Agis Software v. AT&T: 5-Patent Mobile Fleet & PTT Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
Agis Software Development LLC sued AT&T Inc. and four subsidiaries in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting five patents covering mobile fleet management, push-to-talk, and first-responder communications systems across twelve AT&T product lines. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed with prejudice under Rule 41 after just 112 days — a notably short lifespan for a multi-patent infringement action before Judge Gilstrap.
Five-patent AT&T fleet and PTT assault ends in permanent dismissal
On 29 July 2024, Agis Software Development LLC — a non-practising entity represented by Fabricant LLP — filed a patent infringement action against AT&T Inc. and four operating subsidiaries (AT&T Mobility II, AT&T Mobility, AT&T Services, and AT&T Communications) in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The complaint asserted five issued US patents — US9445251B2, US8213970B2, US9467838B2, US9749829B2, and US9820123B2 — against twelve distinct AT&T product lines spanning fleet tracking, workforce management, push-to-talk, and FirstNet first-responder communications.
The case closed on 18 November 2024 when Agis filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Judge Gilstrap accepted and acknowledged the notice, formally dismissing all claims with prejudice and ordering each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. Crucially, the Court noted that the companion Lead Case No. 2:24-CV-00601-JRG was directed to remain open, suggesting this member case dismissal was a discrete tactical action within a broader litigation campaign rather than a full settlement.
A 112-day lifespan before a with-prejudice dismissal in E.D. Texas — one of the most plaintiff-friendly patent venues in the US — is notable. The absence of any reported inter partes review filing or claim construction dispute in the public record makes the precise driver of dismissal unclear. The speed and with-prejudice nature suggests either an undisclosed agreement specific to this member case, a strategic narrowing of the larger AT&T dispute, or early adverse developments in claim scope assessment. The public record is silent on financial terms, if any.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 112 days
112 days — notably short for a 5-patent E.D. Texas infringement action
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 order means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal with prejudice — claims permanently extinguished
A voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) is filed by the plaintiff before the defendant has served an answer or motion for summary judgment, and requires no court approval — yet here Judge Gilstrap accepted and acknowledged the notice by formal order. The ‘with prejudice’ designation is the critical distinction: it operates as a final adjudication on the merits, permanently barring Agis from re-filing the same claims against AT&T.
Permanent bar on re-filingAgis gives up this member case permanently — but lead case survives
By filing with prejudice, Agis Software Development forfeits any future right to assert these five patents against AT&T’s fleet and PTT products in relation to the claims raised in this member case. However, the Court’s explicit instruction to keep Lead Case No. 2:24-CV-00601-JRG open is significant: Agis’s broader litigation position against AT&T is not fully extinguished. This dismissal likely reflects a tactical narrowing rather than a wholesale retreat from the AT&T dispute.
Lead case remains openAT&T secures permanent dismissal with no cost exposure on this member case
AT&T and its four named subsidiaries obtain a permanent dismissal of all claims in this member case with no awarded costs or attorneys’ fees — each side bears its own expenses. The with-prejudice ruling means AT&T faces no risk of re-litigation on these specific claims. However, with Lead Case 2:24-CV-00601 remaining active, AT&T’s overall exposure to Agis’s patent portfolio has not been fully resolved and continued litigation costs remain a live concern.
Zero cost liability, lead case ongoingFirstNet and fleet-tech operators should monitor the surviving lead case
The five asserted patents cover core capabilities in mobile fleet tracking, push-to-talk, and first-responder communications — technology embedded in commercial and public-safety networks. The dismissal of this member case does not reduce the overall patent risk landscape for operators deploying similar systems. Companies commercialising fleet management, PTT, or FirstNet-adjacent products should track the surviving lead case and consider FTO analysis against Agis’s portfolio, which has a demonstrated litigation posture in E.D. Texas.
Monitor lead case & portfolioFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Agis Software Development, LLC | Company | Mobile communications patent licensing entity — holder of US9445251B2 and 4 related patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | AT&T, Inc. | Company | AT&T Inc. and four subsidiaries offering fleet, workforce, PTT, and FirstNet servicesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | At & T Mobility II, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | AT & T Mobility, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | AT & T Services, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | At & T Communications, LLC | Company | Search 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 ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Deron R. Dacus | Attorney | Counsel for AT&T, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | The Dacus Firm PC | Law Firm | Representing AT&T, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Court’s order accepting the Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) voluntary dismissal with prejudice is unambiguous: all claims asserted in member case 2:24-CV-00602 are permanently extinguished. The absence of any cost-shifting — each party bearing its own fees — suggests no finding of bad faith or exceptionality, and no formal settlement record is entered. The explicit directive to maintain Lead Case 2:24-CV-00601 as open is the most commercially significant element of the order, confirming that Agis’s broader patent enforcement campaign against AT&T continues beyond this member case resolution.
