ADASA v. SML Group: Patent Infringement Case Dismissed With Prejudice
ADASA, Inc. asserted US9798967B2 — an RFID label encoding patent — against SML Group Limited and its US affiliates over CARE label products sold under the Clarity® platform. Filed in the Eastern District of Texas in April 2024, the case ran for 708 days before both parties jointly stipulated to a mutual dismissal with prejudice of all claims and counterclaims.
RFID Label IP Clash in E.D. Texas Ends With Mutual Prejudice Bar
ADASA, Inc. filed suit on 29 April 2024 in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 4:24-cv-00370) before Judge Sean D. Jordan, asserting infringement of US9798967B2 against SML Group Limited, SML (USA) Inc., and SML Intelligent Inventory Solutions LLC. The accused products are a large family of CARE labels sold by SML, identified by product codes including the GB and MR series, as well as products associated with SML's Clarity® software platform.
The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Dismissed with Prejudice'. The docket order states that the parties jointly stipulated that all of plaintiff's claims — including claims related to any of defendants' past, current, and future products and services, including Clarity® software products and services — shall be dismissed with prejudice, and that all of defendants' counterclaims shall likewise be dismissed with prejudice. The specific terms underlying this joint stipulation are not disclosed in the available public record.
The case ran for 708 days before resolution — a duration that suggests substantive engagement before the parties reached their agreed disposition. The mutual with-prejudice bar on both claims and counterclaims, covering past, current, and future products expressly including Clarity®, is notable in scope. What drove the parties to this outcome, and whether any commercial arrangement accompanied the stipulation, is not disclosed in the public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 708 days
708 days from filing to closure — an above-average span for a stipulated E.D. Texas infringement action
US9798967B2 — RFID-encoded label serialisation technology
Any company manufacturing, importing, or deploying UHF RFID-encoded labels — particularly CARE labels or serialised retail tags — should evaluate freedom-to-operate against US9798967B2. The patent was actively asserted against a major global RFID label supplier across a large product family, and has emerged from this litigation without any validity challenge resolved on the merits. Product teams developing RFID serialisation solutions or label management software should treat this as a live risk.
Official order — verbatim text
The joint stipulation expressly dismisses both plaintiff's claims and defendants' counterclaims with prejudice, and extends the bar explicitly to past, current, and future products including the Clarity® platform. This bilateral finality forecloses re-litigation between these specific parties on the asserted patent, but produces no merits ruling — leaving the validity and scope of US9798967B2 legally undetermined for the broader industry.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the mutual stipulation means for both parties
Dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation
A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes: ADASA cannot re-file the same patent infringement claims against SML on the same patent. Critically, the stipulation here is mutual — SML's counterclaims are also dismissed with prejudice, creating a reciprocal bar. The broad language covering 'past, current, and future' SML products amplifies the preclusive scope beyond the specific accused SKUs.
Final, preclusive, bilateralADASA's claims closed — broad future bar accepted
ADASA accepted a with-prejudice dismissal of all its claims, including those tied to future SML products and Clarity® services. This forecloses re-litigation against SML on US9798967B2 for any covered product line. Whether ADASA received any commercial consideration for this outcome is not disclosed in the public record. ADASA's ability to assert US9798967B2 against other market participants is unaffected by this dismissal.
Claims barred against SMLSML's counterclaims also closed — no invalidity ruling issued
SML and its affiliates secured a with-prejudice dismissal of ADASA's infringement claims, shielding all current and future products — including Clarity® — from further suit by ADASA on this patent. However, SML's own counterclaims (which may have included invalidity challenges) were also dismissed with prejudice, meaning no court-issued invalidity determination entered the public record to benefit the broader industry.
Protected from further suit by ADASAUS9798967B2 remains in force — risk persists for other RFID label makers
Because the case ended without a validity or infringement ruling on the merits, US9798967B2 stands unchallenged in the public record. Other manufacturers of RFID-encoded CARE labels and serialisation products remain exposed to ADASA's enforcement activity. The explicit inclusion of 'future products' in the SML stipulation underscores ADASA's apparent intent to maintain the patent's commercial reach beyond this single defendant.
