Big Will Enterprises v. Solera Holdings: Six-Patent IPSS Suit Closes in 20 Days
Big Will Enterprises filed a six-patent infringement action against Solera Holdings in the Northern District of Texas, asserting patents covering interactive personal surveillance systems, mobile motion-activity detection, and targeted advertising on wireless devices. The case closed just 20 days after filing — before the defendant had even appeared on the docket.
Six-Patent Surveillance Suit Ends in 20 Days Before Defendant Appeared
On March 14, 2023, Big Will Enterprises, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against Solera Holdings, Inc. in the Northern District of Texas (Case No. 4:23-cv-00257), presided over by Judge Reed C. O'Connor. The complaint asserted six United States patents — US9049558B2, US8977230B2, US8452273B1, US10521846B2, US8737951B2, and US8559914B2 — covering interactive personal surveillance and security (IPSS) systems, mobile-thing motion-activity (MTMA) detection using accelerometers and sensor data, and targeted advertisement selection for wireless communication devices.
The recorded basis of termination is Consent Judgment. The docket order dated April 3, 2023 — the same day the case closed — states that the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, noting that the defendant had not yet appeared. The specific terms underlying the resolution are not disclosed in the available public record.
The 20-day duration from filing to closure is notably short and suggests the parties reached an understanding before Solera Holdings was required to formally respond. What commercial or licensing considerations, if any, informed that resolution is not reflected in the public docket.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Consent Judgment in 20 days
Case resolved before defendant entered any appearance — unusually rapid closure
US9049558B2 and five further IPSS and mobile-activity patents asserted
Any R&D or product team building connected-device surveillance features, telematics-derived motion detection, or mobile-targeted advertising systems should treat this six-patent portfolio as a priority FTO target. The claims span accelerometer-based activity inference, sensor-data processing on wireless devices, and IPSS architectures — technologies now embedded in automotive platforms, insurance IoT, fleet management, and consumer mobile apps.
Official order — verbatim text
The docket order grants Plaintiff's Rule 41 motion and dismisses the action without prejudice; the recorded basis of termination is Consent Judgment. These two characterisations are presented as-is from the source record — the specific terms, if any, that informed the consent judgment are not disclosed in the available public record.
Consent judgment: what the agreed resolution means for both parties
A consent judgment is a binding, court-entered resolution on agreed terms
A consent judgment is a formal judgment entered by the court on terms the parties have agreed upon, carrying the full legal force of a litigated judgment. It brings the case to a final, binding conclusion. The docket order here is styled as a Rule 41 dismissal without prejudice; the recorded basis of termination is Consent Judgment. The specific terms agreed between the parties are not disclosed in the available public record.
Court-entered, binding and finalBig Will Enterprises exits litigation on recorded consent judgment terms
As the plaintiff and patent holder, Big Will Enterprises initiated the dismissal motion. The consent judgment as the recorded basis of termination indicates a concluded resolution. Whether the outcome included any license, payment, covenant, or other commercial term is not disclosed in the available public record. The six asserted patents remain in force as issued.
Patents remain in forceSolera Holdings resolved the action before formally entering the case
Solera Holdings had not yet appeared on the docket at the time of closure. The consent judgment as the recorded basis of termination indicates a concluded resolution binding on both parties. The specific obligations, if any, accepted by Solera are not disclosed in the available public record.
Resolved pre-appearanceIPSS and mobile-data patent holders can enforce early — sector should monitor
The swift resolution of this six-patent action before formal litigation commenced suggests that patent holders asserting IPSS, mobile motion-activity, and wireless-device advertising patents may find early leverage. Companies operating in connected-device surveillance, telematics, and mobile analytics — including automotive data platforms such as Solera — should monitor this patent family and assess freedom-to-operate exposure across these technology domains.
Early enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Big Will Enterprises, Inc. | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9049558B2 and five further IPSS and mobile-system patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Solera Holdings, Inc. | Company | Solera Holdings, Inc. — automotive and insurance data software and services companySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brett Thomas Cooke | Attorney | Counsel for Big Will Enterprises, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Brett T. Cooke, Law Office | Law Firm | Representing Big Will Enterprises, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Reed C. O Connor | Judge | Texas Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the IPSS and mobile surveillance patent space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from Big Will Enterprises' IPSS and mobile-activity portfolio — relevant for connected-device, telematics, and mobile-analytics teams.