US9445251B2 and four related patents — mobile fleet, PTT, and first-responder communications
The five asserted patents — US9445251B2, US8213970B2, US9467838B2, US9749829B2, and US9820123B2 — cover a cluster of innovations in mobile group communications, real-time location sharing, fleet management, and push-to-talk (PTT) functionality on wireless networks. Application dates span from the US12/324122 filing (pre-2010) through US15/255046, indicating a portfolio built over a significant development window that tracks the evolution of smartphone-based enterprise and public-safety communications.
This portfolio is strategically positioned at the intersection of commercial fleet operations and public-safety communications — two sectors experiencing rapid growth through FirstNet deployment and enterprise mobility platforms. The breadth of products targeted, from AT&T Fleet Complete and amiGO to FirstNet Rapid Response and Enhanced PTT, suggests the patents are drafted to capture both consumer-facing location features and mission-critical PTT infrastructure. For competitors in mobile workforce software, vehicle telematics, or first-responder communications, this portfolio represents a live infringement risk that survives the dismissal of this member case.
Should you run an FTO against US9445251B2 and the Agis fleet/PTT portfolio?
Any company developing or commercialising mobile fleet management software, push-to-talk applications, real-time location sharing, or first-responder communications systems should treat this portfolio as a priority FTO target. Agis has demonstrated a willingness to assert all five patents simultaneously against a major telecom across twelve distinct products — and the lead case against AT&T remains active. The risk is not theoretical: it is live and before Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and product teams to map their feature sets against the claim language of all five Agis patents in parallel, identify prior art that may inform design-around strategies, and monitor continuation filings that could extend portfolio coverage. Given Agis’s multi-patent assertion pattern, a portfolio-level FTO — not a single-patent review — is the appropriate scope for any company operating in the mobile fleet, PTT, or public-safety communications space.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9445251B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: mobile fleet management and PTT infringement in E.D. Texas
Explore comparable push-to-talk, fleet management, and mobile location-sharing patent disputes litigated in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Gilstrap.
What this case signals for the mobile fleet and PTT patent landscape
A rapid with-prejudice dismissal in E.D. Texas rarely tells the full story — the surviving lead case and Agis’s established litigation history demand attention.
With-prejudice dismissal in 112 days signals a strategic case restructure, not capitulation
Agis voluntarily dismissed this member case with prejudice while keeping the lead case alive — a pattern consistent with narrowing claims to the strongest product targets or resolving exposure on specific subsidiaries. Patent professionals advising telecoms clients should treat this as a tactical pivot, not a concession, and monitor AT&T’s exposure in the surviving case.
Five-patent portfolio targeting 12 products signals broad licensing ambitions
Asserting five patents across twelve distinct product lines — from fleet trackers to FirstNet emergency PTT — is characteristic of a licensing-oriented plaintiff testing the full scope of a portfolio. Competitors deploying mobile workforce, location-tracking, or push-to-talk systems should benchmark their products against Agis’s asserted claims, regardless of the dismissal outcome here.
Agis v AT&T — key questions answered
The dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permanently bars Agis Software Development from reasserting the same claims against AT&T in this member case. It operates as a final adjudication on the merits. However, the Court explicitly kept Lead Case 2:24-CV-00601 open, meaning Agis’s broader patent dispute with AT&T continues.
Agis asserted five US patents: US9445251B2, US8213970B2, US9467838B2, US9749829B2, and US9820123B2. These patents cover mobile location-sharing, fleet management, push-to-talk, and first-responder communications technologies targeted at twelve AT&T products including Fleet Complete, FirstNet PTT, and Enhanced PTT.
The public record does not disclose the specific reason for the rapid dismissal. A with-prejudice voluntary dismissal in 112 days in E.D. Texas is consistent with either an undisclosed settlement specific to this member case, a strategic narrowing of claims to the lead case, or early adverse findings on claim scope. The survival of the lead case suggests a tactical restructuring rather than a full concession.
The defendants were AT&T Inc., AT&T Mobility II LLC, AT&T Mobility LLC, AT&T Services Inc., and AT&T Communications LLC — five related AT&T entities named as co-defendants. This multi-subsidiary naming strategy is common in E.D. Texas NPE litigation to broaden the scope of potential liability across a corporate group.
No. Judge Gilstrap’s order explicitly directed the Clerk to maintain Lead Case 2:24-CV-00601-JRG as open. The dismissal with prejudice applies only to member case 2:24-CV-00602. Agis’s patent enforcement action against AT&T therefore continues in the lead case, and the full scope of the remaining claims is not resolved by this dismissal.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.