TurboCode LLC v. Siemens AG: LTE Patent Case Dismissed With Prejudice
TurboCode LLC asserted US6813742B2 — a patent tied to 3GPP 3G/4G LTE standard specifications — against Siemens AG’s industrial wireless and SCALANCE product lines in the Eastern District of Texas. The case ended in a voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1) just 193 days after filing, before Siemens filed any answer or dispositive motion.
LTE Standards Patent Assertion Ends Before Siemens Responds
On August 30, 2024, TurboCode LLC filed a patent infringement action against Siemens Aktiengesellschaft in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 4:24-cv-00791) before Judge Sean D. Jordan. TurboCode asserted US6813742B2 — a patent with application number US09/681093 — against Siemens products implementing the 3GPP 3G and 4G/LTE standard specifications (releases 8–11), including the SCALANCE MUM853-1, MUM856-1, M874 and M876 Series, RUGGEDCOM RX1400, RM1224-NAM 4G Router, SIMATIC RTU3041C, SIMATIC S7-1200, and SITRANS FM MAG 8000.
The case closed on March 11, 2025, when TurboCode filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). Critically, dismissal with prejudice is final and operates as an adjudication on the merits — TurboCode permanently forfeits the right to bring the same claims against Siemens based on US6813742B2. Because dismissal occurred before Siemens filed any answer or motion for summary judgment, no court order was required and no merits ruling was issued.
The 193-day resolution timeline — from filing to dismissal — is notably short for Eastern District of Texas patent litigation, where cases frequently extend well beyond one year. The pre-answer timing of the dismissal with prejudice is consistent with a negotiated resolution or a strategic decision by TurboCode not to proceed once litigation costs and Siemens’ likely defenses came into focus. The public record does not disclose any settlement terms, licence agreement, or payment, leaving the underlying commercial rationale unknown.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 193 days
193 days — resolved before defendant’s answer was filed
Voluntary dismissal with prejudice: what it means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1) — plaintiff’s right to dismiss without court order
Under FRCP Rule 41(a)(1), a plaintiff may unilaterally dismiss an action by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. No judicial approval is needed. TurboCode exercised this right and elected to dismiss with prejudice — a choice that goes beyond the rule’s minimum requirement, and makes the dismissal function as a final judgment on the merits.
No merits ruling issuedDismissal with prejudice permanently bars re-filing
A dismissal with prejudice is the more consequential of the two Rule 41 options. It prevents TurboCode from ever re-asserting the same claims under US6813742B2 against Siemens. By contrast, a dismissal without prejudice would preserve TurboCode’s right to refile. The public record explicitly states ‘with prejudice,’ so there is no ambiguity here — this is a permanent surrender of those specific claims against Siemens.
Claims permanently extinguishedTurboCode gives up all claims against Siemens permanently
By voluntarily dismissing with prejudice, TurboCode LLC has permanently relinquished its infringement claims against Siemens under US6813742B2. Whether this reflects a confidential settlement, a licensing agreement, or an internal reassessment of litigation viability is not disclosed in the public record. The with-prejudice designation suggests TurboCode either achieved its commercial objective or concluded that pursuing the action was no longer warranted.
No further recourse against SiemensSiemens exits with no merits finding — but patent remains valid
Siemens avoided any merits adjudication and faces no court-imposed liability. Crucially, the dismissal does not invalidate US6813742B2 — the patent remains in force and could be asserted against other implementers of 3GPP LTE standards. Siemens’ industrial wireless product lines, including SCALANCE and RUGGEDCOM, are now shielded from TurboCode’s claims specifically, but the broader LTE patent landscape warrants continued monitoring.
No invalidity finding; patent survivesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | TurboCode, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US6813742B2 covering 3G/4G LTE wireless standard technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Siemens Aktiengesellschaft | Individual | Siemens Aktiengesellschaft — global industrial technology conglomerate; maker of SCALANCE and RUGGEDCOM industrial wireless productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David R. Bennett, Esq., | Attorney | Counsel for TurboCode, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | David R. Bennett | Law Firm | Representing TurboCode, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Sean D. Jordan | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
TurboCode’s notice explicitly invokes FRCP Rule 41(a)(1) and designates the dismissal ‘with prejudice’ — language that carries substantive legal weight beyond a procedural exit. With-prejudice dismissal is treated as a final adjudication on the merits, permanently barring TurboCode from reasserting the same claims against Siemens under US6813742B2. Importantly, the court issued no ruling on validity, infringement, or claim construction, meaning the patent itself remains unchallenged and fully enforceable against third parties.
