Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
AGIS Software v. L3 Harris Technologies — Mobile Situational Awareness Patents | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID2:24-cv-00600
FiledJul 2024
ClosedNov 2024
Patent Litigation

AGIS Software v. L3 Harris Technologies: Dismissed With Prejudice in 112 Days

AGIS Software Development LLC asserted five patents covering mobile situational awareness, location services, and push-to-talk communication against L3 Harris Technologies in the Eastern District of Texas. The parties jointly moved to dismiss all claims with prejudice after just 112 days, with each side bearing its own attorneys’ fees — a resolution suggesting a confidential settlement or strategic withdrawal.

Resolution time
112days
112 days — resolved well before the typical E.D. Texas trial schedule
Patents asserted
5
US9445251B2 and 4 further patents asserted covering mobile situational awareness and location services
Outcome
Dismissed with Prejudice
All claims dismissed with prejudice; each party bears its own costs and fees
Cost ruling
Each Side Pays Own Fees
No fee-shifting ordered; attorneys’ fees and costs borne by each party incurring them
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

Five-Patent Mobile Situational Awareness Suit Ends in Joint Dismissal

AGIS Software Development LLC filed suit against L3 Harris Technologies Inc. on July 29, 2024, in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap — one of the nation’s most patent-active benches. AGIS asserted five U.S. patents (US9445251B2, US8213970B2, US9467838B2, US9749829B2, and US9820123B2) covering mobile device location sharing, push-to-talk communication, and situational awareness mapping. The accused products included L3Harris’s BeOn system, Location Services platform, RO-MAP, and Situational Awareness Mapping solutions — all mission-critical communications tools used in defense and public safety contexts.

On November 18, 2024, just 112 days after filing, the parties submitted a Joint Motion to Dismiss requesting that all claims be dismissed with prejudice and that each party bear its own attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses. Judge Gilstrap granted the motion the same day. A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes: AGIS cannot re-file the same claims against L3 Harris on these five patents. The fact that no fee-shifting was ordered and the motion was joint strongly suggests the parties reached a confidential resolution — likely a license or covenant not to sue — rather than a unilateral withdrawal by AGIS.

The 112-day resolution is notably swift even by E.D. Texas standards, where pre-trial schedules typically run 18–24 months. This accelerated timeline, combined with the simultaneous closure of two related member cases (2:24-CV-00662 and 2:24-CV-00663) involving Dell, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, and HP Inc., suggests coordinated negotiation across multiple defendants. The lead case (2:24-CV-00601) remains open, indicating AGIS’s broader litigation campaign against other parties continues. The public record is silent on any financial terms.

Case at a glance
Case no.2:24-cv-00600
CourtTexas Eastern
JudgeRodney Gilstrap
FiledJuly 29, 2024
ClosedNovember 18, 2024
Duration112 days
OutcomeDismissed with Prejudice
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisDismissed with Prejudice
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / Texas Eastern District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 112 days

112 days — resolved well before the typical E.D. Texas trial schedule

Case timeline: Complaint filed JUL 29 2024, SEP–OCT — 112 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Agis Software Development, LLC v L-3 Harris Technologies, Inc. from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, Texas Eastern District Court. JUL 29 2024 Complaint filed Pre-trial proceedings NOV 18 2024 Dismissed with Prejudice 112 DAYS TOTAL
Dismissal terms

Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint motion means for both parties

Legal mechanism

Dismissed with prejudice: a final, claim-barring termination

A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41 operates as a judgment on the merits. AGIS is permanently barred from asserting the same claims under these five patents against L3 Harris in any future action. The joint nature of the motion — filed by both parties rather than unilaterally — distinguishes this from a concession of weakness and is consistent with a negotiated resolution executed outside the public record.

Claim preclusion applies
Patent holder outcome

AGIS forfeits future claims against L3 Harris on all five patents

By agreeing to dismissal with prejudice, AGIS Software permanently surrenders its right to pursue L3 Harris on US9445251B2, US8213970B2, US9467838B2, US9749829B2, and US9820123B2. This is a meaningful concession for a non-practising entity whose primary asset is its patent portfolio. However, AGIS retains enforcement rights against all other parties — the lead case remains open, signalling continued assertion activity.

