S3G Technology v. W.W. Grainger: Mobile App Patent Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
S3G Technology, LLC asserted four mobile application patents against W.W. Grainger’s Android and iOS apps in the Western District of Texas. The case resolved in just 91 days via a voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1), with each party bearing its own costs — a swift closure that forecloses any refiling by S3G.
Four-patent mobile app assertion ends in 91-day prejudicial dismissal
On March 13, 2024, S3G Technology, LLC filed suit against W.W. Grainger, Inc. in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:24-cv-00130), before Judge Alan D. Albright. S3G asserted four US patents — US9940124B2, US11662995B2, US10261774B2, and US11210082B2 — alleging infringement by Grainger’s mobile applications for devices running both the Android operating system and iOS. Grainger is a major industrial supply distributor whose mobile apps serve as a significant commercial sales channel.
The case closed on June 12, 2024, just 91 days after filing. S3G invoked Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) to file a voluntary notice of dismissal, but crucially stipulated that the dismissal was with prejudice. The parties agreed that each would bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. A with-prejudice dismissal carries the same res judicata effect as a final judgment on the merits, permanently barring S3G from asserting the same claims against Grainger on these four patents.
A resolution in under 100 days — before any substantive motion practice or claim construction proceedings would typically conclude — is consistent with a confidential settlement or a strategic decision by S3G to withdraw. The public record does not disclose whether any licensing agreement was reached. The absence of fee shifting suggests neither party pressed for exceptional-case treatment, and the mutual cost-bearing arrangement is a hallmark of negotiated exits rather than purely capitulatory withdrawals.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 91 days
91 days — well below the median W.D. Texas patent case lifespan, suggesting early resolution
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal with prejudice bars all future claims
A voluntary dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) is self-executing when filed before the defendant serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. By stipulating that the dismissal is with prejudice, S3G has permanently waived its right to reassert these four patents against Grainger. The effect is identical to a final judgment on the merits — res judicata attaches and no future action on the same claims is permissible.
Permanent bar on refilingS3G forfeits its claims — permanently and unconditionally
S3G Technology cannot refile these infringement claims against Grainger under any of the four asserted patents. Whether S3G received consideration — such as a confidential licence fee — in exchange for accepting a with-prejudice dismissal is not disclosed in the public record. The mutual cost-bearing clause suggests a negotiated resolution, but the absence of a settlement agreement on the docket means the commercial terms, if any, remain unknown.
Claims extinguishedGrainger exits without adjudication — but patent risk persists
Grainger secured a complete exit from S3G’s claims on all four patents with no costs awarded against it. However, because the patents were not invalidated or found non-infringed by any court ruling, the IP itself remains intact. Grainger’s Android and iOS mobile apps could theoretically be targeted again by a future assignee or licensee of these patents — the dismissal protects Grainger only from S3G’s claims specifically.
Protected from S3G onlyMobile app patents in W.D. Texas: fast resolutions signal ongoing risk
This case’s 91-day lifespan is consistent with a wave of NPE assertions in W.D. Texas targeting enterprise mobile applications. Judge Albright’s docket is known for accelerated scheduling, which can incentivise early settlement. Companies operating commercial Android and iOS apps — particularly in B2B e-commerce and industrial supply — should treat this case as a signal that mobile application patent portfolios are actively being monetised against established operators.
NPE mobile app risk activeFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | S3G Technology, LLC | Company | Mobile application patent licensing entity — holder of US9940124B2 and three related patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | W. W. Grainger Co., Inc. | Company | W.W. Grainger, Inc. — Fortune 500 industrial supply distributor operating Android and iOS 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 | Thomas L. Duston. | Attorney | Counsel for W. W. Grainger Co., Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Marshall Gerstein & Borun LLP | Law Firm | Representing W. W. Grainger Co., Inc.Search 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), the self-executing voluntary dismissal mechanism, and explicitly stipulates that the dismissal is with prejudice — a significant legal election by S3G. The with-prejudice designation extinguishes S3G’s claims as a matter of res judicata, equivalent in effect to an adverse final judgment. The mutual cost-bearing provision departs from a pure unilateral withdrawal and is consistent with a negotiated exit. No claim construction, invalidity finding, or non-infringement ruling appears on the docket, leaving the four asserted patents legally intact against third parties.
