Snap One v. AVA & Josh.ai: Smart Home Patent Dispute Ends in Stipulated Dismissal
Snap One, a smart home technology integrator, filed suit in Utah against AVA and Josh.ai asserting five patents spanning AV control, remote management, and home automation. After 658 days of litigation, the parties jointly stipulated to dismiss all claims with prejudice — each side bearing its own costs — suggesting a negotiated resolution outside the public record.
Five-Patent Smart Home Assertion Ends in Mutual Stipulated Exit
On 14 August 2023, Snap One, LLC filed a patent infringement complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah against AVA and Josh.ai, Inc. The suit asserted five patents — US11140426B2, US10877623B2, US10756984B2, US7866338B2, and US8375137B2 — covering core smart home technologies including AV distribution, remote control interfaces, network management, and home automation. The accused products spanned the AVA Cinema Remote, AVA Home Remote, AVA Nano Brain, AVA Speakers, AVA Streamer, Josh Core, Josh Micro, Josh Nano, and Josh Remote.
The case closed on 2 June 2025 via a joint stipulation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), dismissing all claims, defenses, and counterclaims with prejudice. The stipulation specified that each party would bear its own costs, expenses, and attorney fees — a notable feature that avoids any public fee-shifting determination. A dismissal with prejudice bars Snap One from re-filing the same claims against these defendants, making the resolution legally final on these asserted patents.
The 658-day duration — nearly 22 months — suggests the parties likely exchanged substantial discovery, claim construction positions, or settlement negotiations before reaching resolution. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement, combined with a with-prejudice dismissal, is consistent with a confidential settlement or cross-licensing arrangement, though no such terms are publicly disclosed. The precise commercial terms, if any, remain unknown from the public record.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 658 days
658 days — above median for patent cases in Utah District Court
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): stipulated dismissal by both parties
Under FRCP Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), parties may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a signed stipulation. Here, both Snap One and Josh.ai (and by extension AVA) agreed to terminate all claims, defenses, and counterclaims. The dismissal takes legal effect upon filing — no judicial approval was required. This mechanism is commonly used when parties have reached a private resolution they do not wish to disclose on the public record.
Mutual stipulation, no court order neededWith prejudice: Snap One cannot re-assert these claims
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes. Snap One is barred from refiling infringement claims on the same patents against AVA and Josh.ai for the same accused products. This is a materially stronger concession by the plaintiff than a without-prejudice dismissal, which would preserve the right to refile. The with-prejudice designation suggests AVA and Josh.ai obtained meaningful closure on this IP exposure.
Claim preclusion applies to defendantsEach party bears its own costs — no fee-shifting signal
The stipulation explicitly allocated costs so that each side bears its own attorney fees, expenses, and costs. In patent litigation, fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285 requires a finding of an ‘exceptional case.’ The mutual cost-bearing arrangement avoids any such determination, suggesting neither party sought to characterise the litigation as exceptional. This symmetry is typically consistent with a negotiated settlement rather than a clear litigation winner.
No § 285 exceptional case findingLikely private resolution obscures true outcome for competitors
The combination of a with-prejudice dismissal, mutual cost-bearing, and a 658-day duration before resolution is consistent with a confidential licensing or cross-licensing arrangement — though no public confirmation exists. For competitors and product designers in the smart home control space, the five asserted patents remain active and enforceable against third parties. Snap One retains the right to assert all five patents against other market participants outside this stipulation.
Patents remain enforceable vs. third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Snap One | Individual | Smart home technology platform — holder of US11140426B2 and 4 further AV control patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | AVA | Individual | AVA and Josh.ai, Inc. — smart home hardware and AI voice control product makersSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Josh.ai | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Adam R. Aquino | Attorney | Counsel for Snap OneSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Csaba M. Rusznak | Attorney | Counsel for Snap OneSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David L. Mortensen | Attorney | Counsel for Snap OneSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Maren Laurence | Attorney | Counsel for Snap OneSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael A. Manookin | Attorney | Counsel for Snap OneSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Tanner Brad Camp | Attorney | Counsel for Snap OneSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Foley & Lardner, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Snap OneSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | INDEPENDENT COUNSEL | Law Firm | Representing Snap OneSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Andrew Gish | Attorney | Counsel for AVASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David Lamb | Attorney | Counsel for AVASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joel Chao-Iee Lin | Attorney | Counsel for AVASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Marti Johnson | Attorney | Counsel for AVASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael K. Erickson | Attorney | Counsel for AVASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael M. Powell | Attorney | Counsel for AVASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gish, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing AVASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Ray Quinney & Nebeker, PC | Law Firm | Representing AVASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Ann Marie McIff Allen | Judge | Utah District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) with clinical precision — jointly filed, requiring no court order, and explicitly with prejudice. The phrase ‘all claims, defenses, and counterclaims (if any)’ suggests the parties sought the broadest possible clean termination, leaving no procedural loose ends. The parenthetical ‘if any’ on counterclaims hints that formal counterclaims may not have been fully developed — consistent with early or mid-litigation settlement. The mutual cost-bearing clause is the clearest signal that neither side achieved a clear litigation victory through judicial process.
