Big Will Enterprises v. Geometris LP: OBD II Tracker Patent Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
Big Will Enterprises asserted four wireless communication device patents against Geometris LP’s whereQube OBD II tracker in the Southern District of Texas. The case ended by joint motion and was dismissed with prejudice after just 92 days — a resolution timeline that strongly suggests a negotiated settlement between the parties.
Four-Patent WCD Dispute Resolved in Under Three Months via Joint Motion
Big Will Enterprises, Inc. filed suit against Geometris LP on 20 August 2025 in the Southern District of Texas before Judge Keith P. Ellison, asserting infringement of four US patents — US9049558B2, US8452273B1, US8737951B2, and US8559914B2 — each directed to wireless communication device (WCD) technology. The accused product was the Geometris whereQube, an OBD II vehicle tracking device that leverages wireless communications to transmit location and telematics data.
The case closed on 20 November 2025 when the court entered judgment pursuant to a Joint Motion for Entry of Judgment of Dismissal (ECF 17), dismissing all of Big Will Enterprises’ claims against Geometris LP with prejudice. Each party was ordered to bear its own fees and costs. A dismissal with prejudice extinguishes the plaintiff’s right to re-file the same claims, meaning Big Will Enterprises cannot reassert these four patents against Geometris LP on the same accused product in federal court.
A joint motion filed within 92 days of filing — before any substantive motion practice would typically conclude — is consistent with a private settlement reached between the parties, though the public record contains no disclosure of settlement terms. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement departs from a plaintiff capitulation pattern (where defendants typically seek fees) and suggests neither side perceived itself as having clearly prevailed. The rapid timeline may also reflect licensing discussions that preceded or were accelerated by the litigation filing.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 92 days
92 days — well below the median litigated patent case timeline of 2–3 years
Dismissed with prejudice by joint motion: what the judgment means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice extinguishes the infringement claims permanently
A dismissal with prejudice, entered here by joint motion under the court’s judgment, carries full res judicata effect. Big Will Enterprises cannot re-file these infringement claims against Geometris LP on the same four patents and the same whereQube product in any federal court. The joint motion format confirms both parties consented — this is not a unilateral withdrawal by the plaintiff.
Permanent bar on re-filingBig Will Enterprises loses the right to re-assert these claims
By agreeing to dismissal with prejudice, Big Will Enterprises permanently forfeited its ability to re-litigate these specific claims against Geometris LP. However, the four patents remain in force and could potentially be asserted against other defendants or different accused products. The own-costs arrangement avoids fee exposure under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which is commercially significant for a smaller patent holder.
Patents survive; claims against Geometris closedGeometris LP secures permanent protection from these four patent claims
Geometris LP obtains a judgment that permanently shields the whereQube OBD II tracker from infringement liability under the four asserted WCD patents held by Big Will Enterprises. The absence of a fee award against plaintiff suggests Geometris LP either agreed to a mutual walk-away or received other value — potentially a license — in exchange. No court finding on invalidity or non-infringement was made, leaving the patents’ legal status unchanged for third parties.
whereQube cleared of these claimsSettlement signal has sector-wide relevance for OBD II and telematics IP
The rapid joint dismissal in a four-patent, multi-WCD-technology suit targeting an OBD II tracker is consistent with a licensing resolution — a common outcome in vehicle telematics patent disputes. For competitors in the connected-vehicle and fleet-tracking space, the continued existence of Big Will Enterprises’ WCD patent portfolio post-dismissal suggests ongoing enforcement risk. Companies commercialising OBD II wireless devices should consider FTO analysis against these four patents.
WCD patent portfolio remains activeFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Big Will Enterprises, Inc. | Company | Wireless communication device patent holder — asserting US9049558B2 and three related WCD patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Geometris LP | Company | Geometris LP — developer and marketer of the whereQube OBD II telematics trackerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brett T. Cooke | Attorney | Counsel for Big Will Enterprises, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Eureka Intellectual Property Law, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Big Will Enterprises, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alexander Hale Martin | Attorney | Counsel for Geometris LPSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Neil J McNabnay | Attorney | Counsel for Geometris LPSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ricardo Joel Bonilla | Attorney | Counsel for Geometris LPSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Thomas H. Reger , II | Attorney | Counsel for Geometris LPSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson LLP | Law Firm | Representing Geometris LPSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Keith P Ellison | Judge | Texas Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s judgment adopts the joint motion verbatim, entering dismissal with prejudice without any finding on the merits of infringement, validity, or claim construction. The phrasing ‘finding the same well-taken’ is purely procedural and does not constitute a substantive ruling. The absence of a fee award under 35 U.S.C. § 285 is notable — it forecloses any exceptional-case argument by either side and suggests the resolution was commercially balanced. For third parties, no legal determination regarding the validity or scope of the four asserted WCD patents was made.
