S3G Technology v. Texas Roadhouse: Four-Patent App Dispute Dismissed With Prejudice
S3G Technology, LLC asserted four U.S. software patents against Texas Roadhouse, Inc. over the restaurant chain’s mobile application. The parties jointly moved to dismiss with prejudice after just 114 days — strongly suggesting a confidential settlement was reached before substantive litigation began.
Four-Patent Software Dispute Ends in Swift With-Prejudice Dismissal
On February 5, 2025, S3G Technology, LLC filed suit against Texas Roadhouse, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:25-cv-00134), asserting infringement of four U.S. patents: US9940124B2, US8572571B2, US11662995B2, and US9081897B2. The asserted patents relate to software systems, computing devices, servers, and non-transitory computer-readable storage media — with the accused product being the Texas Roadhouse mobile application.
On May 30, 2025, Judge Rodney Gilstrap granted a joint motion to dismiss the member case with prejudice, just 114 days after filing. All claims between S3G Technology and Texas Roadhouse were dismissed with prejudice, with each party ordered to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees. The dismissal with prejudice is a permanent bar — S3G Technology cannot reassert these specific claims against Texas Roadhouse on the same patents.
The speed of resolution — fewer than four months, with no reported claim construction or merits briefing — is consistent with an early-stage confidential settlement, though the public record does not confirm financial terms. Notably, the court’s order directed the clerk to maintain the lead case as open, suggesting this was a multi-defendant action and other defendants remain active. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement is a standard hallmark of negotiated resolutions in E.D. Texas NPE-style litigation.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 114 days
114 days — well under the median E.D. Texas patent case lifespan, suggesting early resolution
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint motion ruling means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice bars S3G from refiling
A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits for procedural purposes. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, it permanently extinguishes S3G Technology’s ability to reassert the same patent claims against Texas Roadhouse. The joint nature of the motion — filed by both parties — is the defining indicator of a negotiated exit rather than a unilateral abandonment or court-ordered termination.
Permanent bar on refilingS3G exits with a permanent release — likely in exchange for consideration
By agreeing to dismiss with prejudice, S3G Technology has permanently released its infringement claims against Texas Roadhouse on all four asserted patents. This is a significant concession for a plaintiff, and in NPE litigation practice it is almost universally paired with an undisclosed licensing payment or structured settlement. The mutual cost-bearing provision is consistent with a clean exit negotiated before either side incurred major litigation expenses.
Suggests confidential settlementTexas Roadhouse obtains full release with no public adverse finding
Texas Roadhouse achieves closure without any finding of infringement, validity determination, or damages award entering the public record. The with-prejudice dismissal means S3G cannot revive this specific action. However, the four asserted patents remain valid and enforceable — S3G retains the right to assert them against other parties, including other restaurant chains or app platform operators, in separate proceedings.
No infringement finding on recordRemaining defendants in the lead case face continuing exposure
The court’s order to keep the lead case open confirms that Texas Roadhouse was one of multiple defendants. Other named defendants in the broader action remain in active litigation against S3G on the same four software patents. For companies operating consumer-facing mobile apps in the restaurant or hospitality sector, this filing pattern — multiple defendants, swift resolution with one party — is a standard NPE enforcement campaign signature worth monitoring.
Lead case still activeFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | S3G Technology, LLC | Company | Software patent licensing entity — holder of US9940124B2 and three related software patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Texas Roadhouse, Inc. | Company | Texas Roadhouse, Inc. — U.S. casual dining restaurant chain, operator of the accused mobile appSearch 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 | B Scott Eidson | Attorney | Counsel for Texas Roadhouse, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Stinson LLP | Law Firm | Representing Texas Roadhouse, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal order, signed by Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is notable for two reasons. First, the ‘with prejudice’ designation was expressly requested by both parties in the joint motion — making it a consensual, final resolution rather than a court-imposed sanction. Second, the order’s explicit instruction to keep the lead case open confirms a multi-defendant structure, meaning the substantive patent dispute over these four software patents continues against other defendants. No merits determination was made as to infringement or validity.
