SitePro v. Plow Technologies & PakEnergy: OnPing Patent Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
SitePro Inc. asserted four patents covering its OnPing industrial IoT monitoring platform against Plow Technologies LLC and six affiliated PakEnergy entities in the Northern District of Texas. The parties jointly stipulated to a dismissal with prejudice within 171 days, suggesting a negotiated resolution — the full terms of which remain confidential.
Four-Patent OnPing IoT Suit Ends in Stipulated Dismissal With Prejudice
SitePro Inc. filed case 3:25-cv-01554 in the Northern District of Texas on 17 June 2025, asserting infringement of four US patents — US11294403B2, US10488871B2, US9342078B2, and US12019461B2 — all relating to its OnPing industrial monitoring and control platform. The defendants comprised a corporate family spanning Plow Technologies LLC, Plow Technologies Texas LLC, and five PakEnergy-branded entities including PakScada LLC, collectively presenting a coordinated competitive threat in the oil-and-gas SCADA and remote-monitoring sector.
The case closed on 5 December 2025 — 171 days after filing — when both sides jointly moved to dismiss all defendants with prejudice. Judge David C. Godbey found good cause and granted the stipulation. Critically, the order further records that defendants waived any cost recovery under FRCP 41(d), a clause that suggests the dismissal followed a negotiated arrangement rather than a unilateral plaintiff withdrawal. A dismissal with prejudice extinguishes SitePro’s right to re-file the same claims against these defendants.
The 171-day resolution is notably swift for a four-patent district court action, consistent with parties reaching a commercial agreement — likely a licence, covenant not to sue, or acquisition of rights — without proceeding to claim construction or summary judgment. The public record does not disclose financial terms or any licensing arrangement. The waiver of defendants’ FRCP 41(d) cost entitlement is a signal worth noting: it typically forms part of a negotiated exchange, and its presence here suggests the defendants gave up something of value in return.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 171 days
171 days — resolved faster than the median N.D. Tex. patent case, suggesting early negotiation
Dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation: what the order means for both sides
Dismissal with prejudice bars SitePro from re-filing these claims
A dismissal with prejudice under FRCP 41 operates as a final adjudication on the merits. SitePro cannot reassert the four OnPing patents against any of the seven named PakEnergy/Plow defendants on the same facts. That finality is the price SitePro paid — whatever it received in return (likely a licence or royalty) presumably justified surrendering the ability to sue again.
FRCP 41 — final on the meritsSitePro likely extracted a commercial concession to agree to prejudice dismissal
Plaintiffs do not typically agree to a with-prejudice dismissal without receiving something meaningful in return. The absence of a public settlement agreement means the terms are confidential, but the structure — joint motion, prejudice bar, cost waiver by defendants — is consistent with a negotiated licence or covenant not to compete. SitePro’s four patents remain enforceable against third parties not named in this action.
Patents remain live vs. third partiesPakEnergy entities secured dismissal but waived FRCP 41(d) cost recovery
All seven defendants — Plow Technologies LLC, Plow Technologies Texas LLC, and five PakEnergy entities — were dismissed. However, they expressly waived their right to seek costs under FRCP 41(d). This waiver is notable: Rule 41(d) cost recovery is a defendant’s tool against vexatious re-filing, and surrendering it suggests the defendants traded that right as part of a broader deal. They avoid ongoing litigation risk but may carry ongoing commercial obligations.
FRCP 41(d) cost waiver negotiated awayFour OnPing patents remain active enforcement tools in the SCADA and IIoT market
SitePro holds a portfolio of four patents spanning different application dates and claim generations (US9342078B2 through US12019461B2), suggesting continued prosecution activity and layered protection for the OnPing platform. Competitors in oil-and-gas SCADA, remote monitoring, and industrial IoT who offer overlapping functionality should treat this outcome as a signal that SitePro is prepared to enforce — and to resolve — on commercial terms.
Active enforcement posture confirmedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | SitePro Inc | Company | Industrial IoT and remote monitoring software company — holder of US11294403B2 and three further OnPing platform patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Plow Technologies LLC | Company | Plow Technologies LLC and six affiliated PakEnergy entities operating in oil-and-gas SCADA and remote monitoringSearch 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 dismissal order records a joint stipulation signed by both parties’ counsel, with Judge Godbey finding ‘good cause’ — the standard threshold for approving a stipulated dismissal. The with-prejudice designation is the operative legal fact: it forecloses re-litigation of these claims against these defendants, functioning as a final merits adjudication. The explicit FRCP 41(d) cost waiver embedded in the same order is unusual and commercially significant — it indicates the defendants negotiated away a procedural protection, typically in exchange for a reciprocal concession from SitePro. No liability finding was made, and no damages were assessed on the public record.
