Lattice Technologies v. Amazon: Infringement Suit Dismissed With Prejudice in 87 Days
Lattice Technologies LLC asserted US8098153B2 — a patent covering emergency response delivery to user devices — against Amazon.com in the Eastern District of Texas. The case ended in a voluntary dismissal with prejudice just 87 days after filing, foreclosing any refiling of the same claims against Amazon.
Emergency Response Patent Suit Against Amazon Ends at 87 Days
On February 15, 2025, Lattice Technologies LLC filed a patent infringement action against Amazon.com, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:25-cv-00201), asserting US8098153B2 — a patent directed to a system and method of providing emergency response to a user carrying a user device. Amazon was defended by DLA Piper, while Lattice was represented by Rabicoff Law LLC, a firm with a noted history of NPE-side patent enforcement litigation.
On May 13, 2025, just 87 days after filing, Lattice filed a Notice of Dismissal voluntarily dismissing the case with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The Court accepted and acknowledged the notice, formally dismissing all pending claims and denying all remaining relief requests as moot. A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits as a matter of law, meaning Lattice is permanently barred from asserting the same claims against Amazon in future litigation.
The brevity of this case — resolved before any substantive motion practice or claim construction activity could be disclosed in the public record — is consistent with a privately negotiated resolution, potentially a licensing agreement or a covenant not to sue. The public record does not disclose financial terms or whether Amazon obtained any IP rights. The with-prejudice designation is notable: it reflects either a negotiated concession by Lattice or a strategic decision to close out the matter cleanly, foreclosing the litigation risk that an NPE assertion typically preserves.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 87 days
87 days — resolved well below the E.D. Texas median for patent cases, suggesting early settlement or licensing resolution
Dismissed with prejudice: what the voluntary exit means for both sides
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff-initiated exit with finality
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss without a court order before the defendant serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. By electing dismissal with prejudice, Lattice converted what would otherwise be a procedural exit into a final judgment on the merits, permanently extinguishing its right to re-assert these specific claims against Amazon in any U.S. court.
Final — no refiling permittedLattice permanently relinquishes its claims against Amazon
A with-prejudice dismissal is the most conclusive exit available to a plaintiff. Lattice Technologies can no longer assert US8098153B2 against Amazon for any conduct covered by this action. Whether Lattice received consideration — such as a licensing payment or covenant — is not disclosed in the public record. The with-prejudice election suggests the matter reached a commercially acceptable resolution rather than an abandonment of the broader patent.
Claims extinguished vs. AmazonAmazon secures permanent protection from this assertion
Amazon emerges with a clean record: no liability, no injunction, and a permanent bar against Lattice re-asserting US8098153B2 in connection with the same accused conduct. DLA Piper’s involvement suggests Amazon engaged experienced patent litigation counsel early, which may have accelerated the resolution. Amazon retains the option to seek attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 if it can establish the case was exceptional, though no such motion is noted in the public record.
Permanent bar on re-assertionUS8098153B2 remains live — other technology firms remain exposed
A dismissal with prejudice resolves only the dispute between Lattice and Amazon. US8098153B2 remains an enforceable patent and can be asserted against other parties offering emergency response features on user devices. Companies operating in the connected device, emergency services integration, or mobile platform space should note that the patent survived without any invalidation or claim narrowing arising from this litigation.
Patent still enforceable vs. third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Lattice Technologies LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US8098153B2 covering emergency response systems for user devicesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Amazon.com, Inc. | Company | Amazon.com, Inc. — global e-commerce and cloud computing company, accused infringerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Phillip Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for Lattice Technologies LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rabicoff Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing Lattice Technologies LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Gregory John Ferroni | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jennifer Librach Nall | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | DLA Piper US LLP (Austin, US) | Law Firm | Representing Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | DLA Piper, LLP (US) | Law Firm | Representing Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Court’s order accepts Lattice’s Notice of Dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and formally dismisses all claims with prejudice, denying remaining relief as moot. The with-prejudice designation is legally significant: it operates as a final adjudication on the merits, creating res judicata as between Lattice and Amazon on these claims. The order does not address substantive patent validity, claim scope, or infringement — meaning no public record of Amazon’s non-infringement or invalidity arguments exists from this proceeding.
