ProudLion IP v. Movado Group: Infringement Suit Dismissed With Prejudice After 507 Days
ProudLion IP, LLC filed suit against Movado Group, LP in the Southern District of Texas asserting US9967389B2, covering selectable alteration of portable computing device operation and appearance. The case closed via joint stipulation of dismissal after 507 days, with plaintiff’s claims dismissed with prejudice and defendant’s counterclaims dismissed without prejudice.
Patent assertion against smartwatch maker ends in permanent dismissal
ProudLion IP, LLC, a patent assertion entity, filed this infringement action against Movado Group, LP on June 5, 2023 in the Southern District of Texas before Judge Andrew S. Hanen. The suit centred on US9967389B2, which claims a system and method for selectable alteration of the operation and appearance of a portable computing device — technology relevant to smartwatch and connected-device functionality. Movado, known for its watch and connected-device portfolio, was the sole defendant.
On October 8, 2024, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Judge Hanen entered the dismissal order on October 24, 2024. ProudLion’s infringement claims were dismissed with prejudice, permanently extinguishing those specific claims and preventing refiling. Movado’s counterclaims — which may have included invalidity or unenforceability arguments — were dismissed without prejudice, preserving Movado’s right to reassert them in future proceedings.
The 507-day duration suggests the case progressed beyond initial pleadings before resolution, consistent with settlement or licensing activity occurring after early litigation investment. The asymmetric dismissal terms — plaintiff’s claims with prejudice, defendant’s counterclaims without — is a pattern that typically signals a negotiated resolution favouring the defendant’s position. The specific financial terms, if any consideration changed hands, remain undisclosed in the public record.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 507 days
507 days — above the median for patent cases that resolve before trial in this district
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): dismissal by joint stipulation
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), parties may dismiss an action by filing a signed stipulation after an answer or motion for summary judgment has been served. No court approval is required — the filing itself effects dismissal. This is the standard mechanism for negotiated exits from patent litigation and carries immediate legal force upon filing.
Consensual procedural exitWith prejudice vs. without prejudice — a critical distinction
ProudLion’s claims were dismissed with prejudice, meaning they are permanently barred and cannot be refiled. Movado’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, preserving Movado’s right to reassert invalidity or other defences in future proceedings. This asymmetry is significant: it reflects a negotiated structure that extinguishes plaintiff’s offensive position while leaving defendant’s defensive arsenal intact.
Plaintiff claims extinguishedProudLion cannot refile these claims against Movado
Dismissal with prejudice operates as an adjudication on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes. ProudLion IP may not reassert the same infringement claims under US9967389B2 against Movado Group for the same accused products. Whether a licensing fee or other consideration was received in exchange remains undisclosed — the public record is silent on financial terms.
Claim preclusion appliesMovado’s counterclaims survive for future use
Dismissal of counterclaims without prejudice preserves Movado’s ability to challenge the validity or enforceability of US9967389B2 in any subsequent proceeding. This is a structurally favourable outcome for Movado: its infringement exposure from ProudLion is permanently closed, while its own offensive options against the patent remain available. The patent itself is not invalidated by this outcome.
Counterclaims preservedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | ProudLion IP, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9967389B2 (portable computing device alteration system)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Movado Group, LP | Company | Movado Group, LP — watch and connected-device brand targeted for alleged patent infringementSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jeffrey E. Kubiak | Attorney | Counsel for ProudLion IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William P. Ramey , III | Attorney | Counsel for ProudLion IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ramey LLP | Law Firm | Representing ProudLion IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lance Eric Wyatt , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Movado Group, LPSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Neil J McNabnay | Attorney | Counsel for Movado Group, LPSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Noel Franco Chakkalakal | Attorney | Counsel for Movado Group, LPSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson LLP | Law Firm | Representing Movado Group, LPSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Andrew S Hanen | Judge | Texas Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The joint stipulation dismisses plaintiff’s claims with prejudice and defendant’s counterclaims without prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The asymmetric treatment is legally deliberate: with-prejudice dismissal of ProudLion’s claims forecloses future enforcement of US9967389B2 against Movado for the same accused products, while without-prejudice dismissal of counterclaims leaves Movado’s validity challenges available. No merits determination was made regarding infringement or validity.
