Connected Controls v. DPS Electronics: Infringement Claims Dismissed With Prejudice
Connected Controls, Inc. filed suit against DPS Electronics, Inc. in the Montana District Court, asserting infringement of two patents covering electronic control technology. The case closed after 336 days with a full dismissal with prejudice — no costs awarded to either side — and DPS Electronics reserved its right to challenge patent validity in any future enforcement action.
Electronic control patent dispute ends in with-prejudice dismissal in Montana
Connected Controls, Inc. filed this patent infringement action on 14 November 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana before Judge Brian Morris. The complaint alleged that DPS Electronics, Inc. infringed US10814857B2 and US11479230B2 through a range of its products, including the DPS 2020-He-LD ETD, the DPS 9000 YAC, the DPS 9000-M (Multi) YAC, and the DPS 9000-TIB (Mobile) YAC — all electronic control or detection system products.
The case closed on 15 October 2024 via a dismissal with prejudice covering all claims in the complaint and all amended counterclaims filed by DPS Electronics. No costs or attorneys’ fees were awarded to either party. Dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits, permanently barring Connected Controls from re-asserting the same claims against DPS Electronics based on the same patents and accused products. Notably, the dismissal order expressly reserved DPS Electronics’ right to raise invalidity defences against the two patents if it is sued again by Connected Controls or any subsequent owner or licensee.
The 336-day duration from filing to closure suggests the parties reached a resolution relatively efficiently for a multi-patent infringement dispute. The absence of a cost award is consistent with a negotiated settlement or consent dismissal, though the public record does not confirm settlement terms. The express invalidity reservation in the dismissal order is commercially significant: it signals that patent validity remained genuinely contested throughout the litigation, and that DPS Electronics secured a meaningful defensive concession even without a formal invalidity ruling.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 336 days
336 days — closed below the median duration for patent infringement cases at the district court level
Dismissed with prejudice: what the order means for both parties
With-prejudice dismissal bars refiling on the same claims
A dismissal with prejudice is treated as a final adjudication on the merits under federal civil procedure. Connected Controls cannot refile this specific infringement action against DPS Electronics based on the same two patents and the same accused products. The order explicitly covers both the original complaint and DPS Electronics’ amended counterclaims, fully closing the docket.
Permanent bar on refilingConnected Controls loses its infringement claim permanently
Connected Controls obtained no injunction, no damages award, and no royalty determination from this action. The with-prejudice nature of the dismissal means the company cannot re-assert these specific claims against DPS Electronics. However, the two patents remain in force and could still be enforced against different defendants or in different fact patterns not covered by this action.
No recovery; patents surviveDPS Electronics exits the case but preserves invalidity rights
DPS Electronics avoided an infringement finding and secured an express reservation of its right to challenge the validity of US10814857B2 and US11479230B2 in any future suit brought by Connected Controls or a successor patent owner. This reservation — embedded in the dismissal order — is an unusual and strategically significant concession that maintains DPS Electronics’ defensive posture.
Invalidity rights reservedInvalidity reservation signals ongoing patent risk in the sector
The explicit preservation of invalidity arguments suggests the validity of both patents was a live issue that was not resolved on the merits. Companies in the electronic control and detection space who may be exposed to these patents should note that DPS Electronics — a direct competitor — continues to view the patents as potentially vulnerable. This dynamic may be relevant to licensing negotiations or freedom-to-operate assessments involving US10814857B2 and US11479230B2.
Patent validity unresolvedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Connected Controls, Inc. | Company | Electronic control system IP holder — asserting US10814857B2 and US11479230B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Dps Electronics, Inc. | Company | DPS Electronics, Inc. — manufacturer of electronic control and detection productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brianne C. McClafferty | Attorney | Counsel for Connected Controls, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kathryn Marian Brautigam | Attorney | Counsel for Connected Controls, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sherry Dawn Coley | Attorney | Counsel for Connected Controls, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Tiffany Woelfel | Attorney | Counsel for Connected Controls, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Amundsen Davis LLC | Law Firm | Representing Connected Controls, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Amundsen Davis, LLC | Law Firm | Representing Connected Controls, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | HOLLAND & HART LLP (BILLINGS) | Law Firm | Representing Connected Controls, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Holland & Hart LLP | Law Firm | Representing Connected Controls, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Antoinette M. Tease | Attorney | Counsel for Dps Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Leif M. Johnson | Attorney | Counsel for Dps Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Natasha Prinzing Jones | Attorney | Counsel for Dps Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Tyler M. Stockton | Attorney | Counsel for Dps Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | ANTOINETTE M. TEASE, P.L.L.C. | Law Firm | Representing Dps Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | BOONE KARLBERG, P.C. | Law Firm | Representing Dps Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Brian Morris | Judge | Montana District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal order is notably detailed for a consent-style resolution. It explicitly covers both the complaint and amended counterclaims — ensuring no loose-end claims survive — and imposes a mutual cost waiver, consistent with a negotiated exit. The most commercially significant element is the carved-out invalidity reservation for DPS Electronics, which is atypical in dismissal orders and suggests the parties bargained over its inclusion. No merits ruling was issued on infringement or validity, leaving both patents legally intact but their enforceability practically untested.
