Symbology Innovations v. Keurig Dr. Pepper: Case Dismissed After 175 Days
Symbology Innovations LLC filed a four-patent infringement action against Keurig Dr. Pepper Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting patents covering systems and methods for presenting product information on portable electronic devices via barcode/QR technology. The case resolved in 175 days when the parties filed a stipulated motion for dismissal accepted by Judge Rodney Gilstrap.
Four-Patent QR/Barcode Infringement Action Ends in Stipulated Dismissal
On May 30, 2023, Symbology Innovations LLC filed a patent infringement action against Keurig Dr. Pepper Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. Symbology asserted four patents — US8651369B2, US8424752B2, US7992773B1, and US8936190B2 — all relating to systems and methods for presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device, a technology domain broadly encompassing barcode and QR-code scanning functionality.
The case closed on November 21, 2023, after 175 days. The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Case Dismissed.' The docket order states that the parties filed a Stipulated Motion for Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which Judge Gilstrap accepted and acknowledged: Symbology's claims against Keurig were dismissed with prejudice, while Keurig's counterclaims against Symbology were dismissed without prejudice. Each party was directed to bear its own costs and fees.
The case resolved in under six months — notably fast for a four-patent assertion in the Eastern District of Texas. The asymmetric prejudice structure (plaintiff's claims with prejudice, defendant's counterclaims without prejudice) is visible from the docket order, but the specific terms, if any, that drove this resolution are not disclosed in the available public record. Keurig was represented by a five-attorney team from Fish & Richardson, suggesting meaningful early defence investment.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Case Dismissed in 175 days
175 days — resolved well before typical district court trial timelines
US8651369B2 and three co-asserted patents — portable device product-information systems
Any company integrating QR-code or barcode scanning into a consumer-facing mobile experience — whether for product authentication, loyalty programmes, nutritional information delivery, or retail engagement — should assess exposure against the four Symbology patents asserted here. The with-prejudice dismissal of Symbology's claims applies only to Keurig Dr. Pepper; these patents remain active and enforceable against all other parties. Food-and-beverage, FMCG, retail, and packaging-technology teams are especially relevant audiences given the product category targeted in this action.
Official order — verbatim text
The docket order reflects an asymmetric stipulated dismissal: Symbology's infringement claims are extinguished with prejudice while Keurig's counterclaims survive in a without-prejudice posture. The own-costs direction means neither party recovered litigation expenditure. The order closes all pending relief as moot, leaving no substantive merits rulings on the record. The specific commercial terms underlying this resolution, if any exist, are not disclosed in the available public record.
Case dismissed: what the stipulated resolution means for both parties
Stipulated Rule 41 dismissal accepted by the court
The parties jointly filed a stipulated motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which allows parties to dismiss an action by filing a signed stipulation. Judge Gilstrap accepted and acknowledged the stipulation, formally closing the case. The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Case Dismissed.' Each party was ordered to bear its own costs and fees, and all pending relief requests were denied as moot.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissalSymbology's claims dismissed with prejudice — re-filing barred
Symbology's infringement claims against Keurig were dismissed with prejudice, meaning Symbology cannot re-assert these four patents against Keurig in a new action on the same claims. The with-prejudice disposition is a significant limitation on Symbology's future enforcement options against this specific defendant. The specific terms, if any, that Symbology received in exchange are not disclosed in the available public record.
Claims dismissed with prejudiceKeurig's counterclaims dismissed without prejudice — options preserved
Keurig's counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, preserving Keurig's ability to reassert those claims in future proceedings if circumstances warrant. This asymmetric structure — plaintiff's claims out with prejudice, defendant's counterclaims out without prejudice — is notable on its face, though the commercial rationale is not disclosed in the available public record. Keurig bears its own costs despite fielding a five-attorney Fish & Richardson defence team.
Counterclaims dismissed without prejudiceAsymmetric dismissal structure signals careful negotiation
The split prejudice outcome — Symbology locked out of re-suing Keurig, Keurig's counterclaims preserved — suggests the resolution involved strategic concessions, though the specific terms are not in the public record. Companies deploying QR/barcode-based product-information features on mobile platforms should note that all four Symbology patents remain active assets capable of assertion against other defendants. Monitoring Symbology's broader enforcement campaign is advisable.
