Kustom Signals v. Applied Concepts: Stalker Radar Patent Dispute Ends in Agreed Dismissal
Kustom Signals, Inc. brought a patent infringement action against Applied Concepts, Inc. in the Northern District of Texas, asserting two patents covering Stalker radar speed-detection technology. After 637 days of litigation, the parties filed an agreed motion to dismiss all claims and counterclaims with prejudice, each side bearing its own fees.
Agreed exit after 637 days: radar IP dispute quietly resolved
On August 30, 2023, Kustom Signals, Inc. filed suit against Applied Concepts, Inc. in the Northern District of Texas before Judge David C. Godbey, alleging infringement of US11703602B2 and US11194039B2 — two patents covering Stalker Speed Module and Stalker radar speed-detection technology. Applied Concepts, known for its Stalker-branded traffic radar units, was simultaneously named as a defendant and appears to have been represented in part through counsel affiliated with Geotab Inc., suggesting complex corporate relationships underlying the dispute.
The case closed on May 28, 2025, when Judge Godbey granted the parties’ Agreed Motion to Dismiss with prejudice. All claims and counterclaims were terminated permanently, and neither party was awarded fees or expenses. A dismissal with prejudice extinguishes the plaintiff’s right to re-file the same claims — meaning Kustom Signals cannot reassert these two patents against Applied Concepts on the same grounds in any future action.
At 637 days, the timeline is consistent with a dispute that progressed through early-stage motion practice or claim construction before the parties reached a resolution. The agreed nature of the dismissal, combined with mutual fee absorption and a with-prejudice designation, is a pattern commonly associated with a confidential settlement — though the public record is silent on any financial terms. What drove the resolution, including any licensing arrangement, remains undisclosed.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 637 days
637 days — above the median for N.D. Tex. patent cases resolved before trial
Dismissed with prejudice: what the agreed exit means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice bars all future re-filing on these patents
A dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 operates as a final adjudication on the merits. Kustom Signals permanently surrenders its right to bring the same infringement claims under US11703602B2 and US11194039B2 against Applied Concepts. The ‘agreed’ designation signals both parties consented — typically the hallmark of a negotiated resolution rather than a unilateral withdrawal.
Permanent bar on re-filingKustom Signals gains certainty — but at permanent cost to future enforcement
By agreeing to a with-prejudice dismissal, Kustom Signals closes the door on future litigation against Applied Concepts under these specific patents. This is consistent with a party that secured a satisfactory commercial outcome — potentially a license or settlement payment — and accepted the finality trade-off. Alternatively, it may reflect an assessment that continued litigation carried unacceptable cost or risk. The public record does not confirm which.
Enforcement rights extinguishedApplied Concepts achieves permanent certainty on these two patents
Applied Concepts emerges from this litigation with full protection against any future suit by Kustom Signals on US11703602B2 and US11194039B2. Whether that certainty came via a license, a design-around, or a negotiated payment is unknown — but the with-prejudice structure ensures the Stalker radar product line faces no repeat action on these claims. The mutual fee-bearing clause also suggests neither party obtained a clear litigation win.
No repeat exposure on these patentsConfidential resolution leaves traffic radar IP landscape unsettled
Because no claim construction ruling or merits decision was published, the scope of US11703602B2 and US11194039B2 remains judicially untested. Competitors in the traffic radar and speed-detection space cannot rely on this case to assess patent validity or claim breadth. Other manufacturers of radar speed modules should treat these patents as fully enforceable against third parties — the dismissal binds only Applied Concepts.
Patents remain enforceable vs. third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Kustom Signals, Inc. | Company | Traffic radar technology company — holder of US11703602B2 and US11194039B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Applied Concepts, Inc. | Company | Applied Concepts, Inc. — maker of Stalker-branded traffic radar speed-detection unitsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Decker A. Cammack | Attorney | Counsel for Kustom Signals, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew B. Walters | Attorney | Counsel for Kustom Signals, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Scott R. Brown | Attorney | Counsel for Kustom Signals, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Todd A. Gangel | Attorney | Counsel for Kustom Signals, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Hovey Williams LLP | Law Firm | Representing Kustom Signals, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Whitaker Chalk Swindle & Schwartz PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Kustom Signals, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christopher John Rourk | Attorney | Counsel for Applied Concepts, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Melissa Samano Ruiz | Attorney | Counsel for Applied Concepts, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Wasif Qureshi | Attorney | Counsel for Applied Concepts, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | William Thomas Nilsson | Attorney | Counsel for Applied Concepts, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Geotab Inc. | Law Firm | Representing Applied Concepts, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Jackson Walker LLP | Law Firm | Representing Applied Concepts, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge David C. Godbey | Judge | Texas Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The agreed motion language — ‘claims and counterclaims in this case are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE’ — confirms a bilateral, consent-based termination rather than a unilateral withdrawal. The explicit inclusion of counterclaims suggests Applied Concepts had asserted its own claims, likely invalidity or non-infringement defences, making the mutual dismissal a full-spectrum resolution. The absence of any fee award despite 637 days of litigation is consistent with a commercially negotiated exit rather than a litigation-driven outcome.
