S3G Technology v. Buffalo Wild Wings: Three-Patent Software Update Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
S3G Technology LLC filed a patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas against Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc., asserting three patents covering the modification of terminal and service provider machines via an update server. The parties jointly moved to dismiss all claims and counterclaims with prejudice after just 162 days, with each side bearing its own costs.
A swift exit: joint dismissal signals likely confidential settlement
S3G Technology LLC, a Texas-based patent assertion entity, filed suit against Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. on July 2, 2024 in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting infringement of three patents — US9940124B2, US8572571B2, and US9081897B2 — all directed to systems for modifying terminal and service provider machines using an update server. Buffalo Wild Wings, a national restaurant chain operating large fleets of point-of-sale and customer-facing terminals, was the named defendant.
The case closed on December 11, 2024 via a joint motion to dismiss all claims and counterclaims with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2). The court granted the motion, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. A dismissal with prejudice bars S3G Technology from reasserting these specific claims against Buffalo Wild Wings in any future action — a meaningful concession by the plaintiff.
The 162-day lifespan of this case is notably brief for a multi-patent Eastern District of Texas action. The joint nature of the motion and the mutual cost-bearing arrangement are consistent with a confidential settlement, though the public record does not disclose any financial terms. What drove the resolution — licensing agreement, technical non-infringement argument, or commercial negotiation — remains unknown from the available filings.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 162 days
162 days — resolved well under the E.D. Tex. median for patent cases, suggesting early settlement or resolution
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint motion means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(2) joint dismissal with prejudice — a final resolution
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), a court may dismiss an action on terms it considers proper. When both parties jointly move for dismissal with prejudice, the court typically grants the motion as a matter of course. ‘With prejudice’ is the operative term: it operates as a final adjudication on the merits, permanently barring the plaintiff from re-filing the same claims against the same defendant.
Rule 41(a)(2) — permanent bar on re-filingS3G cannot reassert these three patents against Buffalo Wild Wings
By agreeing to a dismissal with prejudice, S3G Technology LLC permanently relinquishes the right to sue Buffalo Wild Wings on US9940124B2, US8572571B2, and US9081897B2 in this or any future action. If a confidential licensing payment was part of the agreement, it is not reflected in the public record. S3G retains the right to assert these patents against other defendants not party to this action.
Claims extinguished against this defendantBuffalo Wild Wings secures permanent immunity on all three patents
The dismissal with prejudice gives Buffalo Wild Wings a complete and permanent defense against any future assertion of these three patents by S3G Technology. The mutual cost-bearing provision means no fee-shifting occurred — neither party was required to pay the other’s legal costs. This outcome, combined with the speed of resolution, is consistent with a business-driven settlement rather than a fully litigated technical victory.
Permanent protection — no fee awardOther restaurant and retail terminal operators should note S3G’s patent portfolio
S3G Technology retains US9940124B2, US8572571B2, and US9081897B2 and remains free to assert them against other parties operating networked terminal update systems. Restaurant chains, retailers, and hospitality operators using update server architectures for POS or customer-facing hardware should evaluate their exposure. The rapid resolution here provides no claim construction guidance or invalidity rulings that other defendants could rely upon.
Portfolio still active against third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | S3G Technology, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9940124B2, US8572571B2, and US9081897B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. | Company | National restaurant and sports bar chain operating large networks of customer-facing terminalsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Charles Ainsworth | Attorney | Counsel for S3G Technology, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Parker Bunt & Ainswort PC | Law Firm | Representing S3G Technology, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jason Spotts | Attorney | Counsel for Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert L. Lee | Attorney | Counsel for Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Alston & Bird LLP | Law Firm | Representing Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Alston & Bird LLP (Atlanta) | Law Firm | Representing Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order granting the joint motion adopts the parties’ agreed terms verbatim, confirming dismissal with prejudice of all claims and counterclaims under Rule 41(a)(2) and a mutual cost-bearing arrangement. The phrase ‘all pending requests for relief not explicitly granted herein are DENIED AS MOOT’ confirms no substantive ruling was made on infringement, validity, or claim construction — the record is clean of any merits adjudication that could bind or benefit either party in future proceedings involving these patents.
