Fall Line Patents v. Lowe’s: Mobile App Patent Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
Fall Line Patents, LLC accused Lowe’s Companies, Inc. of infringing US9454748B2 — a patent covering location-specific mobile questionnaire systems — through the Lowe’s Mobile App. After 373 days in the Eastern District of Texas, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss all claims with prejudice, closing this member case while the broader consolidated action remains open.
Patent assertion targeting Lowe’s mobile commerce ends by agreement
Fall Line Patents, LLC — a patent assertion entity — filed suit against Lowe’s Companies, Inc. and Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC in the Eastern District of Texas on 25 November 2024, asserting infringement of US9454748B2. The patent covers systems and methods for creating and executing location-specific questionnaires on mobile devices, and Fall Line alleged the Lowe’s Mobile App used this technology to direct customers to stores and collect orders.
The case closed on 3 December 2025 when Judge Robert W. Schroeder III granted the parties’ joint motion to dismiss. All of Fall Line’s infringement claims against Lowe’s were dismissed with prejudice, meaning Fall Line is permanently barred from re-filing the same claims against Lowe’s on this patent. Lowe’s counterclaims were dismissed as moot — a procedural disposition that carries no merits ruling on the validity of US9454748B2.
The 373-day duration and the jointly agreed dismissal with prejudice are consistent with a confidential settlement, though the public record is silent on any financial terms. The lead consolidated case reportedly remains open, suggesting Fall Line’s broader litigation campaign involving this patent may be ongoing against other defendants. The dismissal-as-moot of counterclaims means Lowe’s did not obtain a validity ruling, leaving the patent’s enforceability intact against third parties.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 373 days
373 days — above average for an E.D. Texas case resolved before trial
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint motion means for both parties
Dismissed with prejudice via joint motion
A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41 is a final adjudication on the merits for preclusion purposes. Because both parties moved jointly, the court granted the motion without condition. Fall Line cannot re-assert the same claims under US9454748B2 against Lowe’s in any future action. Lowe’s counterclaims — which likely challenged validity — were dismissed as moot, leaving no invalidity ruling on the record.
Permanent bar on re-filingFall Line exits with no public record of invalidity
Because the dismissal was joint and the counterclaims were mooted rather than decided, US9454748B2 exits this litigation without a judicial validity determination. Fall Line accepted a permanent bar against Lowe’s specifically, but the patent remains nominally enforceable against other defendants in the consolidated action or in future suits. This outcome is commercially consistent with a negotiated resolution on undisclosed terms.
Patent survives unchallenged on validityLowe’s secures full release but no invalidity shield
Lowe’s obtains a with-prejudice dismissal, which functions as a permanent release from this specific infringement action. However, because Lowe’s counterclaims were dismissed as moot — not on the merits — Lowe’s did not secure a judicial ruling that US9454748B2 is invalid or unenforceable. Any future product lines that may implicate the patent would lack the protection of a prior invalidity judgment from this case.
Released, but no invalidity ruling securedConsolidated action stays open — sector risk remains
The termination order explicitly notes the lead consolidated case remains open, suggesting Fall Line is pursuing similar claims against other defendants under US9454748B2. Retailers and mobile commerce operators using location-aware customer engagement or in-store ordering apps should note that this patent has not been invalidated. The E.D. Texas venue and Fall Line’s litigation posture are consistent with a broader assertion campaign targeting the mobile retail sector.
Broader litigation campaign likely ongoingFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Fall Line Patents, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9454748B2, location-specific mobile questionnaire patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Lowe’s Companies, Inc. | Company | Lowe’s Companies, Inc. — major U.S. home improvement retailer operating a consumer mobile appSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Larry Dean Thompson , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Fall Line Patents, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew J. Antonelli | Attorney | Counsel for Fall Line Patents, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Rehan Mohammed Safiullah | Attorney | Counsel for Fall Line Patents, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Zachariah Harrington | Attorney | Counsel for Fall Line Patents, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Fall Line Patents, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Neil J McNabnay | Attorney | Counsel for Lowe’s Companies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Noel Franco Chakkalakal | Attorney | Counsel for Lowe’s Companies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson LLP | Law Firm | Representing Lowe’s Companies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The order’s language — ‘DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE’ for plaintiff’s claims and ‘DISMISSED-AS-MOOT’ for defendant’s counterclaims — is legally precise and commercially significant. The with-prejudice designation operates as a final judgment on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes, permanently barring Fall Line from re-asserting these claims against Lowe’s. The moot disposition of the counterclaims, however, means no court has ruled on the validity or enforceability of US9454748B2, leaving the patent intact for use against third parties.
