S3G Technology v. Foot Locker — Three Patents, Dismissed With Prejudice in 137 Days
S3G Technology, LLC filed suit in the Western District of Texas against Foot Locker, Inc., asserting three patents covering machine-dialogue and terminal-service-provider systems against the Champs Sports iOS and Android mobile applications. The case closed in just 137 days via a voluntary dismissal with prejudice, with each side absorbing its own costs.
Swift exit in a mobile-app dialogue-patent dispute in W.D. Texas
On 1 September 2023, S3G Technology, LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against Foot Locker, Inc. in the Western District of Texas before Judge Alan D. Albright — a venue long favoured by patent plaintiffs. S3G asserted three patents (US10831468B2, US9940124B2, and US9081897B2) covering systems and methods for conducting dialogue sequences between terminal machines and service providers, targeting the Champs Sports mobile applications running on both Android and iOS platforms.
The case closed on 16 January 2024 — just 137 days after filing — when S3G Technology filed a voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1). Dismissal with prejudice is a permanent resolution: S3G relinquishes any right to reassert these specific claims against Foot Locker on these patents. The agreed cost-bearing arrangement, with each party covering its own fees, suggests the resolution was negotiated rather than contested.
A 137-day lifespan, before substantive motion practice could mature, is consistent with an early-stage confidential settlement or a licensing arrangement reached outside the public record. No publicly filed settlement agreement, damages figure, or licence term has been disclosed. What drove the rapid resolution — whether commercial licence, walk-away, or other agreement — remains unknown from the public docket alone.
Filing to dismissal in 137 days
137 days — faster than most patent infringement matters before Judge Albright
Voluntary dismissal with prejudice — what the Rule 41(a)(1) filing means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1) — voluntary dismissal by the plaintiff
S3G Technology invoked Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) to dismiss its own complaint. This procedural route allows a plaintiff to exit litigation unilaterally or by stipulation without requiring a court order. It is one of the most common mechanisms for resolving patent cases early — particularly where a commercial agreement has been reached — because it is quick, low-cost, and does not require judicial findings on the merits.
Plaintiff-initiated exitWith prejudice: S3G’s claims against Foot Locker are permanently closed
A dismissal ‘with prejudice’ operates as a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes. S3G Technology cannot refile suit against Foot Locker on the same patent claims arising from the Champs Sports apps. This is a stronger concession than a without-prejudice dismissal, which would preserve the right to refile. The with-prejudice designation, agreed by both parties, suggests Foot Locker extracted permanent closure as a condition of resolution.
Permanent bar on refilingEach party bears its own fees — no adverse cost order
The dismissal order specifies that each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. In U.S. patent litigation, fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285 requires a finding of an ‘exceptional case’ — an unlikely outcome at this early stage. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement is commercially neutral on its face and consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a capitulation by either side.
No fee-shifting appliedEarly resolution consistent with a confidential licence or walk-away
Cases dismissed with prejudice at 137 days — before claim construction or significant discovery — typically reflect either a confidential licensing agreement or a commercial decision to end litigation exposure. No settlement terms have been filed publicly. The combination of with-prejudice dismissal and mutual cost-bearing is consistent with a negotiated outcome, though the specific terms, if any licence was granted, are not disclosed in the public record.
Likely negotiated resolutionFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | S3G Technology, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US10831468B2, US9940124B2, and US9081897B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Foot Locker, Inc. | Company | Foot Locker, Inc. — multinational athletic footwear and apparel retailer, operator of Champs SportsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Charles L. Ainsworth | Attorney | Counsel for S3G Technology, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | James D. Tuck | Attorney | Counsel for Foot Locker, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Chief Judge | Texas Western District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The dismissal text invokes Rule 41(a)(1) — a plaintiff-initiated mechanism — and specifies ‘WITH PREJUDICE,’ indicating S3G Technology has permanently extinguished its right to reassert these claims against Foot Locker. The mutual cost-bearing clause (‘each party to bear its own costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees’) removes any financial penalty signal from the record. The phrasing is standard for a negotiated exit: it closes the litigation cleanly without admitting liability, making no finding on infringement or validity.