US9940124B2, US8572571B2 & US9081897B2 — Terminal Update Server Systems
The three patents at issue — US9940124B2, US8572571B2, and US9081897B2 — share a common technical subject matter: systems and methods for modifying terminal machines and service provider machines using an update server. This architecture is foundational to networked point-of-sale environments, where software, firmware, or configuration updates must be reliably pushed to large fleets of customer-facing devices. The patents span multiple application numbers (US15/065757, US12/841113, US14/060490), suggesting a family of related continuations building on a common priority chain.
For restaurant chains, retailers, and hospitality operators, this patent family represents a risk surface that is difficult to design around without detailed claim analysis — update server architectures are nearly ubiquitous in modern POS and kiosk deployments. The fact that S3G Technology asserted all three patents simultaneously against a single defendant suggests they are positioned to provide overlapping claim coverage, maximising settlement pressure. No court has construed these claims in this case, leaving their scope undefined in the public record and requiring independent analysis for any potential defendant.
Should you run an FTO against US9940124B2, US8572571B2, and US9081897B2?
Any company operating networked terminal update infrastructure — including restaurant chains, retailers, hospitality groups, and their technology vendors — should consider a freedom-to-operate review against this patent family. The dismissal with prejudice in this case produced no claim construction rulings, so the enforceable scope of all three patents remains untested by a court. If your products or systems push software or configuration updates to terminal or POS devices via a server, these claims may be relevant to your risk profile.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the asserted claims of US9940124B2, US8572571B2, and US9081897B2 against your specific system architecture, identify prior art that may support invalidity arguments, and surface related family members or continuation applications that S3G Technology may hold. Early FTO analysis is significantly cheaper than litigation defence — especially in E.D. Tex., where discovery costs escalate rapidly.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9940124B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent infringement cases: software update and terminal network IP in E.D. Tex.
Cases involving software update server and terminal network patents in the Eastern District of Texas, including other PAE assertions against restaurant and retail technology operators.
What this case signals for the restaurant tech and POS patent landscape
A three-patent assertion resolved in under six months in E.D. Tex. carries specific signals for operators of networked terminal systems.
Eastern District of Texas remains a preferred venue for PAE patent assertions
S3G Technology’s choice of the Eastern District of Texas is consistent with established plaintiff-friendly filing patterns for patent assertion entities. Companies operating in Texas or nationally with networked terminal infrastructure should treat any E.D. Tex. filing as a credible litigation threat requiring rapid response — early motion practice or licensing dialogue is typically faster and cheaper than full discovery.
Rapid joint dismissal does not produce claim construction or invalidity rulings
Because this case resolved before any substantive judicial ruling, third parties cannot benefit from claim construction orders or invalidity findings. Any company facing assertion of US9940124B2, US8572571B2, or US9081897B2 will need to conduct its own independent technical and validity analysis — there is no public court record to leverage as prior art or estoppel.
S3G v Buffalo — key questions answered
S3G Technology LLC asserted three patents: US9940124B2, US8572571B2, and US9081897B2. All three relate to systems and methods for modifying terminal and service provider machines using an update server machine. The case was filed in the Eastern District of Texas on July 2, 2024.
Dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication that permanently bars S3G Technology from re-filing the same patent infringement claims against Buffalo Wild Wings. S3G cannot reassert US9940124B2, US8572571B2, or US9081897B2 against Buffalo Wild Wings in any future action. However, S3G retains the right to enforce these patents against other third parties.
There was no merits ruling — the case was resolved via a joint motion to dismiss with prejudice, meaning both parties agreed to end the litigation. No finding of infringement or non-infringement was made. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement and joint nature of the motion are consistent with a confidential settlement, though no terms have been publicly disclosed.
The case lasted only 162 days, which is notably brief for a three-patent assertion in the Eastern District of Texas. The joint dismissal with prejudice and mutual cost-bearing terms suggest the parties reached a private resolution — likely a licensing agreement or a credible non-infringement position presented early in the case. The public record does not disclose the specific driver of the rapid resolution.
No. Because the case was dismissed without any substantive judicial ruling on claim construction, infringement, or validity, there is no binding or persuasive legal precedent other defendants can rely upon. Any company facing assertion of these three patents must conduct its own independent technical and validity analysis. No estoppel or collateral estoppel arises from a consent dismissal.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.