Book a demo

Cut patent&paper research from weeks to hours with PatSnap Eureka AI!

Try now
Liberty Access Tech v. Wyndham Hotels — Access Control Patent Dispute | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID2:24-cv-00125
FiledFeb 2024
ClosedMay 2025
Patent Litigation

Liberty Access Tech v. Wyndham Hotels: 5-Patent Access Control Suit Dismissed With Prejudice

Liberty Access Technologies Licensing LLC filed suit against Wyndham Worldwide Corporation and Wyndham Hotels & Resorts in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting five patents covering access control systems and methods. The case closed after 453 days via joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, with each party bearing its own fees and costs.

Resolution time
453days
453 days — above the median for E.D. Texas patent cases resolved before trial
Patents asserted
5
US10657747B2 and 4 further patents asserted — access control systems and methods
Outcome
Dismissed with Prejudice
All claims dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation; plaintiff cannot refile these claims
Cost ruling
Own Fees
Each party bears its own attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses — no fee award to either side
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

Access control licensing dispute ends in joint dismissal with prejudice

On February 22, 2024, Liberty Access Technologies Licensing LLC filed a patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Judge Rodney Gilstrap) against Wyndham Worldwide Corporation and Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc. The complaint asserted five U.S. patents — US10657747B2, US11217053B2, US11373474B2, US9373205B2, and US11443579B2 — all directed to access control systems and methods used by access devices, a technology category directly relevant to hotel room entry and digital key systems.

The case closed on May 20, 2025, when the parties jointly filed a Stipulation of Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Judge Gilstrap acknowledged and accepted the stipulation, dismissing all claims with prejudice. The with-prejudice designation is legally significant: Liberty Access Technologies cannot reassert these specific claims against the Wyndham entities in a future action. Notably, each party agreed to bear its own fees and costs, meaning no monetary penalty or fee-shifting award was imposed on either side.

At 453 days, the case ran longer than many pre-trial settlements in E.D. Texas, suggesting the parties likely engaged in substantive discovery or claim construction activity before reaching resolution. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement is consistent with a negotiated settlement — possibly including a license — rather than a pure capitulation by either side. However, the public record does not disclose any financial terms, licensing agreement, or the specific trigger for dismissal, leaving the commercial resolution undisclosed.

Case at a glance
Case no.2:24-cv-00125
CourtTexas Eastern
JudgeRodney Gilstrap
FiledFebruary 22, 2024
ClosedMay 20, 2025
Duration453 days
OutcomeDismissed with Prejudice
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisDismissed with Prejudice
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / Texas Eastern District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 453 days

453 days — above the median for E.D. Texas patent cases resolved before trial

Case timeline: Complaint filed FEB 22 2024, OCT–NOV — 453 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Liberty Access Technologies Licensing, LLC v Wyndham Worldwide Corporation from filing to resolution. Source: PACER, Texas Eastern District Court. FEB 22 2024 Complaint filed Pre-trial proceedings MAY 20 2025 Dismissed with Prejudice 453 DAYS TOTAL
Dismissal terms

Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties

Legal mechanism

Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal: what ‘with prejudice’ actually means

A joint stipulation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires agreement from all parties and takes effect without a court order — the judge’s role is merely to acknowledge it. The ‘with prejudice’ designation is the critical qualifier: it extinguishes Liberty Access Technologies’ right to bring the same claims on these five patents against Wyndham entities in any future federal action. This is a permanent bar, not a procedural pause.

Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) — joint stipulation
Plaintiff outcome

Liberty Access Technologies loses right to refile against Wyndham

A with-prejudice dismissal forecloses Liberty Access Technologies from reasserting any of the five access control patents against Wyndham Worldwide or Wyndham Hotels & Resorts in future litigation. If the resolution included a licensing agreement — which the public record does not confirm — that would represent a commercial win despite the dismissal label. Without disclosed terms, the dismissal-with-prejudice appears to end Liberty’s enforcement path against Wyndham on these specific patents.

