SitePro v. Plow Technologies: Four-Patent IoT SCADA Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
SitePro, Inc. filed suit against Plow Technologies LLC in the Western District of Texas asserting four patents covering the OnPing remote monitoring and SCADA control platform. The case was dismissed without prejudice after 219 days, leaving the underlying infringement claims unresolved on the merits.
Four-Patent SCADA Infringement Action Ends Without Merits Ruling
SitePro, Inc. commenced this infringement action on 24 December 2024 in the Western District of Texas (Waco Division), asserting four US patents — US9898014B2, US11726504B2, US8649909B1, and US11175680B2 — against Plow Technologies LLC. The asserted patents relate to the OnPing system and OnPing Lumberjack product, covering remote monitoring, supervisory control, and data acquisition (SCADA) technology used in industrial field operations. SitePro was represented by Perkins Coie LLP, while Plow Technologies retained a notably large defence coalition spanning Ciccarelli Law Firm, Crowe & Dunlevy, Phillips Murrah P.C., and Winstead PC.
The case was closed on 31 July 2025 when the court ordered all claims, counterclaims, and other causes of action asserted by or against defendants PakEnergy, LLC and FPC-WP Investment Co., Inc. dismissed without prejudice, with the clerk directed to administratively close the case. A dismissal without prejudice means no binding judgment on the merits was entered; SitePro retains the legal right to refile the same claims, subject to applicable statute of limitations and any intervening agreements between the parties.
The 219-day duration and the notably broad dismissal order — which names PakEnergy, LLC and FPC-WP Investment Co., Inc. alongside the captioned defendant — suggests the litigation may have been broader in scope than the case caption alone reflects, potentially involving operating entities or affiliates. The parties have not disclosed any settlement terms in the public record, and the precise reason for the dismissal without prejudice — whether settlement, strategic withdrawal, or procedural resolution — remains unknown from publicly available information.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 219 days
219 days from filing to closure — relatively swift for a four-patent W.D. Texas infringement action
Dismissed without prejudice: what the order means for both parties
Without prejudice means no merits bar — claims survive
A dismissal without prejudice does not adjudicate the underlying infringement allegations. No finding was made as to whether the four OnPing SCADA patents are valid or infringed. SitePro is not barred from refiling the same claims in federal court, provided the statute of limitations has not expired and no separate agreement prevents re-litigation. This is procedurally distinct from a dismissal with prejudice, which would operate as a final judgment on the merits.
Claims remain legally liveNo res judicata — but refiling carries strategic cost
Because the dismissal is without prejudice, neither party can invoke res judicata to bar a future action on the same patents. However, the public record does not disclose whether a settlement agreement, licence, or covenant not to sue was executed concurrently. If such an agreement exists, it — not the court order — would be the operative constraint. Parties evaluating freedom to operate on OnPing-related technology should treat the underlying patent rights as unresolved.
Settlement terms undisclosedSitePro preserves right to re-engage on four patents
SitePro exits the case with its four patents intact and no adverse judgment on validity or infringement. The without-prejudice dismissal preserves maximum optionality: SitePro can refile, negotiate licensing, or pursue inter partes proceedings depending on its commercial strategy. The involvement of Perkins Coie — a firm with deep patent litigation bench strength — suggests the dismissal likely reflects a deliberate strategic decision rather than a capacity constraint.
Patent enforcement posture unchangedPlow Technologies avoids judgment — but cloud remains
Plow Technologies, PakEnergy, and FPC-WP Investment Co. are dismissed without a finding in their favour. They cannot claim the patents are invalid or not infringed based on this order. The multi-firm defence coalition and the inclusion of what appear to be affiliated entities suggest the accused technology may be embedded across a broader product stack. Competitors and acquirers should note the four asserted patents remain enforceable and the dispute is unresolved.
Infringement cloud not liftedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | SitePro, Inc. | Company | Industrial IoT and SCADA software company — holder of US9898014B2 and three further OnPing system patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Plow Technologies LLC | Company | Plow Technologies LLC — technology company alleged to infringe OnPing SCADA and remote monitoring patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew Xavier Kalamarides | Attorney | Counsel for SitePro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Helena E.D. Burns | Attorney | Counsel for SitePro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | M. Craig Tyler | Attorney | Counsel for SitePro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew Lutz | Attorney | Counsel for SitePro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Perkins Coie LLP | Law Firm | Representing SitePro, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David M. Sullivan | Attorney | Counsel for Plow Technologies LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Deric J. McClellan | Attorney | Counsel for Plow Technologies LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Evan G Vincent | Attorney | Counsel for Plow Technologies LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Fred Albert Leibrock | Attorney | Counsel for Plow Technologies LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Henry R. Herren | Attorney | Counsel for Plow Technologies LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John H. Yoon | Attorney | Counsel for Plow Technologies LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Massimo Ciccarelli | Attorney | Counsel for Plow Technologies LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Ciccarelli Law Firm | Law Firm | Representing Plow Technologies LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Crowe & Dunlevy | Law Firm | Representing Plow Technologies LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Crowe & Dunlevy, P.C. | Law Firm | Representing Plow Technologies LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Crowe Dunlevy | Law Firm | Representing Plow Technologies LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Phillips Murrah P.C. | Law Firm | Representing Plow Technologies LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Winstead PC | Law Firm | Representing Plow Technologies LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The order dismisses all claims and counterclaims against named defendants PakEnergy, LLC and FPC-WP Investment Co., Inc. without prejudice. The phrasing — ‘all claims, counterclaims, and other causes of action’ — is intentionally comprehensive, sweeping in both offensive and defensive pleadings. No infringement finding, validity ruling, or damages determination was made. The administrative closure instruction signals this is a terminal event at the district court level for now, but the without-prejudice qualifier means SitePro’s four OnPing SCADA patents remain fully enforceable.