US6813742B2 — 3G/4G LTE cellular wireless communications standard technology
US6813742B2 (application no. US09/681093) covers technology relating to 3G and 4G/LTE cellular wireless communications as defined by 3GPP standard specifications, specifically releases 8 through 11. These releases underpin the LTE air interface and protocol stack that is fundamental to a wide range of industrial wireless devices, IoT gateways, cellular routers, and connected field equipment. The patent’s application-era origins suggest it may predate widespread LTE commercialisation, potentially giving it broad coverage over implementations that became ubiquitous in industrial and consumer connectivity.
The strategic significance of US6813742B2 lies in its alignment with 3GPP specifications that are effectively unavoidable for any product incorporating LTE connectivity. Industrial OT vendors — including makers of cellular routers, RTUs, PLCs with WAN modules, and flow meters with LTE backhaul — face inherent exposure if this patent reads on the standard itself rather than a specific implementation. The Siemens product list named in the complaint spans a broad cross-section of industrial automation and communications hardware, signalling that TurboCode views the patent as applicable to the LTE stack broadly, not just a niche product feature.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US6813742B2?
Any company that manufactures, imports, or sells products incorporating 3GPP LTE (releases 8–11) connectivity — including industrial routers, cellular RTUs, IIoT gateways, SCADA communication modules, or LTE-enabled sensors — should treat US6813742B2 as a live FTO concern. The fact that TurboCode targeted Siemens’ entire industrial LTE portfolio suggests a broad claim scope. The patent’s survival through this litigation without any invalidity ruling strengthens the case for conducting a thorough clearance review before product launch or expansion into the US market.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map US6813742B2’s claim landscape against your product’s LTE implementation, identify prosecution history estoppel, flag prior art that may limit claim scope, and surface related continuations or divisionals that TurboCode or its predecessors may hold. For R&D teams designing LTE-connected industrial devices, an early-stage Eureka FTO workflow reduces the risk of late-stage litigation exposure in plaintiff-favoured venues like the Eastern District of Texas.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US6813742B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar LTE and 3GPP standards patent cases in E.D. Texas
Cases involving 3GPP LTE standard-essential or standards-linked patents asserted in the Eastern District of Texas against industrial wireless and telecommunications defendants.
What this case signals for the industrial LTE and 3GPP IP landscape
Standards-essential patent assertions against industrial IoT vendors are rising. This case highlights exposure points for 3GPP LTE implementers.
3GPP LTE standard implementers remain exposed to SEP-style assertions
US6813742B2 was asserted against products implementing 3GPP releases 8–11 — core LTE specifications used across industrial wireless, IoT, and connected infrastructure. Companies deploying LTE modules in industrial equipment should treat standards-linked patents as a live risk category, regardless of whether the asserted patent is formally declared essential.
Pre-answer dismissal with prejudice is a common signal of private resolution
When a plaintiff dismisses with prejudice before the defendant even answers, it typically signals that the parties reached a private resolution — whether a licence, a covenant not to sue, or a walk-away agreement. IP teams monitoring competitors’ litigation posture should track these early-exit patterns as indicators of licensing activity rather than litigation failure.
TurboCode v Siemens — key questions answered
TurboCode LLC voluntarily dismissed its patent infringement action against Siemens Aktiengesellschaft with prejudice on March 11, 2025, under FRCP Rule 41(a)(1). The dismissal was filed before Siemens served an answer or motion for summary judgment. No merits ruling was issued. The with-prejudice designation permanently bars TurboCode from re-asserting the same claims against Siemens under US6813742B2.
TurboCode asserted US6813742B2 (application no. US09/681093), a patent covering technology related to 3G and 4G/LTE cellular wireless communications as defined by 3GPP standard specifications releases 8–11. The accused products included Siemens’ SCALANCE MUM853-1, MUM856-1, M874/M876 Series, RUGGEDCOM RX1400, RM1224-NAM 4G Router, SIMATIC RTU3041C, SIMATIC S7-1200, and SITRANS FM MAG 8000.
A voluntary dismissal with prejudice under FRCP Rule 41 is treated as a final adjudication on the merits. It permanently prevents the plaintiff from refiling the same claims against the same defendant. Unlike a dismissal without prejudice — which preserves the right to refile — a with-prejudice dismissal extinguishes those claims permanently. No court order is required if filed before the defendant answers or moves for summary judgment.
No. The voluntary dismissal with prejudice in TurboCode v. Siemens does not affect the validity of US6813742B2. No invalidity ruling was issued — the case ended on procedural grounds before any merits analysis. The patent remains in force and TurboCode retains the right to assert it against other parties implementing 3G/4G LTE standard specifications. Other companies with LTE-connected products should continue to monitor this patent.
The pre-answer timing of the with-prejudice dismissal — 193 days after filing — is consistent with several scenarios: a confidential settlement or licensing agreement, a covenant not to sue, or a strategic decision that continued litigation was not commercially viable. The public record does not disclose any financial terms or agreements. The choice of ‘with prejudice’ rather than ‘without prejudice’ suggests TurboCode either achieved its objective or made a final determination not to pursue the action further.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.