Big Will Enterprises v. Viofo: Five-Patent Dash Cam Dispute Voluntarily Dismissed
Big Will Enterprises asserted five US patents covering dash cam and mobile recording technology against Shenzhen Viofo Technology, targeting Viofo’s A129, A329, and broader A-model product lineup. Filed before Judge Alan D. Albright in the Western District of Texas, the case closed after 197 days via voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i).
Five-Patent Dash Cam Assertion Ends Before Substantive Litigation
On November 14, 2024, Big Will Enterprises, Inc. filed suit in the Western District of Texas against Shenzhen Viofo Technology Co., Ltd., a Chinese manufacturer of consumer dash cameras. The complaint asserted five US patents — US9049558B2, US8452273B1, US10521846B2, US8737951B2, and US8559914B2 — covering mobile recording, communication, and dash cam functionality. The accused products included Viofo’s flagship A129 Plus and A329 models, as well as the broader A-model lineup spanning the A319, A229, A119 series, VS1, WM1, and A139 multi-channel variants.
The case closed on May 30, 2025, when Big Will Enterprises filed a voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The court directed the Clerk to close the case. The public record does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice — Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits dismissal without prejudice as of right before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment, though the actual terms here remain silent in available filings.
At 197 days, the case resolved well before typical W.D. Tex. milestones such as claim construction. No defendant counsel of record appears in the docket, suggesting Viofo may not have formally appeared before dismissal. The pre-answer timing is consistent with either a negotiated resolution outside court, a licensing discussion, or a strategic reassessment by the plaintiff — none of which can be confirmed from the public record alone.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 197 days
197 days — faster than the median W.D. Tex. patent case; resolved before claim construction
Voluntarily dismissed: what Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows dismissal as of right before answer
Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment. This is a unilateral procedural right — the defendant’s consent is not required. The court’s role is ministerial: it instructs the Clerk to close the case. No merits ruling is issued.
Procedural dismissal — no merits rulingWith or without prejudice? The public record is silent
Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), dismissal is typically without prejudice unless the plaintiff has previously dismissed the same claims — the so-called ‘two-dismissal rule.’ However, the court’s order and available docket filings do not expressly state whether this dismissal is with or without prejudice. IP professionals should not assume either outcome without reviewing the underlying notice of dismissal (ECF No. 7) directly.
Prejudice status unconfirmedBig Will retains optionality if dismissal is without prejudice
If the dismissal was without prejudice — the default under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) in a first filing — Big Will Enterprises may refile against Viofo or redirect assertions against other dash cam manufacturers. The five asserted patents remain in force unless separately challenged via IPR or ex parte reexamination. No estoppel arises from a merits-free voluntary dismissal.
Patents remain enforceableViofo faces residual exposure across its full A-model lineup
Viofo’s A129 Plus, A329, and the broader A-model range were specifically named as accused products. A dismissal without prejudice does not extinguish that exposure. Viofo — and competitors selling comparable dual-channel or multi-channel dash cams — should treat these five patents as live enforcement risks. A proactive freedom-to-operate analysis or IPR petition strategy would be commercially prudent at this stage.
Residual infringement risk remainsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Big Will Enterprises, Inc. | Company | Mobile recording technology IP holder — asserting US9049558B2 and 4 further dash cam patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Shenzhen Viofo Technology Co., Ltd. | Company | Shenzhen-based consumer dash camera manufacturer; Viofo A-model product lineup accusedSearch 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 confirms a ministerial close — no claim construction, no infringement finding, and no invalidity ruling was reached. The verdict language (‘voluntarily dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)’) reflects a plaintiff-initiated exit before Viofo formally appeared. Because no merits adjudication occurred, neither party gains or loses any legal position on the underlying patent claims. The enforceability of all five asserted patents is unchanged by this dismissal.
