Kortek v. Allterco Robotics: Smart Home Patent Case Dismissed With Prejudice
Kortek Industries Pty. Ltd. filed a four-patent infringement action against Allterco Robotics EEOD — maker of Shelly-branded smart plugs, sensors, and lighting controls — in the Western District of Texas. After 749 days, Kortek voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), before the defendant filed any answer, foreclosing any future refiling of the same claims.
Four-patent IoT enforcement ends in plaintiff’s own walk-away
On 18 May 2022, Kortek Industries Pty. Ltd., an Australian company holding a portfolio of patents covering wireless power management and IoT control systems, filed suit in the Western District of Texas against Allterco Robotics EEOD. The complaint asserted four US patents — US10862313B2, US9590427B2, US10429869B2, and US9465377B2 — against Allterco’s Shelly-branded product line, which includes Wi-Fi smart plugs, humidity and temperature sensors, and networked lighting and power control devices.
On 5 June 2024 — 749 days after filing — Kortek filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Because Allterco had not served an answer or a motion for summary judgment at that point, Kortek was entitled to dismiss unilaterally. The ‘with prejudice’ designation, however, is Kortek’s own choice: it permanently bars Kortek from re-asserting the same patent claims against Allterco on the same accused products. Each party was directed to bear its own costs and expenses.
The 749-day duration before dismissal is notable: it comfortably exceeds the timeline typically associated with a quick settlement or early nuisance-value resolution. The public record is silent on whether the parties reached a confidential commercial agreement — a common driver of with-prejudice voluntary dismissals — or whether Kortek encountered claim-scope, prior art, or damages obstacles that made continued litigation unattractive. The absence of any defendant counsel of record throughout the docket is an unusual data point that may reflect Allterco’s strategic posture or jurisdictional complexity as a Bulgarian entity.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 749 days
749 days — longer than the median W.D. Texas patent dismissal timeline, suggesting protracted pre-trial activity
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 walk-away means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal with prejudice — a permanent close
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Kortek exercised this right but added ‘with prejudice’ — a self-imposed bar that extinguishes these specific claims permanently. The court itself did not adjudicate the merits; the finality is entirely of Kortek’s own making.
No merits rulingKortek loses the right to re-assert these patents against Allterco
By dismissing with prejudice, Kortek has permanently relinquished infringement claims under these four patents against Allterco’s Shelly product line. Whether a confidential settlement was reached — which would explain the with-prejudice designation — is not disclosed in the public record. If no settlement occurred, Kortek absorbed all its own litigation costs with no recovery.
Claims extinguishedAllterco walks away clean — no admission of infringement
Allterco Robotics faces no injunction, damages award, or finding of infringement. The with-prejudice dismissal also protects Allterco from any future suit by Kortek on these same patents for the same accused products. Notably, Allterco never filed an answer, meaning the public record contains no invalidity or non-infringement defences to examine. Third parties cannot infer anything about patent validity from this outcome.
No liability findingPatents remain live — third-party Shelly competitors still at risk
The dismissal resolves only Kortek v. Allterco. The four asserted patents — covering smart power management, wireless control, and IoT sensing — remain in force and are enforceable against any other party. Companies developing or distributing products that compete with Shelly in the smart plug, sensor, and lighting-control space should treat these patents as an active enforcement risk and consider freedom-to-operate analysis accordingly.
Patents remain enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Kortek Industries Pty., Ltd. | Company | IoT patent licensor (Australia) — holder of US10862313B2 and three further smart-power patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Allterco Robotics EEOD | Individual | Allterco Robotics EEOD — Bulgarian maker of Shelly-branded smart plugs, sensors, and lighting controlsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Erick Scott Robinson | Attorney | Counsel for Kortek Industries Pty., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Patrick M. Dunn | Attorney | Counsel for Kortek Industries Pty., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Spencer Fane LLP | Law Firm | Representing Kortek Industries Pty., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and confirms that Allterco had not yet served an answer or summary judgment motion, meaning Kortek acted unilaterally. The operative phrase is ‘with prejudice’ — Kortek’s voluntary addition of this designation transforms what would otherwise be a without-prejudice exit into a permanent bar. No court adjudicated the merits; validity, infringement, and damages remain entirely unresolved. The cost allocation — each party bearing its own expenses — is standard for negotiated exits and provides no inferential signal about which party held the stronger position on the underlying patent claims.
