BillSure LLC v. Amazon.com: Network Usage Verification Patent Dismissed With Prejudice
BillSure LLC filed suit against Amazon.com in the Western District of Texas asserting US8005457B2, covering a method and system for verifying network resource usage records. The case closed in just 89 days when BillSure voluntarily dismissed with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), before Amazon filed any responsive pleading.
Early voluntary exit: BillSure walks away with prejudice before Amazon responds
On January 22, 2025, BillSure LLC filed a patent infringement action against Amazon.com, Inc. in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 7:25-cv-00023), before Judge Alan D. Albright. The asserted patent, US8005457B2, covers a method and system for verifying network resource usage records — technology directly relevant to cloud billing and usage metering infrastructure of the type Amazon operates at scale through AWS.
The case closed on April 21, 2025, after just 89 days. BillSure 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. Amazon had not filed a responsive pleading. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees, meaning no fee-shifting was imposed on either side.
A dismissal with prejudice at this early stage is commercially significant: BillSure permanently forfeits the right to assert US8005457B2 against Amazon on these claims. The public record does not disclose whether a confidential settlement was reached, though the with-prejudice designation and mutual cost-bearing arrangement are sometimes consistent with a negotiated resolution. What drove the decision — whether litigation risk, a licensing deal, or other commercial factors — remains unknown from the docket.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 89 days
Closed in 89 days — well below the median lifespan for W.D. Texas patent suits
Dismissed with prejudice: what Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral right to exit early
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order if the defendant has not yet served an answer or summary judgment motion. BillSure exercised this right to file a notice — not a motion — of dismissal. By electing ‘with prejudice,’ BillSure converted what would have been a neutral procedural exit into a permanent bar on refiling the same claims against Amazon.
Voluntary — no court order requiredWith-prejudice dismissal permanently bars BillSure from re-suing Amazon
By specifying ‘with prejudice,’ BillSure LLC has irrevocably relinquished its right to assert US8005457B2 against Amazon.com on these claims. This is a materially worse outcome for a plaintiff than a without-prejudice dismissal, which would preserve the option to refile. The public record does not reveal why BillSure accepted this permanent restriction, though it is not uncommon for with-prejudice dismissals to accompany confidential licensing or settlement arrangements.
Claims against Amazon permanently barredAmazon exits cleanly — no answer filed, no fee award, full closure
Amazon.com secured a complete exit from this litigation before incurring the cost of filing a responsive pleading. DLA Piper’s representation suggests Amazon engaged experienced patent litigation counsel early. Amazon bears its own costs under the mutual fee arrangement, but faces no ongoing exposure to US8005457B2 from BillSure on these specific claims. The with-prejudice designation provides Amazon with permanent finality on this assertion.
Full closure — no ongoing exposureEarly exit pattern in W.D. Texas signals high pre-trial settlement pressure
Cases before Judge Albright in the Western District of Texas that resolve before a defendant’s answer frequently reflect plaintiff reassessment of claim strength or early commercial resolution. For cloud infrastructure operators, US8005457B2 — covering network usage verification — touches billing and metering functions core to platform economics. Other companies in the cloud and telecom billing space should monitor whether BillSure pursues similar assertions against other defendants.
Monitor for parallel assertionsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | BillSure LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US8005457B2, network usage verification methodSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Amazon.com, Inc. | Company | Amazon.com, Inc. — global e-commerce and cloud computing platform (AWS operator)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for BillSure LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rabicoff Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing BillSure LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jennifer Librach Nall | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | DLA Piper US LLP | Law Firm | Representing Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) precisely — signalling BillSure’s counsel confirmed no answer or summary judgment motion had been served before filing. The explicit ‘with prejudice’ election is the operative legal consequence: it transforms a procedural exit into a merits-equivalent bar. The mutual cost-bearing provision eliminates any fee-shifting risk for Amazon under 35 U.S.C. § 285, providing a clean close. The record is silent on whether consideration changed hands.
