S3G Technology v. Massage Envy: Mobile App Patent Claims Dropped With Prejudice
S3G Technology LLC asserted three mobile application patents against Massage Envy Franchising LLC’s iOS and Android apps in the Western District of Texas. The case closed after 161 days when S3G voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), with each party bearing its own costs.
Three Mobile App Patents, One Franchise Defendant, and a Swift Exit
Filed on 2 May 2024 before Judge Alan D. Albright in the Western District of Texas, S3G Technology LLC alleged that Massage Envy Franchising LLC infringed three US patents — US9940124B2, US9304758B2, and US10387140B2 — through its iOS and Android mobile applications. S3G claimed the Massage Envy app used systems, methods, computing devices, and software that fell within the scope of its patent portfolio.
On 10 October 2024, S3G filed a voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), ending all claims without a substantive ruling. Dismissal with prejudice is a permanent bar — S3G cannot reassert these specific claims against Massage Envy on these patents. Notably, Massage Envy had neither answered the complaint nor moved for summary judgment before the dismissal was filed, meaning the case closed before any merits were tested.
At 161 days, the case resolved before typical W.D. Texas litigation milestones such as claim construction. The absence of an answer and the mutual cost-bearing arrangement is consistent with a negotiated resolution — potentially a licensing agreement or covenant not to sue — though the public record is silent on any financial terms. What drove S3G to dismiss rather than pursue a default or litigate further remains unknown from publicly available filings.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 161 days
161 days — faster than the W.D. Texas median for patent cases that proceed to trial
Dismissed with prejudice: what Rule 41 means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral right to dismiss
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order before the defendant has served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because Massage Envy had done neither, S3G could file the dismissal unilaterally. Crucially, S3G elected to dismiss WITH PREJUDICE — a permanent relinquishment of the right to refile the same claims against this defendant on these patents.
Voluntary — pre-answer dismissalS3G permanently barred from re-asserting these claims against Massage Envy
By choosing ‘with prejudice,’ S3G has extinguished its right to sue Massage Envy again on US9940124B2, US9304758B2, and US10387140B2. This is a materially stronger concession than a without-prejudice dismissal. It may reflect a confidential settlement or license — common in franchise-sector patent disputes — but the public record does not confirm any consideration exchanged. S3G’s patents remain enforceable against other defendants.
Claims permanently relinquishedMassage Envy exits without an answer filed — and with full cost protection
Massage Envy Franchising LLC avoided a substantive engagement: no answer, no summary judgment motion, and no adverse finding on infringement or validity. The cost-bearing clause — each party pays its own fees — means no financial exposure from litigation costs. Massage Envy’s app products face no injunction or damages award from this action. The with-prejudice dismissal also shields it from S3G re-filing these specific claims.
No liability, no cost awardPatent survives — S3G free to pursue other mobile app targets
The dismissal does not invalidate any of S3G’s three patents. All three remain granted and potentially enforceable against other mobile application operators. Companies in the wellness, fitness, and hospitality sectors running comparable iOS and Android booking or service apps should treat this case as a signal that S3G is actively monetising its portfolio. The with-prejudice term limits exposure only for Massage Envy specifically.
Patents still active — sector at riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | S3G Technology, LLC | Company | Mobile app technology licensor — holder of US9940124B2, US9304758B2, and US10387140B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Massage Envy Franchising LLC | Company | Massage Envy Franchising LLC — national franchise operator of massage and wellness centers with iOS and Android mobile appsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Charles L. Ainsworth | Attorney | Counsel for S3G Technology, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth PC | Law Firm | Representing S3G Technology, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John M. Guaragna | Attorney | Counsel for Massage Envy Franchising LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | DLA Piper US LLP | Law Firm | Representing Massage Envy Franchising LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and explicitly elects ‘WITH PREJUDICE’ — language that carries significant legal weight. Unlike a default dismissal without prejudice, this phrasing permanently forecloses S3G from reasserting the same claims on these three patents against Massage Envy. The mutual cost-bearing clause further suggests a negotiated exit rather than a unilateral abandonment, though no settlement terms are disclosed in the public record.