US11140426B2 — Smart home AV control and remote management technology
The five asserted patents — US11140426B2, US10877623B2, US10756984B2, US7866338B2, and US8375137B2 — collectively cover a range of smart home infrastructure technologies. Application dates span from 2008 through 2019, reflecting a maturing portfolio built across multiple technology generations. The patents address AV streaming and control, home network management, remote device configuration, and interface technologies central to how modern smart home ecosystems operate. US11140426B2, the most recently issued, covers more contemporary AV control architecture.
For competitors in the smart home and connected device space, this portfolio represents meaningful IP risk. Snap One — known for its Control4 and related platforms — occupies a foundational position in professional smart home integration. The breadth of the asserted patents, covering both hardware control interfaces (remote products) and network/software management, means that product designers cannot easily design around one patent without risk from the others. The suite approach to assertion is consistent with Snap One’s role as a platform IP holder rather than a single-product licensor.
Should you run an FTO against Snap One’s smart home control patents?
Any company developing or shipping smart home controllers, AV remotes, streaming hubs, or AI-integrated home automation systems should treat Snap One’s portfolio as a live FTO priority. The five patents asserted here span control interfaces, AV distribution, and network management — technologies embedded in a wide range of consumer and professional home automation products. With the AVA and Josh.ai dispute now closed, Snap One has demonstrated it will actively assert this portfolio against direct competitors in the control system market.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map claim scope across all five asserted patents simultaneously, identify design-around opportunities, and flag prosecution history estoppel that may narrow enforceability. Eureka’s portfolio monitoring tools can also alert you if Snap One files continuations or new applications in adjacent claim space — critical given the breadth of the existing patent family and the company’s active enforcement posture.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11140426B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar smart home and AV control patent cases in U.S. district courts
Explore related patent infringement actions in smart home control, AV distribution, and connected device technology litigated in Utah and peer U.S. district courts.
What this case signals for the smart home control IP landscape
Five patents, nine accused products, and a sealed-outcome dismissal — this case has meaningful read-across for anyone competing in smart home AV and voice control.
Snap One’s patent portfolio covers core smart home infrastructure — monitor it
With five granted patents spanning AV distribution, remote interfaces, and network management, Snap One’s IP position covers infrastructure-level smart home technology. Competitors shipping similar remote, streamer, or control hub products should treat this portfolio as an active enforcement risk, not a resolved one. The with-prejudice dismissal only protects AVA and Josh.ai on these specific claims.
Stipulated dismissals after 600+ days often signal licensing, not capitulation
When patent cases run beyond 18 months and close via mutual stipulation with each side bearing its own costs, the most commercially plausible explanation is a private settlement or licensing arrangement. Product teams and in-house counsel should monitor whether AVA and Josh.ai products continue shipping — continued commercialisation post-dismissal would further suggest a licence was granted rather than a clean exit.
One v AVA — key questions answered
Snap One asserted five patents: US11140426B2, US10877623B2, US10756984B2, US7866338B2, and US8375137B2. These cover smart home AV control, home network device management, remote control interfaces, and related home automation technologies. Nine products were accused including the Josh Core, Josh Micro, Josh Nano, Josh Remote, AVA Cinema Remote, AVA Home Remote, AVA Nano Brain, AVA Speakers, and AVA Streamer.
A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) operates as a final adjudication on the merits for purposes of claim preclusion (res judicata). Snap One cannot refile the same patent infringement claims against AVA and Josh.ai for the same accused products. The defendants obtained permanent closure on this specific IP exposure. The dismissal took effect upon filing the stipulation — no court order was required.
The public record shows only a stipulated dismissal with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs. No judicial finding of infringement, validity, or damages was made. The combination of a with-prejudice dismissal after 658 days and mutual cost-bearing is consistent with a private settlement or licensing arrangement, though no terms were publicly disclosed. The precise outcome — including whether any licence was granted — is not ascertainable from the public record.
Yes. The stipulated dismissal is defendant-specific — it protects only AVA and Josh.ai from further infringement claims by Snap One on these patents for the accused products. All five patents (US11140426B2, US10877623B2, US10756984B2, US7866338B2, US8375137B2) remain in force and Snap One retains full enforcement rights against any other third party. Companies competing in smart home control, AV remotes, or home automation should treat this portfolio as an active enforcement risk.
The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah (Case No. 2:23-cv-00522) and assigned to Judge Ann Marie McIff Allen. The case ran from 14 August 2023 to 2 June 2025 — a duration of 658 days. Plaintiff Snap One was represented by Foley & Lardner, LLP; defendants AVA and Josh.ai were represented by Gish, PLLC and Ray Quinney & Nebeker, PC.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.