Claims permanently extinguished
Defendant outcome

Wyndham secures finality — no ongoing liability on these patents

Wyndham Worldwide and Wyndham Hotels & Resorts obtain permanent protection from any refiled suit by Liberty Access Technologies on these five patents. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement means Wyndham absorbed its own legal spend — typically $1M+ for multi-patent E.D. Texas litigation of this duration — without recovery. This suggests Wyndham valued finality over fee litigation, consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a contested win on the merits.

Permanent bar on refiling
Commercial implications

Five access control patents remain enforceable against the broader hospitality sector

The dismissal resolves only the Liberty Access Technologies v. Wyndham dispute. All five asserted patents — covering access control systems and methods for access devices — remain in force and can be asserted against other hotel operators, property managers, or access control technology vendors. Competitors to Wyndham operating similar digital key or room-entry systems should treat this case as a signal that Liberty Access Technologies is an active licensing enforcer in this space.

Patents remain live for third parties
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 2:24-cv-00125 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffLiberty Access Technologies Licensing, LLCCompanyAccess control patent licensing entity — holder of US10657747B2 and 4 related patentsSearch in Eureka ↗
DefendantWyndham Worldwide CorporationCompanyGlobal hospitality group operating Wyndham-branded hotel properties worldwideSearch in Eureka ↗
Co-DefendantWyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc.CompanySearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselCarey Matthew RozierAttorneyCounsel for Liberty Access Technologies Licensing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselDanielle De La PazAttorneyCounsel for Liberty Access Technologies Licensing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJames Francis McDonough , IIIAttorneyCounsel for Liberty Access Technologies Licensing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJonathan Lloyd HardtAttorneyCounsel for Liberty Access Technologies Licensing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff law firmRozier Hardt McDonough PLLCLaw FirmRepresenting Liberty Access Technologies Licensing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselDavid M. SteinAttorneyCounsel for Wyndham Worldwide CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselJ. Thad HeartfieldAttorneyCounsel for Wyndham Worldwide CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmOlson Stein LLPLaw FirmRepresenting Wyndham Worldwide CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant law firmThe Heartfield Law FirmLaw FirmRepresenting Wyndham Worldwide CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge Rodney GilstrapJudgeTexas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Official order — verbatim text

“Before the Court is the Stipulation of Dismissal (the “Stipulation”) jointly filed by Plaintiff Liberty Access Technologies Licensing LLC and Defendants Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc. and Wyndham Hotel Group, LLC (collectively, the “Parties”). (Dkt. No. 43.) In the Stipulation, the Parties stipulate as to the dismissal of all claims with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). (Id. at 1.) Having considered the Stipulation, the Court ACKNOWLEDGES AND ACCEPTS that all claims in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Parties shall bear their own fees, costs, and expenses. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the above-captioned case”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 2:24-cv-00125, Texas Eastern District Court

The Court’s order tracks the exact language of the parties’ joint stipulation, confirming dismissal of all claims with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The phrasing ‘ACKNOWLEDGES AND ACCEPTS’ reflects the ministerial nature of the court’s role in a bilateral stipulation — no judicial finding on the merits was made. The with-prejudice designation is the operative legal consequence: it functions as a final adjudication for res judicata purposes, permanently barring Liberty Access Technologies from relitigating these claims against Wyndham. Each party bearing its own fees signals a negotiated exit rather than a capitulation.

