Nearby Systems v. Truist Financial: Location-Patent Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
Nearby Systems LLC brought a three-patent infringement action against Truist Financial Corporation in the Eastern District of Texas, alleging its mobile banking app and online store-locator features infringed location-based proximity technology patents. The case resolved in 260 days via a Rule 41 stipulated dismissal with prejudice as to all plaintiff claims, with each side bearing its own costs.
Truist Mobile App Targeted Over Location-Based Proximity Patents
Nearby Systems LLC, a patent-holding entity asserting a portfolio of location-based mobile technology patents, filed suit against Truist Financial Corporation on November 20, 2024, in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00952). The complaint alleged that Truist’s mobile banking application and associated online store-locator web properties infringed three US patents — US11937145B2, US10469980B2, and US9532164B2 — each covering proximity-detection and location-aware systems used to direct consumers to nearby service locations and facilitate account management functions.
The case closed on August 7, 2025, via a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal. Under the agreed terms, all claims asserted by Nearby Systems against Truist were dismissed with prejudice — meaning Nearby Systems is permanently barred from re-filing the same infringement claims against Truist on these patents. Truist’s counterclaims were separately dismissed without prejudice, preserving Truist’s theoretical ability to pursue those claims independently. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, attorneys’ fees, and expenses, with no fee-shifting award.
At 260 days, the resolution is relatively swift for a multi-patent infringement case in E.D. Texas, suggesting the parties likely reached a confidential settlement or licensing arrangement before the case matured to claim construction or trial. The with-prejudice dismissal of plaintiff’s claims is commercially significant: it forecloses future enforcement of these specific patents against Truist. The without-prejudice treatment of Truist’s counterclaims — which would typically include invalidity or non-infringement defenses — leaves open questions about the negotiated terms that the public record does not answer.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 260 days
260 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): stipulated dismissal by both parties
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal is a joint stipulation signed by all parties — it does not require court approval but becomes effective upon filing. Here, the Court accepted and acknowledged the stipulation. The with-prejudice designation on plaintiff’s claims carries the force of a final judgment: Nearby Systems cannot re-litigate these infringement claims against Truist on the same patents. This is the standard mechanism used when parties reach a private resolution.
Voluntary, bilateral dismissalSplit prejudice treatment creates an asymmetric outcome
The stipulation applies different standards to each side’s claims. Nearby Systems’ infringement claims are dismissed with prejudice — a permanent bar to re-filing against Truist on these patents. Truist’s counterclaims (typically invalidity, non-infringement, or unenforceability) are dismissed without prejudice, meaning Truist retains the option to raise those defenses or claims in a future proceeding. This asymmetry is consistent with a negotiated resolution in which the patent holder accepts finality in exchange for agreed commercial terms.
Permanent bar on plaintiff re-filingNearby Systems ends enforcement against Truist — permanently
By agreeing to dismissal with prejudice, Nearby Systems forfeits any future infringement action against Truist Financial under US11937145B2, US10469980B2, and US9532164B2. If a licensing fee or settlement payment was negotiated, it is not disclosed in the public record. The patents themselves remain valid and enforceable against other defendants — this dismissal is defendant-specific. Nearby Systems’ broader enforcement strategy for these location-tech patents remains active.
Patents survive; Truist-specific barTruist exits litigation with counterclaims intact and no fee award
Truist Financial secured a with-prejudice exit from this suit, eliminating re-litigation risk from Nearby Systems on these patents. Its own counterclaims — preserved without prejudice — give Truist optionality, though the commercial rationale for exercising them absent an ongoing dispute is limited. The no-fee-shifting outcome is standard in stipulated dismissals and does not signal fault or weakness in either party’s position. The Truist Mobile App and online store-locator continue to operate.
Clean exit; counterclaims preservedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Nearby Systems, LLC | Company | Patent-holding entity — holder of US11937145B2, US10469980B2, and US9532164B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Truist Financial Corporation | Company | Truist Financial Corporation — major US retail bank operating the Truist Mobile App and online banking portalSearch 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 | Allison Haas | Attorney | Counsel for Truist Financial CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lisa Chiarini | Attorney | Counsel for Truist Financial CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Peter John Chassman | Attorney | Counsel for Truist Financial CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Saheli Chakrabarty | Attorney | Counsel for Truist Financial CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Reed Smith LLP | Law Firm | Representing Truist Financial CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Court’s order closely tracks the parties’ stipulation, accepting the agreed dismissal without independent merits analysis. The operative phrase — plaintiff’s claims ‘DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE’ — carries res judicata effect specific to Nearby Systems and Truist: the same infringement claims cannot be re-litigated between these parties. The counterclaims’ without-prejudice treatment is notable; it suggests Truist did not extract patent invalidity concessions as part of the resolution, leaving the patents’ validity undisturbed. The denial of all other pending relief ‘as moot’ confirms no substantive rulings were issued on infringement or claim construction.
