Dartconnect v. Darts Atlas: Dart Scoring Patent Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
Dartconnect, LLC asserted two patents covering electronic dart scoring systems against competitor Darts Atlas, LLC in the Western District of Texas. After 381 days of litigation — and with a Markman hearing scheduled — both parties jointly moved to dismiss all claims and counterclaims without prejudice, each bearing their own costs.
Dart scoring IP clash ends at the Markman threshold
On June 5, 2023, Dartconnect, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Darts Atlas, LLC in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:23-cv-00420), presided over by Judge Xavier Rodriguez. Dartconnect asserted two patents — US10443988B2 and US9989337B2 — both directed to electronic dart scoring system technology, against what it alleged were infringing products or services offered by Darts Atlas, a competing dart technology company.
After 381 days of litigation, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss all pending claims and counterclaims without prejudice on June 20, 2024. The court granted the motion, simultaneously denying as moot Darts Atlas’s pending motion for judgment on the pleadings and cancelling the Markman hearing that had been scheduled for June 26, 2024. Each party agreed to bear their own costs and attorney’s fees — a fee-neutral resolution consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a contested settlement.
The timing is commercially significant: the case collapsed within days of a critical claim construction hearing, suggesting the parties may have reached a commercial accommodation — or that claim construction positions revealed litigation risk on one or both sides. The public record does not disclose any licence, cross-licence, or business agreement underlying the dismissal. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, Dartconnect retains the option to refile on the same patents, meaning competitive tension in the dart scoring technology space is likely unresolved.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 381 days
381 days — longer than the median W.D. Texas patent dismissal, reaching the eve of claim construction
Dismissed without prejudice: what the joint exit means for both parties
Joint voluntary dismissal without prejudice — claims survive
A dismissal without prejudice means the court has not adjudicated the merits of Dartconnect’s infringement claims. Both parties agreed to terminate the action jointly, and the court granted the motion under the applicable procedural rules. Crucially, ‘without prejudice’ preserves Dartconnect’s right to file a new lawsuit asserting the same patents against Darts Atlas — the claims are not extinguished.
No merits rulingWithout prejudice vs. with prejudice: the public record is not silent here
The court order explicitly states dismissal ‘without prejudice’ — meaning Dartconnect is not barred from refiling. This contrasts with a with-prejudice dismissal, which would permanently bar re-assertion of the same claims. The order also cancels a scheduled Markman hearing, suggesting the exit occurred before any claim construction rulings that might have constrained either party’s future litigation posture.
Refiling rights preservedDartconnect exits with patent rights intact and litigation options open
Dartconnect retains full enforceability of US10443988B2 and US9989337B2. No adverse claim construction ruling was issued; no invalidity finding was made. Darts Atlas’s motion for judgment on the pleadings — which could have been dispositive — was denied as moot rather than on the merits. Dartconnect can refile if commercial circumstances change or if a licensing arrangement breaks down.
Patents unimpairedDarts Atlas avoids a merits ruling but faces continued patent exposure
Darts Atlas secured dismissal of the immediate action and avoided a potentially adverse Markman ruling. However, the without-prejudice character of the dismissal means no legal barrier prevents Dartconnect from re-asserting the same patents. The mooting of Darts Atlas’s judgment-on-the-pleadings motion means that argument was never tested — limiting its value as precedent or future defensive leverage.
Exposure not extinguishedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Dartconnect, LLC | Company | Electronic dart scoring technology company — holder of US10443988B2 and US9989337B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Darts Atlas, LLC | Company | Dart technology platform provider alleged to infringe dart scoring system patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Carolyn Juarez | Attorney | Counsel for Dartconnect, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Charles Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Dartconnect, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Neugeboren O’Dowd PC | Law Firm | Representing Dartconnect, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Scheef & Stone, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Dartconnect, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Mateo Z. Fowler | Attorney | Counsel for Darts Atlas, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | MZF Law Firm PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Darts Atlas, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Xavier Rodriguez | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order reflects a purely procedural disposition: no claim was adjudicated on the merits, and no infringement or invalidity finding was made. The simultaneous denial of Darts Atlas’s judgment-on-the-pleadings motion as moot confirms that the substantive legal arguments — including any invalidity or eligibility challenges embedded in that motion — were never tested. The fee-neutral structure of the dismissal, with each party bearing its own costs, is consistent with a negotiated exit and provides no signal as to relative litigation strength.
