Avant Location Technologies v. Fibar USA & Nice S.p.A.: 7-Patent Smart Home Dispute Ends in Dismissal With Prejudice
Avant Location Technologies asserted seven US patents covering location-aware wireless technology against Fibaro’s smart home controller lineup, including the Home Center 2, 3, and Yubii Home. Filed in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, the case resolved in 304 days via a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice — Avant’s claims ended permanently, while Fibar’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice.
Seven-Patent Smart Home Assertion Resolved by Joint Stipulation in E.D. Texas
Avant Location Technologies LLC filed suit on 8 March 2024 in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00165) against Fibar USA LLC and Nice S.p.A., asserting infringement of seven US patents — US10009720B2, US9042910B2, US8738040B2, US9485621B2, US8934922B2, US9119030B2, and US9622032B2 — covering location-aware wireless communication technologies. The accused products were Fibaro’s Home Center 2, Home Center 3, Home Center 3 Lite, Home Center Lite, and Yubii Home smart home controller platforms distributed in the US market.
The case closed on 6 January 2025, 304 days after filing, through a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) joint motion to dismiss accepted by Judge Rodney Gilstrap. Avant’s infringement claims against both defendants were dismissed with prejudice, meaning those specific claims are permanently barred from re-filing. The defendants’ counterclaims — which typically include invalidity and non-infringement defenses — were dismissed without prejudice, preserving defendants’ right to raise those arguments in any future proceedings. Each side bears its own costs and attorneys’ fees.
The 304-day resolution, before any Markman hearing or merits ruling appears on the public docket, suggests the parties reached a negotiated resolution — potentially a license, covenant not to sue, or commercial settlement — rather than litigating to judgment. The asymmetric dismissal structure (plaintiff with prejudice, defendants without prejudice on counterclaims) is a hallmark of a settled dispute: Avant cannot re-assert these patents against these defendants, but the patents themselves remain unchallenged on validity grounds in any court record. The precise financial or licensing terms, if any, are not disclosed in the public record.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 304 days
304 days — faster than the E.D. Texas median for multi-patent infringement cases
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both sides
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) — joint stipulation of dismissal explained
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal is a voluntary, court-accepted termination filed jointly by all parties. No merits ruling is issued — the judge does not assess infringement or validity. ‘With prejudice’ on Avant’s claims means the res judicata doctrine bars Avant from re-filing the same patent claims against these defendants. The court accepted the stipulation without substantive analysis, which is standard procedure for this rule.
No merits adjudicationAsymmetric dismissal: plaintiff with prejudice, defendants without
The verdict text specifies plaintiff’s claims dismissed with prejudice and defendants’ counterclaims dismissed without prejudice. This asymmetry is commercially significant: Avant permanently relinquishes its right to sue Fibar and Nice on these seven patents, while the defendants retain the ability to challenge patent validity in other forums — such as IPR proceedings at the USPTO — should the patents resurface in litigation against other parties. The public record does not disclose whether a license or settlement payment accompanied this structure.
Plaintiff claims permanently barredAvant’s seven patents survive — but enforcement against Fibar ends
Dismissal with prejudice does not invalidate Avant’s patents. US10009720B2 and its six companion patents remain in force and could be asserted against other parties in the smart home and location-aware wireless sector. However, Avant has permanently foreclosed any further action against Fibar USA and Nice S.p.A. on these specific claims — a meaningful concession given the breadth of the accused product line (five Fibaro controller platforms).
Patents enforceable against othersSmart home vendors: these patents remain a live enforcement risk
The absence of a validity ruling means competitors and adjacent smart home platform vendors cannot rely on this case to clear freedom-to-operate risk under these seven patents. Avant’s portfolio — spanning location-aware wireless communications across seven granted US patents — remains available for further assertion. Vendors offering similar hub-and-controller architectures to Fibaro’s Home Center lineup should treat these patents as unresolved risk until formal invalidity proceedings or expiry.
Portfolio remains active threatFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Avant Location Technologies, LLC | Company | Location-aware wireless technology patent assertion entity — holder of US10009720B2 and 6 related patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Fibar USA, LLC | Company | Fibar USA LLC (US distributor) and Nice S.p.A. (Italian parent) — makers of Fibaro smart home controllersSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Nice S.p.A. | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alfred Ross Fabricant | Attorney | Counsel for Avant Location Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Enrique William Iturralde | Attorney | Counsel for Avant Location Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jacob Daniel Ostling | Attorney | Counsel for Avant Location Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Julian Glenn Pymento | Attorney | Counsel for Avant Location Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Justine Minseon Park | Attorney | Counsel for Avant Location Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Peter Lambrianakos | Attorney | Counsel for Avant Location Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Rudolph Fink , IV | Attorney | Counsel for Avant Location Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ty William Wilson | Attorney | Counsel for Avant Location Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Vincent J. Rubino , III | Attorney | Counsel for Avant Location Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William Ellsworth Davis , III | Attorney | Counsel for Avant Location Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Davis Firm PC | Law Firm | Representing Avant Location Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fabricant LLP | Law Firm | Representing Avant Location Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fabricant LLP (NY) | Law Firm | Representing Avant Location Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fabricant LLP (Rye) | Law Firm | Representing Avant Location Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | The Davis Firm PC (Longview) | Law Firm | Representing Avant Location Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Andy Nikolopoulos | Attorney | Counsel for Fibar USA, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Austen C. Endersby | Attorney | Counsel for Fibar USA, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jeff Edward Schwartz | Attorney | Counsel for Fibar USA, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ryan North Miller | Attorney | Counsel for Fibar USA, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fox Rothschild LLP | Law Firm | Representing Fibar USA, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fox Rothschild LLP – DC | Law Firm | Representing Fibar USA, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order adopts the parties’ joint framing verbatim under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), issuing no independent legal analysis of infringement or validity. The operative distinction — plaintiff’s claims ‘with prejudice,’ defendants’ counterclaims ‘without prejudice’ — reflects a negotiated asymmetry rather than a judicial determination. Judge Gilstrap’s role was purely ministerial: accepting the stipulation and directing closure. No claim construction, damages analysis, or invalidity ruling appears in the record, meaning the seven asserted patents carry no court-adjudicated validity or invalidity finding.