US11937145B2, US10469980B2 & US9532164B2 — location-based mobile proximity systems
The three asserted patents — US11937145B2 (App. No. 16/570,298), US10469980B2 (App. No. 15/346,599), and US9532164B2 (App. No. 13/987,520) — form a continuation-linked portfolio covering location-aware systems that detect a user’s geographic position, identify nearby service locations, and route consumers to the closest relevant point of service. The application dates span from the ‘164 priority filing (App. No. 13/987,520) through the ‘145 grant, suggesting a deliberate continuation strategy to extend claim coverage as mobile location technology matured commercially.
For financial services firms, the commercial relevance is direct: the accused products include the Truist Mobile App’s store-locator functionality and the truist.com web portal, both of which use geo-proximity logic to direct customers to branches and ATMs. Any mobile banking application that uses device location data to identify and surface nearby service locations may fall within the claims’ scope. The portfolio’s three-generation structure — each patent potentially carrying distinct independent claims — widens the surface area for infringement allegations and complicates design-around efforts.
Should your mobile app run an FTO against US11937145B2 and related patents?
Any financial institution, fintech operator, or retail brand deploying a mobile application with location-based store-finder, branch-locator, or geo-routing functionality should treat this patent family as a near-term FTO priority. The Nearby Systems portfolio has been asserted against a top-10 US bank’s consumer mobile app — indicating the patent holder is actively licensing at enterprise scale. The three-patent structure means design-around analysis must account for multiple claim sets, not a single document.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claims of US11937145B2, US10469980B2, and US9532164B2 against your product’s location-services architecture in minutes — surfacing prior art, claim overlap, and related pending applications in the same family. For IP counsel advising on mobile product roadmaps, Eureka’s portfolio monitoring alerts flag new continuation filings from the same assignee, giving your team advance notice before a demand letter arrives.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11937145B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar location-tech patent suits against financial services mobile apps
Explore related patent infringement cases involving location-based mobile technology and proximity-detection patents litigated in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the mobile banking and location-tech IP landscape
Three location-proximity patents targeting a major retail bank’s mobile app resolved in under nine months — a pattern worth tracking across fintech and banking IP.
Location-based mobile patents remain active enforcement tools in E.D. Texas
Nearby Systems’ ability to bring a three-patent infringement suit against one of the US’s largest banks — and resolve it on its own terms within 260 days — suggests the underlying location-proximity patent portfolio carries credible licensing leverage. Financial institutions operating mobile apps with store-locator or geo-routing features should assess exposure to this patent family.
With-prejudice dismissals without fee-shifting typically signal private resolution
When a patent plaintiff agrees to dismiss with prejudice and both sides bear their own costs, it typically signals a confidential settlement or licensing agreement was reached. The absence of fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285 confirms neither side pushed for an ‘exceptional case’ finding, consistent with a commercially negotiated exit rather than a contested merits ruling.
Nearby v Truist — key questions answered
Nearby Systems LLC sued Truist Financial Corporation for patent infringement in the Eastern District of Texas on November 20, 2024. The case asserted three location-proximity patents (US11937145B2, US10469980B2, US9532164B2) against Truist’s mobile app and online store-locator. It was dismissed with prejudice as to all plaintiff claims on August 7, 2025, via a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation, with each party bearing its own costs.
Dismissal with prejudice operates as a final judgment on the merits for purposes of res judicata. Nearby Systems is permanently barred from bringing the same infringement claims under US11937145B2, US10469980B2, and US9532164B2 against Truist Financial. The patents themselves remain valid and enforceable against other defendants — the bar is defendant-specific, not patent-invalidating.
Nearby Systems asserted three US patents: US11937145B2 (App. No. 16/570,298), US10469980B2 (App. No. 15/346,599), and US9532164B2 (App. No. 13/987,520). The patents cover location-based proximity detection systems used to identify nearby service locations and facilitate account management — directly targeting the Truist Mobile App’s store-locator and geo-routing features.
The asymmetric dismissal treatment reflects the negotiated terms of the parties’ stipulation. Nearby Systems accepted permanent finality on its infringement claims — consistent with having received agreed commercial consideration. Truist’s counterclaims (typically invalidity or non-infringement) were preserved without prejudice, giving Truist optionality but no standing obligation to pursue them absent a renewed dispute. This structure is standard in patent licensing resolutions.
The Court’s order refers to the matter as a ‘Member Case,’ suggesting it was coordinated with related actions in the Eastern District of Texas involving the same or related defendants. This structure is commonly used in multi-defendant patent assertion campaigns. The patents remain active against third parties, and financial institutions or app developers operating location-based mobile features should monitor Nearby Systems’ ongoing enforcement activity.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.