Alpha Modus Ventures vs. Rackspace: FCoE Patent Case Dismissed

Case Overview

In a case that highlights the volatile dynamics of network infrastructure patent litigation, Alpha Modus Ventures, LLC voluntarily dismissed its patent infringement action against Rackspace Hosting before the defendant had even filed an answer. Case No. 1:25-cv-00963, filed in the Western District of Texas before Chief Judge Alan D. Albright, was closed on January 28, 2026 — just 219 days after filing — via a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice.

The suit centered on three patents covering network infrastructure technology, specifically asserting infringement through Rackspace’s DCX® 8510 Backbone and Gen 5 Fibre Channel products and services, including those practicing the Fibre Channel over Ethernet (FCoE) standard. For patent practitioners and IP professionals tracking Fibre Channel patent litigation, this early-stage dismissal raises important strategic questions about plaintiff motivation, defendant posture, and the lifecycle of patent assertions in the cloud infrastructure space.

The Parties

Patents at Issue

This litigation involved three United States patents covering network infrastructure technology. All three patents fall within the broader domain of **Fibre Channel over Ethernet (FCoE) patent litigation** — a technology area enabling storage networking traffic to travel over standard Ethernet infrastructure, critical to modern data center operations.

• • US11303473B2 — Covers network communication architecture relevant to FCoE standards
• • US11108591B2 — Relates to network infrastructure communication protocols
• • US11310077B2 — Addresses related network switching and communication technology

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

Alpha Modus Ventures filed a **Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice** pursuant to **Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i)**. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case. **No damages were awarded, and no injunctive relief was granted or denied.** The dismissal without prejudice means Alpha Modus retains the legal right to refile these claims in the future, subject to applicable statutes of limitations and procedural constraints.

Verdict Cause Analysis

The complaint alleged patent infringement across all three asserted patents, targeting FCoE-standard-compliant products. However, because the case resolved before any substantive motion practice, **no court ruling on validity, infringement, or claim construction was issued.** The available record does not disclose whether the parties reached a licensing agreement, whether Rackspace communicated an invalidity or non-infringement position that deterred further litigation, or whether Alpha Modus chose to redirect its enforcement strategy.

The invocation of Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) is significant: this procedural mechanism is only available prior to the defendant’s answer. Its use here signals that Alpha Modus moved quickly to exit the litigation — likely within weeks of any substantive defendant communication — without triggering a two-dismissal rule that would convert a subsequent refiling into a dismissal with prejudice.

Legal Significance

While this case produced **no precedential ruling**, several procedural and strategic dimensions carry weight for practitioners:

• **Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) Timing:** The narrow window for cost-free voluntary dismissal is a frequently used but often misunderstood tool. Alpha Modus preserved optionality by acting swiftly.
• **Venue Strategy in Western Texas:** The filing before Chief Judge Alan D. Albright reflects a continuing trend of PAEs gravitating toward patent-plaintiff-friendly forums.
• **FCoE Patent Portfolio Enforcement:** The simultaneous assertion of three related patents — covering complementary aspects of FCoE infrastructure — reflects a common portfolio bundling strategy.