PACER case 2:24-cv-00125 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

US10657747B2 and 4 related patents — access control systems and methods

Publication No.US10657747B2
Application No.US16/034278
Patent details
ProductAccess control system and method for use by an access device
Cited in actionFebruary 22, 2024

Publication No.US11217053B2
Application No.US16/847719
Patent details
ProductAccess control system and method for use by an access device — continuation
Cited in actionFebruary 22, 2024

Publication No.US11373474B2
Application No.US17/646837
Patent details
ProductAccess control system and method for use by an access device — continuation II
Cited in actionFebruary 22, 2024

Publication No.US9373205B2
Application No.US14/603434
Patent details
ProductAccess control device and system — foundational claims
Cited in actionFebruary 22, 2024

Publication No.US11443579B2
Application No.US17/657752
Patent details
ProductAccess control system and method — continuation III
Cited in actionFebruary 22, 2024

The five asserted patents — US10657747B2, US11217053B2, US11373474B2, US9373205B2, and US11443579B2 — form a continuation family directed to access control systems and methods operable by an access device. The foundational patent US9373205B2 originates from application US14/603434, with subsequent continuations extending claims into more recent application windows through 2022. This family structure is typical of a licensing portfolio designed to maintain broad, refreshed coverage as the underlying technology evolves across digital key, mobile credential, and connected lock platforms.

For the hospitality sector, these patents are strategically significant because digital and mobile key adoption has accelerated across major hotel brands. Any platform using software-defined access permissions communicated to a physical access device — including NFC locks, BLE-enabled door hardware, or cloud-managed credential systems — could fall within the scope of these claims. The continuation strategy ensures that claim language can be tuned to cover next-generation implementations, making this portfolio a durable enforcement tool. Competitors operating similar systems should conduct a thorough FTO review against each of the five patent numbers.

Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Freedom to operate

Should your access control product be cleared against US10657747B2 and this family?

Any organisation developing, deploying, or procuring access control systems involving electronic access devices — including hotel operators, property management software vendors, smart-lock hardware manufacturers, and mobile key platform providers — faces potential exposure to this five-patent family. The continuation structure means claims may be drafted broadly enough to capture both legacy and next-generation access credential systems. An FTO analysis is especially urgent for vendors supplying hospitality clients in North America, given Liberty’s demonstrated willingness to assert in E.D. Texas.

PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s feature set against each of the five Liberty Access Technologies patents, identify prosecution history estoppel, locate prior art that may narrow claim scope, and surface related continuation applications that may not yet have issued. Eureka’s claim-level analysis enables your IP team to identify design-around opportunities or assess licensing exposure before enforcement action is initiated — turning a reactive risk into a managed commercial decision.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10657747B2 to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

Similar access control patent cases in E.D. Texas and related venues

Browse comparable NPE-driven access control and digital key patent infringement cases litigated in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Gilstrap and similar venues.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Liberty Access Technologies Licensing, LLC patent enforcement history, Texas Eastern case history, Liberty Access Technologies Licensing, LLC’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
NPE v. hotel chain verdictsE.D. Texas access tech casesDigital key patent assertionsRule 41 w/ prejudice outcomes
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this case signals for the hospitality access control IP landscape

A multi-patent enforcement action against a global hotel brand in a plaintiff-friendly venue carries clear signals for the wider sector.

E.D. Texas remains the preferred venue for NPE access control assertions

Liberty Access Technologies’ choice of the Eastern District of Texas — and specifically Judge Gilstrap’s docket — reflects the venue’s enduring appeal for non-practicing entity enforcement. Hotel technology vendors and operators should assume that any access control patents in circulation are likely to be asserted there first, raising the cost and timeline of defense.

Five-patent portfolios increase settlement pressure on defendants

Asserting five related access control patents simultaneously forces defendants to address validity, infringement, and claim construction on a broad front. The 453-day duration before dismissal suggests Wyndham engaged substantively — consistent with a negotiated resolution — rather than achieving an early procedural win. This playbook is likely to be repeated against other hospitality targets.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Unlock full enforcement strategy analysis for access control patent litigation in E.D. Texas district court, including portfolio mapping and exposure scoring.
Continuation family riskNext likely targetsLicensing leverage analysis
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Liberty v Wyndham — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

Monitor access control patent enforcement before it reaches your docket

Liberty Access Technologies holds a live five-patent portfolio in the access control space. PatSnap Eureka tracks new filings, continuation publications, and licensing signals so your IP team stays ahead of enforcement. Run your FTO today.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Related Litigation Cases

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.