S3G Technology v. The Gap — Dismissed With Prejudice After 173 Days
S3G Technology LLC asserted three software patents against The Gap’s mobile application in the Eastern District of Texas. The parties filed a joint motion to dismiss all claims with prejudice just 173 days after filing, with each side bearing its own costs and attorneys’ fees.
Joint exit from E.D. Texas: three patents, one application, no merits ruling
On 11 August 2023, S3G Technology LLC filed suit against The Gap, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 5:23-cv-00086), asserting infringement of three U.S. patents — US9940124B2, US8572571B2, and US9304758B2 — in connection with The Gap’s mobile application. Parker Bunt & Ainsworth PC represented the plaintiff; Klarquist Sparkman LLP appeared for the defence.
The case ended on 31 January 2024, when the court granted the parties’ Joint Motion to Dismiss All Claims With Prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1). All claims were dismissed with prejudice, and each party was ordered to bear its own legal costs. No merits determination was made — the court issued no ruling on infringement, validity, or claim construction.
At 173 days, the resolution is notably swift for a three-patent infringement action in E.D. Texas. The joint nature of the motion and the mutual cost-bearing arrangement strongly suggest the parties reached a private settlement, though the public record is silent on any financial or licensing terms. The with-prejudice designation bars S3G from reasserting the same claims against The Gap.
Filing to dismissal in 173 days
173 days — resolved well under the E.D. Texas median for patent cases
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint motion means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal with prejudice: the door closes permanently
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1), parties may jointly stipulate to dismiss an action. When that dismissal is ‘with prejudice,’ it operates as a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes. S3G Technology cannot refile these specific patent claims against The Gap in any federal court — the dismissal is legally final and unconditional.
Res judicata appliesS3G forfeits the right to pursue The Gap on these three patents
By agreeing to a with-prejudice dismissal, S3G Technology permanently surrenders its infringement claims against The Gap under US9940124B2, US8572571B2, and US9304758B2. The patents themselves remain in force and may still be asserted against other defendants. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement suggests no admitted wrongdoing — any settlement value, if exchanged, is undisclosed.
Patents remain enforceable vs. othersThe Gap secures permanent protection from these specific claims
The Gap exits the litigation without any finding of infringement and without contributing to the other side’s legal fees. The with-prejudice dismissal provides lasting certainty: S3G cannot revive these claims. The joint motion structure, and absence of fee-shifting, is consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a contested win, though no terms are public.
No infringement findingSwift resolution limits exposure but leaves patent risk open for the sector
The rapid 173-day resolution suggests The Gap prioritised commercial certainty over protracted litigation. Because no claim construction or validity ruling was issued, S3G’s three patents retain their full scope and remain available to assert against other mobile application operators in retail or adjacent sectors. Other app-reliant retailers should treat this case as a signal to audit exposure to S3G’s portfolio.
Sector-wide patent risk persistsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | S3G Technology, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9940124B2, US8572571B2, and US9304758B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Gap, Inc. | Company | The Gap, Inc. — multinational apparel retailer, defendant re mobile app technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Charles Ainsworth | Attorney | Counsel for S3G Technology, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John Christopher Carraway | Attorney | Counsel for The Gap, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge / | Chief Judge | Texas Eastern District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order closely tracks the joint motion language, granting dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1) without any independent merits analysis. The instruction that ‘all relief not previously granted is DENIED’ is standard closing language and does not imply any contested ruling. The with-prejudice designation is the operative legal outcome: it is final and bars S3G from reasserting these claims against The Gap, but carries no implication of infringement or non-infringement by either party.
US9940124B2, US8572571B2 & US9304758B2 — mobile application software patents
The three asserted patents — US9940124B2 (App. No. 15/065,757), US8572571B2 (App. No. 12/841,113), and US9304758B2 (App. No. 14/788,506) — form a related portfolio in mobile application software. The application numbers span different filing generations, suggesting S3G built a layered claim strategy across continuation or related application families. The patents are asserted in the context of The Gap’s consumer-facing mobile application, indicating claims likely directed at application delivery, interface logic, or session and user-management methods common to retail apps.
The breadth of asserting three related patents simultaneously against a single product — The Gap application — is tactically significant. It raises the cost and complexity of any invalidity challenge and complicates claim construction for defendants. Because no IPR petitions or validity rulings appear in the public record of this case, the patents remain unchallenged and in force. For competitors or acquirers of similar mobile application technology, these patents represent an unresolved risk vector in the retail software space.
Should you run an FTO against US9940124B2, US8572571B2, and US9304758B2?
Any company developing, acquiring, or licensing a consumer-facing mobile application in the retail sector should assess exposure to S3G’s three-patent portfolio. The claims were asserted against The Gap’s app without a public definition of their scope — meaning product teams cannot rely on this case to determine whether their own implementations are clear. App personalisation, user session logic, and interface delivery methods are all plausible claim targets based on the application context.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows you to map each of these three patents against your specific product architecture. Upload your technical specification or describe your mobile app’s key functions, and Eureka will identify claim overlap risks, cite prior art that may narrow scope, and flag related pending applications in the S3G portfolio. Running a structured FTO now is significantly less costly than defending in E.D. Texas.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9940124B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar mobile application patent cases in E.D. Texas
Explore related software and mobile application patent infringement actions filed in the Eastern District of Texas involving comparable PAE plaintiffs and retail or app-dependent defendants.
What this case signals for the mobile application patent IP landscape
A fast-exit joint dismissal in E.D. Texas rarely happens without strategic calculation — here is what it means for retail tech IP teams.
With-prejudice exits in E.D. Texas signal negotiated resolution, not capitulation
A joint Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal with mutual cost-bearing is a textbook settlement signature. Neither party sought fees, no merits were contested on the record, and the 173-day timeline is too short for meaningful claim construction. Retail IP teams should treat this as a quiet licence, not a defendant win.
S3G’s three patents remain live weapons against other mobile app defendants
No invalidity ruling, no claim construction, and no IPR record from this case. US9940124B2, US8572571B2, and US9304758B2 exit this litigation untested. Any retailer or app developer operating in adjacent technology space should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis before assuming the S3G portfolio is neutralised.
S3G v The — key questions answered
Dismissal with prejudice in Case No. 5:23-cv-00086 means S3G Technology LLC is permanently barred from reasserting the same patent claims — under US9940124B2, US8572571B2, and US9304758B2 — against The Gap, Inc. in any future action. The dismissal operates as a final adjudication for res judicata purposes, though no court ruled on infringement or validity.
The public record does not disclose any settlement agreement. However, the joint nature of the Rule 41(a)(1) motion, the mutual cost-bearing arrangement, and the 173-day resolution timeline are all consistent with a private settlement. Neither party admitted liability, and no financial terms have been made public.
S3G asserted three U.S. patents: US9940124B2 (App. No. 15/065,757), US8572571B2 (App. No. 12/841,113), and US9304758B2 (App. No. 14/788,506). All three relate to mobile application software technology and were asserted in connection with The Gap’s consumer-facing mobile app.
Yes. The with-prejudice dismissal only bars S3G from asserting these patents against The Gap, Inc. specifically. The three patents — US9940124B2, US8572571B2, and US9304758B2 — remain in force and were not invalidated or narrowed in this case. S3G may assert them against other defendants in future litigation.
The Eastern District of Texas is a historically popular venue for patent assertion entity (PAE) litigation due to its established patent docket, experienced judges, and plaintiff-friendly procedural reputation. S3G’s choice of this court is consistent with broader filing patterns by PAEs asserting software patents against large commercial defendants.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.