Google v. AGIS Holdings: Find My Device Patent Dispute Settled in 174 Days
Google filed suit against AGIS Holdings and its affiliates in the Northern District of California, asserting patent US8213970B2 against the Find My Device application. The parties reached a settlement within 174 days, with the court administratively closing the case on January 11, 2024.
Swift settlement in a Find My Device location-tech patent dispute
On July 21, 2023, Google LLC filed an infringement action against AGIS Holdings Inc., Advanced Ground Information Systems Inc., and Agis Software Development LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 5:23-cv-03624). The dispute centred on patent US8213970B2 and its alleged application to Google’s Find My Device (FMD) service and the devices running it. The AGIS group of entities has a history of asserting location-tracking and communications patents against major technology companies.
Before any trial or substantive merits ruling, the parties notified the court of a settlement on or around January 11, 2024. The court granted Google’s request to vacate all pending case dates and administratively closed the file, ordering Google to file a formal dismissal or status report by February 10, 2024. Administrative closure is a procedural step that preserves each party’s substantive rights and allows reopening if the settlement is not finalised.
A resolution in 174 days is notably swift for a district court patent infringement matter, suggesting both sides had strong incentives to avoid protracted litigation. Settlement terms are not disclosed in the public record, leaving open questions about licensing arrangements, royalty payments, or any cross-licensing component. The case did not produce a claim construction order or validity ruling, so US8213970B2 remains judicially untested in this proceeding.
Filing to dismissal in 174 days
174 days — faster than most comparable district court patent infringement cases
How the Google v. AGIS Find My Device case was resolved
Administrative closure is not a final dismissal
The court’s order administratively closed the case while the parties finalised settlement documentation. Administrative closure is an internal docketing procedure that does not terminate the parties’ substantive rights. Either side could request reopening if the deal collapsed before a formal dismissal was filed. The operative deadline for Google to file a dismissal or status report was February 10, 2024.
Settlement — pending formal dismissalPublic record is silent on with- or without-prejudice terms
The court order and the Basis of Termination entry record only that the case was dismissed — neither ‘with prejudice’ nor ‘without prejudice’ is specified in the available docket data. In settled patent cases, the final dismissal is typically stipulated by both parties and often filed with prejudice to prevent re-assertion, but this cannot be confirmed from the public record alone. Practitioners should verify the final stipulated dismissal on PACER for the operative prejudice status.
Prejudice status unconfirmedUS8213970B2 was never tested on the merits here
Because the case settled before claim construction, no court ruling addressed the scope or validity of US8213970B2. The patent therefore carries no adverse judicial history from this proceeding. For competitors in the device-location and asset-tracking space, this means the patent’s claims remain potentially enforceable and should be evaluated independently in any freedom-to-operate analysis.
No validity ruling issuedThree AGIS entities named as defendants
Google named AGIS Holdings Inc., Advanced Ground Information Systems Inc., and Agis Software Development LLC — a common approach when a patent assertion group splits ownership, licensing rights, and operating functions across related entities. Naming all three reduces the risk that an injunction or settlement with one entity can be circumvented by another. This multi-entity defendant structure is consistent with practised patent assertion group litigation strategy.
Patent assertion group structureFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Google, LLC | Company | Technology company — plaintiff asserting US8213970B2 against AGIS Find My Device claimsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | AGIS Holdings, Inc. | Company | AGIS Holdings and affiliates — patent assertion entities focused on location and communications IPSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Amy K. Liang | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Bill Trac | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Cason Cole | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Daniel Silverman | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Darin Walter Snyder | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Grant Gibson | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Luann Loraine Simmons | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Mark Liang | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sorin Gabriel Zaharia | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Stacy P. Yae | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alfred Ross Fabricant | Attorney | Counsel for AGIS Holdings, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Benjamin T. Wang | Attorney | Counsel for AGIS Holdings, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Minna Y. Chan | Attorney | Counsel for AGIS Holdings, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge / | Chief Judge | California Northern District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The court’s order reflects a standard administrative-closure procedure triggered by a Notice of Settlement: all litigation deadlines are vacated, the file is closed as a docketing matter, and a hard deadline is set for a formal dismissal to be filed. Critically, the order preserves both parties’ substantive rights, meaning the case could be reopened if settlement negotiations broke down. The order does not disclose financial terms, licensing scope, or prejudice status — all of which would appear only in any subsequent stipulated dismissal.