Active patents remain enforceable vs. othersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Symbology Innovations, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Keurig Dr. Pepper, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Randall T. Garteiser | Attorney | Counsel for Symbology Innovations, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Garteiser Honea PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Symbology Innovations, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Alexander Hale Martin | Attorney | Counsel for Keurig Dr. Pepper, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Neil J McNabnay | Attorney | Counsel for Keurig Dr. Pepper, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ricardo Joel Bonilla | Attorney | Counsel for Keurig Dr. Pepper, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Rodeen Talebi | Attorney | Counsel for Keurig Dr. Pepper, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Sarika Naresh Patel | Attorney | Counsel for Keurig Dr. Pepper, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson LLP | Law Firm | Representing Keurig Dr. Pepper, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson PC (Dallas) | Law Firm | Representing Keurig Dr. Pepper, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the mobile barcode & QR technology space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from Symbology Innovations' QR/barcode assertion against Keurig Dr. Pepper and the broader portable-device scanning landscape.
Symbology's QR/barcode portfolio: breadth and filing activity
Symbology Innovations holds at least four granted US patents in the portable-device product-information space. Mapping the full citation and continuation landscape around US8651369B2 and its co-asserted patents can reveal whether Symbology has filed continuation or continuation-in-part applications that extend coverage into newer QR and NFC interaction paradigms — a critical watch item for product teams building mobile engagement features.
Symbology patent portfolio depthFiling trends in mobile object-identification and QR interaction patents
The intersection of machine-readable codes, mobile devices, and real-time product information delivery has seen sustained patent filing activity since 2010. Tracking recent filings in this space — particularly by consumer-brand incumbents, mobile platform providers, and packaging technology firms — can surface emerging claim architectures that may either compete with or design around the Symbology portfolio. NFC and AR-based product information delivery represent adjacent areas of growing activity.
QR & mobile scanning filing trendsKeurig Dr. Pepper's patent position in connected-packaging technology
Keurig Dr. Pepper operates at the intersection of beverage manufacturing and smart consumer packaging. Analysing Keurig's own patent filings in connected-packaging, QR-enabled product authentication, and mobile consumer engagement can reveal whether the company is building a defensive IP position in the technology area targeted by Symbology — or whether it relies primarily on design-around and licensing strategies.
Keurig Dr. Pepper IP postureAdjacent innovation gaps near the Symbology portable-device claims
The Symbology patents focus on presenting object information on portable devices via machine-readable codes. Adjacent white-space likely exists in areas such as AI-driven real-time product content personalisation, blockchain-verified product provenance delivered via QR scan, and AR overlay experiences triggered by physical product scanning — areas where newer claim architectures may not be blocked by the Symbology portfolio as currently scoped.
QR & AR product-info white spaceSimilar QR & barcode patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas
Cases involving portable-device barcode and QR patent assertions before the Eastern District of Texas, including other Symbology Innovations enforcement actions.
What this case signals for the mobile barcode & QR patent landscape
Symbology's four-patent assertion against a major consumer brand in E.D. Texas illustrates the continued commercial relevance of early-generation mobile scanning IP.
Early-generation QR/barcode patents retain assertion value in E.D. Texas
Symbology's four patents — filed between 2010 and 2014 — cover foundational methods for presenting object information on portable devices. Their assertion against a household consumer brand confirms that early-generation mobile scanning IP continues to attract enforcement activity. Businesses with consumer-facing barcode or QR features should audit exposure against this portfolio.
Fish & Richardson's five-attorney defence signals Keurig took the case seriously
Keurig deployed a five-lawyer team from Fish & Richardson at the outset, consistent with a defendant unwilling to absorb a quick settlement. The 175-day resolution and own-costs outcome suggest neither party achieved an overwhelming result, but the with-prejudice dismissal of Symbology's claims provides Keurig lasting protection against re-assertion of these specific patents.
Symbology v Keurig — key questions answered
The case was dismissed. The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Case Dismissed.' The docket order reflects a stipulated dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): Symbology's claims were dismissed with prejudice, and Keurig's counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice. Each party bears its own costs and fees.
Symbology asserted four US patents: US8651369B2 (App. No. 13/868071), US8424752B2 (App. No. 13/170810), US7992773B1 (App. No. 12/882616), and US8936190B2 (App. No. 14/181945). All relate to systems and methods for presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device.
Dismissal with prejudice means Symbology cannot re-file the same infringement claims against Keurig Dr. Pepper on these four patents. The disposition is final as to this defendant. The four patents, however, remain active and enforceable against other parties not party to this action.
The stipulated motion filed by the parties requested this asymmetric treatment — Keurig's counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, preserving Keurig's ability to reassert them in future proceedings if warranted. The specific commercial rationale for this structure is not disclosed in the available public record.
The case was filed on May 30, 2023, and closed on November 21, 2023 — a duration of 175 days. It was presided over by Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, a court frequently selected for patent infringement actions.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.