Push Data LLC v. Planet Fitness Franchising: Three Location Patents, Dismissed With Prejudice
Push Data LLC filed suit against Planet Fitness Franchising in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting three patents covering geographical web browser methods, apparatus, and systems. The dispute resolved in 329 days — shorter than the median E.D. Texas patent trial — with all claims and counterclaims dismissed with prejudice and each party bearing its own attorneys’ fees.
Location-tech patent dispute against Planet Fitness ends at agreed dismissal
On 18 October 2023, Push Data LLC filed a patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Judge Amos L. Mazzant) against Planet Fitness Franchising, LLC. Push Data asserted three patents — US7292844B2, US7058395B2, and US7212811B2 — each directed to geographical web browser methods, apparatus, and systems: technology that enables location-aware browsing and content delivery based on a user’s physical geography.
The case closed on 11 September 2024 — 329 days after filing — when the parties jointly announced a resolution and requested dismissal with prejudice. The court granted that request, entering an order dismissing both Push Data’s infringement claims and Planet Fitness’s counterclaims with prejudice. Each party was taxed its own attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses. Notably, the dismissal order preserves Planet Fitness’s right to re-assert its claims if any third party later challenges the asserted patents or settlement agreement, unless Push Data cures within 30 days.
A resolution at 329 days — before substantial trial preparation typically concludes in E.D. Texas — is consistent with a negotiated settlement, though the public record does not disclose financial terms or licence arrangements. The with-prejudice standard prevents Push Data from re-filing the same infringement claims against Planet Fitness, while the carve-out in the dismissal order protecting Planet Fitness from future third-party patent challenges is an unusual term that suggests the settlement involved broader IP-risk management considerations.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 329 days
329 days — below the median E.D. Texas patent case duration, suggesting early resolution
Dismissed with prejudice: what the court order means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice bars refiling the same claims
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits for procedural purposes. Push Data cannot refile the same infringement claims against Planet Fitness on US7292844B2, US7058395B2, or US7212811B2 in any federal court. This is the most permanent form of voluntary resolution — it extinguishes the plaintiff’s cause of action entirely as against this defendant.
Claim extinguished — no refilingPush Data loses enforcement rights against Planet Fitness permanently
By agreeing to dismissal with prejudice, Push Data surrenders any future infringement action on these three patents against Planet Fitness. The public record does not disclose whether a licence fee, lump-sum payment, or other commercial arrangement was exchanged. What is clear is that Push Data accepted finality — likely as part of a broader settlement — without a judicial finding of infringement or validity.
No public licence terms disclosedPlanet Fitness secures a re-assertion carve-out for future IP threats
Planet Fitness’s counterclaims are also dismissed with prejudice, but the order contains a notable protective term: Planet Fitness may re-assert claims if any third party later challenges the asserted patents or the settlement agreement against it, unless Push Data cures within 30 days of notice. This clause suggests Planet Fitness negotiated ongoing IP protection — an unusual and commercially significant term for a defendant settling a patent case.
Third-party carve-out securedLocation-tech patents remain valid and potentially enforceable against others
A dismissal with prejudice does not resolve questions of patent validity or claim scope — those three patents remain in force on the USPTO register. Other companies in the fitness technology, location-based services, or mobile web sectors that deploy geographical browsing features should treat these patents as active enforcement risk. The fact that Push Data pursued a franchise network for fitness centres suggests a broad theory of infringement that may extend to similar digital service deployments.
Patents remain live — sector risk persistsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Push Data, LLC | Company | Location-technology patent assertion entity — holder of US7292844B2, US7058395B2, and US7212811B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Planet Fitness Franchising, LLC | Company | Planet Fitness Franchising LLC — franchisor of large-scale fitness centre network across the United StatesSearch 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 | Neil J McNabnay | Attorney | Counsel for Planet Fitness Franchising, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nicholas Wang | Attorney | Counsel for Planet Fitness Franchising, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Noel Franco Chakkalakal | Attorney | Counsel for Planet Fitness Franchising, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ricardo Joel Bonilla | Attorney | Counsel for Planet Fitness Franchising, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson PC | Law Firm | Representing Planet Fitness Franchising, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson PC (Dallas) | Law Firm | Representing Planet Fitness Franchising, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Amos L. Mazzant | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal order reflects a jointly negotiated resolution rather than a judicial merits ruling. The with-prejudice standard is significant: it carries res judicata effect, preventing Push Data from reasserting the same three geographical web browser patents against Planet Fitness in future proceedings. The carve-out preserving Planet Fitness’s right to re-assert counterclaims if a third party challenges the patents or settlement is an atypical protective term, suggesting the parties structured the exit carefully to manage downstream IP risk on both sides.
