S3G Technology v. Torrid LLC: Dismissed With Prejudice After 217 Days
S3G Technology, LLC filed suit against Torrid, LLC in the Eastern District of Texas asserting three patents covering modification of terminal and service provider machines via an update server. The parties jointly stipulated to dismiss all claims with prejudice in under eight months, with each side bearing its own costs.
Three software-update patents, one early stipulated exit in E.D. Texas
On 7 February 2023, S3G Technology, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Torrid, LLC in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 5:23-cv-00014) before Judge Robert W. Schroeder III. S3G asserted three United States patents — US9940124B2, US8572571B2, and US9304758B2 — all directed to the modification of terminal and service provider machines using an update server machine. Torrid, a plus-size women's clothing retailer, was named as the defendant in what is recorded as a straight infringement action.
The case closed on 12 September 2023, 217 days after filing. The recorded basis of termination is 'Dismissed with Prejudice.' The docket order states that the parties filed a Stipulated Motion to Dismiss All Claims With Prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1), with each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorney's fees; the court granted the motion and ordered the case dismissed with prejudice. Any pending motions were denied as moot, and the court noted that a final judgment would be entered in accordance with the order.
Resolution in under eight months — before the case reached a Markman hearing — suggests the dispute was resolved at an early stage. Whether the parties reached any private arrangement is not disclosed in the available public record. The cost-neutrality provision is notable: neither party extracted a fee-shifting award, which is sometimes pursued under 35 U.S.C. § 285 in cases that proceed further.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 217 days
217 days — from filing to dismissal, faster than most E.D. Tex. patent cases reach claim construction
US9940124B2, US8572571B2 & US9304758B2 — update server machine technology
Any product team deploying remote update, patch management, or firmware distribution technology to terminal or point-of-sale devices should treat this patent family as an active FTO concern. The case's early dismissal produced no claim-scope ruling, leaving the patents legally intact and potentially available for assertion against new defendants. Retailers and enterprise software vendors with update-server architectures are particularly relevant targets.
Official order — verbatim text
The court's order is brief and procedural: it grants the parties' joint stipulated motion, orders dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1), and directs each party to bear its own costs. No merits finding, claim construction, or damages analysis appears in the order. The with-prejudice designation is the legally operative element — it operates as a final judgment for claim-preclusion purposes against both parties on the asserted patents.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated exit means for both parties
Stipulated Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal with prejudice — what it means
A dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) is a final adjudication on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes. Filed jointly as a stipulated motion, it required no court approval beyond the formal order. S3G cannot refile the same infringement claims against Torrid on these three patents. The court also denied all pending motions as moot and flagged entry of a final judgment.
Claim-preclusive dismissalS3G's claims are permanently closed — no damages awarded on the record
For S3G Technology, dismissal with prejudice forecloses any future action against Torrid on US9940124B2, US8572571B2, and US9304758B2. No damages, royalty, or injunctive relief are recorded in the public docket. The three patents remain in force and could still be asserted against other parties not bound by this dismissal.
No recorded relief; patents surviveTorrid exits with prejudice bar and no fee award against it
Torrid, LLC obtains a with-prejudice bar preventing S3G from bringing the same patent claims again. No attorney's fee award was entered against Torrid, and each party bears its own litigation costs. The public record does not disclose any payment, license, or other consideration flowing between the parties as part of the resolution.
Full preclusion; own costs onlyEarly exit limits precedent but leaves patent risk for other defendants
Because the case closed before claim construction, no judicial interpretation of US9940124B2, US8572571B2, or US9304758B2 was produced. Companies in the retail-technology or point-of-sale software update space that received similar demand letters cannot rely on this dismissal as a validity or non-infringement ruling. The patents' enforceability against third parties remains unaddressed.
No claim construction; third-party risk openFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | S3G Technology, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Torrid, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Charles Ainsworth | Attorney | Counsel for S3G Technology, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Gregory S. Cordrey | Attorney | Counsel for S3G Technology, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP (Irvine) | Law Firm | Representing S3G Technology, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Parker Bunt & Ainsworth PC | Law Firm | Representing S3G Technology, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David H. Harper | Attorney | Counsel for Torrid, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Stephanie Noelle Sivinski | Attorney | Counsel for Torrid, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Haynes & Boone, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Torrid, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the remote update and terminal management patent space
This case surfaces active patent assertion in the update-server and terminal management domain — here are the forward-looking IP and R&D signals practitioners and product teams should track.
