Stingray IP Solutions v. Allegion & Schlage Lock: Smart Lock Patent Case Dismissed With Prejudice
Stingray IP Solutions LLC asserted four wireless communication patents against Allegion and its Schlage Lock subsidiary, targeting the Schlage Encode Plus, Connect, Sense, and Engage smart lock product lines. The Eastern District of Texas dismissed all claims with prejudice after 476 days, with each party bearing its own costs — a resolution pattern that strongly suggests a confidential settlement.
Wireless Smart Lock Patents Meet a With-Prejudice End in East Texas
Stingray IP Solutions LLC filed this infringement action on May 31, 2024 in the Eastern District of Texas against Allegion Public Limited Company and its wholly-owned subsidiary Schlage Lock Company LLC. Stingray asserted four US patents — US7440572B2, US7441126B2, US7224678B2, and US7616961B2 — covering wireless communication technologies, targeting a broad range of Schlage smart lock and access control products including the Encode Plus, Connect (Zigbee), Sense Wi-Fi Adapter, Encode Lever, Encode Deadbolt, Engage, and NDE wireless lock lines.
The case closed on September 19, 2025, when the court granted the parties’ joint motion to dismiss all claims with prejudice. The order extinguished every claim and cause of action between the parties and specified that each side bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. A dismissal with prejudice bars Stingray from re-filing the same claims against these defendants, providing Allegion and Schlage with a durable resolution rather than merely a temporary reprieve.
At 476 days, the case ran well past the point at which early-stage motion practice typically resolves NPE actions in E.D. Texas, suggesting substantive engagement before a resolution was reached. The joint nature of the motion and the mutual cost-bearing provision are consistent with a confidential licensing or settlement agreement, though the public record is silent on financial terms. Whether any patent license was granted to Schlage — and on what terms — remains unknown.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 476 days
476 days in E.D. Texas — longer than the median district court patent dismissal timeline
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint motion means for both parties
With-prejudice dismissal permanently bars re-filing these claims
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Stingray IP Solutions cannot refile these specific infringement claims against Allegion or Schlage Lock based on the same four patents and the same accused products. The joint nature of the motion signals mutual agreement — neither side was forced into this outcome unilaterally.
Permanent bar on re-filingStingray exits permanently — likely in exchange for undisclosed value
For Stingray IP Solutions, agreeing to a with-prejudice dismissal represents a permanent relinquishment of these specific claims against Schlage. NPEs rarely accept such finality without compensation. The mutual cost-bearing provision is consistent with a settlement in which the value exchanged is captured in undisclosed licensing terms rather than a court-ordered payment. The four asserted patents remain in Stingray’s portfolio and may be asserted elsewhere.
Settlement likely; patents remain liveSchlage and Allegion secure permanent peace on the asserted patent claims
Allegion and Schlage Lock obtain durable certainty: Stingray is permanently barred from reasserting these four patents against the accused Schlage smart lock products. The absence of a fee-shifting award means Allegion bore its own litigation costs, which is standard in joint settlements. If a license was granted, the Schlage product lines — including Encode, Connect, and Engage — would carry cleared status against these specific wireless patents.
Permanent peace on these patentsSmart lock makers face ongoing NPE exposure on wireless connectivity IP
The Schlage product range targeted here — Wi-Fi, Zigbee, and wireless access control locks — sits squarely in a technology space where foundational wireless communication patents continue to generate NPE assertion activity. The resolution without a public merits ruling means there is no claim construction order or invalidity finding that competitors can rely on. Other smart lock and IoT access control manufacturers should treat these four patents as still potentially enforceable against their own products.
No public invalidity rulingFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Stingray IP Solutions, LLC | Company | Patent licensing entity (NPE) — holder of four wireless communication patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Allegion Public Limited Company | Company | Allegion plc and subsidiary Schlage Lock Company LLC — global access control and smart lock manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Schlage Lock Company, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrea Leigh Fair | Attorney | Counsel for Stingray IP Solutions, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brandon V. Zuniga | Attorney | Counsel for Stingray IP Solutions, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Charles Everingham, IV | Attorney | Counsel for Stingray IP Solutions, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jeffrey Ray Bragalone | Attorney | Counsel for Stingray IP Solutions, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Marcus Benavides | Attorney | Counsel for Stingray IP Solutions, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Mark Douglass | Attorney | Counsel for Stingray IP Solutions, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Terry Afif Saad | Attorney | Counsel for Stingray IP Solutions, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Bragalone Olejko Saad PC | Law Firm | Representing Stingray IP Solutions, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Miller Fair Henry PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Stingray IP Solutions, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joshua Paul Larsen | Attorney | Counsel for Allegion Public Limited CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Paul Bryan Hunt | Attorney | Counsel for Allegion Public Limited CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Barnes & Thornburg, LLP (Indianapolis) | Law Firm | Representing Allegion Public Limited CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order adopts the parties’ joint framing verbatim — the case ‘has been resolved’ — without specifying what resolution was reached. The with-prejudice standard means this dismissal carries the force of a final judgment, permanently extinguishing Stingray’s ability to re-assert these four patents against Allegion and Schlage on the facts alleged. The mutual cost-bearing clause is a standard hallmark of negotiated settlements rather than courtroom victories, and the absence of any fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285 confirms neither party sought to characterize the other as the losing side.
