Perdiem Co. v. NexTraq: Mobile Tracking Patent Case Dismissed in N.D. Georgia
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary: Perdiem Co. v. NexTraq
| Case Name | Perdiem Co., LLC v. NexTraq, LLC |
| Case Number | 1:23-cv-00193 (N.D. Ga.) |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia |
| Duration | Jan 2023 – Mar 2024 425 Days |
| Outcome | Defendant Win — Claims Dismissed |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | NexTraq Fleet Management & GPS Tracking Solutions |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
A patent assertion entity holding a portfolio of patents directed to mobile device location tracking, event-driven notification systems, and multi-tiered administrative management of carrier tracking services.
🛡️ Defendant
A Georgia-based fleet management and GPS tracking solutions provider serving commercial transportation and logistics customers.
The Patents at Issue
This litigation involved seven U.S. patents asserted by Perdiem Co. LLC, covering key aspects of mobile location and event tracking architectures for networked mobile systems. These patents span innovations in how location data is captured, filtered, and conveyed to authorized parties.
- • US10602364B2 — Location tracking system conveying event information based on administrator authorizations
- • US9871874B2 — Method for controlling conveyance of event information about mobile device carriers based on location sources
- • US10397789B2 — Method for controlling event notifications within sub-groups using multi-level administrative privileges
- • US9680941B2 — Method for conveying event information to devices identified by phone numbers
- • US10819809B2 — Method for tracking mobile objects based on event conditions at mobile locations
- • US11064038B2 — Multi-level database management for object tracking services protecting user privacy
- • US10021198B1 — Software-based mobile tracking service with video streaming triggered by events
Developing mobile tracking software?
Check if your system design might infringe these or related patents before deployment.
The Dismissal & Legal Analysis
Outcome
On March 13, 2024, Judge Mark H. Cohen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted NexTraq’s Motion to Dismiss in its entirety, closing the case just 425 days after it was filed. This swift resolution meant no damages were awarded, and no injunctive relief was issued, culminating in a complete victory for the defendant at the district court level.
Verdict Cause Analysis
While the specific legal grounds for dismissal are not detailed in the publicly available case record, such early dismissals in patent cases often hinge on challenges under **35 U.S.C. § 101 patent eligibility** (e.g., arguing the claims are directed to an unpatentable abstract idea under the *Alice/Mayo* framework) or a **failure to sufficiently plead direct or indirect infringement** according to the heightened specificity requirements post-*Iqbal/Twombly*. For method claims in software-implemented technologies like mobile tracking and event notification, § 101 challenges are a common and effective defense strategy. NexTraq’s formidable defense team, combining local and national IP litigation expertise, likely leveraged these procedural tools to achieve an efficient dismissal.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis: Mobile Tracking
This case highlights critical IP risks in mobile tracking and fleet management. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View all 7 asserted patents in this technology space
- See which companies are most active in mobile tracking patents
- Understand § 101 eligibility trends in N.D. Ga.
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own mobile tracking technology.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
Abstract Idea Risk
Software-based method claims face scrutiny
7 Patents in Dispute
Covering location, events, and privacy
Pleading Standards
Strict specificity required for infringement
✅ Key Takeaways
Pre-trial dismissal via Rule 12 remains a powerful and increasingly viable tool against software and method-claim patent assertions in mobile tracking technology.
Search related case law →Multi-firm defense coordination (regional + national IP boutique) demonstrates measurable strategic value in NPE litigation, especially for early dispositive motions.
Explore litigation strategies →Perdiem’s seven-patent portfolio remains active; monitor for reassertion or IPR activity at the USPTO.
Monitor patent activity →Frequently Asked Questions
Seven U.S. patents covering mobile location tracking and event notification systems, including US10602364B2, US9871874B2, US10397789B2, US9680941B2, US10819809B2, US11064038B2, and US10021198B1.
Judge Mark H. Cohen granted NexTraq’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 15]. The complete legal grounds are available on the PACER docket for Case No. 1:23-cv-00193, N.D. Ga.
It reinforces the viability of early dispositive motions as a primary defense strategy against multi-patent assertions in software-based tracking and location technology cases.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- PACER Docket for Case No. 1:23-cv-00193, N.D. Ga.
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office — Patent Search
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — 35 U.S.C. § 101
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Law Firms
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.