S3G Technology v. Kohl’s: Mobile App Patent Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
S3G Technology LLC alleged that Kohl’s Android and iOS mobile applications infringed three US patents covering mobile app technology. Filed in the Texas Eastern District Court in January 2024, the case resolved in 149 days via a joint dismissal with prejudice — with each party absorbing its own legal costs.
Three mobile app patents, one swift joint exit in East Texas
On 31 January 2024, S3G Technology LLC filed suit against Kohl’s, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 5:24-cv-00016), asserting infringement of three patents — US9940124B2, US11662995B2, and US11210082B2 — against Kohl’s mobile applications for both Android and iOS platforms. S3G was represented by Parker Bunt & Ainsworth PC, while Kohl’s retained Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease LLP.
The case terminated on 28 June 2024, just 149 days after filing, when the parties filed a Joint Motion for Dismissal of All Claims With Prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). The court granted the motion in full: all claims and counterclaims were dismissed with prejudice, and each party was ordered to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs — a fee-neutral outcome with no admission of liability recorded in the public docket.
A 149-day resolution before any substantive court rulings is consistent with a negotiated settlement reached early in the litigation lifecycle, though the public record does not disclose any financial terms. The with-prejudice designation forecloses S3G from re-asserting these three patents against Kohl’s in any future action. What drove the rapid resolution — licensing agreement, design-around, or purely commercial calculus — remains undisclosed on the public record.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 149 days
149 days — resolved well under the median EDTX patent case timeline of ~2 years
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(2) joint dismissal with prejudice explained
A dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) is a final adjudication on the merits — the plaintiff permanently loses the right to re-litigate the same claims against the same defendant. Here, the joint nature of the motion signals mutual agreement, distinguishing it from a unilateral surrender. No court ruling on infringement, validity, or claim construction was issued.
Permanent bar on re-filingS3G forfeits future suit against Kohl’s on all three patents
The with-prejudice dismissal permanently bars S3G Technology from asserting US9940124B2, US11662995B2, or US11210082B2 against Kohl’s in any future proceeding. S3G retains the patents and may continue to assert them against other defendants, but its enforcement rights specifically against Kohl’s are extinguished. The fee-neutral order suggests neither party extracted a clear concession on costs.
Enforcement rights vs. Kohl’s extinguishedKohl’s secures permanent immunity from these three patents
Kohl’s exits the litigation with a with-prejudice dismissal — the strongest form of finality short of a trial verdict. Its Android and iOS mobile apps face no further exposure from S3G on these specific patents. The fee-neutral arrangement means Kohl’s bore its own defence costs, consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a capitulation or a decisive procedural win on the merits.
Full immunity from S3G on these patentsMobile retail app IP risk: PAE activity in EDTX persists
This case illustrates ongoing patent assertion entity activity targeting mobile commerce applications in the Eastern District of Texas — a perennially plaintiff-favoured venue. Retailers operating Android and iOS apps should note that US9940124B2 and its related patents remain active against other potential defendants. Swift resolution here may reflect Kohl’s commercial preference to avoid prolonged litigation risk rather than weakness in its legal position.
EDTX mobile commerce PAE riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | S3G Technology, LLC | Company | Mobile app patent licensing entity — holder of US9940124B2, US11662995B2, and US11210082B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Kohl’s, Inc. | Company | Kohl’s, Inc. — major US retail chain, operator of Android and iOS mobile shopping applicationsSearch 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 E. Mueller | Attorney | Counsel for Kohl’s, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lauren Anne Kickel | Attorney | Counsel for Kohl’s, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Vorys Sayer Seymour & Pease LLP | Law Firm | Representing Kohl’s, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order adopts the parties’ joint motion verbatim, granting dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2) with no fee-shifting and no merits ruling. The ‘with prejudice’ designation carries significant legal weight: it operates as a final judgment on the merits, permanently barring S3G from asserting these three patents against Kohl’s. The absence of any awarded costs or fees indicates a commercially negotiated exit rather than a courtroom outcome favouring either side.