US11703602B2 & US11194039B2 — Stalker Radar Speed-Detection Technology
US11703602B2 (application US17/845115) and US11194039B2 (application US16/137860) both fall within the traffic radar and speed-detection domain. US11194039B2, with the earlier application date, likely covers foundational aspects of the Stalker radar architecture, while US11703602B2 — filed later — may represent iterative or improvement claims on speed module functionality. Together, they form a two-patent assertion portfolio targeting core features of the Stalker Speed Module and associated radar units used in law enforcement and traffic monitoring applications.
For competitors in the traffic radar market, these two patents represent active IP risk. Kustom Signals’ willingness to litigate for over 637 days before an agreed resolution signals confidence in the portfolio’s enforceability. The fact that no invalidity ruling was obtained means neither patent has been judicially weakened. Any company developing or commercialising radar speed-detection hardware — particularly systems with comparable speed module architectures — should treat both patents as live enforcement vectors requiring independent clearance analysis.
Should you run an FTO against US11703602B2 and US11194039B2?
If your organisation designs, manufactures, or integrates traffic radar speed-detection equipment — including speed modules, Doppler radar units, or law enforcement speed-measurement hardware — both patents remain active and enforceable. This case did not produce a claim construction ruling, meaning the full scope of the claims has never been judicially tested or narrowed. Product teams working on radar speed modules cannot rely on this litigation outcome to assume clearance.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claims of US11703602B2 and US11194039B2 against your product architecture, identify prior art that may bear on validity, and surface the full family of related applications. Given that a second patent in this portfolio (US11194039B2) carries an earlier priority date, understanding the full claim ancestry is essential before launching any competing speed-detection product into the US market.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11703602B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar radar and speed-detection patent cases in N.D. Texas and beyond
Browse comparable patent infringement actions involving traffic radar, speed-detection hardware, and law enforcement sensor technology litigated in the Northern District of Texas and related venues.
What this case signals for the traffic radar and speed-detection IP landscape
An agreed with-prejudice exit after 637 days in N.D. Tex. suggests commercial resolution — but the IP risk for third parties persists.
The dismissal only binds Applied Concepts — third-party exposure remains live
A with-prejudice agreed dismissal extinguishes claims between these two parties only. US11703602B2 and US11194039B2 remain active, enforceable patents. Any other manufacturer, distributor, or integrator of traffic radar speed-detection equipment should independently assess their exposure — this case offers no safe-harbour effect.
No published claim construction means patent scope is still undefined
Because the case settled before any Markman ruling or summary judgment, the courts have not defined the claim boundaries of either patent. Competitors cannot rely on judicial narrowing to design around these patents. An independent FTO analysis against the full claim sets of both patents is the only reliable way to assess clearance.
Kustom v Applied — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on May 28, 2025, pursuant to an agreed motion granted by Judge David C. Godbey. All claims and counterclaims were terminated, and each party was ordered to bear its own fees and expenses. No merits ruling was issued.
Kustom Signals asserted US11703602B2 (application US17/845115) and US11194039B2 (application US16/137860), both covering Stalker radar speed-detection technology including the Stalker Speed Module and Stalker traffic radar units.
No. A dismissal with prejudice only binds the named parties — Kustom Signals and Applied Concepts. US11703602B2 and US11194039B2 remain active and enforceable against any third party. Other manufacturers of radar speed-detection equipment retain independent infringement exposure and should conduct their own FTO analysis.
The public record does not disclose settlement terms. However, the combination of an agreed dismissal, a with-prejudice designation, and mutual fee-bearing is a pattern commonly associated with a confidential commercial resolution — potentially including a license. No financial terms were filed with the court.
Because the case resolved before any claim construction hearing, neither US11703602B2 nor US11194039B2 has been judicially interpreted. The full claim scope of both patents remains undefined by any court. Competitors cannot rely on judicial narrowing to assess design-around strategies — independent claim mapping is required.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.