US7440572B2, US7441126B2, US7224678B2 & US7616961B2 — Wireless Communication Patents
The four asserted patents — US7440572B2, US7441126B2, US7224678B2, and US7616961B2 — originate from application filings in the early 2000s, placing their priority dates at the formative period of consumer wireless networking. As B2 grant designations, each represents an issued utility patent that has survived at least one examination cycle. The patents cover wireless communication systems and methods broadly applicable to devices operating over Wi-Fi, Zigbee, and similar short-range wireless protocols — the precise connectivity technologies embedded in the accused Schlage smart lock product lines.
From a strategic standpoint, wireless communication patents with early-2000s priority dates occupy a structurally powerful position: they predate the mass commercialization of smart home and IoT connectivity, meaning their claims can potentially read on widely adopted industry-standard implementations. Asserting four patents simultaneously against Schlage’s full smart lock portfolio — from consumer deadbolts to commercial access control — signals that Stingray views this family as broadly applicable to the sector. Competitors in smart lock, building access, and wireless IoT should treat this family as an active enforcement risk.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US7440572B2 and the co-asserted Stingray patents?
Any product team shipping Wi-Fi, Zigbee, or wireless-enabled lock or access control hardware to the US market should treat these four patents as requiring active FTO review. The case resolved without any public claim construction order, meaning there is no court-validated scope limitation to rely on. The accused Schlage products span consumer smart deadbolts through commercial wireless access control — a product range that maps directly onto the offerings of every major smart lock and building access competitor.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map each of the four asserted patent claim sets against your specific product architecture and wireless protocol stack. Eureka surfaces prior art, identifies claim elements most likely to present infringement risk, and flags any inter partes review history that may have narrowed or invalidated relevant claims — giving your legal and engineering teams a structured, defensible FTO record before your next product launch.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7440572B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Wireless Lock & IoT Access Control Patent Cases in E.D. Texas
Cases matching the Stingray v. Schlage pattern: NPE wireless communication patent assertions against smart lock and IoT access control defendants in E.D. Texas.
What this case signals for the smart lock and IoT access control IP landscape
A with-prejudice exit after 476 days and four asserted wireless patents tells a nuanced story about NPE strategy and smart lock sector vulnerability.
Four wireless patents, zero public claim construction — the sector remains exposed
Because the case settled before any Markman hearing or invalidity ruling, the four Stingray patents exit this litigation with their claim scope legally untested. Smart lock and IoT access control manufacturers operating on Wi-Fi, Zigbee, or similar wireless protocols cannot rely on this case to clear their own FTO analysis for US7440572B2 and its co-asserted patents.
NPE assertions on connectivity IP increasingly resolve privately in E.D. Texas
The Eastern District of Texas remains a preferred venue for NPE plaintiffs asserting wireless and IoT patents. The 476-day duration and joint dismissal here are consistent with a pattern in which defendants engage long enough to assess claim strength, then negotiate exit terms. Companies in the smart lock, access control, and wireless IoT space should anticipate similar assertion timelines and budget litigation reserves accordingly.
Stingray v Allegion — key questions answered
Stingray IP Solutions asserted four patents: US7440572B2, US7441126B2, US7224678B2, and US7616961B2. All four relate to wireless communication systems and methods. The accused products included the Schlage Encode Plus Smart WiFi Deadbolt, Schlage Connect Smart Deadbolt with Zigbee compatibility, Schlage Sense Wi-Fi Adapter, Schlage Encode Smart WiFi Lever, Schlage Engage for Access Control, and the Schlage NDE wireless lock.
A dismissal with prejudice constitutes a final adjudication on the merits, permanently barring Stingray IP Solutions from re-filing the same patent infringement claims against Allegion or Schlage Lock based on the same four patents and the same accused products. This provides Allegion and Schlage with durable legal protection against re-assertion of these specific claims. The Stingray patents themselves remain valid and could theoretically be asserted against other parties.
The public record does not confirm a financial settlement. The court order states only that the case ‘has been resolved’ and grants the joint dismissal motion. However, the combination of a with-prejudice dismissal, mutual cost-bearing, and joint filing is consistent with a confidential licensing agreement or settlement. The specific financial terms, if any, are not disclosed in the court record.
The Eastern District of Texas is a historically preferred venue for NPE patent plaintiffs due to its patent-friendly procedural history and experienced patent litigation judges. Stingray IP Solutions, like many patent assertion entities, has filed multiple cases in this district. The court’s docket infrastructure and established case management procedures for patent cases make it a common choice for plaintiffs seeking efficient assertion timelines.
Yes. The with-prejudice dismissal extinguishes only Stingray’s claims against Allegion and Schlage Lock for the accused products identified in this case. The four patents — US7440572B2, US7441126B2, US7224678B2, and US7616961B2 — were not invalidated and remain in force. No inter partes review outcome or claim construction narrowing is recorded in this proceeding. Third parties in the wireless smart lock, IoT, and access control space should treat these patents as potentially enforceable against their own products.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.