SitePro v. Plow Technologies & PakEnergy: OnPing Patent Dismissed With Prejudice
SitePro Inc. filed a patent infringement action against Plow Technologies LLC and six PakEnergy-affiliated entities in the Northern District of Texas, asserting US12321184B2 covering the OnPing system. The parties reached a stipulated dismissal with prejudice in 182 days — a resolution that permanently forecloses SitePro from refiling the same claims.
OnPing patent dispute ends in stipulated dismissal with prejudice
SitePro Inc., the holder of US12321184B2 covering the OnPing system — an industrial IoT platform used in oil and gas field monitoring — filed suit on June 6, 2025 in the Northern District of Texas against Plow Technologies LLC, Plow Technologies Texas LLC, and five PakEnergy-branded entities including PakEnergy Holdings, PakEnergy Consultants, PakEnergy Intermediate, PakEnergy Land, and PakScada LLC. The assertion targeted what SitePro characterised as infringing use of technology within its OnPing platform’s claimed scope.
The case closed on December 5, 2025, via a stipulation and joint motion to dismiss all defendants with prejudice. Judge David C. Godbey of the Northern District of Texas found good cause and granted the motion. As part of the agreement, the defendants waived any entitlement to costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(d), which would otherwise allow a defendant to seek costs if the same plaintiff refiled the same claims — a provision that became moot given the with-prejudice designation.
At 182 days, this case resolved unusually quickly for patent litigation in a district known for active IP dockets. The mutual concessions — plaintiff accepting a permanent bar on refiling, defendants forgoing cost claims — are consistent with a negotiated resolution, possibly a licensing arrangement or commercial agreement reached off the record. The public record does not disclose any financial terms, licence grant, or other settlement consideration, leaving the underlying commercial rationale undisclosed.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 182 days
182 days — resolved well under the median district court patent case lifecycle of 2–3 years
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated order means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice bars refiling — permanently
A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41 operates as an adjudication on the merits. SitePro cannot refile the same patent infringement claims against these specific defendants in any federal court. This is a stronger concession than a without-prejudice dismissal, which would leave the door open. The stipulated nature means both sides agreed — the court did not impose this outcome.
Merits-equivalent barSitePro accepts permanent foreclosure on these claims
By agreeing to dismissal with prejudice, SitePro permanently surrenders its right to assert US12321184B2 against Plow Technologies and the PakEnergy entities in connection with the conduct alleged. This is a significant concession unless offset by undisclosed settlement consideration — such as a licence, cross-licence, or commercial agreement — which the public record does not confirm.
Claims permanently barredDefendants waive Rule 41(d) costs but gain permanent immunity
The seven defendant entities — Plow Technologies LLC, Plow Technologies Texas LLC, and five PakEnergy affiliates — secured a permanent bar against these specific infringement claims. In exchange, they waived Rule 41(d) cost recovery rights. This trade-off suggests the parties reached equilibrium: defendants accepted no cost award; plaintiff accepted no future claim rights. Neither side is publicly declared liable.
Permanent claim immunityFast resolution in oil and gas IoT suggests private deal
Resolution in under six months, combined with mutual concessions on costs and refiling rights, is consistent with a commercial resolution reached shortly after filing — a licensing deal or market delineation agreement is plausible. For the industrial IoT and oilfield technology sector, the case signals that US12321184B2 carries sufficient enforcement credibility to prompt rapid engagement, without necessarily proceeding to claim construction or trial.
Likely private resolutionFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | SitePro Inc | Company | Industrial IoT software company — holder of US12321184B2 covering the OnPing systemSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Plow Technologies LLC | Company | Plow Technologies LLC and PakEnergy-affiliated entities — oil and gas technology and data services providersSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew Kalamarides | Attorney | Counsel for SitePro IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John R Hardin | Attorney | Counsel for SitePro IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Marvin Craig Tyler | Attorney | Counsel for SitePro IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Perkins Coie LLP | Law Firm | Representing SitePro IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christopher Michael Staine | Attorney | Counsel for Plow Technologies LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Crowe & Dunlevy | Law Firm | Representing Plow Technologies LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge David C. Godbey | Judge | Texas Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order adopts the parties’ stipulation verbatim, granting dismissal with prejudice across all seven named defendants. The explicit Rule 41(d) cost waiver by defendants is incorporated into the order, making it judicially enforceable. The order does not contain any findings on infringement, validity, or claim scope — meaning US12321184B2 exits this litigation with no adverse judicial commentary on its merits, which is a neutral-to-positive signal for future enforcement by SitePro.
