ContactWave LLC v. Best Buy Co. — Dismissed With Prejudice After 128 Days
ContactWave LLC filed suit against Best Buy Co., Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas asserting US9531665B2, covering an information messaging system. The case lasted 128 days before ContactWave voluntarily dismissed with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), with each party bearing its own costs.
A short-lived E.D. Texas messaging patent suit ends at plaintiff’s request
ContactWave LLC initiated this patent infringement action against Best Buy Co., Inc. on December 2, 2024, in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00991). The suit centred on US9531665B2, a patent covering an information messaging system, asserting that Best Buy’s products or services infringed ContactWave’s claimed technology. The case was designated a member case within a broader docket, with lead case No. 2:24-cv-989 remaining open following this dismissal.
On April 9, 2025 — just 128 days after filing — ContactWave filed a Notice of Dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), voluntarily dismissing the action with prejudice. The Court accepted and acknowledged the notice, formally closing the member case. Critically, the dismissal was entered with prejudice, meaning ContactWave is barred from reasserting the same claims against Best Buy on US9531665B2. No fee-shifting was imposed; each party was ordered to bear its own legal costs.
The sub-130-day resolution, combined with the with-prejudice designation, suggests the parties may have reached a private arrangement — or that ContactWave assessed litigation risk and chose to exit cleanly — though the public record is silent on any settlement terms. The fact that lead case No. 2:24-cv-989 remains open indicates this dismissal is part of a multi-defendant campaign, and the strategic rationale for resolving only this member case warrants monitoring.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 128 days
128 days — below the E.D. Texas median for patent cases resolved before claim construction
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal — plaintiff pulls the trigger
Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Here, ContactWave filed a Notice of Dismissal and the Court accepted it. The with-prejudice designation — explicitly stated in the notice — transforms what could have been a procedural exit into a permanent bar against re-litigation of these specific claims against Best Buy.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — voluntary dismissalContactWave forfeits the right to refile against Best Buy
A with-prejudice dismissal is a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes. ContactWave cannot reassert US9531665B2 against Best Buy in any future action on the same claims. This is a significant concession compared to a without-prejudice exit, which would preserve optionality. The mutual cost-bearing order provides no financial recoupment for either side, suggesting no judicial findings of exceptionality or bad faith.
Permanent bar on refilingBest Buy secures permanent closure on this patent claim
Best Buy exits this litigation without any finding of infringement, validity, or damages. The with-prejudice dismissal provides Best Buy with a durable defence: if ContactWave or any successor attempts to relitigate US9531665B2 on identical claims, Best Buy can invoke res judicata. The no-cost order means Best Buy absorbs its own defence spend — Barnes & Thornburg’s involvement suggests non-trivial legal fees were incurred before resolution.
Res judicata protection securedUS9531665B2 remains unlitigated on the merits — validity untested
Because the case resolved before any claim construction or substantive ruling, US9531665B2 has not been judicially construed or assessed for validity. This leaves the patent’s enforceability scope uncertain for other potential defendants. Companies in the information messaging and notification technology space should note that the patent survives this litigation intact, and the lead case (2:24-cv-989) remains active, signalling ongoing assertion activity by ContactWave.
Patent validity untestedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | ContactWave LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9531665B2 (information messaging system)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Best Buy Co., Inc. | Company | Best Buy Co., Inc. — major U.S. consumer electronics retailer and services providerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Benjamin Charles Deming | Attorney | Counsel for ContactWave LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Phillip Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for ContactWave LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dnl Zito | Law Firm | Representing ContactWave LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rabicoff Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing ContactWave LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David Matthew Lisch | Attorney | Counsel for Best Buy Co., Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Mark Christopher Nelson | Attorney | Counsel for Best Buy Co., Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Barnes & Thornburg LLP | Law Firm | Representing Best Buy Co., Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Barnes & Thornburg, LLP (Dallas) | Law Firm | Representing Best Buy Co., Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Court’s order closely tracks the language of ContactWave’s own Notice of Dismissal, accepting the with-prejudice designation without modification. The explicit instruction to close member case No. 2:24-cv-00991 while maintaining lead case No. 2:24-cv-989 as open confirms this was a targeted, defendant-specific resolution rather than a global exit. The denial of all other pending relief as moot is procedurally standard and carries no substantive implication for patent validity or claim scope.
