AGIS Software v. HP Inc. — Five-Patent Infringement Suit Dismissed With Prejudice in 97 Days
AGIS Software Development LLC asserted five mobile location and communication patents against HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise across a broad portfolio of HP laptops and Chromebooks in the Eastern District of Texas. The parties jointly moved to dismiss all claims with prejudice just 97 days after filing, with each side bearing its own legal costs.
Five-Patent AGIS Suit Against HP Ends in Swift Joint Dismissal
AGIS Software Development LLC filed this infringement action against Hewlett-Packard Co. and HP Inc. on August 13, 2024, in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The complaint asserted five patents — US9445251B2, US8213970B2, US9467848B1, US9749829B2, and US9820123B2 — covering mobile location, communication, and tracking technologies against a wide swath of HP’s consumer and commercial laptop portfolio, including Chromebook, EliteBook, Spectre, OMEN, ZBook, and Pavilion product lines, among others.
The case closed on November 18, 2024, just 97 days after filing, via a joint motion to dismiss all claims with prejudice. Judge Gilstrap granted the motion in full, ordering that all of AGIS’s claims against Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co., HP Inc., and co-defendants L3 Harris Technologies and Dell entities be dismissed with prejudice. Each party was directed to bear its own legal costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees — a neutral cost outcome that neither rewards nor penalises either side.
A resolution in under 100 days on a five-patent, multi-product complaint is notably rapid and strongly suggests the parties reached a private settlement before any substantive court proceedings concluded. The with-prejudice designation bars AGIS from re-filing the same claims against these defendants, providing HP with durable protection on the asserted patents. The public record does not disclose any licensing terms, royalty payments, or other commercial arrangements that may have accompanied the dismissal.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 97 days
97 days — significantly faster than the E.D. Texas median for multi-patent infringement actions
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint motion outcome means for both parties
With-prejudice dismissal bars AGIS from re-filing these claims
A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits for procedural purposes. Unlike a without-prejudice dismissal, AGIS cannot re-file the same infringement claims based on the same five patents against HP Inc. or Hewlett Packard Enterprise in any court. The joint nature of the motion indicates both sides agreed to this finality, which is a hallmark of a negotiated resolution rather than a unilateral withdrawal.
Permanent bar on re-filingAGIS closes the HP front — with permanent prejudice conceded
By agreeing to a with-prejudice dismissal, AGIS has permanently surrendered its ability to pursue these five patents against HP and HPE. This is a meaningful concession for a licensing-focused entity. However, AGIS’s Lead Case No. 2:24-CV-00601-JRG remains open per the court’s order, indicating enforcement activity against other defendants may continue. The no-cost-shifting outcome avoids any fee award that could have signalled an exceptional case finding under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
Enforcement closed against HPHP secures permanent closure on all five asserted patents
HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise emerge with a with-prejudice dismissal covering all five AGIS patents across their entire asserted product range — from consumer Pavilion and Envy lines to commercial EliteBook, ZBook, and OMEN portfolios. The absence of a cost award against either party avoids any public signal of litigation misconduct. Each bearing its own fees, which likely ran into six figures given five patents and 20-plus products, suggests HP was motivated to reach resolution early.
Full portfolio protection securedSwift resolution limits discovery exposure but leaves AGIS patents in play elsewhere
The 97-day lifecycle means no claim construction, no Markman hearing, and no substantive ruling on the five AGIS patents — leaving their validity and scope legally unresolved. Competitors in the PC and laptop space cannot rely on this dismissal as precedent for invalidity. AGIS’s continued lead case suggests these patents remain active enforcement vehicles. Other hardware manufacturers offering similar mobile connectivity and tracking features should treat the unresolved patent scope as ongoing risk.
Patents unresolved — sector risk remainsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Agis Software Development, LLC | Company | Patent licensing entity — holder of US9445251B2 and 4 further mobile location/comm patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Hewlett-Parkard, Co. | Company | HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. — global PC and laptop hardware manufacturersSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | HP, 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 | Haleigh Ann Hashem | Attorney | Counsel for Hewlett-Parkard, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jennifer Haltom Doan | Attorney | Counsel for Hewlett-Parkard, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Hewlett-Parkard, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gillam & Smith, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Hewlett-Parkard, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Haltom & Doan LLP | Law Firm | Representing Hewlett-Parkard, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order grants a joint motion to dismiss with prejudice across all member cases, with each party bearing its own fees. The phrase ‘with prejudice’ carries decisive legal weight — it constitutes a final judgment that extinguishes AGIS’s ability to re-assert the same claims against HP Inc. or Hewlett Packard Enterprise. The neutral fee position — no award to either side — avoids any judicial characterisation of the case as exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which is consistent with an agreed commercial resolution rather than a contested merits outcome. Notably, the court preserved the lead case, indicating the broader AGIS enforcement campaign continues.
