XiDrone Systems v. Fortem Technologies: UAS Deterrent Patents Settled After 825 Days
XiDrone Systems filed suit against fellow drone-defence company Fortem Technologies in the District of Utah, asserting two patents covering deterrents for unmanned aerial systems. After 825 days of litigation, the parties reached a confidential settlement and jointly moved to dismiss all claims and counterclaims with prejudice, each side bearing its own legal costs.
UAS Deterrent Patent Battle Ends in Confidential Settlement
On 6 July 2023, XiDrone Systems, Inc. filed an infringement action in the United States District Court for the District of Utah against Fortem Technologies, Inc., a competing provider of counter-drone systems. The complaint centred on two patents — US9689976B2 (Application No. US14/821907) and US11378651B2 (Application No. US17/214413) — both directed at deterrent technology for unmanned aerial systems, a rapidly growing segment of defence and critical-infrastructure protection.
After 825 days, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice on 8 October 2025, citing a confidential settlement agreement as the basis. All claims and counterclaims were dismissed with prejudice, meaning XiDrone is permanently barred from re-asserting the same claims against Fortem on the same grounds. Notably, each party agreed to bear its own attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses — a customary term in confidential settlements that avoids any admission of liability or relative strength.
The 825-day duration — spanning more than two years from filing to dismissal — suggests the parties engaged in meaningful discovery and likely claim-construction proceedings before reaching terms, consistent with a settlement driven by litigation risk on both sides rather than an early nuisance resolution. The confidentiality of the underlying agreement means the financial terms, licensing arrangements, and any admissions remain undisclosed. Whether XiDrone obtained a licence, a lump-sum payment, or another form of commercial consideration cannot be determined from the public record.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 825 days
825 days in litigation — above the median for district court patent cases, suggesting substantive negotiation pressure before settlement
Dismissed with prejudice: what the confidential settlement means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice bars any future re-filing on these patents
A dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) is a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes. XiDrone cannot re-file the same infringement claims against Fortem based on US9689976B2 or US11378651B2 for the same accused products. The joint nature of the motion confirms mutual agreement, distinguishing it from a unilateral concession by either side.
Rule 41 — permanent bar on re-filingXiDrone secures confidential terms but surrenders future suit rights
XiDrone’s decision to settle with prejudice suggests it extracted some commercial value — whether a licence fee, cross-licence, or other consideration — while avoiding the cost and risk of trial. The trade-off is permanence: XiDrone cannot reopen infringement claims against Fortem on these patents for the accused UAS deterrent products. The patents themselves remain valid and enforceable against third parties.
Patents enforceable vs. third partiesFortem achieves certainty, but settlement terms remain opaque
For Fortem Technologies, the with-prejudice dismissal provides legal certainty: XiDrone’s two UAS deterrent patents can no longer be wielded against it in this action. However, because terms are confidential, it is unknown whether Fortem paid a licence fee or royalty. Competitors and customers cannot assume a full walk-away — Fortem may now operate under a licence rather than a finding of non-infringement.
Possible licence, not non-infringement rulingCounter-drone sector faces continued patent enforcement risk
The settlement reinforces that UAS deterrent technology is an actively contested IP space. XiDrone’s two patents survive the litigation fully intact and remain available for enforcement against other counter-drone competitors. Companies commercialising UAS detection, interdiction, or deterrent systems — particularly those entering US government and critical-infrastructure markets — should treat these patents as live enforcement risks and consider FTO analysis accordingly.
IP risk for UAS deterrent sectorFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Xidrone Systems | Company | Counter-drone technology developer — holder of US9689976B2 and US11378651B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Fortem Technologies | Company | Fortem Technologies — developer of radar-based counter-UAS detection and interdiction systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Daniel A. Kent | Attorney | Counsel for Xidrone SystemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nicole A. Skolout | Attorney | Counsel for Xidrone SystemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Stephen R. Risley | Attorney | Counsel for Xidrone SystemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Kent & Risley, LLC | Law Firm | Representing Xidrone SystemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Tomchak Skolout | Law Firm | Representing Xidrone SystemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jeffrey C. Bramble | Attorney | Counsel for Fortem TechnologiesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kevin N. Anderson | Attorney | Counsel for Fortem TechnologiesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Steven P. Tepera | Attorney | Counsel for Fortem TechnologiesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fabian Vancott | Law Firm | Representing Fortem TechnologiesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Fortem TechnologiesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Ann Marie McIff Allen | Judge | Utah District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice references a confidential settlement agreement as its operative basis, meaning the court made no merits determination on infringement, validity, or damages. The with-prejudice designation carries full res judicata effect — identical claims between these parties on these patents are permanently foreclosed. The mutual cost-bearing clause (‘each Party bearing its own attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses’) is a standard settlement term that deliberately avoids signalling which party had the stronger litigation position, consistent with an arms-length commercial resolution rather than a concession by either side.
