Perdiem Co. v. Nextraq: Six-Patent Fleet Tracking Dispute Ends Without Prejudice
Perdiem Co., LLC sued Nextraq, LLC in the Northern District of Georgia asserting six patents covering fleet tracking, electronic logging device (ELD) compliance, and mobile telematics against Nextraq’s ELD and fleet visibility product suite. After 428 days of litigation, Perdiem voluntarily dismissed Count I — infringement of the ‘595 patent — without prejudice, leaving the door open for future enforcement.
Six-Patent ELD and Fleet Telematics Dispute Ends on Plaintiff’s Motion
Perdiem Co., LLC filed this infringement action on August 21, 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia before Judge Mark H. Cohen, asserting six patents — US10602364B2, US10284662B1, US10382966B2, US10397789B2, US10277689B1, and US11716595B1 — against Nextraq, LLC. The asserted patents relate to fleet tracking systems, ELD compliance solutions, and mobile telematics technology. The accused products included Nextraq’s ELD Android and iOS applications, ELD Compliance Solution, fleet tracking platforms, and Fleet Visibility and Productivity products.
On October 22, 2024, Judge Cohen granted Perdiem’s unopposed motion to dismiss Count I — the infringement claim directed at the ‘595 patent — without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The dismissal was unopposed by Nextraq, and the court ordered that each party bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs. A without-prejudice dismissal means the claim is not adjudicated on the merits and Perdiem retains the right to re-file the ‘595 patent claim in a future action subject to applicable limitations periods.
The 428-day duration before a partial, non-merits dismissal suggests the parties engaged in meaningful pretrial activity — potentially including claim construction proceedings or discovery — before Perdiem elected to narrow its case. The public record does not disclose whether the remaining five patent counts were separately resolved, settled, or remain pending, leaving the full scope of the litigation’s resolution uncertain. The without-prejudice posture and cost-neutral order are consistent with a negotiated resolution or strategic re-positioning by Perdiem rather than a concession on the merits of the ‘595 patent.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 428 days
428 days — above the median for single-count patent dismissals in N.D. Georgia
Count I dismissed without prejudice: what the order means for both parties
Rule 41(b) dismissal without prejudice — no merits ruling
A Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) dismissal without prejudice terminates the specific count without any adjudication on the merits. The ‘595 patent infringement claim is extinguished for this proceeding only — Perdiem is not barred from re-asserting it in a new action. The unopposed nature of the motion suggests Nextraq did not contest the procedural exit, which may indicate a broader resolution was in progress or that the parties reached an accommodation outside the public record.
Non-merits exitPerdiem retains enforcement rights on the ‘595 patent
Because the dismissal is without prejudice, Perdiem Co. preserves the right to re-file infringement claims under the ‘595 patent against Nextraq or any other accused infringer, within applicable statutes of limitations. This outcome does not constitute a loss on the merits and does not trigger claim or issue preclusion. Perdiem’s broader portfolio of five additional asserted patents is unaffected by this order, and the public record does not confirm those counts were also dismissed.
Re-filing right preservedNextraq escapes ‘595 liability — for now
Nextraq obtains a termination of Count I with no finding of infringement and no damages award. The cost-neutral order means neither side recovers fees on this count. However, because the dismissal carries no preclusive effect on the ‘595 patent, Nextraq’s ELD and fleet tracking products remain potentially exposed to a refiled claim. Nextraq’s decision not to oppose the motion is consistent with a preference to resolve the matter without risking an adverse merits ruling or incurring further litigation costs.
No preclusion — exposure remainsFleet ELD market faces continued IP uncertainty
The without-prejudice dismissal leaves Perdiem’s six-patent portfolio in active play against the commercial fleet telematics and ELD compliance market. Competitors operating ELD Android/iOS platforms or fleet visibility solutions similar to Nextraq’s product suite should note that this outcome does not invalidate any of the six asserted patents or establish a non-infringement finding. The case signals that Perdiem is an active enforcer willing to litigate in N.D. Georgia, and the patent family covering mobile ELD and fleet tracking remains a live licensing risk for the sector.
Patent portfolio remains activeFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Perdiem Co., LLC | Company | Fleet telematics IP licensing entity — holder of US11716595B1 and five related patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Nextraq, LLC | Company | Nextraq, LLC — provider of commercial fleet tracking, ELD compliance, and telematics solutionsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Benjamin M. Cappel | Attorney | Counsel for Perdiem Co., LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Charles Adam Pannell , III | Attorney | Counsel for Perdiem Co., LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Meredith Martin Addy | Attorney | Counsel for Perdiem Co., LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Addyhart, PC | Law Firm | Representing Perdiem Co., LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John D. Murnane | Attorney | Counsel for Nextraq, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Justin J. Oliver | Attorney | Counsel for Nextraq, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Richard Kennon Hines V. | Attorney | Counsel for Nextraq, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP(ATL) | Law Firm | Representing Nextraq, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Venable, LLP (DC) | Law Firm | Representing Nextraq, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Venable, LLP (NY) | Law Firm | Representing Nextraq, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Mark H. Cohen | Judge | Georgia Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order grants Perdiem’s unopposed Rule 41(b) motion and dismisses Count I — infringement of the ‘595 patent — without prejudice. The explicit without-prejudice designation and cost-neutral fee allocation are legally significant: no merits determination was made, no infringement finding issued, and no damages were awarded or denied. Nextraq cannot invoke this order as a preclusive shield in future proceedings. The unopposed posture of the motion suggests Nextraq accepted the procedural exit rather than pressing for a with-prejudice dismissal or fees, which is consistent with parties who may have reached an out-of-court accommodation on part or all of the broader dispute.
