Onscreen Dynamics v. Asbury Automotive: Touchscreen Patent Case Dismissed With Prejudice
Onscreen Dynamics, LLC asserted two touchscreen interface patents against Asbury Automotive Group and affiliated dealership entities in the Eastern District of Texas. Judge Rodney Gilstrap accepted the plaintiff’s notice of dismissal with prejudice after just 116 days, with each party bearing its own legal costs.
Touchscreen patent claims against auto dealerships end in 116-day dismissal
On August 29, 2024, Onscreen Dynamics, LLC filed an infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00707) against Asbury Automotive Group, Inc., McDavid Frisco – HON, L.L.C., and Asbury Plano Lex, LLC. The complaint alleged that unlicensed vehicles containing electronic devices with touchscreens, sold or operated through the defendant dealership entities, infringed two patents: US9645663B2 and US9395917B2, both directed at touchscreen interface technology. The case was assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap, one of the most experienced patent jurists in the country.
The case closed on December 23, 2024, when Judge Gilstrap accepted and acknowledged Plaintiff’s Notice of Dismissal With Prejudice filed as Docket No. 53. The dismissal covered all claims against all three named defendants. Critically, it was filed with prejudice, meaning Onscreen Dynamics permanently relinquished the right to reassert these specific claims against these defendants. Each party was ordered to bear its own attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses — no fee-shifting was awarded to either side.
At 116 days from filing to closure, this case resolved well before any substantive motion practice or claim construction would typically be expected in E.D. Texas patent litigation. The speed of resolution, combined with a with-prejudice dismissal bearing no fee award for the defendants, is consistent with a negotiated resolution or a strategic decision by plaintiff to exit litigation before incurring further costs. The public record does not disclose whether any licensing agreement or settlement payment accompanied the dismissal, leaving the commercial terms — if any — unknown.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 116 days
116 days — faster than the E.D. Texas median for patent cases reaching judgment
Dismissed with prejudice: what the ruling means for both parties
With-prejudice dismissal bars re-litigation of these claims
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits under federal procedural rules. Onscreen Dynamics cannot refile the same patent infringement claims — based on US9645663B2 and US9395917B2 — against Asbury Automotive Group, Asbury Plano Lex, or McDavid Frisco in any court. The bar is permanent and defendant-specific for the claims dismissed.
Permanent claim barOnscreen Dynamics permanently closes the door on this defendant group
By filing the notice of dismissal with prejudice, Onscreen Dynamics voluntarily surrendered its litigation position against these three entities. The public record does not disclose whether a licensing fee or settlement payment was received. The no-fee-shifting outcome means plaintiff absorbed its own legal costs, suggesting either a commercial resolution occurred outside the court record or plaintiff determined further litigation was not cost-effective.
No public settlement termsDefendants achieve permanent dismissal without a fee award
Asbury Automotive and its co-defendants secured a with-prejudice dismissal — the most protective litigation outcome short of a court finding of non-infringement or invalidity. However, no attorneys’ fees were shifted to the plaintiff, meaning defendants absorbed their own defense costs. The lead case referenced in the order remains open, suggesting this may be one of several related actions by Onscreen Dynamics.
Each party bears own costsAutomotive dealerships remain exposed to touchscreen patent assertions
The patents-in-suit were not invalidated, and no claim construction occurred. US9645663B2 and US9395917B2 remain enforceable assets. Other automotive retailers or dealership groups selling vehicles with touchscreen interfaces may still face assertions from Onscreen Dynamics or successor licensees. The outcome here provides no precedential shield for third parties operating similar vehicle inventory.
Patents remain enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Onscreen Dynamics, LLC | Company | Patent licensing entity — holder of US9645663B2 and US9395917B2, touchscreen interface patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Asbury Automotive Group, Inc. | Company | Large U.S. automotive dealership group and affiliated Texas-based dealership subsidiariesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Asbury Plano Lex, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | McDavid Frisco | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Cortney Alexander | Attorney | Counsel for Onscreen Dynamics, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Kent & Risley LLC (Alpharett) | Law Firm | Representing Onscreen Dynamics, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Tonia Sayour | Attorney | Counsel for Asbury Automotive Group, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Wolf Greenfield & Sacks PC | Law Firm | Representing Asbury Automotive Group, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal order’s precise language — ‘DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE’ covering ‘all claims’ against all three named defendants — forecloses any future refiling by Onscreen Dynamics on these patents against this defendant group. The court’s instruction to deny all pending relief as moot, combined with the no-fee-shifting directive, is procedurally standard for a plaintiff-initiated dismissal. Notably, the order distinguishes between the member case (closed) and the lead case (maintained open), suggesting this defendant group was one component of a broader coordinated enforcement action.
