Book a demo

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

Try now
Auto Telematics v. USAA: Telematics Patent Dismissed With Prejudice | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID6:22-cv-00474
FiledMay 2022
ClosedJan 2025
Patent Litigation

Auto Telematics v. USAA: Four Telematics Patents Dismissed With Prejudice After 975 Days

Auto Telematics, Ltd. filed suit against USAA and Noblr Reciprocal Exchange in the Western District of Texas, asserting four patents covering mobile driver-monitoring and pay-as-you-drive technology against USAA’s SafePilot and related insurance apps. After nearly three years of litigation, all plaintiff claims were dismissed with prejudice on a joint motion, with attorney’s fees and costs briefing still pending.

Resolution time
975days
975 days litigated — nearly 3 years before joint dismissal in W.D. Texas
Patents asserted
4
US9311271B2 and 3 further patents asserted covering mobile telematics sensor systems
Outcome
Dismissed with Prejudice
Plaintiff’s claims ended permanently; defendants’ counterclaims dismissed without prejudice
Cost ruling
Costs Pending
Court set briefing schedule for defendants’ bill of costs and attorney’s fees motion
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

Telematics patent assertion against USAA ends in permanent dismissal

Auto Telematics, Ltd. filed this infringement action on May 11, 2022, in the Western District of Texas before Judge Alan D. Albright, asserting four patents — US9311271B2, US10198879B2, US10192369B2, and US9633487B2 — against USAA and its Noblr Reciprocal Exchange subsidiary. The patents cover mobile-device telematics systems including sensor sets combining accelerometers, image sensors, and positioning modules, as well as methods for registering and monitoring driving periods — technology directly implicated in USAA’s SafePilot and pay-as-you-drive insurance app offerings.

The case closed on January 10, 2025, when Judge Albright granted a joint motion to dismiss filed by both sides. Plaintiff’s claims were dismissed with prejudice — meaning Auto Telematics is permanently barred from reasserting these specific claims against USAA on these patents. Defendants’ counterclaims, however, were dismissed without prejudice, preserving USAA’s right to revive them in future proceedings. The court simultaneously established a structured briefing schedule for defendants to pursue costs and attorney’s fees within 45 days of judgment.

A near-three-year litigation timeline before a joint dismissal typically suggests the parties reached a negotiated resolution, though the public record is silent on whether any settlement consideration was exchanged. The with-prejudice dismissal of plaintiff’s claims is notably favorable to USAA on the merits posture, while the preservation of defendants’ counterclaims — combined with an open attorney’s fees motion — introduces lingering financial exposure for Auto Telematics. The outcome and any fee award remain subjects of unsealed filings that may further clarify the commercial terms.

Case at a glance
Case no.6:22-cv-00474
CourtTexas Western
JudgeAlan D Albright
FiledMay 11, 2022
ClosedJanuary 10, 2025
Duration975 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 Western District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 975 days

975 days litigated — nearly 3 years before joint dismissal in W.D. Texas

Case timeline: Complaint filed MAY 11 2022, SEP–OCT — 975 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Auto Telematics, Ltd. v United Service Automobile Association from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, Texas Western District Court. MAY 11 2022 Complaint filed Pre-trial proceedings JAN 10 2025 Dismissed with Prejudice 975 DAYS TOTAL
Dismissal terms

Claims dismissed with prejudice: what the dual-track dismissal means for both parties

Legal mechanism

With-prejudice dismissal bars plaintiff from re-filing these claims

A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits under Rule 41. Auto Telematics cannot refile these specific patent claims against USAA or Noblr on the same patents in any U.S. court. This is the most complete form of closure available to a defendant short of a jury verdict. Crucially, it was entered on a joint motion, suggesting both parties consented to this outcome — consistent with a negotiated resolution whose terms remain undisclosed.

Permanent bar on plaintiff re-filing
Plaintiff outcome

Auto Telematics loses enforcement rights against USAA permanently

The with-prejudice dismissal extinguishes Auto Telematics’ ability to pursue USAA or Noblr on the four asserted patents for the conduct at issue. Combined with an open attorney’s fees motion by defendants — supported by Kirkland & Ellis and Fish & Richardson — Auto Telematics faces potential fee-shifting exposure. Any unlicensed licensing revenue that may have been the objective of this action against USAA’s SafePilot program has been foreclosed on this litigation path.

