Big Will Enterprises v. Matrix Telematics: 5-Patent IPSS & Telematics Suit Ends in 78 Days
Big Will Enterprises filed suit in the Western District of Texas asserting five patents spanning interactive personal surveillance systems, mobile telematics, and accelerometer-based motion detection against Matrix Telematics Limited. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice after just 78 days — before the defendant had filed any answer or motion for summary judgment.
Five-Patent Telematics Assertion Collapses Before Defendant Responds
On August 1, 2024, Big Will Enterprises, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against Matrix Telematics Limited in the Western District of Texas (Austin Division) before Judge Robert Pitman. The complaint asserted five United States patents: US9049558B2, US8452273B1, US10521846B2, US8737951B2, and US8559914B2, covering interactive personal surveillance and security (IPSS) systems, mobile telematics, accelerometer-based motion activity detection, sensor-driven activity monitoring, and targeted advertising for wireless communication devices.
On October 17, 2024 — just 77 days after filing — plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Because Matrix Telematics had not yet served an answer or motion for summary judgment, the notice was self-effectuating: no court order was required, and the case terminated automatically. A dismissal with prejudice bars Big Will Enterprises from re-filing the same claims against Matrix Telematics in any federal court.
The 78-day lifespan and pre-answer dismissal is consistent with several patterns: early settlement, a licensing agreement reached off the docket, or a strategic decision to withdraw following defendant’s pre-litigation response. The public record does not disclose any settlement terms, financial consideration, or cross-licensing arrangement. The with-prejudice designation is notable — plaintiffs willing to walk away entirely typically extract something in return, though this cannot be confirmed from the docket.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 78 days
78 days — resolved before defendant answered; substantially faster than the W.D. Tex. median
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): self-effectuating voluntary dismissal
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. Because Matrix Telematics had not yet done either, Big Will’s notice was immediately operative — the court issued a closing order but no substantive ruling was required. The dismissal is with prejudice, meaning it functions as a final adjudication on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes.
Pre-answer voluntary exitWith-prejudice bar extinguishes all five patent claims against this defendant
By dismissing with prejudice, Big Will Enterprises has permanently surrendered the right to assert US9049558B2, US8452273B1, US10521846B2, US8737951B2, and US8559914B2 against Matrix Telematics in federal court. This forecloses any future litigation on these patents against this specific defendant. The with-prejudice election suggests either a confidential resolution was reached or a deliberate strategic decision was made — the public record does not confirm which.
Claims permanently extinguishedMatrix Telematics exits without admissions, answer, or cost exposure
Matrix Telematics was dismissed before filing any responsive pleading — meaning no invalidity defences, no non-infringement positions, and no IPR petitions were placed on record. The defendant incurred no adjudicated liability and faces no injunction or damages award. Crucially, the Rule 41 self-effectuating mechanism means no attorney-fee motion under 35 U.S.C. § 285 was triggered by a court order, though Matrix retains the right to pursue fees in limited circumstances post-dismissal.
No liability, no admissionsIPSS and telematics patent portfolio remains live against other defendants
The with-prejudice dismissal binds only the Big Will–Matrix Telematics relationship. All five patents remain in force and enforceable against third parties — including other telematics providers, fleet management platforms, and mobile surveillance system vendors. Companies operating in vehicle telematics, IPSS, or accelerometer-based motion analytics should monitor this portfolio for fresh assertions. The rapid resolution without a merits ruling leaves claim scope legally untested.
Portfolio still active vs. othersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Big Will Enterprises, Inc. | Company | Mobile surveillance and telematics IP licensor — holder of US9049558B2 and four related patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Matrix Telematics Limited | Individual | Matrix Telematics Limited — provider of vehicle and mobile telematics systems and solutionsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brett T. Cooke | Attorney | Counsel for Big Will Enterprises, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Brett T. Cooke, Law Office | Law Firm | Representing Big Will Enterprises, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Robert Pitman | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s closing order reproduces the Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) standard verbatim, confirming that Big Will’s notice was self-effectuating and required no judicial intervention. The with-prejudice designation is the operative legal fact: it renders the dismissal a final adjudication on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes as to Matrix Telematics specifically, but does not constitute any finding on patent validity or infringement. All five asserted patents remain fully enforceable against third parties.
