Brodti, Inc. v. Google LLC — Project Financing Patent Dismissed in 2 Days
Brodti, Inc. asserted US11416898B2 — a patent covering methods, systems, and apparatus for financing projects — against Google LLC in the Western District of Texas. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice just one day after Google was served, before any answer or substantive response was filed.
Two-day patent filing: Brodti drops Google suit before response
On January 29, 2024, Brodti, Inc. filed an infringement action against Google LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:24-cv-00058), asserting US11416898B2, a patent covering methods, systems, and apparatus for financing projects. The action was brought under the jurisdiction of Chief Judge Robert Pitman, with Brodti represented by Davis, Gerald & Cremer, PC and attorney Lisa Paulson.
Just one day after filing, on January 30, 2024, Brodti filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Because Google had not yet served an answer or motion for summary judgment, the notice was self-effectuating under Fifth Circuit precedent — no court order was required to terminate the case. The court formally closed the case on January 31, 2024, noting nothing remained to resolve.
The two-day lifespan of this case is exceptionally brief, even by the standards of quick settlements or early dismissals. The public record does not disclose what prompted Brodti to withdraw before Google had any opportunity to respond. Possible explanations consistent with this pattern include a filing error, a pre-filing settlement or licensing agreement reached immediately after service, or a strategic reassessment. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, Brodti retains the right to reassert the same claims in a future action.
Filing to resolution in 2 days
Among the shortest patent infringement filings on record — dismissed before defendant responded
What Brodti’s voluntary dismissal means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): self-effectuating dismissal
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order simply by filing a notice, provided the opposing party has not yet served an answer or motion for summary judgment. Because Google had not responded, Brodti’s notice was legally sufficient on its own to terminate the case — consistent with Fifth Circuit guidance in In re Amerijet Int’l, Inc. (785 F.3d 967).
No court order requiredWithout prejudice: what the public record does and does not tell us
A dismissal without prejudice means Brodti is not barred from refiling the same infringement claims against Google in the future. The public record confirms the dismissal was without prejudice but is silent on whether any agreement, licence, or settlement was reached between the parties. It would be incorrect to infer either a settlement or a clean walk-away — the record simply does not say.
Refiling remains possibleGoogle faces no legal consequences from this dismissal
Because the case was dismissed before Google served any response, Google incurred no formal litigation obligations and faces no estoppel or res judicata bar from this proceeding. Google is not adjudicated to infringe or not infringe US11416898B2. The dismissal effectively resets the dispute, leaving Google’s legal position unchanged relative to the patent.
No liability determinedOne-day gap suggests pre-service resolution or tactical withdrawal
Voluntary dismissals filed within 24 hours of the initial complaint — before the defendant has formally appeared — are uncommon and typically suggest one of three scenarios: a settlement or licence reached immediately after filing or service; discovery of a procedural or jurisdictional issue; or a deliberate placeholder filing. Without further public disclosure, the precise trigger here remains unknown.
Reason not on public recordFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Typ | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kläger | Brodti GmbH | Unternehmen | Patent assertion entity — holder of US11416898B2 covering project financing methodsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Beklagter | Google, GmbH | Unternehmen | Google LLC — global technology company and subsidiary of Alphabet Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Lisa Paulson | Attorney | Counsel for Brodti, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Robert Pitman | Oberster Richter | Texas Western District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The court’s closing order confirms the dismissal was purely procedural — no merits were reached and no liability was adjudicated. The invocation of Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and citation to In re Amerijet makes clear the court treated the notice as self-executing. For both parties, this order is outcome-neutral on the underlying patent dispute: it neither validates nor undermines Brodti’s infringement theory, and Google receives no declaratory protection.
US11416898B2 — Methods, systems, and apparatus for financing projects
US11416898B2 (application number US16/422106) covers methods, systems, and apparatus for financing projects. The patent sits at the intersection of financial technology and workflow automation — a domain that has seen significant patent activity as digital lending platforms, project management tools, and enterprise financial APIs have proliferated. The granted patent number suggests a relatively recent grant, consistent with applications filed during the 2019 USPTO application period implied by the application number.
The broad claim framing — methods, systems, and apparatus — is strategically significant: it potentially covers software implementations, backend infrastructure, and physical system configurations simultaneously. For large technology companies offering financial services, cloud-based project tools, or payment infrastructure, this breadth means a single patent can generate multiple independent infringement theories. The assertion against Google specifically suggests the patent holder believes the claims read on commercially significant Google products or services.
Should your product team run an FTO against US11416898B2?
Any company building or deploying digital project financing tools, lending workflow platforms, financial APIs, or project cost management systems should treat US11416898B2 as a monitoring priority. The fact that it has already been asserted against Google — one of the world’s most heavily scrutinised technology companies — suggests the patent holder views the claims as commercially viable and broadly applicable across the sector.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claims of US11416898B2 against your product’s technical architecture and generate a clearance analysis in hours rather than weeks. You can also set a claim monitoring alert so that if Brodti files continuation patents or the claims are amended in reexamination, your team is notified immediately — keeping your FTO position current without manual tracking.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11416898B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: project financing and fintech method patents
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the fintech and project financing IP landscape
Even the briefest patent assertion against a hyperscaler like Google carries market and portfolio signals worth tracking.
Without-prejudice dismissals preserve all options — monitor for refiling
Brodti retains the right to reassert US11416898B2 against Google or any other party. Companies operating in project financing, lending platforms, or financial workflow automation should monitor this patent for future assertion activity. A single early dismissal does not signal that a patent holder has abandoned enforcement.
Western District of Texas remains a preferred venue for patent plaintiffs
Filing in the Western District of Texas — even for a case that lasted two days — is consistent with plaintiffs selecting venues perceived as plaintiff-friendly for patent matters. Companies facing assertion risk in this space should anticipate WDTX as a likely venue and ensure local counsel relationships are established in advance.
Brodti v Google — key questions answered
Brodti filed a voluntary notice of dismissal without prejudice on January 30, 2024 — one day after filing — under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Because Google had not served an answer or motion for summary judgment, the notice was self-effectuating and required no court order. The public record does not disclose the reason for the withdrawal.
A dismissal without prejudice means Brodti is not legally barred from refiling the same infringement claims against Google in the future. No merits were adjudicated, no liability was determined, and Google received no declaratory judgment of non-infringement. The dispute over US11416898B2 remains unresolved.
US11416898B2 covers methods, systems, and apparatus for financing projects — a broad claim set in the fintech and financial workflow domain. The patent was asserted against Google LLC, though the specific Google products alleged to infringe were not detailed in the public case record before the case was dismissed.
Yes. The Western District of Texas has been one of the most active venues for patent infringement filings in recent years, frequently selected by patent plaintiffs due to its docket speed and perceived plaintiff-friendliness. Google is a repeat defendant in WDTX patent matters.
Because the dismissal was without prejudice, Brodti retains the right to refile the same claims against Google in any court with proper jurisdiction and venue. There is no statutory bar created by this dismissal. However, a second voluntary dismissal would typically operate as an adjudication on the merits under FRCP 41(a)(1)(B).
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.