Agis Software v. Waze Mobile: Location-Sharing Patent Case Settled After 506 Days
Agis Software Development filed suit against Waze Mobile Limited in August 2022, asserting two patents covering mobile location-sharing and user-to-user map communication technology used in the Waze app. The case resolved via settlement after 506 days, with the court administratively closing proceedings in January 2024.
Location-Sharing Patent Assert Against Waze Ends in Confidential Settlement
Agis Software Development, LLC filed this infringement action in the Northern District of California on 23 August 2022, asserting US9749829B2 and US9820123B2 against Waze Mobile Limited. Both patents relate to mobile technology enabling users to share their real-time location and communicate with other users via an interactive map — functionality central to the Waze navigation and social-mapping application distributed through Google’s Play Store and Apple’s App Store.
The case closed on 11 January 2024 after Agis filed a Notice of Settlement, prompting the court to vacate all pending dates and administratively close the file. The court’s order was explicit that administrative closure does not affect the substantive rights of either party, and preserved each side’s ability to seek reopening should the settlement not be finalised. The public record does not disclose financial terms, licensing arrangements, or any admission of infringement or validity.
At 506 days, the litigation ran longer than many patent cases that settle early on procedural grounds, suggesting the parties engaged in substantive discovery or claim-construction proceedings before reaching agreement. What drove the resolution — whether claim-construction risk, damages exposure, or commercial convenience — is not discernible from the docket. Agis Software has pursued location-technology patents in multiple forums, a pattern consistent with an NPE monetisation strategy targeting companies whose core products rely on mobile location-sharing infrastructure.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 506 days
506 days — above the median for N.D. Cal. patent cases, suggesting substantive pre-trial disputes before settlement
Case administratively closed on settlement notice: what this means for both parties
Administrative closure following a Notice of Settlement
When a plaintiff files a Notice of Settlement in federal court, judges routinely vacate all pending deadlines and administratively close the docket pending a formal dismissal. This is a housekeeping procedure — the court’s order expressly states it ‘does not affect the substantive rights of the parties.’ If the settlement is not finalised, either party may move to reopen. A formal Rule 41 dismissal is typically filed within 30 days and ends the litigation permanently.
Procedural settlement closureAgis exits with undisclosed terms — litigation leverage converted
For Agis Software, a settlement after 506 days of active litigation typically signals that its patent assertions generated sufficient commercial pressure to bring Waze to the negotiating table. The confidential nature of the resolution means Agis’s financial recovery — if any — is not public. NPE plaintiffs in this posture commonly extract a licensing fee or cross-licence; the absence of a public judgment preserves Agis’s ability to assert these patents in future disputes subject to estoppel and res judicata considerations.
NPE licensing outcome likelyWaze avoids public judgment but terms remain opaque
Waze Mobile — and by extension its parent Google — avoided a court ruling on infringement or validity of the asserted patents. Settlement eliminates immediate litigation risk but does not, on its own, invalidate US9749829B2 or US9820123B2. Unless the settlement includes a licence or covenant not to sue, Waze and other location-app developers remain potentially exposed to these patents. The absence of an IPR or invalidity judgment leaves the patents’ enforceability intact.
Patents remain enforceableMobile location-sharing IP remains a live enforcement risk
The settlement without a validity ruling reinforces that US9749829B2 and US9820123B2 retain their assertability against other parties in the mobile mapping and location-sharing space. App developers relying on real-time location-sharing, user-to-user map communication, or similar features — particularly those distributed via major app stores — should treat this outcome as a signal to audit their FTO position against Agis’s patent portfolio. The case is consistent with a broader NPE enforcement trend targeting consumer navigation and social-mapping applications.
FTO audit recommendedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Agis Software Development, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9749829B2 and US9820123B2, mobile location-sharing patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Waze Mobile Limited | Individual | Waze Mobile Limited — developer of the Waze social navigation app, a Google subsidiarySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alfred Ross Fabricant | Attorney | Counsel for Agis Software Development, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Benjamin T. Wang | Attorney | Counsel for Agis Software Development, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Enrique Iturralde | Attorney | Counsel for Agis Software Development, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Minna Y. Chan | Attorney | Counsel for Agis Software Development, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Peter Lambrianakos | Attorney | Counsel for Agis Software Development, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Samuel Franklin Baxter | Attorney | Counsel for Agis Software Development, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sarah Gabrielle Hartman | 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 | Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP | Law Firm | Representing Agis Software Development, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | McKool Smith PC | Law Firm | Representing Agis Software Development, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Russ, August & Kabat LLP | Law Firm | Representing Agis Software Development, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Amy K. Liang | Attorney | Counsel for Waze Mobile LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Andrew Bledsoe | Attorney | Counsel for Waze Mobile LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Bill Trac | Attorney | Counsel for Waze Mobile LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Darin Walter Snyder | Attorney | Counsel for Waze Mobile LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David S. Almeling | Attorney | Counsel for Waze Mobile LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Gregory Blake Thompson | Attorney | Counsel for Waze Mobile LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | James Mark Mann | Attorney | Counsel for Waze Mobile LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Luann Loraine Simmons | Attorney | Counsel for Waze Mobile LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Mark Liang | Attorney | Counsel for Waze Mobile LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Sorin Zaharia | Attorney | Counsel for Waze Mobile LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Stacy Yae | Attorney | Counsel for Waze Mobile LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Mann Tindel & Thompson | Law Firm | Representing Waze Mobile LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | O’Melveny & Myers – San Francisco | Law Firm | Representing Waze Mobile LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | O’Melveny & Myers LLP | Law Firm | Representing Waze Mobile LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | O’Melveny & Myers LLP (LA) | Law Firm | Representing Waze Mobile LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order reflects a standard administrative-closure procedure triggered by the plaintiff’s Notice of Settlement — it carries no finding on infringement, validity, or damages. The explicit statement that closure ‘does not affect the substantive rights of the parties’ is legally significant: it confirms that US9749829B2 and US9820123B2 are not extinguished by this order and that either party retains its pre-settlement legal position until a formal Rule 41 dismissal is filed. The 30-day window for filing that dismissal, or a status report, effectively gives the parties a short runway to finalise undisclosed settlement terms.