Enforcement foreclosed vs. USAA
Defendant outcome

USAA preserves counterclaims and pursues costs and fees

USAA and Noblr secured dismissal of all plaintiff claims with prejudice, while their own counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice — preserving the right to reassert them if circumstances warrant. Defendants’ counsel have 45 days from judgment to file a bill of costs on Form AO 133 and a motion for attorney’s fees. This dual preservation of counterclaims and fee-seeking rights represents a strategically strong exit position for USAA relative to the litigation’s starting point.

Counterclaims preserved; fees pending
Commercial implications

Telematics patent enforcement faces headwinds in usage-based insurance sector

The voluntary joint dismissal with prejudice — after nearly three years of litigation by a patent assertion entity against a major insurer — suggests the telematics patent portfolio may have faced significant validity or infringement challenges in discovery or claim construction. Insurers developing usage-based and pay-as-you-drive platforms should note that mobile sensor telematics patents remain a monitored risk area, but this outcome may embolden defendants to press for fee-shifting in future NPE-led telematics assertions.

NPE telematics enforcement risk re-calibrated
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 6:22-cv-00474 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffAuto Telematics, Ltd.CompanyMobile telematics IP licensor — holder of US9311271B2 and three related driver-monitoring patentsSearch in Eureka ↗
DefendantUnited Service Automobile AssociationIndividualUSAA: major U.S. military-affiliated insurer; operator of SafePilot mobile telematics programSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselAndrew J. WrightAttorneyCounsel for Auto Telematics, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselAnthony K. BrusterAttorneyCounsel for Auto Telematics, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselEdward K. ChinAttorneyCounsel for Auto Telematics, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselGregory StoneAttorneyCounsel for Auto Telematics, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselKarl Anthony RuppAttorneyCounsel for Auto Telematics, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselMichael B. AngelovichAttorneyCounsel for Auto Telematics, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselNicholas Andrew WyssAttorneyCounsel for Auto Telematics, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselShawn A. LatchfordAttorneyCounsel for Auto Telematics, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselSteven E. TillerAttorneyCounsel for Auto Telematics, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmBruster PLLCLaw FirmRepresenting Auto Telematics, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmNix Patterson LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Auto Telematics, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmNix, Patterson & Roach LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Auto Telematics, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmSorey & Hoover LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Auto Telematics, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmWhiteford, Taylor & Preston LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Auto Telematics, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselCaitlin Marie DeanAttorneyCounsel for United Service Automobile AssociationSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselDavid M. HoffmanAttorneyCounsel for United Service Automobile AssociationSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselElizabeth G.H. RanksAttorneyCounsel for United Service Automobile AssociationSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselMichael T. ZoppoAttorneyCounsel for United Service Automobile AssociationSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselNan LanAttorneyCounsel for United Service Automobile AssociationSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselNicholas WangAttorneyCounsel for United Service Automobile AssociationSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselNoel F. ChakkalakalAttorneyCounsel for United Service Automobile AssociationSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselW. Thomas JacksAttorneyCounsel for United Service Automobile AssociationSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselWonjoon ChungAttorneyCounsel for United Service Automobile AssociationSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmFish & Richardson PCLaw FirmRepresenting United Service Automobile AssociationSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmKirkland & Ellis LLPLaw FirmRepresenting United Service Automobile AssociationSearch in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge Alan D AlbrightJudgeTexas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

