Push Data LLC v. Macy’s Inc.: Four-Patent Mobile Data Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
Push Data, LLC asserted four mobile push-data patents against Macy’s, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, targeting the Macy’s App. The parties announced a resolution and jointly requested dismissal with prejudice — all within 117 days of filing, suggesting a swift pre-trial settlement.
Four Mobile Data Patents, One Retailer App, and a Swift Exit
On February 14, 2024, Push Data, LLC filed an infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Amos L. Mazzant, asserting four patents — US7292844B2, US7058395B2, US6983139B2, and US7212811B2 — against Macy’s, Inc. The asserted patents relate to mobile push-data and wireless communication technology, and the accused product was the Macy’s App. Push Data was represented by Trevor James Beaty of Shea Beaty, while Macy’s retained Bryan P. Clark and Kent E. Baldauf Jr. of The Webb Law Firm PC.
The case closed on June 10, 2024 — just 117 days after filing — when the parties jointly announced they had resolved all claims and requested dismissal with prejudice. Judge Mazzant granted the request. The dismissal with prejudice means Push Data is permanently barred from re-asserting these four patents against Macy’s on the same claims, and each side bears its own litigation costs, which is consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a unilateral capitulation.
The 117-day duration is notably brief for E.D. Texas patent litigation, where cases frequently extend well beyond a year. This timeline suggests the parties reached an agreement — whether a license, covenant not to sue, or other commercial arrangement — before substantive motion practice could begin. The public record does not disclose financial terms or whether a license was granted, and those details, if any exist, remain confidential.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 117 days
117 days — notably fast for E.D. Texas patent litigation, consistent with early settlement
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint resolution means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice bars re-filing on these claims
A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits for procedural purposes. Push Data cannot refile these four patent claims against Macy’s in any court on the same set of facts. This is the strongest form of dismissal available and is routinely used to implement a settlement, providing Macy’s with a permanent record-based shield against re-assertion of these specific patents.
Permanent bar on re-filingPush Data exits with no public concession — terms undisclosed
While Push Data agreed to dismissal with prejudice, the joint nature of the request — and the absence of any adverse judgment — is consistent with a negotiated outcome. Patent assertion entities in similar postures frequently secure a license or lump-sum payment before agreeing to dismiss. The public record is silent on financial terms, so whether Push Data extracted value from this litigation cannot be confirmed from available filings.
Settlement terms undisclosedMacy’s secures a permanent dismissal; each side bears own costs
Macy’s obtained a dismissal with prejudice, eliminating the litigation risk posed by all four asserted patents in this action. The cost order — each party bears its own fees — is standard in consensual dismissals and does not indicate fault on either side. Macy’s avoided a finding of infringement on the record, which has protective value in any future disputes involving the same patent family.
No infringement finding on recordMobile app operators face continued risk from push-data patent portfolios
The four asserted patents cover mobile push-data and wireless communication methods that are broadly applicable to retail app ecosystems. The swift resolution here — without invalidation or a merits ruling — leaves all four patents nominally enforceable against other defendants. Retailers and app developers operating similar push-notification and data-delivery features should consider monitoring this patent family and evaluating FTO exposure.
Patents remain enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Push Data, LLC | Company | Mobile push-data patent assertion entity — holder of US7292844B2 and three related patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Macy’s, Inc. | Company | Macy’s, Inc. — major U.S. department store retailer, operator of the Macy’s AppSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Trevor James Beaty | Attorney | Counsel for Push Data, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Shea Beaty | Law Firm | Representing Push Data, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Bryan P. Clark | Attorney | Counsel for Macy’s, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kent E. Baldauf , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Macy’s, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | The Webb Law Firm PC | Law Firm | Representing Macy’s, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Amos L. Mazzant | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal order reflects a joint request by both parties following an out-of-court resolution. The phrasing — ‘resolved Plaintiff’s claims for relief’ — is deliberately non-specific and does not characterise the nature of the agreement. The with-prejudice designation ensures finality for Macy’s on these four patents in this forum, but provides no merits-based guidance for third parties on validity or infringement scope. The cost allocation — each party bears its own — is neutral and consistent with a negotiated exit rather than any admission of liability.