US8098153B2 — Emergency Response System for User-Carried Devices
US8098153B2 (application number US11/981,463) covers a system and method for delivering emergency response services to a user carrying a personal device. The patent sits at the intersection of location-based services, emergency dispatch, and mobile device communication — a technical domain that has grown substantially in commercial relevance with the proliferation of smartphones, wearables, and connected IoT devices. The patent’s claims are directed to the coordination between a user device and an emergency response infrastructure, which may encompass features such as SOS triggering, location transmission, and dispatch notification.
The commercial significance of US8098153B2 lies in its breadth across a now-ubiquitous device category. Emergency alert and response features are standard in modern smartphones (e.g., Apple’s Emergency SOS, Google’s emergency location sharing), smartwatches, fleet telematics systems, and connected home devices. Any platform that detects distress and routes a response to a user device could potentially fall within the patent’s claim scope. For competitors and product teams, the key risk is that this patent survived the litigation without any claim narrowing or invalidity finding — its enforceability and scope remain intact.
Should your product team run an FTO against US8098153B2?
Any company shipping a product or platform that identifies a user in distress and coordinates an emergency response to their device should treat US8098153B2 as a potential clearance risk. This includes mobile OS developers, smartwatch and wearable manufacturers, fleet and workforce safety platform vendors, smart home device makers, and telecom providers with emergency dispatch integration. The patent was actively asserted against Amazon — one of the largest connected device ecosystems globally — signalling that the holder is prepared to enforce broadly.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map US8098153B2’s claim language against your product’s technical architecture, identify prior art that may support an invalidity argument, and flag related family members or continuation patents that could extend the assertion risk. With Lattice’s litigation campaign apparently ongoing, early clearance analysis is materially more valuable than reactive response after a demand letter arrives.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8098153B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Emergency Response & Location-Based Patent Cases in E.D. Texas
Browse related patent infringement actions involving emergency response, location-based services, and connected device patents litigated in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the emergency response and connected device IP landscape
A rapid with-prejudice exit in E.D. Texas typically signals private resolution — and a still-live patent that may pursue further targets.
87-day resolution suggests the dispute settled before substantive engagement
Cases resolved this quickly in E.D. Texas rarely involve full claim construction or invalidity briefing. The with-prejudice dismissal, absent any public settlement terms, is consistent with a licensing transaction or a negotiated covenant. IP teams at companies with emergency response or location-based alert features should assess their exposure to US8098153B2 independently.
With-prejudice election protects Amazon but does not narrow the patent
Because the case closed without any claim construction order, invalidity ruling, or prosecution history estoppel arising from litigation, US8098153B2 retains its full original scope. Third-party product teams cannot rely on this case as precedent for non-infringement. A formal FTO analysis against the asserted claims remains necessary for any competitor in this space.
Lattice v Amazon.com — key questions answered
Lattice Technologies LLC filed a patent infringement action against Amazon.com in the Eastern District of Texas on February 15, 2025, asserting US8098153B2. The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by Lattice on May 13, 2025 — 87 days after filing — under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The Court accepted the notice and dismissed all claims. No financial terms were publicly disclosed.
A with-prejudice dismissal bars Lattice from re-asserting the same claims against Amazon in any future proceeding. However, it does not invalidate or narrow US8098153B2 itself. The patent remains enforceable against all other parties, and Lattice retains the right to assert it against third parties not covered by this dismissal.
US8098153B2 covers a system and method of providing emergency response to a user carrying a user device. The patent potentially applies to any platform coordinating emergency alerts, SOS features, or dispatch services via a personal device. Risk categories include mobile OS developers, smartwatch makers, fleet safety vendors, telecom emergency dispatch integrators, and connected home device platforms.
The Eastern District of Texas is a historically plaintiff-favoured venue for patent infringement actions, known for its faster docket pace and jury pool experience with patent cases. Patent assertion entities frequently select E.D. Texas to maximise litigation leverage. Amazon’s DLA Piper representation suggests it engaged experienced patent defence counsel familiar with this venue.
No. Because the case was dismissed before any substantive motion practice, claim construction, or trial, it creates no precedent on the validity or infringement scope of US8098153B2. Third parties cannot rely on this outcome as evidence of non-infringement. An independent freedom-to-operate analysis against US8098153B2 remains necessary for any company in the emergency response or connected device space.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.