Induction Devices v. Ross Stores: Five-Patent Suit Dismissed With Prejudice in 121 Days
Induction Devices LLC filed a five-patent infringement action against retail giant Ross Stores, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting patents spanning signal processing, asynchronous circuit design, and NFC-integrated secure memory. The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice after just 121 days — before Ross Stores filed any answer — with each party bearing its own costs.
A pre-answer exit: five-patent NFC and signal processing suit quietly ends
On August 5, 2025, Induction Devices LLC filed suit against Ross Stores, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, asserting five U.S. patents: US7899145B2, US8543628B2, US7449926B2, US8190885B2, and US8370543B1. The patents collectively cover technologies including busy detection logic for asynchronous communication ports, synchronous circuit reset, signal multiplexing with reduced jitter, digital signal processing methods, and non-volatile memory sub-systems integrated with NFC transaction security.
The case was terminated on December 4, 2025, when Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Because Ross Stores had not yet filed an answer or moved for summary judgment, the dismissal was self-executing under the Federal Rules. Judge Gilstrap accepted and acknowledged the dismissal, closing the case and directing each party to bear its own litigation costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.
The 121-day duration and pre-answer resolution suggest the parties may have reached a private resolution — possibly a license, covenant not to sue, or agreed exit — though the public record does not disclose any settlement terms. The with-prejudice designation is significant: Induction Devices cannot re-assert these five patents against Ross Stores on the same claims, effectively foreclosing future enforcement on this dispute. What drove the rapid exit remains undisclosed.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 121 days
121 days — resolved before defendant answered; well below median E.D. Tex. patent litigation duration
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral right to dismiss
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss a case without a court order if the defendant has not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Here, Ross Stores had taken neither step, giving Induction Devices the unilateral right to file a self-executing notice of dismissal. The court’s role was purely administrative — to accept, acknowledge, and direct the clerk to close the case.
Pre-answer voluntary dismissalWith prejudice forecloses re-filing — a permanent bar on these claims
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes. Unlike a dismissal without prejudice — which preserves the right to refile — this outcome permanently bars Induction Devices from re-asserting the same five patents against Ross Stores on the same accused products or acts. The plaintiff voluntarily accepted this bar, which typically signals either a private resolution or a strategic decision to abandon the dispute.
Permanent claim barInduction Devices exits with prejudice — enforcement rights permanently waived vs. Ross
By choosing a with-prejudice dismissal, Induction Devices LLC permanently relinquished its right to sue Ross Stores on these five patents for the same accused conduct. The cost-bearing order — each party paying its own fees — is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a contested win. Whether Induction Devices secured any license, royalty, or commercial arrangement with Ross Stores is not disclosed in the public record.
Enforcement rights waived vs. defendantRoss Stores walks away without admitting liability and without paying court costs
Ross Stores achieved dismissal without filing an answer, incurring any substantive litigation costs on the merits, or making any public admission of infringement. The mutual cost-bearing order means Ross Stores is not entitled to attorneys’ fees either, which is the typical outcome absent an ‘exceptional case’ finding under 35 U.S.C. § 285. The company retains clean hands on these five patents going forward, subject only to any private agreement reached with Induction Devices.
No admission, no cost awardFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Induction Devices LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US7899145B2 and 4 further signal processing and NFC patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Ross Stores, Inc. | Company | Ross Stores, Inc. — major U.S. off-price retail chain targeted in multi-patent infringement actionSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Trevor James Beaty | Attorney | Counsel for Induction Devices LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Shea Beaty | Law Firm | Representing Induction Devices LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order accepts and acknowledges a self-executing Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice — no merits determination was made. The with-prejudice designation was elected by Plaintiff, not imposed by the court, which distinguishes this from a contested dismissal. The cost-neutrality order (each party bears its own fees) is standard for voluntary pre-answer exits and does not reflect a § 285 exceptional-case finding. The permanent bar on re-filing these claims against Ross Stores is the legally operative consequence.
