Analytical Technologies v. Delivery.com: Dismissed With Prejudice in 153 Days
Analytical Technologies, LLC filed suit in the Eastern District of Texas asserting two patents covering systems and methods for managing restaurant customer data against Delivery.com, LLC. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice after just 153 days — permanently extinguishing its claims under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i).
A swift voluntary exit that permanently bars re-litigation
On May 1, 2024, Analytical Technologies, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Delivery.com, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00306), asserting US8799083B1 and US10783596B1 — both directed to systems and methods for managing restaurant customer data elements. The case was designated as a member case within a broader lead docket (No. 2:24-cv-00185), suggesting Analytical Technologies pursued a coordinated multi-defendant campaign in the same court.
On October 1, 2024, Analytical Technologies filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The Court accepted and acknowledged the notice, formally closing member case No. 2:24-cv-00306 while directing the Clerk to maintain the lead case as open. Because the dismissal was expressly entered with prejudice, Analytical Technologies cannot re-assert the same patent claims against Delivery.com in any future action — a materially different and more consequential outcome than a without-prejudice dismissal.
The 153-day lifespan and the pre-answer timing of the dismissal — filed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which requires no court order — suggests the parties may have reached a private resolution, or that Delivery.com’s position proved stronger than anticipated during pre-litigation diligence. The public record is silent on any settlement consideration. What is notable is the with-prejudice designation: plaintiffs typically reserve that concession for a negotiated exit or when continuing litigation is commercially unviable.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 153 days
153 days — resolved well under the E.D. Texas median for patent cases
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff-driven, no court order required
A voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) may be filed by the plaintiff as of right before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. No judicial approval is required. Here, the Court accepted and acknowledged the Notice, formally closing the member case. The with-prejudice designation was the plaintiff’s own election — it is not the default under Rule 41, making it a deliberate and permanent concession.
Voluntary, pre-answer dismissalWith prejudice means the claims are gone permanently
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits, permanently barring the plaintiff from re-asserting the same claims against the same defendant. A dismissal without prejudice would have preserved that option. Here, Analytical Technologies elected with-prejudice treatment, which is the more defendant-favourable outcome. The public record does not disclose whether a settlement payment or other consideration accompanied this election.
Permanent bar on re-filingDelivery.com exits with a permanent shield on these patents
Delivery.com, LLC achieves dismissal with prejudice without any recorded adverse finding. The with-prejudice designation means the asserted claims of US8799083B1 and US10783596B1 cannot be re-litigated against Delivery.com by this plaintiff. No cost award or fee-shifting order was entered, meaning Delivery.com bears its own defence costs. The lead case (No. 2:24-cv-00185) remains open, indicating other defendants in the same campaign may still be active.
Full defence, no adverse orderLead case still open — restaurant-tech sector risk persists
Because the lead case No. 2:24-cv-00185 was expressly kept open by the Court, Analytical Technologies’ broader assertion campaign against the restaurant data management sector is ongoing. Companies operating food ordering, delivery, or customer data platforms in a similar technology space should monitor the lead docket for claim construction developments or further settlements that could signal the scope of the asserted patents and the plaintiff’s licensing posture.
Lead case still activeFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Analytical Technologies, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US8799083B1 and US10783596B1 (restaurant data systems)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Delivery.com, LLC | Company | Online food ordering and delivery platform — target of restaurant data patent claimsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Randall T. Garteiser | Attorney | Counsel for Analytical Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Garteiser Honea PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Analytical Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Court’s order tracks the plaintiff’s own Notice verbatim, confirming this was a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) plaintiff-initiated exit requiring no judicial merits determination. The with-prejudice designation — expressly stated in the Notice and accepted by the Court — means the order carries res judicata effect as to Analytical Technologies’ claims against Delivery.com on US8799083B1 and US10783596B1. No liability finding, damages award, or claim construction ruling was issued. The directive to keep the lead case open confirms that the broader multi-defendant action survives this member-case closure.