US9940124B2 — Software systems and computing infrastructure for mobile app execution
The four asserted patents — US9940124B2, US8572571B2, US11662995B2, and US9081897B2 — collectively cover systems, methods, computing devices, servers, software, and non-transitory computer-readable storage media relating to the execution, storage, support, and facilitation of application software. The patents span multiple application generations, with filing dates ranging from the early smartphone era (US8572571B2, App. No. 12/841113) through to more recent continuation filings (US11662995B2, App. No. 17/543670), suggesting a deliberately maintained and extended patent family.
S3G Technology’s assertion of four patents covering foundational app infrastructure — rather than a single narrow feature — is strategically significant. Claims that read broadly on client-server communication, local storage handling, or app execution pipelines can potentially cover a wide range of consumer mobile applications across multiple industries. For restaurant chains, retail brands, or hospitality operators running consumer-facing apps, the breadth of this patent family warrants careful claim-by-claim freedom-to-operate analysis, particularly given that the lead case remains open against additional defendants.
Should your mobile app team run an FTO against US9940124B2 and related S3G patents?
Any company operating a consumer-facing mobile application — particularly in the restaurant, hospitality, retail, or food delivery sectors — should treat S3G Technology’s active enforcement campaign as a direct trigger for FTO review. With four patents covering app execution, server infrastructure, and non-transitory storage media, the claim scope is broad enough to implicate standard mobile app architectures. The fact that the lead case remains open means further defendant filings are likely.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and product legal teams to map their app’s technical stack against the claim language of US9940124B2, US8572571B2, US11662995B2, and US9081897B2 simultaneously. Eureka surfaces claim-level overlap, identifies prior art that may support invalidity arguments, and benchmarks the patent family against the broader software application patent landscape — giving in-house counsel a defensible FTO position before a demand letter arrives.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9940124B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar mobile app and software patent infringement cases in E.D. Texas
Explore related software and mobile app patent infringement cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas — including other multi-defendant NPE campaigns targeting consumer application infrastructure.
What this case signals for the restaurant-app and software patent IP landscape
S3G’s multi-defendant campaign in E.D. Texas targeting mobile app infrastructure is a pattern that extends well beyond the restaurant sector.
E.D. Texas remains the preferred venue for multi-defendant software NPE campaigns
S3G filed in the Eastern District of Texas — consistently one of the most plaintiff-friendly venues for patent litigation. Filing a lead case with multiple member cases allows NPEs to extract early settlements from individual defendants while keeping collective pressure on others. Companies with consumer mobile apps should assess their E.D. Texas exposure proactively.
Four-patent assertion stacks amplify settlement leverage in app infringement claims
Asserting four related software patents simultaneously raises the cost and complexity of defense. Even if individual patents carry validity risk, defendants must evaluate each patent independently. This stacking strategy is consistent with licensing-focused enforcement and often accelerates early resolution — as seen in the 114-day timeline here.
S3G v Texas — key questions answered
S3G Technology, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Texas Roadhouse, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas on February 5, 2025. The case was dismissed with prejudice by joint motion on May 30, 2025 — 114 days after filing — with each party bearing its own costs. No merits determination was made. The lead case remains open as other defendants are still active.
S3G Technology asserted four U.S. patents: US9940124B2, US8572571B2, US11662995B2, and US9081897B2. These patents cover systems, methods, computing devices, servers, software, and non-transitory computer-readable storage media relating to the execution and facilitation of application software — specifically applied to the Texas Roadhouse mobile app.
Dismissal with prejudice permanently bars S3G Technology from reasserting the same patent claims against Texas Roadhouse, Inc. in any future action. It is a final resolution on the merits for procedural purposes. However, it does not affect S3G’s ability to enforce the same four patents against other defendants in separate proceedings.
No. The dismissal was entered by joint motion without any court ruling on patent validity or infringement. The four asserted patents remain valid and enforceable. The public record does not contain any merits determination. The resolution is consistent with a confidential settlement, though no financial terms are disclosed in public filings.
Yes. Judge Gilstrap’s May 30, 2025 order explicitly directed the clerk to maintain the lead case (2:25-cv-00134) as open because other parties or claims remain pending. This confirms that the Texas Roadhouse filing was a member case within a broader multi-defendant action, and S3G Technology continues to pursue infringement claims on the same four software patents against other defendants.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.