Push Data LLC v. Asics American Corp: Three-Patent Mobile App Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
Push Data LLC filed suit against Asics American Corporation in the Eastern District of Texas in October 2023, asserting three patents covering mobile device application technology against the ASICS App and RunKeeper platform. After 210 days, both parties stipulated to dismissal without prejudice — with each side bearing its own legal costs.
Mobile App Patent Troll Claims vs. Asics Resolved Without Merits Ruling
Push Data LLC, a patent assertion entity, filed this infringement action against Asics American Corporation in the Eastern District of Texas on October 18, 2023. The complaint targeted three patents — US7292844B2, US7058395B2, and US7212811B2 — asserting they cover technology embodied in the ASICS App and the RunKeeper platform, both available on Apple iOS and Android. Judge Amos L. Mazzant presided over the case. Fish & Richardson PC represented Asics, while Push Data relied on the Devlin Law Firm.
The case closed on May 15, 2024, via a stipulated dismissal without prejudice, with all of Push Data’s infringement claims and all of Asics’s counterclaims dismissed simultaneously. Critically, the court ordered each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs — suggesting neither side secured a dominant litigation posture sufficient to justify a fee award under 35 U.S.C. § 285 or a negotiated cost recovery.
At 210 days, the case resolved well before any claim construction or substantive merits ruling, which is consistent with either a confidential settlement on commercial terms not reflected in the public record, or a strategic withdrawal by the plaintiff. The ‘without prejudice’ designation means Push Data retains the legal right to refile these same patent claims against Asics or other defendants, making ongoing monitoring of these three patents commercially relevant.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 210 days
210-day lifespan — resolved before any substantive merits ruling
Dismissed without prejudice: what the stipulated exit means for both parties
Stipulated dismissal without prejudice — no merits ruling issued
A dismissal without prejudice means the court has made no finding on the validity or infringement of any of the three asserted patents. Both parties agreed to exit via stipulation, which requires court approval but does not require disclosure of any settlement terms. The public docket reflects no claim construction order, no summary judgment ruling, and no validity determination — the slate is legally clean for both sides.
No merits adjudicationPush Data retains the right to refile — patents remain live weapons
Because the dismissal is without prejudice, Push Data LLC is not barred from asserting US7292844B2, US7058395B2, or US7212811B2 against Asics again, or against other defendants in the mobile app space. Patent assertion entities frequently use without-prejudice dismissals to preserve optionality — whether the underlying driver was a private licensing deal or a strategic retreat, the patents remain enforceable until expiry or invalidation.
Refiling risk remainsAsics exits without prejudice — but no invalidity shield obtained
Asics American Corporation avoided any finding of infringement, but critically secured no declaratory judgment of invalidity or non-infringement against the three asserted patents. The mutual without-prejudice structure and own-costs order suggests the resolution was negotiated rather than litigated to a defendant win. Asics and the ASICS App/RunKeeper platform remain theoretically exposed to reassertion of these patents unless a separate licensing agreement was reached on confidential terms.
No invalidity finding securedMobile fitness app developers face unresolved patent exposure on these claims
The three Push Data patents — covering mobile device application technology — were never adjudicated on the merits. Any developer operating in the mobile fitness or GPS-enabled running app space who has not independently assessed these patents should treat them as live risk. Patent assertion entities that dismiss without prejudice frequently cycle their portfolios to new defendants. The Eastern District of Texas remains a favoured forum for such plaintiffs, and the own-costs outcome provides no deterrent precedent.
Live risk for mobile app sectorFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Push Data, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US7292844B2, US7058395B2, and US7212811B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Asics American Corporation | Company | Asics American Corporation — sports apparel and footwear brand, operator of the ASICS App and RunKeeper platformSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Timothy Devlin | Attorney | Counsel for Push Data, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Trevor James Beaty | Attorney | Counsel for Push Data, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Devlin Law Firm LLC (Wilmington) | Law Firm | Representing Push Data, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Shea Beaty | Law Firm | Representing Push Data, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Neil J McNabnay | Attorney | Counsel for Asics American CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nicholas Wang | Attorney | Counsel for Asics American CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Noel Franco Chakkalakal | Attorney | Counsel for Asics American CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ricardo Joel Bonilla | Attorney | Counsel for Asics American CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson PC | Law Firm | Representing Asics American CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson PC (Dallas) | Law Firm | Representing Asics American CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Amos L. Mazzant | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order grants the parties’ joint stipulation in full, dismissing all of Push Data’s infringement claims and all of Asics’s counterclaims simultaneously, without prejudice and with no cost award to either side. The symmetrical structure — mutual dismissal, mutual cost-bearing — is consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a unilateral plaintiff withdrawal, though the public record does not confirm the existence or terms of any licence. No validity, infringement, or claim construction findings were made, leaving all three patents legally intact.
