AML IP v. Texas Born: Electronic Token Commerce Patent Dismissed With Prejudice
AML IP, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Texas Born, LLC in the Western District of Texas, asserting US7328189B2 covering electronic token-based commerce transactions. The case ended 185 days later when AML IP voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice before Texas Born filed any answer — closing the door on re-filing this claim.
Pre-Answer Voluntary Dismissal Bars AML IP From Re-Filing Against Texas Born
AML IP, LLC, a patent assertion entity, filed suit against Texas Born, LLC in the Western District of Texas on May 12, 2025, asserting infringement of US7328189B2 — a patent covering methods and apparatus for conducting electronic commerce transactions using electronic tokens. The case was assigned case number 7:25-cv-00224 and prosecuted on the plaintiff’s side by William P. Ramey III of Ramey LLP, a firm known for volume patent assertion activity in the Western District of Texas.
On November 12, 2025, AML IP filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), citing the fact that Texas Born had not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The court confirmed on November 13, 2025 that the notice was self-effectuating, requiring no court order, and directed the clerk to close the action. Critically, the dismissal was with prejudice — meaning AML IP permanently extinguishes its right to sue Texas Born again on the same claims arising from US7328189B2.
The 185-day lifespan and pre-answer termination suggest the dispute likely resolved through private negotiation or that the plaintiff elected not to pursue the matter further, possibly after reassessing claim strength or defendant resources. The public record does not disclose whether any licensing agreement or payment was exchanged. The court’s cost-neutrality order — each party bearing its own fees — is consistent with FRCP 41(a)(1) defaults and does not itself indicate the presence or absence of a settlement.
Filing to Case Terminated in 185 days
185 days — closed before defendant served an answer or summary judgment motion
Dismissed with prejudice: what the FRCP 41 filing means for both sides
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i): self-effectuating, no court order needed
Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. Because Texas Born had not done either, AML IP’s notice was self-effectuating — the Fifth Circuit has confirmed such notices ‘terminate the case in and of itself.’ The with-prejudice designation, however, permanently bars re-filing the same claims against this defendant.
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — with prejudiceAML IP permanently forfeits its claims against Texas Born
By dismissing with prejudice, AML IP cannot bring the same US7328189B2 claims against Texas Born in any future proceeding. This is a significant concession relative to a dismissal without prejudice, which would have preserved optionality. Whether AML IP received a licensing payment in exchange is not disclosed in the public record — but the with-prejudice election signals either a concluded resolution or a deliberate strategic retreat on this particular defendant.
Claims permanently extinguishedTexas Born exits the case free from future suit on these claims
Texas Born, LLC secured a permanent bar against AML IP reasserting US7328189B2 infringement claims. The defendant never filed an answer or any substantive motion, suggesting either a swift negotiated resolution or that the plaintiff lost confidence in the claim before litigation costs escalated. Texas Born bears its own legal costs under the court’s order, and no fee-shifting award was made — consistent with the pre-answer posture of the dismissal.
No further exposure to AML IP on this patentPre-answer dismissal pattern raises due diligence flags for e-commerce operators
AML IP and Ramey LLP are associated with repeat assertion activity in the Western District of Texas. Operators in the electronic commerce and digital payments space should note that a with-prejudice dismissal against one defendant does not limit AML IP’s ability to assert US7328189B2 against others. Companies processing transactions via electronic token methodologies should assess their exposure to this patent, which remains active and enforceable against third parties.
Patent remains live against third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | AML IP, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US7328189B2 covering electronic token commerce methodsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Texas Born, LLC | Company | Texas Born, LLC — named defendant in electronic commerce token infringement actionSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William P. Ramey , III | Attorney | Counsel for AML IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ramey LLP | Law Firm | Representing AML IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order confirms the dismissal was self-effectuating under Fifth Circuit precedent — no judicial act was required to terminate the case. The with-prejudice designation is the legally operative fact: it forecloses any future action by AML IP against Texas Born on US7328189B2. The cost-neutrality order reflects the FRCP 41(a)(1) default and does not indicate bad faith or exceptional circumstances. The absence of any answer or responsive motion suggests this case concluded at the earliest possible procedural stage, which is consistent with a negotiated exit or a reassessment of litigation economics by the plaintiff.