Big Will's IPSS portfolio spans surveillance hardware to mobile monetisation
The six asserted patents reflect a portfolio built across multiple application cycles from 2009 to 2015, covering distinct but interlinked layers: physical IPSS architecture, wireless motion-activity inference, and advertising delivery. Monitoring continuation and family activity from these applications can reveal whether additional claim scope is still being prosecuted.
6-patent family, 2009–2015 filingsFiling trends in mobile motion-activity detection are accelerating post-2018
Mobile-thing motion-activity (MTMA) detection using smartphone accelerometers and sensor fusion has seen increased patent filing activity from automotive OEMs, insurance-tech firms, and IoT platform vendors. Understanding the density of this landscape helps teams identify freedom-to-operate gaps and avoid blocking positions in adjacent claim spaces.
MTMA sensor-fusion filings risingSolera's patent activity in connected-car data and telematics analytics
As a major automotive and insurance data platform, Solera's own patent filing posture in vehicle telematics, sensor data processing, and claims automation is worth monitoring. Understanding whether Solera holds defensive IP in the mobile sensor and IPSS space — or relies primarily on trade secrets and data assets — shapes competitive strategy for adjacent players.
Solera telematics IP postureAdjacent opportunity: IPSS integration with edge-AI and on-device inference
The Big Will portfolio addresses sensor-data collection and motion-activity classification but predates the on-device edge-AI era. Patent white space likely exists at the intersection of IPSS architectures and on-device machine-learning inference for real-time activity classification — an area where new filings could establish defensible positions ahead of broader adoption.
Edge-AI IPSS white spaceSimilar IPSS and mobile-surveillance patent cases in N.D. Texas
Explore patent infringement actions asserting interactive surveillance, mobile motion-activity detection, and wireless-device patents before the Northern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the connected-device and mobile surveillance IP landscape
A six-patent assertion resolved in 20 days points to concentrated IP leverage in the IPSS and mobile-data sector — and raises questions for adjacent players.
Pre-appearance resolution raises enforcement efficiency for IPSS patent holders
The case closing before Solera filed any response is consistent with a patent holder holding assertable positions that create early settlement pressure. Companies in automotive data, telematics, and connected-device analytics should assess exposure to this patent family before receiving a complaint.
Six-patent portfolio breadth signals layered IP coverage across the mobile stack
The asserted patents span hardware-level surveillance systems, accelerometer-based motion detection, sensor-data activity inference, and targeted advertising delivery — covering multiple layers of a mobile/connected-device stack. Any product touching location-aware mobile services or telematics may intersect multiple claims simultaneously.
Big v Solera — key questions answered
The recorded basis of termination is Consent Judgment. The case was filed on March 14, 2023 and closed on April 3, 2023 — 20 days later. The docket order of April 3 also states that the court granted Plaintiff's Rule 41 motion and dismissed the action without prejudice; the specific terms of any agreement are not disclosed in the available public record.
Big Will Enterprises asserted six US patents: US9049558B2 and US8977230B2 (interactive personal surveillance and security systems), US8452273B1 and US10521846B2 (mobile-thing motion-activity detection), US8737951B2 (MTMA using sensor data with activity-based actions), and US8559914B2 (targeted advertisement selection for wireless communication devices).
The docket records that Solera Holdings had not yet appeared when Plaintiff filed its dismissal motion on April 3, 2023. The recorded basis of termination is Consent Judgment, suggesting the parties reached a resolution promptly after filing. What commercial terms, if any, drove that rapid resolution is not reflected in the public record.
The patents cover interactive personal surveillance and security (IPSS) system architectures, detection of mobile-thing motion activity (MTMA) using a wireless device's accelerometer and broader sensor data, activity-based action triggering based on that sensor data, and targeted advertisement selection and delivery to wireless communication devices.
Any organisation whose products collect, process, or act on sensor data from mobile or wireless devices — including automotive data platforms, fleet management providers, insurance-tech firms, and mobile app developers — may have exposure to one or more claims in this portfolio. An FTO analysis across the six asserted patents is advisable before product launch or expansion into these technology areas.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.