US10009720B2 and 6 companion patents — location-aware wireless smart home communications
The seven patents asserted in this case — US10009720B2, US9042910B2, US8738040B2, US9485621B2, US8934922B2, US9119030B2, and US9622032B2 — form a coordinated portfolio covering location-aware wireless communication technologies applicable to smart home control architectures. The application numbers span filings from approximately 2008 (US12/294641) through 2015, capturing successive innovation across the evolution of connected home platforms. The patents cover methods and systems for coordinating wireless device communication using location context — directly relevant to hub-based smart home controllers.
Strategically, a portfolio of this breadth and temporal span is typically assembled to maximise claim coverage across generational product architectures — from early Z-Wave/Zigbee hubs (Home Center 2 era) through to modern multi-protocol platforms like Yubii Home. For smart home vendors, the risk is that claim scope across seven patents can be drafted to capture incremental product evolution. The absence of any invalidity ruling from this case means competitors operating hub-and-sensor architectures must conduct independent FTO analysis — this litigation provides no safe harbour.
Should your smart home product team run an FTO against Avant’s patent portfolio?
Any company developing or distributing hub-based smart home controllers, location-aware IoT platforms, or wireless home automation systems should treat Avant’s seven-patent portfolio as an active enforcement risk. The Fibaro case resolved without a validity ruling, and the with-prejudice dismissal only protects Fibar USA and Nice S.p.A. — not any other vendor. Product teams working on Home Center-adjacent architectures, multi-protocol smart home hubs, or location-triggered automation systems are in the direct technical crosshairs of this portfolio.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map each of the seven asserted patents against your product’s technical architecture, identify claim limitations most likely to read on your implementation, and surface prior art that survived without judicial testing in this case. Because counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, there is no public invalidity record to rely on — Eureka can fill that gap by generating a structured prior art landscape and claim-by-claim risk assessment tailored to your specific smart home platform.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10009720B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar location-aware smart home patent cases in E.D. Texas and related venues
Cases involving location-aware wireless communication and smart home hub patents litigated in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Gilstrap and similar patent assertion venues.
What this case signals for the smart home patent enforcement landscape
A seven-patent assertion resolved in under a year before Markman raises pointed questions for the broader Fibaro-adjacent smart home sector.
Pre-Markman resolution suggests settlement, not technical victory
Cases settled before claim construction rarely produce a clear winner on the merits. The 304-day timeline and joint filing indicate the parties found a commercial resolution faster than E.D. Texas litigation typically runs. Competitors should not treat this outcome as a validity clearance for any of the seven asserted patents.
E.D. Texas / Judge Gilstrap: a high-volume patent docket with settlement pressure
Judge Gilstrap’s docket in the Eastern District of Texas is among the most active for patent cases in the US. The early-resolution dynamic here — before significant claim construction or discovery — is consistent with defendants preferring commercial resolution over extended litigation costs in this venue, particularly when multiple patents and product lines are at stake.
Avant v Fibar — key questions answered
Dismissal with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) means Avant Location Technologies permanently cannot re-file the same infringement claims against Fibar USA and Nice S.p.A. on the seven asserted patents. The doctrine of res judicata bars re-litigation. However, the patents themselves are not invalidated and Avant retains the right to assert them against other defendants.
This asymmetric structure is a common feature of negotiated patent settlements. Defendants’ counterclaims — typically invalidity and non-infringement — are dismissed without prejudice so that no formal validity ruling is entered, preserving the patents’ legal status. It also preserves the defendants’ theoretical right to raise invalidity in future proceedings. The public record does not disclose whether a license or payment accompanied this arrangement.
The complaint targeted five Fibaro smart home controller products: Home Center 2, Home Center 3, Home Center 3 Lite, Home Center Lite, and Yubii Home. These are hub-based platforms used to coordinate smart home sensors and devices. The accused functionality relates to location-aware wireless communication — a core feature of Fibaro’s controller architecture.
Yes. Dismissal with prejudice only bars Avant from suing Fibar USA and Nice S.p.A. again on these specific patents. The seven patents — US10009720B2, US9042910B2, US8738040B2, US9485621B2, US8934922B2, US9119030B2, and US9622032B2 — remain granted and in force. No court has issued a validity or invalidity ruling. Other smart home vendors should treat these patents as an active enforcement risk.
Judge Gilstrap’s role was ministerial. Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), a joint stipulation of dismissal becomes effective upon filing when signed by all parties who have appeared. The court accepted and acknowledged the motion, directed the clerk to close the case, and denied all pending relief as moot. No substantive ruling on infringement, claim construction, or validity was issued by Judge Gilstrap in this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.