Automated Vending v. Sandenvendo America: IoT Vending Patent Dispute Ends in Joint Dismissal
Automated Vending LLC filed suit against Sandenvendo America Inc in the Northern District of Texas asserting US9245403B2 against the Trade V21i IoT vending platform. The parties filed a joint motion to dismiss after just 169 days — with plaintiff’s infringement claims dismissed with prejudice and defendant’s counterclaims dismissed without prejudice.
IoT Vending Patent Assertion Ends in Split Dismissal After 169 Days
On December 26, 2023, Automated Vending LLC filed a patent infringement action against Sandenvendo America Inc in the Northern District of Texas (Case No. 3:23-cv-02854) before Judge Ed Kinkeade. The suit centred on US9245403B2, a patent covering IoT-enabled automated vending systems, asserted against Sandenvendo’s Trade V21i IoT product. Automated Vending was represented by Garteiser Honea PLLC, while Sandenvendo retained the considerably larger Fish & Richardson LLP.
The case closed on June 12, 2024 — just 169 days after filing — via an order granting a joint motion for dismissal. The court dismissed all infringement claims that Automated Vending raised, or could have raised, with prejudice. Sandenvendo’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, meaning the defendant retains the ability to refile those claims in future proceedings. The asymmetric dismissal terms are a notable feature of the resolution.
A 169-day resolution is consistent with pre-trial settlement or licensing resolution, though the public record does not disclose financial terms. The ‘with prejudice’ bar on plaintiff’s claims prevents Automated Vending from reasserting US9245403B2 against Sandenvendo on the same accused products. The retention of counterclaim rights by Sandenvendo — and the asymmetric prejudice terms — suggests the defendant may have negotiated from a position of relative strength, though the precise commercial terms remain unknown.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 169 days
169 days — resolved well before trial, consistent with early negotiated resolution
Joint dismissal with asymmetric prejudice: what the order means for both parties
Joint motion dismissal: a negotiated exit, not a court ruling on the merits
A joint motion for dismissal signals mutual agreement to end litigation without a trial or court finding on infringement or validity. No judge ruled on whether US9245403B2 was infringed or valid. The court’s role was limited to entering the agreed order. This mechanism is common in patent cases that resolve via settlement or licensing deal, though terms are rarely disclosed publicly.
No merits adjudicationInfringement claims dismissed with prejudice — Automated Vending cannot reassert
Dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment on the merits as a matter of procedure — Automated Vending LLC is permanently barred from bringing the same infringement claims under US9245403B2 against Sandenvendo America on the accused Trade V21i IoT product. The ‘raised or could have raised’ language in the order extends that bar broadly, foreclosing related theories. Whether any licensing payment offset this outcome is not disclosed.
Claim bar: permanent vs. SandenvendoCounterclaims preserved: Sandenvendo retains future optionality
Sandenvendo America’s counterclaims — which in patent cases typically include invalidity and non-infringement defences, and potentially declaratory judgment claims — were dismissed without prejudice. This means Sandenvendo could refile those claims in a future proceeding. Retaining this asymmetric right is consistent with a defendant that negotiated favourable exit terms, possibly including a freedom-to-operate assurance or payment.
Counterclaims preserved for refilingIoT vending sector: patent assertion risk persists for other market participants
The with-prejudice dismissal removes Sandenvendo specifically from further risk under this patent, but US9245403B2 remains in force and could be asserted against other IoT vending platform operators. Companies deploying connected vending systems — particularly those with telemetry, cashless payment, or remote management features — should assess their exposure to this patent. The case’s quick resolution provides no public claim construction guidance.
Patent remains enforceable vs. othersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Automated Vending, LLC | Company | IoT vending patent assertion entity — holder of US9245403B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Sandenvendo America Inc | Company | Sandenvendo America Inc — US arm of vending equipment manufacturer, maker of Trade V21i IoTSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christopher A. Honea | Attorney | Counsel for Automated Vending, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Scott Fuller | Attorney | Counsel for Automated Vending, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Garteiser Honea PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Automated Vending, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Adil Anjum Shaikh | Attorney | Counsel for Sandenvendo America IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lance Eric Wyatt , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Sandenvendo America IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nan Lan | Attorney | Counsel for Sandenvendo America IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Neil J McNabnay | Attorney | Counsel for Sandenvendo America IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ricardo Joel Bonilla | Attorney | Counsel for Sandenvendo America IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson LLP | Law Firm | Representing Sandenvendo America IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Ed Kinkeade | Judge | Texas Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The order’s scope is deliberately broad: dismissing all claims ‘raised or could have raised’ forecloses Automated Vending from attempting to relitigate on alternative infringement theories against Sandenvendo. The asymmetric prejudice terms — plaintiff’s claims with prejudice, defendant’s counterclaims without — are consistent with a settlement in which the defendant secured favourable exit conditions. No validity or infringement findings were made; the patent’s enforceability against third parties is unaffected.
