Ortiz & Associates v. Costco Wholesale: Wireless Brokering Patent Dismissed With Prejudice
Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC asserted US9549285B2 — covering systems for brokering data between wireless devices, servers and rendering endpoints — against Costco Wholesale Corp. in the Western District of Texas. After 251 days of litigation, the parties filed a joint stipulation dismissing all plaintiff claims with prejudice, extinguishing any future assertion of this patent against Costco.
Wireless brokering patent claim ends at joint stipulation before trial
On January 28, 2025, Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Costco Wholesale Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Case No. 7:25-cv-00032). The asserted patent, US9549285B2, covers systems, methods and apparatuses for brokering data between wireless devices, servers and data rendering devices — a broad connectivity and data-routing technology framework with potential relevance across retail and enterprise IoT applications.
On September 30, 2025, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The court’s October 6, 2025 order confirmed that all claims asserted against Costco were dismissed with prejudice as to the asserted patent, while Costco’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice. Each party bears its own attorney fees and costs. The with-prejudice dismissal of plaintiff’s claims bars Ortiz & Associates from ever reasserting US9549285B2 against Costco.
The case resolved in approximately 251 days — before claim construction or trial — which is consistent with either a negotiated licence, a business decision to withdraw, or a recognition of litigation risk on either side. The public record does not disclose financial terms or whether any licence was granted, leaving the precise commercial outcome unknown. Notably, Costco’s counterclaims survived without prejudice, preserving the retailer’s ability to revisit validity or other defences in future proceedings.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 251 days
251 days — resolved well before a typical W.D. Texas patent trial
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal — no judicial gatekeeping required
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal is self-executing: once all appearing parties sign the stipulation, it takes effect automatically on filing — no court approval needed. The court’s order here is confirmatory rather than adjudicatory. The with-prejudice designation on plaintiff’s claims carries the same preclusive force as a final judgment on the merits, permanently extinguishing those claims against this defendant.
Claim-preclusive dismissalOrtiz loses the right to re-assert US9549285B2 against Costco
Dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes. Ortiz & Associates cannot refile infringement claims under US9549285B2 against Costco for conduct alleged in this action. Whether a licence fee or settlement payment accompanied the stipulation is not disclosed in the public record. Ortiz remains free to assert the patent against other parties not bound by this dismissal.
Permanently barred vs. CostcoCostco’s counterclaims survive — invalidity challenge preserved
Costco’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, meaning the retailer retains the option to revive those claims — including any invalidity challenge to US9549285B2 — if circumstances warrant. This asymmetric outcome is unusual and suggests Costco may have negotiated protective terms. Each party bearing its own costs indicates no prevailing-party fee award, which is the norm for negotiated exits rather than litigation victories.
Counterclaims preserved w/o prejudiceWireless brokering patent risk remains live for other retailers
US9549285B2 exits this case intact and unadjudicated on validity — meaning Ortiz & Associates retains a fully enforceable patent it can assert against other targets in the retail and IoT connectivity space. Competitors in wireless device management, retail kiosk networks or enterprise data-routing who have not secured a licence or clearance should treat this case as a signal that the patent is actively monetised. The patent’s broad claim scope warrants a proactive FTO review.
Patent remains enforceable vs. third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC | Company | Patent licensing entity — holder of US9549285B2 (wireless data brokering systems)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Costco Wholesale, Corp. | Company | Costco Wholesale Corp. — multinational membership warehouse retail chainSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William P. Ramey , III | Attorney | Counsel for Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ramey LLP | Law Firm | Representing Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | M. Craig Tyler | Attorney | Counsel for Costco Wholesale, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ramsey M. Al-Salam | Attorney | Counsel for Costco Wholesale, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Perkins Coie LLP | Law Firm | Representing Costco Wholesale, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation’s asymmetric structure is analytically significant: plaintiff’s claims are extinguished with prejudice while defendant’s counterclaims survive without prejudice. This bifurcated outcome, achieved under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)’s self-executing mechanism, suggests the parties negotiated distinct protections — Ortiz obtains finality against re-litigation risk from Costco, while Costco preserves optionality on invalidity. The court’s order adds no merits findings; validity and claim scope of US9549285B2 remain entirely unresolved by this proceeding.
