AI-Core Technologies v. Omron Corp — Dismissed With Prejudice in 90 Days
AI-Core Technologies, LLC filed a patent infringement suit in the Eastern District of Texas against Omron Corporation, targeting the Omron WebLink product line with two patents. The case ended in a voluntary dismissal with prejudice just 90 days after filing, before Omron answered the complaint — a timeline that suggests early resolution outside the courtroom.
A fast-moving infringement claim against Omron ends before Omron responded
AI-Core Technologies, LLC — a Texas-based patent assertion entity — filed suit against Omron Corporation on June 6, 2025, in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, one of the most prominent patent trial judges in the United States. The complaint asserted two patents, US7274382B2 and US7928994B2, against Omron’s WebLink product and substantially similar products across all versions, iterations, and associated software and hardware.
On September 4, 2025, AI-Core filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), dismissing all claims with prejudice. Judge Gilstrap accepted and acknowledged the dismissal, closing the case entirely. Critically, because Omron had not yet filed an answer or moved for summary judgment, the dismissal was procedurally available without Omron’s consent — yet the with-prejudice designation permanently bars AI-Core from re-asserting these specific patent claims against Omron.
The 90-day duration and pre-answer timing are consistent with a confidential settlement, though the public record does not confirm this. With-prejudice dismissals at this stage are atypical for cases abandoned purely on weakness — they typically reflect a negotiated resolution where the plaintiff concedes finality in exchange for agreed terms. The absence of any defendant law firm on record suggests Omron may not have yet formally engaged litigation counsel before the matter resolved.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 90 days
90 days — resolved before defendant’s first formal response was filed
Dismissed with prejudice: what the voluntary dismissal means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows unilateral dismissal before the defendant responds
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss a case without a court order before the defendant has served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. AI-Core invoked this rule to file a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal — a self-executing procedural step. The unusual element here is the with-prejudice designation: standard Rule 41(a)(1) dismissals are presumed without prejudice unless the plaintiff specifies otherwise. By electing with prejudice, AI-Core permanently waived its right to sue Omron on these same claims.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — self-executingAI-Core is permanently barred from re-filing these claims against Omron
A dismissal with prejudice carries the effect of a final adjudication on the merits for preclusion purposes. AI-Core Technologies cannot re-assert US7274382B2 or US7928994B2 against Omron Corporation in any future proceeding. This is a significant concession by the plaintiff — it suggests either that a compensating benefit was received (consistent with a confidential settlement), or that AI-Core concluded the case lacked sufficient merit to continue. The public record does not disclose which scenario applies.
Claims extinguished as to OmronOmron exits without admitting infringement, and faces no further exposure on these patents
Omron Corporation received a complete and final exit from this litigation before filing a single court document. The with-prejudice dismissal means these two patents can no longer be weaponised against Omron by AI-Core in any court. However, the patents remain active and enforceable against other parties. Omron’s early-stage resolution avoids the significant costs of discovery, claim construction, and trial — though the terms of any negotiated resolution remain undisclosed.
Full exit — no admission of liabilityWebLink and Omron’s automation product line are insulated from this specific patent risk
The complaint targeted Omron WebLink and all substantially similar products across all prior and future versions — a broad claim scope. The with-prejudice dismissal insulates that entire product family from AI-Core’s two asserted patents going forward. For Omron’s customers and channel partners, this removes near-term IP risk associated with the WebLink ecosystem. Other industrial automation or web-interface vendors should note that US7274382B2 and US7928994B2 remain active and could be asserted against competing platforms.
WebLink product line — risk clearedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | AI-Core Technologies, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US7274382B2 and US7928994B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Omron Corporation | Company | Omron Corporation — global industrial automation and control systems manufacturerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Carey Matthew Rozier | Attorney | Counsel for AI-Core Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC | Law Firm | Representing AI-Core Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Court’s order accepts the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and expressly confirms that all claims are dismissed with prejudice. The with-prejudice designation — chosen by the plaintiff, not imposed by the court — carries the legal weight of a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes. The cost order (each party bears its own) is standard for pre-answer voluntary dismissals and does not indicate any judicial assessment of merits. The ‘denied as moot’ clause for all pending relief confirms the case was fully resolved procedurally, leaving no live issues.