US10862313B2 — wireless smart power management and IoT device control
The four asserted patents — US10862313B2, US9590427B2, US10429869B2, and US9465377B2 — collectively cover a technology cluster in wireless power management, IoT sensor integration, remote device scheduling, and smart home control architecture. Application dates span from US13/985549 (an earlier priority family) through to US15/925767, indicating a sustained filing programme building claim layers across the product lifecycle of connected home devices. The patents were asserted against hardware that sits at the intersection of energy management and ambient sensing: smart plugs, humidity and temperature sensors, and networked lighting controls.
Strategically, this four-patent cluster is significant because it targets not a single feature but the functional stack of a modern IoT home device — from physical power switching through wireless communication to environmental sensing. For any company commercialising smart plugs, relay modules, or sensor-equipped connected devices in the US market, these patents represent a layered infringement surface. Kortek’s willingness to file in W.D. Texas and maintain the case for over two years before a with-prejudice exit is consistent with an active licensing and enforcement programme rather than a one-off assertion.
Should you run an FTO against US10862313B2 and the Kortek smart-power patent family?
Any R&D team developing Wi-Fi or wireless-enabled smart plugs, power relay modules, environmental sensors, or networked lighting control products for the US market should treat this four-patent family as a priority FTO target. The accused Shelly product line is broadly representative of the mainstream IoT home-automation category, which means the asserted claim scope likely extends to a wide range of competing products. The continued enforceability of all four patents post-dismissal means the risk has not been resolved — it has simply been redirected away from Allterco.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s technical features against the independent claims of US10862313B2, US9590427B2, US10429869B2, and US9465377B2 simultaneously, identifying claim elements that may read on your architecture and surfacing prior art that could support a validity challenge. Given that this case ended without any public claim construction or invalidity ruling, Eureka’s analysis provides the clearest available picture of your exposure before you enter the US market or scale distribution of competing hardware.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10862313B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar IoT smart home patent cases in W.D. Texas and related venues
Explore patent infringement cases involving smart power management, IoT sensor, and connected home control technology litigated in W.D. Texas and comparable US district courts.
What this case signals for the smart home and IoT patent landscape
A four-patent assertion ending in a with-prejudice walk-away carries distinct signals for IoT product companies and patent holders operating in smart power and sensor technology.
W.D. Texas remains a high-stakes venue even for foreign defendants
Allterco is a Bulgarian entity with no obvious US manufacturing presence, yet Kortek chose W.D. Texas — Judge Albright’s court — for enforcement. This venue selection reflects its plaintiff-friendly reputation and fast scheduling orders. IoT hardware importers should audit US distribution channels that could anchor W.D. Texas jurisdiction.
With-prejudice voluntary dismissal often signals an undisclosed settlement
A plaintiff rarely surrenders re-filing rights without receiving something in return. The 749-day timeline and with-prejudice designation together are consistent with a confidential licence or lump-sum payment. Product teams at IoT hardware companies should monitor Kortek’s licensing activity for signals of a broader enforcement programme.
Kortek v Allterco — key questions answered
Kortek Industries Pty. Ltd. filed a four-patent infringement action in the Western District of Texas against Allterco Robotics EEOD over its Shelly-branded smart plugs, sensors, and lighting controls. After 749 days, Kortek voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), with each party bearing its own costs. No merits ruling was issued.
Kortek asserted four US patents: US10862313B2, US9590427B2, US10429869B2, and US9465377B2. These patents cover technologies in wireless smart power management, IoT device control, and environmental sensing. All four remain in force following the dismissal and are enforceable against third parties.
Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss without a court order before the defendant serves an answer or summary judgment motion. Adding ‘with prejudice’ is the plaintiff’s own choice and permanently bars re-assertion of the same claims against the same defendant. No court adjudicates the merits, and patent validity is neither confirmed nor denied.
Yes. The dismissal only resolves Kortek’s claims against Allterco Robotics. US10862313B2, US9590427B2, US10429869B2, and US9465377B2 remain valid and enforceable patents. Kortek retains the right to assert them against any other company manufacturing or distributing competing smart home products in the US market.
The public record does not disclose the reason. A with-prejudice voluntary dismissal after a prolonged litigation period is commonly consistent with a confidential settlement or licence agreement, though this is not confirmed. It could also reflect unfavourable claim construction prospects, prior art issues, or the practical difficulty of enforcing against a foreign defendant. Allterco filed no answer, leaving the litigation record sparse.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.