No re-filing against L3 Harris
Defendant outcome

L3 Harris achieves certainty — and pays nothing publicly disclosed

L3 Harris secured a with-prejudice dismissal, removing litigation risk on BeOn, RO-MAP, Location Services, and its Situational Awareness Mapping products with respect to these five AGIS patents. The each-party-bears-own-fees structure means no awarded damages or cost sanctions appear on the public record. Any financial consideration exchanged would be under a private agreement not visible to third parties or future litigants.

Patent risk cleared on five patents
Commercial implications

Defense communications sector: AGIS patents remain active threats elsewhere

The closure of this case does not diminish the AGIS portfolio’s threat to the broader defense and public safety communications market. With the lead case still open and multiple defendants resolved simultaneously, competitors offering mobile situational awareness, push-to-talk, or location-sharing platforms should treat these five patents as live enforcement risks. The rapid resolution may reflect the commercial sensitivity of discovery into defense communication architectures.

Portfolio enforcement continues
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 2:24-cv-00600 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffAgis Software Development, LLCCompanyMobile situational awareness software licensor — holder of US9445251B2 and 4 related patentsSearch in Eureka ↗
DefendantL-3 Harris Technologies, Inc.CompanyL3 Harris Technologies Inc. — defense electronics and communications systems manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselAlfred Ross FabricantAttorneyCounsel for Agis Software Development, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselEnrique William IturraldeAttorneyCounsel for Agis Software Development, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJennifer Leigh TrueloveAttorneyCounsel for Agis Software Development, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselPeter LambrianakosAttorneyCounsel for Agis Software Development, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselSamuel Franklin BaxterAttorneyCounsel for Agis Software Development, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselVincent J. Rubino , IIIAttorneyCounsel for Agis Software Development, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmFabricant LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Agis Software Development, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmFabricant LLP (NY)Law FirmRepresenting Agis Software Development, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmMcKool Smith PC (Marshall)Law FirmRepresenting Agis Software Development, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselMichael Charles SmithAttorneyCounsel for L-3 Harris Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmScheef & Stone LLP (Marshall)Law FirmRepresenting L-3 Harris Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge Rodney GilstrapJudgeTexas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

“Before the Court is the Joint Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”) filed by Plaintiff AGIS Software Development LLC (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants L3 Harris Technologies, Inc., Dell Inc., Dell Technologies, Inc., Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co., and HP Inc. (collectively, “Defendants” and with Plaintiff, the “Parties”). (Dkt. No. 45.) In the Motion, the Parties “request that all claims for relief asserted against Defendants by AGIS herein are dismissed, with prejudice, and the Parties further request that all attorneys’ fees, costs of court and expenses be borne by each Party incurring the same.” (Id. at 2.) Having considered the Motion, and noting its joint nature, the Court finds that it should be and hereby is GRANTED. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants L3 Harris Technologies, Inc., Dell Inc., Dell Technologies, Inc., Hewlett Packard Enterprise Co., and HP Inc. are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is further ORDERED that each party is to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. All pending requests for relief in the above-captioned Member Case Nos. 2:24-CV-00600-JRG, 2:24-CV-00662-JRG, and 2:24- CV-00663-JRG not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the above-captioned Member Case Nos. 2:24- CV-00600-JRG, 2:24-CV-00662-JRG, and 2:24-CV-00663-JRG. The Clerk of Court is further directed to MAINTAIN AS OPEN the Lead Case No. 2:24-CV-00601-JRG.”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 2:24-cv-00600, Texas Eastern District Court

The verdict text reveals a multi-defendant joint motion encompassing not only L3 Harris but also Dell Inc., Dell Technologies, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, and HP Inc. — all resolved in a single coordinated order. The with-prejudice standard is unambiguous: no claims survive for re-filing against these named defendants. The court’s simultaneous denial of all pending relief as moot and the explicit instruction to maintain the lead case open confirms this is a partial resolution within a larger, ongoing AGIS litigation campaign. The absence of any fee award to either side is consistent with a negotiated outcome rather than a merits adjudication.

