Push Data LLC v. Office Depot LLC — Three Mobile App Patents, Settled in 436 Days
Push Data, LLC asserted three mobile technology patents against Office Depot’s iOS and Android retail apps in the Eastern District of Texas. The parties resolved all claims, with plaintiff’s infringement claims dismissed with prejudice and defendant’s counterclaims dismissed without prejudice as moot — each side bearing its own fees across a 436-day dispute.
Push Data’s mobile patent triple-assertion ends in bilateral resolution
Push Data, LLC filed suit on February 14, 2024 in the Eastern District of Texas (Sherman Division) before Judge Amos L. Mazzant, asserting infringement of three patents — US7292844B2, US7058395B2, and US7212811B2 — against Office Depot, LLC’s consumer-facing mobile applications available on both the Apple App Store and Google Play. The accused products included the Office Depot rewards and deals app and associated marketing landing pages, suggesting the asserted patents relate to mobile data delivery, push notifications, or location-based targeting functionality.
The case closed on April 25, 2025, after the parties jointly requested dismissal, representing a negotiated resolution of all claims. The court ordered plaintiff’s infringement claims dismissed with prejudice — meaning Push Data cannot re-file the same claims against Office Depot on these patents — while Office Depot’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice as moot, preserving Office Depot’s theoretical ability to revive those counterclaims in a future proceeding. Each party bears its own legal costs, a standard term in patent settlements that typically signals neither party extracted a clear financial capitulation from the other.
At 436 days, the case ran longer than many E.D. Texas patent suits that resolve early on Rule 12 motions, suggesting some substantive litigation activity — potentially including claim construction briefing or early discovery — before the parties reached terms. The public record does not disclose any financial consideration exchanged, license granted, or product design changes made, which is consistent with a confidential settlement. The absence of fee-shifting, despite the with-prejudice dismissal of plaintiff’s claims, suggests the resolution was genuinely bilateral rather than a capitulation by either side.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 436 days
436 days — above median for E.D. Texas patent cases resolved pre-trial
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint resolution means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice bars Push Data from re-filing these claims
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits under federal procedural rules. Push Data cannot reassert these three patents against Office Depot for the same accused products in any future action. This is the strongest form of closure for a defendant short of a jury or bench verdict. The counterclaims dismissed without prejudice as moot, however, leave Office Depot’s invalidity arguments formally unresolved on the merits.
Claim-preclusive for plaintiffPush Data forecloses future claims against Office Depot on these patents
By agreeing to a with-prejudice dismissal, Push Data accepted finality against this specific defendant. The patents themselves remain in force and could theoretically be asserted against other mobile retail app operators. However, the failure to achieve a public license or injunction — combined with each party bearing its own costs — suggests the commercial outcome for Push Data was limited. The confidential nature of any consideration means the full picture remains unknown.
Patents survive; this defendant is ring-fencedOffice Depot exits without fee award but counterclaims preserved in theory
Office Depot, represented by Fish & Richardson, secured dismissal of all infringement claims with prejudice without a public fee award against plaintiff, which is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a litigation win. Its counterclaims — likely invalidity and non-infringement — were dismissed without prejudice as moot, meaning they were not decided on the merits. Office Depot retains the ability to raise invalidity in any future proceeding involving these patents, though the practical likelihood of that scenario is low given the with-prejudice bar on plaintiff’s claims.
Clean exit; counterclaims technically preservedThree mobile data patents remain active threats to other retail app operators
Push Data’s three asserted patents — covering mobile data and push-delivery functionality — were never adjudicated as invalid or not infringed. For retailers operating comparable iOS/Android apps with push notifications, location-based offers, or loyalty-reward delivery mechanisms, this case suggests these patents remain enforceable and actively asserted. The E.D. Texas venue and Devlin Law Firm representation indicate a pattern consistent with serial assertion, making freedom-to-operate analysis advisable for operators of similar mobile retail platforms.
FTO review warranted for retail app operatorsFull 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 | Office Depot, LLC | Company | Office Depot, LLC — national office products retailer operating iOS and Android mobile appsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Clifford Chad Henson | Attorney | Counsel for Push Data, LLCSearch 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 Office Depot, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nicholas Wang | Attorney | Counsel for Office Depot, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Noel Franco Chakkalakal | Attorney | Counsel for Office Depot, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ricardo Joel Bonilla | Attorney | Counsel for Office Depot, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson PC | Law Firm | Representing Office Depot, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson PC (Dallas) | Law Firm | Representing Office Depot, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Amos L Mazzant | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The joint stipulation of dismissal confirms a fully negotiated resolution: Push Data’s infringement claims are extinguished with prejudice, providing Office Depot with claim-preclusive finality on these three patents for the accused products. The without-prejudice mootness dismissal of Office Depot’s counterclaims is significant — invalidity was never decided, meaning the patents carry no litigation-tested validity ruling. The mutual cost-bearing provision is consistent with a confidential settlement in which neither party publicly conceded liability or payment.
