Nearby Systems v. Dollar General: 3-Patent Mobile App Dispute Ends in Prejudiced Dismissal
Nearby Systems LLC asserted three location-based mobile application patents against Dollar General Corporation in the Eastern District of Texas, targeting the Dollar General App. The parties reached a resolution and jointly stipulated dismissal with prejudice after 355 days — suggesting a confidential settlement, though terms remain undisclosed on the public record.
Location-tech patent play targets Dollar General’s retail mobile app
On April 3, 2024, Nearby Systems LLC filed suit against Dollar General Corporation in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00229), asserting infringement of three patents — US11937145B2, US10469980B2, and US9532164B2 — each directed to mobile device location and proximity-based application technologies. The accused product was specifically identified as the Dollar General App, a consumer-facing mobile application used by millions of shoppers.
The case closed on March 24, 2025, when the court accepted a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice filed by both parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). All claims and causes of action were dismissed with prejudice, meaning Nearby Systems cannot refile the same claims against Dollar General. Notably, each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees, with no fee-shifting award made to either side.
At 355 days, the case resolved well short of a typical E.D. Texas trial schedule, consistent with a confidential settlement reached before significant litigation costs escalated to trial. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement and with-prejudice dismissal are hallmarks of a negotiated resolution. The precise financial terms, any licensing arrangement, or covenant not to sue remain undisclosed from the public record, leaving the commercial outcome between the parties opaque.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 355 days
355 days — typical E.D. Texas patent case resolves in 12–24 months before trial
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal with prejudice: the door closes permanently
A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) is entered by joint stipulation of both parties and operates as a final adjudication on the merits. Nearby Systems LLC is permanently barred from reasserting the same claims against Dollar General Corporation based on the three patents in suit. The court accepted and acknowledged the stipulation without conducting a merits trial, consistent with a negotiated resolution.
Permanent bar on re-filingNearby Systems surrenders future claims — but likely extracted value
By agreeing to dismiss with prejudice, Nearby Systems LLC permanently relinquishes its right to sue Dollar General over these three patents. However, with-prejudice dismissals arising from joint stipulations at this stage strongly suggest a confidential settlement. Nearby Systems retains the patents and can continue asserting them against other parties not covered by any agreement reached here. The public record does not confirm or deny any licensing payment.
Suggests confidential settlementDollar General secures permanent resolution on three location-tech patents
Dollar General Corporation obtains full peace from Nearby Systems’ three asserted patents as they relate to the Dollar General App. Whether that peace was purchased through a license, lump-sum payment, or other commercial arrangement is not public. The mutual cost-bearing order means Dollar General did not recover its legal fees — common in settled patent disputes — but also faced no adverse fee award. The Dollar General App can continue operating without the cloud of this litigation.
Full resolution, terms undisclosedRetail mobile apps remain a live target for location-tech patent holders
This case reinforces that consumer-facing retail mobile applications with location and proximity features attract patent assertion activity. Nearby Systems holds a portfolio spanning at least three patents across multiple application numbers, suggesting it may pursue similar claims against other retail app operators. Retailers and their technology vendors operating location-aware mobile apps should assess FTO exposure against this portfolio, particularly given the E.D. Texas venue preference of this plaintiff.
Retail app FTO risk elevatedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Nearby Systems, LLC | Company | Location-based mobile technology IP licensor — holder of US11937145B2, US10469980B2, and US9532164B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Dollar General Corporation | Company | Dollar General Corporation — major U.S. discount retailer operating the accused Dollar General AppSearch 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 | Gwendolyn Tawresey | Attorney | Counsel for Dollar General CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Massimo Ciccarelli | Attorney | Counsel for Dollar General CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Neil J McNabnay | Attorney | Counsel for Dollar General CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Ciccarelli Law Firm | Law Firm | Representing Dollar General CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson PC (Dallas) | Law Firm | Representing Dollar General CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Troutman Pepper Locke LLP | Law Firm | Representing Dollar General CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order tracks the standard language of a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) joint stipulation: it accepts the parties’ representation that the case ‘has been resolved’ without making any merits finding. The with-prejudice designation is legally significant — it extinguishes Nearby Systems’ right to reassert these claims against Dollar General in any future proceeding. The mutual cost-bearing provision and absence of any injunctive or damages language are consistent with a privately negotiated resolution whose financial terms remain confidential.