US10814857B2 & US11479230B2 — Electronic control system patents at issue
US10814857B2 (application no. US16/296963) and US11479230B2 (application no. US17/024315) are both granted U.S. utility patents held by Connected Controls, Inc. The patents appear to cover electronic control or detection system technology, as evidenced by the accused products — the DPS YAC and ETD product lines, which are electronic control and monitoring devices used in commercial and industrial contexts. The sequential application numbers suggest a continuation or related-application relationship between the two patents.
For competitors and system integrators operating in the electronic detection and control space, these two patents represent an active enforcement portfolio. Although the Montana litigation ended without a validity or infringement ruling, the patent holder retains both grants in force. The fact that DPS Electronics — a direct market participant — felt it necessary to secure an express invalidity reservation suggests the patents cover technology that is commercially relevant and potentially broad enough to implicate competing product lines beyond those named in this action.
Should your team run an FTO against US10814857B2 and US11479230B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or distributing electronic control, detection, or monitoring systems — particularly products functionally similar to the DPS YAC or ETD product lines — should assess exposure to these two Connected Controls patents. The absence of a validity ruling in the Montana case means neither patent has been judicially weakened. The invalidity reservation secured by DPS Electronics is personal to that party and does not benefit third parties.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US10814857B2 and US11479230B2 against your product architecture, identify prior art that could support an invalidity challenge, and surface related continuation applications that may extend the patent family’s reach. Given the reserved invalidity arguments in this case, a targeted prior art search alongside your FTO analysis is particularly advisable before entering or expanding in this product category.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10814857B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar electronic control system patent cases in U.S. District Courts
Explore comparable patent infringement disputes involving electronic control and detection system technology litigated at the U.S. district court level.
What this case signals for the electronic control systems IP landscape
This Montana dismissal closes one enforcement avenue but leaves patent validity unresolved — a dynamic worth tracking for competitors and licensees.
With-prejudice dismissal ends this fight but the patents remain live weapons
Connected Controls retains US10814857B2 and US11479230B2 in force. The with-prejudice bar applies only to the claims as brought against DPS Electronics in this action. Any company in the electronic control space not covered by this specific order remains at risk of a fresh infringement suit.
The invalidity reservation is a rare defensive win worth monitoring
Dismissal orders that expressly reserve invalidity rights for the defendant are uncommon. It strongly suggests that patent validity was seriously contested. If Connected Controls or a future patent owner attempts to enforce these patents again, DPS Electronics is positioned to challenge them without relitigating threshold standing issues.
Connected v Dps — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on 15 October 2024, covering all claims in Connected Controls’ complaint and all amended counterclaims by DPS Electronics. No costs or fees were awarded to either party. The dismissal permanently bars Connected Controls from refiling the same infringement claims against DPS Electronics.
Connected Controls asserted two U.S. patents: US10814857B2 (application no. US16/296963) and US11479230B2 (application no. US17/024315). Both patents relate to electronic control system technology. The accused products included the DPS 2020-He-LD ETD, DPS 9000 YAC, DPS 9000-M YAC, and DPS 9000-TIB YAC product lines.
The dismissal order expressly reserved DPS Electronics’ right to raise invalidity arguments against US10814857B2 and US11479230B2 in any future suit brought by Connected Controls or a subsequent patent owner or licensee. This is atypical for dismissal orders and suggests patent validity was a contested issue. The reservation protects DPS Electronics without requiring a formal invalidity adjudication.
No. The with-prejudice bar applies only to Connected Controls’ specific claims against DPS Electronics in this action. Both patents remain in force and enforceable against other parties. Companies whose products may overlap with the patented technology should conduct independent freedom-to-operate assessments and cannot rely on this dismissal for protection.
The public record shows a dismissal with prejudice by mutual agreement with no cost award — a pattern consistent with a negotiated resolution. However, no formal settlement agreement has been publicly filed or confirmed in the docket. Any financial or licensing terms, if agreed, are not part of the public record.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.