In a case closely watched by mobile commerce IP practitioners, S3G Technology LLC’s patent infringement action against Designer Brands, Inc. — the parent company of DSW Designer Shoe Warehouse — was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on July 2, 2024, just 217 days after filing in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The suit, bearing Case No. 6:23-cv-00814, targeted three software patents (US9940124B2, US10261774B2, and US11210082B2) and accused DSW’s Android and iOS mobile applications of infringing those patents. Each party agreed to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1).

The swift resolution of this case — without a merits ruling — carries significant strategic implications for IP professionals and R&D teams operating in the mobile application space. A dismissal with prejudice forecloses S3G Technology from re-filing these specific claims against Designer Brands, making the outcome a decisive, if quiet, end to the dispute. Patent practitioners advising retail technology companies, mobile platform developers, and e-commerce operators should study this case as a signal of how software patent assertions against consumer-facing mobile apps are being managed and resolved in the Western District of Texas.

Case Overview

The Parties

The Patents at Issue

The three patents at issue — US9940124B2, US10261774B2, and US11210082B2 — relate to software methods and systems for delivering and managing application functionality on mobile devices, particularly as applied to consumer-facing mobile commerce and retail applications. Their claims broadly cover techniques for presenting, updating, or interacting with software features on Android and iOS platforms in ways that enhance the user experience or streamline application execution. These technologies have direct real-world relevance to the millions of retail and e-commerce apps deployed on smartphones globally.

• • US9940124B2
• • US10261774B2
• • US11210082B2

Legal Representation

Plaintiff Counsel: Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth PC (lead: Charles L. Ainsworth)
Defendant Counsel: DLA Piper LLP (US); Findlay Craft PC (lead: Brian Craft)

Litigation Timeline & Procedural History

This case was filed on November 28, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, presided over by Chief Judge Alan D. Albright — a venue long regarded as plaintiff-friendly and one of the most active patent litigation dockets in the United States. The Western District of Texas, and Judge Albright’s court in particular, has attracted a disproportionate share of patent infringement filings in recent years, making it a strategic choice for patent assertion entities targeting technology companies. The case proceeded at the district court (first instance) level, meaning no appellate or inter partes review proceedings are reflected in the public record for this matter.

At just 217 days from filing to closure, this case resolved at a pace that strongly suggests a negotiated resolution or strategic withdrawal rather than a full litigation cycle, which in the Western District of Texas often extends well beyond one year. The case was terminated on July 2, 2024, through a voluntary dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), filed by Plaintiff S3G Technology LLC. This mechanism — available without a court order when filed before the defendant serves an answer or motion for summary judgment, or with the defendant’s written consent — indicates that the parties reached an agreement, the terms of which were not publicly disclosed. With each party bearing its own costs and no damages or injunctive relief awarded, the resolution leaves the underlying patent validity and infringement questions unanswered on the public record.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

Plaintiff S3G Technology LLC voluntarily dismissed all claims against Defendant Designer Brands, Inc. with prejudice on July 2, 2024, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). No damages were awarded, no injunctive relief was ordered, and no determination of infringement or patent validity was made on the merits. Each party agreed to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees, with the specific terms of any underlying agreement not disclosed in the public record.

Verdict Cause Analysis

The infringement action centered on S3G Technology’s assertion that Designer Brands’ DSW mobile applications for Android and iOS infringed three software patents, and its resolution through voluntary dismissal reflects key dynamics in mobile app patent litigation.

• S3G Technology LLC asserted three U.S. patents — US9940124B2, US10261774B2, and US11210082B2 — against the DSW mobile applications, alleging that the apps’ functionality fell within the scope of the patent claims.
• The accused products were specifically identified as the DSW mobile applications for devices running the Android operating system and the DSW mobile applications for iOS, targeting Designer Brands’ entire consumer mobile platform.
• The case was dismissed with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1), which bars S3G Technology from reasserting the same claims against Designer Brands based on the same patents, providing the defendant with lasting protection from re-litigation.
• The mutual agreement that each party bear its own legal costs is consistent with a negotiated resolution, suggesting that Designer Brands’ defense team — led by DLA Piper LLP and Findlay Craft PC — achieved a favorable outcome without publicly conceding any licensing terms.

Legal Significance

1. A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1) carries full res judicata effect, meaning S3G Technology is permanently barred from asserting the same infringement claims arising from US9940124B2, US10261774B2, and US11210082B2 against Designer Brands, Inc., a significant procedural shield for the defendant.
2. Because the case concluded without a merits ruling, no claim construction, validity determination, or infringement finding was issued, leaving the three patents in an uncertain state that could be asserted against other mobile app defendants in the retail and e-commerce sector.
3. The resolution reinforces a pattern in the Western District of Texas where software patent cases targeting consumer mobile applications are frequently resolved before substantive motions practice, highlighting the importance of early case assessment and pre-Markman negotiation strategies for both patent holders and accused infringers.

Strategic Takeaways

For Patent Attorneys:

• When defending mobile app patent cases in the Western District of Texas, early engagement with opposing counsel and a robust pre-Markman invalidity and non-infringement analysis can create settlement leverage that avoids costly full-cycle litigation, as demonstrated by Designer Brands’ defense team.
• The use of Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal with prejudice — rather than a covenant not to sue — is a critical distinction; attorneys should ensure that dismissal agreements fully address all related patents in the asserting entity’s portfolio to prevent follow-on litigation involving continuation patents.
• With three patents in suit spanning application numbers US15/065757, US15/947593, and US17/033633, practitioners should investigate the broader S3G Technology patent family for continuation or divisional applications that might form the basis of future claims against other retail mobile app operators.
• The involvement of Judge Alan D. Albright underscores the importance of venue-specific litigation strategy; his docket’s pace and procedural tendencies should inform both offensive and defensive motion timelines in any Western District of Texas patent matter.

For IP Professionals:

• In-house IP teams at retail and e-commerce companies should monitor S3G Technology LLC’s patent portfolio for continuation applications descending from US9940124B2, US10261774B2, and US11210082B2, as the dismissal with prejudice only protects Designer Brands and does not limit S3G’s ability to assert these patents against other companies.
• Companies deploying consumer-facing mobile applications on Android and iOS should consider commissioning proactive FTO analyses covering software and mobile commerce patent portfolios, particularly those held by non-practicing entities active in the Western District of Texas, to assess and mitigate litigation risk before product launches or major app updates.

For R&D Teams:

• R&D and mobile engineering teams should document their independent development history and design decisions for app features that interact with device-level functionality, as such records can be invaluable in demonstrating non-infringement or supporting invalidity arguments if a software patent assertion is received.
• Product teams planning new features for retail mobile apps on Android and iOS should conduct design-around reviews against the claim sets of US9940124B2, US10261774B2, and US11210082B2, ensuring that architectural choices do not inadvertently recreate the patented methods even if the accused party in this case has resolved its dispute.