US9549285B2 — Wireless Data Brokering Systems and Methods
US9549285B2 (application No. US14/919108) protects systems, methods and apparatuses for brokering data between wireless devices, servers and data rendering endpoints. The technology addresses the coordination layer that sits between wireless client devices and backend servers — a fundamental architecture in modern retail, logistics and enterprise IoT deployments. The patent covers both the brokering logic and the apparatus implementations, giving it a potentially broad claim footprint across hardware and software implementations.
From a competitive intelligence standpoint, US9549285B2 sits in a technology space that underpins wireless point-of-sale systems, inventory scanning networks, digital signage and mobile device management in retail environments. Any organisation deploying proprietary or third-party middleware that routes data between wireless handhelds or scanners and display or processing servers should model their architecture against the patent’s independent claims. The patent’s survival of this case without a validity challenge reinforces its near-term enforcement value for Ortiz & Associates.
Should your product team run an FTO against US9549285B2?
If your organisation develops or deploys systems that broker, route or relay data between wireless client devices — including mobile handhelds, IoT sensors or wireless scanners — and backend servers or data rendering endpoints, US9549285B2 warrants a formal freedom-to-operate review. This case confirms the patent is actively asserted and, as of its resolution, remains valid and enforceable with no claim construction record narrowing its scope. Retailers, logistics platforms and enterprise wireless vendors are the most directly exposed product categories.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claims of US9549285B2 against your product’s technical architecture, identify relevant prior art that could support a design-around or IPR petition, and surface the full prosecution history to pinpoint claim scope limitations. Eureka also tracks the patent family and any continuation or divisional applications that could extend assertion risk beyond this specific grant.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9549285B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar wireless brokering patent cases in W.D. Texas and related courts
Explore patent infringement actions asserting wireless data brokering and IoT connectivity patents in the Western District of Texas and comparable venues.
What this case signals for the wireless brokering and retail IoT IP landscape
A with-prejudice exit before claim construction keeps the patent alive — and the monetisation campaign likely continues.
With-prejudice dismissal signals a likely negotiated resolution, not capitulation
When both parties jointly stipulate to dismiss with prejudice and each bears its own costs, it typically signals a private commercial resolution — a licence, covenant, or agreed exit — rather than one side conceding defeat. The absence of fee-shifting reinforces this read. IP teams at similarly situated retailers should consider whether a comparable arrangement is available before litigation is filed against them.
US9549285B2 remains enforceable — other wireless-device-dependent retailers are exposed
This case did not result in a validity finding or claim construction order. The patent emerges with full presumption of validity. Any company operating wireless point-of-sale systems, retail kiosk networks, or IoT data-routing infrastructure that brokers data between wireless devices and rendering endpoints should assess their exposure to this patent before becoming the next named defendant.
Ortiz v Costco — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice as to all plaintiff claims on October 6, 2025, pursuant to a joint stipulation filed September 30, 2025 under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Costco’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice. Each party bears its own attorney fees and costs. The case ran for 251 days in the Western District of Texas.
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes. Ortiz & Associates is permanently barred from reasserting US9549285B2 against Costco Wholesale for the conduct alleged in this action. The patent remains enforceable against other defendants not party to this stipulation.
The asymmetric dismissal — plaintiff’s claims with prejudice, defendant’s counterclaims without prejudice — is consistent with a negotiated settlement structure where Costco secured the right to revive invalidity or other defences if needed. The public record does not disclose the precise commercial terms that produced this outcome.
Yes. The dismissal was procedural — no claim construction order, no validity ruling, and no adjudication on the merits of infringement was issued. US9549285B2 retains its full presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282 and remains enforceable against third parties. Companies operating wireless data brokering systems should assess their exposure.
US9549285B2 covers systems, methods and apparatuses for brokering data between wireless devices, servers and data rendering devices. Industries at risk include retail (wireless POS, inventory systems), logistics (wireless scanning and tracking), enterprise IoT (sensor-to-server middleware), and any sector deploying middleware that routes data between wireless client devices and backend or display infrastructure.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.