HID Global v. Datamars: RFID Textile Tag Infringement Case Dismissed Without Prejudice
HID Global Corp. brought an infringement action against Datamars Inc. and its Swiss parent Datamars SA in Delaware over US11128027B2, a patent covering RFID textile tag technology used in laundry and textile tracking. The case closed without prejudice in just 165 days — leaving the door open for future proceedings.
Early exit in Delaware RFID textile tag IP dispute
On 4 August 2023, HID Global Corp. filed suit against Datamars Inc. and Swiss-headquartered Datamars SA in the Delaware District Court (Case No. 1:23-cv-00844), presided over by Chief Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves. The action centred on alleged infringement of US11128027B2, a patent directed at RFID tag technology applied to textile and laundry management. The accused products were Datamars’s LinTRAK® C-10 MRI, C-15-MRI/R, C15-MRI, and XS RFID tags — a range HID Global markets under its own textile tracking portfolio.
The case concluded on 16 January 2024, 165 days after filing, when the court entered an order giving effect to the parties’ agreed Stipulation and Proposed Order of Dismissal (D.I. 20). The dismissal was entered without prejudice, and each side was ordered to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs. A without-prejudice dismissal means the court made no adjudication on the merits, and HID Global is not barred from reasserting the same patent claims against Datamars in a future action.
The speed of resolution — and the absence of any cost award — is consistent with a negotiated resolution or a commercial arrangement reached before the litigation matured to discovery. The public record does not disclose whether a licence, cross-licence, or other commercial agreement underpins the stipulation. What remains unknown is whether the underlying dispute over the LinTRAK® product lines is fully settled or merely paused, a distinction that has material implications for both parties’ freedom to operate in the textile RFID market going forward.
Filing to voluntary dismissal in 165 days
Resolved in 165 days — well under the median for patent infringement cases at Delaware District Court
Case dismissed without prejudice — HID Global may refile
Stipulated dismissal: both parties agreed to exit
The dismissal originated from a joint Stipulation and Proposed Order (D.I. 20), meaning both HID Global and Datamars actively agreed to end the litigation at this stage. Stipulated dismissals of this kind typically reflect that the parties reached some form of off-record resolution — commercial, licensing, or otherwise — though no terms are disclosed in the public court record.
Agreed by both partiesWithout prejudice: the dispute is not legally resolved
A dismissal without prejudice means no ruling was made on the merits of HID Global’s infringement claims. Under FRCP Rule 41, HID Global retains the right to refile the same claims based on US11128027B2 against Datamars. Contrast this with a with-prejudice dismissal, which would bar refiling. The public record does not specify which scenario — settlement, licence, or tactical pause — explains the without-prejudice election.
Refiling rights preservedEach party bears its own costs — no winner signalled
The court ordered each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs. In patent litigation, a mutual cost-bearing outcome is the standard default absent a prevailing party finding or an exceptional case designation under 35 U.S.C. § 285. This neutral cost posture is consistent with an early, negotiated exit and does not indicate that either party conceded liability or fault.
No cost award either wayDual-defendant structure: U.S. entity and Swiss parent named
HID Global named both Datamars Inc. (the U.S. operating entity) and Datamars SA (the Swiss parent company) as defendants. Suing both the subsidiary and parent is a common enforcement strategy in cross-border RFID disputes, designed to prevent a defendant from arguing that the infringing activity is attributable only to an entity outside U.S. jurisdiction. Both entities are covered by the dismissal order.
Cross-border defendant scopeFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | HID Global, Corp. | Company | HID Global Corp. — identity and access technology company; holder of US11128027B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Datamars, Inc. | Company | Datamars Inc. and Datamars SA — global RFID and textile tag manufacturer headquartered in SwitzerlandSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christopher B. Anderson | Attorney | Counsel for HID Global, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Daniel Taylor | Attorney | Counsel for HID Global, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kara A. Specht | Attorney | Counsel for HID Global, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Lionel M. Lavenue | Attorney | Counsel for HID Global, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Luke H. MacDonald | Attorney | Counsel for HID Global, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nate S. Sunwoo | Attorney | Counsel for HID Global, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Neal C. Belgam | Attorney | Counsel for HID Global, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | R. Benjamin Cassady | Attorney | Counsel for HID Global, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Gregory Erich Stuhlman | Attorney | Counsel for Datamars, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joseph Benedict Cicero | Attorney | Counsel for Datamars, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves | Chief Judge | Delaware District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The court’s order gives effect to the parties’ own agreed stipulation, meaning Judge Choe-Groves made no independent assessment of liability or validity. The operative phrase ‘dismissed without prejudice’ preserves HID Global’s full legal standing to reassert US11128027B2 against Datamars. The cost-neutrality clause — ‘each Party shall bear its own fees and costs’ — is a standard commercial resolution marker and should not be read as a finding in favour of either side.
