued or granted — neither party was declared a prevailing party. After 609 days of litigation before Judge Albright, mutual fee-bearing is consistent with a commercially negotiated resolution rather than a clear-cut legal victory for either side.
No § 285 fee awardWhat ‘with prejudice’ means for future ACQIS enforcement against ZT Systems
Dismissal with prejudice of ACQIS’s claims against ZT Group operates as res judicata on those specific claims. ACQIS cannot re-litigate the same infringement allegations against ZT Group based on the same patents and accused products. However, the without-prejudice dismissal of ZT Group’s defences means those invalidity arguments have not been adjudicated — the patents remain unchallenged on the merits in this proceeding.
Res judicata on ACQIS claimsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | ACQIS, LLC | Company | Patent licensing entity — holder of USRE046947E and PCI bus serial interface portfolioSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | ZT Group Int’l, Inc. | Company | ZT Group Int’l, Inc. — server and data centre hardware manufacturer (ZT Systems)Search 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 & 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 | Ahimsa E. Hodari | Attorney | Counsel for ZT Group Int’l, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alan A. Limbach | Attorney | Counsel for ZT Group Int’l, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David R. Knudson | Attorney | Counsel for ZT Group Int’l, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Erin P. Gibson | Attorney | Counsel for ZT Group Int’l, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Gianni Minutoli | Attorney | Counsel for ZT Group Int’l, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jennifer Librach Nall | Attorney | Counsel for ZT Group Int’l, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John Michael Guaragna | Attorney | Counsel for ZT Group Int’l, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael Saulnier | Attorney | Counsel for ZT Group Int’l, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | DLA Piper US LLP | Law Firm | Representing ZT Group Int’l, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation’s language is precise and commercially deliberate. By specifying that plaintiff’s claims are dismissed ‘with prejudice’ while defendant’s defences are dismissed ‘without prejudice,’ the parties have created an asymmetric finality structure. ACQIS surrenders its right to re-assert these specific claims against ZT Group, while ZT Group retains its invalidity arsenal for any future dispute. The explicit ‘each party to bear its own costs’ clause confirms no fee motion was filed or conceded, which is consistent with a negotiated commercial resolution rather than a litigation-driven outcome.
USRE046947E and 5 further patents — PCI bus serial interface and LVDS channel architecture
The six asserted patents span two reissue patents (USRE046947E, USRE044654E) and four original utility patents covering computer interconnect architecture. The core technology involves peripheral component interconnect (PCI) bus transactions serialised and communicated over low-voltage differential signal (LVDS) channels — a design approach that enables high-speed, low-noise data transfer between CPUs, peripheral bridges, and connected modules. The reissue patents derive from applications filed in 2013 and 2014, suggesting the underlying inventions predate widespread PCIe adoption.
For the server and embedded computing market, these patents present a non-trivial enforcement risk. ACQIS targets the specific architectural configuration of how peripheral bridges interface with LVDS serial channels — a design element present in a broad range of server motherboards, industrial computing platforms, and data centre hardware. US8234436B2 adds a data security dimension to the portfolio, potentially extending coverage beyond pure interconnect design into security-sensitive computing environments. The combination of reissue patents and original utility patents suggests a portfolio that has been actively managed and potentially broadened post-grant.
Should you run an FTO against USRE046947E and the ACQIS PCI bus portfolio?
Any company designing or selling computer systems that incorporate peripheral bridges communicating PCI bus transaction data over LVDS serial channels — including server OEMs, embedded computing vendors, and industrial PC manufacturers — should treat this portfolio as a live FTO priority. ACQIS has demonstrated the willingness to assert all six patents simultaneously in W.D. Texas, the most plaintiff-friendly district court venue in the US for patent cases. With claims dismissed with prejudice only against ZT Group, the remaining market remains exposed.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map product architectures against the specific claim language of USRE046947E, USRE044654E, and the four related utility patents in minutes. Eureka surfaces claim-by-claim analysis, prosecution history flags, and prior art candidates — enabling engineering teams to identify design-around paths before a licensing demand arrives. Monitoring ACQIS’s filing activity across all districts is also available through Eureka’s litigation tracking module.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USRE046947E to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar PCI bus and computer interconnect patent cases in W.D. Texas
Cases involving PCI bus serial interface and LVDS channel patents before Judge Albright in the Western District of Texas, including other ACQIS enforcement actions.
What this case signals for the computer interconnect IP landscape
ACQIS’s six-patent assertion against a server OEM in W.D. Texas — and its negotiated exit — offers clear read-throughs for the PCI bus and LVDS patent space.
ACQIS’s LVDS/PCI portfolio remains active enforcement risk for server OEMs
ACQIS has pursued enforcement across the computer interconnect space over many years. The with-prejudice dismissal here resolves only ZT Group’s exposure — it does not extinguish the patents. Any server, embedded computing, or peripheral bridge manufacturer using PCI bus serial interfaces with LVDS channels should assess their exposure to this portfolio, particularly given ACQIS’s demonstrated willingness to litigate before Judge Albright.
W.D. Texas and Judge Albright remain the preferred venue for this class of assertion
Filing in W.D. Texas before Judge Albright signals a plaintiff serious about efficient case management and trial scheduling. Companies facing assertions in this venue should move quickly on claim construction strategy and invalidity development. The 609-day timeline here — resolved before trial — is consistent with the settlement pressure that W.D. Texas scheduling creates for defendants facing multi-patent assertions.
ACQIS v ZT — key questions answered
ACQIS asserted six patents: USRE046947E, USRE044654E, US8977797B2, US9529768B2, US9703750B2, and US8234436B2. The patents cover computer systems using CPU or peripheral bridges connected to LVDS channels that communicate serial bits of PCI bus transactions, as well as a data security method for computer modules.
Dismissal with prejudice of ACQIS’s claims operates as a final adjudication under res judicata principles. ACQIS cannot re-file the same infringement claims against ZT Group based on the same patents and accused products. The patents themselves are not invalidated — ACQIS retains enforcement rights against third parties not party to this stipulation.
The asymmetric dismissal structure — claims out with prejudice, defences without — is consistent with a negotiated resolution in which ZT Group preserves the right to assert invalidity or non-infringement defences if it faces future enforcement on these patents. It does not reflect a merits finding and does not constitute an adjudication of the patents’ validity.
Judge Alan D. Albright of the Western District of Texas — Waco Division — is one of the most prominent patent trial judges in the US, known for aggressive scheduling and trial-readiness that creates settlement pressure on defendants. ACQIS’s choice of this venue is consistent with a plaintiff strategy designed to move cases efficiently toward trial, maximising licensing leverage.
No. The stipulated dismissal is specific to ACQIS LLC and ZT Group International, Inc. The six asserted patents remain in force and ACQIS retains full enforcement rights against any other party. Companies in the server, embedded computing, or peripheral bridge markets that use LVDS-based PCI serial interconnect architectures should independently assess their exposure to this portfolio.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.