Consolidated Transaction Processing v. Goodyear Tire — Voluntarily Dismissed (42 Days)
Consolidated Transaction Processing, LLC filed suit against Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting two transaction-processing patents against Goodyear’s auto-service website. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice just 42 days after filing — before Goodyear had filed an answer — with each party bearing its own costs.
Pre-answer dismissal in Eastern District of Texas transaction IP suit
On 8 January 2025, Consolidated Transaction Processing, LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 4:25-cv-00019), before Judge Amos L. Mazzant. The plaintiff asserted two patents — US8712846B2 and US8396743B2 — covering transaction processing technology, alleging infringement through Goodyear’s auto-service website at goodyearautoservice.com, hosted on servers under Goodyear’s control.
The case closed on 19 February 2025, just 42 days after filing. Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action as of right — without a court order — at any time before the defendant has served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Goodyear had not yet answered, making the mechanism available. The dismissal was expressly stated to be without prejudice, meaning the claims are not adjudicated on the merits. Costs were split, with each party bearing its own fees.
A 42-day lifecycle ending in a pre-answer voluntary dismissal is consistent with several common scenarios: early settlement discussions, a licensing agreement reached off the record, a decision by plaintiff to re-file in a different venue, or a reassessment of claim strength following pre-suit diligence. The public record does not disclose the underlying reason. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, Consolidated Transaction Processing retains the ability — subject to applicable statutes of limitations — to re-assert the same patents against Goodyear or others in future proceedings.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 42 days
42 days — resolved before defendant answer; well below median district court patent case duration
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): dismissal as of right, no court order needed
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action unilaterally — without court approval — provided the defendant has not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because Goodyear had not answered, Consolidated Transaction Processing could file a one-page notice and terminate the action immediately. This is one of the most procedurally straightforward exits available in US patent litigation.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)Without prejudice — but the record does not explain why
A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ means the claims have not been decided on their merits and the plaintiff is not legally barred from re-filing. A dismissal ‘with prejudice’ would extinguish the claims permanently. The filed notice expressly states ‘without prejudice.’ However, the public record is silent on the underlying reason — whether a licence was granted, a settlement was reached, or the plaintiff chose to reassess strategy is unknown from the docket alone.
Without prejudice — merits untouchedGoodyear exits without admitting infringement or paying damages
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company secured an early exit without any adjudication of infringement, no damages award, and no injunction. The cost-sharing arrangement means Goodyear bears its own legal fees but faces no adverse fee award. Critically, the without-prejudice nature of the dismissal means Goodyear cannot treat this as a final resolution — the same patents may be re-asserted in future litigation if no licence has been secured.
No infringement findingPre-answer exit leaves patent enforceability and validity unresolved
US8712846B2 and US8396743B2 emerge from this case without any validity or infringement finding — positive or negative. For other e-commerce and auto-service operators whose platforms handle online transactions, these patents remain live enforcement risks. The absence of claim construction or invalidity rulings means there is no public record narrowing the patents’ scope. Any operator in the transaction-processing or automotive-service digital commerce space should treat these assets as active.
Patents remain enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Consolidated Transaction Processing, LLC | Company | Transaction processing patent assertion entity — holder of US8712846B2 and US8396743B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company | Company | Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company — global tyre manufacturer operating goodyearautoservice.comSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Trevor James Beaty | Attorney | Counsel for Consolidated Transaction Processing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Shea Beaty | Law Firm | Representing Consolidated Transaction Processing, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Amos L. Mazzant | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) precisely and confirms Goodyear had not yet answered — establishing the procedural prerequisite for unilateral dismissal. The express ‘without prejudice’ language is legally significant: it forecloses any res judicata or claim preclusion defence for Goodyear in any future action on the same patents. The cost-bearing provision — each party paying its own fees — is standard for pre-answer Rule 41 exits and carries no punitive or exceptional-case implications under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
US8712846B2 & US8396743B2 — transaction processing methods and systems
US8712846B2 (application no. US13/794781) and US8396743B2 (application no. US13/401827) are US utility patents covering transaction processing technology. Both applications were filed in the early 2010s, a period of rapid growth in web-based commerce infrastructure. The patents likely claim methods and systems for processing, routing, or managing transactions through networked platforms — a technology domain that underpins virtually every consumer-facing digital commerce operation, including automotive service booking and payment systems.