S3G Technology's update-server patent family: how deep does it go?
S3G asserted three patents from what appears to be a coordinated family originating from application 12/841113 (filed 2010). Mapping all continuations, divisionals, and related applications in this family is essential for any company in the terminal-update space — additional granted or pending claims could extend the assertion risk horizon well beyond the three patents named in this case.
Portfolio depth — update serverFiling trends in remote firmware and terminal update architectures
The update-server and remote terminal management space has seen sustained patenting activity from both incumbents and NPEs. Cloud-based OTA (over-the-air) update patents and edge-device management filings are increasing. Understanding where the density of granted claims sits — and where white space remains — is critical for R&D teams building or acquiring update infrastructure technology.
OTA update IP trendsTorrid's own patent position in retail and commerce technology
Torrid, LLC operates as a retail brand rather than a technology developer, suggesting limited defensive patent holdings in the software update space. Companies similarly positioned — retailers using third-party POS or update infrastructure — should assess whether their technology vendors carry their own IP protection, or whether the liability exposure ultimately rests with the retailer.
Retail-tech IP exposureAdjacent R&D opportunities near the asserted update-server claims
The asserted patents focus on update-server-to-terminal modification pathways. Adjacent white space may exist in differential update protocols, cryptographically secured update verification, and AI-driven update scheduling — areas where newer architectures diverge from the claim language of patents filed between 2010 and 2016. Teams building next-generation update infrastructure may find defensible innovation space here.
Adjacent filing opportunitySimilar patent infringement cases in the E.D. Texas update-server technology space
Cases asserting software update and remote terminal management patents in the Eastern District of Texas follow distinct lifecycle patterns — explore comparable filings below.
What this case signals for the software update patent IP landscape
Early dismissals in E.D. Texas often precede broader assertion campaigns. Understanding the full portfolio matters.
No claim construction means third parties cannot rely on this outcome
The case closed before any Markman ruling. Companies operating terminal-update or remote software deployment technology face identical uncertainty they faced before this filing. An independent FTO analysis against US9940124B2, US8572571B2, and US9304758B2 remains advisable for any party in the update-server or POS software space.
Cost-neutral exit is a common feature of early PAE resolutions in E.D. Texas
The own-costs provision removes a typical litigation pressure point. Neither party's legal spend is on the record. Businesses receiving demand letters from S3G Technology should note that early settlement — structured so each side bears own costs — appears to be an available resolution pathway, though the specific terms of any arrangement are not in the public record.
S3G v Torrid — key questions answered
S3G Technology asserted three patents: US9940124B2 (App. No. 15/065757), US8572571B2 (App. No. 12/841113), and US9304758B2 (App. No. 14/788506). All three relate to the modification of terminal and service provider machines using an update server machine. The case was filed on 7 February 2023 in the Eastern District of Texas.
The case was resolved by a jointly stipulated motion to dismiss all claims with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1), granted by Judge Robert W. Schroeder III on 12 September 2023. Dismissed with prejudice means the claims are permanently ended and S3G Technology cannot refile the same infringement claims against Torrid on these three patents. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorney's fees.
No. The dismissal with prejudice binds only the two named parties — S3G Technology and Torrid, LLC. No claim construction or validity ruling was issued. The three asserted patents remain in force and S3G retains the right to assert them against other parties. Third-party companies in the terminal-update or POS software space should conduct independent FTO analysis.
No financial terms, royalties, licenses, or other consideration are disclosed in the available public record. The only public terms are those in the court's order: dismissal with prejudice of all claims, and each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorney's fees. Any private arrangement between the parties, if one exists, is not reflected in the docket.
The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 5:23-cv-00014) and was presided over by Judge Robert W. Schroeder III. Plaintiff was represented by Charles Ainsworth and Gregory S. Cordrey of Parker Bunt & Ainsworth PC and Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP. Defendant Torrid was represented by David H. Harper and Stephanie Noelle Sivinski of Haynes & Boone, LLP.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.