AGIS Software v. Dell Technologies: 5-Patent Infringement Action Dismissed With Prejudice
AGIS Software Development LLC filed a patent infringement action against Dell Technologies in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting five patents covering mobile location and communication technology across Dell’s Alienware, XPS, Latitude, and Inspiron product lines. The case was dismissed with prejudice by joint motion after just 97 days — ending all claims permanently and leaving each party to bear its own costs.
A rapid joint dismissal across a multi-defendant, multi-patent E.D. Texas docket
On August 13, 2024, AGIS Software Development LLC — a patent assertion entity holding a portfolio of mobile location and communication patents — filed suit against Dell Technologies, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The complaint asserted five patents (US9445251B2, US8213970B2, US9467838B2, US9749829B2, and US9820123B2) against a broad range of Dell consumer and enterprise devices, including Alienware, XPS, Latitude, G Series, Inspiron, OptiPlex, Precision, Vostro, and Chromebook product lines.
The case was resolved on November 18, 2024, when the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss all claims with prejudice. Judge Gilstrap granted the motion the same day, ordering that all of AGIS’s claims against Dell Technologies — along with co-defendants L3 Harris Technologies, Dell Inc., Hewlett Packard Enterprise, and HP Inc. — were dismissed with prejudice, with each party bearing its own legal costs. A dismissal with prejudice is a permanent bar: AGIS cannot refile the same claims against Dell on these patents in any future action.
The 97-day case duration is notably short for a five-patent infringement action in E.D. Texas, suggesting the parties reached a resolution — likely a settlement or license — well before any substantive litigation milestones such as claim construction or discovery. The public record is silent on whether any financial consideration changed hands, as is typical in joint voluntary dismissals. The court simultaneously closed two related member cases (2:24-CV-00662 and 2:24-CV-00663) while maintaining the lead case (2:24-CV-00601) as open, indicating AGIS’s broader litigation campaign against other defendants may be continuing.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 97 days
97 days — significantly shorter than the median E.D. Texas patent case lifecycle
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint order means for both parties
With prejudice bars AGIS from ever refiling these claims against Dell
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. AGIS cannot bring the same infringement claims under US9445251B2, US8213970B2, US9467838B2, US9749829B2, or US9820123B2 against Dell Technologies or Dell Inc. in any future action. The joint nature of the motion — agreed by both sides — typically reflects a negotiated resolution rather than a unilateral concession.
Permanent bar on refilingAGIS secures a clean exit — but permanently surrenders this claim path against Dell
For AGIS, the with-prejudice dismissal closes the door on Dell as a defendant for these five patents. While the public record does not disclose any financial terms, the speed of resolution — 97 days — and the mutual cost-bearing arrangement are consistent with a negotiated settlement or license. AGIS retains the ability to enforce these patents against other defendants, as evidenced by the lead case remaining open.
Settlement strongly impliedDell wins permanent immunity on these five patents across its entire product line
Dell Technologies and Dell Inc. obtain a permanent dismissal with prejudice covering the full scope of accused products — from consumer Alienware and Inspiron lines to enterprise Precision and Latitude devices. With each party bearing its own costs, Dell avoids a fee-shifting order. The with-prejudice nature means no future litigation threat from AGIS on this specific patent portfolio.
Full product-line protectionRapid resolution limits disruption but signals active AGIS enforcement elsewhere
The simultaneous closure of related cases against L3 Harris, HP Enterprise, and HP Inc. suggests a coordinated settlement across multiple defendants. However, the lead case (2:24-CV-00601) remains open, indicating AGIS continues to pursue its mobile location patent portfolio against other parties. Companies in the PC hardware and mobile device ecosystem operating without licenses to this portfolio should monitor the ongoing lead case for claim construction outcomes that could affect their own exposure.
Lead case still activeFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Agis Software Development, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9445251B2 and 4 further mobile location patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Dell Technologies, Inc. | Company | Global PC and enterprise hardware manufacturer across consumer and commercial segmentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Dell Technologies, Inc. | 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 | Alexandra Marie Stenstedt Leeper | Attorney | Counsel for Dell Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Carrie Anne Beyer | Attorney | Counsel for Dell Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Heidi Lyn Keefe | Attorney | Counsel for Dell Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lora A. Brzezynski | Attorney | Counsel for Dell Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Dell Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Reuben Chen | Attorney | Counsel for Dell Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Cooley LLP (Palo Alto) | Law Firm | Representing Dell Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (Chicago) | Law Firm | Representing Dell Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP | Law Firm | Representing Dell Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gillam & Smith, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Dell Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order adopts the parties’ joint motion verbatim, granting dismissal with prejudice across all five asserted patents and all accused Dell product lines. The explicit with-prejudice designation is legally significant: it extinguishes AGIS’s right to reassert these claims against Dell permanently. The cost-neutrality provision — each party bearing its own fees — departs from fee-shifting outcomes that would signal a finding of exceptional case conduct, suggesting the resolution was amicable and likely commercially negotiated rather than litigated to a merits conclusion.
