C47 Technologies v. Lenovo & Motorola Mobility: Dismissed With Prejudice After 457 Days
C47 Technologies LLC asserted US10984605B2 against Lenovo and Motorola Mobility in the Eastern District of Texas, targeting the Motorola Edge, G, and One Series product lines. After 457 days of litigation before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, C47 voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice — permanently closing the door on re-filing the same infringement action.
A 457-day EDTX infringement campaign ends with permanent self-closure
On June 3, 2024, C47 Technologies LLC filed a patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas against Lenovo Inc., Lenovo (United States) Inc., and Motorola Mobility LLC, asserting US10984605B2. The accused products spanned three major Motorola consumer smartphone lines — the Edge Series, G Series, and One Series — suggesting a broad commercial challenge directed at Motorola’s core handset portfolio rather than a narrow technology niche.
The case closed on September 3, 2025, when C47 Technologies filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice. Judge Rodney Gilstrap accepted the notice, dismissing all of C47’s claims against all defendants with prejudice and ordering each side to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees. Dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits: C47 cannot re-file the same claims against these defendants based on US10984605B2.
At 457 days, the case ran longer than many EDTX voluntary dismissals, suggesting substantive motion practice or settlement negotiations preceded the resolution. The with-prejudice designation and the mutual cost-bearing order are consistent with a negotiated resolution or a strategic withdrawal following unfavorable case developments, though the public record does not disclose the specific terms or trigger. The Lead Case was simultaneously closed, indicating this was the last or only remaining member case in a consolidated series.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 457 days
457 days — above the median for voluntarily dismissed EDTX infringement actions
Dismissed with prejudice: what the voluntary withdrawal means for both sides
Voluntary dismissal with prejudice forecloses re-filing
Under Rule 41(a), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss a case. When that dismissal is ‘with prejudice,’ it operates as a final judgment on the merits. C47 cannot reassert the same claims under US10984605B2 against Lenovo or Motorola Mobility in any future action. The court accepted the notice without requiring a hearing, indicating the dismissal was procedurally clean and uncontested.
Rule 41(a) — final on the meritsC47 permanently surrenders its infringement claims
By dismissing with prejudice, C47 Technologies gave up its right to pursue infringement damages against Lenovo and Motorola Mobility for US10984605B2. This is an unusually strong concession for a plaintiff-initiated dismissal. It may reflect a litigation risk assessment following claim construction, an agreed resolution whose terms remain confidential, or mounting pressure from invalidity or non-infringement defences developed by the Lenovo/Motorola defence team.
Claims permanently extinguishedLenovo and Motorola Mobility exit with no liability finding
All three defendants — Lenovo Inc., Lenovo (United States) Inc., and Motorola Mobility LLC — are fully released from C47’s infringement claims. No damages were awarded, no injunction issued, and no admission of infringement was made. The mutual cost-bearing order means defendants recovered no attorneys’ fees, which is typical when plaintiffs dismiss voluntarily absent an exceptional-case finding under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
No liability — no fee awardMotorola product lines cleared — but patent remains in force
The Motorola Edge, G, and One Series product lines face no further exposure from C47 on this patent in relation to these defendants. However, US10984605B2 remains an issued patent and could potentially be asserted against other market participants. Third parties operating in the same smartphone technology space should note that dismissal with prejudice binds only the named defendants and does not invalidate the patent or limit assertions against others.
Patent survives — third-party risk remainsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | C47 Technologies LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US10984605B2 targeting smartphone technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Lenovo, Inc. | Company | Lenovo Inc. and affiliates, including Motorola Mobility LLC, maker of the accused Edge, G & One Series smartphonesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Lenovo (United States), Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Motorola Mobility, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christopher A. Honea | Attorney | Counsel for C47 Technologies LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Garteiser Honea PLLC | Law Firm | Representing C47 Technologies LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order accepts C47’s voluntary dismissal notice without substantive merits ruling — the with-prejudice designation is driven by the plaintiff’s own election, not a judicial finding of invalidity or non-infringement. The phrase ‘all pending requests for relief… are DENIED AS MOOT’ confirms no outstanding motions received substantive resolution. The simultaneous closure of the Lead Case indicates this member case was the final dispute in a consolidated series, suggesting the litigation programme has concluded entirely rather than being paused or redirected.