US11294403B2, US10488871B2, US9342078B2 & US12019461B2 — OnPing Industrial IoT Platform
The four asserted patents span application numbers US17/513539, US15/867077, US14/147190, and US18/212131, representing a filing timeline that stretches across multiple technology generations of the OnPing platform. The earliest application (US14/147190, issuing as US9342078B2) establishes foundational claims in remote industrial monitoring and control, while the most recent grant (US12019461B2 from US18/212131) suggests continued innovation and prosecution activity. Together they cover overlapping aspects of industrial IoT data acquisition, remote SCADA control, and equipment monitoring — precisely the functionality at the heart of oil-and-gas field operations.
The breadth of this portfolio — four patents across four separate application numbers — creates a significant enforcement moat for SitePro in the upstream oil-and-gas and broader industrial IoT market. The fact that SitePro was willing to enforce all four simultaneously against a single corporate family signals confidence in claim validity and a willingness to absorb litigation costs. For any company offering competitive remote monitoring, automated SCADA alerting, or cloud-connected field devices in this sector, the OnPing portfolio represents a material FTO consideration — particularly given that SitePro’s most recent patent issued from a 2023 application, suggesting the family is still expanding.
Should your SCADA or IIoT product team run an FTO against the OnPing patent family?
Any company developing or commercialising remote monitoring systems, SCADA platforms, cloud-connected field devices, or industrial IoT data aggregation tools for oil-and-gas or adjacent sectors should assess exposure against SitePro’s four-patent OnPing portfolio. This case demonstrates that SitePro actively enforces — and has the resources and counsel (Perkins Coie LLP) to pursue multi-entity, multi-patent actions. Product managers and R&D leads working on firmware, telemetry pipelines, or automated alerting for field equipment should treat this portfolio as a live FTO risk.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s technical features against the claim sets of US11294403B2, US10488871B2, US9342078B2, and US12019461B2 simultaneously, highlighting potential overlap and freedom-to-operate gaps. Eureka also monitors SitePro’s pending applications at the USPTO so your team receives early warning if new continuation claims are published that could affect your product roadmap — before they grant.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11294403B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Industrial IoT & SCADA Patent Cases in N.D. Texas
Explore related industrial IoT and SCADA patent infringement cases filed in the Northern District of Texas, including comparable multi-patent portfolio enforcement actions.
What this case signals for the industrial IoT and SCADA IP landscape
SitePro’s four-patent assertion against a corporate family of seven entities in 171 days reveals a deliberate, portfolio-level enforcement strategy in the oil-and-gas monitoring sector.
Portfolio depth amplifies leverage: SitePro asserted four patents simultaneously
Asserting four patents across multiple application generations — from US9342078B2 to US12019461B2 — creates a layered validity and infringement risk that is expensive to defeat individually. Competitors in remote SCADA and industrial IoT monitoring should audit their product stack against the full OnPing portfolio, not just the most recent grant.
Named-entity structure signals deliberate legal strategy against corporate families
SitePro named all seven affiliated entities — from holding companies to operating subsidiaries — preventing any corporate restructuring from escaping the suit’s reach. In-house counsel at companies with complex subsidiary structures in the IIoT sector should ensure that any FTO analysis covers the full corporate tree, not just the primary operating entity.
SitePro v Plow — key questions answered
SitePro asserted four US patents: US11294403B2, US10488871B2, US9342078B2, and US12019461B2 — all covering aspects of the OnPing industrial IoT monitoring and SCADA platform. The application numbers span US14/147190 through US18/212131, indicating a multi-generational continuation strategy.
The case was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a joint stipulation signed by both parties’ counsel. Judge Godbey found good cause and granted the motion. A with-prejudice dismissal bars SitePro from re-filing the same claims against the same defendants. The public record does not disclose the commercial terms that led to the stipulation, but the structure — including a defendant cost waiver — is consistent with a negotiated resolution.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(d) allows a defendant to seek costs if a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses an action and then re-files against the same defendant. By waiving this right, the PakEnergy and Plow Technologies defendants gave up a procedural protection against future suits on the same claims. This waiver is typically traded for a concession from the plaintiff — suggesting a negotiated commercial arrangement underlies the dismissal.
SitePro was represented by Andrew Kalamarides, John R. Hardin, and Marvin Craig Tyler of Perkins Coie LLP. The defendants were represented by Christopher Michael Staine of Crowe & Dunlevy. The case was assigned to Judge David C. Godbey in the Northern District of Texas.
No — a with-prejudice dismissal only extinguishes claims against the named defendants (the seven Plow Technologies and PakEnergy entities). SitePro retains full rights to assert US11294403B2, US10488871B2, US9342078B2, and US12019461B2 against any other party. The OnPing patents remain active and enforceable in the broader market.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.