Nearby Systems v. Albertsons: Four Location-Tech Patents, Dismissed With Prejudice
Nearby Systems LLC filed suit against Albertsons Companies LLC in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting four patents covering location-based mobile application technology across the Albertsons, Randalls, and Tom Thumb Deals & Delivery apps. The case resolved in 123 days via joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice — each party bearing its own costs.
Location-Tech Patent Assault on Grocery App Ecosystem Ends Quietly
Nearby Systems LLC, holder of four patents covering location-based mobile application functionality, filed Case No. 2:25-cv-00797 in the Eastern District of Texas on August 14, 2025, asserting infringement by Albertsons Companies LLC. The accused products — the Albertsons Deals & Delivery App, the Randalls Deals & Delivery App, and the Tom Thumb Deals & Delivery App — are core consumer-facing platforms in Albertsons’ grocery retail ecosystem. The four asserted patents (US11937145B2, US12185177B2, US10469980B2, and US9532164B2) span a patent family associated with location-aware mobile system technology.
The case closed on December 15, 2025, just 123 days after filing, via a joint stipulation of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The court dismissed all claims with prejudice, meaning Nearby Systems is permanently barred from reasserting these specific claims against Albertsons on these patents. Critically, the order directs the clerk to close this member case while maintaining the lead case as open — suggesting this action was part of a coordinated multi-defendant litigation campaign.
A resolution in under four months, with each side absorbing its own legal costs, is consistent with a confidential settlement rather than a litigated outcome — though the public record is silent on any financial terms. The ‘own costs’ provision is standard in such stipulations and does not necessarily indicate the absence of a private payment. The fact that the lead case remains open suggests Nearby Systems may be pursuing parallel actions against other defendants, and practitioners should monitor the lead docket for broader licensing or litigation strategy signals.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 123 days
123 days — faster than the E.D. Texas district court median for patent cases
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal with prejudice explained
A joint stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires agreement from all parties and operates as a final judgment on the merits when entered with prejudice. Unlike a unilateral voluntary dismissal, both sides signed off here. The ‘with prejudice’ designation extinguishes Nearby Systems’ right to refile these specific patent claims against Albertsons — the dismissal has the legal force of a final adjudication on those claims.
Permanent claim barNearby Systems loses right to refile against Albertsons
Dismissal with prejudice is the strongest possible claim-ending outcome short of a court judgment. Nearby Systems cannot re-litigate these four patents against Albertsons Companies in any future action on the same claims. However, the patents remain valid and enforceable against other defendants — and with the lead case still open, Nearby Systems’ broader licensing campaign appears ongoing. The public record does not disclose any settlement payment.
Patents remain active vs. othersAlbertsons secures permanent dismissal of all four patent claims
Albertsons achieved what amounts to a litigation-ending result: all claims across all four asserted patents dismissed with prejudice. Its Deals & Delivery app platforms — Albertsons, Randalls, and Tom Thumb — face no further exposure from Nearby Systems on these specific patents. Each party bearing its own costs suggests Albertsons did not obtain a fee award, which is consistent with early resolution before significant court proceedings. Whether any private consideration changed hands is not reflected in the public record.
Full claim clearance securedMobile grocery apps in the crosshairs of location-tech NPEs
This case is consistent with a broader pattern of non-practicing entities asserting location-based mobile technology patents against retailers operating consumer-facing delivery and deals apps. The rapid resolution and continuing lead case suggest a licensing-first strategy targeting multiple grocery or retail app operators. Companies running location-aware mobile platforms — particularly in grocery, quick-service retail, and on-demand delivery — face elevated assertion risk from this patent family and similar portfolios.
NPE location-tech risk patternFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Nearby Systems, LLC | Company | Location-based mobile technology patent assertion entity — holder of US11937145B2 and 3 related patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Albertsons Companies, LLC | Company | Albertsons Companies LLC — major US grocery retailer operating Albertsons, Randalls, and Tom Thumb app platformsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Carey Matthew Rozier | Attorney | Counsel for Nearby Systems, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James Francis McDonough , III | Attorney | Counsel for Nearby Systems, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathan Lloyd Hardt | Attorney | Counsel for Nearby Systems, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Nearby Systems, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christian Guillermo Stahl | Attorney | Counsel for Albertsons Companies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Quarles & Brady, LLP (Chicago) | Law Firm | Representing Albertsons Companies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order accepts a joint Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation, dismissing all claims with prejudice and denying all pending relief as moot. The ‘with prejudice’ designation is legally significant: it operates as a final judgment on the merits, permanently barring Nearby Systems from re-asserting these claims against Albertsons. The instruction to maintain the lead case open while closing only this member case confirms this was a coordinated multi-defendant proceeding — the broader litigation campaign by Nearby Systems remains active on the lead docket.
