AGIS Software v. Lenovo & Motorola: Five-Patent Infringement Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
AGIS Software Development LLC filed suit in the Eastern District of Texas against Lenovo Inc. and multiple Motorola entities, asserting five patents covering mobile device location-tracking and communication technology across the full Lenovo product lineup. The case closed just 101 days after filing when AGIS voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), permanently extinguishing those claims against all named defendants.
Serial patent asserter drops five-patent Lenovo suit with prejudice
On 13 August 2024, AGIS Software Development LLC — a non-practising entity represented by Fabricant LLP — filed a patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00666) before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The complaint named Lenovo, Inc. as lead defendant alongside eight affiliated Lenovo and Motorola entities spanning China, Mexico, Hong Kong, and Thailand. AGIS asserted five US patents — US9445251B2, US8213970B2, US9467838B2, US9749829B2, and US9820123B2 — against a broad range of Lenovo devices including ThinkPad, ThinkBook, IdeaPad, Legion, Yoga, Slim, LOQ, and Chromebook lines, as well as the Absolute Software, Family Safety, and Find My Device applications running on Windows-based operating systems.
The case closed on 22 November 2024, just 101 days after filing, when AGIS filed a FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) voluntary stipulation of dismissal. Critically, the dismissal was with prejudice, meaning AGIS permanently relinquished all asserted claims against every named defendant. Judge Gilstrap accepted and acknowledged the notice, denied all pending relief as moot, and directed the Clerk to close the case. The court made no merits ruling. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees, consistent with the agreed terms of the notice.
A with-prejudice dismissal within 101 days — before any scheduling order, claim construction, or substantive motion practice would typically be resolved — suggests the parties likely reached an out-of-court resolution, though the public record is silent on any financial terms or licensing arrangement. AGIS Software has a documented history of asserting these patents against major device manufacturers, and the involvement of Fabricant LLP is consistent with serial enforcement campaigns. What drove the rapid exit remains unknown, but the permanent bar on re-filing these specific claims against these defendants is the defining legal consequence.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 101 days
101 days — resolved well before typical E.D. Tex. pretrial schedule
Dismissed with prejudice: what the voluntary exit means for both parties
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff-initiated exit, no court merits ruling
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. A with-prejudice designation transforms this procedural exit into a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes — AGIS cannot re-assert these five patents against these defendants in any future action on the same claims.
Permanent claims barWith prejudice: a permanent bar, not a tactical pause
A voluntary dismissal without prejudice would preserve AGIS’s right to re-file. Here, the dismissal is explicitly with prejudice, permanently extinguishing all asserted claims against all named defendants. The public record does not disclose whether this reflects a negotiated settlement, a licensing agreement, or a unilateral decision by AGIS — but the legal effect is unambiguous: these claims cannot be revived against these parties.
No re-filing permittedLenovo and Motorola entities exit with full finality
All nine named Lenovo and Motorola entities — including manufacturing arms in China, Mexico, and Hong Kong — obtain permanent protection from these five specific patents as asserted by AGIS. No infringement finding was made. The own-costs order means defendants bear their legal fees, which may indicate a negotiated outcome rather than a unilateral AGIS withdrawal. Future AGIS assertions would require different patents or different claims.
Full defendant finalityFive mobile-tracking patents remain valid but claims are permanently spent here
The patents-in-suit survive unchallenged on the merits — no invalidity or non-infringement ruling was made — meaning AGIS retains the ability to assert them against other device manufacturers. For the broader mobile device industry, this outcome signals that pre-trial resolution remains a viable path in E.D. Texas NPE litigation, but also that AGIS’s tracking-technology portfolio continues to pose assertion risk to Windows and Android device makers outside this defendant group.
Portfolio remains live vs. third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Agis Software Development, LLC | Company | Mobile location-tracking patent assertion entity — holder of US9445251B2 and 4 related patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Lenovo, Inc. | Company | Lenovo Inc. and 8 affiliated Lenovo/Motorola manufacturing and sales entities across multiple jurisdictionsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Motorola (Wuhan) Mobility Technologies Communication Company Limited | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Motorola Mobile Communication Technology Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | LCFC (Hefei) Electronics Technology Co., Ltd. d/b/a LC Future Center and Lenovo Compal Future Center | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Lenovo (Shanghai) Electronics Technology Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Lenovo (Beijing) Limited | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Lenovo Information Products (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Lenovo Centro Tecnológico, S. De R.l. De C.v. | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Lenovo PC HK, Ltd. | 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 ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order neither adjudicates infringement nor validity — it accepts a plaintiff-initiated exit under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) with prejudice. The phrase ‘DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE’ carries res judicata effect, permanently barring AGIS from reasserting these five patents against the named defendants. The own-costs designation is notable: absent a fee-shifting award under 35 U.S.C. § 285, it suggests neither party sought to characterise the other’s conduct as exceptional. The denial of all pending relief as moot confirms no interlocutory orders survived.