US9049558B2 — Interactive Personal Surveillance and Security (IPSS) System
The five asserted patents span two core technology clusters: interactive personal surveillance and security (IPSS) systems — covered by US9049558B2 and US8452273B1 — and mobile motion activity analytics driven by wireless device sensors, covered by US10521846B2 and US8737951B2. The fifth patent, US8559914B2, extends into targeted advertising for wireless communication devices. The application dates range from approximately 2009 to 2015, placing these inventions in the early-to-mid smartphone era when telematics and mobile sensing were rapidly commercialising.
For the telematics and connected vehicle sector, this portfolio represents a meaningful enforcement risk. IPSS and mobile surveillance technologies underpin a wide range of fleet management, driver monitoring, and personal safety applications now embedded in commercial telematics platforms. The MTMA patents specifically target accelerometer and sensor-based motion detection — a capability now standard in IoT devices, wearables, and vehicle telematics modules. With no claim construction ruling in this case, the enforceable scope remains broadly defined by the patent text itself.
Should you run an FTO against US9049558B2 and the Big Will IPSS portfolio?
Any company developing or commercialising vehicle telematics systems, fleet monitoring platforms, mobile surveillance applications, accelerometer-based activity detection, or targeted advertising for wireless devices should treat this portfolio as a live FTO priority. The five patents cover overlapping and complementary claim territory, and the with-prejudice dismissal against Matrix Telematics confirms the patentee is actively pursuing enforcement while leaving all claims legally untested.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map each of the five patent claim families against your product architecture, identify prior art relevant to MTMA and IPSS claim elements, flag continuation risks in Big Will’s portfolio, and surface any co-pending applications that may extend coverage. Running a structured FTO now — before any demand letter arrives — is substantially cheaper than litigation defence in the Western District of Texas.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9049558B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar IPSS and Mobile Telematics Patent Cases in W.D. Texas
Explore related patent infringement actions involving mobile surveillance, telematics, and wireless sensor technologies filed in the Western District of Texas.
What this case signals for the telematics and mobile surveillance IP landscape
A five-patent assertion resolved in 78 days before any defence was filed raises questions every telematics IP team should be asking.
Pre-answer dismissals with prejudice are often commercially negotiated exits
When a plaintiff dismisses with prejudice before the defendant even answers, it typically signals one of two things: a confidential settlement or licensing arrangement, or a strategic retreat after defendant signalled a robust prior-art or invalidity defence. Either way, the underlying patents survive the litigation commercially intact and can be reasserted against others in the telematics and IPSS space.
Five-patent portfolios in mobile telematics warrant proactive FTO screening
Big Will’s portfolio spans IPSS systems, telematics, accelerometer-based motion detection, and targeted wireless advertising — a broad claim footprint. Any product team building fleet telematics, vehicle monitoring, or mobile activity-sensing features should run an FTO against all five patents before commercial launch, particularly given that no claim construction order was ever issued to narrow the scope.
Big v Matrix — key questions answered
A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permanently bars Big Will Enterprises from re-asserting the five patents at issue — US9049558B2, US8452273B1, US10521846B2, US8737951B2, and US8559914B2 — against Matrix Telematics in any federal court. It does not affect enforceability against other defendants.
Yes. The with-prejudice dismissal binds only the Big Will–Matrix Telematics relationship. All five patents remain in force and can be asserted against any other party operating in the telematics, IPSS, mobile motion sensing, or wireless advertising spaces. No invalidity or non-infringement finding was made.
The public record does not disclose the reason. Pre-answer dismissals with prejudice are consistent with confidential settlement or licensing arrangements, or a plaintiff’s strategic decision to withdraw after receiving signals of a strong invalidity or non-infringement defence. No terms were filed on the docket.
US10521846B2 and US8737951B2 cover systems and methods for determining mobile thing motion activity (MTMA) using the accelerometer and sensor data of a wireless communication device, with the capability to initiate activity-based actions in response. This claim family is broadly relevant to fleet telematics, IoT motion sensors, wearables, and connected vehicle platforms.
Potentially. Under Octane Fitness v. ICON Health and 35 U.S.C. § 285, a defendant may seek fees in exceptional cases even after a voluntary dismissal with prejudice, though courts scrutinise the basis carefully. Because no court order triggered the dismissal, the procedural path for a fee motion is narrow, and the public record contains no indication Matrix Telematics has pursued this avenue.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.