Agis Software v. F-Secure: Five-Patent Mobile Security Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
Agis Software Development LLC filed a five-patent infringement action against F-Secure Corp. in the Eastern District of Texas, targeting the Lookout Life mobile security application. The case ended in a voluntary dismissal with prejudice just 78 days after filing, with each party bearing its own costs — suggesting a rapid resolution before substantive litigation began.
Five-Patent Mobile Security Suit Ends Swiftly in E.D. Texas
On September 10, 2024, Agis Software Development LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against F-Secure Corp. in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The suit asserted five U.S. patents — US9445251B2, US8213970B2, US9467848B1, US9749829B2, and US9820123B2 — all directed to mobile device location, tracking, and communication technologies. The accused product was the Lookout Life application and its associated services.
The case closed on November 27, 2024, just 78 days after filing, when Agis filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Judge Gilstrap accepted and acknowledged the dismissal, extinguishing all asserted claims with prejudice. Critically, the order specifies that each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees, consistent with a negotiated resolution or strategic withdrawal rather than a litigated outcome.
The brevity of the litigation — 78 days with no defendant law firm appearing on the public record — suggests the matter may have resolved through a licensing agreement, cross-licensing arrangement, or strategic settlement reached before F-Secure formally engaged litigation counsel. The public record does not disclose any financial terms. The with-prejudice designation is legally significant: Agis is permanently barred from reasserting these five patents against F-Secure on the same claims.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 78 days
78 days — well under the median time-to-trial in E.D. Texas patent cases, signalling early resolution
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 order means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal — plaintiff acts before defendant answers
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss without a court order before the defendant serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. Here, Agis elected dismissal with prejudice — a stronger form that carries res judicata effect. The court’s role was purely ministerial: it accepted and acknowledged the notice rather than adjudicating any merits.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)With-prejudice dismissal permanently bars Agis from re-filing these claims
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes. Agis cannot refile suit against F-Secure asserting the same five patents on the same accused Lookout Life products. This is a meaningful concession beyond a standard voluntary dismissal. It suggests Agis either secured its commercial objective — potentially through a licensing deal — or concluded the case lacked sufficient merit to pursue further.
Permanent bar on re-filingF-Secure exits with no adverse judgment and no cost exposure
F-Secure benefits from the with-prejudice dismissal: it achieves finality against these five patents from Agis without litigating to a verdict. The own-costs order means F-Secure bears its legal fees to date but faces no fee-shifting award. No defendant counsel of record appeared in the public docket, which may indicate the matter was resolved at a business level before formal litigation defence was mobilised.
No adverse judgmentEarly dismissal pattern consistent with rapid licensing or strategic withdrawal
Cases dismissed with prejudice within 78 days — before any substantive pleadings from the defendant — typically signal a confidential licensing agreement, a portfolio cross-licence, or a plaintiff reassessing claim strength post-filing. For the mobile security sector, this outcome neither validates nor invalidates Agis’s five patents; those patents remain enforceable against other parties. Companies offering competing mobile security applications should monitor Agis’s broader enforcement activity.
Licensing or strategic exitFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Agis Software Development, LLC | Company | Mobile software IP licensor — holder of US9445251B2 and four related mobile security patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | F-SECURE Corp. | Company | F-Secure Corp. — cybersecurity and mobile security software provider, maker of Lookout LifeSearch 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 purely ministerial — Judge Gilstrap accepted and acknowledged Agis’s unilateral Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice without adjudicating any merits. The with-prejudice designation, chosen by Agis rather than imposed by the court, carries full res judicata effect: all five patent claims against F-Secure are permanently extinguished. The own-costs provision, standard in negotiated exits, confirms no party achieved a fee-shifting ruling. No finding was made on validity or infringement.
US9445251B2 — Mobile device location and communication tracking technology
The five asserted patents — US9445251B2, US8213970B2, US9467848B1, US9749829B2, and US9820123B2 — form a cluster of related mobile device location, tracking, and communication patents held by Agis Software Development LLC. The portfolio spans application filing dates from the early 2010s into the mid-2010s, covering technologies that underpin modern mobile security and family-safety applications, including device location sharing, remote monitoring, and emergency communication features.
This patent cluster sits at the intersection of mobile operating system APIs, location services, and security application design — a commercially significant zone as mobile security applications have proliferated across consumer and enterprise markets. Agis has a documented history of asserting this portfolio against major technology and software companies. For any company developing or distributing mobile security, family-safety, or device-tracking applications, these patents represent ongoing monitoring obligations even following the F-Secure dismissal.
Should your team run an FTO check against US9445251B2 and related Agis patents?
If your product roadmap includes mobile device location sharing, remote monitoring, emergency contact features, or device-tracking within a security or family-safety application, the Agis portfolio warrants a freedom-to-operate review. The dismissal of this case against F-Secure does not represent a judicial finding of non-infringement — the claims were never tested. R&D and product teams should treat the five asserted patents as live risks, particularly for features that map to location-sharing, group tracking, or push-based device communication.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables IP and engineering teams to map product feature sets against the independent claims of US9445251B2, US8213970B2, US9467848B1, US9749829B2, and US9820123B2 simultaneously. The tool surfaces prior art, identifies design-around opportunities, and flags claim limitations that may constrain infringement exposure — giving product teams actionable IP intelligence before launch rather than after a complaint is filed.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9445251B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar mobile security patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas
Explore related patent infringement actions involving mobile security and device tracking technology filed in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Gilstrap.
What this case signals for the mobile security IP landscape
Agis’s rapid, with-prejudice exit from E.D. Texas raises questions about licensing strategy and patent enforceability in mobile security.
Agis’s five patents remain live enforcement tools against other defendants
The with-prejudice dismissal only extinguishes claims against F-Secure. US9445251B2, US8213970B2, US9467848B1, US9749829B2, and US9820123B2 remain granted and enforceable. Mobile security software companies not party to this case should treat these patents as active infringement risk and conduct FTO analysis against their own product stacks.
No-costs order limits fee-shifting risk but sets no precedent on claim validity
Because the case ended before any substantive ruling, there is no judicial finding on patent validity, infringement, or claim construction. This means competitors cannot rely on this outcome as prior art or an invalidity shield. The own-costs order also signals the case did not reach the threshold for an exceptional-case fee award under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
Agis v F-SECURE — key questions answered
Agis Software Development LLC filed a patent infringement suit against F-Secure Corp. in the Eastern District of Texas on September 10, 2024, asserting five mobile security patents against the Lookout Life application. The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by Agis on November 27, 2024 — just 78 days after filing — with each party bearing its own costs.
Agis asserted five U.S. patents: US9445251B2, US8213970B2, US9467848B1, US9749829B2, and US9820123B2. These patents cover mobile device location, tracking, and communication technologies and were directed at F-Secure’s Lookout Life application and services.
A voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permanently extinguishes the plaintiff’s claims against the defendant. It carries res judicata effect, meaning Agis cannot refile the same patent claims against F-Secure regarding the same accused products. It does not constitute a ruling on patent validity or infringement, and the patents remain enforceable against other parties.
The public record does not disclose the reason for the rapid dismissal. Cases voluntarily dismissed with prejudice within 78 days of filing — before defendant counsel appears and before any substantive pleadings — are commonly consistent with a confidential licensing agreement, cross-licence, or strategic business settlement. No financial terms are publicly available.
No. The with-prejudice dismissal only bars Agis from re-asserting these five patents against F-Secure. The patents remain granted and enforceable against other parties. Companies developing mobile security, device-tracking, or family-safety applications should conduct independent freedom-to-operate analysis, as no judicial finding was made on validity or infringement scope.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.