US7328189B2 — Electronic Token-Based Commerce Transaction Methods
US7328189B2, filed under application number US09/753784, covers methods and apparatus for conducting electronic commerce transactions using electronic tokens. The early-2000s priority date places this patent at the formative stage of internet commerce infrastructure, when token-based authentication and transaction mediation were emerging as alternatives to direct payment credential transmission. The patent’s claims are directed at the transactional workflow layer — the mechanism by which electronic tokens facilitate, authorize, or complete commerce events — rather than the underlying network protocol.
From a competitive intelligence standpoint, a patent of this vintage covering electronic token commerce carries potential relevance across a broad range of modern implementations — including digital wallets, tokenized payment systems, loyalty and reward token platforms, and API-based commerce intermediaries. AML IP’s willingness to assert this patent in 2025 suggests the claims have been interpreted broadly enough to read on contemporary e-commerce architectures. Any company operating a token-mediated transaction layer — regardless of whether the underlying technology uses blockchain, stored-value, or session-based tokens — should evaluate claim exposure before receiving a demand.
Should your product team run an FTO against US7328189B2?
If your organization builds or operates platforms that process transactions through any form of electronic token intermediary — including digital wallets, API payment tokens, loyalty currency systems, or session-based authorization tokens — US7328189B2 warrants review. AML IP’s active assertion of this patent in 2025 confirms it is being treated as enforceable, and the with-prejudice dismissal against Texas Born does not limit its reach against other parties. The broad product category (‘electronic commerce transactions using electronic tokens’) encompasses a wide range of modern payment and commerce architectures.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map US7328189B2’s claim landscape against your product’s technical stack, surface relevant prior art from the early e-commerce era that may support invalidity arguments, and identify whether AML IP has filed against comparable defendants in the Western District of Texas. For in-house IP teams and R&D leaders, running a targeted FTO now — before receiving a demand — is substantially cheaper than responding to litigation under a repeat asserter represented by Ramey LLP.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7328189B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Electronic Commerce Patent Assertion Cases in W.D. Texas
Explore related patent infringement actions asserting electronic commerce and digital token patents filed in the Western District of Texas, including other Ramey LLP matters.
What this case signals for the electronic commerce patent assertion landscape
A pre-answer with-prejudice exit by a Ramey LLP client in West Texas warrants attention from any company handling electronic token transactions.
With-prejudice dismissal is a permanent bar — but only for Texas Born
US7328189B2 remains enforceable. AML IP retains the right to assert the same patent against any other party not named in this action. Companies in adjacent e-commerce or digital payments sectors should treat this outcome as a signal to assess their own exposure — not as evidence that the patent has been invalidated or abandoned.
Ramey LLP’s volume filing strategy makes monitoring essential
William P. Ramey III and Ramey LLP are among the most active filers in the Western District of Texas patent docket. Businesses in the electronic commerce space should monitor AML IP’s assertion activity across multiple defendants to identify claim-scope trends and prior art opportunities before receiving a demand letter.
AML v Texas — key questions answered
The with-prejudice dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) means AML IP permanently forfeits its infringement claims against Texas Born, LLC. However, US7328189B2 remains fully enforceable against all other parties. AML IP retains the right to assert the same patent in separate actions against different defendants in the electronic commerce sector.
The public record does not disclose whether a settlement or licensing payment was exchanged. The voluntary with-prejudice dismissal filed before Texas Born served any answer is consistent with either a confidential settlement or a unilateral decision by AML IP to cease pursuit of this particular defendant. No financial terms are disclosed in the court docket.
US7328189B2 covers methods and apparatus for conducting electronic commerce transactions using electronic tokens. The early-2000s priority date filing encompasses a broad transactional workflow concept. Modern implementations potentially at risk include digital wallets, API payment tokenization systems, loyalty and reward token platforms, and any commerce layer using session-based or stored-value token authorization.
Ramey LLP, led by William P. Ramey III, is a Houston-based IP litigation firm with one of the highest patent filing volumes in the Western District of Texas. Its involvement typically signals a repeat-assertion strategy targeting multiple defendants with the same patent. Parties in the electronic commerce sector receiving demand letters referencing US7328189B2 should assess the broader assertion campaign across all known defendants.
No. A dismissal with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) operates as an adjudication on the merits and permanently bars the plaintiff from re-filing the same claims against the same defendant. AML IP cannot bring a new action asserting US7328189B2 against Texas Born, LLC in any federal court based on the same underlying conduct.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.