Big Will Enterprises v. Mitsubishi Corp.: Five TCU Patents, Dismissed in 6 Days
Big Will Enterprises, Inc. filed suit against Mitsubishi Corp. in the Western District of Texas asserting five patents covering factory-installed telematics control unit (TCU) systems and driver-activity monitoring technology. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice just six days after filing — one of the shortest trajectories seen before Judge Albright.
Five TCU Patents, One Week, Zero Merits Ruling: Inside a W.D. Tex. Flash Dismissal
On 15 October 2025, Big Will Enterprises, Inc. filed an infringement action in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 1:25-cv-01650) before Judge Alan D. Albright. The complaint alleged infringement of five U.S. patents — US9049558B2, US8452273B1, US10521846B2, US8737951B2, and US8559914B2 — by Mitsubishi Corp.’s factory-installed telematics control unit (TCU) automatic programs designed to monitor human activities while driving.
On 21 October 2025 — just six days after filing — the court entered an order dismissing the lawsuit without prejudice following a Notice of Dismissal filed by plaintiff. The dismissal named both Mitsubishi Corporation (Americas) and Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. as defendants. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, Big Will Enterprises retains the right to re-file the same claims in the future, subject to applicable statutes of limitations and any procedural constraints.
A six-day case duration is exceptionally short even by the standards of W.D. Texas, which routinely sees early voluntary dismissals in NPE-driven litigation. The public record does not reveal what prompted the rapid withdrawal — possibilities consistent with this pattern include preliminary licensing discussions, a demand-letter settlement, or a strategic decision to refile in a different venue or against a differently scoped defendant. No substantive filings, claim construction, or fee motions appear in the docket.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 6 days
6 days — far below the W.D. Tex. median; case closed before any substantive motion practice
Voluntarily dismissed: what the order means for both parties
Voluntary dismissal filed before defendant answered
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the defendant serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. The court’s order here confirms that procedure was followed. Critically, the order specifies dismissal without prejudice — meaning the litigation record carries no adjudication on the merits of the five asserted patents.
Rule 41(a) — no merits adjudicationThe ‘without prejudice’ distinction matters significantly
A dismissal without prejudice leaves the door open for Big Will Enterprises to re-assert these five patents against Mitsubishi or other defendants in future proceedings. A dismissal with prejudice would have barred re-filing. The court’s order expressly states ‘without prejudice,’ confirming plaintiff preserves its enforcement options. However, repeated voluntary dismissals against the same defendant can, in certain circumstances, operate as an adjudication on the merits — a risk for any future re-filing.
Re-filing rights preservedMitsubishi exits without an invalidity or non-infringement ruling
Mitsubishi Corp. (Americas) and Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. are released from this specific action with no admission of liability and no adverse merits finding. However, the absence of a court ruling also means Mitsubishi secured no formal patent-invalidity determination. The five asserted TCU and driver-monitoring patents remain in force, and Mitsubishi’s factory-installed TCU systems remain potentially exposed to a future action on the same patents.
No invalidity ruling securedFive live patents still pose sector-wide TCU enforcement risk
The voluntary dismissal resolves nothing substantively. All five patents — covering factory-installed TCU systems and driver-activity monitoring — remain valid and enforceable. Other automotive OEMs or Tier-1 telematics suppliers deploying similar in-vehicle monitoring systems should treat this action as an early signal of an active assertion campaign. The W.D. Texas filing, combined with Judge Albright’s venue, suggests plaintiff counsel is familiar with NPE litigation strategy in that jurisdiction.
TCU enforcement risk remains liveFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Big Will Enterprises, Inc. | Company | IP assertion entity — holder of US9049558B2 and four related TCU/driver-monitoring patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Mitsubishi Corp. | Company | Mitsubishi Corp. (Americas) and Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. — automotive OEMSearch 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 Alan D Albright | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order tracks the plaintiff’s Notice of Dismissal verbatim, confirming dismissal ‘without prejudice’ against both Mitsubishi Corporation (Americas) and Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. The phrasing carries precise legal weight: no claim has been adjudicated, no patent has been found invalid or non-infringed, and no liability has been admitted. For plaintiff, all enforcement options on the five asserted patents survive intact. For defendants, the absence of an invalidity ruling means they cannot rely on this proceeding as a shield against future suits on the same patent families.