US9967389B2 — Selectable alteration of portable computing device operation
US9967389B2 (application number US15/654609) claims a system and method for selectable alteration of the operation and appearance of a portable computing device. The patent falls within the connected-device and mobile computing domain, covering functionality that allows context-sensitive or user-selectable changes to how a portable device operates and presents itself — relevant to smartwatches, smartphones, and connected wearables that offer customisable operating modes or profiles.
For the connected-device and wearable technology sector, US9967389B2 represents an assertion risk for any product offering selectable operating modes, appearance profiles, or context-aware alteration of device behaviour. Movado’s connected watch products — which combine traditional watch aesthetics with smartwatch functionality — are a natural target. The patent has now been asserted in litigation, raising its profile as an active enforcement asset. Companies in wearables, IoT, and mobile platforms should assess claim-by-claim exposure.
Should your product team run an FTO against US9967389B2?
Any R&D or product team developing portable computing devices, smartwatches, or connected wearables with selectable operating modes, appearance customisation, or context-aware behaviour profiles should assess freedom-to-operate against US9967389B2. ProudLion IP has demonstrated willingness to enforce this patent in federal court. The patent’s claims have not been invalidated, and the dismissal with prejudice applies only to Movado — not the broader market.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US9967389B2 against your product architecture, identify relevant prior art that may support invalidity arguments, and surface related continuation or family patents that could pose additional risk. For teams in the wearable or mobile device space, a targeted FTO analysis is a cost-effective step before product launch or licensing negotiation.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9967389B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar portable computing device patent cases in Texas federal courts
Cases involving portable computing device operation patents asserted by patent assertion entities in the Southern District of Texas and related venues.
What this case signals for the connected-device IP landscape
The asymmetric dismissal structure and 507-day timeline offer a window into how portable computing device patent assertions are being resolved in Texas federal courts.
With-prejudice dismissal bars ProudLion from re-asserting against Movado
The with-prejudice dismissal of ProudLion’s claims creates a durable legal bar under res judicata principles. Any future attempt to assert US9967389B2 against Movado for the same accused products would be subject to immediate dismissal. Companies monitoring assertion activity from ProudLion IP should note this case as a resolved enforcement action.
US9967389B2 remains active — third-party exposure is unchanged
This dismissal does not affect the validity or enforceability of US9967389B2 against any party other than Movado. Companies developing or selling products that alter portable computing device operation or appearance should assess their FTO position against this patent independently. The patent’s claims have not been adjudicated on the merits.
ProudLion v Movado — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice as to plaintiff ProudLion IP’s claims and without prejudice as to defendant Movado Group’s counterclaims, pursuant to a joint stipulation filed October 8, 2024 under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The dismissal order was entered October 24, 2024, after 507 days of litigation.
ProudLion IP asserted US9967389B2, claiming a system and method for selectable alteration of the operation and appearance of a portable computing device. The application number is US15/654609. The patent targets connected-device functionality relevant to smartwatches and mobile devices.
No. The dismissal with prejudice applies only to ProudLion’s claims against Movado and does not constitute a merits adjudication of the patent’s validity or enforceability. US9967389B2 remains an active, enforceable patent that could be asserted against other parties in future proceedings.
Dismissal with prejudice bars ProudLion IP from refiling the same infringement claims against Movado Group for the same accused products. Under res judicata principles, any renewed assertion against Movado would be subject to dismissal. However, ProudLion retains the right to assert US9967389B2 against different defendants or for different products not covered by this action.
The asymmetric dismissal terms were agreed by the parties and encoded in the joint stipulation. This structure is consistent with a negotiated resolution where the defendant secures a permanent end to plaintiff’s offensive claims while preserving its own defensive and invalidity arguments for future use. The public record does not disclose any financial consideration exchanged.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.