For the automotive-services and broader retail e-commerce sector, these patents represent a meaningful IP risk because transaction processing logic is deeply embedded in standard website infrastructure. The absence of any claim construction ruling from this case means the patents’ enforceable scope has not been publicly defined. Companies relying on third-party payment processors or standard e-commerce frameworks should not assume they are outside the claims’ reach — the specific architectural elements targeted by the plaintiff remain undisclosed from the public docket.
Should your platform run an FTO against US8712846B2 and US8396743B2?
Any company operating an online transaction platform — particularly in automotive services, retail, or service-chain e-commerce — should assess exposure to US8712846B2 and US8396743B2. The fact that these patents were asserted against Goodyear’s consumer-facing auto-service website suggests the plaintiff views standard transactional website functionality as within scope. If your product processes customer payments, bookings, or service orders online, these patents warrant a formal FTO review.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to map the claim language of US8712846B2 and US8396743B2 against their own platform architecture, identify prior art that could support an invalidity argument, and surface continuation or related patents in the same family that may pose additional risk. Eureka also tracks the litigation history of Consolidated Transaction Processing across all cases, giving your team a complete picture of enforcement pattern and likely next targets.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8712846B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: transaction processing assertions in Eastern District of Texas
Cases involving transaction processing patent assertions in the Eastern District of Texas, with comparable pre-answer dismissal or early exit patterns, relevant to digital commerce IP strategy.
What this case signals for the transaction processing IP landscape
A 42-day pre-answer dismissal in the Eastern District of Texas rarely signals the end of enforcement activity for a patent assertion entity.
Pre-answer dismissals in EDTX often precede re-filing or licensing activity
When a plaintiff in the Eastern District of Texas exits before the defendant answers — and does so without prejudice — it typically signals one of three outcomes: a confidential licensing agreement, a decision to re-file with amended claims, or a shift to parallel proceedings. IP teams at companies with significant e-commerce or online transaction infrastructure should monitor for follow-on filings by Consolidated Transaction Processing.
Goodyear’s digital commerce platform was the specific infringement target
The complaint targeted goodyearautoservice.com specifically — not Goodyear’s core manufacturing business. This targeting pattern is consistent with assertion campaigns directed at companies whose primary business is not technology but who operate consumer-facing web platforms that process transactions. Retailers, service chains, and automotive-sector e-commerce operators face analogous exposure from the same patent portfolio.
Consolidated v Goodyear — key questions answered
Consolidated Transaction Processing asserted two patents: US8712846B2 (application US13/794781) and US8396743B2 (application US13/401827). Both cover transaction processing technology and were alleged to be infringed by Goodyear’s auto-service website at goodyearautoservice.com.
The case closed 42 days after filing via a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) voluntary dismissal, filed before Goodyear answered. This mechanism requires no court approval and is available as of right at that stage. The speed is consistent with a confidential settlement or licence, a strategic decision to re-file elsewhere, or an early reassessment by the plaintiff — the public record does not disclose the specific reason.
The dismissal is expressly without prejudice, as stated in the plaintiff’s Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice. This means no merits determination was made, and Consolidated Transaction Processing retains the legal right to re-assert US8712846B2 and US8396743B2 against Goodyear — or other defendants — in future proceedings, subject to applicable statutes of limitations.
The dismissal notice states that each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. No fee award was made under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (exceptional case standard). This cost-sharing arrangement is typical for pre-answer Rule 41 dismissals and carries no adverse implications for either party regarding fee-shifting.
No. Because the case was dismissed without prejudice before any substantive proceedings — no claim construction, no invalidity ruling, no summary judgment — US8712846B2 and US8396743B2 emerge with their validity and enforceability legally unchanged. There is no estoppel, no IPR institution decision, and no court ruling narrowing claim scope. Both patents remain fully enforceable assets.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.