US10984605B2 — smartphone technology asserted against Motorola handset lines
US10984605B2, filed under application number US17/069690, is an issued US patent asserted by C47 Technologies against Motorola Mobility’s consumer smartphone portfolio. The patent was asserted broadly across three product families — the Edge, G, and One Series — which collectively span Motorola’s premium, mid-range, and entry-level segments, suggesting the claimed invention covers functionality common across modern Android handset architectures rather than a single high-end feature.
The breadth of the accused product set is strategically significant. By targeting all three Motorola tiers simultaneously, C47 maximised the damages base and negotiating leverage typical of assertion-entity campaigns in EDTX. For competitors and component suppliers whose products share architectural similarities with the accused Motorola lines, US10984605B2 represents an active enforcement risk. The patent’s continued validity — unchallenged to final judgement in this proceeding — means it retains its presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282.
Should your team run an FTO analysis against US10984605B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or distributing Android smartphones — particularly devices sharing hardware or software architecture with the Motorola Edge, G, or One Series — should consider a freedom-to-operate analysis against US10984605B2. The dismissal with prejudice in this case binds only Lenovo and Motorola Mobility; it provides no safe harbour for other market participants. OEM partners, chipset vendors, and white-label handset manufacturers operating in the same technology space carry residual exposure.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can rapidly map the claim scope of US10984605B2 against your product specifications, identify overlapping prior art that may support an IPR petition, and flag related C47 Technologies filings that could signal a broader assertion campaign. Running a structured FTO now — before a demand letter arrives — is significantly less costly than reactive litigation in the Eastern District of Texas.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10984605B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar smartphone patent infringement cases in the Eastern District of Texas
Explore comparable patent assertion actions targeting Android smartphone OEMs before Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the smartphone patent assertion landscape
A with-prejudice exit after 15+ months in EDTX raises pointed questions about assertion economics and defence strategy in consumer device IP.
EDTX remains the venue of choice — but duration signals real defence friction
C47 filed in Judge Gilstrap’s court, historically one of the most plaintiff-friendly dockets in the US for patent assertion. Yet the 457-day timeline before a with-prejudice dismissal suggests defendants mounted a substantive defence — whether through claim construction, IPR petitions, or licensing negotiations — that ultimately altered the plaintiff’s calculus.
No fee award despite with-prejudice exit: defendants absorbed their own costs
The court’s mutual cost-bearing order means Lenovo and Motorola Mobility received no financial recovery for their defence spend. This is the norm absent an exceptional-case motion under § 285, but it underscores that defeating an assertion entity rarely yields fee recovery — a persistent asymmetry that continues to favour PAE economics in consumer electronics litigation.
C47 v Lenovo — key questions answered
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits under Rule 41(a). C47 Technologies cannot re-file the same infringement claims under US10984605B2 against Lenovo Inc., Lenovo (United States) Inc., or Motorola Mobility LLC in any US court. The patent itself remains valid and enforceable against third parties not named in this action.
C47 Technologies accused three Motorola product lines: the Motorola Edge Series, the Motorola G Series, and the Motorola One Series. These span Motorola’s premium, mid-range, and entry-level smartphone segments, suggesting the asserted patent claims cover functionality common across a broad range of Android handset architectures.
Plaintiffs in patent infringement cases commonly name both the parent entity and relevant US-based subsidiaries or affiliates to capture the full chain of liability — including importation, distribution, and direct sales. Motorola Mobility LLC is the Lenovo subsidiary that designs and sells the accused smartphone product lines in the US market.
The defendants were not found liable and face no damages or injunction. However, they did not ‘win’ in the sense of receiving a merits judgement in their favour. The court ordered each party to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees, which is standard for voluntary dismissals absent an exceptional-case finding under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Defendants absorbed their own defence costs.
The Eastern District of Texas, particularly Judge Rodney Gilstrap’s docket, has historically been one of the most active venues for patent assertion entity litigation due to plaintiff-friendly procedural history and efficient case management. Filing there is a deliberate strategic choice by assertion entities seeking scheduling pressure on defendants. The 457-day duration before voluntary dismissal suggests defendants successfully created litigation friction despite the venue.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.