“Before the Court is the Joint Motion to Dismiss and Enter Briefing Schedule (the “Motion”) filed by Plaintiff Auto Telematics Ltd. (“Auto Telematics” or “Plaintiff”) and Defendants United Services Automobile Association (“USAA”) and Noblr Reciprocal Exchange (“Noblr”) (collectively, “Defendants”). The Court, having fully considered the Motion, the agreement of the Parties, and all papers on file with the Court, is of the opinion that the Motion should be and is hereby GRANTED. It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice. It is further ORDERED that Defendants’ counterclaims are DISMISSED without prejudice. It is further ORDERED that the Parties shall comply with the following procedure to present the issue of costs and/or attorney’s fees to the Court: Case 6:22-cv-00474-ADA Document 152 Filed 01/10/25 Page 1 of 3 Order Dismissing Claims and Setting Briefing Schedule Page 2 of 3 Bill of Costs. 1. Defendants shall prepare and file a proposed bill of costs on Form AO 133 not later than 45 days after the entry of judgment. The proposed bill of costs shall be served on all parties. 2. Any party opposing a proposed bill of costs must notify the party requesting costs not later than 14 days after the filing of the proposed bill of costs. The parties must then confer in an effort to resolve the dispute. 3. If a dispute remains: A. the parties may file a joint motion indicating the areas of agreement and the areas of disagreement; or B. the party requesting costs may file a motion indicating the areas of agreement and the areas of disagreement, to which the opposing party may file a response. Either type of motion must be filed not later than 30 days after the filing of the proposed bill of costs. The motion must contain a certificate of service confirming compliance with the conference requirements of Rule CV-54. 4. The clerk shall not tax costs until the expiration of 30 days after the filing of the proposed bill of costs. If no motion is filed in that time period, the clerk shall proceed to tax costs. In a case involving an uncontested bill of costs, if the clerk fails to tax costs within 37 days after the proposed bill of costs is filed, costs will be deemed taxed as proposed. 5. A party dissatisfied with the clerk’s action may file a motion to review the clerk’s action no later than 7 days after the clerk has taxed costs. Claim for Attorney’s Fees. 1. Defendants’ claim for fees shall be made by motion in accordance with paragraph (b)(2) not later than 45 days after entry of judgment. A motion for award of attorney’s fees filed beyond the 45-day period may be deemed untimely and a waiver of entitlement to fees. 2. A claim for fees shall be made as follows. Counsel for the parties shall meet and confer for the purpose of resolving all disputed issues relating to attorney’s fees prior to making application. The application shall certify that such a conference has occurred. If no agreement is reached, the applicant shall certify the specific reason why the matter could not be resolved by agreement. The motion shall include a supporting document organized chronologically by activity or project, listing attorney name, date, and hours expended on the particular activity or project, as well as an affidavit certifying (1) that the hours expended were actually expended on the topics stated, and (2) that the hours expended and rate claimed were reasonable. Such application shall also be accompanied by a brief memo setting for the method by which the amount of fees was computed, with sufficient Case 6:22-cv-00474-ADA Document 152 Filed 01/10/25 Page 2 of 3 Order Dismissing Claims and Setting Briefing Schedule Page 3 of 3 citation of authority to permit the reviewing court the opportunity to determine whether such computation is correct. The request shall include reference to the statutory authorization or other authority for the request. 3. A response or reply to a motion for attorney’s fees must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Rule CV-7. Signed this 10th day of January, 2025.”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 6:22-cv-00474, Texas Western District Court

The order grants a joint motion, dismissing plaintiff’s claims with prejudice and defendants’ counterclaims without prejudice. This asymmetric dismissal structure is significant: the with-prejudice element functions as a final judgment on the merits for plaintiff’s infringement claims, permanently extinguishing them, while the without-prejudice counterclaim dismissal preserves USAA’s legal options. The simultaneous attorney’s fees briefing schedule suggests the court — and defendants — view the litigation as one in which fee-shifting may be warranted, adding a consequential financial dimension to what the docket records as a consent dismissal.

PACER case 6:22-cv-00474 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

US9311271B2 — Mobile telematics sensor system for driver monitoring

Publication No.US9311271B2
Application No.US13/994455
Patent details
ProductMobile telematics sensor system for driver monitoring and trip registration
Cited in actionMay 11, 2022

Publication No.US10198879B2
Application No.US15/454952
Patent details
ProductPay-as-you-drive mobile application using accelerometer and positioning data
Cited in actionMay 11, 2022

Publication No.US10192369B2
Application No.US15/454937
Patent details
ProductMobile driver-monitoring system using image sensor, audio sensor, and accelerometer
Cited in actionMay 11, 2022

