Infringement action filed 13 Sep 2023 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and closed 3 Jun 2026, with 9 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: dismissed with prejudice.
Geoforce Track & Trace For Vehicles · Geoforce Track & Trace Mobile Application · Geoforce Track & Trace for Non-Powered Equipment · Geoforce Track & Trace for Powered Equipment · Geoforce Track & Trace platform used with the Geoforce-MFT Field Tools application · Geoforce Track & Trace platform used with the Iridium Edge Solar Tools application · Geoforce Track & Trace platform used with the worldVIEW Mobile application
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Case 2:23-cv-00411, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.Open this record in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
An improved system and method for defining an event based upon an object location and a user-defined zone and managing the conveyance of object location event information among computing devices where object location events are defined in terms of a condition based upon a relationship between user-defined zone information and object location information. One or more location information sources are associated with an object to provide the object location information. One or more user-defined zones are defined on a map and one or more object location events are defined. The occurrence of an object location event produces object location event information that is conveyed to users based on user identification codes. Accessibility to object location information, zone information, and object location event information is based upon an object location information access code, a zone information access code, and an object location event information access code, respectively.
An improved system and method for defining an event based upon an object location and a user-defined zone and managing the conveyance of object location event information among computing devices where object location events are defined in terms of a condition based upon a relationship between user-defined zone information and object location information. One or more location information sources are associated with an object to provide the object location information. One or more user-defined zones are defined on a map and one or more object location events are defined. The occurrence of an object location event produces object location event information that is conveyed to users based on user identification codes. Accessibility to object location information, zone information, and object location event information is based upon an object location information access code, a zone information access code, and an object location event information access code, respectively.
The docket lists 9 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 7 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.
Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket.Compare both portfolios
Outcome
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim
"Before the Court is the Joint Stipulation of Dismissal Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) (the “Stipulation”) filed by Plaintiff PerDiemCo LLC (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Geoforce, Inc. (“Defendant”). (Dkt. No. 37.) In the Stipulation, the parties represent that the above-captioned case has been resolved and request dismissal of the above-captioned action WITH prejudice. (Id. at 1.) Having considered the Stipulation, the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES that all claims and causes of action asserted between Plaintiff and Defendant in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE."
Case 2:23-cv-00411 · E.D. Tex. · closed 3 June 2026
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
2:23-cv-00411 is a patent infringement action brought by Perdiem Co., LLC against Geoforce, Inc., filed on 13 Sep 2023 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed on 3 June 2026.
Which patents were asserted in 2:23-cv-00411?
US10602364B2 (“Method for conveyance of event information to individuals interested devices having phone numbers”), assigned to PERDIEMCO LLC, currently inactive; US9871874B2 (“Multi-level database management system and method for an object tracking service that protects user privacy”), assigned to PERDIEMCO, LLC, currently inactive; US10397789B2 (“Method for controlling conveyance of event information about carriers of mobile devices based on location information received from location information sources used by the mobile devices”), assigned to PERDIEMCO LLC; US11716595B1 (“Method for conveying event information based on roles assigned to users of a location tracking service”), assigned to PERDIEMCO LLC; US11622237B2 (“Method that logs locations of a mobile computing device in a log file”), assigned to PERDIEMCO LLC; US9680941B2 (“Location tracking system conveying event information based on administrator authorizations”), assigned to PERDIEMCO LLC; US10819809B2 (“Method for controlling conveyance of event notifications in sub-groups defined within groups based on multiple levels of administrative privileges”), assigned to PERDIEMCO, LLC; US11064038B2 (“Method for tracking mobile objects based on event conditions met at mobile object locations”), assigned to PERDIEMCO LLC; US10021198B1 (“Software-based mobile tracking service with video streaming when events occur”), assigned to PERDIEMCO, LLC. The record also lists Geoforce Track & Trace For Vehicles, Geoforce Track & Trace Mobile Application, Geoforce Track & Trace for Non-Powered Equipment, Geoforce Track & Trace for Powered Equipment, Geoforce Track & Trace platform used with the Geoforce-MFT Field Tools application, Geoforce Track & Trace platform used with the Iridium Edge Solar Tools application and Geoforce Track & Trace platform used with the worldVIEW Mobile application.
How was case 2:23-cv-00411 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is dismissed with prejudice. The termination text reads: "Before the Court is the Joint Stipulation of Dismissal Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) (the “Stipulation”) filed by Plaintiff PerDiemCo LLC (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Geoforce, Inc. (“Defendant”). (Dkt. No. 37.) In the Stipulation, the parties represent that the above-captioned case has been resolved and request dismissal of the above-captioned action WITH prejudice. (Id. at 1.) Having considered the Stipulation, the Court ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES that all claims and causes of action asserted between Plaintiff and Defendant in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE."
What does dismissal with prejudice mean?
A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.
How long did case 2:23-cv-00411 take?
994 calendar days, from filing on 13 Sep 2023 to closure on 3 June 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:23-cv-00411?
Chris Perque and Steven M Anzalone are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Perdiem. Elliott C. Riches, Jordan Christine Strauss, Samuel Wallace Dunwoody IV and William August Munck appear for defendant Geoforce.
Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 2:23-cv-00411 and do not constitute legal advice.Ask your own question
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:23-cv-00411 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.