US10443988B2 & US9989337B2 — Electronic dart scoring systems
US10443988B2 and US9989337B2 are both directed to electronic dart scoring system technology, covering automated detection, scoring, and data management for dart gameplay. US9989337B2, filed under application US14/832366, represents an earlier generation of the technology, while US10443988B2 (application US15/876037) suggests a continuation or improvement building on the foundational disclosure. Together, the two patents indicate a layered IP strategy protecting both core scoring functionality and downstream refinements.
In a niche but commercially active sector — encompassing competitive darts leagues, connected gaming devices, and digital scoring platforms — these patents could present meaningful barriers to competitors developing analogous electronic scoring products. The assertion against Darts Atlas, a direct market participant, suggests Dartconnect views its patent portfolio as a competitive moat. Any company building dart scoring hardware, software, or platform integrations should treat these patents as active enforcement risks, particularly given the without-prejudice dismissal.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US10443988B2 and US9989337B2?
If your organisation is developing, manufacturing, or distributing electronic dart scoring systems, connected scoring devices, or related gaming technology platforms, both US10443988B2 and US9989337B2 warrant formal freedom-to-operate analysis. The without-prejudice dismissal of Dartconnect v. Darts Atlas means these patents are active, unimpaired, and available for re-enforcement. Product teams launching or updating dart scoring technology should not treat this case closure as a clearance signal.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of both patents against your product specifications, flag continuation and family members, and identify prior art that could support a design-around or validity challenge. Given that no claim construction ruling was issued in this case, the scope of key claim terms remains judicially undefined — making a thorough claim-by-claim FTO analysis especially valuable before commercialisation decisions are made.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10443988B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar dart scoring and connected gaming patent cases in W.D. Texas
Cases involving electronic scoring system patents and connected gaming device IP litigated in the Western District of Texas follow patterns relevant to Dartconnect v. Darts Atlas.
What this case signals for the dart scoring technology IP landscape
A pre-Markman exit in a two-patent dispute signals unresolved competitive tension — and a potential refiling trigger.
Pre-Markman dismissals typically mask commercial negotiations
Cases that reach the eve of claim construction before a joint dismissal frequently reflect commercial resolution rather than pure litigation strategy. The fee-neutral outcome and joint motion in Dartconnect v. Darts Atlas are consistent with a licensing discussion or product-design arrangement made outside the court record — though none is publicly confirmed.
Without-prejudice exits require ongoing patent monitoring
Any company operating in the electronic dart scoring space should monitor both US10443988B2 and US9989337B2 for continuation filings, reissue applications, or new enforcement actions. A dismissal without prejudice is not a clearance event — the patents remain active enforcement tools in Dartconnect’s portfolio.
Dartconnect v Darts — key questions answered
Dartconnect asserted two patents: US10443988B2 and US9989337B2, both directed to electronic dart scoring system technology. The case was filed in the Western District of Texas on June 5, 2023 and dismissed without prejudice on June 20, 2024.
The parties filed a joint motion to dismiss all claims and counterclaims without prejudice, with each party bearing their own costs. The court granted the motion on June 20, 2024. The public record does not disclose the underlying reason — it may reflect a licensing agreement, commercial arrangement, or reassessment of litigation risk ahead of the scheduled Markman hearing.
A dismissal without prejudice does not extinguish Dartconnect’s right to refile. Dartconnect retains full enforceability of US10443988B2 and US9989337B2 and can re-assert them against Darts Atlas or any other party. No claim construction, invalidity, or non-infringement ruling was issued that could constrain future enforcement.
Darts Atlas filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings (ECF No. 31). When the parties jointly moved to dismiss, the court denied the judgment-on-the-pleadings motion as moot. No substantive ruling was made on its merits, meaning the arguments raised in that motion were never adjudicated.
No. A Markman claim construction hearing had been scheduled for June 26, 2024. When the court granted the joint dismissal motion on June 20, 2024, it simultaneously cancelled the Markman hearing. No claim construction ruling was issued, leaving the scope of key claim terms in US10443988B2 and US9989337B2 judicially undefined.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.