US7292844B2, US7058395B2 & US7212811B2 — Mobile Device Application Technology
The three patents asserted in this case — US7292844B2, US7058395B2, and US7212811B2 — were filed under application numbers 11/603022, 11/262731, and 11/099486 respectively, placing their priority dates in the mid-2000s, a formative period for mobile application technology. Push Data asserted these patents cover technology embodied in mobile device applications, specifically as implemented in the ASICS App and the RunKeeper GPS fitness platform available on iOS and Android.
Mid-2000s mobile software patents occupy a commercially sensitive space: broad enough in original claim language to potentially read on modern app architectures, yet sufficiently old to attract validity challenges under § 101 abstract idea doctrine and § 103 obviousness arguments. For fitness app developers, GPS running platforms, and connected health technology companies, these three patents represent a portfolio that has now been asserted in federal court against a major brand — elevating their commercial relevance regardless of the without-prejudice exit.
Should your mobile app team run an FTO against US7292844B2, US7058395B2 and US7212811B2?
If your organisation develops or distributes mobile fitness applications, GPS-enabled running apps, or connected health platforms on iOS or Android, these three Push Data patents warrant direct FTO attention. The fact that Asics — a large, well-resourced brand with Fish & Richardson counsel — resolved the case without a merits ruling means no public claim construction or invalidity analysis exists to rely upon. Your product team cannot borrow Asics’s outcome as a safe harbour.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map your product’s feature set against the claim language of US7292844B2, US7058395B2, and US7212811B2 in minutes. Eureka surfaces relevant prior art, identifies claim scope boundaries, and flags continuation or divisional applications in the same family that may extend the enforcement timeline. Run your FTO before Push Data’s next assertion round reaches your sector.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7292844B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Mobile App Patent Infringement Cases in E.D. Texas
Explore comparable mobile device application patent infringement actions filed in the Eastern District of Texas, including PAE-driven suits asserting mid-2000s software patents against app developers.
What this case signals for the mobile app IP enforcement landscape
A pre-merits exit in E.D. Texas with no cost order typically signals either a quiet licensing deal or a strategic portfolio repositioning by the PAE.
Without-prejudice exit preserves PAE optionality — monitor these patents
Push Data’s three patents were never invalidated or adjudicated non-infringing. Companies in the mobile fitness, GPS tracking, and running app sector should actively monitor US7292844B2, US7058395B2, and US7212811B2 for reassertion activity. PatSnap litigation alerts can flag new filings within days of docketing.
Own-costs order removes the fee-shifting deterrent for future plaintiffs
The court’s own-costs order means neither party recovered attorneys’ fees. For defendants facing similar PAE suits in E.D. Texas, the absence of a § 285 exceptional case finding — even by stipulation — is a reminder that early commercial resolution often drives exits, not litigation leverage. Budget accordingly for fast-moving PAE actions in this district.
Push v Asics — key questions answered
Push Data LLC filed a patent infringement action against Asics American Corporation in the Eastern District of Texas on October 18, 2023, asserting three mobile application patents. The case was dismissed without prejudice by stipulation on May 15, 2024, after 210 days, with each party bearing its own costs and no merits ruling issued.
Push Data LLC asserted three patents: US7292844B2 (application no. 11/603022), US7058395B2 (application no. 11/262731), and US7212811B2 (application no. 11/099486). All three relate to mobile device application technology and were asserted against the ASICS App and the RunKeeper platform.
A dismissal without prejudice means no court has ruled on whether the patents are valid or infringed. Push Data LLC retains the legal right to refile the same claims against Asics or other defendants in the future. No invalidity finding was made, so the three patents remain enforceable. The without-prejudice exit provides no safe harbour for other mobile app companies.
Asics American Corporation was represented by Fish & Richardson PC (Dallas office), with attorneys Neil J. McNabnay, Nicholas Wang, Noel Franco Chakkalakal, and Ricardo Joel Bonilla listed as defence counsel. Push Data LLC was represented by Timothy Devlin and Trevor James Beaty of the Devlin Law Firm LLC.
Push Data accused the ASICS App and the RunKeeper platform (available at runkeeper.com and on both Apple iOS and Android) of infringing the three asserted patents. The complaint broadly referenced one or more mobile device applications as the accused products.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.