TurboCode LLC v. Deere & Co. — Voluntary Dismissal After 151 Days
TurboCode LLC filed suit against agricultural and industrial equipment giant Deere & Co. in the Western District of Texas, asserting US6813742B2, a patent covering turbo coding methods central to 3GPP 3G and 4G/LTE cellular standards. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1) just 151 days after filing — before Deere served any answer or summary judgment motion.
Turbo Code Patent Asserted Against Deere’s LTE-Enabled Machinery
On 30 August 2024, TurboCode LLC filed an infringement action (Case No. 6:24-cv-00448) in the Western District of Texas before Judge Orlando L. Garcia, asserting US6813742B2 against Deere & Co. The patent, filed under application number US09/681093, covers turbo coding techniques central to the 3GPP standards governing 3G and 4G/LTE cellular communications — specifically releases 8 through 11. Products accused included Deere’s MTG 4G LTE, M-Modem, and RModem product lines.
On 28 January 2025 — 151 days after filing — TurboCode LLC filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). Because Deere had not yet served an answer or motion for summary judgment, TurboCode was entitled to dismiss unilaterally without a court order. The case was closed on that date. A dismissal without prejudice means TurboCode retains the legal right to re-file the same claims against Deere at a future date, subject to applicable statutes of limitations.
The 151-day resolution, ending before Deere filed any responsive pleading, is consistent with early-stage patent cases that resolve — or are withdrawn — before significant litigation costs accumulate. Whether the dismissal reflects an out-of-court resolution, a licensing arrangement, or a tactical reassessment is not disclosed in the public record. The absence of a defendant law firm on record suggests Deere may not have formally engaged litigation counsel before the dismissal, which typically signals that either negotiations concluded quickly or plaintiff reconsidered its litigation strategy.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 151 days
151 days — resolved before defendant’s answer was filed, shorter than most contested patent cases
Voluntarily dismissed: what Rule 41(a)(1) means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1): plaintiff’s unilateral right to exit
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. TurboCode exercised this right on 28 January 2025. The rule is procedural — it does not require the defendant’s consent and creates no judicial finding on the merits of the infringement claims.
No merits adjudicationWithout prejudice — but the record is silent on why
A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ preserves TurboCode’s right to re-file the same claims against Deere in the future, subject to the applicable statute of limitations for patent infringement. A dismissal ‘with prejudice’ would permanently bar re-filing. TurboCode explicitly elected without prejudice here. However, the public record does not disclose whether a settlement, licence, or other private arrangement accompanied the dismissal — both scenarios are consistent with this procedural posture.
Re-filing right preservedDeere escapes judgment — but patent threat persists
Deere & Co. faces no adverse finding on patent validity or infringement as a result of this dismissal. No damages were awarded. However, because the dismissal is without prejudice, US6813742B2 remains a live enforcement risk against Deere’s LTE-enabled product lines. Should TurboCode — or a future assignee of the patent — re-file, Deere would need to respond on the merits, including potentially challenging patent validity through inter partes review or litigation defences.
No permanent bar on re-filingLTE standard-essential patent risk remains live for OEMs
US6813742B2 covers turbo coding methods embedded in the 3GPP 3G/4G LTE standards — technology used across a broad range of connected devices, not only agricultural equipment. Manufacturers integrating LTE modems into their products should treat this dismissal as a pause, not a closure. The patent remains active and enforceable. Similar claims could be brought against other implementers of 3GPP releases 8–11, making FTO analysis against this patent relevant for any OEM deploying LTE connectivity.
Patent remains enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | TurboCode, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US6813742B2 covering 3GPP turbo coding methodsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Deere & Co. | Company | Deere & Co. — global manufacturer of agricultural, construction, and forestry equipmentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David R. Bennett, Esq., | Attorney | Counsel for TurboCode, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Direction IP law | Law Firm | Representing TurboCode, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Orlando L. Garcia | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice cites Rule 41(a)(1) explicitly and designates the dismissal as without prejudice — two legally significant choices. The without-prejudice designation is the operative term: it means no final judgment on validity or infringement was entered, and TurboCode retains the option to re-file. The early timing — before Deere filed any answer — confirms this was a unilateral plaintiff action requiring no judicial approval. No merits findings, no damages assessment, and no cost award attach to this outcome.