US11937145B2 and family — location-based mobile application technology
The four asserted patents — US11937145B2, US12185177B2, US10469980B2, and US9532164B2 — form a patent family spanning application filings from 2013 (US13/987520) through to more recent continuation filings (US18/436421). The family covers location-based mobile application functionality, likely encompassing geofencing, proximity detection, location-triggered notifications, and related features used in consumer-facing retail delivery and deals platforms. The breadth of the family across multiple continuation generations suggests deliberate portfolio construction to maintain claim coverage as mobile location technology evolved.
For the grocery and retail app sector, this patent family represents a meaningful assertion risk. The accused products — Albertsons, Randalls, and Tom Thumb Deals & Delivery apps — are feature-rich location-aware platforms used by millions of consumers. Any competitor operating a similar app with geofencing, proximity-based offers, or location-triggered delivery features sits within the potential claim scope of this family. The family’s multi-continuation structure means claim language may be specifically tailored to modern implementation patterns, reducing the effectiveness of design-around strategies without a thorough claim-by-claim FTO analysis.
Should your retail app team run an FTO against US11937145B2 and its family?
If your organisation operates a mobile application with location-based features — including proximity alerts, geofenced offers, delivery radius detection, or location-triggered loyalty rewards — this four-patent family warrants a formal freedom-to-operate assessment. The Albertsons case demonstrates that Nearby Systems is actively enforcing this portfolio against major retail app operators in E.D. Texas. With the lead case still open, further defendants are a realistic prospect. R&D and product teams building or upgrading location-aware features should not treat this as a cleared landscape.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the full claim scope of US11937145B2, US12185177B2, US10469980B2, and US9532164B2 against your product architecture in hours, not weeks. Eureka identifies prosecution history disclaimers, continuation claim divergence, and prior art anchors from the 2013–2019 window that may support invalidity arguments. For IP counsel advising retail or grocery clients on mobile app development, Eureka’s portfolio monitoring alerts can flag new continuation filings from Nearby Systems before they mature into additional assertion vehicles.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11937145B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar location-based mobile app patent cases in E.D. Texas
Browse patent infringement cases involving location-based mobile technology and retail app platforms litigated in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the mobile retail app IP landscape
Nearby Systems’ four-patent campaign against Albertsons’ app suite reflects rising NPE pressure on location-aware retail technology. Speed of resolution is the key signal here.
E.D. Texas remains the preferred venue for mobile app patent NPEs
The Eastern District of Texas continues to attract patent assertion entities targeting technology companies. A 123-day resolution in this district, before significant motion practice, typically signals early licensing pressure rather than a confidence in proceeding to Markman or trial. Retail and grocery app operators should treat E.D. Texas filings as a credible monetisation signal, not just nuisance litigation.
Four-patent portfolios create asymmetric leverage for plaintiffs
Asserting four related patents simultaneously raises defendant litigation costs and complicates IPR filing timelines. With US11937145B2, US12185177B2, US10469980B2, and US9532164B2 in play, Albertsons faced a wide claim surface. Companies receiving multi-patent demand letters in location-tech should prioritise rapid prior art searches across the full family, not just the lead patent, before responding.
Nearby v Albertsons — key questions answered
Nearby Systems asserted four patents: US11937145B2, US12185177B2, US10469980B2, and US9532164B2. All relate to location-based mobile application technology. The accused products were the Albertsons Deals & Delivery App, the Randalls Deals & Delivery App, and the Tom Thumb Deals & Delivery App.
Dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) means all of Nearby Systems’ patent claims against Albertsons Companies are permanently extinguished. Nearby Systems cannot refile these specific claims against Albertsons on the same patents. The dismissal operates as a final judgment on the merits. It does not, however, invalidate the patents themselves — they remain enforceable against other parties.
The court’s order explicitly closed the member case (2:25-cv-00797) while directing the clerk to maintain the lead case as open. This structure is consistent with multi-defendant patent litigation, where a plaintiff files actions against several defendants under a single lead docket. The continued lead case suggests Nearby Systems is pursuing claims against at least one other defendant in parallel proceedings.
The case resolved in 123 days from filing to closure — significantly faster than the typical Eastern District of Texas patent case, which often takes 18–30 months through trial. Resolution before any reported Markman hearing or dispositive motions is consistent with early settlement negotiations or licensing resolution, though the public record does not disclose any financial terms.
No. The ‘each party bears its own costs’ provision in the dismissal order covers court costs, litigation expenses, and attorneys’ fees as defined under Rule 54(d) and 35 U.S.C. § 285. It does not preclude a private settlement payment between the parties. Such payments, if any, would be confidential and are not reflected in the public court record. The provision is standard in joint stipulations and should not be interpreted as evidence that no consideration changed hands.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.