Fractus, S.A. v. Geotab Inc.

Fractus, S.A., a Spanish company headquartered in Barcelona, is an early pioneer in the development of antenna technology, particularly known for its geometry-based, multi-band miniaturized antennas used in wireless devices and IoT applications. Fractus operates primarily as an intellectual property (IP) licensing firm, with a history of extensive patent litigation to enforce its portfolio. Defendant Geotab Inc. is a Canadian technology company that designs and manufactures telematics and fleet management solutions, offering GPS tracking hardware and a cloud-based software platform called MyGeotab for fleet operations and asset tracking.

The lawsuit alleges that Geotab is unlawfully using Fractus' patented antenna innovations in its advanced connectivity solutions for fleet management, asset tracking, and aftermarket telematics. Specifically, the complaint identifies Geotab's GO8, GO8 Rugged, GO9, GO9 Rugged, GO9+, GO9B, SmartWitness KP2, SmartWitness CP2, and FleetCarma C2 products as the accused infringing devices. The patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 11,031,677, which generally relates to a multifunction wireless device having multimedia and/or smartphone functionality, including a microprocessor, operating system for running applications, and memory, or alternatively a receiver of sound signals, an image recording system, and data storage. Fractus had informed Geotab of the alleged infringement through an October 2021 letter.

This case, 2:24-cv-01008, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and is assigned to District Judge Rodney Gilstrap and Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne. The Eastern District of Texas has historically been a significant venue for patent litigation, often referred to as a "rocket docket" due to its reputation for quickly adjudicating patent cases and its plaintiff-friendly procedural rules and juries. Fractus has a history of litigating in this district, with prior successes, including a significant win against Samsung. While Supreme Court rulings like TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC aimed to restrict venue in patent cases to where the defendant resides (i.e., its state of incorporation) or where it has a regular and established place of business, the Eastern District of Texas has continued to be a chosen forum for patent assertion entities (PAEs) like Fractus. The case is notable as it represents Fractus' ongoing strategy to license its extensive antenna patent portfolio across various IoT verticals, following recent settlements with other companies and the expansion of its licensing program. Geotab has already initiated Post-Grant Reviews (PGRs) against at least two other Fractus patents asserted in this litigation, including US Patent No. 12,095,149 and 11,349,200, although one PGR for the '149 patent was denied institution. Fractus also filed a parallel suit against Verizon (2:24-cv-01009) in the same district, which settled in March 2026. Fractus also settled a case against ADT on the eve of trial in the Eastern District of Texas, presided over by Judge Rodney Gilstrap, suggesting a consistent and aggressive enforcement strategy.Fractus, S.A., a Spanish company based in Barcelona, operates as an intellectual property (IP) licensing firm that specializes in pioneering geometry-based antenna technology for wireless and IoT devices. The company has a notable history of enforcing its extensive patent portfolio through litigation. The defendant, Geotab Inc., is a Canadian technology company that develops and manufactures telematics and fleet management solutions, including GPS tracking hardware and the cloud-based MyGeotab software platform, which are used for fleet operations and asset tracking.

Fractus alleges that Geotab is infringing its patented antenna innovations through the unauthorized use of its technology in Geotab's connectivity solutions for fleet management, asset tracking, and aftermarket telematics. Specifically, the complaint names several Geotab products as infringing, including the Geotab GO8, GO8 Rugged, GO9, GO9 Rugged, GO9+, GO9B, SmartWitness KP2, SmartWitness CP2, and FleetCarma C2. The central patent in this litigation is U.S. Patent No. 11,031,677, which generally covers a multifunction wireless device with multimedia and/or smartphone capabilities, incorporating a microprocessor, operating system for applications, and memory, or alternatively, a receiver for sound signals, an image recording system, and data storage. Fractus claims to have provided notice of infringement to Geotab as early as October 2021.

The case, 2:24-cv-01008, was filed on December 5, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and is presided over by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap and Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne. This venue is well-known in patent litigation circles for its "rocket docket" reputation, characterized by rapid case adjudication and a historical tendency to favor plaintiffs. Fractus has a track record of successful patent enforcement in the Eastern District of Texas, including prior victories and settlements. This litigation is notable as it reflects Fractus' ongoing strategy to license its antenna technology across various Internet of Things (IoT) sectors. Geotab has responded by filing Post-Grant Reviews (PGRs) against other Fractus patents involved in the litigation, although one PGR concerning U.S. Patent No. 12,095,149 was denied institution. Fractus also filed a parallel infringement suit against Verizon (2:24-cv-01009) in the same district, which was settled in March 2026. Fractus also previously settled a case against ADT in the Eastern District of Texas, before Judge Gilstrap, further illustrating its consistent and assertive patent enforcement approach.