Publication No.US9633487B2
Application No.US15/061910
Patent details
ProductSensor set initialization and data collection methods for usage-based insurance apps
Cited in actionMay 11, 2022

The four asserted patents — US9311271B2, US10198879B2, US10192369B2, and US9633487B2 — share a common technical lineage in mobile-device telematics, covering sensor-based driver monitoring systems that combine accelerometers, image sensors, audio sensors, and GPS positioning modules. The patents describe methods for initializing driving periods, registering sensor data, and transmitting driver behaviour analytics — the foundational architecture of modern pay-as-you-drive insurance applications. Application dates span filings tied to the mid-2010s, a period of rapid growth in smartphone-based telematics.

This portfolio is strategically positioned at the intersection of mobile software, automotive telematics, and insurance technology — a sector attracting heavy investment from insurers, OEMs, and fleet operators. USAA’s SafePilot program, a usage-based insurance product that monitors driving behaviour via smartphone sensors, sits squarely within the claimed subject matter. The assertion against both USAA and its Noblr subsidiary suggests Auto Telematics was targeting the full scope of USAA’s telematics-enabled insurance product line. Any operator of a mobile driver-monitoring or UBI platform should treat this patent family as a continued monitoring priority.

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

Should you run an FTO against US9311271B2 and the Auto Telematics portfolio?

Any company building or licensing a mobile usage-based insurance (UBI) platform, pay-as-you-drive application, or smartphone-based driver-monitoring product should conduct an FTO assessment against this four-patent family. The claims cover sensor fusion (accelerometer, image, audio, GPS), trip initialization logic, and driver data collection methods — functionality embedded in virtually all modern telematics SDKs and insurer-facing mobile apps. The USAA litigation demonstrates that the portfolio has been actively asserted at scale.

PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s feature set against the claim scope of US9311271B2, US10198879B2, US10192369B2, and US9633487B2 in minutes, identifying freedom-to-operate gaps and surfacing prior art relevant to validity. For R&D teams designing telematics sensor pipelines or UBI scoring algorithms, Eureka can also flag continuation applications and family members that may extend the portfolio’s effective life beyond the current grants.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9311271B2 to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

Similar telematics and usage-based insurance patent cases in W.D. Texas

Browse related NPE patent assertions involving mobile telematics, driver-monitoring sensor systems, and usage-based insurance technology litigated in the Western District of Texas.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Auto Telematics, Ltd. patent enforcement history, Texas Western case history, Auto Telematics, Ltd.’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
USAA prior patent casesW.D. Texas telematics NPE suitsUBI patent portfolio disputesMobile sensor insurance claims
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this case signals for the telematics and usage-based insurance IP landscape

A nearly three-year telematics patent campaign against USAA ends in permanent dismissal — with defendants positioned to recover costs and fees.

With-prejudice exit after 975 days signals a failed enforcement campaign

When a plaintiff agrees to dismiss its own claims with prejudice after nearly three years of litigation, the public record rarely tells the full story — but the outcome is unambiguously favorable to the defendant. Insurers and telematics platform operators facing similar NPE assertions should note that defendants with deep litigation resources can outlast patent assertion campaigns even without proceeding to trial.

Open attorney’s fees briefing raises the litigation cost stakes for NPEs

Judge Albright’s structured fee briefing schedule keeps financial pressure on Auto Telematics even after dismissal. The involvement of Kirkland & Ellis and Fish & Richardson — top-tier defense firms — suggests defendants will mount a serious fee petition. Patent assertion entities targeting W.D. Texas should price in the possibility of fee-shifting when asserting weak or marginal claims against well-resourced defendants.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock gated insights on telematics patent NPE strategy and W.D. Texas fee-shifting trends for this district court case.
Counterclaim strategy analysisFee-shifting risk modelingPortfolio enforcement history
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Auto v United — key questions answered

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

Stay ahead of telematics patent risk with PatSnap Eureka

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on the Auto Telematics portfolio before your next UBI or driver-monitoring product launch. Eureka tracks new filings, assertion history, and litigation outcomes across the mobile telematics patent landscape in real time.

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.