US9940124B2, US11662995B2 & US11210082B2 — Mobile Application Software Patents
The three asserted patents — US9940124B2 (App. No. US15/065757), US11662995B2 (App. No. US17/543670), and US11210082B2 (App. No. US17/033633) — form a patent family spanning application dates from approximately 2016 to 2021. This continuation-style progression suggests S3G pursued iterative claim broadening to maintain coverage across successive generations of mobile operating system architecture, consistent with a licensing-oriented enforcement strategy.
For retail operators running mobile commerce apps, this patent family represents a meaningful enforcement risk given S3G’s demonstrated willingness to litigate in EDTX. The breadth of the asserted family — three patents with staggered priority dates — increases the complexity of any design-around effort, as claim language in later-filed continuations may capture modifications made in response to earlier claim mapping. Any retailer with an Android or iOS shopping app of comparable functionality should treat these patents as warranting active monitoring.
Should your mobile retail app team run an FTO against US9940124B2?
Any company operating Android or iOS mobile retail applications — particularly those incorporating dynamic content, in-app navigation, or account-linked shopping features — should assess freedom-to-operate against S3G’s three-patent portfolio. The Kohl’s case confirms that S3G actively enforces these patents in EDTX, a plaintiff-friendly venue, and the with-prejudice resolution does not limit S3G’s ability to pursue other defendants.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables product and IP teams to map claim language across US9940124B2, US11662995B2, and US11210082B2 against specific app features, identify continuation risk across the S3G portfolio, and surface prior art that may bear on validity. Early FTO analysis is substantially less costly than responding to an EDTX complaint.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9940124B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar mobile app patent infringement cases in Texas Eastern District Court
Cases involving mobile application patents asserted against retail technology defendants in the Eastern District of Texas, including PAE-driven enforcement actions.
What this case signals for the mobile retail app IP landscape
A 149-day resolution in EDTX involving three mobile app patents points to identifiable enforcement patterns and risk vectors for retail technology teams.
EDTX remains a high-priority venue for mobile app patent assertions
The Eastern District of Texas continues to attract patent assertion entities targeting mobile commerce and retail applications. In-house teams at retailers with Android and iOS apps should monitor EDTX filings for overlapping patent families. Early docketing alerts can create response lead-time before litigation costs compound.
With-prejudice exits protect defendants — but only against named plaintiffs
Kohl’s achieved a permanent bar against S3G on these three patents. However, related patent families or continuation patents held by S3G or an affiliate could still present exposure. Obtaining a with-prejudice dismissal is not a substitute for a full FTO analysis across the broader patent portfolio of a licensing entity.
S3G v Kohl’s — key questions answered
S3G Technology asserted three patents: US9940124B2, US11662995B2, and US11210082B2. All three were directed at Kohl’s mobile applications for Android and iOS operating systems. The case was filed in the Eastern District of Texas on 31 January 2024.
A dismissal with prejudice permanently bars S3G Technology from reasserting the same three patents against Kohl’s in any future proceeding. S3G retains ownership of the patents and may assert them against other defendants, but its enforcement rights specifically against Kohl’s are permanently extinguished by this order.
The public court record does not disclose any financial settlement terms. The dismissal order specifies that each party bears its own attorneys’ fees and costs, indicating no fee-shifting. Whether a separate confidential licensing or settlement agreement was reached between the parties is not reflected in the docket.
The case resolved in 149 days from filing to close — substantially faster than the median Eastern District of Texas patent case, which typically runs one to two years through trial. A 149-day resolution is consistent with early-stage negotiated settlement, likely before significant claim construction or discovery activity.
Yes. The with-prejudice dismissal binds only S3G and Kohl’s. S3G Technology retains full ownership of US9940124B2, US11662995B2, and US11210082B2 and may assert them against any other defendant, including other retailers operating functionally similar Android or iOS mobile applications. The Kohl’s outcome does not establish any precedent on patent validity or infringement scope.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.