Fractus, S.A. v. Geotab Inc. is an active patent infringement lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas. The case was filed on December 5, 2024, by Fractus, S.A. against Geotab Inc.. The asserted patent is U.S. Patent No. 11,031,677, which concerns multifunction wireless devices with advanced antenna technology. Fractus has also asserted four other patents against Geotab: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,456,365; 8,810,458; 11,349,200; and 12,095,149.

Here's a chronological overview of the key legal developments and outcomes:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• December 5, 2024: Fractus, S.A. filed a Complaint for Patent Infringement against Geotab Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. The complaint alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,031,677, along with several other patents related to antenna technology. Fractus is represented by Susman Godfrey L.L.P.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:
Geotab has initiated Post-Grant Reviews (PGRs) against some of the patents asserted in the litigation.

• April 30, 2025: Geotab Inc. filed a petition for Post-Grant Review (PGR) against U.S. Patent No. 12,095,149, identified as PGR2025-00056. The '149 patent is titled "Multiple-Body-Configuration Multimedia and Smartphone Multifunction Wireless Devices."
• September 12, 2025: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a Director's Precedential Opinion denying institution of PGR2025-00056 for U.S. Patent No. 12,095,149. The PTAB determined that Geotab failed to demonstrate that it was "more likely than not" that at least one of the challenged claims was unpatentable.
• November 6, 2025: A rehearing decision for PGR2025-00929 (which appears to be a clerical error in the source and should likely refer to PGR2025-00056) was issued, affirming the discretionary denial of institution.
• Geotab also filed a PGR petition against U.S. Patent No. 11,349,200 (IPR2025-01027). The outcome of this specific PGR is not explicitly detailed in the provided search results, beyond its filing.
• There's also mention of IPR2025-01026 against Fractus, S.A. by Geotab Inc. with the same case number (2:24-cv-01008), filed on December 6, 2024. The specific patent at issue for IPR2025-01026 is not specified in the available snippet.

Current Posture:

• The case remains ongoing in the Eastern District of Texas.
• A related case, Fractus, S.A. v. Verizon Connect Inc. et al. (2:24-cv-01009), also filed in December 2024 in the Eastern District of Texas, was settled in March 2026. This parallel settlement suggests Fractus's continued aggressive enforcement strategy.
• As of January 2, 2026, a "Claim Construction Order" in the parallel Verizon case (2:24-cv-01009) was mentioned in a PTAB docket. While this is not directly from the Geotab case, it indicates that claim construction has been or is being addressed for Fractus's patents in related litigation. There is no public information available yet regarding a Markman hearing or order specifically in the Fractus v. Geotab case.

Fractus, S.A. is represented by a team of experienced patent litigation attorneys from several firms. The counsel of record includes:

Lead Counsel:

• Alfred R. Fabricant
  • Firm: Fabricant Rubino Lambrianakos LLP (New York, NY)
  • Note: Mr. Fabricant is a highly active and successful patent litigator with over 35 years of first-chair trial experience in patent, copyright, trademark, and unfair competition matters. He has litigated in major patent venues, including the Eastern District of Texas, and has appeared in over 250 inter partes review proceedings before the PTAB. He has secured multi-million dollar jury verdicts for plaintiffs in patent infringement cases and has litigated against major companies like Google, Apple, Facebook, and Microsoft.
• Demetrios Anaipakos
  • Firm: Alavi Anaipakos (Houston, TX)
  • Note: Mr. Anaipakos is a co-founder of Alavi Anaipakos and is recognized as a top civil trial lawyer with extensive experience in patent and complex commercial litigation, representing both plaintiffs and defendants. He has obtained significant patent judgments, won jury trials against major technology companies, and is Board Certified in Civil Trial Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.
• Gaston Kroub
  • Firm: Kroub, Silbersher & Kolmykov PLLC (New York, NY)
  • Note: Mr. Kroub is a founding partner focusing on intellectual property litigation, particularly patent matters. He has been selected to Super Lawyers for Intellectual Property Litigation.
• Matthew C. Van Eman
  • Firm: Fabricant Rubino Lambrianakos LLP (New York, NY)
  • Note: Dr. Van Eman provides strategic patent prosecution advice, focusing on patent prosecution, strategic advisory work, and due diligence for biomedical technologies and medical devices. He also has experience in district court litigation, including early case assessment, claim construction analysis, and discovery.
• Dena E. Chen
  • Firm: Cooley LLP (Palo Alto, CA)
  • Note: Ms. Chen is a seasoned trial and appellate attorney specializing in "bet-the-company" patent cases, with experience across various technologies including software, semiconductors, and medical devices. She has a significant trial and Federal Circuit appellate practice and has litigated in venues across the country, including Texas.

