Perdiem Co. v. Geoforce: 9-Patent Asset Tracking Dispute Dismissed With Prejudice
Perdiem Co., LLC brought a nine-patent infringement action against Geoforce, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, targeting the Geoforce Track & Trace platform across vehicle, powered, and non-powered equipment product lines. After 994 days of litigation, the parties jointly stipulated to dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii).
Nine-Patent Telematics Clash Ends After Nearly Three Years
Perdiem Co., LLC filed suit against Geoforce, Inc. on September 13, 2023 in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:23-cv-00411), asserting infringement of nine United States patents covering GPS-based asset tracking, telematics communications, and mobile equipment monitoring technologies. The accused products spanned Geoforce's full Track & Trace platform, including configurations for vehicles, powered equipment, non-powered equipment, and integrations with the worldVIEW Mobile, Iridium Edge Solar Tools, and MFT Field Tools applications.
The case closed on June 3, 2026, following a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal filed by both parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The court accepted and acknowledged the stipulation, dismissing all claims and causes of action asserted between Perdiem and Geoforce with prejudice. The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Dismissed with Prejudice.' The specific terms underlying the parties' resolution are not disclosed in the available public record.
The litigation ran for 994 days — approaching three years — before the parties reached their joint resolution. The breadth of the patent portfolio asserted, spanning nine patents and covering multiple product configurations across Geoforce's entire Track & Trace ecosystem, suggests a substantive dispute that was ultimately resolved between the parties rather than adjudicated on the merits. What drove the timing and terms of the resolution, and whether any commercial arrangement accompanied it, is not disclosed in the public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 994 days
994 days — from filing to closure, spanning nearly three years of active litigation
US10602364B2 and 8 further patents — GPS asset tracking and telematics communications
Any company developing, selling, or integrating GPS asset-tracking or telematics solutions — particularly platforms targeting industrial equipment, fleet management, or mobile field operations — should treat this nine-patent portfolio as a live enforcement risk. Perdiem demonstrated willingness to assert the full portfolio simultaneously against a single defendant's product ecosystem, including third-party application integrations. R&D and product teams building or acquiring telematics capabilities should conduct FTO analysis before launch or significant commercial expansion.
Official order — verbatim text
The court's order records that all claims and causes of action between Perdiem and Geoforce are dismissed with prejudice following a joint Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation. The with-prejudice designation confirms this is a final disposition — neither party may re-open the claims in this action. The order contains no merits findings, claim construction rulings, or liability determinations; the underlying terms of the parties' resolution are not reflected in the public docket.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41 joint stipulation: a final, consensual end to the case
A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) is filed jointly by both parties and requires no court approval beyond acknowledgment. Once entered, it is a final adjudication on the merits as a matter of law — the same claims cannot be re-filed in any court. The court here accepted and acknowledged the stipulation, closing the docket permanently.
Permanent bar on re-filingPerdiem's nine-patent campaign concludes without a public merits ruling
Perdiem Co., LLC secured a dismissal with prejudice, meaning it agreed to surrender the right to re-assert these nine patents against Geoforce in future litigation. Whether Perdiem received any commercial consideration in connection with the resolution is not disclosed in the available public record. The patents themselves remain in force and could be asserted against other parties.
Patents remain enforceable vs. othersGeoforce exits litigation with permanent protection from Perdiem's claims
The dismissal with prejudice provides Geoforce with a permanent shield against the nine asserted patents being re-litigated by Perdiem. Geoforce's Track & Trace platform — across all accused product lines — faces no further risk from this specific action. The specific terms of any arrangement reached between the parties are not disclosed in the public record.
Full portfolio immunity from PerdiemBroad patent sweep over telematics platforms signals enforcement intent
Perdiem's assertion of nine patents across an entire product ecosystem — vehicles, powered and non-powered equipment, and multiple third-party application integrations — signals an aggressive, portfolio-level enforcement posture in the GPS asset-tracking space. Other telematics and fleet-management platform operators should assess their exposure to this patent family, as the underlying patents remain active and Perdiem retains the ability to enforce them against third parties.
Portfolio enforcement risk for telematics sectorFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Perdiem Co., LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Geoforce, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Chris Perque | Attorney | Counsel for Perdiem Co., LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Steven M Anzalone | Attorney | Counsel for Perdiem Co., LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | FisherBroyles LLP | Law Firm | Representing Perdiem Co., LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Elliott C. Riches | Attorney | Counsel for Geoforce, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jordan Christine Strauss | Attorney | Counsel for Geoforce, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Samuel Wallace Dunwoody , IV | Attorney | Counsel for Geoforce, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | William August Munck | Attorney | Counsel for Geoforce, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Alston & Bird LLP | Law Firm | Representing Geoforce, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Munck Wilson Mandala LLP | Law Firm | Representing Geoforce, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the GPS asset-tracking and telematics patent space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from the Perdiem v. Geoforce dispute — relevant to GPS telematics, connected asset management, and industrial IoT platform developers.
