AGIS Software v. Acer: Five-Patent Mobile Tracking Suit Dismissed With Prejudice in 106 Days
AGIS Software Development LLC filed suit against Acer, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas asserting five patents covering mobile device location tracking and family safety applications. The case ended in a voluntary dismissal with prejudice just 106 days after filing, with each party bearing its own costs — a resolution that forecloses AGIS from re-filing the same claims against Acer.
AGIS’s Five-Patent Mobile Tracking Assertion Against Acer Ends Permanently at 106 Days
On August 13, 2024, AGIS Software Development LLC filed a patent infringement action against Acer, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. AGIS asserted five United States patents — US9445251B2, US8213970B2, US9467838B2, US9749829B2, and US9820123B2 — against Acer’s Family Safety Application, Find My Device application, and Absolute Software application. The asserted patents collectively cover technologies related to mobile device location tracking, family safety monitoring, and device management communications.
On November 27, 2024, AGIS filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Judge Gilstrap accepted the notice and ordered all asserted claims dismissed with prejudice. Critically, each party was directed to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. The with-prejudice designation means AGIS is permanently barred from reasserting these specific claims against Acer on the same patents — distinguishing this outcome from a without-prejudice dismissal that would preserve the right to refile.
The 106-day lifespan of this case is notably short even by the standards of pre-trial settlements in the Eastern District of Texas. The absence of recorded defendant law firm representation in the public docket and the rapid resolution together suggest the parties may have reached a private commercial arrangement — though the public record is silent on whether any licensing or settlement payment was involved. AGIS is an active patent assertion entity with a long history of mobile device tracking litigation, making the permanence of this dismissal with respect to Acer commercially significant.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 106 days
106 days — well below the typical E.D. Texas patent case lifespan of 2+ years
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 order means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal with prejudice — claims permanently extinguished
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action before the defendant serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. By specifying ‘with prejudice,’ AGIS waived its right to reassert these same claims against Acer in any future action. Judge Gilstrap’s order accepting the notice carries res judicata effect as to the five asserted patents against this defendant.
Permanent bar on refilingWith prejudice vs. without prejudice: a consequential difference
A voluntary dismissal without prejudice leaves the plaintiff free to refile the same claims. A with-prejudice dismissal does not. Here, AGIS explicitly chose the with-prejudice form, permanently surrendering its infringement claims on all five patents against Acer. The public record does not disclose whether a licensing agreement, lump-sum payment, or other commercial arrangement accompanied this choice — but the finality of the dismissal is unambiguous.
No right to refileAcer secures a permanent dismissal — at no disclosed cost award
Acer obtains a final, court-endorsed dismissal of all five patent claims with no finding of infringement and no fee award against AGIS. The court’s order that each party bear its own costs is standard in agreed dismissals, but notably neither exceptional case nor fee-shifting arguments appear to have been advanced. Acer’s exposure under these five patents in this jurisdiction is eliminated as a matter of record.
Full dismissal, no fee awardSpeed of resolution suggests a negotiated outcome outside the public record
A 106-day lifespan before any substantive motion practice, combined with a with-prejudice dismissal and mutual cost-bearing, is consistent with a privately negotiated resolution — whether a patent licence, a covenant not to sue, or a cross-licensing arrangement. Competitors operating in the mobile device tracking and family safety application space who are also facing AGIS assertions should note that terms of any arrangement remain undisclosed.
Private resolution likelyFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Agis Software Development, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9445251B2 and four related mobile tracking patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Acer, Inc. | Company | Acer, Inc. — multinational electronics manufacturer and distributor of personal computing devicesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alfred Ross Fabricant | Attorney | Counsel for Agis Software Development, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Enrique William Iturralde | Attorney | Counsel for Agis Software Development, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Justin Kurt Truelove | Attorney | Counsel for Agis Software Development, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Peter Lambrianakos | Attorney | Counsel for Agis Software Development, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Vincent J. Rubino , III | Attorney | Counsel for Agis Software Development, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fabricant LLP | Law Firm | Representing Agis Software Development, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fabricant LLP (NY) | Law Firm | Representing Agis Software Development, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Truelove Law Firm | Law Firm | Representing Agis Software Development, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order is strictly procedural: it accepts AGIS’s unilateral Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice and gives it judicial effect. No merits determination was made — there is no finding of infringement, validity, or claim construction. The with-prejudice designation, however, means the dismissal carries the same res judicata weight as a final judgment for purposes of these parties and these patents. The mutual cost-bearing provision is standard but confirms no sanctions or exceptional-case arguments succeeded at this early stage.