US7899145B2 — Busy detection logic for asynchronous communication ports
The five asserted patents span two broad technical domains: (1) low-level circuit design — covering busy detection in asynchronous communication ports (US7899145B2), asynchronous reset of synchronous circuits (US8543628B2), and signal multiplexing with reduced jitter (US7449926B2); and (2) data and security systems — covering digital signal processing methods (US8190885B2) and non-volatile memory sub-systems integrated with NFC transaction security (US8370543B1). The application dates, ranging from the mid-2000s to the early 2010s, place these inventions in the foundational era of embedded communication and contactless payment technology.
The NFC-integrated secure memory patent (US8370543B1) is strategically significant: it directly targets the contactless payment and data security infrastructure that large retailers deploy at scale. Combined with the signal processing and circuit-level patents, this portfolio appears designed to reach broadly into modern retail technology stacks — from point-of-sale terminals to inventory management systems. Companies in the retail technology, payment processing, and embedded systems sectors should treat this portfolio as an active enforcement risk, particularly given the PAE plaintiff profile.
Should your team run an FTO against US7899145B2 and the Induction Devices portfolio?
Any company deploying asynchronous communication hardware, NFC-enabled payment terminals, or digital signal processing sub-systems in retail or point-of-sale environments should assess freedom-to-operate against all five patents in this portfolio. The breadth of the asserted claims — spanning circuit-level design through NFC transaction security — means that standard product clearance on a single patent family is insufficient. Ross Stores’ rapid pre-answer exit suggests the portfolio has credible claim coverage that warranted a private resolution.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to map claim scope across all five Induction Devices patents simultaneously, identify prior art that narrows enforceability, and benchmark your product architecture against the specific claim language. For retail technology and embedded systems teams, Eureka can surface related continuations, design-arounds, and competitive filings in the NFC and signal processing space — reducing the time from patent identification to clearance decision from weeks to hours.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7899145B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar NFC and signal processing patent cases in E.D. Texas
Related patent assertion entity cases involving NFC, asynchronous communication, and signal processing technology litigated in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Gilstrap.
What this case signals for the signal processing and NFC patent IP landscape
Pre-answer exits in E.D. Tex. patent cases often indicate private deal-making — and the with-prejudice designation sharpens the strategic read.
Pre-answer with-prejudice dismissals in E.D. Tex. often signal a private license
When a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses with prejudice before the defendant has answered, it typically signals a negotiated resolution — licensing fee, covenant not to sue, or agreed exit. The permanent bar accepted by Induction Devices suggests something of value was exchanged, even if undisclosed. IP teams monitoring PAE activity in Texas should treat this pattern as a licensing signal.
Five asserted patents across signal processing and NFC create a broad infringement net
Asserting five patents spanning asynchronous communication, synchronous reset, signal multiplexing, digital signal processing, and NFC-integrated secure memory suggests Induction Devices targeted Ross Stores’ point-of-sale or inventory technology stack broadly. Companies deploying similar technology should audit their exposure across all five patent families, not just the lead patent.
Induction v Ross — key questions answered
Induction Devices LLC filed a five-patent infringement action against Ross Stores, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas on August 5, 2025. The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) on December 4, 2025 — 121 days after filing and before Ross Stores filed any answer. Each party was directed to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees.
Induction Devices asserted five U.S. patents: US7899145B2 (busy detection logic for asynchronous communication ports), US8543628B2 (circuit for asynchronously resetting synchronous circuits), US7449926B2 (signal multiplexing with reduced jitter), US8190885B2 (digital signal processing methods), and US8370543B1 (non-volatile memory sub-systems with NFC transaction security integration).
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes. It permanently bars Induction Devices LLC from re-asserting the same five patents against Ross Stores for the same accused products or conduct. This is a materially stronger outcome for Ross Stores than a dismissal without prejudice, which would have left the door open to re-filing.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss a case without a court order if the defendant has not yet answered or moved for summary judgment. Induction Devices invoked this right unilaterally. The pre-answer timing, combined with the with-prejudice election, is consistent with a privately negotiated resolution — though no settlement terms are disclosed in the public record.
Judge Rodney Gilstrap sits in the Eastern District of Texas, one of the most frequently chosen venues for U.S. patent litigation. Judge Gilstrap handles more patent cases than almost any other federal judge in the country. The Eastern District of Texas is known for its plaintiff-friendly procedural history, making it a common venue for patent assertion entity filings like this one. The case resolved well before any substantive Gilstrap ruling was issued.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.