Data Fence LLC v. Securelogix Corp.: Three Call-Control Patents, Dismissed With Prejudice
Data Fence LLC filed suit against Securelogix Corporation in the Western District of Texas, asserting three patents covering inbound call control methods and systems. After 350 days of litigation, the parties jointly stipulated to dismiss the case with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with each side bearing its own costs.
Three Inbound Call-Control Patents End in Stipulated Dismissal
On 3 October 2024, Data Fence LLC filed a patent infringement action against Securelogix Corporation in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:24-cv-00516) before Judge Xavier Rodriguez. The complaint asserted three patents — US8917843B2, US9491286B2, and US9819797B2 — all directed to methods and systems for inbound call control, a technology area squarely relevant to Securelogix’s enterprise telephony security portfolio.
After 350 days, the parties filed a joint stipulation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) to dismiss the action with prejudice. The stipulation specifies that each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees — a mutual cost-bearing arrangement that is common in settlement-adjacent dismissals and suggests a negotiated resolution rather than a unilateral capitulation by either side.
The 350-day arc is consistent with pre-trial settlement dynamics frequently observed in W.D. Texas patent dockets, where cases often resolve after claim construction briefing or early motion practice clarifies litigation risk. The public record does not disclose any financial terms, licensing arrangements, or product design-around agreements, leaving the commercial substance of the resolution undisclosed. Whether Securelogix obtained a license, a covenant not to sue, or simply prevailed on pre-trial posture is not determinable from the filed documents.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 350 days
350 days — slightly below the W.D. Texas median for patent cases proceeding to settlement
Dismissed with prejudice by stipulation: what this means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal with prejudice explained
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal requires both parties to sign the stipulation, distinguishing it from a unilateral plaintiff withdrawal. The ‘with prejudice’ designation is the critical qualifier: it operates as a final adjudication on the merits, permanently barring Data Fence from re-filing these same infringement claims against Securelogix on the same patents. Unlike a without-prejudice dismissal, there is no option to revive the action.
Permanent bar on re-filingData Fence forfeits the right to re-assert these patents against Securelogix
By agreeing to a with-prejudice dismissal, Data Fence LLC permanently surrenders its infringement claims against Securelogix under US8917843B2, US9491286B2, and US9819797B2. This is a significant concession in scope. Data Fence retains ownership of the patents and can theoretically assert them against other defendants, but Securelogix is insulated from these specific claims going forward. The mutual cost-bearing clause suggests Data Fence received some form of consideration, though this is not confirmed in the public record.
Claims extinguished against SecurelogixSecurelogix achieves permanent dismissal without an invalidity ruling
Securelogix secures a with-prejudice dismissal — the most protective outcome short of a judgment of non-infringement or invalidity — without requiring the court to rule on the merits. The patents themselves remain valid and enforceable against third parties. Critically, Securelogix avoided any judicial finding that could have adverse precedential effect, while eliminating this specific litigation risk. Each party bearing its own costs means Securelogix absorbs its own defence fees.
Protected from these claims permanentlyInbound call control IP remains active — third parties still at risk
The dismissal resolves only this bilateral dispute. US8917843B2, US9491286B2, and US9819797B2 remain issued and enforceable patents that Data Fence can deploy against other vendors in the enterprise telephony and call control space. Companies offering competing inbound call management, robocall mitigation, or enterprise PBX solutions should treat these patents as live enforcement risks. No invalidity determination was made, so the patents carry full presumption of validity.
Patents remain enforceable vs. othersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Data Fence LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US8917843B2, US9491286B2, and US9819797B2 covering inbound call controlSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Securelogix Corporation | Company | Securelogix Corporation — enterprise telephony security and call control solutions providerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for Data Fence LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rabicoff Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing Data Fence LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Cassidi Dietz Banales | Attorney | Counsel for Securelogix CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jonathan D. Pauerstein | Attorney | Counsel for Securelogix CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Rosenthal Pauerstein Sandoloski Agather LLP | Law Firm | Representing Securelogix CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Xavier Rodriguez | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), requiring mutual consent — meaning neither party could have imposed this outcome unilaterally. The ‘with prejudice’ designation is operative: courts treat it as a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes, extinguishing Data Fence’s claims against Securelogix permanently. The explicit cost-neutrality clause is a negotiated term, not a default, and its inclusion suggests the parties affirmatively resolved the fee question as part of a broader arrangement whose full terms remain outside the public record.