US9898014B2, US11726504B2, US8649909B1 & US11175680B2 — OnPing SCADA and Remote Monitoring Patents
The four asserted patents span application dates from 2012 (US13/708557, issued as US8649909B1) through to 2022 (US17/681373, issued as US11726504B2), reflecting a decade-long development trajectory for the OnPing platform. The patents collectively cover the architecture and methods underlying remote SCADA-based monitoring, supervisory control, and data acquisition for industrial field operations. The OnPing Lumberjack product is specifically named alongside the broader OnPing system, suggesting claims that address both edge-device data collection and cloud-connected supervisory functions.
For competitors in the industrial IoT, oilfield automation, and SCADA sectors, the breadth of this four-patent portfolio presents meaningful clearance risk. The inclusion of both early foundational patents and more recent continuation-style patents — covering evolved product features — is consistent with a strategy designed to block design-arounds. Companies developing remote terminal units, field data loggers, or cloud-connected SCADA dashboards that interact with industrial equipment should evaluate whether their implementations fall within the claim scope of any of the four asserted patents, particularly given that no invalidity finding was entered in this proceeding.
Should you run an FTO against US9898014B2 and the OnPing SCADA patent portfolio?
Any company developing, deploying, or acquiring SCADA platforms, industrial IoT remote monitoring solutions, or field data acquisition systems should treat this four-patent portfolio as a live enforcement risk. The without-prejudice dismissal means SitePro has made no concessions on validity or claim scope, and the patents remain available for re-assertion. This is particularly relevant for oilfield automation vendors, industrial cloud platform providers, and OEMs supplying remote terminal units or field communication gateways.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can rapidly map the claim scope of all four OnPing patents against your product architecture, flag prior art relevant to any future invalidity challenge, and identify continuation applications or divisionals that may extend portfolio reach. Use Eureka to run claim-by-claim analysis across US9898014B2, US11726504B2, US8649909B1, and US11175680B2 before product launch or M&A due diligence in the industrial IoT space.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9898014B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar SCADA and Industrial IoT Patent Infringement Cases in W.D. Texas
Explore comparable industrial IoT and SCADA patent infringement actions filed in the Western District of Texas involving remote monitoring and field control system patents.
What this case signals for the industrial IoT and SCADA IP landscape
Four patents, multiple affiliated defendants, and a without-prejudice exit: this case raises important enforcement and FTO questions for the industrial monitoring sector.
Multi-entity defendant structures complicate SCADA patent enforcement
The dismissal order naming PakEnergy and FPC-WP Investment Co. alongside the captioned defendant suggests SitePro targeted an interconnected corporate structure. In industrial IoT disputes, operating entities, holding companies, and platform licensees are frequently named together. IP teams should map corporate affiliations before assuming a single entity bears all infringement exposure.
Without-prejudice exits keep OnPing patent risk live for the sector
No validity or infringement finding was made on any of the four OnPing patents. Companies deploying SCADA or remote field monitoring platforms that overlap with the OnPing system’s claimed functionality should treat these patents as active enforcement assets. A prior dismissal without prejudice provides no safe harbour in a subsequent action.
SitePro v Plow — key questions answered
SitePro, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against Plow Technologies LLC in the Western District of Texas on 24 December 2024, asserting four patents covering the OnPing SCADA and remote monitoring system. The case was dismissed without prejudice on 31 July 2025 after 219 days, with no merits ruling on infringement or validity.
SitePro asserted US9898014B2, US11726504B2, US8649909B1, and US11175680B2 — four patents covering the OnPing system and OnPing Lumberjack product, spanning industrial IoT remote monitoring, SCADA supervisory control, and field data acquisition technology.
A dismissal without prejudice means no judgment was entered on the merits of infringement or validity. SitePro’s four OnPing patents remain valid and enforceable. SitePro retains the right to refile the same claims against Plow Technologies or other parties, subject to applicable statutes of limitations and any private agreements not reflected in the public record.
The dismissal order specifically names PakEnergy, LLC and FPC-WP Investment Co., Inc. as defendants whose claims and counterclaims are dismissed. This suggests SitePro’s infringement action extended to affiliated or related entities beyond the captioned defendant Plow Technologies LLC, which is consistent with enforcement strategies targeting interconnected corporate structures in the SCADA and industrial software sector.
No. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, Plow Technologies cannot invoke res judicata or claim preclusion to bar a future infringement action on the same OnPing patents. The order makes no finding on validity or infringement. Only a settlement agreement or covenant not to sue — if one exists outside the public record — could contractually limit future exposure.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.