PACER case 2:24-cv-00600 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

US9445251B2 and four related AGIS situational awareness patents

Publication No.US9445251B2
Application No.US14/633804
Patent details
ProductMobile device alert and location sharing for situational awareness
Cited in actionJuly 29, 2024

Publication No.US8213970B2
Application No.US12/324122
Patent details
ProductPush-to-talk and location services for mobile communication networks
Cited in actionJuly 29, 2024

Publication No.US9467838B2
Application No.US14/529978
Patent details
ProductMobile device status and location tracking for group situational awareness
Cited in actionJuly 29, 2024

Publication No.US9749829B2
Application No.US14/633764
Patent details
ProductMobile device location sharing and mapping with alert notifications
Cited in actionJuly 29, 2024

Publication No.US9820123B2
Application No.US15/255046
Patent details
ProductSituational awareness mapping and location-based mobile services
Cited in actionJuly 29, 2024

The five asserted patents — US9445251B2, US8213970B2, US9467838B2, US9749829B2, and US9820123B2 — collectively cover a technology stack enabling real-time location sharing, push-to-talk communication, alert notification, and situational awareness mapping on mobile devices. The portfolio spans application filings from 2008 (US12/324122 underlying US8213970B2) through 2016 (US15/255046 underlying US9820123B2), reflecting iterative patent prosecution tracking the evolution of mobile platforms into mission-critical command-and-control tools.

For the defense and public safety communications sector, this portfolio is commercially significant. AGIS’s LifeRing system — the plaintiff’s own commercial embodiment — directly competes with products such as L3Harris BeOn and similar push-to-talk-over-cellular (PoC) platforms. The breadth of the portfolio, spanning device-level location protocols to server-side mapping integration, creates overlapping coverage that complicates design-around strategies and increases the cost of licensing negotiation for integrated platform vendors serving government and first-responder markets.

Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Freedom to operate

Should your team run an FTO against the AGIS situational awareness patent portfolio?

Any company developing or deploying mobile situational awareness platforms, push-to-talk-over-cellular applications, real-time location sharing services, or mapping solutions for defense, public safety, or enterprise field operations should treat the AGIS portfolio as a live FTO concern. The five patents in this case cover foundational protocols for device-to-device and device-to-server location communication — claims broad enough to touch a wide range of commercial and government-facing products beyond the specific defendants named here.

PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent lets product and IP teams map claim scope across all five AGIS patents simultaneously, identify prosecution history estoppel, and flag prior art that may narrow enforcement risk. With the lead case still active in E.D. Texas, the window for proactive clearance work is open. Run a claim-by-claim landscape analysis before your product ships — not after a complaint arrives.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9445251B2 to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

Similar patent cases: mobile situational awareness and push-to-talk in E.D. Texas

Cases involving mobile location sharing, push-to-talk, and situational awareness patents litigated before Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Agis Software Development, LLC patent enforcement history, Texas Eastern case history, Agis Software Development, LLC’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
Other AGIS E.D. Texas filingsPush-to-talk patent assertionsNPE mobile platform casesDefense comms IP disputes
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this case signals for the defense communications IP landscape

AGIS’s five-patent campaign against mission-critical communications platforms reflects a broader pattern of portfolio assertion targeting defense and public safety software.

Joint dismissals in NPE cases often signal confidential licensing

When both parties jointly move to dismiss with each side bearing its own fees, it typically indicates a private agreement — often a license or covenant — rather than a plaintiff walkaway. Companies facing similar AGIS assertions should anticipate this negotiation dynamic and prepare license valuation analysis early.

E.D. Texas remains the venue of choice for mobile software patent assertions

AGIS filed this case alongside at least two related member cases against Dell and HP entities in E.D. Texas before Judge Gilstrap. The simultaneous multi-defendant structure is a hallmark of coordinated NPE campaign litigation. Defendants in this district should expect compressed timelines and coordinate early across co-defendants where possible.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock deeper analysis of AGIS’s remaining E.D. Texas assertions targeting defense communications and public safety platforms.
Lead case status updateAGIS portfolio risk mapLicense valuation signals
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Agis v L-3 — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

Don’t wait for a complaint — clear your mobile situational awareness products now

With AGIS’s lead case still open in E.D. Texas, the enforcement campaign is not over. Run an FTO analysis against the full AGIS portfolio and set litigation monitoring alerts with PatSnap Eureka before your products are named in the next filing.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.