Perdiem's multi-generational GPS portfolio signals continued prosecution activity
With application dates spanning 2015 to 2023 across nine patents, Perdiem's portfolio reflects an active, ongoing prosecution strategy in GPS telematics and connected asset management. The late-filing dates suggest continuation or continuation-in-part applications that may cover architectures adopted by current market participants as design-arounds from earlier claims.
Active portfolio prosecutionFiling trends in industrial IoT and GPS fleet telematics are intensifying
GPS-based asset tracking for non-powered and powered industrial equipment has attracted sustained patent filing activity as the market shifts toward cloud-connected platforms. The layering of mobile application integrations — such as satellite-linked field tools — onto core tracking hardware represents a growing claim frontier worth monitoring for R&D teams building in this space.
Industrial IoT filing surgeGeoforce's patent position in GPS tracking and field asset management
As defendant across this nine-patent action, Geoforce's own IP posture in GPS telematics is strategically relevant for competitors. Understanding Geoforce's defensive patent holdings, if any, and their R&D filing activity in connected asset tracking and satellite-integrated tools provides intelligence on competitive moats and potential cross-licensing leverage in the industrial telematics sector.
Defensive IP auditAdjacent innovation space: satellite-linked and solar-powered asset monitoring
The accused products include Iridium Edge Solar Tools and other satellite-integrated tracking applications. This application layer — combining solar power management, satellite connectivity, and GPS location reporting for remote industrial assets — may represent innovation white space adjacent to Perdiem's claimed inventions, particularly for architectures that differ from traditional cellular-based telematics designs.
Satellite-solar telematics white spaceSimilar GPS tracking and telematics patent cases in E.D. Texas
Browse comparable multi-patent infringement actions involving GPS asset tracking, telematics, and industrial IoT platforms filed in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the GPS asset-tracking IP landscape
A nine-patent, 994-day campaign targeting a full telematics platform reveals the enforcement pressure building in industrial IoT and GPS fleet management.
Portfolio-scale telematics enforcement is accelerating in East Texas
Perdiem's simultaneous assertion of nine patents covering GPS tracking, telemetry communications, and mobile application integrations demonstrates that plaintiffs are pursuing ecosystem-wide claims rather than single-patent actions. Telematics vendors operating any Track & Trace or fleet-monitoring platform should audit their full product stack against this patent family.
Dismissal with prejudice closes the door for Geoforce — not for the broader market
The with-prejudice dismissal protects only Geoforce against Perdiem's nine patents. Competitors offering similar GPS asset-tracking platforms for industrial equipment — powered, non-powered, or vehicle-based — remain fully exposed to enforcement action. The patents are alive and asserted by an active licensor.
Perdiem v Geoforce — key questions answered
Perdiem asserted nine US patents: US10602364B2, US9871874B2, US10397789B2, US11716595B1, US11622237B2, US9680941B2, US10819809B2, US11064038B2, and US10021198B1. The patents cover GPS-based asset tracking, telematics communications, and mobile application integration technologies across Geoforce's Track & Trace product lines.
The case was dismissed with prejudice on June 3, 2026, following a joint stipulation filed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication — Perdiem is permanently barred from re-asserting these nine patents against Geoforce. The specific terms of any arrangement between the parties are not disclosed in the public record.
The accused products included: Geoforce Track & Trace For Vehicles, Geoforce Track & Trace Mobile Application, Track & Trace for Non-Powered Equipment, Track & Trace for Powered Equipment, and the Track & Trace platform integrated with the Geoforce-MFT Field Tools, Iridium Edge Solar Tools, and worldVIEW Mobile applications.
No. The with-prejudice dismissal protects Geoforce only. Perdiem's nine patents remain in force and Perdiem retains the ability to assert them against other GPS telematics and asset-tracking platform operators. Competitors in the fleet management and industrial IoT space should assess their own exposure to this portfolio.
The case was filed on September 13, 2023 and closed on June 3, 2026 — a duration of 994 days, approaching three years. It was filed in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:23-cv-00411), a jurisdiction frequently chosen for patent infringement actions.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.