AGIS Software v. Raytheon & RTX: Four-Patent TAK Platform Dispute Dismissed With Prejudice
AGIS Software Development LLC filed suit in the Eastern District of Texas against Raytheon Technologies Corporation and RTX Corporation, asserting four patents covering mobile situational awareness and location-sharing technology across a broad portfolio of ARINC and TAK-family products. The parties jointly moved to dismiss with prejudice after 235 days, with each side bearing its own costs — a resolution structure that typically signals a confidential settlement.
AGIS targets Raytheon’s TAK and ARINC ecosystem with mobile location patent portfolio
On 29 July 2024, AGIS Software Development LLC — a Texas-based patent assertion entity with a history of asserting mobile situational awareness patents — filed suit against Raytheon Technologies Corporation and its parent RTX Corporation in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00598). AGIS asserted four US patents: US9445251B2, US9467838B2, US9749829B2, and US9820123B2, each directed at methods and systems for mobile location sharing and force tracking in networked environments. The accused products spanned a wide footprint, including the ATAK, WinTAK, CivTAK, WebTAK, Raytheon TAK, TAK Server, and FasTAK platforms, as well as ARINC’s Global Network, Hermes, Integrator, ARINCDirect, and related systems.
The case resolved on 21 March 2025 when the parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss with prejudice, which the court granted the same day. The dismissal with prejudice means AGIS is permanently barred from re-filing identical claims against Raytheon and RTX on these four patents. The court also ordered each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. This cost-neutrality provision, combined with the joint and consensual nature of the filing, is consistent with the parties having reached a confidential licensing or settlement agreement — though the public record does not confirm terms.
The 235-day resolution is notably brisk for a four-patent, multi-product infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas, where contested cases routinely run two or more years. The speed suggests the parties may have reached commercial resolution well before substantive motion practice matured. AGIS has pursued Raytheon-adjacent defendants in prior actions relating to TAK-platform technology, and the breadth of accused products here — spanning both defence situational awareness and civil aviation data systems — suggests AGIS sought to leverage its portfolio broadly across RTX’s technology stack. The confidential terms of any resolution remain unknown from the public record.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 235 days
235 days — faster than the E.D. Texas median for multi-patent infringement actions
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint motion outcome means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice ends AGIS’s claims permanently on these patents
A dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 operates as a final adjudication on the merits. AGIS cannot re-file these same infringement claims against Raytheon Technologies or RTX based on the four asserted patents (US9445251B2, US9467838B2, US9749829B2, US9820123B2). The joint filing signals that both parties agreed to the terms — courts routinely grant such motions without scrutiny of the underlying commercial arrangement, if any.
Permanent claim barAGIS’s patents remain in force but are exhausted against Raytheon/RTX
Although the dismissal with prejudice extinguishes AGIS’s right to re-sue Raytheon Technologies and RTX on these four patents, it does not invalidate the patents themselves. AGIS retains the ability to assert the same portfolio against unrelated third parties. If a licensing payment was made — which the cost-neutrality and joint filing structure suggests is plausible — AGIS will have monetised these assets without any adjudication of validity or infringement.
Patents remain enforceable vs. othersRaytheon and RTX obtain permanent peace on the asserted claims
Raytheon Technologies and RTX exit this litigation with no adverse finding on infringement and no court-imposed damages or injunction. The dismissal with prejudice gives them permanent protection from AGIS re-asserting these four patents against the same accused products. The mutual cost-bearing order avoids fee-shifting exposure for either side. Whether any licensing arrangement was agreed remains undisclosed, but operationally the TAK and ARINC product lines face no court-ordered restriction.
No infringement finding; full product freedomPAE activity in defence situational awareness tech warrants ongoing monitoring
This case illustrates the exposure of dual-use technology platforms — TAK-family systems serve both military and civil aviation markets — to patent assertion entity campaigns. AGIS’s four-patent, 17-product assertion against a major defence prime suggests that operators and integrators in the situational awareness, force tracking, and aviation data-link sectors should monitor AGIS’s portfolio activity. The swift, confidential resolution provides no precedent on claim scope or validity, leaving the patents available for future assertion against other market participants.
Ongoing PAE risk in the sectorFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Agis Software Development, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of four mobile situational awareness and location-sharing patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Raytheon Technologies Corporation | Company | Raytheon Technologies Corp. and parent RTX Corp. — defence and aerospace technology conglomerateSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | RTX Corporation | 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 | James Reed | Attorney | Counsel for Raytheon Technologies CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michelle Erica Wang | Attorney | Counsel for Raytheon Technologies CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Paul B Keller | Attorney | Counsel for Raytheon Technologies CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Crowell & Moring, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Raytheon Technologies CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order grants the Joint Motion to Dismiss in full, dismissing all claims with prejudice and denying all pending relief as moot. The ‘with prejudice’ designation is legally significant: it forecloses any future action by AGIS against these defendants on the four asserted patents. The mutual cost order — deviating from the default American Rule — reflects the parties’ agreement rather than judicial fee-shifting. No claim construction, validity ruling, or infringement finding was reached, meaning the patents’ enforceability against the broader market is entirely unaffected.
