Backertop Licensing v. Condeco Software: Voluntary Dismissal After 80 Days
Backertop Licensing LLC filed a patent infringement action against Condeco Software, Inc. in the Southern District of New York, asserting two patents covering selective content delivery within a virtual perimeter. The case was voluntarily dismissed within 80 days of filing — before any substantive ruling on the merits.
Geofencing patent dispute ends without merits ruling in S.D.N.Y.
On 29 November 2022, Backertop Licensing LLC filed suit against Condeco Software, Inc. in the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:22-cv-10141) before Judge Analisa Torres. The complaint alleged infringement of two patents — US9332385B1 and US9654617B2 — covering technology for selectively delivering content to users located within a virtual geographic perimeter, commonly associated with geofencing applications.
The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Voluntary dismissal.' The docket order states that Plaintiff Backertop Licensing LLC filed a notice of voluntary dismissal WITH PREJUDICE of Defendant Condeco Software, Inc. pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and 41(a)(1)(B). These two characterisations are presented as recorded; the reader should note the distinction between them. The specific terms underlying the dismissal, if any, are not disclosed in the available record.
The case concluded in just 80 days from filing, suggesting resolution before significant litigation activity. What drove the dismissal — whether licensing, commercial considerations, or another factor — is not disclosed in the public record. No substantive ruling on patent validity or infringement was issued.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 80 days
Case resolved in 80 days — well below the district court median for patent cases.
US9332385B1 & US9654617B2 — Virtual perimeter content delivery
Any R&D team building location-aware features — including geofenced content delivery, proximity-triggered notifications, conditional access based on virtual perimeter, or workplace occupancy tools — should treat both patents as active FTO priorities. The claims were never construed or invalidated in this litigation, meaning no safe harbour exists from this proceeding. Enterprise software vendors, mobile platform developers, and workplace technology providers are the most exposed categories.
Official order — verbatim text
The voluntary dismissal notice, filed unilaterally by Backertop Licensing under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), terminated the action before Condeco was required to answer. The notice characterises the dismissal as with prejudice. Because no court-entered judgment on the merits was issued, the docket yields no claim construction, no validity ruling, and no infringement finding — leaving the enforceability of both asserted patents substantively unresolved.
Voluntary dismissal: what the record shows for both parties
What voluntary dismissal means under Rule 41
The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Voluntary dismissal.' The docket order invokes Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which allows a plaintiff to dismiss without a court order by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The docket order characterises the dismissal as WITH PREJUDICE. The public record does not disclose the specific terms, if any, underlying this dismissal.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) noticeDoes the dismissal bar future assertion of these patents?
A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits for the specific defendant named, preventing the same plaintiff from re-filing the same claims against the same defendant. A dismissal without prejudice does not carry that bar. The recorded Basis of Termination states 'Voluntary dismissal' without specifying which form. The docket order characterises it as with prejudice. The public record is the sole source available; the operative legal effect turns on which characterisation governs.
Preclusion depends on prejudice formBackertop retains the patents; enforcement posture unclear
No finding of invalidity or non-infringement was entered. Backertop Licensing retains US9332385B1 and US9654617B2, and the patents remain nominally enforceable against third parties not party to this action. Whether Backertop retains the right to assert these patents against Condeco specifically depends on the prejudice question discussed in the adjacent card. No licensing terms are disclosed in the available record.
Patents still activeVirtual perimeter IP remains a live risk for software platforms
The assertion of geofencing-adjacent patents against a workplace software provider signals that virtual perimeter content-delivery claims are being applied to enterprise SaaS contexts, not just consumer mobile applications. Companies operating location-aware features — workspace booking, employee proximity services, or conditional content delivery — should treat US9332385B1 and US9654617B2 as active monitoring priorities. The absence of a merits ruling leaves claim scope unresolved.
Unresolved claim scopeFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Backertop Licensing, LLC | Company | Patent licensing entity — holder of US9332385B1 and US9654617B2 (virtual perimeter content delivery)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Condeco Software, Inc. | Company | Condeco Software, Inc. — workplace scheduling and resource management software provider.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nicholas Netram Loaknauth | Attorney | Counsel for Backertop Licensing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | The Law Office of Nicholas Loaknauth Esq | Law Firm | Representing Backertop Licensing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Morgan Virginia Manley | Attorney | Counsel for Condeco Software, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Condeco Software, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Analisa Torres | Judge | New York Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the geofencing and virtual perimeter patent space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence signals derived from Backertop Licensing's assertion of geofencing patents against Condeco Software and the broader virtual perimeter IP landscape.
