AttestWave v. Foxconn (Honeywell): Secure Logic Patent Dismissed With Prejudice
AttestWave LLC filed suit in the Eastern District of Texas asserting US7895643B2, covering secure logic interlocking technology, against Foxconn Technology Group, with Honeywell named as defendant. The case resolved via voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) after just 133 days — before Honeywell filed any answer or summary judgment motion.
E.D. Texas Secure Logic Patent Suit Ends in With-Prejudice Dismissal
AttestWave LLC, a patent assertion entity holding US7895643B2 directed at secure logic interlocking technology, filed this infringement action on 13 November 2024 in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, one of the most active patent dockets in the United States. The named defendant was Foxconn Technology Group, though the operative complaint and dismissal order identify Honeywell International, Inc. as the actual defendant in this member case, suggesting a coordinated multi-defendant filing strategy across related cases.
On 26 March 2025, AttestWave filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which permits a plaintiff to dismiss unilaterally before the defendant has answered or moved for summary judgment. The court accepted the notice and confirmed all claims against Honeywell are dismissed with prejudice. Critically, the court directed each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees — meaning no fee-shifting award was entered against either side.
At 133 days from filing to closure, the case resolved unusually quickly for E.D. Texas patent litigation, which typically sees matters extend well beyond one year before trial. The with-prejudice nature of the dismissal is strategically significant: AttestWave cannot refile the same claims against Honeywell on US7895643B2. What drove the dismissal — whether a private settlement, licensing agreement, or a decision to abandon the claim — is not disclosed in the public record. Notably, the lead case (No. 2:24-cv-00929-JRG) was ordered to remain open, suggesting parallel proceedings against other defendants continue.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 133 days
133 days — resolved well before the E.D. Texas median time to trial
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 order means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — plaintiff’s unilateral right to dismiss
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss a case without a court order, as of right, before the defendant has served an answer or moved for summary judgment. Here, Honeywell had not yet answered, so AttestWave exercised this right. The court’s role was to accept and acknowledge the notice — not to rule on the merits. The with-prejudice designation, however, was chosen by the plaintiff and carries permanent legal consequence.
No merits adjudicationWith prejudice: AttestWave’s claims against Honeywell are permanently barred
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes. AttestWave cannot refile this action or assert the same claims under US7895643B2 against Honeywell in any future proceeding. This is categorically different from a without-prejudice dismissal, which would preserve the right to refile. The public record does not disclose whether a private settlement or licensing deal accompanied this dismissal — that consideration, if any, remains confidential.
Claims permanently extinguishedHoneywell exits without an answer filed — and without a fee award
Honeywell achieved closure before incurring the cost of full merits litigation. Because the court ordered each party to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees, Honeywell received no fee-shifting recovery under 35 U.S.C. § 285. This suggests the case was not deemed ‘exceptional’ — or that both parties agreed to a clean exit. Honeywell’s exposure to US7895643B2 claims is now eliminated in this forum, though the lead case against other defendants remains active.
No fee award; clean exitLead case stays open — multi-defendant strategy continues
The court’s order explicitly directs that lead case No. 2:24-cv-00929-JRG remain open, indicating AttestWave is pursuing claims against at least one other defendant under what is likely the same or related patent portfolio. Companies operating in the secure logic, authentication, or industrial control sectors that have not yet been named should monitor the lead case closely. The outcome here does not resolve the validity or enforceability of US7895643B2 — those questions remain open.
Related litigation ongoingFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | AttestWave, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US7895643B2 (secure logic interlocking)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Foxconn Technology Group | Company | Foxconn Technology Group; Honeywell International, Inc. named as defendant in this member caseSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Phillip Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for AttestWave, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rabicoff Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing AttestWave, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order is procedural rather than substantive — it accepts AttestWave’s Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice and confirms dismissal with prejudice, without ruling on infringement, validity, or claim construction. The phrase ‘DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE’ carries full res judicata effect, permanently extinguishing AttestWave’s ability to reassert these claims against Honeywell. The cost-neutrality provision — each party bearing its own fees — is consistent with a negotiated exit and forecloses any § 285 fee claim by either side.