US11128027B2 — RFID Textile Tag Technology
US11128027B2, filed under application number US16/609260, protects technology relating to RFID tags designed for textile and laundry management applications. The patent family covers constructions engineered to survive repeated industrial washing cycles and, in certain product configurations, to remain functional in MRI environments — a technically demanding requirement that distinguishes this IP from standard passive RFID tags. HID Global holds this patent as part of its broader identity, tracking, and access technology portfolio.
The textile RFID segment is growing rapidly as hospitals, hotels, and industrial laundry operators digitise linen and garment tracking. A patent covering durable, MRI-safe RFID textile tag architectures sits at the commercial intersection of healthcare compliance and laundry automation — two high-growth verticals. Competitors offering functionally similar tags for these markets face meaningful freedom-to-operate risk relative to US11128027B2, particularly as HID Global has demonstrated willingness to enforce the patent through litigation.
Should your RFID textile tag products be cleared against US11128027B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or distributing RFID tags intended for textile, laundry, or garment tracking — especially MRI-compatible variants — should evaluate their exposure to US11128027B2. The patent’s enforcement in this case targeted a direct competitor’s product range, confirming that HID Global actively monitors the market. Product teams launching washable or MRI-safe RFID tag lines should prioritise FTO analysis before commercialisation.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map their product specifications against the claims of US11128027B2 at speed, flagging overlap risk across independent and dependent claims. Eureka’s claim monitoring tools can also alert your team if HID Global files continuation applications or new claims that extend the scope of this patent family — providing early warning before a new enforcement action is filed.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11128027B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar RFID and textile technology patent infringement cases
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 RFID textile tag IP landscape
A fast, stipulated exit in a Delaware RFID patent case rarely means the underlying IP tension is resolved — here is what competitors and IP teams should watch.
Without-prejudice exits keep enforcement optionality alive
HID Global has preserved the right to refile under US11128027B2. Companies supplying RFID textile tags to laundry and textile management markets should treat this case as an active signal, not a closed chapter. The patent remains in force and the plaintiff’s enforcement posture is unresolved.
Stipulated dismissals often conceal off-record licensing activity
The mutual cost-bearing order and joint stipulation, filed just 165 days after complaint, are consistent with a licensing negotiation concluding before discovery. If a licence was granted, Datamars may now be operating under terms that affect pricing and market competition in the LinTRAK product category.
HID v Datamars — key questions answered
The case was dismissed without prejudice on 16 January 2024, pursuant to a joint stipulation by the parties. No ruling on the merits was made. Each party was ordered to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs. HID Global retains the right to refile infringement claims based on US11128027B2 against Datamars.
HID Global asserted US11128027B2 (application number US16/609260), a patent directed at RFID tag technology for textile and laundry applications. The accused products were Datamars’s LinTRAK® C-10 MRI, C-15-MRI/R, C15-MRI, and XS RFID tag lines.
A without-prejudice dismissal means the court made no determination on whether Datamars infringed US11128027B2. HID Global is legally free to refile the same claims in future proceedings. It contrasts with a with-prejudice dismissal, which would bar HID Global from asserting the same claims against Datamars again.
HID Global named Datamars Inc. (the U.S. entity) and Datamars SA (the Swiss parent) as co-defendants, a common enforcement strategy in cross-border patent disputes. This structure prevents a defendant from attributing infringing conduct solely to an entity outside U.S. jurisdiction and maximises the plaintiff’s ability to obtain full relief.
The case resolved in 165 days — before substantive discovery would typically commence in a Delaware patent case. This pace, combined with the joint stipulation and mutual cost-bearing order, is consistent with the parties reaching an off-record commercial arrangement, potentially a licence or settlement, though no such terms appear in the public record.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.