Backertop Licensing's virtual perimeter patent holdings
Backertop Licensing has asserted at least two patents (US9332385B1, US9654617B2) in the virtual perimeter content delivery space. Understanding the full scope of Backertop's portfolio — including continuations, divisionals, and related applications — is critical for any company operating location-aware features. Portfolio mapping can reveal additional assertion vectors not yet litigated.
NPE portfolio mappingFiling trends in geofencing and location-triggered content delivery
Patent filing activity in geofencing, virtual perimeter enforcement, and location-based content delivery has grown alongside enterprise mobile and workplace technology adoption. Tracking filing trends around conditional content delivery based on geographic boundaries can reveal emerging claim strategies and identify which assignees are building assertion-ready portfolios in this space.
Filing trend: location IPCondeco's patent position in workplace technology
Condeco Software operates in the workplace scheduling and resource management sector, where location-aware features are increasingly embedded. Assessing Condeco's own patent filings and defensive portfolio in proximity-based services can signal how enterprise workspace platforms are building IP moats — and whether they have freedom-to-operate relative to virtual perimeter claims.
Defendant IP defence postureAdjacent R&D opportunities near virtual perimeter claims
The asserted patents focus on content selectivity within a defined geographic boundary. Adjacent white-space areas — such as dynamic perimeter adjustment, multi-layer permission hierarchies, or privacy-preserving geofencing architectures — may represent patentable innovations not yet densely claimed. Teams developing next-generation workplace or mobile location features should assess this space for filing opportunities.
White space: privacy geofencingSimilar geofencing and virtual perimeter patent cases in S.D.N.Y.
Explore related patent infringement actions involving geofencing, virtual perimeter, and location-aware content delivery technology filed in the Southern District of New York and peer courts.
What this case signals for the geofencing and location-aware IP landscape
A swift voluntary dismissal in an early-stage patent assertion leaves claim scope open and enforcement risk unresolved for the broader SaaS sector.
No merits ruling means claim scope of both patents is unresolved
Neither US9332385B1 nor US9654617B2 received judicial construction or validity analysis. Competitors and adjacent technology providers in location-aware or workspace software cannot rely on this case as prior art or estoppel. An independent FTO analysis against both patents remains necessary.
Enterprise SaaS platforms with geofencing features face assertion risk
The targeting of Condeco — a workplace scheduling platform — suggests patent assertion entities are extending virtual perimeter claims into enterprise software. Teams building location-triggered features, conditional content delivery, or proximity-based workplace tools should assess their exposure against this patent family.
Backertop v Condeco — key questions answered
Backertop Licensing asserted two patents: US9332385B1 (application no. US14/621636) and US9654617B2 (application no. US15/065286). Both cover technology for selectively providing content to users located within a virtual geographic perimeter — a geofencing-type capability. The case was filed in the Southern District of New York on 29 November 2022.
The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Voluntary dismissal.' The docket order states that Backertop Licensing filed a notice of voluntary dismissal WITH PREJUDICE of Condeco Software pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and 41(a)(1)(B). No merits ruling, claim construction, or validity finding was issued. The specific terms, if any, are not disclosed in the available record.
A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1) is treated as a final adjudication on the merits as to the named defendant, generally barring the same plaintiff from re-asserting the same claims against the same defendant. However, the Basis of Termination in this case is recorded simply as 'Voluntary dismissal' without specifying the prejudice form — readers should note this distinction. No court-entered judgment was issued.
No validity or invalidity ruling was entered in this case. The patents were not found invalid or unenforceable by the court. They nominally remain enforceable against parties other than Condeco Software. Whether they can be re-asserted against Condeco depends on the legal effect of the dismissal. Companies with location-aware or virtual perimeter features should continue to treat both patents as active monitoring priorities.
The case resolved in approximately 80 days from filing — before any substantive litigation milestones such as claim construction or summary judgment. The reasons for the early dismissal are not disclosed in the public record. The swift resolution is consistent with pre-answer settlement or licensing activity, but no such terms are confirmed in the available docket materials.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.