US9454748B2 — location-specific mobile questionnaire and order system
US9454748B2 (application no. US12/910706) covers systems and methods for creating and executing location-specific questionnaires on mobile devices — enabling a mobile app to present context-aware prompts based on a user’s physical location and collect structured responses or orders. The technology sits at the intersection of mobile commerce, location services, and data collection, making it relevant to any retailer or platform that uses a mobile app to engage customers at or near a physical store.
For the retail sector, this patent represents a meaningful assertion risk given the widespread adoption of in-app location features, guided product selection flows, and mobile order-ahead functionality. Fall Line’s choice of Lowe’s — a major omnichannel retailer — as a defendant in a consolidated action suggests a deliberate campaign targeting large-scale mobile commerce deployments. Any company operating a consumer-facing app with location-triggered customer interaction workflows should treat this patent as an active monitoring priority.
Should your mobile app team run an FTO against US9454748B2?
Any product team building or maintaining a mobile app that uses a user’s location to trigger questionnaires, product finders, store-specific order flows, or structured customer surveys should assess exposure to US9454748B2. The patent’s claims, as applied in this case against the Lowe’s Mobile App, suggest a broad reading of ‘location-specific questionnaire’ that could encompass common UX patterns in retail, hospitality, field service, and logistics apps.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim landscape of US9454748B2 against your product architecture, flag overlapping features in your mobile application stack, and surface prior art relevant to any IPR strategy. Given that the patent emerged from this litigation without a validity challenge on the merits, a proactive FTO and IPR readiness assessment is the most commercially sound next step for any company in Fall Line’s target sector.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9454748B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar mobile app patent infringement cases in E.D. Texas
Browse related patent assertion actions involving mobile application and location-based technology patents litigated in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the mobile commerce IP landscape
A with-prejudice exit without a validity ruling keeps US9454748B2 in play — and the consolidated docket open.
Location-aware mobile app features carry real assertion risk in E.D. Texas
Fall Line’s claim construction targeted the Lowe’s app’s ability to generate location-specific questionnaires and collect in-store orders. Retailers or SaaS vendors offering comparable in-app location-triggered workflows should assess their exposure to US9454748B2 before assuming the Lowe’s settlement resolves the broader threat.
Joint dismissals without validity rulings leave PAE campaigns intact
When a defendant resolves through a joint motion to dismiss and counterclaims are mooted, the patent emerges legally unchallenged. Companies in the consolidated action or adjacent sectors cannot rely on this outcome as prior art or estoppel. An IPR petition against US9454748B2 remains a viable strategy for parties still in the cross-hairs of Fall Line’s campaign.
Fall v Lowe’s — key questions answered
In Fall Line Patents v. Lowe’s (5:24-cv-00181), dismissed with prejudice means Fall Line is permanently barred from re-filing the same infringement claims under US9454748B2 against Lowe’s Companies, Inc. and Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC. The dismissal was granted on a joint motion, and Lowe’s counterclaims were dismissed as moot — meaning no validity ruling was issued.
Fall Line Patents asserted US9454748B2 (application no. US12/910706), which covers systems and methods for creating and executing location-specific questionnaires on mobile devices. In this case, Fall Line alleged the Lowe’s Mobile App used this technology to direct customers to stores and collect in-store orders from users based on their location.
Yes. Because Lowe’s counterclaims — which likely included invalidity challenges — were dismissed as moot rather than decided on the merits, no court has ruled US9454748B2 invalid or unenforceable. The patent remains nominally enforceable against third parties, and the lead consolidated action in which Fall Line is a party reportedly remains open.
The termination order closed only the Lowe’s member case (5:24-cv-181) while explicitly noting the lead consolidated action stays open. This structure is consistent with Fall Line asserting US9454748B2 against multiple defendants simultaneously. Each defendant resolves individually; Lowe’s resolution creates no binding precedent on validity or infringement for remaining defendants.
The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 5:24-cv-00181) and presided over by Judge Robert W. Schroeder III. Fall Line was represented by Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson, LLP; Lowe’s was represented by Fish & Richardson LLP. The case ran for 373 days before dismissal.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.