US9645663B2 & US9395917B2 — Touchscreen Interface Technology for Vehicles
US9645663B2 (App. No. 15/211,678) and US9395917B2 (App. No. 14/224,049) both relate to touchscreen interface technology — covering electronic devices with touchscreen displays and the methods by which users interact with them. In the context of this litigation, the asserted products were vehicles containing such electronic devices, placing the patents squarely within the connected-vehicle and automotive HMI (human-machine interface) technology space. The patents’ application lineage suggests development during the formative period of touchscreen proliferation in consumer electronics and automotive systems.
The strategic significance of these patents lies in their breadth of potential application across vehicle categories. If claim scope extends to standard in-vehicle infotainment touchscreen systems, the addressable defendant population spans OEMs, Tier 1 suppliers, and downstream dealerships — a wide enforcement surface. The fact that Onscreen Dynamics pursued dealership-level defendants, rather than manufacturers, suggests either a deliberate licensing strategy targeting easier-to-reach defendants or a complement to concurrent OEM-level assertions. Neither patent was invalidated or narrowed in this proceeding.
Should you run an FTO against US9645663B2 and US9395917B2?
Any company selling, distributing, or operating vehicles equipped with touchscreen-enabled electronic systems should assess freedom-to-operate against US9645663B2 and US9395917B2. This is not limited to OEMs — this case demonstrates that downstream dealerships and fleet operators can face direct assertion. If your business sells or leases vehicles with touchscreen HMI systems, or if you develop in-vehicle software interfaces, these patents remain active enforcement assets.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of both patents against your specific product configuration, identify prior art that may limit enforceability, and surface any related continuation or family patents that Onscreen Dynamics or assignees may hold. Eureka also enables monitoring of the lead case docket and related filings, so your IP team receives early warning if enforcement activity broadens to your sector or geography.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9645663B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar touchscreen patent infringement cases in E.D. Texas
Explore related patent infringement cases involving touchscreen interface technology and automotive electronics filed in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the automotive touchscreen IP landscape
A rapid with-prejudice dismissal against a major dealership group raises pointed questions about licensing strategy and patent scope in vehicle touchscreen technology.
Dealerships are becoming patent enforcement targets for in-vehicle tech
This case illustrates a growing pattern: patent assertion entities targeting downstream automotive retailers rather than — or in addition to — OEM manufacturers. Dealerships selling vehicles with touchscreen-equipped electronics may face independent infringement exposure, particularly where OEM licenses do not extend to the point of sale.
With-prejudice dismissals without fee awards warrant scrutiny
When a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses with prejudice and no attorneys’ fees are shifted, it typically signals either a confidential licensing resolution or a cost-benefit decision to exit. IP teams monitoring Onscreen Dynamics’ broader enforcement campaign should track the lead case and any co-pending filings to assess whether a licensing program is actively in progress.
Onscreen v Asbury — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on December 23, 2024, after 116 days. Plaintiff Onscreen Dynamics, LLC filed a notice of dismissal covering all claims against Asbury Automotive Group, Asbury Plano Lex, and McDavid Frisco. Each party was ordered to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs. The dismissal is permanent — Onscreen Dynamics cannot refile these claims against these defendants.
Onscreen Dynamics asserted two patents: US9645663B2 (Application No. 15/211,678) and US9395917B2 (Application No. 14/224,049). Both patents relate to touchscreen interface technology for electronic devices. The accused products were described as unlicensed vehicles containing electronic devices with touchscreens sold or operated through the defendant automotive dealership entities.
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final judgment on the merits. Onscreen Dynamics is permanently barred from reasserting the same infringement claims based on US9645663B2 and US9395917B2 against Asbury Automotive Group, Asbury Plano Lex, and McDavid Frisco. However, the patents themselves remain valid and enforceable — Onscreen Dynamics may assert them against other parties not covered by this dismissal.
The dismissal order directed each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses. This is a standard outcome when a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses before substantive litigation — courts typically do not award fees unless a case has been adjudicated on the merits or declared exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285. The absence of fee-shifting here does not indicate a finding on the merits of either side’s position.
Judge Gilstrap’s order closed Case No. 2:24-cv-00707 as a ‘Member Case’ while directing the Clerk to maintain the ‘Lead Case’ as open. This structure is common in multi-defendant patent litigation in E.D. Texas, where related cases are consolidated under a single lead docket. It suggests Onscreen Dynamics may have additional defendants or parallel actions still pending, making the lead case docket worth monitoring for parties in the automotive or touchscreen technology sectors.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.