TrackThings v. Amazon & eero: Jury Finds No Infringement on All Three Wireless Network Patents
TrackThings LLC brought a three-patent infringement action against Amazon.com Services LLC and eero LLC in the Western District of Texas, asserting wireless network technology patents against eero’s mesh networking products. After a five-day jury trial in October 2024, the jury returned a complete defense verdict — TrackThings takes no damages across all asserted claims.
Full defense verdict: Amazon and eero defeat all three wireless network patent claims
TrackThings LLC filed suit on February 17, 2023, in the Western District of Texas before Judge Alan D. Albright, asserting infringement of three US patents — US9642017B2, US9332442B2, and US10107893B2 — all directed at apparatus and methods for ad-hoc and configurable wireless networks. The defendants named were Amazon.com, Inc., its subsidiary Amazon.com Services LLC, and eero LLC, the maker of Amazon’s mesh Wi-Fi networking hardware. The asserted claims collectively covered wireless network integrity, master-slave monitoring configurations, and ad-hoc network performance.
The case proceeded to a jury trial commencing October 7, 2024. On October 11, 2024, the jury rendered a verdict in favor of all defendants on every asserted claim. The final judgment, entered November 18, 2024, confirms that defendants do not infringe the specific claims of all three patents, that those claims are not invalid, and that TrackThings takes no damages. Notably, the jury also found the claims did not involve only well-understood, routine, and conventional activities — a finding that preserves patent validity while delivering a clean non-infringement result for Amazon and eero.
The 640-day duration from filing to judgment is consistent with W.D. Texas scheduling norms under Judge Albright. The public record does not reveal claim construction rulings or expert damages figures, but the complete defense verdict — with no damages and costs awarded to defendants — suggests the jury found TrackThings’ infringement theory unconvincing on the technical merits. The dismissal with prejudice of claim 8 of US9642017B2 prior to or at verdict indicates TrackThings may have narrowed its case before the jury deliberated.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 640 days
640 days from filing to final judgment — slightly above the W.D. Texas median for patent jury trials
Jury verdict for defendants: what the non-infringement finding means for both parties
Complete non-infringement verdict across all three patents
A jury verdict of non-infringement means the fact-finder determined that Amazon’s and eero’s accused products and methods did not meet every limitation of the asserted claims. Critically, the court also found the claims not invalid — meaning TrackThings’ patents survive the litigation intact but cannot be enforced against these defendants. Claim 8 of US9642017B2 was dismissed with prejudice separately, closing that avenue permanently.
No damages — defendants prevailTrackThings exits with valid but unenforceable patents and a costs liability
The non-infringement verdict leaves TrackThings’ three patents technically valid — the jury rejected Amazon’s invalidity positions — but the practical enforcement value against Amazon and eero is extinguished. Final judgment bars any re-litigation of these claims against these defendants. Additionally, as losing party TrackThings faces a costs-of-court award to defendants, adding financial exposure on top of its own legal fees across the 640-day proceeding.
Patents valid, but unenforceable hereAmazon and eero achieve full clearance on eero mesh networking technology
The complete defense verdict provides Amazon and eero with a strong non-infringement finding that is directly binding on these parties. Because the claims were found not invalid, Amazon cannot use this litigation as an IPR springboard based on these specific invalidity theories. However, the favorable verdict does confirm operational freedom for eero’s current mesh Wi-Fi product line against these three patents, and the costs award partially offsets Amazon’s litigation expenditure.
Full operational clearance confirmedValid but unenforceable: a split outcome with strategic consequences for mesh Wi-Fi IP
The jury’s explicit rejection of invalidity — while finding no infringement — creates a nuanced landscape. TrackThings’ patents remain valid and could theoretically be asserted against other mesh networking and ad-hoc wireless vendors. Competitors deploying similar architectures to eero should note that the invalidity arguments failed here. Future defendants cannot rely on this verdict’s invalidity findings; they would need to mount independent challenges, potentially via IPR before the USPTO.
Third-party risk not extinguishedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Trackthings, LLC | Company | Wireless network patent assertion entity — holder of US9642017B2, US9332442B2, and US10107893B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Amazon.com, Inc. | Company | Amazon.com Services LLC and eero LLC — Amazon’s e-commerce and mesh Wi-Fi networking subsidiariesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Eero, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Amazon.com Services LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christopher M. Gerson | Attorney | Counsel for Trackthings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Daniel A. Apgar | Attorney | Counsel for Trackthings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Harry Lee Gillam , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Trackthings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James Travis Underwood | Attorney | Counsel for Trackthings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John P. Mixon | Attorney | Counsel for Trackthings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Trackthings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Priyadarshini Das | Attorney | Counsel for Trackthings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert Scott Pickens | Attorney | Counsel for Trackthings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ryan J. Singer | Attorney | Counsel for Trackthings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sedinam Michelle Anyidoho | Attorney | Counsel for Trackthings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Timothy K. Gilman | Attorney | Counsel for Trackthings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dorsey & Whitney LLP | Law Firm | Representing Trackthings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Gillam & Smith, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Trackthings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP | Law Firm | Representing Trackthings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Daniel Ledesma | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Deron R. Dacus | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Donna Long | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Eric B. Young | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Gregory Michael Sefian | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | J. David Hadden | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Min Wu | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ravi Ranganath | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Saina S. Shamilov | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Vigen Salmastlian | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fenwick & West LLP | Law Firm | Representing Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | The Dacus Firm PC | Law Firm | Representing Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The final judgment language is unusually detailed for a jury verdict entry: it specifies each asserted claim by number across all three patents and records both the non-infringement and the non-invalidity findings explicitly. This granularity suggests the verdict form was structured to address each patent and claim independently — a common approach in multi-patent W.D. Texas jury trials. The explicit finding that claims do not involve only ‘well-understood, routine, and conventional’ activities forecloses a § 101 eligibility challenge on these specific grounds by these parties, preserving the patents’ formal legal status while delivering a clean operational win for Amazon and eero.