US9049558B2 and four further patents — dash cam and mobile recording technology
The five asserted patents span a portfolio covering mobile recording device architecture, wireless communication for dash cams, and associated transactional or data-sharing systems. The earliest application (US12/354927, issuing as US8559914B2) dates to January 2009, suggesting foundational priority claims in mobile video recording. US10521846B2 (application US14/606421) represents the portfolio’s most recent grant, potentially extending coverage into features relevant to modern networked dash cameras such as cloud connectivity or app-linked playback.
For the dash cam sector, a five-patent portfolio with priority dating back to 2009–2013 could encompass core architectural elements that are difficult to design around without fundamentally altering product functionality. Viofo’s A-model lineup — spanning single, dual, and three-channel configurations — suggests broad product exposure. Competitors including Blackvue, Garmin, Nextbase, and other OEMs selling multi-channel dash cams in the US market should assess whether their own product architectures intersect with these claim families.
Should your dash cam product line be cleared against US9049558B2 and its co-patents?
Any company designing, importing, or distributing multi-channel dash cameras or connected vehicle recording systems for the US market should treat this five-patent portfolio as an active FTO concern. The accused Viofo products range from budget single-channel units to professional three-channel systems — suggesting claim scope broad enough to capture a wide product tier. OEMs, private-label importers, and US retail distributors of dash cams face potential direct or contributory infringement exposure.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map each of the five patent claim sets against your specific product architecture, flagging overlap risk and identifying prior art that may support validity challenges. Rather than commissioning five separate attorney opinions, Eureka consolidates portfolio-level FTO analysis — surfacing the highest-risk claims first and generating a defensible prior art landscape report to inform IPR petition or design-around strategy.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9049558B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar dash cam and mobile recording patent cases in W.D. Texas
Explore related patent infringement actions involving dash cam, vehicle recording, and mobile video technology filed in the Western District of Texas.
What this case signals for the dash cam and connected vehicle recording IP landscape
A five-patent assertion against a major Chinese dash cam OEM in W.D. Tex. — even voluntarily dismissed — carries market-wide implications for mobile recording IP.
W.D. Tex. remains a preferred venue for multi-patent consumer electronics assertions
Judge Albright’s docket continues to attract multi-patent consumer electronics cases. Filing five patents simultaneously signals a broad claim scope strategy — plaintiffs seeking maximum leverage across a product lineup. Competitors in the dash cam and vehicle recording sector operating in the US market should monitor this docket actively.
Pre-answer dismissal often signals off-docket negotiation, not abandonment
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal before any defendant appearance is structurally consistent with a licensing discussion or settlement reached before formal litigation costs escalate. This pattern is common in NPE and small-plaintiff assertion strategies where speed to resolution — rather than full trial — is the commercial objective.
Big v Shenzhen — key questions answered
Big Will Enterprises asserted five US patents: US9049558B2, US8452273B1, US10521846B2, US8737951B2, and US8559914B2. All cover aspects of mobile recording device technology, wireless communication, and dash cam systems. The accused products included Viofo’s A129 Plus, A329, and the broader A-model dash cam lineup.
The public record does not explain why Big Will filed for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Common reasons for pre-answer dismissal include confidential settlement, a licensing agreement, or a strategic reassessment of claim strength. No defendant counsel appeared on the docket, suggesting the case resolved before formal litigation engagement by Viofo.
The court order and available docket filings do not expressly state whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice. Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissals are generally without prejudice by default in a first filing unless the plaintiff has previously dismissed the same claims. Practitioners should review ECF No. 7 directly to confirm the prejudice status.
If the dismissal was without prejudice — the typical default under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) in a first filing — Big Will retains the right to refile against Viofo or assert the same patents against other defendants. The five asserted patents remain in force and no invalidity finding was made. The two-dismissal rule would bar a second voluntary dismissal without prejudice against the same defendant.
The complaint specifically accused the Viofo A129 Plus and Viofo A329 dash cams, and broadly referenced Viofo’s A-model lineup including the A319, A229 Plus/Pro, A119 Mini, VS1, A119 V3/Plus/Pro, WM1, and A139 in one-, two-, and three-channel configurations — effectively encompassing a large portion of Viofo’s US consumer product range.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.