US8917843B2, US9491286B2 & US9819797B2 — Inbound Call Control Methods
The three patents asserted in this case — US8917843B2, US9491286B2, and US9819797B2 — share a common technical focus on methods and systems for inbound call control. Filed under application numbers US14/038396, US14/552267, and US15/337811 respectively, the sequential application numbers suggest a continuation or continuation-in-part family structure, with each patent potentially extending or refining claim coverage over earlier-filed subject matter. This filing architecture is a deliberate strategy to maintain patent protection across evolving product generations and claim broader technology coverage.
In the enterprise telephony market, inbound call control patents are commercially significant. As robocall mitigation, call authentication (STIR/SHAKEN), and enterprise PBX security have become regulatory and commercial priorities, any patent portfolio covering methods to control, filter, or route inbound calls sits at a high-value intersection of telecommunications infrastructure and cybersecurity. Securelogix’s core product line — which focuses on enterprise call control and telephony security — makes it a natural litigation target for a portfolio of this type. The patents’ continued validity post-dismissal means the risk profile for other vendors in this space remains unchanged.
Should your product team run an FTO against US8917843B2, US9491286B2 & US9819797B2?
Any R&D or product team building inbound call management systems, robocall filtering platforms, enterprise telephony gateways, or call authentication solutions should treat this patent family as a live FTO priority. The dismissal of the Securelogix case does not reduce third-party risk — Data Fence retains full enforcement rights. Given the continuation-family structure across three patents, claim scope may be broader than any single patent suggests, and design-around analysis must account for all three.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s inbound call processing architecture against the claim trees of US8917843B2, US9491286B2, and US9819797B2 simultaneously, flagging overlap across the full patent family. Eureka also tracks Data Fence’s litigation history and prosecution activity, giving your IP team early warning of new assertions or continuation filings before they become enforcement actions.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8917843B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Inbound Call Control Patent Cases in W.D. Texas & Federal Courts
Explore patent infringement cases involving inbound call control, telephony security, and enterprise call management technologies litigated in W.D. Texas and related federal courts.
What this case signals for the enterprise telephony IP landscape
A with-prejudice stipulation in W.D. Texas after 350 days is a pattern worth monitoring for call control technology vendors.
With-prejudice dismissals don’t neutralise patents — only the bilateral dispute
Data Fence’s three call-control patents survive this dismissal intact. Any enterprise telephony vendor offering inbound call management, robocall filtering, or call authentication systems should assess exposure independently. The dismissal creates no invalidity precedent and does not affect third-party risk.
Mutual cost-bearing is a settlement signal worth reading carefully
When both parties agree to bear their own fees in a with-prejudice dismissal, it typically signals a negotiated resolution rather than a defendant walkover. This pattern — common in W.D. Texas — suggests Securelogix likely provided some form of commercial consideration. IP teams should monitor for downstream licensing activity from Data Fence.
Data v Securelogix — key questions answered
The with-prejudice dismissal permanently bars Data Fence from re-asserting US8917843B2, US9491286B2, and US9819797B2 against Securelogix Corporation. However, the patents themselves remain valid and enforceable against all other parties. No invalidity or non-infringement finding was made by the court.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) allows dismissal by stipulation signed by all parties, distinguishing it from a unilateral plaintiff withdrawal. In this case, both Data Fence and Securelogix agreed to the dismissal terms, including the with-prejudice designation and mutual cost-bearing. This bilateral structure typically indicates a negotiated resolution rather than a concession by one party.
Yes. The stipulated dismissal resolves only the dispute between Data Fence LLC and Securelogix Corporation. US8917843B2, US9491286B2, and US9819797B2 remain issued US patents carrying the full statutory presumption of validity. Data Fence retains the right to assert them against other defendants in the inbound call control and enterprise telephony space.
Data Fence LLC was represented by Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC. Securelogix Corporation was represented by Cassidi Dietz Banales and Jonathan D. Pauerstein of Rosenthal Pauerstein Sandoloski Agather LLP. The case was presided over by Judge Xavier Rodriguez in the Western District of Texas.
The three asserted patents — US8917843B2, US9491286B2, and US9819797B2 — cover methods and systems for inbound call control. The products involved were described as ‘methods and systems for inbound call control,’ directly relevant to Securelogix’s enterprise telephony security and call management product line. The patents’ continuation-family structure suggests overlapping and potentially broad claim coverage across inbound call processing architectures.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.