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.
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.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 453 days
453 days — above the median for E.D. Texas patent cases resolved before trial
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
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 stipulationLiberty 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 extinguishedWyndham 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 refilingFive 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 partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Liberty Access Technologies Licensing, LLC | Company | Access control patent licensing entity — holder of US10657747B2 and 4 related patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Wyndham Worldwide Corporation | Company | Global hospitality group operating Wyndham-branded hotel properties worldwideSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Carey Matthew Rozier | Attorney | Counsel for Liberty Access Technologies Licensing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Danielle De La Paz | Attorney | Counsel for Liberty Access Technologies Licensing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James Francis McDonough , III | Attorney | Counsel for Liberty Access Technologies Licensing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathan Lloyd Hardt | Attorney | Counsel for Liberty Access Technologies Licensing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Liberty Access Technologies Licensing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David M. Stein | Attorney | Counsel for Wyndham Worldwide CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | J. Thad Heartfield | Attorney | Counsel for Wyndham Worldwide CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Olson Stein LLP | Law Firm | Representing Wyndham Worldwide CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | The Heartfield Law Firm | Law Firm | Representing Wyndham Worldwide CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
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.
US10657747B2 and 4 related patents — access control systems and methods
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.
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.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10657747B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →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.
Related patent case — similar technology
Comparable case in the same technology domain. Patent holder and defendant reached resolution after proceedings.
SettledRelated infringement action — same court
Comparable Access control system and method for use by an access device-adjacent infringement action. Patent enforcement dynamics analysed in depth.
Active · District CourtRelated invalidity challenge — appellate outcome
Combined invalidity and infringement action in the same technology space. Decided after substantive proceedings.
DecidedLiberty Access Technologies Licensing, LLC’s broader IP enforcement history
Liberty Access Technologies Licensing, LLC’s full litigation history covering prior enforcement, licensing activity, and inter partes review proceedings.
Portfolio viewWhat 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.
Liberty’s portfolio scope suggests further enforcement actions are probable
Liberty Access Technologies holds patents spanning multiple application numbers and continuation families in the access control space. The Wyndham settlement-consistent dismissal, without prejudice to future targets, suggests a licensing campaign may be underway. IP teams at hotel chains, property management platforms, and smart-lock vendors should audit exposure now.
Digital key and NFC access system vendors face direct patent risk from this portfolio
The asserted patents cover access control systems and methods used by access devices — language broad enough to implicate NFC-enabled mobile keys, BLE hotel locks, and cloud-based access management platforms. Technology suppliers to the hospitality sector, not just operators, may be next in the enforcement sequence.
Liberty v Wyndham — key questions answered
Liberty Access Technologies asserted five U.S. patents: US10657747B2, US11217053B2, US11373474B2, US9373205B2, and US11443579B2. All relate to access control systems and methods for use by an access device, forming a continuation family covering digital and electronic access credential technology.
The parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which the court accepted. The ‘with prejudice’ designation permanently bars Liberty Access Technologies from refiling these claims against Wyndham. The public record does not disclose whether a settlement or license underpins the dismissal.
No. A dismissal with prejudice reflects a resolution between these specific parties, not a finding on the validity or invalidity of the patents. All five asserted patents remain in force and can be enforced against other parties. The USPTO has not cancelled or invalidated any of the five patents as a result of this case.
Liberty Access Technologies was represented by Carey Matthew Rozier, Danielle De La Paz, James Francis McDonough III, and Jonathan Lloyd Hardt of Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC. Wyndham was defended by David M. Stein of Olson Stein LLP and J. Thad Heartfield of The Heartfield Law Firm.
Judge Gilstrap’s order directed each party to bear its own fees, costs, and expenses. This is standard in stipulated dismissals and signals no fee-shifting award under 35 U.S.C. § 285 was sought or granted. It is consistent with a negotiated resolution where neither side wished to litigate fee entitlement and suggests the parties reached a mutually acceptable commercial outcome.
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.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.