SitePro v. Plow Technologies & PakEnergy: Four-Patent OnPing Dispute Ends With Prejudice
SitePro Inc. filed suit against Plow Technologies LLC and seven PakEnergy affiliates in the Northern District of Texas, asserting four patents covering its OnPing remote monitoring and control system. The parties reached a joint stipulation to dismiss all claims with prejudice after 161 days, with each side bearing its own attorney’s fees.
OnPing Patent Dispute: Eight Defendants, Four Patents, One Swift Exit
SitePro Inc. filed this infringement action on 17 June 2025 in the Northern District of Texas before Judge Karen Gren Scholer, asserting four patents — US9898014B2, US11726504B2, US8649909B1, and US11175680B2 — against Plow Technologies LLC and seven affiliated PakEnergy entities. The asserted patents collectively cover the OnPing platform, SitePro’s remote monitoring, automation, and data acquisition system used in oil and gas field operations.
The case concluded on 25 November 2025 when the Court granted the parties’ Stipulation and Joint Motion to Dismiss all defendants with prejudice. The dismissal with prejudice is a full and final resolution: SitePro is permanently barred from re-asserting these claims against any of the eight named defendants in a future action. Each party will bear its own costs, meaning no fee-shifting was imposed on either side, which is consistent with a negotiated commercial settlement rather than a litigation defeat.
The 161-day lifecycle — from filing to dismissal — suggests the parties moved quickly to resolution, potentially indicating a licensing agreement or commercial arrangement reached in parallel with the litigation. The public record does not disclose settlement terms. The with-prejudice designation and mutual cost-bearing are common hallmarks of a structured settlement, though the precise terms remain confidential and cannot be confirmed from court documents alone.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 161 days
161 days — resolved below the median 2-year district court patent lifecycle, suggesting early negotiated resolution
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Dismissed with prejudice bars all future re-filing on these claims
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits. SitePro cannot re-file the same infringement claims against any of the eight named defendants under the four asserted patents in any future action. The dismissal was entered by joint stipulation — meaning both parties agreed to the terms — and was immediately approved by Judge Scholer under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a).
Joint stipulation — Rule 41(a)SitePro surrenders the right to re-litigate these specific claims
By agreeing to dismiss with prejudice, SitePro permanently closes this litigation avenue against these eight defendants. However, the with-prejudice structure is frequently chosen when the parties have reached a private agreement — such as a licensing deal — that makes continued litigation unnecessary. SitePro retains all four patents and can enforce them against different parties not covered by this dismissal.
Patents retained; claims extinguished vs. these defendantsPakEnergy entities secured finality — but terms remain confidential
All eight defendants — Plow Technologies LLC, Plow Technologies Texas LLC, and six PakEnergy entities — obtained a permanent bar against these specific patent claims. The mutual cost-bearing provision means neither side was ordered to pay the other’s legal fees. The absence of a fee award under 35 U.S.C. § 285 suggests this was not characterised as an exceptional case by either party.
Fee-neutral; no § 285 exceptional case findingSwift resolution signals negotiated licensing over courtroom conflict
A 161-day resolution across four asserted patents and eight defendants is notably fast for patent infringement litigation in the Northern District of Texas, where cases routinely run two to three years. The speed, the with-prejudice structure, and the mutual cost-bearing are collectively consistent with a licensing or commercial arrangement reached early in the proceedings. Competitors in the oil and gas IoT monitoring space should note that all four OnPing patents remain enforceable.
OnPing patents remain live enforcement toolsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | SitePro Inc | Company | Industrial IoT and remote monitoring software company — holder of US9898014B2 and three further OnPing patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Plow Technologies LLC | Company | Plow Technologies LLC and seven PakEnergy affiliates — oil and gas software and data management entitiesSearch 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 Karen Gren Scholer | Judge | Texas Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Court’s order adopts the full language of the parties’ agreed motion, dismissing all claims against all eight defendants with prejudice. The breadth of the named defendants — spanning holding companies, operating entities, and PakScada LLC — confirms SitePro pursued the entire PakEnergy corporate group simultaneously. The with-prejudice designation is absolute: it forecloses any future infringement action by SitePro on these four patents against these specific parties, regardless of any future product developments.