US9049558B2, US8452273B1, US8737951B2 & US8559914B2 — Wireless Communication Device Technology
The four asserted patents — US9049558B2, US8452273B1, US8737951B2, and US8559914B2 — share a common focus on wireless communication device (WCD) technology, with application numbers filed across the early-to-mid 2010s. This filing timeline places their priority dates during the rapid expansion of cellular-connected vehicle telematics, when OBD II port-based trackers were transitioning from proprietary RF to standardised cellular WCD architectures. The portfolio’s breadth across four distinct patent families suggests coverage of multiple technical approaches within the WCD domain.
For the fleet telematics and connected-vehicle sector, a four-patent WCD portfolio asserted against an OBD II tracker product carries strategic weight. The whereQube’s reliance on wireless communication for location and telematics data transmission places it squarely within the claims’ likely technical scope. That the suit resolved within 92 days without a validity challenge reaching the court suggests Geometris LP may have assessed litigation risk as commercially less favourable than a negotiated resolution — a signal other OBD II hardware manufacturers should weigh when evaluating their own WCD architectures.
Should your OBD II or telematics product run an FTO against these four WCD patents?
Any company developing or commercialising OBD II trackers, fleet telematics hardware, or connected-vehicle devices that rely on wireless communication for data transmission should treat the Big Will Enterprises patent portfolio as an active FTO concern. The four asserted patents — US9049558B2, US8452273B1, US8737951B2, and US8559914B2 — remain in force following this dismissal, and the portfolio holder has demonstrated a willingness to enforce in the Southern District of Texas. Hardware manufacturers, SaaS fleet platforms integrating physical trackers, and automotive OEM suppliers are all potentially within scope.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map product features against the claim language of all four patents simultaneously, identifying potential overlap with specific WCD transmission methods, network protocols, or device architectures. Eureka can also surface related continuations or divisionals that may extend coverage beyond the four asserted numbers, and flag prosecution history estoppel that could limit claim breadth — giving your team a defensible clearance position before product launch or market entry.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9049558B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Wireless Communication Device Patent Cases in the Southern District of Texas
Explore patent infringement cases involving wireless communication device technology and OBD II telematics products litigated in the Southern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the vehicle telematics and OBD II IP landscape
A 92-day joint dismissal with prejudice in a four-patent WCD suit points to rapid negotiation — and a patent portfolio still in play.
Rapid joint dismissals in patent suits typically signal licensing resolution
Cases resolved by joint motion within three months of filing — before claim construction or any substantive briefing — rarely reflect plaintiff abandonment. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement here reinforces the inference that the parties reached a commercial understanding, most likely a license or covenant not to sue, rather than Big Will Enterprises simply dropping the case.
Big Will’s four WCD patents remain enforceable against third parties
The with-prejudice dismissal only bars claims against Geometris LP on these specific facts. US9049558B2, US8452273B1, US8737951B2, and US8559914B2 continue in force. Any company in the OBD II tracker, fleet telematics, or connected-vehicle space using similar wireless communication device architectures should treat this portfolio as an active enforcement risk and conduct patent landscape analysis accordingly.
Big v Geometris — key questions answered
The dismissal with prejudice, entered by joint motion, permanently bars Big Will Enterprises from reasserting the four WCD patents against Geometris LP’s whereQube OBD II tracker in federal court. No merits determination was made on infringement or validity. The four patents remain in force against third parties.
No. The court made no finding on infringement, validity, or claim construction. The dismissal was entered by joint motion and is purely procedural. The legal status of US9049558B2, US8452273B1, US8737951B2, and US8559914B2 is unchanged for all parties other than Geometris LP in connection with this specific dispute.
The public record does not disclose settlement terms or the parties’ motivations. However, a 92-day resolution by joint motion with mutual cost-bearing is consistent with a pre-existing licensing discussion, a rapid commercial agreement reached after suit was filed, or both. Geometris LP’s retention of Fish & Richardson LLP with four attorneys suggests the defendant initially anticipated contested litigation.
The Geometris whereQube is an OBD II port-connected vehicle tracking device that uses wireless communication to transmit location and telematics data. Big Will Enterprises alleged the device’s wireless communication architecture fell within the claims of its four WCD patents. No court ruling confirmed or denied this allegation before the case was dismissed.
Yes. The dismissal with prejudice only bars claims against Geometris LP arising from this specific dispute. US9049558B2, US8452273B1, US8737951B2, and US8559914B2 remain valid and enforceable. Big Will Enterprises retains full rights to assert these patents against other defendants in connection with different accused products or infringement theories.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.