InfoGation Corp. v. Toyota Motor Corp. — Dismissed With Prejudice After 426 Days
InfoGation Corp. brought patent infringement claims against Toyota and three North American affiliates in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting two navigation-related patents against Toyota’s Audio Multimedia system. After 426 days — and before Toyota filed any answer — InfoGation voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice, ending its enforcement attempt with no recovery.
Navigation patent dispute ends before Toyota ever filed an answer
On 2 August 2023, InfoGation Corp. filed suit against Toyota Motor Corp., Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc., and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:23-cv-00359), before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. InfoGation alleged infringement of US6292743B1 and US10107628B2 — patents covering vehicle navigation and routing technology — through Toyota’s Audio Multimedia system included in personal vehicles.
On 1 October 2024, InfoGation filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The court accepted and acknowledged the dismissal, directing that all claims be dismissed with prejudice and that each party bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. Because Toyota had not yet filed an answer or moved for summary judgment, the procedural mechanism was available to InfoGation unilaterally. The with-prejudice designation is legally significant: InfoGation is permanently barred from re-asserting these specific claims against Toyota on these patents.
A 426-day duration before a pre-answer dismissal suggests extended negotiation or strategic reassessment rather than a quick walkaway. The public record does not disclose whether any settlement was reached — the parties’ agreement to bear their own fees neither confirms nor refutes a confidential resolution. What is clear is that InfoGation elected to foreclose any future litigation path against Toyota on these patents, a meaningful concession that typically signals either a licensing resolution, a freedom-to-operate concession, or an assessment that the infringement case was unlikely to succeed.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 426 days
426 days from filing to closure — above the median for E.D. Tex. patent cases resolved pre-answer
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 order means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral exit before answer
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. InfoGation invoked this rule, but critically chose to add ‘with prejudice’ — converting what would otherwise be a dismissal that preserves re-filing rights into a permanent bar. The court accepted and formally ordered the dismissal, closing the case entirely.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — pre-answer dismissalWith prejudice means no second bite for InfoGation
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits, permanently extinguishing InfoGation’s right to re-assert the same claims against Toyota under US6292743B1 and US10107628B2. This differs fundamentally from a dismissal without prejudice, which would allow re-filing. InfoGation’s choice of the with-prejudice variant is a meaningful strategic concession — it suggests the plaintiff had a reason to provide Toyota with finality, which is consistent with a confidential licensing resolution or strategic withdrawal.
Permanent claim bar — cannot re-fileToyota exits without admitting infringement and pays no court-ordered fees
Toyota and its three North American affiliates are fully released from the asserted claims with no finding of infringement, validity, or damages. The court’s explicit directive that each party bear its own costs means Toyota incurred no fee award liability. Having never filed an answer, Toyota’s legal positions on the merits were never tested in open court. The with-prejudice dismissal provides Toyota with strong preclusion protection against InfoGation reasserting these patents on the same Audio Multimedia system.
No infringement finding — costs self-borneNavigation patent risk remains live for other automotive OEMs
InfoGation’s dismissal resolves Toyota’s exposure but does not limit the enforceability of US6292743B1 and US10107628B2 against other automotive manufacturers or navigation system suppliers. The patents remain in force and can be asserted in new actions. Competitors deploying in-vehicle navigation and audio multimedia systems — particularly those with turn-by-turn routing or map-based guidance features — should treat this case as a signal that InfoGation actively enforces this portfolio, even if this particular action did not produce a public adjudication.
Patents remain enforceable vs. othersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | InfoGation, Corp. | Company | Vehicle navigation patent licensing entity — holder of US6292743B1 and US10107628B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Toyota Motor, Corp. | Company | Toyota Motor Corp. and three North American subsidiaries; global automotive OEMSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Toyota Motor North America, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christopher A. Honea | Attorney | Counsel for InfoGation, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Garteiser Honea PLLC | Law Firm | Representing InfoGation, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Derek Charles True | Attorney | Counsel for Toyota Motor, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Deron R. Dacus | Attorney | Counsel for Toyota Motor, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Fadi N Kiblawi | Attorney | Counsel for Toyota Motor, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John Frank Rabena | Attorney | Counsel for Toyota Motor, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | William H. Mandir | Attorney | Counsel for Toyota Motor, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Yoshinari Kishimoto | Attorney | Counsel for Toyota Motor, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Sughrue Mion PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Toyota Motor, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Sughrue Mion PLLC – DC | Law Firm | Representing Toyota Motor, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | The Dacus Firm PC | Law Firm | Representing Toyota Motor, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order accepts InfoGation’s Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice and formally directs dismissal with prejudice — meaning the court treated this as a final, binding termination. The explicit instruction that each party bear its own costs forecloses any future fee motion by either side arising from this action. The ‘denied as moot’ language for all pending relief confirms no substantive rulings survived the dismissal, leaving no useful merits record for either party in future disputes.