US9898014B2, US11726504B2, US8649909B1, US11175680B2 — OnPing Remote Monitoring System
The four asserted patents span application dates from December 2012 (US8649909B1) through February 2022 (US11726504B2), reflecting a decade of incremental IP development around the OnPing platform. The portfolio covers remote monitoring, automation, data acquisition, and control of field devices — core functions in oil and gas upstream operations. The breadth of the family, covering both foundational architecture and later refinements, is consistent with a deliberate layered enforcement strategy rather than a single-patent assertion.
For competitors in the oil and gas IoT, SCADA, and remote monitoring software sector, SitePro’s portfolio presents material freedom-to-operate risk. The family’s longevity — anchored by a 2012 filing — means prior art windows are largely closed against the foundational claims. US11726504B2, with a 2022 application date, likely covers more recent platform features and may present higher obviousness risk, but no invalidity findings are recorded in this case. All four patents remain in force.
Should your product team run an FTO against US9898014B2 and the OnPing patent family?
Any company building or commercialising remote monitoring software, field automation tools, SCADA-adjacent platforms, or IoT data acquisition systems targeting oil and gas operations should treat this four-patent family as a live enforcement risk. SitePro has demonstrated willingness to assert all four patents simultaneously against an entire corporate group. The 161-day resolution suggests enforcement is commercially motivated — meaning engagement, not just avoidance, may be on the table.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s feature set against the claim scope of all four OnPing patents, identify design-around opportunities, and surface relevant prior art for IPR assessment. Running this analysis before product launch or a new market entry is materially cheaper than defending a Northern District of Texas infringement action across a multi-entity corporate structure.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9898014B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Oil and Gas IoT Patent Infringement Cases in the Northern District of Texas
Explore comparable remote monitoring and industrial IoT patent infringement cases filed in the Northern District of Texas involving SCADA, field automation, and data acquisition technology.
What this case signals for the industrial IoT and oil and gas monitoring IP landscape
Four patents, eight defendants, resolved in under six months — this case reveals SitePro’s aggressive but commercially flexible patent enforcement posture.
SitePro’s four-patent portfolio gives it broad OnPing enforcement coverage
By asserting four patents spanning application dates from 2012 to 2022, SitePro has built layered coverage over the OnPing system’s core functions. Any competitor offering remote monitoring, automation, or SCADA-adjacent capabilities in oil and gas field operations should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against this family before deploying competing products.
With-prejudice dismissal in 161 days suggests a licensing deal, not a litigation win
The mutual cost-bearing provision and rapid closure are structurally inconsistent with one party capitulating under litigation pressure. The most plausible explanation — though unconfirmed by the public record — is that SitePro and the PakEnergy group reached a licensing or commercial arrangement. This matters for other potential defendants: SitePro appears willing to license rather than litigate to judgment.
SitePro v Plow — key questions answered
SitePro Inc. filed a patent infringement action against Plow Technologies LLC and seven PakEnergy affiliates in the Northern District of Texas on 17 June 2025, asserting four patents covering the OnPing remote monitoring system. The case was dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation on 25 November 2025 after 161 days, with each party bearing its own costs.
SitePro asserted four patents: US9898014B2, US11726504B2, US8649909B1, and US11175680B2. All four cover aspects of the OnPing platform — SitePro’s remote monitoring, automation, and data acquisition system used in oil and gas field operations. Application dates span from December 2012 to February 2022.
Dismissal with prejudice is a final and permanent resolution. SitePro cannot re-file any of the asserted patent infringement claims against any of the eight named defendants in a future action. The dismissal was entered by joint stipulation — both parties agreed — and was approved by Judge Karen Gren Scholer. No fee-shifting was ordered; each party bears its own costs.
The 161-day resolution is notably fast for a four-patent infringement action in the Northern District of Texas. The with-prejudice structure, mutual cost-bearing, and speed are collectively consistent with a negotiated licensing or commercial arrangement reached early in proceedings. However, the public record does not disclose settlement terms, and no formal settlement agreement has been filed.
Yes. All four patents — US9898014B2, US11726504B2, US8649909B1, and US11175680B2 — remain in force. The dismissal with prejudice extinguishes SitePro’s claims only against the eight named defendants in this specific action. SitePro retains full enforcement rights against any third party not covered by this dismissal.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.