US9049558B2 — Factory-installed TCU driver-activity monitoring systems
The five asserted patents — US9049558B2, US8452273B1, US10521846B2, US8737951B2, and US8559914B2 — collectively cover telematics control unit (TCU) architectures and automatic programs for monitoring human activities during vehicle operation. The application numbers span filing dates from 2009 (US12/354927) through 2015 (US14/606421), suggesting a patent family built incrementally over roughly six years as connected-vehicle technology matured. The claims appear directed at both the hardware TCU apparatus and the software-driven monitoring methodologies embedded in factory-installed systems.
The commercial significance of these patents lies in their potential breadth across the connected-vehicle supply chain. Factory-installed TCU systems are now standard equipment across most new passenger vehicle lines, and driver-activity monitoring is a core function in fleet telematics, insurance-linked telematics, and autonomous-driving safety layers. A portfolio of five granted patents covering this space — filed across multiple continuations — gives the holder leverage against a wide range of OEMs and Tier-1 suppliers. The lack of any invalidity ruling in this case means that leverage is entirely intact.
Should your connected-vehicle product team run an FTO against these five TCU patents?
Any automotive OEM, Tier-1 telematics supplier, or fleet-management platform deploying factory-installed TCU hardware or driver-activity monitoring software should treat this case as a trigger for FTO review. The five asserted patents span both apparatus and method claims across a filing window of 2009–2015 — a period that captures the commercial rollout of connected-vehicle platforms. Products shipped since that window may fall within claim scope, and the absence of any invalidity ruling keeps litigation risk fully open.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s technical specification against the independent claims of all five patents, identify prior art that could support an IPR petition if needed, and surface any continuation or divisional applications still pending in these families. Early FTO work is substantially cheaper than reactive litigation defence — and with a plaintiff that has demonstrated willingness to file in W.D. Texas before Judge Albright, the cost of delay is measurable.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9049558B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar TCU and telematics patent infringement cases in W.D. Texas
Cases involving telematics control unit and connected-vehicle monitoring patents litigated before Judge Albright in the Western District of Texas follow recognisable NPE enforcement patterns.
What this case signals for the connected-vehicle and TCU IP landscape
A six-day dismissal without prejudice rarely means a case is over — it often marks the opening move of a broader assertion campaign.
Voluntary dismissal is a strategic pause, not an exit
Big Will Enterprises retains all five patents and full enforcement rights. Companies relying on factory-installed TCU systems or in-vehicle driver-monitoring technology should not interpret this dismissal as clearance. The same patents could be re-asserted against Mitsubishi or other OEMs with minimal procedural delay.
Judge Albright’s docket signals deliberate venue selection
Filing in the Western District of Texas before Judge Albright — known for patent-litigation expertise and historically plaintiff-friendly scheduling — is consistent with a structured NPE enforcement strategy. Even a six-day case plants a docket marker. IP teams at automotive OEMs and Tier-1 suppliers should monitor this plaintiff’s future filings.
Big v Mitsubishi — key questions answered
Big Will Enterprises filed a patent infringement action against Mitsubishi Corp. in the Western District of Texas on 15 October 2025, asserting five TCU and driver-monitoring patents. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on 21 October 2025 — just six days after filing — before any substantive proceedings occurred.
Big Will Enterprises asserted five U.S. patents: US9049558B2, US8452273B1, US10521846B2, US8737951B2, and US8559914B2. All relate to telematics control unit (TCU) systems and automatic programs for monitoring human activities while driving, targeting Mitsubishi’s factory-installed TCU technology.
A dismissal without prejudice means the claims were not adjudicated on their merits and Big Will Enterprises retains the right to refile the same infringement claims in the future. The five asserted patents remain valid and enforceable. The plaintiff could refile against Mitsubishi or other defendants, subject to applicable statutes of limitations.
No. The case was dismissed before Mitsubishi filed any answer or motion, meaning no court ever evaluated the validity or infringement of the five asserted patents. Mitsubishi and its TCU products remain potentially exposed to future enforcement actions based on the same patent portfolio.
The Western District of Texas, and Judge Alan D. Albright’s court specifically, has historically been a preferred venue for NPE patent plaintiffs due to its familiarity with complex patent matters and scheduling practices. Filing in W.D. Texas is consistent with a structured assertion strategy, even where cases resolve very quickly through voluntary dismissal.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.