DataCloud Technologies v. Euromarket Designs: Dismissed With Prejudice After 199 Days
DataCloud Technologies, LLC sued Crate & Barrel parent Euromarket Designs over three patents covering multi-domain website infrastructure and KVM virtualization technology. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice before the defendant filed any responsive pleading, ending the case permanently after 199 days.
Multi-patent web infrastructure suit against Crate & Barrel ends before answer
DataCloud Technologies, LLC filed suit on January 24, 2025 in the Northern District of Illinois against Euromarket Designs, Inc., the parent company of Crate & Barrel, asserting infringement of three patents: US7209959B1, US6651063B1, and US6560613B1. The asserted patents relate to supporting multiple domain names on a shared website infrastructure and KVM-based virtualization technology. The accused products included Crate & Barrel’s multi-domain website systems and VM-Series virtualized next-generation firewall deployments using KVM.
On August 11, 2025 — 199 days after filing — DataCloud voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a procedural mechanism available only before the defendant files an answer or motion for summary judgment. The dismissal with prejudice is a final, binding disposition: DataCloud is permanently barred from reasserting the same claims against Euromarket Designs on the same patents. The defendant had not yet filed any responsive pleading at the time of dismissal.
The timing of the dismissal — before any substantive engagement by the defendant — is consistent with a negotiated resolution, licensing agreement, or a strategic decision by the plaintiff to withdraw. The public record does not disclose any settlement terms, and the choice of ‘with prejudice’ rather than ‘without prejudice’ suggests either a concluded agreement or a deliberate decision to foreclose future litigation on these patents against this defendant. What drove DataCloud to abandon claims at this stage remains undisclosed.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 199 days
199 days from filing to close — relatively fast for a multi-patent district court infringement action
Dismissed with prejudice: what this means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral right to dismiss
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss without a court order before the defendant files an answer or motion for summary judgment. DataCloud exercised this right to achieve a voluntary dismissal with prejudice — a self-imposed final judgment that carries the same res judicata effect as a court ruling on the merits. The defendant’s non-response preserved DataCloud’s ability to use this mechanism unilaterally.
Voluntary — no court order requiredWith prejudice: a permanent bar on these specific claims
The ‘with prejudice’ designation is legally significant. Unlike a dismissal without prejudice — which leaves the door open to refile — this dismissal permanently extinguishes DataCloud’s right to bring the same patent claims against Euromarket Designs. The public record does not disclose whether a settlement or license underlies the dismissal. IP professionals should note that ‘with prejudice’ here may signal a concluded commercial agreement rather than a concession on the merits.
Cannot refile — permanent dispositionEuromarket Designs exits without admitting liability
Euromarket Designs never filed an answer, meaning no invalidity arguments, no non-infringement contentions, and no IPR petitions were placed on the record. The defendant exits the litigation without any adverse finding or admission. However, the underlying patents remain valid and enforceable against other parties, and Euromarket’s lack of substantive engagement leaves its technical position on the accused products undocumented in the public record.
No liability admission — clean exitPatents survive — enforcement risk remains for other web infrastructure operators
All three asserted patents — covering multi-domain web infrastructure and KVM virtualization — remain in force and were not invalidated. DataCloud retains the right to assert them against other defendants operating similar domain-multiplexing or KVM-based virtualized firewall systems. Retailers and cloud infrastructure operators deploying analogous technology should note this case as a signal of active enforcement by DataCloud and consider FTO analysis.
Patents enforceable — third-party risk remainsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | DataCloud Technologies, LLC | Company | Patent licensing entity — holder of US7209959B1, US6651063B1, and US6560613B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Euromarket Designs, Inc. | Company | Euromarket Designs, Inc. — parent company of Crate & Barrel retail brandSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James F. McDonough , III | Attorney | Counsel for DataCloud Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathan Lloyd Hardt | Attorney | Counsel for DataCloud Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathan Robert Miller | Attorney | Counsel for DataCloud Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kenneth Andrew Matuszewski | Attorney | Counsel for DataCloud Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC | Law Firm | Representing DataCloud Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brandon R. Weber | Attorney | Counsel for Euromarket Designs, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joseph A Loy | Attorney | Counsel for Euromarket Designs, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Tasha Francis Gerasimow | Attorney | Counsel for Euromarket Designs, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Kirkland & Ellis, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Euromarket Designs, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Georgia N. Alexakis | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and expressly states the dismissal is ‘WITH PREJUDICE,’ while confirming the defendant had filed neither an answer nor a summary judgment motion. The ‘with prejudice’ language is plaintiff-initiated and self-binding — it forecloses any future assertion of these specific claims against Euromarket Designs without resolving the underlying merits. The absence of any court-ordered terms means no fee-shifting, no claim construction record, and no invalidity findings entered against the asserted patents.