US11937145B2, US10469980B2 & US9532164B2 — location-based mobile app technology portfolio
The three asserted patents — US11937145B2 (App. No. US16/570298), US10469980B2 (App. No. US15/346599), and US9532164B2 (App. No. US13/987520) — span a family of inventions directed to location-based and proximity-aware functionality in mobile device applications. The application numbers reflect filings across different prosecution generations, suggesting the portfolio was built through continuation or divisional practice to broaden claim coverage over time. The earliest application number (US13/987520) indicates foundational filing activity predating many current retail app deployments.
From a strategic standpoint, a three-patent portfolio covering mobile location and proximity features is commercially significant given how broadly retail applications now rely on geofencing, in-store navigation, proximity notifications, and location-targeted offers. The Dollar General App’s use of such features made it an identifiable assertion target. For retail technology vendors and in-house IP teams, this portfolio represents a live enforcement risk — US11937145B2 as the most recently issued patent likely carries the broadest or most updated claim language, making it the highest priority for FTO analysis.
Should your retail app team run an FTO against US11937145B2 and its family?
Any product team building or maintaining a consumer retail mobile application with location-based features — including geofencing, proximity notifications, in-store mode, or location-triggered offers — should assess freedom-to-operate against this three-patent family. The assertion against the Dollar General App demonstrates that Nearby Systems is actively enforcing these patents against major retail operators, and the portfolio’s layered filing history suggests broad claim coverage across multiple technical implementations.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map their mobile application feature set against the claim scope of US11937145B2, US10469980B2, and US9532164B2 simultaneously. Eureka can surface prior art, identify claim limitations, and flag design-around opportunities — giving your team a structured risk picture before receiving a demand letter. With Nearby Systems still holding all three active patents, proactive clearance is materially more cost-effective than reactive litigation defence in E.D. Texas.
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
Explore comparable patent infringement actions involving location-based and proximity mobile application technologies filed in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the retail mobile app IP landscape
Three location-tech patents, one retail app, one Eastern District of Texas filing — a pattern IP teams in retail tech should study closely.
E.D. Texas remains the venue of choice for mobile app patent assertions
Nearby Systems chose the Eastern District of Texas — consistently ranked among the most plaintiff-friendly patent venues in the U.S. Retailers and app developers facing demand letters tied to location-based mobile technology should factor venue risk into any litigation strategy and response timeline.
Three-patent assertion signals a portfolio licensing play, not a one-off claim
Asserting US11937145B2, US10469980B2, and US9532164B2 simultaneously across multiple application filing dates suggests Nearby Systems built or acquired a layered portfolio designed to maximise leverage. Companies operating location-aware retail apps should map their exposure against all three patents, not just the most recently issued one.
Nearby v Dollar — key questions answered
Nearby Systems LLC asserted three patents: US11937145B2, US10469980B2, and US9532164B2 — all directed to location-based and proximity-aware mobile device application technologies. The accused product was specifically identified as the Dollar General App.
The case was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a joint stipulation filed by both parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The stipulation represented that the case had been resolved. A with-prejudice dismissal by joint stipulation at this stage is typically consistent with a confidential settlement, though the specific terms are not disclosed in the public record.
No. A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits. Nearby Systems LLC is permanently barred from reasserting US11937145B2, US10469980B2, and US9532164B2 against Dollar General Corporation in relation to the conduct at issue. The patents remain active and can be enforced against other parties not covered by any agreement.
The court’s order provides that each party is to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. No fee-shifting award was made to either side. This mutual cost-bearing arrangement is common in patent cases that resolve through negotiated settlement and does not indicate a finding of exceptional case status under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
The case signals that Nearby Systems holds an actively enforced portfolio of location-based mobile app patents and is willing to litigate in the Eastern District of Texas. Retailers and app developers operating proximity-aware or geofencing-enabled applications face potential assertion risk. A freedom-to-operate analysis against all three asserted patents — particularly US11937145B2 as the most recently issued — is advisable for any company in this product category.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.