US9940124B2, US9304758B2 & US10387140B2 — Mobile App Software Patent Portfolio
The three patents at issue — US9940124B2 (App. No. US15/065757), US9304758B2 (App. No. US14/788506), and US10387140B2 (App. No. US16/273073) — cover systems, methods, computing devices, software, and non-transitory computer readable storage media related to mobile application functionality. The portfolio spans multiple continuation-style applications, suggesting a layered claim strategy designed to cover both the app itself and the underlying server-side infrastructure.
For the wellness, fitness, hospitality, and franchise sectors, this portfolio is a material risk. Any operator deploying a branded mobile app for booking, scheduling, or service delivery on iOS and Android may fall within the scope of claims S3G has actively asserted. The three-patent structure raises the cost of IPR defence and complicates design-around analysis, making early FTO assessment and freedom-to-operate clearance essential for product and legal teams.
Should your mobile app team run an FTO against S3G’s patent portfolio?
If your organisation operates a consumer-facing iOS or Android application for service booking, wellness, or franchise management, S3G Technology’s portfolio warrants attention. S3G has demonstrated willingness to litigate in W.D. Texas — a plaintiff-friendly venue — and the pre-answer resolution here does not diminish the enforceability of any of the three patents. Product teams launching or updating mobile apps in these categories should conduct FTO clearance before release.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to map claim language from US9940124B2, US9304758B2, and US10387140B2 against your product architecture, identify prior art that could support IPR petitions, and monitor S3G’s prosecution and assignment history for portfolio changes. Run a structured FTO analysis before your next app release cycle.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9940124B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Mobile App Patent Cases in W.D. Texas and Related Venues
Explore related mobile application patent infringement cases filed in the Western District of Texas involving software, iOS/Android apps, and service-delivery platform patents.
What this case signals for the mobile app patent licensing landscape
S3G’s swift exit with prejudice is consistent with a licensing play — and the three surviving patents remain live risks for other app operators.
Pre-answer dismissals in W.D. Texas often mask licensing outcomes
When a patent plaintiff dismisses with prejudice before the defendant even answers, and both parties bear their own costs, it typically signals a confidential resolution — a license, covenant, or settlement — rather than a pure walk-away. Practitioners should track S3G’s subsequent filings to assess whether a licensing program is being systematically pursued.
All three S3G patents survive this case unscathed
US9940124B2, US9304758B2, and US10387140B2 were never subjected to claim construction, IPR, or invalidity analysis in this case. That preserves full enforceability. Any company operating a consumer-facing mobile application in a service-booking or wellness context should conduct an FTO assessment against this portfolio now.
S3G v Massage — key questions answered
S3G Technology LLC voluntarily dismissed all patent infringement claims against Massage Envy Franchising LLC with prejudice on 10 October 2024, after 161 days of litigation. The dismissal was filed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before Massage Envy answered or moved for summary judgment, with each party bearing its own costs.
S3G asserted three US patents: US9940124B2 (App. No. US15/065757), US9304758B2 (App. No. US14/788506), and US10387140B2 (App. No. US16/273073). These patents cover systems, methods, and software related to mobile applications running on iOS and Android platforms.
Dismissal with prejudice permanently bars S3G Technology from refiling the same patent infringement claims against Massage Envy on these three patents. It is a stronger concession than a without-prejudice dismissal and suggests a final resolution — potentially a licensing agreement or covenant not to sue — though no such terms are disclosed in the public record.
Yes. The dismissal with prejudice applies only to S3G’s claims against Massage Envy Franchising LLC. US9940124B2, US9304758B2, and US10387140B2 were never adjudicated on the merits, invalidated, or subjected to IPR in this action. All three patents remain granted and potentially enforceable against other parties.
The Western District of Texas, and specifically Judge Alan D. Albright’s docket, has been a preferred venue for non-practising entities and patent licensing companies due to its historically favourable case management schedule for plaintiffs. Filing in W.D. Texas is consistent with an enforcement or licensing strategy targeting defendants in consumer-facing mobile app sectors.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.