US7274382B2 & US7928994B2 — Web interface and visualisation technologies
US7274382B2 (application no. US10/891733) and US7928994B2 (application no. US11/768820) are the two patents asserted by AI-Core Technologies in this action. Both patents sit in the technical domain of web-based interface and visualisation systems — a category directly relevant to industrial HMI (human-machine interface) platforms and IIoT connectivity layers. The ‘382 patent’s application number places its origins in the mid-2000s wave of web-interface innovation, while the ‘994 patent reflects a later continuation-era filing strategy.
From a strategic standpoint, web-interface patents of this vintage can map broadly onto modern industrial automation platforms that have evolved to incorporate browser-based dashboards, remote monitoring, and connectivity features. Omron WebLink — the primary accused product — is a web-based network configuration and device management tool, making it a natural target for patents in this domain. Other vendors offering similar IIoT web portals, remote HMI access layers, or browser-based PLC management tools should treat both patents as live enforcement risks and conduct proactive FTO analysis.
Should you run an FTO against US7274382B2 and US7928994B2?
If your organisation develops or commercialises web-based industrial interface products — including HMI platforms, IIoT dashboards, browser-based PLC configuration tools, or remote monitoring solutions — these two patents warrant a proactive freedom-to-operate assessment. AI-Core’s enforcement action against Omron WebLink demonstrates a willingness to assert these patents against major commercial automation vendors. The with-prejudice dismissal leaves both patents fully intact and available for further assertion.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US7274382B2 and US7928994B2 against your product architecture in minutes, identifying overlapping claim elements and surfacing relevant prior art or design-around pathways. Eureka’s citation graph also helps track how these patents have been cited in subsequent applications — a signal of continued relevance in the web-interface and industrial connectivity space. Start your analysis before a demand letter arrives.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7274382B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent infringement cases in industrial automation and web-interface IP
Explore related patent infringement actions involving web-based HMI and industrial automation technologies filed in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the industrial automation IP landscape
A 90-day lifecycle and with-prejudice close in the Eastern District of Texas warrants careful attention from automation IP teams.
With-prejudice at pre-answer stage almost always signals a negotiated resolution
When a plaintiff elects with-prejudice dismissal before the defendant has even answered, it is rarely a unilateral concession. The combination of the self-executing Rule 41 mechanism and the permanence of with-prejudice termination is commercially consistent with a confidential licence or lump-sum payment. IP teams tracking PAE activity in industrial automation should treat this pattern as a likely settlement indicator.
US7274382B2 and US7928994B2 remain live threats for other web-interface and HMI vendors
The dismissal resolves claims only as to Omron. Both patents survive and AI-Core retains full enforcement rights against any other party. Industrial automation vendors, HMI platform developers, and IIoT connectivity solution providers whose products involve web-based visualisation or interface layers should assess their exposure to these two patents before receiving a demand letter.
AI-Core v Omron — key questions answered
AI-Core Technologies, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Omron Corporation in the Eastern District of Texas on June 6, 2025, asserting US7274382B2 and US7928994B2 against Omron’s WebLink product. On September 4, 2025, AI-Core voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), before Omron had answered the complaint. The court ordered each party to bear its own costs.
A voluntary dismissal with prejudice permanently bars AI-Core Technologies from re-asserting US7274382B2 and US7928994B2 against Omron Corporation in any future litigation. It carries the legal effect of a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes as to Omron specifically. Critically, both patents remain valid and enforceable against all other parties — AI-Core can still assert them against any other alleged infringer.
The complaint targeted Omron WebLink and all substantially similar products and services, past and future, including all prior models, iterations, releases, versions, generations, and prototypes, along with associated hardware, software, applications, and functionality. This broad product definition encompassed Omron’s web-based network configuration and device management platform and the full ecosystem around it.
The 90-day lifecycle — with dismissal occurring before Omron had filed any court document — is consistent with early-stage negotiated resolution, though the public record does not confirm a settlement. With-prejudice dismissals at the pre-answer stage are atypical for cases abandoned purely on the merits, as plaintiffs rarely concede permanent claim extinguishment without receiving something in return. The absence of any defendant law firm on the docket suggests Omron may have resolved the matter through business channels before formally engaging litigation counsel.
Yes. Both patents remain active and fully enforceable following the dismissal of this case. The dismissal only precludes AI-Core from asserting these specific patents against Omron Corporation. Vendors offering web-based HMI platforms, IIoT connectivity dashboards, browser-based industrial control interfaces, or similar products remain exposed and should consider conducting freedom-to-operate analysis against both patents.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.