US11716595B1 — Mobile ELD Compliance and Fleet Telematics Patent
The six patents asserted in this case — led by US11716595B1 and spanning application numbers filed from late 2018 through 2023 — cover interconnected aspects of fleet telematics, electronic logging device (ELD) compliance, and mobile-based vehicle tracking. US11716595B1, the most recently issued, relates to ELD compliance functionality on mobile platforms. The broader portfolio addresses real-time fleet location data, driver hours-of-service logging, and mobile application architectures for commercial vehicle management — a technology domain that became commercially critical following the FMCSA’s ELD mandate.
Perdiem’s patent family sits at the intersection of regulatory compliance technology and commercial fleet software, a segment now served by dozens of vendors across Android, iOS, and embedded hardware platforms. The relatively tight filing window of the application numbers — spanning late 2018 to 2023 — suggests a continuation strategy designed to track the ELD market’s product evolution. For competitors offering similar ELD apps, fleet visibility dashboards, or hours-of-service compliance tools, the breadth of the asserted claims across six patents means that designing around one patent may not provide freedom to operate across the full family.
Should your ELD or fleet tracking product be cleared against Perdiem’s portfolio?
Any company developing or commercializing electronic logging device applications, fleet tracking platforms, or mobile telematics solutions for commercial vehicles should assess exposure against Perdiem Co.’s six-patent portfolio. This is particularly relevant for products operating on Android or iOS that provide ELD compliance, hours-of-service logging, GPS fleet visibility, or driver productivity features — all of which map to the accused Nextraq product categories in this case. The without-prejudice dismissal confirms that Perdiem remains an active enforcer with an intact, multi-patent arsenal.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can rapidly map your product’s feature set against the claim landscapes of US11716595B1, US10602364B2, US10284662B1, US10382966B2, US10397789B2, and US10277689B1. Eureka identifies claim overlaps, flags continuation family members not yet asserted, and benchmarks your design-around options — giving R&D and IP teams the evidence base needed to make informed product launch or licensing decisions before the next enforcement action lands.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10602364B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Fleet Telematics and ELD Patent Cases in Federal District Courts
Cases involving ELD compliance, fleet tracking, and mobile telematics patents litigated in N.D. Georgia and comparable federal district courts.
What this case signals for the fleet telematics and ELD IP landscape
Perdiem’s six-patent campaign against Nextraq’s core ELD and fleet tracking products underscores rising IP enforcement risk in commercial telematics.
Without-prejudice exits leave the patent threat fully intact
A Rule 41 without-prejudice dismissal is not a win for defendants. Nextraq faces no preclusion on the ‘595 patent, meaning Perdiem can re-assert it at any time within limitations. Companies operating ELD or fleet tracking platforms should treat this case closure as a pause, not a resolution — monitoring Perdiem’s portfolio activity is prudent.
Five unresolved patents signal continued litigation risk for ELD vendors
Only Count I — the ‘595 patent — was formally dismissed. The status of the five remaining asserted patents (US10602364, US10284662, US10382966, US10397789, US10277689) is not publicly confirmed as resolved. Fleet telematics competitors with overlapping product functionality should conduct independent FTO analysis across the full Perdiem portfolio before launching or updating ELD-related features.
Perdiem v Nextraq — key questions answered
Perdiem Co., LLC filed a six-patent infringement action against Nextraq, LLC in the Northern District of Georgia on August 21, 2023. On October 22, 2024 — 428 days later — the court granted Perdiem’s unopposed motion to dismiss Count I (infringement of the ‘595 patent) without prejudice under FRCP 41(b), with each party bearing its own costs. The status of the remaining five patent counts is not confirmed in the public record.
Perdiem asserted six patents: US11716595B1, US10602364B2, US10284662B1, US10382966B2, US10397789B2, and US10277689B1. These patents cover fleet telematics, electronic logging device (ELD) compliance, and mobile-based vehicle tracking systems. The accused products included Nextraq’s ELD Android and iOS apps, ELD Compliance Solution, fleet tracking platform, and Fleet Visibility and Productivity products.
A without-prejudice dismissal means the ‘595 patent infringement claim was terminated without any merits ruling — no finding of infringement or non-infringement was made. Nextraq cannot use this order as a preclusive shield in future proceedings. Perdiem retains the right to re-assert the ‘595 patent against Nextraq or other defendants within applicable statutes of limitations, meaning Nextraq’s ELD products remain potentially exposed to future enforcement.
Perdiem Co. was represented by Addyhart, PC, with attorneys Benjamin M. Cappel, Charles Adam Pannell III, and Meredith Martin Addy. Nextraq was represented by Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP (Atlanta) and Venable LLP (Washington D.C. and New York offices), with attorneys John D. Murnane, Justin J. Oliver, and Richard Kennon Hines V.
The accused products included the NexTraq ELD Android and NexTraq ELD iOS applications, the NexTraq ELD Compliance Solution and Service, NexTraq ELD for Tablets and Smartphones, the NexTraq Fleet Tracking solution, and NexTraq’s Fleet Visibility and Productivity products. These represent Nextraq’s core commercial telematics and regulatory compliance product lines.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.