US9749829B2 & US9820123B2 — Mobile Location-Sharing and Map Communication
US9749829B2 and US9820123B2 together cover mobile-device technology that enables users to share their real-time geographic location with other users, view those users’ positions on an interactive map, and communicate with them through the application. The patents derive from application filings (US14/633764 and US15/255046 respectively) and sit within the mobile communications and location-services technical domain — a field that underpins the core functionality of social navigation apps such as Waze.
From a competitive standpoint, these patents are strategically positioned to capture a wide range of location-sharing implementations deployed across consumer and enterprise mobile applications. Any app that renders multiple users’ real-time locations on a shared map interface and allows in-app communication — from consumer navigation tools to enterprise field-service platforms — could fall within the patents’ claim scope. The settlement with Waze, a major market participant, without a validity ruling reinforces the commercial leverage these patents carry for Agis in future enforcement actions.
Should your product team run an FTO against US9749829B2 and US9820123B2?
If your product includes real-time location sharing between users, a live map showing multiple users’ positions, or in-app communication tied to location — whether in a consumer navigation, delivery-tracking, field-service, or social-networking context — these two Agis patents warrant a formal freedom-to-operate analysis. The Waze settlement demonstrates that Agis is willing to sustain multi-year litigation against well-resourced defendants in a technically sophisticated venue, and the absence of any invalidity ruling means both patents remain enforceable today.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent claims of US9749829B2 and US9820123B2 against your product’s feature set, identify prosecution history that may narrow claim scope, and surface prior art that a challenger could use in an IPR petition. For in-house IP teams and R&D leaders building or acquiring mobile location technology, running this analysis before product launch — or before entering a market where Agis has already filed — is materially lower-cost than defending a 506-day infringement action.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9749829B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Mobile Location-Sharing Patent Cases in N.D. Cal. and Beyond
Explore related patent infringement cases involving mobile location-sharing, map-based communication, and NPE enforcement in the Northern District of California.
What this case signals for the mobile location-sharing IP landscape
Agis’s willingness to litigate for 506 days before settling suggests these patents carry genuine enforcement weight in the mobile mapping sector.
NPE enforcement of location-sharing patents is active and credible
Agis Software has pursued location-technology IP across multiple defendants and forums. The 506-day duration before settlement in N.D. Cal. — a sophisticated patent venue — suggests Waze’s defence team found the patents difficult to dispose of quickly. App developers with real-time location-sharing features should not assume early dismissal is likely if targeted by similar assertions.
Settlement preserves both patents’ enforceability — monitor Agis’s next moves
Because no invalidity or non-infringement ruling issued, US9749829B2 and US9820123B2 remain fully enforceable. Any company in the mobile mapping, fleet-tracking, or social navigation space that has not conducted an FTO analysis against these patents faces a continuing risk of assertion. Monitoring Agis’s new filings should be standard practice for in-house IP teams in this sector.
Agis v Waze — key questions answered
Agis Software asserted two patents: US9749829B2 (application US14/633764) and US9820123B2 (application US15/255046). Both cover mobile technology enabling users to share real-time location, view other users on an interactive map, and communicate via the application — functionality central to the Waze app distributed through Google Play and the Apple App Store.
The case settled after 506 days. Agis filed a Notice of Settlement in January 2024, and the court administratively closed the case while awaiting a formal dismissal. No finding of infringement, validity, or invalidity was made. Both US9749829B2 and US9820123B2 remain enforceable, as the settlement order expressly preserves the substantive rights of both parties.
N.D. Cal. is where Waze’s parent company Google is headquartered, making it a plausible venue for service and jurisdiction. Filing in a technically sophisticated venue rather than a traditionally plaintiff-friendly court such as W.D. Tex. suggests Agis was confident in the merits of its infringement and validity positions, consistent with treating this as substantive rather than nuisance litigation.
Agis Software Development is widely characterised as a non-practising entity (NPE) that monetises a portfolio of mobile location and communication patents. Public records indicate Agis has filed infringement actions against multiple defendants in different courts asserting related location-sharing technology patents, a pattern consistent with a systematic patent-monetisation campaign targeting the mobile mapping and navigation sector.
Developers whose applications include real-time location sharing between users, multi-user map views, or location-linked in-app communication should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against US9749829B2 and US9820123B2. The settlement without an invalidity ruling means both patents remain assertable. Monitoring Agis’s litigation filings and considering an IPR petition are options worth evaluating with patent counsel before Agis files its next action in this technology area.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.