NewFlux v. Zagg: iPad Keyboard Case Patents Dismissed With Prejudice
NewFlux, LLC filed suit against Zagg, Inc. in Utah District Court asserting two patents covering iPad keyboard case technology against ten Zagg Pro Keys product lines. The parties jointly stipulated to dismiss all claims with prejudice after 169 days, with each side bearing its own attorneys’ fees and costs.
NewFlux and Zagg reach stipulated end to iPad keyboard patent clash
NewFlux, LLC filed Case No. 1:25-cv-00033 in the Utah District Court on 17 March 2025, asserting infringement of US9131756B2 and US9511903B2 against Zagg, Inc. The asserted patents relate to iPad keyboard case and protective cover technology. The accused products comprised ten Zagg Pro Keys models across multiple iPad generations, including standard iPad, iPad Air, and iPad Pro form factors.
The action concluded on 2 September 2025 when both parties filed a stipulated dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), extinguishing all asserted claims with prejudice. A with-prejudice dismissal bars NewFlux from re-filing the same claims against Zagg on these patents, providing Zagg with a final resolution. The parties agreed each side would bear its own legal costs, suggesting a negotiated compromise rather than a clear-cut winner.
Resolution at 169 days — before any substantive claim construction or dispositive motions would typically be heard — is notably swift for a two-patent infringement action. This timeline is consistent with an out-of-court settlement reached early in the litigation, though the public record does not confirm the existence or terms of any licensing arrangement. The with-prejudice designation ensures finality for Zagg on the specific claims asserted here.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 169 days
169 days — resolved well under the median district court patent case duration of ~2.5 years
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated exit means for both sides
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) — stipulated dismissal with prejudice
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), both parties jointly signed and filed a dismissal, requiring no court order. The ‘with prejudice’ designation is a critical qualifier: it operates as a final adjudication on the merits for purposes of claim preclusion, meaning NewFlux cannot re-assert these specific patent claims against Zagg in any future action.
Claim preclusion appliesNewFlux forfeits right to re-litigate these claims against Zagg
A with-prejudice dismissal extinguishes NewFlux’s infringement claims on US9131756B2 and US9511903B2 as against Zagg permanently. NewFlux retains ownership of both patents and may pursue claims against other defendants, but the public record is silent on whether any consideration — such as a licensing payment — was exchanged before the stipulation was filed.
Patents remain in forceZagg secures permanent resolution on all ten accused product lines
Zagg, Inc. exits the litigation with a with-prejudice dismissal covering all ten Zagg Pro Keys models named in the complaint. Zagg cannot be sued again by NewFlux on these patents for the same accused products. The mutual cost-bearing provision suggests neither side extracted a significant financial concession on legal fees, consistent with a negotiated resolution.
No re-filing by NewFluxSwift exit limits market disruption for Zagg’s keyboard accessories line
With resolution before any injunctive relief or damages ruling, Zagg’s Pro Keys product range faces no court-imposed constraints. The short 169-day lifecycle suggests neither party viewed extended litigation as commercially optimal. Competitors and licensees in the iPad keyboard accessory space should note that US9131756B2 and US9511903B2 remain active patents — NewFlux retains enforcement rights against other parties.
Patents active vs. other partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | NewFlux | Individual | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9131756B2 and US9511903B2 covering iPad keyboard casesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Zagg, Inc. | Company | Zagg, Inc. — consumer electronics accessories maker, iPad keyboard and protection productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Charles L. Roberts | Attorney | Counsel for NewFluxSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kirk J. Anderson | Attorney | Counsel for NewFluxSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | BUDO LAW PC | Law Firm | Representing NewFluxSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Wasatch IP | Law Firm | Representing NewFluxSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Carlton J. Hemphill | Attorney | Counsel for Zagg, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Louis Constantinou | Attorney | Counsel for Zagg, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Manish K. Mehta | Attorney | Counsel for Zagg, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Mark M. Bettilyon | Attorney | Counsel for Zagg, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | BENESCH FRIEDLANDER COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP | Law Firm | Representing Zagg, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Thorpe, North & Western LLP | Law Firm | Representing Zagg, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Robert J. Shelby | Judge | Utah District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation invokes FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), requiring both parties’ signatures and carrying automatic with-prejudice effect as agreed by the parties. The clause ‘each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs’ expressly displaces any fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285. This phrasing is characteristic of a negotiated exit: it forecloses NewFlux’s re-assertion against Zagg while leaving the underlying patents alive for enforcement against others.