US7292844B2, US7058395B2 & US7212811B2 — Geographical Web Browser Technology
The three asserted patents — US7292844B2, US7058395B2, and US7212811B2 — share a common technical domain: geographical web browser methods, apparatus, and systems that enable content delivery and navigation tied to a user’s physical location. Filed under application numbers US11/603022, US11/262731, and US11/099486 respectively, these patents appear to cover the foundational mechanics of location-aware web browsing — technology now embedded in fitness apps, retail geolocation tools, and mobile check-in platforms.
From a competitive intelligence standpoint, a single entity holding three related patents on geographical browsing infrastructure represents a meaningful enforcement portfolio. Any digital service provider that delivers location-contextualised web content — including fitness franchises with mobile member apps, geofenced marketing platforms, or proximity-based notification systems — should assess exposure. The assertion against a major franchise network suggests the patent holder interprets claim scope broadly enough to reach consumer-facing location services, not merely core navigation software.
Should you run an FTO against US7292844B2, US7058395B2 and US7212811B2?
Any product team building or scaling geographical web browser features, location-aware mobile applications, or geofenced content delivery systems should treat these three patents as active clearance targets. The Push Data v. Planet Fitness case confirms these patents are being actively enforced against consumer-facing digital services — not only core mapping or navigation products. Fitness technology platforms, retail proximity marketing tools, and franchise mobile app providers are all plausibly within scope.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables IP and R&D teams to map claim scope across all three patents simultaneously, identify prior art that may bear on validity, and surface related continuation applications that could extend the risk horizon. Running an FTO before product launch — or before entering licence negotiations — is materially faster with Eureka’s AI-assisted claim parsing and patent family mapping capabilities.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7292844B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar location-technology patent cases in E.D. Texas federal court
Cases involving geographical web browser and location-based technology patents in the Eastern District of Texas, including NPE enforcement actions and early resolutions.
What this case signals for the location-technology IP landscape
A swift dismissal with a third-party protection clause is consistent with a structured settlement — not a walkaway. Here is what IP teams should note.
With-prejudice dismissals do not extinguish the patents — monitor actively
All three geographical web browser patents remain in force after this dismissal. Companies offering location-aware digital services — fitness apps, retail geofencing, mobile check-in platforms — should conduct FTO analysis against US7292844B2, US7058395B2, and US7212811B2 before launching or scaling related features.
E.D. Texas remains a high-risk venue for location-tech patent defendants
Push Data chose the Eastern District of Texas — a historically plaintiff-favourable venue — and secured a resolution inside 329 days. Defendants in this district face significant discovery and scheduling pressure that often accelerates settlement. In-house teams should build early case assessment protocols for E.D. Texas filings.
Push v Planet — key questions answered
Push Data asserted three patents: US7292844B2, US7058395B2, and US7212811B2 — all directed to geographical web browser methods, apparatus, and systems. The case was filed in the Eastern District of Texas on 18 October 2023 and closed on 11 September 2024.
The dismissal with prejudice means Push Data cannot refile the same geographical web browser patent claims against Planet Fitness. It also includes an unusual carve-out: Planet Fitness may re-assert its counterclaims if any third party later challenges the asserted patents or the settlement agreement against it, unless Push Data cures the issue within 30 days of notice.
The public court record does not disclose financial terms. The joint announcement to the court stated only that ‘they have resolved Plaintiff’s claims’ — consistent with a confidential settlement. Each party was ordered to bear its own attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses.
Push Data was represented by Trevor James Beaty of Shea Beaty. Planet Fitness was represented by Neil J. McNabnay, Nicholas Wang, Noel Franco Chakkalakal, and Ricardo Joel Bonilla of Fish & Richardson PC (Dallas office). Judge Amos L. Mazzant presided.
Yes. A dismissal with prejudice resolves claims only as between Push Data and Planet Fitness — it does not invalidate or dedicate the patents to the public. US7292844B2, US7058395B2, and US7212811B2 remain in force on the USPTO register and could be asserted against other parties offering location-based web browser or geolocation services.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.