Data Resonance LLC v. Ataccama Corporation: Voluntary Dismissal in Data 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. Ataccama Corporation |
| Case Number | 223-cv-00625 (E.D. Tex.) |
| Court | Eastern District of Texas |
| Duration | Dec 2023 – Jul 2024 206 days |
| Outcome | Defendant Win — Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Ataccama’s data management products (data record identification/maintenance functionality) |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
A limited liability company appearing to operate as a patent assertion entity (PAE) focused on monetizing IP assets in the data management space.
🛡️ Defendant
A data management and data quality software company serving enterprise clients with sophisticated data governance, MDM, and data catalog functionality.
The Patent at Issue
This case centered on a foundational patent related to data record management, a commercially significant technology layer for enterprise software. The patent protects methodology rather than ornamental design.
- • US 6,934,714 B2 — A method and system for identification and maintenance of families of data records.
Developing data management solutions?
Check if your product’s data record identification methods might infringe this or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
On July 15, 2024, the Court accepted Plaintiff Data Resonance LLC’s notice of voluntary dismissal, dismissing all claims against Ataccama Corporation with prejudice. Each party bore its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. No damages or injunctive relief were awarded or discussed.
Key Legal Issues
The dismissal was filed unilaterally by Plaintiff under FRCP Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which permits dismissal before the defendant serves an answer or summary judgment motion. The “with prejudice” designation is legally significant, permanently barring Data Resonance LLC from re-filing the same claims against Ataccama on the same patent. This suggests a definitive resolution, likely a confidential settlement, license, or formal release, without any judicial findings on the patent’s validity or infringement.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in data management technology. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View the patent’s claims, citations, and legal status
- Analyze prior art relevant to data record management
- Understand assertion trends by non-practicing entities (NPEs)
🔍 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 (like US 6,934,714 B2)
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
Data record identification and grouping methods
1 Patent at Issue
Legacy data management patent
Strategic Options
Available for early resolution
✅ Key Takeaways
Voluntary dismissal with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) is a meaningful concession from plaintiff, foreclosing re-assertion.
Search related case law →Early case assessment and strategic negotiations can lead to rapid resolution, avoiding costly discovery and claim construction stages.
Explore litigation strategies →Frequently Asked Questions
The case involved U.S. Patent No. 6,934,714 B2 (Application No. US 10/091,378), covering a method and system for identification and maintenance of families of data records.
Plaintiff Data Resonance LLC filed a voluntary notice of dismissal under FRCP Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The “with prejudice” designation permanently bars re-filing of the same claims against Ataccama. The underlying reasons — whether settlement, license, or strategic withdrawal — were not disclosed in the public record.
US 6,934,714 B2 was never invalidated or adjudicated as non-infringed. Companies offering Master Data Management (MDM), data quality, or data catalog products should assess their exposure to this patent through proactive Freedom-to-Operate (FTO) analysis.
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
- PACER Case Lookup — Case No. 2:23-cv-00625
- USPTO Patent Database — US6934714B2
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — FRCP Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Law Firms
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.