US6292743B1 & US10107628B2 — Vehicle Navigation and Routing Systems
US6292743B1 (application no. US09/227331) covers vehicle navigation technology, addressing the technical domain of dynamic route computation and map-based guidance for personal vehicles. US10107628B2 (application no. US12/186524) extends into portable navigation device methods and route computation systems. Both patents are assigned to InfoGation Corp. and are directed at the technology underlying modern in-vehicle navigation and audio multimedia systems — including the type of real-time guidance and mapping functionality commercialised in Toyota’s Audio Multimedia platform.
These patents sit at the intersection of automotive infotainment and embedded navigation software — a high-value segment as OEMs integrate increasingly sophisticated mapping and routing features into standard vehicle equipment. For Tier-1 navigation suppliers and automotive OEMs, the breadth of method and system claims in this portfolio creates meaningful design-around complexity. The filing of this suit against Toyota, one of the world’s largest vehicle manufacturers, suggests InfoGation views the portfolio as broadly applicable to mainstream in-vehicle navigation implementations — elevating the commercial risk for any OEM yet to conduct a current FTO review.
Should your navigation product be cleared against US6292743B1 and US10107628B2?
Any automotive OEM, Tier-1 supplier, or navigation software vendor commercialising in-vehicle routing, map guidance, or audio multimedia navigation systems in the U.S. market faces direct exposure to this patent portfolio. InfoGation has demonstrated willingness to pursue major automotive groups in the Eastern District of Texas — a venue with historically high plaintiff success rates. Products incorporating turn-by-turn navigation, dynamic route computation, or map-based waypoint systems fall squarely within the technical scope that was at issue here. R&D and product teams launching or updating navigation-enabled vehicle systems should treat FTO analysis against these patents as a pre-launch requirement, not an optional exercise.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claims of US6292743B1 and US10107628B2 against your product specification, identify prior art that may limit claim scope, and surface design-around opportunities. Eureka’s litigation monitoring layer also tracks InfoGation’s broader enforcement history across U.S. district courts — giving IP counsel early warning of new assertion targets and allowing strategic positioning before litigation is filed. Use Eureka to run a full claim-by-claim analysis against your navigation system architecture and generate a defensible FTO opinion baseline.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US6292743B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar vehicle navigation patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas
Explore comparable patent infringement actions asserting in-vehicle navigation and routing system patents against automotive OEMs in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the automotive navigation IP landscape
A with-prejudice dismissal in E.D. Tex. before answer typically reflects a resolved dynamic, not a abandoned one. Here is what IP teams should take away.
Pre-answer dismissals with prejudice often mask confidential licensing outcomes
When a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses with prejudice before the defendant answers, and the parties each bear their own costs, this pattern is broadly consistent with a confidential settlement or licensing agreement. IP counsel monitoring the InfoGation portfolio should not interpret this closure as patent weakness — it may signal an active licensing program generating revenue outside the public record.
US6292743 and US10107628 remain active enforcement tools against other automotive OEMs
The with-prejudice dismissal applies only to Toyota’s specific Audio Multimedia products. InfoGation retains full enforcement rights under both patents against competing OEMs and Tier-1 navigation suppliers. Any automotive manufacturer deploying in-vehicle navigation, map routing, or audio multimedia guidance systems faces a non-trivial assertion risk and should conduct current FTO analysis against these patents before product launch.
InfoGation v Toyota — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice. InfoGation filed a voluntary notice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and expressly elected to dismiss with prejudice, permanently barring any future assertion of the same claims against Toyota. The Eastern District of Texas court accepted and formally ordered the dismissal on 1 October 2024.
InfoGation asserted two patents: US6292743B1 (application no. US09/227331) and US10107628B2 (application no. US12/186524). Both patents cover vehicle navigation and routing system technology and were alleged to be infringed by Toyota’s Audio Multimedia system included in personal vehicles.
No. The court’s dismissal order explicitly directed that each party bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. There was no finding of infringement, no damages award, and no fee-shifting. Toyota and its three North American affiliates exited the case without any financial liability under the court’s order.
No. A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits under U.S. federal procedure. InfoGation is permanently barred from re-asserting the same claims under US6292743B1 and US10107628B2 against Toyota’s Audio Multimedia system. The with-prejudice designation distinguishes this outcome from a dismissal without prejudice, which would permit re-filing.
The public record does not confirm or deny a settlement. However, a with-prejudice voluntary dismissal filed before the defendant answers — combined with each party bearing its own costs — is a pattern broadly consistent with a confidential licensing resolution or negotiated exit. It is also possible that InfoGation reassessed the strength of its infringement case. No settlement terms have been publicly disclosed.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.