US8213970B2 — Device location and status communication technology
US8213970B2 (application number US12/324122) is assigned to the AGIS group and covers technology in the domain of mobile device location, status communication, and device-management signalling — the core technical functions underlying services such as Google’s Find My Device. The patent’s claims are directed at systems and methods enabling a device’s location and operational status to be communicated to a remote system, which maps directly onto contemporary device-finding and asset-tracking product categories.
From a competitive standpoint, US8213970B2 sits in a high-value segment of mobile platform IP. Device-location services are now standard features across consumer smartphones, enterprise fleet management, and IoT asset tracking. Any product that reports device position, operational state, or connectivity status to a centralised service could fall within the scope of claims similar to those asserted here. The fact that Google — one of the most IP-sophisticated defendants in the world — settled rather than litigate this patent to a merits outcome is a meaningful signal about the claims’ perceived strength.
Should your product team run an FTO against US8213970B2?
If your company builds or integrates any feature involving mobile device location reporting, remote device status monitoring, push-based location updates, or asset-tracking services, US8213970B2 should be on your FTO checklist. The AGIS group has demonstrated willingness to assert this patent against a major platform provider, and the claims have not been narrowed or invalidated in this proceeding. Consumer apps, enterprise mobility management platforms, and IoT device management systems are all plausibly within scope.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claims of US8213970B2 against your product’s technical architecture and flag overlap risks before you ship. Eureka also enables ongoing claim monitoring — so if AGIS files continuation claims or amends claim scope, your team receives an alert. Use the search query below to pull the full claim tree, prosecution history, and litigation citation map for US8213970B2 directly in Eureka.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8213970B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases involving location-tech and device-tracking IP
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the device-location IP landscape
A fast settlement by Google against a serial patent asserter suggests the claims in US8213970B2 carry enough commercial weight to warrant early resolution.
AGIS is a repeat litigant in location-tech patent enforcement
AGIS and its affiliated entities have filed multiple infringement suits against major technology companies asserting location-tracking and push-notification patents. Companies building products in device-finding, fleet tracking, or real-time location services should treat the AGIS portfolio as an active enforcement risk and map their product features against known asserted claims.
Early settlement leaves US8213970B2 fully intact as a litigation asset
No claim construction, IPR outcome, or invalidity ruling emerged from this case. The patent retains its presumption of validity. Any company whose product overlaps with the FMD-type functionality described in US8213970B2 — device location, status reporting, or remote management — should conduct a current FTO review rather than rely on the absence of a prior adverse ruling.
Google v AGIS — key questions answered
Google LLC filed a patent infringement action against AGIS Holdings Inc. and two related entities in the Northern District of California, asserting that Google’s Find My Device application and devices running it infringe US8213970B2. The case was filed July 21, 2023 and settled within 174 days, with the court administratively closing the file on January 11, 2024.
US8213970B2 covers technology in the mobile device location and status communication domain. AGIS asserted it against Google’s Find My Device service — which reports device location and operational status to a remote system — on the basis that FMD’s core functionality falls within the patent’s claimed methods and systems. The patent has not been subject to a merits or validity ruling in this case.
The publicly available docket data records the case as dismissed but does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice. A Notice of Settlement triggered administrative closure, and a formal stipulated dismissal was due by February 10, 2024. Practitioners should check the final dismissal filing on PACER to confirm the operative prejudice status.
Google was represented by O’Melveny & Myers LLP, with attorneys including Luann Loraine Simmons and Darin Walter Snyder. AGIS and its affiliates were represented by Fabricant LLP (Alfred Ross Fabricant) and Russ, August & Kabat LLP (Benjamin T. Wang and Minna Y. Chan).
Administrative closure is an internal court procedure that removes a case from the active docket without terminating the parties’ substantive rights. In this case, it was triggered by Google’s Notice of Settlement. Either party could have requested reopening if the settlement failed. It differs from a final dismissal, which formally extinguishes the claims. The court set February 10, 2024 as the deadline for Google to file a dismissal or status report.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.