IoWT v. Trojan Rentals: Water Transfer Monitoring Patents Dismissed With Prejudice
IoWT, LLC brought a patent infringement action against Trojan Rentals, LLC in the Western District of Texas asserting two water transfer monitoring patents. After 185 days, both parties jointly stipulated to dismiss all claims with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), permanently closing the dispute.
Joint stipulation ends W.D. Texas water-tech patent dispute in under six months
On April 19, 2024, IoWT, LLC filed an infringement action against Trojan Rentals, LLC in the Western District of Texas before Judge Robert Pitman, asserting two patents — US11725648B1 and US10683716B2 — covering a water transfer monitoring system and method of use. Trojan Rentals, a rental equipment operator, was represented by Bracewell LLP and Steptoe & Johnson LLP, while IoWT retained The Polasek Law Firm PLLC.
On October 18, 2024, both parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), dismissing all claims with prejudice. The court confirmed that stipulated dismissals under that rule require no judicial approval and are effective automatically upon filing, ordering the case closed on October 21, 2024. Dismissal with prejudice means IoWT cannot re-assert these patents against Trojan Rentals on the same claims, suggesting the parties reached a private resolution.
The 185-day resolution is notably swift for W.D. Texas patent litigation, which often extends well beyond a year. The speed and the ‘with prejudice’ designation together suggest a negotiated settlement or licensing agreement, though the specific financial or licensing terms are not part of the public record. Whether Trojan Rentals obtained a license, agreed to design-around measures, or secured a covenant not to sue remains unknown from the available docket.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 185 days
185-day lifecycle — relatively swift resolution for a W.D. Texas patent infringement case
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal explained
A joint stipulation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires signatures from all parties and takes effect automatically upon filing — no court approval is needed. The court’s order confirms this procedural point explicitly. Because both sides signed, this is a consensual exit, not a unilateral withdrawal, and strongly suggests a negotiated resolution occurred before the stipulation was filed.
Automatic upon filingWith prejudice bars IoWT from re-filing the same claims
Dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits, meaning IoWT, LLC cannot refile these infringement claims against Trojan Rentals based on the same patents and accused conduct. For Trojan Rentals, this provides finality and protection from future suit on the same allegations. For IoWT, it signals sufficient consideration was received to justify permanently relinquishing the right to refile.
No refiling permittedIoWT’s patents survive — enforceability against third parties intact
A with-prejudice dismissal by joint stipulation does not invalidate or limit the asserted patents. US11725648B1 and US10683716B2 remain in force and enforceable against other parties in the water transfer monitoring sector. IoWT retains the right to assert both patents against different defendants. The outcome is specific to Trojan Rentals and the conduct alleged in this action.
Patents remain in forceSwift resolution signals active licensing strategy by IoWT
Resolution in under 185 days — before any claim construction or summary judgment proceedings — is consistent with a plaintiff pursuing licensing revenue rather than injunctive relief. Other operators in the water transfer and fluid management equipment rental space should treat this outcome as a signal that IoWT is actively enforcing its monitoring patents. Companies using or offering water transfer monitoring systems should assess FTO exposure against both asserted patents.
Licensing risk for sectorFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | IoWT, LLC | Company | IoT water-monitoring technology company — holder of US11725648B1 and US10683716B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Trojan Rentals, LLC | Company | Trojan Rentals, LLC — equipment rental operator, defendant in water transfer monitoring IP disputeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John Theodore Polasek | Attorney | Counsel for IoWT, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | The Polasek Law Firm PLLC | Law Firm | Representing IoWT, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Conor M. Civins | Attorney | Counsel for Trojan Rentals, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael A. Furlong | Attorney | Counsel for Trojan Rentals, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Bracewell LLP | Law Firm | Representing Trojan Rentals, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Steptoe & Johnson LLP | Law Firm | Representing Trojan Rentals, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Robert Pitman | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order confirms that the joint stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) required no judicial action and was effective automatically upon filing. The ‘with prejudice’ designation is the operative legal fact: it permanently bars IoWT from reasserting these specific claims against Trojan Rentals, functioning as a final disposition on the merits as between these parties. The court made no findings on infringement, validity, or claim scope, leaving both patents legally unimpaired for future enforcement actions.