US9445251B2 and 4 further patents — mobile location & communication technology
The five asserted patents — US9445251B2, US8213970B2, US9467838B2, US9749829B2, and US9820123B2 — collectively cover methods and systems for mobile device location tracking, device-to-device communication, and location-based services. The portfolio spans application dates from the early 2010s, placing it within a foundational period for smartphone-era location technology. These patents are relevant to any device or application that uses GPS, cellular, or network-based positioning to share location data or trigger communication events.
AGIS has asserted this portfolio against multiple major hardware manufacturers simultaneously, suggesting broad claim coverage that AGIS contends reads on standard features in modern computing devices. For PC and mobile device makers, the risk is not limited to dedicated GPS hardware — location APIs integrated into operating systems and applications on Latitude, Precision, and consumer devices may fall within claim scope. The ongoing lead case will likely produce claim construction rulings that define the practical enforcement boundaries of this portfolio for the wider industry.
Should you run an FTO against US9445251B2 and the AGIS mobile location portfolio?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or distributing laptops, tablets, or mobile devices with location-aware features — including GPS, Wi-Fi positioning, or cellular location services — should assess freedom to operate against AGIS’s portfolio. The breadth of accused products in this case (spanning entry-level Inspiron to enterprise Precision and Alienware gaming hardware) suggests AGIS interprets its claims expansively. With the lead case still active, a claim construction order may be imminent.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claims of US9445251B2, US8213970B2, US9467838B2, US9749829B2, and US9820123B2 against your product specifications, flag relevant prior art that could support an IPR petition, and identify design-around options before your product ships. Running this analysis now — ahead of any Markman ruling in the lead case — provides the clearest picture of risk and the strongest negotiating position.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9445251B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar mobile location patent cases in E.D. Texas district court
Related patent infringement actions involving mobile location and communication technology before Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the mobile location patent IP landscape
AGIS’s coordinated multi-defendant filing and rapid resolution pattern is consistent with a licensing-focused enforcement strategy in E.D. Texas.
Multi-defendant filings in E.D. Texas signal licensing pressure, not trial intent
AGIS filed simultaneous cases against Dell, HP, HP Enterprise, and L3 Harris — all resolved within 97 days. This pattern is consistent with PAE strategies designed to generate licensing revenue efficiently. Companies receiving demand letters or complaints from AGIS in this docket should assess their exposure against this five-patent portfolio before litigation costs escalate.
With-prejudice + own costs = hallmark of a confidential licence agreement
When both parties agree to bear their own costs in a with-prejudice dismissal, it typically signals a contemporaneous licence or settlement payment has been made outside the public record. IP teams at similarly situated hardware manufacturers should treat this outcome as evidence that licensing AGIS’s portfolio is a viable — and likely faster — resolution path than protracted litigation.
Agis v Dell — key questions answered
A with-prejudice dismissal permanently bars AGIS from refiling the same infringement claims against Dell Technologies or Dell Inc. under the five asserted patents. It operates as a final adjudication on the merits under FRCP 41, meaning no second bite at the apple — regardless of future product generations or claim reinterpretation.
AGIS asserted five patents: US9445251B2, US8213970B2, US9467838B2, US9749829B2, and US9820123B2. These patents collectively cover mobile location tracking, device-to-device communication, and location-based services. The accused products included Dell’s Alienware, XPS, Latitude, G Series, Inspiron, OptiPlex, Precision, Vostro, and Chromebook lines.
The 97-day resolution is consistent with a negotiated settlement or licence executed before any substantive litigation milestones. In E.D. Texas, patent cases typically proceed through claim construction before resolution. The simultaneous closure of related HP and L3 Harris cases suggests a coordinated cross-defendant settlement, though the public record does not disclose financial terms.
Yes. The court’s order explicitly maintained the lead case (2:24-CV-00601) as open while closing the Dell, HP, HP Enterprise, and L3 Harris member cases. This indicates AGIS continues to pursue its mobile location patent portfolio against at least one remaining defendant before Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas.
A mutual cost-bearing order in a joint with-prejudice dismissal is the standard marker of a commercially negotiated resolution. It rules out a fee-shifting finding under 35 U.S.C. § 285 — which would require an ‘exceptional case’ determination — and is consistent with a confidential licence or settlement payment. Neither party is required to disclose financial terms in the public record.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.