US9445251B2 — mobile device location tracking and communication technology
The five asserted patents — US9445251B2, US8213970B2, US9467838B2, US9749829B2, and US9820123B2 — form a family of IP covering mobile device location tracking, peer-to-peer device communication, and remote device management. The family traces application dates from 2008 (US8213970B2, App. No. 12/324122) through 2016 (US9820123B2, App. No. 15/255046), spanning a formative period in smartphone location services. The patents are positioned to cover core features in device-finding, family safety monitoring, and enterprise device management software.
This portfolio is strategically significant because the claimed technology maps directly onto standard features in modern mobile and laptop operating systems — including Windows Find My Device, Google Family Link, and enterprise MDM solutions. The breadth of products named in the complaint (ThinkPad, ThinkBook, IdeaPad, Legion, Yoga, Chromebook) indicates AGIS is asserting portfolio-level coverage rather than product-specific infringement, which is a common NPE strategy to maximise licensing leverage across an OEM’s entire device line.
Should your team run an FTO against US9445251B2 and the AGIS mobile-tracking family?
Any company shipping mobile devices, laptops, or software applications that include location sharing, device-finding, family safety monitoring, or remote device management features should treat this patent family as an active risk. The AGIS portfolio has been asserted against at least one major global OEM across its entire Windows and Chromebook device range. If your product includes Find My Device, MDM, or peer-to-peer location services, an FTO analysis is warranted — particularly given the patents survived this litigation without any invalidity challenge on the merits.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s feature set against the claim language of US9445251B2, US8213970B2, US9467838B2, US9749829B2, and US9820123B2 in parallel, surfacing prior art candidates and claim differentiation opportunities. Eureka’s litigation overlay also flags whether AGIS has asserted these patents against competitors, helping you assess relative risk and benchmark any licensing demand against known settlement patterns.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9445251B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar mobile device patent infringement cases in E.D. Texas
Cases involving mobile location-tracking and device management patents asserted by NPEs against OEMs before Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the mobile device IP enforcement landscape
A rapid with-prejudice exit in E.D. Texas suggests resolution before substantive litigation costs escalate — a recurring pattern in NPE enforcement.
Early dismissal in E.D. Texas NPE cases often masks a licensing resolution
Cases resolved in under 120 days before Judge Gilstrap — before claim construction or substantive motion practice — statistically correlate with confidential licensing or settlement agreements. The own-costs order here is consistent with a negotiated exit. Device makers facing similar AGIS assertions should assess whether early licensing discussions are commercially preferable to full litigation costs.
AGIS’s five patents remain valid and enforceable against other OEMs
No invalidity ruling was made. US9445251B2, US8213970B2, US9467838B2, US9749829B2, and US9820123B2 are all intact. Companies making mobile devices with location tracking, device-finding, or remote management features — particularly those running Windows or Android — remain within the potential assertion perimeter of this portfolio.
Agis v Lenovo — key questions answered
The with-prejudice dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permanently bars AGIS Software from reasserting the five patents-in-suit — US9445251B2, US8213970B2, US9467838B2, US9749829B2, US9820123B2 — against any of the named Lenovo and Motorola entities. This has res judicata effect. However, AGIS retains the right to assert these patents against other device manufacturers not party to this case.
The complaint named the full Lenovo Windows device lineup including ThinkPad, ThinkBook, IdeaPad, Yoga, Legion, LOQ, and Slim series, plus Lenovo Chromebook. Software applications identified include Absolute Software, Windows Family Safety, and Find My Device. This breadth suggests AGIS targeted standard OS-level location and device-management features present across the Lenovo portfolio.
A resolution in 101 days — before claim construction briefing or any substantive motion — is consistent with an early negotiated resolution, potentially a licensing agreement or settlement. The public record does not confirm financial terms. The own-costs order (each party bears its own fees) and the absence of a § 285 exceptional-case motion further suggest a mutually agreed exit rather than a unilateral AGIS withdrawal.
Yes. Because the case was dismissed on procedural grounds before any invalidity challenge was adjudicated, all five patents — US9445251B2, US8213970B2, US9467838B2, US9749829B2, and US9820123B2 — remain in force with their issued claims intact. Third parties seeking to challenge validity would need to file inter partes review petitions at the USPTO or raise invalidity defences in a future infringement action.
AGIS Software was represented by Fabricant LLP (New York) and Truelove Law Firm, with lead counsel Alfred Ross Fabricant and colleagues Peter Lambrianakos, Vincent J. Rubino III, Enrique Iturralde, and Justin Truelove. Fabricant LLP is a well-known patent litigation boutique with an active track record representing NPEs in the Eastern District of Texas, suggesting this filing was part of a coordinated multi-defendant enforcement campaign.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.