Data Fence LLC v. Twilio, Inc.: Three Call Control Patents, 75-Day Exit
Data Fence LLC asserted three US patents covering inbound call control methods and systems against cloud communications giant Twilio in the Western District of Texas. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice just 75 days after filing — before Twilio filed any answer — leaving the door open for future action.
Pre-answer dismissal in a three-patent call-control claim against Twilio
On October 3, 2024, Data Fence LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against Twilio, Inc. in the Western District of Texas before Judge Alan D. Albright — a court frequently selected for patent cases. The suit asserted three patents, US8917843B2, US9491286B2, and US9819797B2, all directed at methods and systems for inbound call control, a technology squarely relevant to Twilio’s cloud communications platform.
On December 17, 2024, Data Fence filed a voluntary notice of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which permits a plaintiff to dismiss without a court order when the defendant has not yet answered or moved for summary judgment. The case closed the same day. Because the dismissal is expressly ‘without prejudice,’ Data Fence retains the right to refile the same claims against Twilio in the future.
The 75-day resolution is consistent with a tactical or negotiating-phase withdrawal rather than a merits determination. No answer, claim construction record, or damages discovery was generated. Whether the dismissal reflects a licensing agreement, a decision to refile in a different venue, or a strategic reassessment is not disclosed in the public record — leaving Twilio’s IP exposure on these three patents formally unresolved.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 75 days
75 days — resolved before defendant answered; well below average district court patent case duration
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral exit right
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order, and without prejudice, at any time before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because Twilio had not yet answered, Data Fence exercised this right unilaterally. No judicial approval was required, and no merits ruling was made.
No merits adjudicationPublic record is silent on whether terms were agreed
The notice expressly states ‘without prejudice,’ meaning Data Fence can refile the same claims. A dismissal ‘with prejudice’ would bar refiling permanently. The public record does not reveal whether a confidential settlement, licensing deal, or other agreement accompanied this dismissal — that distinction is commercially significant but cannot be confirmed from available court documents.
Refiling right preservedTwilio’s exposure on these three patents remains open
Because the dismissal is without prejudice, Twilio did not obtain a ruling of non-infringement or invalidity. The three asserted patents remain in force. Twilio could face a refiled action — potentially in a different forum — unless it secures a license, successfully invalidates the patents via IPR, or reaches a settlement that includes a with-prejudice release.
No invalidity findingPre-answer exits typically signal negotiation, not surrender
Early voluntary dismissals in patent cases — especially before any answer is filed — are frequently consistent with licensing discussions, a decision to consolidate claims, or a strategic venue change. For CPaaS and cloud telephony operators, this case signals continued assertion activity around inbound call control IP. Companies in that space should monitor these three patents and assess their own exposure.
Licensing activity possibleFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Data Fence LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US8917843B2, US9491286B2, and US9819797B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Twilio, Inc. | Company | Twilio, Inc. — cloud communications platform provider (CPaaS), San Francisco, CASearch 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 | Eugene Y. Mar | Attorney | Counsel for Twilio, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | James L. Day | Attorney | Counsel for Twilio, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Farella Braun & Martel, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Twilio, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice cites Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and expressly states ‘without prejudice,’ confirming Twilio had not yet answered. This means no claim construction, no invalidity ruling, and no non-infringement finding exists. The three patents remain fully enforceable. The phrasing is consistent with a plaintiff preserving maximum strategic flexibility — whether that reflects a confidential resolution or a planned refile cannot be determined from the public record.
US8917843B2, US9491286B2 & US9819797B2 — Inbound Call Control
The three asserted patents — US8917843B2, US9491286B2, and US9819797B2 — form a family-like portfolio directed at methods and systems for controlling inbound telephone calls. The patents descend from application numbers US14/038396, US14/552267, and US15/337811 respectively, suggesting a continuation strategy designed to extend coverage as the CPaaS market matured. The technical domain — inbound call routing, control logic, and system architecture — sits at the core of cloud telephony platforms.
For a platform-as-a-service provider like Twilio, whose programmable voice products enable customers to build inbound call flows at scale, this patent family represents a direct competitive risk vector. The continuation structure means claim scope may differ meaningfully across the three patents, potentially covering different implementation layers. Companies building on or competing with programmable voice infrastructure — including UCaaS, CCaaS, and CPaaS players — should treat this portfolio as an active assertion risk pending any licensing resolution.
Should your team run an FTO against US8917843B2, US9491286B2 & US9819797B2?
Any company developing or deploying inbound call routing, interactive voice response (IVR), programmable voice APIs, or call centre orchestration platforms should assess freedom-to-operate against this three-patent portfolio. The without-prejudice dismissal means all three patents remain enforceable and uncharted by any court claim construction. The risk is live for CPaaS, UCaaS, and CCaaS providers, as well as enterprise software teams embedding inbound call handling.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent claims of US8917843B2, US9491286B2, and US9819797B2 against your product architecture, identify prior art that could support an IPR petition, and surface related continuations or divisionals that may carry overlapping risk. Given the pre-answer dismissal — which generated zero claim construction guidance — an AI-assisted claim analysis is one of the fastest ways to quantify exposure before any refiled action.
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 US district courts
Explore related patent infringement actions involving call routing, CPaaS platforms, and inbound call control technology filed in US district courts.
What this case signals for the cloud communications IP landscape
A rapid pre-answer exit on three call-control patents against a major CPaaS provider raises questions that any cloud telephony IP team should track.
Without-prejudice dismissals preserve maximum plaintiff optionality
Data Fence retains full ability to refile against Twilio — in WDTX or elsewhere. Twilio’s IP team cannot treat this as resolved without a license or IPR. Any cloud communications company that also practices these call control methods faces the same latent risk from these three live patents.
Judge Albright’s docket: still a strategic plaintiff venue
Filing in the Western District of Texas before Judge Albright remains a common plaintiff tactic. The 75-day exit suggests Twilio’s potential early-stage pressure — or plaintiff-side recalibration — was sufficient to prompt withdrawal before the case could develop any claim construction history.
Data v Twilio — key questions answered
Data Fence LLC filed a patent infringement action against Twilio, Inc. in the Western District of Texas on October 3, 2024, asserting three patents covering inbound call control methods and systems. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice on December 17, 2024 — 75 days after filing — before Twilio filed any answer.
Data Fence asserted US8917843B2, US9491286B2, and US9819797B2. All three patents are directed at methods and systems for inbound call control. They descend from application numbers US14/038396, US14/552267, and US15/337811 respectively, suggesting a continuation-based prosecution strategy.
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal without prejudice means the plaintiff dismissed unilaterally before the defendant answered and retains the right to refile the same claims. No merits ruling was made. Twilio received no non-infringement or invalidity finding. The three asserted patents remain enforceable and Twilio’s exposure is formally unresolved unless a private agreement was reached.
Yes. Because the dismissal is expressly without prejudice, Data Fence retains the right to refile the same infringement claims against Twilio — in the Western District of Texas or another forum. Whether a licensing agreement or other resolution accompanied the dismissal is not disclosed in the public record.
Companies operating in CPaaS, UCaaS, or CCaaS — particularly those offering programmable voice, IVR, or inbound call routing — should assess freedom-to-operate against US8917843B2, US9491286B2, and US9819797B2. The portfolio is active and uncharted by any court claim construction. The continuation structure suggests potential for broad claim coverage across different implementation approaches.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.