Of Counsel/Local Counsel:

• S. Calvin Capshaw, III
  • Firm: Capshaw DeRieux LLP (Longview, TX)
  • Note: Mr. Capshaw has represented Fractus in previous patent infringement cases in the Eastern District of Texas, including against Verizon and ADT.
• Elizabeth L. DeRieux
  • Firm: Capshaw DeRieux LLP (Longview, TX)
  • Note: Ms. DeRieux has also represented Fractus in other Eastern District of Texas patent litigation.
• Joseph Samuel Grinstein
  • Firm: Susman Godfrey L.L.P. (Houston, TX)
  • Note: Mr. Grinstein has represented Fractus in previous IoT-related patent disputes in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Justin Adatto Nelson
  • Firm: Susman Godfrey L.L.P. (Houston, TX)
  • Note: Mr. Nelson has represented Fractus for approximately 15 years and has been involved in high-profile cases, including Dominion Voting Systems' settlement with Fox News.
• Max Lalon Tribble, Jr.
  • Firm: Susman Godfrey L.L.P. (Houston, TX)
  • Note: Mr. Tribble has represented Fractus for approximately 15 years and specializes in high-stakes intellectual property litigation.
• Robert Greenfeld
  • Firm: Susman Godfrey LLP (Houston, TX)
  • Note: Mr. Greenfeld has also appeared on behalf of Fractus in this case and in the parallel Verizon litigation.
• Rachel P. Thompson
  • Firm: Susman Godfrey L.L.P. (Houston, TX)
  • Note: Ms. Thompson was also part of the counsel representing Fractus in the Verizon litigation.
• Eric G. Walraven
  • Firm: Fee, Smith & Sharp LLP (Dallas, TX)
  • Note: Mr. Walraven is Board Certified in Civil Appellate Law and has extensive experience in civil litigation, including handling federal court matters in various districts and appeals before the Federal Circuit.
• Chris Cravey
  • Firm: Jackson Walker LLP (formerly, now VP Legal & Commercial at Chemex Global)
  • Note: Mr. Cravey has extensive experience litigating intellectual property matters, including patent cases, in various venues across the country. He successfully represented ALE USA Inc. in a patent dispute that ended after the Federal Circuit affirmed the invalidation of the asserted patents.
• Scott F. Partridge
  • Firm: Partridge LLC (New Orleans, LA)
  • Note: Mr. Partridge has decades of experience in litigation and trial strategy, including intellectual property disputes, and has served as General Counsel for Bayer US and Vice President for Global Strategy for Monsanto Company.

Please note that this information is based on publicly available records and may not include all attorneys involved or recent changes to their roles or firms.

Geotab Inc. is represented by a robust defense team, including both internal counsel and external firms with significant patent litigation experience.

Here's the identified counsel of record for Geotab:

External Counsel:

• Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.

  • Michael Albert (Lead Counsel) - Boston, MA office. Michael Albert is a shareholder and co-chair of the Litigation Committee at Wolf Greenfield. He has extensive experience in patent litigation, having represented clients in numerous complex cases, including those involving non-practicing entities (NPEs). He has been part of Geotab's litigation team in prior patent infringement successes.
  • Jason Honeyman (Lead Counsel) - Boston, MA office. Jason Honeyman is a shareholder at Wolf Greenfield with experience in patent litigation, particularly defending against NPE assertions. He has also been involved in Geotab's past patent defense victories.
  • Justin Colannino (Counsel) - Boston, MA office. Justin Colannino is an attorney at Wolf Greenfield who has worked on Geotab's patent litigation defense, contributing to successful outcomes against NPEs.
  • The Wolf Greenfield firm has a history of collaborating with Geotab's internal team to develop and execute strategies for combating NPE patent litigation, leading to successful dismissals of lawsuits.

• Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A.

  • Dinah S. Pulver (Local Counsel) - Dallas, TX (or likely Eastern District of Texas affiliated office, as the firm has a strong presence in intellectual property and litigation). Ms. Pulver has experience in patent litigation and has appeared in district court and PTAB proceedings. Her declaration was submitted in IPR2025-01026 against Fractus's U.S. Patent No. 11,031,677.

In-House Counsel (Geotab Inc.):

• Derek Smith (Vice President of Intellectual Property) - Mr. Smith is a key member of Geotab's internal patent litigation team, actively involved in developing strategies to combat patent infringement claims.
• Laurence Prystawski (General Counsel) - Mr. Prystawski contributes to Geotab's patent defense efforts as part of the internal legal team.
• Che Claire (Legal Counsel) - Ms. Claire is part of Geotab's internal cross-functional patent litigation team.
• Dirk Schlimm (Executive Vice President) - Mr. Schlimm has been noted for his involvement and statements regarding Geotab's aggressive stance against non-practicing entities.