US10831468B2, US9940124B2 & US9081897B2 — Machine-Dialogue System Patents
The three patents asserted by S3G Technology share a common technical lineage, tracing through application numbers US14/060490, US15/065757, and US16/544801 — a sequence consistent with a continuation filing strategy designed to extend claim coverage as the underlying technology evolved. At their core, the patents protect systems and methods for conducting structured dialogue sequences between a terminal machine (such as a mobile device) and a service-provider machine — a framework broadly applicable to in-app guided flows, conversational commerce interfaces, and service-request systems.
The commercial significance of this patent family lies in its potential breadth across modern retail app architectures. Any mobile application that orchestrates a structured back-and-forth interaction between the user’s device and a backend service — including product recommendation engines, virtual assistants, checkout dialogue flows, or customer service bots — could fall within the claimed scope, depending on claim construction. The continuation chain structure means additional related patents may exist or be pending, amplifying the portfolio risk for retailers operating sophisticated mobile commerce platforms.
Should your mobile retail app be cleared against US10831468B2 and its family?
Any company operating a mobile application with dialogue-driven, guided, or conversational user flows — particularly in retail, e-commerce, or service-on-demand sectors — should treat the S3G Technology patent family as a credible FTO concern. The three-patent stack spans application generations, suggesting the claims were deliberately crafted to track evolving app design patterns. If your product roadmap includes chatbot integration, in-app service flows, or AI-driven recommendation dialogues, an FTO review against this family is commercially prudent.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim language of US10831468B2, US9940124B2, and US9081897B2 against your product’s technical architecture, surfacing claim elements most likely to read on dialogue-sequence features. Eureka’s claim monitoring tools can also flag continuation applications filed by S3G Technology, ensuring your FTO clearance remains current as the portfolio evolves. Early identification of risk allows design-around decisions before features are locked into production.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10831468B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: mobile app dialogue systems and NPE retail enforcement
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the retail mobile-app patent enforcement landscape
Three dialogue-system patents asserted against a major retailer’s app — and closed in under five months. Here is what practitioners and product teams should take away.
Mobile app dialogue-system patents remain an active assertion vector
S3G’s patent portfolio — covering machine-to-service-provider dialogue sequences — maps directly onto conversational app interfaces, chatbots, and in-app service flows. Retail brands with mobile commerce applications should treat this patent family as an active risk, particularly if their apps include guided dialogue, search, or service-request flows. The Champs Sports app was specifically named across iOS and Android versions, suggesting broad claim coverage was asserted.
W.D. Texas remains a preferred venue — even post-TC Heartland pressures
Filing before Judge Alan D. Albright in the Western District of Texas signals a deliberate plaintiff strategy. Despite venue reform pressure, W.D. Tex. continues to attract high-volume patent filings due to its scheduling efficiency and plaintiff-friendly reputation. Defendants headquartered outside Texas should assess transfer options early — a motion to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is often most effective within the first 60–90 days of a case.
S3G v Foot — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on 16 January 2024, approximately 137 days after filing. S3G Technology voluntarily dismissed all claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1), with each party bearing its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. The with-prejudice designation means S3G cannot refile the same claims against Foot Locker.
S3G Technology asserted three patents: US10831468B2 (application US16/544801), US9940124B2 (application US15/065757), and US9081897B2 (application US14/060490). The patents cover systems and methods for conducting dialogue sequences between terminal machines and service-provider machines, asserted against the Champs Sports iOS and Android mobile applications.
The accused products were the Champs Sports mobile applications for devices running Android and iOS operating systems, along with the underlying systems, servers, software, and non-transitory computer-readable storage media that execute or support the Champs Sports app. The infringement theory centred on dialogue-sequence functionality between the app (terminal) and Foot Locker’s backend service infrastructure.
Dismissal with prejudice operates as a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes. It permanently bars S3G Technology from refiling the same patent infringement claims against Foot Locker, Inc. arising from the same patents and accused products. Unlike a without-prejudice dismissal, S3G has no right to recommence this litigation against Foot Locker on these patents.
S3G Technology was represented by attorney Charles L. Ainsworth of Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth PC. Foot Locker was represented by James D. Tuck of Dentons US LLP. The case was filed before Judge Alan D. Albright in the Western District of Texas, Waco Division.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.