US12321184B2 — OnPing system: industrial IoT monitoring and control
US12321184B2, filed under application number US18/658724, covers the OnPing system — an industrial IoT platform designed for monitoring and control of oil and gas field operations. The relatively recent application number suggests a grant in the 2024–2025 timeframe, placing it among newer-generation industrial IoT patents that encompass connectivity, data aggregation, and potentially SCADA integration for distributed field assets. SitePro’s decision to assert this patent shortly after grant is consistent with an active enforcement strategy.
For the oil and gas technology sector, US12321184B2 represents a potentially broad claim footprint over remote field monitoring workflows. Competitors developing oilfield IoT platforms — particularly those handling real-time sensor data, remote actuation, or cloud-based field dashboards — face meaningful FTO risk if their architectures overlap with the OnPing claim set. The patent has not been subjected to public claim construction, inter partes review, or validity challenge in this case, leaving its full scope undetermined and enforcement potential intact.
Should your product team run an FTO analysis against US12321184B2?
Any company developing, licensing, or deploying industrial IoT monitoring platforms for oil and gas operations should evaluate exposure to US12321184B2 before scaling commercial deployment. This is particularly relevant for platforms handling remote field sensor aggregation, SCADA data integration, or cloud-based oilfield dashboards. SitePro has demonstrated willingness to file multi-defendant enforcement actions, and the patent has not been narrowed by any court ruling.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US12321184B2 against your product architecture, flag overlapping claim elements, and identify prior art that could support a design-around or IPR petition. Eureka’s citation graph also surfaces related SitePro applications that may represent continuation risk — critical intelligence before a product launch or licensing negotiation in the oilfield technology space.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US12321184B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar industrial IoT patent infringement cases in the Northern District of Texas
Explore related patent infringement actions involving industrial IoT, oilfield monitoring, and SCADA technology litigated in the Northern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the industrial IoT and oilfield tech IP landscape
A 182-day with-prejudice dismissal in a multi-defendant oilfield IoT case carries specific signals for competitors and licensees in this space.
US12321184B2 has demonstrated enforcement credibility in the oil and gas sector
SitePro’s willingness to sue seven entities simultaneously — including holding companies and subsidiaries — signals a structured enforcement programme. The rapid resolution without invalidation proceedings suggests the defendants did not contest the patent’s validity, which strengthens the patent’s perceived enforceability for future assertion cycles.
Multi-entity naming is a deliberate strategic move in complex corporate structures
Naming Plow Technologies alongside five PakEnergy affiliates — including intermediate holding companies — is consistent with a strategy to prevent asset shielding or jurisdictional evasion. IP teams operating in similarly structured energy tech groups should audit exposure across all affiliated entities, not just operating subsidiaries.
SitePro v Plow — key questions answered
The dismissal with prejudice means SitePro cannot refile the same patent infringement claims against Plow Technologies or the PakEnergy entities. However, US12321184B2 remains valid and enforceable against other parties. SitePro retains full rights to assert the patent against any third party not covered by this order.
SitePro asserted US12321184B2, filed under application number US18/658724, covering the OnPing system — an industrial IoT monitoring and control platform for oil and gas operations. This was a single-patent action.
Rule 41(d) allows defendants to seek costs if the same plaintiff refiles the same claims. Because the dismissal here was with prejudice — permanently barring refiling — the Rule 41(d) waiver had limited practical effect. The waiver may reflect a balanced negotiation in which defendants received other undisclosed consideration, such as a licence or covenant not to sue.
The OnPing system is an industrial IoT monitoring and control platform developed by SitePro Inc. for oil and gas field operations. SitePro holds US12321184B2 covering the platform and alleged that Plow Technologies and affiliated PakEnergy entities infringed its patent rights. The specific infringing acts were not adjudicated — the case settled before any merits ruling.
The case resolved in 182 days from filing to closure — significantly faster than the median patent case in the Northern District of Texas, which typically runs two to three years. The speed of resolution is consistent with a negotiated commercial outcome reached shortly after the complaint was filed, though no settlement terms have been publicly disclosed.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.