Data Resonance vs. Informatica: Voluntary Dismissal in Data Record Management Patent Case
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Data Resonance LLC v. Informatica Inc. |
| Case Number | 1:23-cv-01473 (D. Del.) |
| Court | District of Delaware |
| Duration | 96 days 3 months 5 days |
| Outcome | Defendant Win — Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Informatica’s MDM and Data Quality product lines |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
A patent assertion entity (PAE) that brought this infringement action based on its ownership of a foundational data record management patent.
🛡️ Defendant
A leading enterprise cloud data management company headquartered in Redwood City, California.
Patent at Issue
This case involved one utility patent covering foundational data record management methodology. Utility patents are registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and protect functional technology rather than ornamental design.
- • US6,934,714 B2 — Method and system for identification and maintenance of families of data records
Designing a similar data management solution?
Check if your data management solution might infringe this or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
On April 2, 2024, Data Resonance LLC voluntarily dismissed all claims against Informatica, Inc. with prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). No damages were awarded. No injunctive relief was issued. The case record does not reflect any court-ordered monetary settlement, although private licensing agreements reached before or concurrent with dismissal cannot be ruled out based on publicly available information.
Key Legal Issues
The combination of factors — early filing date, rapid resolution, with-prejudice designation, and mutual fee-bearing — presents several plausible strategic scenarios commonly observed in PAE litigation. The case resolved before any substantive motions were publicly recorded. The “with prejudice” designation is legally significant: it constitutes a final adjudication on the merits and bars Data Resonance from re-filing the same claims against Informatica based on US6,934,714 B2.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis for Data Management
This case highlights critical IP risks in data management and MDM. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View all related patents in this technology space
- See which companies are most active in data management patents
- Understand claim construction patterns for method patents
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
Legacy Patent Risk
Older method patents targeting core data functionality
1 Patent at Issue
Focus on US6,934,714 B2
Alice/Mayo Concerns
Key defense leverage for software method patents
✅ Key Takeaways
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) with-prejudice dismissals are significant — they permanently bar re-assertion of the same claims against the same defendant.
Search related case law →Early-stage resolution in PAE cases often reflects claim scope or validity concerns identified post-filing.
Explore precedents →Frequently Asked Questions
The case involved U.S. Patent No. 6,934,714 B2 (Application No. US10/091,378), covering a method and system for identification and maintenance of families of data records.
Plaintiff Data Resonance LLC filed a voluntary notice of dismissal with prejudice under FRCP Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The specific business or legal rationale was not publicly disclosed, though early-stage analysis of claim scope or validity concerns often factor into such decisions.
It reinforces that early-stage resolution remains common in PAE-driven data method patent cases, and that with-prejudice dismissals permanently close the litigation door on specific defendant-patent pairings. It also highlights the continued assertion of legacy data method patents against enterprise software vendors.
FTO analysis for data record management, entity resolution, and deduplication functionality should address both active litigation and assertion-ready patent portfolios.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- United States District Court, District of Delaware — Case 1:23-cv-01473 (via PACER)
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office — Patent Full-Text Database (US6,934,714 B2)
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 41
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Enterprise Software
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.