US9445251B2, US9467838B2, US9749829B2 & US9820123B2 — Mobile Situational Awareness Patents
The four asserted patents — US9445251B2, US9467838B2, US9749829B2, and US9820123B2 — share a common technical lineage in mobile situational awareness: methods and systems for sharing real-time location data, force tracking, and network-based coordination across mobile and fixed nodes. Filed on application numbers US14/633804, US14/529978, US14/633764, and US15/255046 respectively, the patents appear to cover core functionality underpinning TAK-ecosystem software, including the transmission, aggregation, and display of geospatial position data across networked clients — capabilities central to both military command-and-control and civil aviation surface management.
The breadth of accused products — spanning ATAK, WinTAK, CivTAK, WebTAK, TAK Server, Raytheon TAK, FasTAK, multiple ARINC platforms, OpsCore, and Pro Line Fusion — suggests AGIS’s claim mapping targeted fundamental architectural features shared across Raytheon’s situational awareness portfolio rather than product-specific implementations. For competitors and integrators building on TAK-compatible or ARINC-adjacent technology, the scope of AGIS’s assertions signals that these four patents could be read broadly enough to implicate third-party TAK plugin developers, government system integrators, and vendors of interoperable force-tracking or aviation surface management systems.
Should you run an FTO against US9445251B2, US9467838B2, US9749829B2 & US9820123B2?
Any organisation developing, deploying, or integrating TAK-compatible software, force-tracking platforms, mobile location-sharing tools, or aviation surface management systems should treat these four AGIS patents as live freedom-to-operate risks. The absence of any invalidity ruling in this case means all four patents remain fully enforceable. Government contractors, defence prime subcontractors, civil aviation technology vendors, and independent software vendors building plugins or extensions for ATAK, CivTAK, or WinTAK ecosystems face potential exposure, particularly if their products implement networked location sharing or real-time geospatial coordination features.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map their product’s feature set against the claim language of all four asserted patents simultaneously, surfacing relevant prior art, claim scope boundaries, and prosecution history disclaimers in a single workflow. Eureka’s portfolio monitoring tools can also alert teams to new AGIS filings or continuation patents that extend this family — critical intelligence for teams building on TAK-adjacent technology stacks or expanding into defence situational awareness markets where AGIS has demonstrated an active assertion posture.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9445251B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent disputes in mobile situational awareness and TAK-platform technology
Cases involving AGIS Software’s mobile location-sharing patents and TAK-ecosystem infringement claims filed in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the situational awareness and defence IP landscape
AGIS’s multi-patent campaign against Raytheon’s TAK and ARINC ecosystem highlights rising patent risk for dual-use situational awareness platforms.
PAE campaigns are targeting dual-use defence and civil aviation platforms
AGIS’s assertion against TAK-family and ARINC products in the same action underscores that patent assertion entities are pursuing broad, cross-domain exposure from a single portfolio. Companies whose products serve both military and commercial markets should expect assertion strategies that maximise accused product scope and monetary leverage.
Swift dismissals in E.D. Texas often signal confidential licensing, not merit victories
A 235-day resolution with mutual cost-bearing and no substantive rulings is a strong indicator of a negotiated resolution. IP teams at defence primes and their supply chains should treat such outcomes as evidence of active patent monetisation rather than patent weakness — the asserted patents survive fully enforceable against third parties.
Agis v Raytheon — key questions answered
AGIS asserted four US patents: US9445251B2, US9467838B2, US9749829B2, and US9820123B2. All four relate to mobile situational awareness, location sharing, and networked force-tracking technology. The accused products included the ATAK, WinTAK, CivTAK, WebTAK, TAK Server, FasTAK, Raytheon TAK, and multiple ARINC platform products.
The case was dismissed pursuant to a Joint Motion filed by both parties, representing that the case had been ‘resolved.’ A dismissal with prejudice via joint motion after less than eight months — with no substantive rulings — is strongly consistent with a confidential settlement or licensing arrangement. The precise terms have not been disclosed in the public record.
No. A dismissal with prejudice bars AGIS from re-suing Raytheon Technologies and RTX Corporation on these four patents, but it does not affect the patents’ validity or enforceability against third parties. No invalidity or non-infringement ruling was issued, so the patents remain fully enforceable against other companies in the TAK ecosystem and situational awareness market.
AGIS accused 17 named products, including ATAK, WinTAK, CivTAK, WebTAK, TAK Server, Raytheon TAK, FasTAK, OpsCore, Pro Line Fusion, ARINC Global Network, ARINC Hermes, ARINC Integrator, ARINCDirect, Airport Surface Awareness System, Ascend, Surface Management System, and Rosetta Technology applications and servers.
The court’s order that each party bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees means no fee-shifting was imposed under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (exceptional case) or Rule 54(d). This is typically agreed by the parties as part of a negotiated resolution and included in their joint motion, rather than being a judicial determination of conduct. It does not imply any finding of merit or fault by either party.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.