Intelligent Agency v. Neighborfavor: Patent Suit Over Favor App Dismissed With Prejudice
Intelligent Agency, LLC asserted US11395093B2 against Neighborfavor, Inc., operator of the Favor on-demand delivery app, in the Western District of Texas. The parties filed a joint motion to dismiss after 413 days, with plaintiff’s claims exiting with prejudice — foreclosing re-filing on the same patent against the same defendant.
Joint dismissal ends Favor app patent dispute before any merits ruling
On July 24, 2023, Intelligent Agency, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Neighborfavor, Inc. — the Austin-based operator of the Favor on-demand delivery platform — in the Western District of Texas before Judge Alan D. Albright. The asserted patent, US11395093B2 (application no. US15/894878), relates to mobile app technology implicated by both the Favor Customer and Favor Runner mobile applications and their associated devices.
The case concluded on September 9, 2024, when Judge Albright granted a joint motion to dismiss filed by both parties. Plaintiff Intelligent Agency’s claims were dismissed with prejudice, permanently barring re-assertion of the same patent against Neighborfavor on the same grounds. Defendant Neighborfavor’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, preserving Neighborfavor’s ability to revive those claims in a future proceeding if circumstances warrant. Each party was ordered to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs.
The 413-day lifespan — from filing to dismissal — is consistent with a negotiated resolution reached before significant court-ordered milestones such as claim construction or summary judgment. The with-prejudice dismissal of plaintiff’s claims, combined with a mutual cost-bearing order, suggests the parties reached a negotiated resolution, though the specific terms remain confidential. The public record does not confirm whether a licensing agreement, payment, or other commercial arrangement underpins the dismissal.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 413 days
413 days — faster than the WDTX median for patent cases that reach claim construction
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint motion outcome means for both parties
With-prejudice dismissal bars Intelligent Agency from re-filing
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final judgment on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes. Intelligent Agency cannot reassert US11395093B2 against Neighborfavor for the same accused products in any future action. This is the most definitive outcome available to a defendant short of a court ruling on validity or infringement — and it was achieved jointly, suggesting mutual agreement rather than a contested win.
Claim-preclusive dismissalIntelligent Agency surrenders its infringement claims permanently
By agreeing to a with-prejudice dismissal, Intelligent Agency forfeits the right to pursue Neighborfavor on US11395093B2 for the accused Favor apps. Whether this reflects a licensing deal, a commercial settlement, or a decision that litigation costs outweighed recoverable damages is not disclosed in the public record. The cost-neutrality order suggests neither party extracted a clear concession on fees.
Claims permanently extinguishedNeighborfavor’s counterclaims preserved for future use
Neighborfavor’s counterclaims — which likely included patent invalidity and non-infringement defences — were dismissed without prejudice. This asymmetry is notable: Neighborfavor retains optionality to revive those counterclaims if a related dispute arises, while Intelligent Agency cannot. Baker Botts’s representation of Neighborfavor is consistent with a strategically negotiated exit preserving downstream flexibility.
Counterclaims survive dismissalFavour app cleared — but US11395093B2 remains active against others
The dismissal resolves the dispute only between these two parties. US11395093B2 remains in force and Intelligent Agency retains the ability to assert it against other on-demand delivery or mobile location-services platforms. Competitors and adjacent technology operators in the gig-economy delivery space should note this patent has been actively litigated and survived to a negotiated exit — without any adverse validity ruling.
Patent still enforceable elsewhereFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Intelligent Agency, LLC | Company | Mobile technology IP licensor — holder of US11395093B2 covering on-demand delivery app systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Neighborfavor, Inc. | Company | Neighborfavor, Inc. — operator of the Favor on-demand delivery platform (Texas)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kenneth T. Emanuelson | Attorney | Counsel for Intelligent Agency, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | The Emanuelson Firm PC | Law Firm | Representing Intelligent Agency, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Emily F. Deer | Attorney | Counsel for Neighborfavor, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Roger J. Fulghum | Attorney | Counsel for Neighborfavor, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Baker Botts LLP | Law Firm | Representing Neighborfavor, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order grants a joint motion, meaning no merits adjudication occurred — neither infringement nor validity was ruled upon. The operative asymmetry is significant: plaintiff’s claims exit with prejudice (claim-preclusive), while defendant’s counterclaims exit without prejudice (revivable). The cost-neutrality order is consistent with a negotiated commercial resolution. The public record does not disclose any underlying licensing terms or payment.
