Stingray IP Solutions v. Assa Abloy: Smart Lock Wireless Patents Dismissed Without Prejudice
Stingray IP Solutions LLC filed suit against Assa Abloy IP AB in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting four wireless networking patents against a broad range of Wi-Fi- and Zigbee-enabled smart lock products including Yale and Kwikset branded devices. The case closed just 63 days after filing when Stingray voluntarily dismissed all claims without prejudice — leaving the door open for refiling.
Early voluntary exit in a four-patent wireless smart lock campaign
On 7 March 2024, Stingray IP Solutions LLC — a Texas-based patent assertion entity represented by Bragalone Olejko Saad PC and Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC — filed an infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00159) before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The complaint asserted four U.S. patents (US7440572B2, US7441126B2, US7224678B2, and US7616961B2) against Assa Abloy IP AB, targeting a wide product portfolio including the Yale Assure Door Lock Zigbee Module, Yale Wi-Fi Smart Module, Yale MD-05 BLE/WiFi transceiver, Kwikset Halo WiFi Keypad deadbolt, Kwikset 916 SmartCode Zigbee deadbolt, and related accessories.
Just 63 days after filing, on 9 May 2024, Stingray filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Judge Gilstrap accepted and acknowledged the dismissal, ordering all claims dismissed without prejudice and directing each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. No defendant answer or counterclaim had been filed, which made a Rule 41(a)(1) unilateral dismissal available to the plaintiff as of right.
The sub-63-day lifecycle — closing before typical scheduling orders are entered in E.D. Tex. — suggests resolution occurred well before any substantive litigation milestones. The public record is silent on the underlying reason: possibilities include a licensing agreement reached post-filing, a decision to refile with amended claims or against a differently structured entity, or a strategic reassessment. The without-prejudice designation is the critical detail: Stingray retains the right to assert all four patents against Assa Abloy again, and no merits determination was reached.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 63 days
63 days — case closed before scheduling order issued, well below median E.D. Tex. patent case duration
Voluntarily dismissed without prejudice: what this means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral right to dismiss
Under FRCP Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order — and as of right — before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because no answer appears on the docket here, Stingray could dismiss unilaterally. The court’s role was purely to accept and acknowledge the notice, not to adjudicate it. This is the lowest-friction exit available in federal civil litigation.
No court discretion requiredWithout prejudice vs. with prejudice: a critical distinction
A dismissal without prejudice leaves the plaintiff’s claims legally intact — Stingray may refile the same patents against Assa Abloy in the future, subject to applicable statutes of limitations. A dismissal with prejudice, by contrast, would extinguish those claims permanently. The verdict text here explicitly states ‘without prejudice.’ This means no res judicata bar attaches and the four asserted patents remain live enforcement tools for Stingray.
Claims remain viableAssa Abloy exits without admission but faces continued exposure
Assa Abloy obtained no merits ruling, no invalidity finding, and no non-infringement judgment. While it avoids immediate litigation costs and uncertainty, the without-prejudice dismissal provides no formal legal protection against the same patents being reasserted. Assa Abloy’s Wi-Fi- and Zigbee-enabled product lines — including Yale and Kwikset smart locks — remain potentially exposed until the patents expire or are successfully challenged through IPR or other proceedings.
No immunity from refilingSmart lock wireless IP remains a live enforcement risk
The assertion of four wireless networking patents across Wi-Fi and Zigbee product lines signals continued PAE activity in the connected access control sector. Competitors and suppliers developing Wi-Fi- or Zigbee-enabled door hardware, smart modules, or keypads should treat these four patents as active risks. The early dismissal without prejudice — and the cost-neutral exit — is consistent with a licensing discussion that may have continued or a campaign pivot rather than abandonment.
PAE enforcement risk persistsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Stingray IP Solutions, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US7440572B2, US7441126B2, US7224678B2, US7616961B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Assa Abloy IP, AB | Individual | Assa Abloy IP AB — global IP holding arm of Assa Abloy, owner of Yale and Kwikset brandsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brandon V. Zuniga | Attorney | Counsel for Stingray IP Solutions, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jack Wesley Hill | 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 | Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Stingray IP Solutions, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The verdict text confirms a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) voluntary dismissal without prejudice — the most plaintiff-favourable exit available under federal procedure. The phrase ‘ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES’ reflects that the court exercised no discretion; such dismissals are effective upon filing. The cost-neutral order (‘each party to bear its own costs’) suggests no fee-shifting motion was filed or granted. Critically, ‘without prejudice’ means no adjudication of infringement, validity, or claim scope occurred, leaving all legal questions open.