US9642017B2, US9332442B2 & US10107893B2 — Ad-hoc and mesh wireless network patents
The three patents-in-suit — US9332442B2 (App. No. 14/093541), US9642017B2 (App. No. 11/681158), and US10107893B2 (App. No. 13/198748) — collectively cover apparatus and methods for constructing, configuring, and monitoring wireless networks. The claimed inventions address ad-hoc network performance and integrity, configurable multi-node network architectures, and automated master-slave device monitoring. These technical domains are foundational to modern mesh Wi-Fi systems, including products like eero’s home networking hardware. The patents’ application filing dates suggest development predating the commercial mesh Wi-Fi market’s emergence.
From a strategic standpoint, this patent portfolio sits at the intersection of home networking hardware and enterprise wireless infrastructure — a high-value space given the proliferation of mesh Wi-Fi systems, IoT device connectivity, and smart home platforms. The fact that Amazon deployed a full Fenwick & West litigation team against these patents signals that the stakes were commercially significant for eero’s product line. With the patents confirmed valid by the jury, the portfolio retains assertion value against other vendors in the 802.11 mesh and ad-hoc wireless space, making it a continued monitoring priority for competitors.
Should your team run an FTO against US9642017B2, US9332442B2, and US10107893B2?
If your company develops, manufactures, or deploys mesh Wi-Fi systems, ad-hoc wireless network hardware, or IoT device monitoring platforms, these three patents remain live enforcement risks. The W.D. Texas jury confirmed their validity — only Amazon and eero received non-infringement clearance. Any product implementing configurable multi-node wireless architectures, automated network integrity management, or master-slave device discovery protocols should be mapped against the surviving claims before commercialisation or market expansion.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s technical specifications against the claim language of US9332442B2, US9642017B2, and US10107893B2 in minutes. Eureka identifies prior art, prosecution history estoppel, and claim differentiation opportunities — giving your legal and R&D teams the evidence base needed to assess infringement risk and design-around options before a demand letter arrives.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9332442B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar wireless network patent cases in W.D. Texas and related courts
Explore comparable mesh Wi-Fi and ad-hoc wireless network patent infringement cases filed in the Western District of Texas and before Judge Albright.
What this case signals for the wireless networking IP landscape
A complete non-infringement verdict with patents preserved creates a split outcome that matters beyond Amazon and eero.
Valid patents can still lose at trial — technical claim mapping is decisive
The jury rejected Amazon’s invalidity defenses yet still found no infringement. This confirms that claim construction and element-by-element mapping — not patent validity — was the battleground. Companies facing assertion of wireless network patents should invest heavily in non-infringement claim charts early, as validity arguments alone are insufficient to carry a trial.
Costs awards in W.D. Texas put financial pressure on NPE plaintiffs post-trial
Judge Albright’s court granted defendants their costs of court as prevailing parties. While not attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, this award signals that fully litigating a case to verdict in W.D. Texas carries real financial downside for plaintiffs who lose. NPEs and patent assertion entities should model full-trial cost exposure when assessing litigation strategy against well-resourced defendants like Amazon.
Trackthings v Amazon.com — key questions answered
The jury returned a complete defense verdict on October 11, 2024. Amazon.com Services LLC and eero LLC were found not to infringe any asserted claims of US9642017B2, US9332442B2, or US10107893B2. TrackThings takes no damages. The patents were found not invalid. Final judgment was entered November 18, 2024, with costs awarded to defendants.
No. The jury found that the asserted claims of all three patents are not invalid and do not involve only well-understood, routine, and conventional activities as of their effective filing dates. The patents survive the litigation as valid, but the non-infringement verdict means they cannot be enforced against Amazon or eero based on the products and claims at issue in this case.
The jury addressed claims 1 and 6 of US9642017B2; claims 1, 9, 15, and 17 of US9332442B2; and claim 1 of US10107893B2. Claim 8 of US9642017B2 was dismissed with prejudice by the court separately and was not submitted to the jury.
The case accused products and methods associated with eero LLC’s mesh Wi-Fi networking hardware and Amazon.com Services LLC’s related offerings. The asserted patents cover apparatus and methods for ad-hoc wireless network integrity, configurable network architectures, and master-slave monitoring systems — technologies foundational to mesh home networking products.
The jury verdict and final judgment bind only the named parties — Amazon.com Services LLC and eero LLC. Because the claims were found not invalid, TrackThings retains the right to assert US9332442B2, US9642017B2 (minus claim 8), and US10107893B2 against third parties. Companies in the mesh Wi-Fi, ad-hoc wireless, and IoT monitoring sectors should conduct FTO analysis against these patents, as the portfolio remains legally valid.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.