US9531665B2 — Information Messaging System
US9531665B2, filed under application number US14/618541 (February 2015, post-AIA), covers an information messaging system — broadly, technology relating to how messages, notifications, or contact events are routed, managed, or delivered in real time. The patent was asserted by ContactWave LLC, an entity whose name and portfolio suggest a focus on communication and contact workflow technology. The granted patent’s claims have not been judicially construed in this action, leaving the precise scope of protection commercially undefined.
For companies offering messaging platforms, customer contact systems, notification engines, or unified communications products — including consumer electronics retailers whose services may incorporate such features — US9531665B2 represents an unresolved assertion risk. The patent survived this litigation without any validity challenge reaching the merits, and ContactWave’s multi-case filing posture suggests it views the patent as commercially viable assertion collateral. Competitors and product teams should treat this as a live risk requiring FTO analysis.
Should you run an FTO against US9531665B2?
Any company operating in the information messaging, push notification, customer contact, or unified communications space — particularly those with retail-facing digital touchpoints — should assess exposure to US9531665B2. ContactWave’s demonstrated willingness to file in E.D. Texas against a high-profile defendant like Best Buy, combined with an active lead case, indicates this is not a dormant patent. Product managers and R&D teams building or acquiring messaging infrastructure should prioritise this patent in pre-launch and pre-acquisition FTO reviews.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim language of US9531665B2 against your product architecture, surface prior art that could support an IPR petition, and identify related ContactWave patents in the same family or assertion cluster. Eureka’s litigation monitoring layer also tracks the lead case (2:24-cv-989) in real time, alerting your IP team to new filings, claim constructions, or further member case activity before they affect your competitive position.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9531665B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar information messaging patent cases in E.D. Texas
Cases involving information messaging and notification system patents litigated in the Eastern District of Texas, including multi-defendant assertion campaigns and Rule 41 dismissals.
What this case signals for the messaging technology IP landscape
A with-prejudice exit in under 130 days from a multi-defendant E.D. Texas campaign warrants close attention from messaging and notification platform companies.
Multi-defendant campaign structure amplifies litigation pressure
The existence of a lead case (2:24-cv-989) alongside this member case is consistent with a coordinated multi-defendant assertion strategy. Companies in the information messaging space targeted in parallel suits face compounded legal costs and scheduling risk. Early monitoring of ContactWave’s docket activity is advisable for any firm operating in real-time contact or notification technology.
With-prejudice exit without cost-shifting: read the signal carefully
When a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses with prejudice and each party bears its own costs, it typically signals either a private resolution or a calculated litigation retreat. The absence of a court-ordered fee award under 35 U.S.C. § 285 means Best Buy did not press for — or did not obtain — an exceptional case finding. This pattern is worth benchmarking for defendants assessing early-exit strategies in similar E.D. Texas cases.
ContactWave v Best — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice. ContactWave LLC filed a Notice of Dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) explicitly stating the dismissal was with prejudice. The Court accepted the notice and formally dismissed all claims with prejudice on April 9, 2025, barring ContactWave from refiling the same claims against Best Buy.
ContactWave asserted US9531665B2, filed under application number US14/618541 and covering an information messaging system. The patent relates broadly to real-time messaging, contact, and notification technology. No claim construction or validity ruling was issued in this case.
The Court ordered each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. No fee-shifting was awarded under 35 U.S.C. § 285 or otherwise. This mutual cost-bearing arrangement is standard for Rule 41 voluntary dismissals and does not reflect any finding of exceptionality.
The dismissal order references lead case No. 2:24-cv-989, which the Court directed to remain open. Case No. 2:24-cv-00991 (the Best Buy matter) was a member case within this broader docket, consistent with ContactWave having filed against multiple defendants in a coordinated assertion campaign in the Eastern District of Texas.
No. Because the dismissal occurred before any substantive ruling on claim construction, infringement, or validity, US9531665B2 emerges from this litigation with its claims entirely untested on the merits. The patent remains granted and enforceable. Companies in the messaging technology sector cannot rely on this dismissal as any indication that the patent is invalid or narrowly scoped.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.