US7292844B2, US7058395B2, US6983139B2 & US7212811B2 — Mobile Push-Data Patents
The four asserted patents — US7292844B2, US7058395B2, US6983139B2, and US7212811B2 — form a related cluster of mobile push-data and wireless communication inventions. Filed across application numbers US11/603022, US11/262731, US10/937286, and US11/099486, these patents cover methods and systems for delivering data to mobile devices, which are foundational to how retail apps push notifications, product updates, and location-triggered content to consumers. The patents pre-date the modern smartphone era, which is consistent with broad claim language that may read on a wide range of contemporary mobile app architectures.
For the retail technology sector, this patent cluster represents a meaningful strategic risk because push notification and data-delivery functionality is now standard in virtually every consumer-facing mobile application. The fact that Push Data simultaneously asserted all four patents against a single defendant suggests the portfolio is being deployed as an integrated licensing instrument. Competitors operating retail apps with similar push-data or in-app messaging features — particularly those lacking prior art defences or design-around options — should treat this family as active enforcement risk.
Should your retail app team run an FTO against US7292844B2 and related patents?
Any company operating a consumer-facing mobile app with push notification, location-based data delivery, or in-app messaging functionality should evaluate FTO exposure against this four-patent family. The Macy’s App is functionally representative of a broad class of retail app architectures, meaning the claims may be broad enough to read on similar implementations by other retailers, e-commerce platforms, or mobile commerce operators.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and product teams to map specific app feature sets against the claim language of US7292844B2, US7058395B2, US6983139B2, and US7212811B2 simultaneously. Eureka can surface prior art, identify claim overlap across the family, flag related continuation or divisional filings, and help counsel assess whether IPR petitions would be viable — all before engagement in licensing discussions.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7292844B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Mobile Push-Data Patent Cases in E.D. Texas
Explore related mobile push-data and wireless communication patent infringement actions filed in the Eastern District of Texas involving comparable app-targeting strategies.
What this case signals for the mobile retail app IP landscape
A four-patent assertion resolved in under four months in E.D. Texas carries clear signals for retail tech IP strategy.
Speed of resolution suggests licensing leverage — not litigation strength
Cases resolved in under 120 days in E.D. Texas rarely reach claim construction. That pattern typically signals the patent holder had sufficient licensing leverage to compel early settlement, or the defendant preferred a quiet exit over costly motion practice. Neither outcome means the patents are strong on the merits.
Dismissal with prejudice protects Macy’s — but not the broader market
All four Push Data patents survive this litigation fully intact and are potentially enforceable against other retail app operators. The absence of any invalidity ruling means competitors cannot rely on this case as prior art precedent. Any company deploying mobile push-data features in a retail app context should treat these patents as live risk.
Push v Macy’s — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on June 10, 2024, following a joint request by both parties indicating they had resolved Push Data’s claims. Each party bears its own attorneys’ fees and costs. No infringement finding or invalidity ruling was made on the record.
Push Data asserted four patents: US7292844B2, US7058395B2, US6983139B2, and US7212811B2. All relate to mobile push-data delivery and wireless communication methods. The accused product was the Macy’s App.
No. A dismissal with prejudice reflects a procedural endpoint agreed by both parties, not a merits ruling on validity or infringement. The four patents remain in force and are potentially enforceable against other defendants. No court made any finding on the substantive patent claims.
The case lasted 117 days from filing (February 14, 2024) to closure (June 10, 2024). This is notably short for E.D. Texas patent litigation and is consistent with an early negotiated resolution — likely before substantive claim construction or motion practice. Whether a license was granted is not disclosed in the public record.
Yes. All four patents — US7292844B2, US7058395B2, US6983139B2, and US7212811B2 — remain active and enforceable. The dismissal with prejudice only bars Push Data from reasserting these specific claims against Macy’s. Other retail app operators with similar push-data or push-notification functionality remain exposed to potential infringement assertions.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.