US9131756B2 & US9511903B2 — iPad keyboard case and protective cover technology
US9131756B2 (application no. US14/098387) and US9511903B2 (application no. US14/819176) relate to tablet keyboard case technology — specifically protective cases that integrate a keyboard with a tablet cover. Both patents issued from applications filed in the mid-2010s, a period of intense design activity in the mobile accessories market as iPad form factors proliferated. The patents are held by NewFlux, LLC and were asserted against Zagg’s Pro Keys product family.
These patents sit in a commercially crowded space: iPad keyboard cases are a high-volume consumer electronics accessory category, and Zagg is among the segment’s best-known brands. Patents in this domain typically cover mechanical attachment interfaces, keyboard-cover integration mechanisms, and hinge or fold geometries. Any manufacturer or retailer active in keyboard-integrated tablet cases — particularly for iPad — should map their product designs against both patents, as NewFlux’s enforcement history suggests an active licensing posture.
Should you run an FTO against US9131756B2 and US9511903B2?
R&D teams and product managers developing iPad keyboard cases, tablet protective covers with integrated input, or accessory folio keyboard products should treat both patents as live enforcement risks. NewFlux has demonstrated willingness to assert these patents in federal court against a major market participant. The with-prejudice dismissal does not signal patent weakness — it resolves one dispute while leaving the patents fully intact against all other parties.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s mechanical and functional features against the claim scope of US9131756B2 and US9511903B2, flag relevant prior art that may inform invalidity arguments, and surface any continuation or related applications in NewFlux’s portfolio. Early FTO analysis is significantly less costly than defending an infringement action of this type in Utah District Court.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9131756B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar tablet accessories patent cases in Utah and federal courts
Cases involving keyboard case and tablet accessory patents in Utah District Court and related venues — relevant precedent for FTO and enforcement strategy.
What this case signals for the iPad accessories IP landscape
A swift with-prejudice exit before claim construction raises questions about licensing economics and patent validity risk in the tablet accessories space.
Early dismissal before Markman suggests a negotiated resolution
Cases dismissed with prejudice before any substantive court rulings frequently reflect a private settlement or licensing agreement. The 169-day timeline — too short for claim construction hearings — is consistent with early commercial resolution. Competitors monitoring NewFlux’s enforcement posture should treat this as an active licensing programme, not an abandoned assertion.
Both patents remain enforceable against third parties
The with-prejudice dismissal binds only the two named parties. US9131756B2 and US9511903B2 are unaffected in scope and enforceability. Any company manufacturing or selling iPad keyboard case products should treat these patents as active enforcement risks and conduct a freedom-to-operate assessment before commercialisation.
NewFlux v Zagg — key questions answered
NewFlux, LLC sued Zagg, Inc. in Utah District Court asserting infringement of US9131756B2 and US9511903B2 against ten Zagg Pro Keys iPad keyboard case models. The case was dismissed with prejudice by stipulation under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) after 169 days, with each party bearing its own costs. No damages or injunctive relief were ordered by the court.
Both patents, held by NewFlux, LLC, relate to iPad keyboard case and protective cover technology — specifically the integration of keyboard input functionality with a protective tablet cover. They were asserted against Zagg’s Pro Keys product range covering multiple iPad generations including standard iPad, iPad Air, and iPad Pro models.
No. A dismissal with prejudice bars NewFlux from re-suing Zagg on these specific claims, but it carries no ruling on patent validity or enforceability. Both US9131756B2 and US9511903B2 remain in force and may be asserted against other defendants. The dismissal reflects a litigation resolution between the named parties only.
The 169-day resolution — before claim construction or substantive motions — is consistent with an early negotiated exit, potentially including a licensing arrangement. The public record does not confirm settlement terms. Swift resolution at this stage typically suggests either commercial agreement or a strategic decision by one or both parties that continued litigation was not cost-effective.
Ten Zagg Pro Keys models were named in the complaint: Pro Keys for 10.2" iPad (Gen 7, 8, 9), 10.9" iPad (Gen 10), 11" iPad Pro (Gen 1–4), 12.9" iPad Pro (Gen 3–6), iPad Air 10.9" (Gen 4–5), iPad Air 11" (M2), iPad Air 13" (M2), Pro Keys with Trackpad for 10.2" iPad, 12.9" iPad Pro, and iPad Air 13" (M2).
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.