US9245403B2 — IoT-enabled automated vending machine systems
US9245403B2 (application no. US13/891211) covers IoT-enabled automated vending technology — broadly understood to encompass networked vending machines with remote monitoring, telemetry, cashless payment integration, and connected management capabilities. The patent was asserted against Sandenvendo’s Trade V21i IoT, a commercially deployed connected vending platform. The B2 designation indicates the patent has passed post-grant examination and issued with examined claims.
Connected vending is a growing segment of the broader IoT retail infrastructure market, with operators increasingly deploying telemetry-enabled machines for inventory management, dynamic pricing, and cashless transactions. A patent covering foundational IoT vending architecture carries meaningful assertion risk across the sector. The with-prejudice dismissal shields Sandenvendo, but any competitor operating similar connected vending platforms — particularly those with remote management or IoT integration features — remains a potential assertion target.
Should your IoT vending product be cleared against US9245403B2?
Any company developing, deploying, or distributing IoT-enabled vending machines — particularly platforms incorporating remote telemetry, cashless payment systems, or cloud-based inventory management — should evaluate their exposure to US9245403B2. The Sandenvendo case demonstrates that this patent is being actively asserted against commercial connected vending products. The with-prejudice dismissal protects only Sandenvendo; all other market participants remain exposed.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US9245403B2 against your product architecture, identify prior art that may support an invalidity challenge, and flag related patents in Automated Vending LLC’s portfolio. For product and R&D teams building next-generation IoT vending or connected retail platforms, a proactive FTO analysis before product launch is significantly less costly than defending infringement litigation in N.D. Texas.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9245403B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar IoT vending and connected retail patent cases in N.D. Texas
Patent infringement cases involving IoT vending and connected retail technology in N.D. Texas and comparable district courts, including assertion patterns by NPEs.
What this case signals for the IoT vending and connected retail IP landscape
A fast, asymmetric resolution in N.D. Texas raises questions about assertion strategy and the relative leverage of well-resourced defendants in IoT patent disputes.
Fish & Richardson’s involvement signals defendant took this seriously from day one
Sandenvendo retained Fish & Richardson LLP — one of the US’s most prominent patent litigation boutiques — against a plaintiff represented by a smaller regional firm. This resourcing asymmetry typically accelerates resolution: defendants with elite counsel can impose discovery costs and IPR threat pressure that incentivise early settlement on favourable terms.
With-prejudice dismissal is a hard ceiling on Automated Vending’s future claims
The ‘raised or could have raised’ language in the dismissal order is unusually broad. It forecloses not just the specific theories pled but any infringement theory that could have been brought in this action. Other IoT vending companies facing assertion of US9245403B2 should note this language as a potential model for their own settlement negotiations.
Automated v Sandenvendo — key questions answered
Dismissal with prejudice in Case No. 3:23-cv-02854 means Automated Vending LLC is permanently barred from asserting the same infringement claims under US9245403B2 against Sandenvendo America on the Trade V21i IoT product. The order’s ‘raised or could have raised’ language extends this bar broadly to related theories. Sandenvendo’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, preserving defendant’s right to refile.
No. The case was resolved via joint motion for dismissal without any court ruling on validity or infringement. No Markman hearing, summary judgment, or trial took place. US9245403B2 remains in force and enforceable against third parties. The public record provides no claim construction guidance from this litigation.
The asymmetric dismissal terms reflect a negotiated outcome. Defendants in patent cases typically assert invalidity and non-infringement counterclaims. Dismissing these without prejudice preserves Sandenvendo’s right to refile — potentially in a declaratory judgment action. This asymmetry is consistent with a settlement where the defendant secured favourable terms, possibly including a payment or licensing arrangement not disclosed in the public record.
The Trade V21i IoT is a connected vending machine platform manufactured and distributed by Sandenvendo America Inc. It incorporates IoT capabilities including remote management and telemetry features. Automated Vending LLC alleged this product infringed US9245403B2, which covers IoT-enabled automated vending technology. The case resolved before any public claim construction ruling defined the scope of infringement.
The with-prejudice dismissal applies only to Sandenvendo America Inc. US9245403B2 remains valid and enforceable, and Automated Vending LLC — or any future assignee — could assert it against other companies operating IoT-enabled vending platforms. Companies with connected vending products incorporating remote monitoring, cashless payment, or cloud management features should consider a freedom-to-operate analysis against this patent.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.