Nearby Systems v. Calendars.com: Location Patent Suit Dismissed With Prejudice in 136 Days
Nearby Systems LLC filed suit in the Eastern District of Texas asserting four location-aware mobile application patents against Calendars.com LLC in connection with the Famous Footwear Shop Shoes App. The case resolved by joint stipulation and was dismissed with prejudice in under five months, with each party bearing its own costs.
Four location patents, one app, and a swift Texas exit
Nearby Systems LLC filed Case No. 2:25-cv-00025 in the Eastern District of Texas on January 13, 2025, asserting infringement of four United States patents — US11937145B2, US12185177B2, US10469980B2, and US9532164B2 — against Calendars.com LLC. The accused product was the Famous Footwear Shop Shoes App, a consumer-facing mobile application. The asserted patents span application filings from as early as US13/987520 through the more recent US18/436421, suggesting a layered portfolio built around location-aware mobile service technology.
The case closed on May 29, 2025, via a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas accepted and acknowledged the stipulation, dismissing all claims and causes of action with prejudice. Importantly, the court directed the clerk to maintain the lead case as open, indicating this member case was one component of a broader multi-defendant litigation. Each party was ordered to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs.
At 136 days, the resolution is notably swift for an Eastern District of Texas patent case involving four patents and a commercial mobile application. The with-prejudice designation forecloses Nearby Systems from reasserting the same claims against Calendars.com in the future, suggesting the parties reached a private resolution — possibly a license or covenant not to sue — rather than a pure walk-away. The public record does not disclose financial terms, and the lead case remaining open suggests other defendants in the broader action continue to litigate.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 136 days
136 days — faster than median E.D. Texas patent case resolution
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): a bilateral, court-accepted exit
A dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires the written consent of all parties who have appeared, making it a bilateral act rather than a unilateral withdrawal. Once filed and accepted, the court has no discretion to deny it. Here, Judge Gilstrap accepted the stipulation and formally closed the member case. The with-prejudice designation — expressly requested by the parties — means Nearby Systems is permanently barred from re-litigating the same claims against Calendars.com on these four patents.
Bilateral stipulated dismissalWith-prejudice exit bars re-filing, but may mask a licensing win
For Nearby Systems, a with-prejudice dismissal is a meaningful concession on paper — it surrenders the right to sue Calendars.com again on these patents. However, patent plaintiffs rarely agree to with-prejudice terms without receiving something in return. The absence of a public settlement record is consistent with a confidential license, a lump-sum payment, or a product design-around. The broader lead case remaining open suggests Nearby Systems continues to pursue other defendants, preserving leverage across the portfolio.
Possible confidential resolutionCalendars.com secures permanent peace on four asserted patents
Calendars.com, represented by Mayer Brown LLP and Patton Tidwell & Culbertson, achieved a with-prejudice dismissal that provides durable protection against these specific patent claims. The Famous Footwear Shop Shoes App faces no further exposure from Nearby Systems on US11937145B2, US12185177B2, US10469980B2, or US9532164B2. The fee-bearing arrangement — each party pays its own costs — suggests neither side achieved a decisive litigation victory that would trigger fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
Patent claims permanently extinguishedLocation patent portfolios remain an active threat for mobile retail apps
This case is one member of a broader Eastern District of Texas proceeding, indicating Nearby Systems’ four-patent portfolio is being asserted against multiple defendants simultaneously — a classic NPE enforcement pattern. Mobile retail apps that use location-based features for store finders, proximity notifications, or geo-targeted commerce remain squarely within the risk perimeter of portfolios like this. Companies in the footwear, apparel, and broader omnichannel retail sectors should treat this case as a signal to audit their app’s location service architecture against these patent families.
Multi-defendant NPE campaignFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Nearby Systems, LLC | Company | Location technology patent assertion entity — holder of US11937145B2 and three related mobile location patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Calendars.Com, LLC | Company | Calendars.com LLC, operator of the Famous Footwear Shop Shoes consumer mobile appSearch 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 | Geoffrey Patton Culbertson | Attorney | Counsel for Calendars.Com, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kelly B. Tidwell | Attorney | Counsel for Calendars.Com, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael A. Molano | Attorney | Counsel for Calendars.Com, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Mayer Brown LLP | Law Firm | Representing Calendars.Com, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Patton Tidwell & Culbertson LLP | Law Firm | Representing Calendars.Com, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Patton Tidwell & Culbertson LLP (Texarkana) | Law Firm | Representing Calendars.Com, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The verdict text reflects a member-case disposition within a broader multi-defendant proceeding — a structural detail with significant strategic weight. Judge Gilstrap’s express instruction to keep the lead case open confirms this is not a full resolution of the Nearby Systems campaign. The with-prejudice language was affirmatively requested by both parties under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), meaning it was a negotiated term, not a default. The absence of any fee award or finding of exceptional conduct leaves the patents’ validity and enforceability formally uncontested in this record.