US11725648B1 & US10683716B2 — Water Transfer Monitoring System
US11725648B1 (application no. US17/245850) and US10683716B2 (application no. US16/050745) both protect technology in the water transfer monitoring domain — systems and methods for monitoring, controlling, or recording water or fluid transfer operations. Such patents are commercially significant in oilfield services, industrial fluid management, and equipment rental sectors where real-time monitoring of transfer volumes, flow rates, and system states has become operationally critical.
For a company like IoWT, LLC, holding two patents in this space creates a portfolio with layered claim coverage — one patent may cover the system architecture while the other protects the operational method, making design-arounds more difficult. As IoT-based monitoring becomes standard in fluid transfer equipment rentals, these patents position IoWT as a gatekeeper technology holder in a sector undergoing rapid digitalisation. Competitors and OEMs in water transfer equipment should closely monitor IoWT’s filing and enforcement activity.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US11725648B1 and US10683716B2?
Any company developing, selling, or renting water transfer monitoring systems — particularly IoT-enabled fluid management products used in oilfield services, industrial operations, or infrastructure projects — should treat these two patents as live FTO risk. IoWT has demonstrated willingness to file suit in W.D. Texas, and the with-prejudice dismissal confirms the patents remain valid and enforceable. Product teams integrating remote monitoring, flow measurement, or automated transfer controls should assess claim coverage before commercial deployment.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claims of both US11725648B1 and US10683716B2 against your product architecture, identify prior art that may support validity challenges, and surface related continuation or divisional applications that could extend the patent family’s reach. Use Eureka to run a claim-by-claim landscape analysis before your next product launch or rental fleet expansion.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11725648B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar water transfer monitoring and IoT patent cases in W.D. Texas
Explore comparable IoT and fluid monitoring patent infringement actions filed in the Western District of Texas, including related enforcement timelines and outcomes.
What this case signals for the water transfer monitoring IP landscape
A fast with-prejudice dismissal in W.D. Texas suggests an active patent enforcement strategy — here is what the sector should watch.
IoWT’s patents remain live enforcement tools against the broader sector
The with-prejudice dismissal resolves only the dispute with Trojan Rentals. US11725648B1 and US10683716B2 are fully intact. Any company deploying water transfer monitoring systems — particularly in oilfield or industrial fluid management — should treat these patents as active enforcement risk and conduct FTO analysis before product launch or expansion.
W.D. Texas remains a favoured venue for IoT and monitoring patent assertions
IoWT’s choice of the Western District of Texas is consistent with broader trends of patent plaintiffs favouring that court for its efficient docket and plaintiff-friendly history. Equipment rental firms and IoT monitoring solution providers operating in Texas should factor W.D. Texas venue exposure into their patent risk assessments.
IoWT v Trojan — key questions answered
IoWT, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Trojan Rentals, LLC in the Western District of Texas on April 19, 2024, asserting US11725648B1 and US10683716B2. The case was dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) on October 18, 2024, after 185 days. No court findings on infringement or validity were made.
Both patents relate to water transfer monitoring systems and methods of use. They cover IoT-enabled technology for monitoring and controlling fluid transfer operations, relevant to oilfield services, industrial fluid management, and equipment rental sectors. Both remain in force and enforceable following the dismissal in this case.
Dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits between these specific parties. IoWT cannot refile the same patent infringement claims against Trojan Rentals based on the same alleged conduct. However, IoWT retains full rights to assert US11725648B1 and US10683716B2 against any other party in the water transfer monitoring space.
No. A joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice does not constitute a court ruling on patent validity or infringement. The patents were not adjudicated, cancelled, or limited in any way. US11725648B1 and US10683716B2 remain fully valid and enforceable against third parties. Companies in the water transfer monitoring sector should not interpret this dismissal as clearing their own FTO concerns.
Resolution in 185 days — before claim construction or any substantive motion practice — is consistent with a negotiated settlement or licensing agreement reached shortly after the parties engaged. The joint stipulation and with-prejudice designation suggest both sides reached mutually acceptable terms. The specific financial or licensing terms are not part of the public record.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.