US9940124B2 — Mobile application software and related patent family
The four asserted patents — US9940124B2 (App. No. US15/065757), US11662995B2 (App. No. US17/543670), US10261774B2 (App. No. US15/947593), and US11210082B2 (App. No. US17/033633) — form a patent family directed at mobile application functionality for Android and iOS platforms. The continuation application numbers (US17/x series) suggest active prosecution and deliberate portfolio extension, a hallmark of NPE monetisation strategy. The patents cover functionality directly implicated in commercial mobile apps used for product search, ordering, and account management.
The commercial significance of these patents lies in their broad potential applicability to any enterprise operating a feature-rich Android or iOS application. In B2B and industrial distribution — where mobile apps are increasingly the primary sales interface — even a single asserted patent in this family can create substantial litigation exposure. The portfolio’s continuation structure means additional claims may have been filed, warranting ongoing monitoring. Companies in adjacent sectors, including manufacturing, logistics, and procurement technology, should assess their own exposure.
Should your mobile app team run an FTO against these four S3G patents?
Any company operating commercial Android or iOS applications in B2B e-commerce, industrial supply, procurement, or adjacent sectors should evaluate its exposure against the S3G patent family. These four patents were asserted against Grainger’s standard mobile ordering and account-management apps — functionality that is near-universal in enterprise mobile commerce. The fact that they were not invalidated in this proceeding means they remain enforceable and may be the basis for future assertions against other defendants.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s mobile application feature set against the claim scope of US9940124B2 and its three family members, identify prior art that could inform invalidity positions, and surface related continuation applications still in prosecution. For in-house IP teams, Eureka’s portfolio monitoring tools can flag new filings by S3G Technology or related entities — giving you early warning before a complaint lands on your desk.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9940124B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar mobile application patent cases in W.D. Texas
Explore comparable NPE infringement actions asserting mobile application patents before Judge Albright in the Western District of Texas.
What this case signals for the mobile application IP landscape
A four-patent assertion resolved in 91 days suggests NPE activity targeting enterprise mobile apps remains commercially viable and tactically aggressive.
W.D. Texas remains a preferred venue for mobile app NPE assertions
Judge Albright’s accelerated scheduling orders in W.D. Texas compress timelines dramatically, increasing settlement pressure on defendants early. Companies with significant Android or iOS commercial apps should monitor new filings in this district and have a litigation-readiness plan for rapid-response claim analysis.
Four-patent stacks amplify assertion leverage against single defendants
S3G’s use of four related patents — covering overlapping mobile application functionality — is a common NPE tactic to raise the cost and complexity of defence. R&D and IP teams at companies with consumer-facing or B2B mobile apps should audit exposure against patent families in this space, not just individual patents.
S3G v W. — key questions answered
S3G Technology asserted four patents: US9940124B2, US11662995B2, US10261774B2, and US11210082B2. All four relate to mobile application functionality and were alleged to be infringed by Grainger’s Android and iOS mobile apps. The case was filed March 13, 2024 in the Western District of Texas before Judge Alan D. Albright.
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final judgment on the merits under res judicata principles. S3G Technology is permanently barred from reasserting any of the four patents against W.W. Grainger, Inc. The dismissal was self-effectuated via Rule 41(a)(1) and was stipulated to be with prejudice, meaning the claims are extinguished and cannot be revived in any future litigation.
The public docket does not disclose a settlement agreement. However, the with-prejudice dismissal combined with a mutual cost-bearing clause — rather than a one-sided withdrawal — is consistent with a negotiated resolution. Whether any licensing payment or other consideration was exchanged is not reflected in publicly available court records.
Yes. Because no court issued a ruling on validity, claim construction, or non-infringement, all four patents — US9940124B2, US11662995B2, US10261774B2, and US11210082B2 — remain legally intact and enforceable against third parties. Only Grainger is protected by the res judicata effect of the with-prejudice dismissal. Other companies with similar Android and iOS mobile application functionality remain potentially exposed.
The Western District of Texas, particularly under Judge Alan D. Albright, is known for aggressive scheduling orders that compress pre-trial timelines, increasing settlement pressure on defendants. Its plaintiff-friendly reputation, efficient docket management, and geographic flexibility have made it a favoured filing venue for non-practising entities (NPEs) asserting software and mobile application patents, even after post-TC Heartland venue scrutiny.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.