US7895643B2 — Secure Logic Interlocking Technology
US7895643B2, filed under application number US10/219378, covers secure logic interlocking — a technology domain concerned with enforcing access control and operational integrity through hardware or software interlock mechanisms. Such patents typically protect methods ensuring that systems cannot be bypassed or operated out of sequence without proper authentication or authorization, making them relevant to industrial control, cybersecurity, and access management infrastructure.
In the context of large technology manufacturers and industrial automation companies like Honeywell — a leader in building automation, industrial safety, and connected control systems — a secure logic interlocking patent could touch product lines ranging from safety instrumented systems to access-controlled hardware platforms. AttestWave’s decision to assert this patent in E.D. Texas against a multi-defendant cohort suggests the claim scope is believed to be broad enough to capture widely deployed commercial products. Companies in OT security, industrial IoT, and physical access control should assess exposure carefully.
Should your team run an FTO analysis against US7895643B2?
If your company develops or deploys secure logic interlocking systems, industrial safety interlocks, access-controlled hardware, or authentication-dependent control platforms, US7895643B2 warrants a freedom-to-operate review. AttestWave’s multi-defendant filing strategy — with at least one further case still active in E.D. Texas — indicates an active enforcement posture. The patent’s claims have not been adjudicated or invalidated in this case, meaning the risk horizon remains open.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim language of US7895643B2 against your product architecture, surface prior art that could support an IPR petition, and identify related family members or continuation applications that may extend the enforcement footprint. With the lead case still live in E.D. Texas, acting before a demand letter arrives is materially cheaper than responding after litigation has commenced.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7895643B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Secure Logic & Access Control Patent Cases in E.D. Texas
Explore related patent infringement cases involving secure logic, authentication, and industrial access control technology litigated in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the secure logic and authentication IP landscape
A swift with-prejudice dismissal in E.D. Texas before any answer is filed raises important questions about enforcement strategy and patent exposure.
With-prejudice dismissal is not a patent validity ruling — US7895643B2 survives
AttestWave’s voluntary dismissal with prejudice ends the Honeywell dispute but leaves the patent intact and potentially enforceable against others. Companies in the secure logic interlocking and industrial authentication space should not treat this dismissal as a signal that the patent is weak — the merits were never adjudicated.
The lead case remaining open signals continued enforcement pressure
With case No. 2:24-cv-00929-JRG still active in E.D. Texas, AttestWave’s enforcement campaign is not over. Any company operating in the secure logic or access control technology space that has not received a demand letter should proactively assess its exposure to US7895643B2 before litigation reaches them.
AttestWave v Foxconn — key questions answered
The dismissal with prejudice means AttestWave permanently relinquished its right to sue Honeywell again on the same claims under US7895643B2. It carries res judicata effect. However, it is not a ruling on the merits — no court found the patent valid, invalid, infringed, or not infringed. The patent remains enforceable against other parties.
The case record identifies No. 2:24-cv-00926 as a ‘Member Case’ linked to lead case No. 2:24-cv-00929-JRG. This structure is common in E.D. Texas NPE litigation where a plaintiff files coordinated suits against multiple defendants. Honeywell appears to have been the named defendant in this specific member case, while Foxconn may be involved in the lead or a parallel member case.
Yes. The voluntary dismissal with prejudice only bars AttestWave from suing Honeywell again on these specific claims. It does not affect the patent’s validity or enforceability against any other party. The patent was not subjected to IPR, claim construction, or invalidity challenge in these proceedings, so it retains full presumptive validity.
The court ordered each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. This forecloses any claim by Honeywell for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which requires a finding that the case was ‘exceptional.’ The cost-neutral outcome is consistent with a negotiated resolution and suggests neither party sought or obtained a punitive fee award.
Judge Rodney Gilstrap presides in the Eastern District of Texas, historically the most plaintiff-friendly and highest-volume patent litigation venue in the United States. Cases before Judge Gilstrap typically follow structured scheduling orders with defined claim construction and trial dates, making early resolution — as occurred here — commercially attractive for both plaintiffs and defendants seeking to avoid prolonged discovery costs.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.