US7292844B2, US7058395B2 & US7212811B2 — Mobile Data Delivery Technology Patents
The three patents at issue — US7292844B2, US7058395B2, and US7212811B2 — were filed between 2004 and 2006 (application numbers 11/603022, 11/262731, and 11/099486 respectively), placing their priority dates in a foundational period for mobile internet and early smartphone infrastructure. The patents appear to cover aspects of mobile data delivery, push-based communications, and wireless network data management — technology now embedded in virtually every retail loyalty and marketing app operating on iOS and Android platforms.
The strategic significance of these patents lies in their age and breadth: filed before the modern app store ecosystem existed, claims drafted in that era can read broadly on contemporary implementations. Push Data’s decision to assert all three simultaneously against Office Depot’s retail app suite suggests claim overlap designed to maximise coverage and litigation leverage. For mobile retail operators, the patents’ survival without an invalidity ruling means the threat landscape is unchanged post-settlement. Competitors offering push-notification-based loyalty programmes or location-aware marketing apps in a retail context should treat these patents as live enforcement risks.
Should your retail app team run an FTO against US7292844B2 and related patents?
Any company operating a consumer-facing retail mobile application — particularly one featuring push notifications, loyalty reward delivery, location-based offers, or in-app marketing communications — should consider whether these three patents present infringement exposure. Push Data’s willingness to sue a major national retailer like Office Depot signals commercial seriousness. The absence of an invalidity finding means there is no prior litigation outcome you can rely on as a shield.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent claims of US7292844B2, US7058395B2, and US7212811B2 against your product architecture, surface prior art relevant to validity challenges, and identify design-around options — all before a demand letter arrives. Given the E.D. Texas filing pattern and Devlin Law Firm’s serial-assertion track record, proactive clearance is a commercially sound investment for any mobile retail platform operator.
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 technology patent assertions filed in the Eastern District of Texas involving push notification, data delivery, and retail app functionality.
What this case signals for the mobile retail app IP landscape
Three unlitigated-to-verdict mobile patents remain in force. Similar app operators should assess exposure before receiving a demand letter.
E.D. Texas remains the preferred venue for mobile app patent assertions
Push Data filed in the Eastern District of Texas, the most plaintiff-favourable patent venue in the US by filing volume. Retailers and app developers operating nationally should monitor new filings in E.D. Texas against comparable technology. The Devlin Law Firm’s involvement is consistent with a repeat-filer model, suggesting additional defendants may follow.
With-prejudice dismissal without fee-shifting is a common settlement signature
The order’s structure — plaintiff’s claims out with prejudice, counterclaims out without prejudice as moot, each side bearing its own costs — is a textbook joint-resolution template. It tells competitors that Office Depot likely made some undisclosed payment or licence concession, but the absence of a fee award means neither side claimed an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
Push v Office — key questions answered
Push Data, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Office Depot, LLC on February 14, 2024 in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting three mobile technology patents. The case closed April 25, 2025 after the parties resolved all claims. The court dismissed plaintiff’s claims with prejudice and defendant’s counterclaims without prejudice as moot, with each party bearing its own costs.
Push Data asserted US7292844B2 (App. No. 11/603022), US7058395B2 (App. No. 11/262731), and US7212811B2 (App. No. 11/099486). All three were filed between 2004 and 2006 and relate to mobile data delivery and push communication technology. The accused products were Office Depot’s iOS and Android mobile applications.
Dismissal with prejudice means Push Data is barred from asserting the same claims against Office Depot for the same accused products in any future proceeding. However, the patents themselves remain enforceable and were never found invalid, meaning Push Data could potentially assert them against other defendants operating comparable mobile retail applications.
When the underlying infringement claims are resolved by settlement, a defendant’s invalidity counterclaims typically become moot — there is no live controversy left to adjudicate. Dismissing them without prejudice preserves Office Depot’s right to raise invalidity in a hypothetical future proceeding, but as a practical matter, the with-prejudice bar on plaintiff’s claims makes that scenario unlikely in this specific dispute.
Not conclusively. The order that each party bear its own attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses is a standard term in patent settlements and does not signal a litigation winner. It specifically means no party sought or obtained an exceptional-case fee award under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which is consistent with a bilateral negotiated resolution rather than a court-decided outcome.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.