US7440572B2, US7441126B2, US7224678B2 & US7616961B2 — Wireless Networking Technology
The four patents-in-suit — US7440572B2 (App. No. 09/760619), US7441126B2 (App. No. 09/761173), US7224678B2 (App. No. 10/217042), and US7616961B2 (App. No. 10/134862) — belong to wireless networking technology families. The application numbers and grant dates suggest prosecution through the early-to-mid 2000s, consistent with foundational Wi-Fi and mesh networking protocol generations. The asserted products span 802.11 Wi-Fi modules, Zigbee-based modules, and BLE/Wi-Fi combo transceivers used in smart door locks and keypads.
The breadth of accused products — ranging from Yale Assure Zigbee lock modules and Kwikset Halo Wi-Fi keypads to raw Zigbee Endnode Kits and PCBA modules — suggests Stingray asserts these patents at a relatively foundational wireless communication layer rather than against application-specific smart lock features. This creates a potentially wide claim scope applicable across any manufacturer integrating Wi-Fi or Zigbee radio modules into access control hardware, making FTO analysis relevant beyond Assa Abloy to the broader connected lock and IoT door hardware market.
Should you run an FTO against US7440572B2 and the three co-asserted wireless patents?
Any company developing or commercialising products with embedded Wi-Fi or Zigbee modules — particularly in smart locks, access control, building automation, or residential IoT — should evaluate these four patents. The accused product range in this case spans OEM radio modules, finished consumer devices, and software accessories, signalling that Stingray’s claim interpretation is not limited to finished lock products. If your R&D team is designing Wi-Fi 6 or Zigbee 3.0 modules into door hardware or any connected access device, proximity to these patent families warrants formal FTO review.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map claim language from US7440572B2, US7441126B2, US7224678B2, and US7616961B2 against your product specifications and identify where design-around risk is highest. Eureka’s prosecution history analysis surfaces argument-based estoppel that may limit claim scope — critical information when assessing whether next-generation Zigbee or Wi-Fi lock modules fall within the asserted claims. Start with a targeted claim chart analysis before your next hardware release.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7440572B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar wireless networking patent cases in E.D. Tex. and connected access control IP
Explore related Wi-Fi and Zigbee patent enforcement actions filed in the Eastern District of Texas involving wireless module and smart lock technology.
What this case signals for the smart lock and wireless access IP landscape
A fast voluntary exit in E.D. Tex. rarely signals weakness — more often it signals a deal, a pivot, or a tactical regroup.
Without-prejudice exits in E.D. Tex. frequently precede refiling or licensing
When a plaintiff dismisses voluntarily before an answer is filed — especially within 63 days and with each party bearing its own costs — it typically suggests either a licensing discussion reached a tipping point or the plaintiff is repositioning. Companies in the Wi-Fi and Zigbee smart lock supply chain should monitor Stingray’s subsequent filings closely.
All four patents remain enforceable against the entire Assa Abloy product range
No IPR petition, no invalidity ruling, and no covenant not to sue is visible in the public record. US7440572B2, US7441126B2, US7224678B2, and US7616961B2 are still fully asserted-capable. Assa Abloy and any entity in the same wireless access control product chain should conduct FTO analysis against these four patents before launching new Wi-Fi or Zigbee hardware.
Stingray v Assa — key questions answered
Stingray IP Solutions LLC filed a patent infringement action against Assa Abloy IP AB on 7 March 2024 in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting four wireless networking patents against Assa Abloy’s Wi-Fi- and Zigbee-enabled smart lock products. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by Stingray on 9 May 2024 — just 63 days after filing — before Assa Abloy filed an answer.
Stingray asserted four U.S. patents: US7440572B2 (App. 09/760619), US7441126B2 (App. 09/761173), US7224678B2 (App. 10/217042), and US7616961B2 (App. 10/134862). All relate to wireless networking technology and were asserted against Assa Abloy’s Yale and Kwikset branded Wi-Fi and Zigbee smart lock products and modules.
A dismissal without prejudice means Stingray’s claims were not adjudicated on the merits. Stingray retains the legal right to refile the same four patents against Assa Abloy in the future, subject to applicable statutes of limitations. Assa Abloy received no invalidity ruling, no non-infringement judgment, and no formal legal protection against future assertion of these patents.
The accused products included the Yale Assure Door Lock Zigbee Module, Yale Wi-Fi Smart Module, Yale MD-05 BLE/WiFi transceiver, Connect Bridge Plus, Zigbee Endnode Kit, Zigbee Module PCBA 1731, Kwikset Halo Matte Black Touchscreen WiFi Keypad Deadbolt, Kwikset 916 SmartCode Zigbee Deadbolt, and related accessories and software — spanning Wi-Fi, Zigbee, and BLE wireless protocols.
Stingray IP Solutions was represented by Bragalone Olejko Saad PC and Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC. Individual attorneys on record include Jeffrey Ray Bragalone, Terry Afif Saad, Jack Wesley Hill, Brandon V. Zuniga, Marcus Benavides, and Mark Douglass. No defendant counsel of record appears on the public docket, consistent with the pre-answer dismissal timeline.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.