US11937145B2 — location-aware mobile application technology
The four asserted patents — US11937145B2, US12185177B2, US10469980B2, and US9532164B2 — collectively address location-aware mobile application technology, covering systems and methods by which a mobile device identifies its geographic context and delivers relevant services or notifications to the user. The portfolio spans application filings from at least US13/987520 through US18/436421, suggesting a family built through continuation or continuation-in-part filings designed to capture evolving implementations of the same core invention. The accused product, the Famous Footwear Shop Shoes App, is a consumer mobile application with location-dependent features.
For the retail mobile app sector, this portfolio represents a meaningful enforcement risk. Location-based features — including store finders, proximity push notifications, in-store mode activations, and geo-targeted promotions — are standard components of modern omnichannel retail apps. A patent family spanning from an early priority application through recent grant dates (US12185177B2 is particularly recent) can capture both legacy implementations and newly-deployed architectures. Companies operating retail mobile apps with any location service layer should treat this portfolio as a watch-list priority, particularly given the multi-defendant nature of the underlying proceeding.
Should your retail mobile app team run an FTO against US11937145B2?
Any product team building or maintaining a consumer mobile application with location-based features — store finders, geo-fencing, proximity alerts, or location-triggered content — should assess exposure to the Nearby Systems portfolio. The four patents in suit cover a range of priority dates and claim scopes, meaning a single FTO pass against the most recent grant (US12185177B2) alone is insufficient. R&D leaders at footwear, apparel, and general retail brands with apps on iOS or Android should prioritise this portfolio given the active multi-defendant campaign in E.D. Texas.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map each of the four asserted patent numbers against your product’s feature set, surfacing claim limitations most likely to read on location service implementations. Eureka’s prior art canvas can also identify invalidating references across the priority date chain — critical when a continuation family is involved, because the earliest effective filing date may not be the date on the cover of the most recently granted patent. Start with a portfolio-level landscape to identify which claims present the highest risk for your specific app architecture.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11937145B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar location technology patent cases in E.D. Texas
Explore other location-aware mobile application patent suits filed in the Eastern District of Texas, including multi-defendant NPE campaigns targeting retail and consumer app platforms.
What this case signals for the mobile location IP landscape
A four-patent assertion resolved in 136 days with prejudice in E.D. Texas suggests a portfolio with enough credibility to force early negotiation.
Swift with-prejudice exits in E.D. Texas typically signal private deal-making
When an Eastern District of Texas patent case closes in under five months with a bilateral, with-prejudice stipulation, the public record almost never tells the full story. Defendants securing this outcome on four patents — without a filed covenant not to sue or license disclosure — have likely paid for peace. Legal teams defending similar location patent suits should benchmark early settlement demand ranges against this timeline.
The lead case stays open: Calendars.com’s resolution is one data point, not the end
Judge Gilstrap explicitly directed the clerk to maintain the lead case as open, confirming other defendants remain active. This is a multi-defendant NPE campaign. Each defendant that settles or is dismissed can shift leverage — reducing the plaintiff’s credible threat slightly, or hardening its position with settlement funds. Remaining defendants and their counsel should monitor each member case disposition closely.
Nearby v Calendars.Com — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on May 29, 2025, via a joint stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Nearby Systems had asserted four location technology patents against Calendars.com in connection with the Famous Footwear Shop Shoes App. The court ordered each party to bear its own costs. The lead case was kept open, indicating other defendants remain active in the broader proceeding.
Nearby Systems asserted four patents: US11937145B2 (application US16/570298), US12185177B2 (application US18/436421), US10469980B2 (application US15/346599), and US9532164B2 (application US13/987520). These patents collectively cover location-aware mobile application technology. The span of application numbers suggests a continuation family built around a core location services invention.
A dismissal with prejudice is a final, binding termination of all claims between the parties. Nearby Systems is permanently barred from filing suit against Calendars.com on the same four patents based on the same facts. It differs from a dismissal without prejudice, which would allow the plaintiff to re-file. In patent litigation, with-prejudice dismissals by stipulation typically suggest a private resolution — such as a license or settlement — occurred off the public record.
The public record does not describe Nearby Systems LLC’s business model in detail. However, the case structure — a single plaintiff asserting a four-patent location technology portfolio against a named defendant in a multi-defendant E.D. Texas proceeding — is consistent with non-practicing entity (NPE) enforcement patterns. No product or service offered by Nearby Systems is referenced in the court record, though this alone does not constitute a definitive characterisation.
Judge Gilstrap directed the clerk to maintain the lead case as open because the dismissal of Calendars.com as a member-case defendant does not resolve the entire proceeding. In multi-defendant patent litigation in E.D. Texas, a lead case often consolidates pre-trial proceedings for multiple defendants. Individual member cases are dismissed as defendants settle or are otherwise resolved, while the lead case remains open until all parties have been resolved. Other defendants in the Nearby Systems campaign likely remain active.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.