US11395093B2 — on-demand delivery mobile app coordination technology
US11395093B2 (filed under application US15/894878) covers technology in the on-demand delivery mobile application space, implicated by both the consumer-facing Favor Customer app and the logistics-facing Favor Runner app. The patent’s claims are directed at coordination or communication functionality between mobile devices in an on-demand service context. Its B2 designation confirms it has passed post-grant examination, lending it a degree of presumptive validity in litigation.
The strategic significance of US11395093B2 lies in its applicability across the gig-economy delivery sector. With no invalidity ruling issued in this case, the patent exits litigation with its claims intact — making it a live risk for any platform operating a two-sided mobile marketplace where field agents (runners, couriers, drivers) and customers interact through coordinated mobile interfaces. The patent was assertable against a well-funded operator backed by H-E-B, suggesting the claim scope was considered commercially credible.
Should your delivery platform run an FTO against US11395093B2?
Any company operating an on-demand delivery, gig-economy, or two-sided mobile marketplace platform — particularly those using dedicated mobile apps for both customers and field-side agents — should evaluate exposure to US11395093B2. This patent survived active litigation without an adverse validity ruling. The Favor Customer App, Favor Runner App, and associated mobile devices were specifically accused, making the claim scope relevant to comparable runner-dispatch or last-mile delivery coordination systems.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map US11395093B2’s independent claims against your product architecture and surface design-around options or prior art that could support an IPR petition. Given the cost-neutral dismissal here, understanding your own invalidity position before receiving a demand letter is materially valuable — particularly for platforms planning expansion into markets where Intelligent Agency may assert next.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11395093B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: mobile app delivery tech in WDTX
Cases involving on-demand delivery and mobile app coordination patents litigated in the Western District of Texas before Judge Albright follow comparable resolution patterns.
What this case signals for the on-demand delivery app IP landscape
A with-prejudice exit in WDTX before claim construction carries distinct strategic signals for mobile delivery platform IP portfolios.
WDTX remains a high-pressure venue even for smaller NPE disputes
Judge Albright’s docket in the Western District of Texas consistently accelerates patent cases toward early resolution triggers. The 413-day lifespan here — ending before any publicly recorded claim construction — suggests Neighborfavor moved quickly to resolve rather than litigate through Albright’s scheduling orders. Defendants in WDTX should budget for early settlement pressure regardless of case strength.
US11395093B2 is still live — FTO analysis is needed for rival delivery apps
No invalidity ruling was issued. The patent covering Favor’s customer and runner mobile app functionality survives this litigation intact. Any company operating a comparable on-demand delivery or gig-economy platform with mobile runner/customer coordination features should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against US11395093B2 before this patent is next asserted.
Intelligent v Neighborfavor — key questions answered
No. The case was resolved via joint motion to dismiss before any merits ruling. Neither validity nor infringement of US11395093B2 was adjudicated by the court, meaning the patent exits the litigation with full presumptive validity intact.
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final judgment for claim-preclusion purposes. Intelligent Agency cannot re-file the same patent infringement claims against Neighborfavor based on US11395093B2 for the accused Favor products. The right to sue this defendant on these grounds is permanently extinguished.
The asymmetric dismissal terms — plaintiff with prejudice, defendant without — are consistent with a negotiated exit in which Neighborfavor retained optionality. Dismissal without prejudice means Neighborfavor can revive its counterclaims (likely invalidity and non-infringement) in a future proceeding if circumstances require. This structure is a typical feature of commercially resolved patent disputes.
Yes. The dismissal resolves only the dispute between Intelligent Agency and Neighborfavor. US11395093B2 remains in force and Intelligent Agency retains full enforcement rights against other parties. The patent has not been invalidated, and no claim-preclusion or estoppel bars assertion against third parties.
Intelligent Agency was represented by Kenneth T. Emanuelson of The Emanuelson Firm PC. Neighborfavor was represented by Emily F. Deer and Roger J. Fulghum of Baker Botts LLP — a major firm with deep patent litigation experience. Baker Botts’s involvement suggests Neighborfavor took the assertion seriously and engaged sophisticated counsel capable of mounting an IPR or claim construction challenge, which may have influenced the negotiated exit.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.