US7209959B1, US6651063B1 & US6560613B1 — multi-domain web infrastructure and virtualization
The three asserted patents — US7209959B1, US6651063B1, and US6560613B1 — originate from application numbers filed in the early 2000s, placing them in the foundational era of commercial web infrastructure and early virtualization technology. US7209959B1 is directed at supporting multiple domain names on shared server infrastructure, a capability now ubiquitous in e-commerce. The companion patents cover related network and data management architectures. All three issued as utility patents and remain in force.
From a strategic perspective, patents covering multi-domain web hosting and KVM virtualization occupy commercially significant territory. Virtually every large-scale e-commerce operator and cloud-hosted enterprise application relies on domain multiplexing and hypervisor-based virtualization. DataCloud’s willingness to assert all three patents simultaneously against a single defendant — and to name specific VM-Series KVM deployments — suggests a deliberate claim mapping exercise. The patents’ age does not diminish their risk: broad foundational claims in infrastructure patents frequently read on modern implementations.
Should your team run an FTO against US7209959B1, US6651063B1, and US6560613B1?
Any company operating a multi-domain e-commerce platform, shared web hosting infrastructure, or KVM-based virtualized firewall or network security stack should treat this case as a direct signal. DataCloud has demonstrated active enforcement willingness in federal court. If your product team has deployed domain-multiplexing capabilities — serving multiple brand domains from a common backend — or uses KVM hypervisor technology to run virtual network appliances, an FTO review against these three patents is warranted before further deployment or expansion.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim language of US7209959B1, US6651063B1, and US6560613B1 against your product architecture, identify prior art that may inform invalidity arguments, and flag related continuations or family members still pending. Eureka surfaces litigation history and forward citations to reveal how broadly these patents have been read in practice — giving your IP and engineering teams the intelligence needed to make an informed go/no-go decision.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7209959B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: web infrastructure and virtualization IP in the N.D. Illinois
Cases involving multi-domain web infrastructure and KVM virtualization patents litigated in the Northern District of Illinois reveal patterns in assertion strategy and resolution timing.
What this case signals for the web infrastructure and virtualization IP landscape
DataCloud’s swift dismissal with prejudice, before any answer, raises important questions about enforcement strategy and licensing risk across the sector.
Early dismissal with prejudice often signals a concluded licensing deal
When a plaintiff dismisses with prejudice before the defendant even answers, it typically suggests the parties reached a commercial resolution — whether a license, covenant not to sue, or other agreement. IP professionals monitoring DataCloud’s portfolio should treat this outcome as consistent with an active licensing campaign rather than an abandoned enforcement effort.
Three infrastructure patents remain active enforcement tools against others
US7209959B1, US6651063B1, and US6560613B1 emerged from this case unscathed — no invalidity rulings, no IPR petitions triggered, no claim construction. Any company operating multi-domain web infrastructure or KVM-based virtualization should assess exposure against these patents, which DataCloud has now demonstrated willingness to assert in litigation.
DataCloud v Euromarket — key questions answered
A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permanently bars DataCloud from reasserting the same patent claims — US7209959B1, US6651063B1, and US6560613B1 — against Euromarket Designs. It carries the same res judicata effect as a judgment on the merits, even though no court ruled on validity or infringement.
DataCloud asserted three patents: US7209959B1 (supporting multiple domain names on shared infrastructure), US6651063B1, and US6560613B1. The accused products included Crate & Barrel’s multi-domain website systems and VM-Series virtualized next-generation firewalls using KVM virtualization technology.
The public record does not disclose the reason. However, voluntary dismissal with prejudice before a defendant responds is commonly associated with a negotiated licensing agreement or commercial resolution. The ‘with prejudice’ election suggests the parties likely reached a concluded arrangement rather than DataCloud simply abandoning the case.
Yes. The dismissal did not invalidate US7209959B1, US6651063B1, or US6560613B1. No IPR was filed, no claim construction was entered, and no invalidity finding was made. All three patents remain potentially enforceable against other companies operating multi-domain web infrastructure or KVM-based virtualization systems.
The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:25-cv-00847) and assigned to Judge Georgia N. Alexakis. The case closed on August 11, 2025, 199 days after filing, without reaching substantive litigation milestones.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.