US9689976B2 & US11378651B2 — Unmanned Aerial System Deterrent Technology
US9689976B2 (filed under Application No. US14/821907) and US11378651B2 (filed under Application No. US17/214413) both cover technology in the unmanned aerial system deterrent space — a domain addressing the detection, tracking, and neutralisation of hostile or unauthorised drones. The more recent patent, US11378651B2, reflects continued R&D investment and claim development by XiDrone, with its later application number suggesting it builds upon or complements the earlier priority. Both patents are granted US utility patents carrying a full statutory presumption of validity.
The commercial context for these patents is significant. Counter-UAS technology has become a priority procurement area for US defence, homeland security, and critical-infrastructure operators, driving intense competition among a growing number of specialist vendors. XiDrone and Fortem Technologies both compete in this space, making the patent dispute a direct clash over core product functionality rather than a peripheral licensing play. The survival of both patents post-litigation — without any validity adjudication — means they represent live IP risk for any company active in UAS deterrent systems, particularly those seeking government contracts in the US.
Should your UAS deterrent product be cleared against US9689976B2 and US11378651B2?
Any R&D team, product manager, or business development lead working on drone interdiction, detection, or neutralisation systems intended for the US market should treat these two XiDrone patents as priority FTO targets. The litigation outcome confirms XiDrone is an active enforcer. Both patents are alive, valid, and unencumbered by any adverse court ruling — and the confidential settlement provides no public claim-scope guidance to rely on.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claims of US9689976B2 and US11378651B2 against your product architecture, flag design-around opportunities, and surface prior art that could support an IPR petition if infringement risk is identified. For companies supplying counter-drone systems to DoD, DHS, or commercial critical-infrastructure operators, proactive FTO analysis is the most cost-effective risk mitigation available before a cease-and-desist or complaint arrives.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9689976B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Counter-Drone & UAS Patent Infringement Cases
Explore related UAS deterrent and counter-drone patent disputes litigated in US district courts, including cases involving similar drone interdiction and detection technology claims.
What this case signals for the counter-drone IP landscape
A two-year patent dispute between two UAS defence specialists ending in a confidential settlement carries clear signals for the broader counter-drone market.
UAS deterrent patents are being actively enforced — FTO is non-optional
XiDrone’s willingness to litigate for 825 days signals that its patent portfolio is not merely defensive. Any company developing or commercialising drone interdiction or deterrent products in the US market should conduct a formal FTO analysis against US9689976B2 and US11378651B2 before product launch or contract award.
With-prejudice settlement preserves patent validity — no IPR was filed
The case resolved without a validity challenge reaching decision. Both XiDrone patents emerge untested by an inter partes review or district court invalidity ruling, meaning the claims carry full presumption of validity. Competitors cannot free-ride on any prior art arguments Fortem may have raised — those arguments are now buried under a confidential agreement.
Xidrone v Fortem — key questions answered
XiDrone Systems asserted two patents: US9689976B2 (Application No. US14/821907) and US11378651B2 (Application No. US17/214413). Both patents cover deterrent technology for unmanned aerial systems. The case was filed in the District of Utah on 6 July 2023 and dismissed with prejudice on 8 October 2025 pursuant to a confidential settlement.
Dismissal with prejudice means XiDrone is permanently barred from re-filing the same infringement claims against Fortem based on US9689976B2 and US11378651B2 for the accused products. However, the patents themselves remain valid and fully enforceable against third parties — only the specific claims between these two parties are foreclosed. XiDrone retains all enforcement rights against other companies.
No court merits determination was made. The case settled confidentially and was dismissed with prejudice by joint motion. This means neither party received a judicial finding of infringement, non-infringement, or invalidity. Fortem achieved certainty against further suit by XiDrone on these patents, but this should not be characterised as a legal victory — the terms of any financial consideration paid remain undisclosed.
The case lasted 825 days, from filing on 6 July 2023 to dismissal on 8 October 2025. This duration is above the median for district court patent cases that settle, suggesting the parties engaged in substantive proceedings — likely including discovery, claim construction briefing, or expert reports — before reaching settlement terms. An early nuisance settlement would typically resolve within 12–18 months.
XiDrone Systems was represented by Kent & Risley, LLC and Tomchak Skolout, with attorneys Daniel A. Kent, Nicole A. Skolout, and Stephen R. Risley on record. Fortem Technologies was represented by Fabian Vancott and Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP, with Jeffrey C. Bramble, Kevin N. Anderson, and Steven P. Tepera appearing as counsel. The case was assigned to Judge Ann Marie McIff Allen.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.