US9445251B2 and four further AGIS patents — mobile location and communication technology
The five asserted patents — US9445251B2, US8213970B2, US9467848B1, US9749829B2, and US9820123B2 — share a technical lineage in mobile location awareness, device-to-device communication, and tracking functionality. Application dates span from US12/324122 (an earlier priority filing) through US15/255046, reflecting a prosecution strategy that built a layered family of claims over time. The technology domain covers systems and methods by which networked devices share location data, receive push communications, and interact within group communication frameworks — capabilities now embedded in modern laptop and Chromebook platforms.
For the PC hardware sector, the significance of this patent family lies in its breadth of accused products — 20 distinct HP SKUs spanning consumer, commercial, and workstation lines. This suggests AGIS construes the claims to read on widely deployed OS-level or hardware-level features rather than niche applications. Any manufacturer shipping laptops or tablets with integrated mobile broadband, location services, or real-time communication frameworks should treat this portfolio as an active risk. The absence of any invalidity or claim construction ruling means the patents have not been tested and cannot be dismissed as weak on the public record.
Should your team run an FTO against US9445251B2 and the AGIS mobile location portfolio?
If your organisation develops, manufactures, or distributes laptops, Chromebooks, tablets, or any device incorporating location-sharing, push communication, or mobile tracking capabilities, the AGIS patent family warrants a targeted freedom-to-operate review. AGIS asserted these patents against 20 HP product lines, ranging from budget consumer laptops to enterprise ZBook workstations — a scope that signals broad claim interpretation ambitions. No court has construed these claims or ruled on validity, meaning the risk profile remains open.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to map product features against the claim language of all five AGIS patents simultaneously. Eureka can identify which independent claims present the highest overlap with your hardware or software stack, surface prior art candidates for potential IPR or inter partes review, and flag related AGIS family members that may not yet have been asserted. Proactive FTO analysis before product launch is materially less costly than reactive 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 location patent cases in E.D. Texas — NPE enforcement actions
Cases involving mobile location, communication, and tracking patents filed by NPEs in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Gilstrap follow patterns directly relevant to this AGIS action.
What this case signals for the mobile location patent IP landscape
A five-patent complaint resolved in 97 days with prejudice points to calculated settlement strategy — and unresolved exposure for the broader PC hardware sector.
With-prejudice joint dismissals in E.D. Texas typically signal private settlement
When both parties jointly move to dismiss with prejudice before any substantive ruling, the public record almost never captures the full picture. A licensing payment, cross-license, or covenant-not-to-sue is likely behind the resolution. For HP, agreeing to bear its own costs rather than pursuing § 285 fees suggests the commercial resolution was sufficient to forgo a fee motion.
AGIS’s lead case staying open means five patents remain active enforcement threats
Judge Gilstrap’s order explicitly directs the Clerk to maintain Lead Case 2:24-CV-00601-JRG as open. This confirms AGIS is not abandoning its patent portfolio — only resolving the HP front. PC hardware manufacturers and mobile device OEMs with overlapping product functionality should monitor the lead case for claim construction outcomes that could define the scope of all five patents.
Agis v Hewlett-Parkard — key questions answered
Dismissed with prejudice means AGIS Software permanently lost the right to re-file the same infringement claims based on US9445251B2 and the four co-asserted patents against HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. It is a final disposition — unlike a without-prejudice dismissal, no second lawsuit on the same claims is permissible. The joint nature of the motion strongly suggests a private commercial resolution underpins the filing.
AGIS asserted five patents: US9445251B2, US8213970B2, US9467848B1, US9749829B2, and US9820123B2. All relate to mobile location tracking, device communication, and networked location-sharing technology. These patents were asserted against approximately 20 HP product lines including Chromebook, EliteBook, ZBook, OMEN, Spectre, Pavilion, Envy, and ProBook models.
A 97-day resolution before any substantive hearing is strongly consistent with the parties reaching a negotiated commercial arrangement — most likely a licensing agreement or covenant not to sue — shortly after filing. Neither side sought attorneys’ fees, and both agreed to bear their own costs, which avoids any judicial scrutiny of litigation conduct. Rapid resolution in E.D. Texas NPE cases frequently reflects early settlement pressure from multi-defendant campaign filings.
No. Judge Gilstrap’s order specifically dismissed the three member cases (2:24-CV-00600, 2:24-CV-00662, 2:24-CV-00663) while directing the Clerk to maintain Lead Case 2:24-CV-00601-JRG as open. This means AGIS’s enforcement campaign against other defendants named in the lead case continues. The dismissal of HP, HPE, Dell, and L3 Harris does not resolve or prejudice claims against remaining defendants.
Yes. The with-prejudice dismissal only bars re-assertion against HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co. The patents themselves — US9445251B2, US8213970B2, US9467848B1, US9749829B2, and US9820123B2 — remain in force. No claim construction or validity ruling was issued, so their legal scope is unresolved. AGIS may continue to assert them against other defendants, and the active lead case confirms enforcement continues.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.