US6813742B2 — Turbo coding for 3GPP 3G/4G LTE wireless standards
US6813742B2, filed under application number US09/681093, covers turbo coding methods — a class of forward error correction (FEC) algorithms that are central to the physical layer of 3GPP cellular standards including 3G and 4G/LTE. Turbo codes were formally adopted into the 3GPP standard beginning with UMTS (Release 99) and remain integral through LTE Releases 8–11, which govern the majority of deployed 4G infrastructure globally. Any device transmitting or receiving data over these networks implements turbo coding at the channel level.
The strategic significance of US6813742B2 lies in its potential coverage of a mandatory 3GPP technical element. If the patent’s claims map onto the normative requirements of 3GPP releases 8–11, it could qualify as a standard-essential patent (SEP), exposing a wide range of implementers — from modem chipset manufacturers to OEM device integrators like Deere — to licensing demands. The patent’s continued enforceability makes it a relevant reference for any company deploying LTE connectivity in connected devices, industrial equipment, or precision agriculture platforms.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US6813742B2?
Any organisation integrating 3G or 4G/LTE connectivity into products — whether agricultural equipment, industrial IoT devices, fleet telematics, or consumer electronics — should assess exposure to US6813742B2. The patent covers turbo coding methods that are embedded in the 3GPP standard itself, meaning implementers cannot design around the claim by changing their product architecture without departing from the standard. This makes a freedom-to-operate analysis particularly important for OEMs relying on third-party LTE modem chipsets.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claims of US6813742B2 against your specific product architecture, identify whether your chipset supplier holds a relevant licence, surface related continuation or family patents that may extend coverage, and benchmark the patent against known FRAND declaration records at ETSI. For R&D and IP teams building connected-device roadmaps, this analysis is a critical first step before product launch or market expansion into LTE-dependent product categories.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US6813742B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar LTE standard-essential patent cases in Western District of Texas
Cases involving 3GPP turbo coding and LTE standard-essential patents filed in the Western District of Texas, including comparable pre-answer dismissals and SEP assertion actions.
What this case signals for the LTE standard-essential patent landscape
A pre-answer dismissal in a 3GPP turbo coding case raises specific questions about assertion strategy, FRAND exposure, and connected-device IP risk.
Pre-answer dismissals often mask private licensing activity
When a plaintiff files a Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal without prejudice before the defendant even answers, it frequently — though not always — suggests a private resolution. No public settlement was filed in this case. Companies monitoring TurboCode LLC’s assertion activity should track whether similar suits are filed against other LTE device manufacturers using 3GPP releases 8–11.
3GPP standard-essential patent claims carry FRAND obligations
Patents covering mandatory 3GPP technical standards may be subject to FRAND licensing commitments depending on whether the patent was declared to ETSI or another standards body. US6813742B2 covers turbo coding methods central to LTE. Any re-filed action would likely face FRAND-rate defences, making the royalty demand a key strategic variable for both plaintiff and potential defendants.
TurboCode v Deere — key questions answered
TurboCode LLC filed a patent infringement suit against Deere & Co. in the Western District of Texas on 30 August 2024, asserting US6813742B2 covering turbo coding methods used in 3GPP 3G/4G LTE standards. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1) on 28 January 2025, 151 days after filing, before Deere filed any answer or summary judgment motion.
A dismissal without prejudice means no final judgment was entered on the merits of the infringement claims. TurboCode LLC retains the legal right to re-file the same claims against Deere & Co. in the future, subject to the applicable six-year statute of limitations for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 286. The dismissal does not resolve the question of whether US6813742B2 is valid or infringed.
US6813742B2 covers turbo coding methods central to the 3GPP physical layer — a mandatory technical element in 3G and 4G/LTE standards releases 8–11. Whether it qualifies as a formally declared SEP depends on ETSI declaration records, which are not established by the litigation filings alone. Any implementer of 3GPP LTE standards should independently assess the patent’s claim scope against the relevant standard specifications.
Deere & Co. integrates LTE connectivity into precision agriculture and telematics products, including the MTG 4G LTE, M-Modem, and RModem product lines specifically named in TurboCode’s complaint. Industrial OEMs embedding LTE modems are increasingly targeted in SEP assertion actions because they implement the cellular standard without necessarily holding upstream chipset licences that cover standard-essential patents.
The Western District of Texas, and specifically Judge Orlando L. Garcia’s docket in San Antonio, has been a popular venue for patent infringement filings. Plaintiffs have historically favoured this district for its procedural posture and scheduling. However, following the Federal Circuit’s 2021 TC Heartland-related decisions and venue transfer rulings, defendants in W.D. Tex. more frequently seek transfer. The pre-answer dismissal here prevented any venue dispute from arising.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.