S3G Technology v. Party City: Three-Patent Software Update Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
S3G Technology, LLC filed suit against Party City Corporation in the Western District of Texas, asserting three patents covering modification of terminal and service provider machines via update servers. After 438 days of litigation, both parties agreed to a voluntary dismissal without prejudice, each bearing its own costs.
Software update patent trio dismissed without prejudice in W.D. Texas
On 14 November 2022, S3G Technology, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Party City Corporation in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:22-cv-01166), before Judge Alan D. Albright. The complaint asserted three patents — US9940124B2, US9304758B2, and US10387140B2 — all relating to the modification of terminal and service provider machines using an update server machine. Party City, a major party goods retailer, was alleged to have infringed these software update and deployment technologies.
The case was terminated on 26 January 2024 by way of a joint stipulation of voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Because the dismissal was without prejudice, S3G Technology retains the legal right to refile identical claims against Party City in the future. Crucially, the stipulation specified that each party bears its own attorneys’ fees and costs, meaning no financial burden was judicially shifted to either side.
The 438-day duration suggests the parties engaged in at least some substantive pre-trial activity before reaching resolution. A without-prejudice dismissal at this stage typically signals either a confidential settlement with ongoing compliance obligations, an agreement to pause litigation, or a strategic reassessment by the plaintiff. The public record does not disclose whether any licensing terms or business arrangements underpinned the dismissal, leaving the commercial outcome between the parties opaque.
Filing to resolution in 438 days
438 days — case duration from filing to dismissal
Voluntarily dismissed without prejudice — what this means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) — Stipulated Voluntary Dismissal
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), parties may jointly stipulate to dismiss an action at any time. This mechanism requires agreement from all parties and takes effect upon filing — no court order is needed. Here, S3G Technology and Party City jointly filed such a stipulation, bringing the litigation to a close without a judicial determination on the merits of the infringement claims.
No merits rulingWithout Prejudice: The Key Distinction the Public Record Leaves Open
A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ means the plaintiff retains the right to refile the same claims. A dismissal ‘with prejudice’ would bar refiling permanently. The stipulation here expressly states ‘without prejudice,’ preserving S3G Technology’s options. What the public record does not reveal is whether a private settlement, licensing agreement, or other commercial arrangement underlies this dismissal — a common but undisclosed driver in NPE patent cases.
Refiling remains possibleEach Party Bears Its Own Costs — No Fee-Shifting
The stipulation explicitly provides that each party bears its own attorneys’ fees and costs. Under 35 U.S.C. § 285, courts may award fees in exceptional patent cases, but that requires a final judgment — which this dismissal avoids. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a litigated outcome, and avoids any admission of exceptional-case conduct by either side.
No § 285 fee awardW.D. Texas — Judge Albright’s Docket and Patent Case Dynamics
The Western District of Texas under Judge Alan D. Albright became one of the most active patent litigation venues in the US, known for plaintiff-friendly scheduling and strong case management. Filing here suggests S3G Technology anticipated procedural advantages. The relatively early resolution — before trial — is common even in this venue, where a significant share of cases resolve prior to a Markman hearing or summary judgment.
High-volume patent venueFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | S3G Technology, LLC | Company | Software patent licensing entity — holder of US9940124B2, US9304758B2, and US10387140B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Party City Corporation | Company | Party City Corporation — national party supplies retailer and distributorSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Charles L. Ainsworth | Attorney | Counsel for S3G Technology, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Claire Abernathy Henry | Attorney | Counsel for Party City CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Chief Judge | Texas Western District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The stipulated dismissal is not a verdict on the merits — no court found infringement or non-infringement, and no claim construction was issued. The ‘without prejudice’ qualifier is commercially significant: S3G Technology retains full standing to refile against Party City. The mutual cost-bearing clause reflects a balanced negotiated exit. This language is a standard signal that the parties reached a private arrangement, though no such arrangement is confirmed in the public record.