US8799083B1 & US10783596B1 — Restaurant customer data management systems
US8799083B1 (Application No. 13/534195) and US10783596B1 (Application No. 15/913460) are U.S. patents directed to systems and methods for managing restaurant customer data elements. The later application number of US10783596B1 suggests it may be a continuation or related filing to US8799083B1, potentially extending protection into later-developed platform features. Both patents fall within the broader domain of data management and customer relationship systems applied specifically to the restaurant and food-service industry.
For online food ordering and delivery platforms, customer data management is a core operational and monetisation function — encompassing order history, preferences, loyalty data, and personalisation. Patents in this space can present assertion risk to any platform that aggregates, processes, or surfaces restaurant customer data. The coordinated multi-defendant campaign under the E.D. Texas lead docket suggests Analytical Technologies views these patents as broadly applicable across the delivery and restaurant-tech sector, not narrowly targeted at a single product.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US8799083B1 and US10783596B1?
Any company operating a restaurant discovery, food ordering, delivery, or customer loyalty platform that handles customer data elements should assess exposure to US8799083B1 and US10783596B1. The active lead case (No. 2:24-cv-00185) confirms this assertion campaign is ongoing. Product teams building or acquiring customer data management features for restaurant-facing applications face the highest risk profile and should prioritise FTO review before scaling those features.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the asserted claim language of US8799083B1 and US10783596B1 against your product architecture, identify prior art that may support invalidity arguments, and surface continuation applications that could extend the patent family’s reach. Running an FTO now — while the lead case is still open — gives your legal and product teams the intelligence needed to assess design-around options before any demand letter arrives.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8799083B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar restaurant-tech and food delivery patent cases in E.D. Texas
Cases involving restaurant customer data and food delivery platform patents in the Eastern District of Texas — court of record for this action.
What this case signals for the restaurant-tech and food delivery IP landscape
A with-prejudice exit by the plaintiff in a multi-defendant E.D. Texas campaign carries specific implications for peer defendants and product teams.
With-prejudice dismissals in PAE campaigns often signal a negotiated exit
When a patent assertion entity voluntarily dismisses with prejudice — rather than without — before any adverse ruling, it typically signals a private resolution or a strategic decision that further litigation is uneconomic. Companies in the same defendant class in the lead case should take note of this outcome when assessing their own settlement calculus.
E.D. Texas member-case structure magnifies portfolio risk
Filing multiple member cases under a single lead docket is a common E.D. Texas strategy that allows a plaintiff to manage discovery and claim construction centrally while pressuring individual defendants. The survival of the lead case means claim construction rulings could still affect the patents’ interpreted scope — relevant to any company operating restaurant customer data or online ordering systems.
Analytical v Delivery.com — key questions answered
The dismissal with prejudice means Analytical Technologies permanently relinquished its right to sue Delivery.com on the asserted patents US8799083B1 and US10783596B1. Unlike a without-prejudice dismissal, it cannot refile these claims against the same defendant. The Court accepted the plaintiff’s own Notice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) without any merits ruling.
Two U.S. patents were asserted: US8799083B1 (Application No. 13/534195) and US10783596B1 (Application No. 15/913460). Both cover systems and methods for managing restaurant customer data elements. The later application number of the second patent suggests a possible continuation relationship between the two.
The public record does not confirm a settlement. The plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which requires no court order and discloses no settlement terms. The with-prejudice election may be consistent with a private resolution, but no consideration or agreement is on the public docket.
Yes. The Court expressly directed the Clerk to keep lead case No. 2:24-cv-00185 open while closing member case No. 2:24-cv-00306. This indicates Analytical Technologies’ broader multi-defendant action in the Eastern District of Texas continues against other defendants beyond Delivery.com.
The Eastern District of Texas is a historically plaintiff-favoured venue for patent litigation, offering established patent local rules, predictable scheduling orders, and a track record of cases proceeding to trial. The multi-defendant member-case structure used here — with a coordinating lead docket — is a strategy commonly employed by patent assertion entities in E.D. Texas to manage parallel claims efficiently.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.