US8005457B2 — Method and system for verifying network resource usage records
US8005457B2 (application number US11/219030) covers a method and system for verifying network resource usage records — technology that sits at the intersection of billing infrastructure, usage metering, and network management. The patent’s application date under the US11/219030 filing number places it in the mid-2000s era of network usage accounting, predating the mass commercialisation of cloud infrastructure but covering concepts directly applicable to modern cloud billing pipelines and telecommunications OSS environments.
For cloud platform operators, the strategic significance of this patent lies in its claim coverage of usage verification workflows — functions that underpin accurate billing for compute, storage, and data transfer services. Amazon AWS, the world’s largest cloud provider, operates billing metering infrastructure at massive scale, making it a commercially logical assertion target. The with-prejudice resolution limits BillSure’s exposure against Amazon specifically, but the patent remains nominally in force and could be asserted against other cloud, telecom, or SaaS billing infrastructure operators.
Should your cloud billing platform run an FTO against US8005457B2?
Any company operating network usage metering, cloud billing pipelines, or telecom usage verification systems should assess exposure to US8005457B2. The patent’s claim language targeting verification of network resource usage records is broad enough to warrant a structured FTO review before deploying or scaling usage-based billing infrastructure. This is particularly relevant for cloud IaaS/PaaS providers, managed service operators, and OSS/BSS vendors in the telecommunications sector.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and product teams to map US8005457B2 claim language against your specific billing and metering architecture, identify prior art that may narrow claim scope, and benchmark against related patents in BillSure’s portfolio. Eureka surfaces litigation history, claim construction precedents, and family members — giving IP counsel the full picture before a complaint arrives.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8005457B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar network metering and cloud billing patent cases in W.D. Texas
Comparable patent infringement actions asserting network usage and billing verification patents against cloud and telecom defendants in the Western District of Texas.
What this case signals for the cloud billing and network metering IP landscape
An 89-day lifecycle with a with-prejudice exit before any answer filed raises specific questions for cloud infrastructure IP risk teams.
With-prejudice dismissals before answer can signal confidential licensing activity
When a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses with prejudice this early, and no fee-shifting is ordered, the pattern is sometimes consistent with a licensing arrangement reached off-docket. IP teams at cloud infrastructure companies should evaluate whether BillSure LLC is building a licensing campaign using US8005457B2 against other platform operators in the billing and usage metering space.
Judge Albright’s docket remains a high-risk venue for cloud platform defendants
The Western District of Texas continues to attract patent assertion entities targeting technology companies. Even cases that resolve quickly, as here, carry pre-trial litigation cost and reputational exposure. Companies with cloud billing, metering, or usage-verification products should conduct proactive FTO analysis against patents like US8005457B2 before receiving a complaint.
BillSure v Amazon.com — key questions answered
A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permanently bars BillSure LLC from asserting the same claims of US8005457B2 against Amazon.com in any future action. It functions as a final adjudication on the merits for purposes of claim preclusion, even though no substantive merits ruling was issued by the court.
BillSure LLC asserted US8005457B2, filed under application number US11/219030, covering a method and system for verifying network resource usage records. The technology is relevant to cloud billing metering and network usage accounting infrastructure.
The public docket does not disclose the reason. A pre-answer voluntary dismissal with prejudice and mutual cost-bearing arrangement is sometimes consistent with a confidential settlement or licensing agreement, but the record is silent. It may also reflect a reassessment of claim strength or litigation economics.
The stipulation that each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees means Amazon cannot seek fee recovery under 35 U.S.C. § 285 as an exceptional case, and BillSure avoids any cost-shifting order. This is a common arrangement in early voluntary dismissals and provides a clean financial close for both sides.
Amazon.com was represented by Jennifer Librach Nall of DLA Piper US LLP. BillSure LLC was represented by Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC, a firm known for volume patent assertion filings in the Western District of Texas and other jurisdictions.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.