Patent survives, third-party risk remainsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | ADASA, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | SML Group Limited | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | SML (USA) Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | SML Intelligent Inventory Solutions LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Glenn Schuyler Orman | Attorney | Counsel for ADASA, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathan T. Suder | Attorney | Counsel for ADASA, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Richard Wojcio , Jr | Attorney | Counsel for ADASA, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Friedman Suder & Cooke PC | Law Firm | Representing ADASA, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Friedman, Suder & Cooke PC | Law Firm | Representing ADASA, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Andrew Dale Gish | Attorney | Counsel for SML Group LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joel Chao-Iee Lin | Attorney | Counsel for SML Group LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Josef Bryks Schenker | Attorney | Counsel for SML Group LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Sarah Kathryn Grossnickle | Attorney | Counsel for SML Group LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gish PLLC | Law Firm | Representing SML Group LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Verrill & Dana LLP | Law Firm | Representing SML Group LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Sean D. Jordan | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the RFID label serialisation space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from ADASA v. SML — relevant to RFID label manufacturers, retail tech developers, and supply chain IP strategists.
ADASA's RFID encoding patent portfolio beyond US9798967B2
ADASA's assertion of a single patent against a large product family suggests a focused but potentially broader portfolio strategy. Monitoring ADASA's continuation filings and related RFID serialisation applications can reveal the full scope of its enforcement-ready IP and identify which claim families pose the greatest risk to label manufacturers and software platform developers.
Portfolio watchUHF RFID label encoding — global patent filing trends
The UHF RFID serialisation and label encoding space is seeing sustained filing activity as retail, apparel, and logistics sectors expand RFID adoption. Tracking patent filing trends across encoding methodologies, chip-antenna integration, and cloud-connected label management platforms can surface emerging competitors and identify white-space opportunities for design-around or novel claim positions.
Filing trend analysisSML Group's IP position in RFID and retail label technology
SML Group operates at scale in RFID label manufacturing and retail inventory solutions, including the Clarity® platform. Understanding SML's own patent portfolio — covering label construction, RFID antenna design, or software integration — provides insight into its defensive IP posture and signals where SML is investing R&D resources for future product differentiation.
Competitive IP intelligenceAdjacent innovation gaps near RFID CARE label encoding
The intersection of RFID serialisation, sustainable CARE labelling, and cloud-based inventory platforms represents an area of rapid commercial development. Patent landscape analysis around NFC/RFID dual-protocol labels, digital product passports, and AI-driven inventory encoding may reveal white-space claim opportunities for R&D teams seeking differentiated IP positions outside the core US9798967B2 claim footprint.
White-space mappingSimilar RFID label patent infringement cases in E.D. Texas
Explore comparable RFID and retail label patent infringement actions filed in the Eastern District of Texas with analogous enforcement patterns and stipulated outcomes.
What this case signals for the RFID label IP landscape
A mutual with-prejudice stipulation after 708 days leaves US9798967B2 intact — and the RFID label sector's exposure unresolved.
US9798967B2 has not been adjudicated invalid — enforcement risk persists
SML's counterclaims, potentially including invalidity arguments, were dismissed with prejudice without a ruling. US9798967B2 remains in force. Any competitor in the RFID-encoded label or Clarity®-style serialisation space should treat this patent as an active enforcement risk and conduct proactive FTO analysis before product launches.
The broad future-products language signals ADASA's enforcement posture
The express inclusion of Clarity® software and 'future products and services' in the dismissal language suggests ADASA negotiated a comprehensive scope. This pattern — broad temporal and product coverage in a stipulated exit — is consistent with a patent holder preserving maximum flexibility while concluding a specific dispute. Other RFID label suppliers should monitor ADASA's filing activity.
ADASA v SML — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation of the parties on 7 April 2026, after 708 days of litigation. All of ADASA's claims and all of SML's counterclaims — including those related to past, current, and future products and Clarity® software — were dismissed with prejudice. No merits ruling on infringement or validity was issued.
ADASA asserted US9798967B2 (application US15/042993), which covers RFID label encoding and serialisation technology. The accused products comprised over 60 CARE label SKUs in SML's GB and MR product families, as well as SML's Clarity® software products and services.
A dismissal with prejudice is a final, claim-preclusive disposition. ADASA cannot re-file the same infringement claims against SML Group, SML (USA) Inc., or SML Intelligent Inventory Solutions LLC on US9798967B2 for the covered products, including Clarity® and any future SML products within the stipulation's scope. The bar is expressly bilateral — SML's counterclaims are also extinguished.
No. The case was resolved by joint stipulation without any court ruling on the validity or infringement of US9798967B2. SML's counterclaims, which may have included invalidity arguments, were dismissed with prejudice alongside ADASA's claims. The patent remains in force and unchallenged by any judicial determination in this proceeding.
Because US9798967B2 emerges without a validity or infringement ruling, it remains an active enforcement risk for other RFID label and serialisation product makers. The absence of a claim construction order or invalidity finding means the next defendant in an ADASA action would have no prior judicial analysis to rely upon. Competitors should conduct FTO analysis against US9798967B2 and monitor ADASA's patent portfolio for continuation filings.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.