US9940124B2, US9304758B2 & US10387140B2 — Software Update Server Technology
The three asserted patents — US9940124B2 (App. No. 15/065757), US9304758B2 (App. No. 14/788506), and US10387140B2 (App. No. 16/273073) — form a related family directed at methods and systems for modifying terminal and service provider machines using an update server. This technology domain covers the automated deployment of software updates across networked devices, a capability fundamental to retail POS systems, kiosk networks, and enterprise device fleets. The sequential application numbers suggest a continuation or divisional filing strategy designed to extend claim coverage across multiple aspects of the same core innovation.
Strategically, a three-patent family in the software update space creates layered assertion risk: even if one patent is designed around or invalidated, the remaining patents may still capture infringing conduct. For the retail and hospitality sectors, where networked terminal infrastructure is ubiquitous, this family represents meaningful enforcement risk. S3G Technology’s willingness to assert these patents against a retail operator like Party City suggests the portfolio is actively managed and not limited to software or technology company targets.
Should you run an FTO against US9940124B2, US9304758B2, and US10387140B2?
Any organisation operating networked terminal infrastructure — including retail POS systems, self-service kiosks, ATM networks, or enterprise device management platforms — should assess freedom-to-operate against this three-patent family. S3G Technology’s demonstrated willingness to assert these patents against a non-technology company like Party City signals that end-users of update-server architectures, not just software developers, are within the enforcement scope. This is particularly relevant for companies undergoing digital transformation or deploying cloud-managed device fleets.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows product and IP teams to map the claims of US9940124B2, US9304758B2, and US10387140B2 against their specific product architectures and identify design-around opportunities before commercial launch. Claim monitoring tools can flag continuation filings or related applications from S3G Technology, ensuring your team is alerted to any expansion of this patent family before it creates new enforcement exposure.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9940124B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar software update patent infringement cases in W.D. Texas
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 software update IP landscape
S3G Technology’s assertion of three related software update patents against a retail operator raises broader questions about enforcement patterns in enterprise software deployment IP.
Retail operators face growing exposure from software deployment patents
Party City’s status as a retail chain — not a software company — underscores that software update and deployment patents are increasingly asserted against end-users of commercial systems, not just technology vendors. Retailers operating networked POS terminals or update-server architectures should evaluate their exposure to this patent family.
Without-prejudice exits leave the patent threat intact for third parties
A voluntary dismissal without prejudice does not invalidate the asserted patents. US9940124B2, US9304758B2, and US10387140B2 remain active and enforceable. Any company operating similar terminal-update infrastructure should treat this dismissal as a pause in enforcement activity, not a resolution of the underlying IP risk.
S3G v Party — key questions answered
S3G Technology, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Party City Corporation in the Western District of Texas on 14 November 2022, asserting three patents covering software update server technology. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on 26 January 2024 after 438 days, with each party bearing its own costs. No merits ruling was issued.
S3G Technology asserted three patents: US9940124B2, US9304758B2, and US10387140B2. All three relate to the modification of terminal and service provider machines using an update server machine — technology applicable to networked POS systems, kiosk fleets, and enterprise device management platforms.
A dismissal without prejudice means S3G Technology retains the right to refile the same infringement claims against Party City in the future. The patents remain valid and enforceable. No court determination was made on whether Party City infringed, and the dismissal carries no preclusive effect on the underlying patent rights.
The Western District of Texas under Judge Alan D. Albright became a leading venue for patent litigation due to its plaintiff-friendly scheduling practices and experienced patent docket. Filing in W.D. Texas is consistent with a strategic plaintiff choice to maximise procedural leverage — a common approach for NPE-style patent assertions during this period.
The stipulation specifies that each party bears its own attorneys’ fees and costs. This mutual cost-bearing arrangement avoids any fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which requires an exceptional-case finding following a final judgment — something a voluntary dismissal bypasses. It is a standard feature of negotiated exits and does not indicate fault or advantage for either party.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.