US9445251B2 and four related patents — mobile device location tracking and family safety
The five asserted patents — US9445251B2, US8213970B2, US9467838B2, US9749829B2, and US9820123B2 — were asserted against Acer’s Family Safety Application, Find My Device application, and Absolute Software application. The portfolio covers technologies in mobile device location tracking, group communications, family safety monitoring, and remote device management. Application dates span from late 2008 (US12/324122) through 2016 (US15/255046), reflecting a portfolio built over nearly a decade of prosecution activity in the mobile communications domain.
AGIS has deployed this portfolio in numerous prior infringement actions against major handset manufacturers and software vendors, making it one of the more active mobile-tracking patent families in current U.S. litigation. The breadth of the asserted claims — touching both hardware-level location services and application-layer family safety features — means the portfolio presents risk across a wide range of consumer mobile products, MDM platforms, and enterprise safety solutions. Any company commercialising real-time device location, family monitoring dashboards, or remote device administration should assess claim exposure proactively.
Should you run an FTO against US9445251B2 and the AGIS mobile tracking portfolio?
If your product or roadmap includes mobile device location sharing, family safety monitoring, find-my-device functionality, or remote device administration, the AGIS portfolio is directly relevant. AGIS has a demonstrated willingness to assert these patents against major OEMs and software application vendors alike — and with five active granted patents covering different technical layers of the same product category, a surface-level review is insufficient. In-house IP teams at mobile platform companies, MDM vendors, and consumer safety app developers should prioritise an independent FTO review.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of each AGIS patent against your product specification, flag prior art that may support design-around or validity challenges, and surface related pending applications that could extend the portfolio’s reach. Given the multi-patent nature of this assertion and AGIS’s active litigation posture, early-stage FTO analysis is significantly cheaper than reactive litigation defence in the Eastern District of Texas.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9445251B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar mobile device tracking patent cases in E.D. Texas
Explore comparable patent infringement actions involving mobile location tracking and family safety technologies litigated before Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the mobile device tracking IP landscape
AGIS’s rapid voluntary dismissal with prejudice against Acer raises strategic questions for every company operating in the mobile device location and safety application space.
AGIS remains an active asserter — five patents still in play against other defendants
The with-prejudice dismissal is Acer-specific. AGIS’s five asserted patents — covering mobile location tracking, family safety monitoring, and device management — remain active and enforceable against other market participants. Companies offering comparable applications should treat this portfolio as a live enforcement risk.
E.D. Texas remains the preferred venue for AGIS’s mobile tracking assertions
Judge Gilstrap’s docket in Marshall is consistently chosen by AGIS for infringement suits. The rapid closure here does not diminish the venue’s attractiveness to patent assertion entities. Defendants newly served in E.D. Texas face a court with deep patent trial experience and should plan for aggressive early case management timelines.
Agis v Acer — key questions answered
The with-prejudice dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permanently bars AGIS from reasserting the five patents at issue against Acer on the same claims. It carries res judicata effect, functionally equivalent to a final judgment. AGIS retains the right to assert the same patents against other defendants.
AGIS asserted five U.S. patents: US9445251B2, US8213970B2, US9467838B2, US9749829B2, and US9820123B2. These patents cover mobile device location tracking, group communications, family safety monitoring, and remote device management technologies, asserted against Acer’s Family Safety, Find My Device, and Absolute Software applications.
The 106-day lifespan is notably short for E.D. Texas patent litigation. The absence of defendant counsel on the public docket and the rapid voluntary dismissal with prejudice are consistent with a privately negotiated resolution — potentially a licence or covenant not to sue — though the public record does not confirm or disclose any commercial terms.
No merits determination was made. The case was voluntarily dismissed by AGIS with prejudice, meaning no court found infringement or non-infringement. Acer benefits from a permanent dismissal of the asserted claims without any finding of liability, but the outcome was procedural rather than a merits victory for either party.
AGIS accused Acer’s Family Safety Application, Find My Device application, and Absolute Software application of infringing the five asserted patents covering mobile location tracking and family safety monitoring technologies.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.