DatRec LLC v. Omnicell Inc: Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice in 80 Days
DatRec LLC filed a patent infringement action against Omnicell Inc in the Northern District of Texas, asserting US8381309B2 against Omnicell’s Outbound Patient Communications platform. The case closed in just 80 days via a voluntary dismissal filed by DatRec — with prejudice as to the asserted patent, permanently extinguishing DatRec’s infringement claims on those grounds.
A swift exit: DatRec abandons patent claim against Omnicell with finality
On October 8, 2024, DatRec LLC — a patent assertion entity represented by Ramey LLP and Kirby Drake Law PLLC — filed suit against Omnicell Inc in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas before Judge Karen Gren Scholer. The complaint alleged infringement of US8381309B2, a patent directed at automated data communications technology, which DatRec asserted was practiced by Omnicell’s Outbound Patient Communications product.
The case closed on December 27, 2024, just 80 days after filing. DatRec filed a notice of voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), available because Omnicell had not yet filed an answer or motion for summary judgment. Critically, DatRec expressly stipulated that the dismissal was with prejudice as to the asserted patent — a materially stronger concession than a standard Rule 41 voluntary exit, which would default to without prejudice. Each party agreed to bear its own fees and costs.
The 80-day resolution is notably rapid for patent litigation, suggesting the parties likely reached an understanding — or DatRec reassessed its position — before substantive motion practice commenced. The public record does not disclose whether any licensing negotiation occurred. The with-prejudice designation is significant: it forecloses any future assertion of US8381309B2 against Omnicell by DatRec, providing Omnicell with a durable litigation shield on this patent.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 80 days
80 days from filing to closure — well under the median district court patent case lifespan of 2–3 years
Dismissed with prejudice: what DatRec’s stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s right to exit — but at a cost
Federal Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss without a court order before the defendant has answered or filed a motion for summary judgment. This right is unilateral. However, DatRec went further than the rule requires, expressly designating the dismissal as with prejudice — meaning the dismissal carries the same res judicata effect as a judgment on the merits, permanently barring the same claims.
Procedural — Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)With prejudice: DatRec cannot re-assert US8381309B2 against Omnicell
A Rule 41 voluntary dismissal defaults to without prejudice unless the plaintiff specifies otherwise or has previously dismissed the same claim. Here, DatRec explicitly chose with prejudice as to the asserted patent. This distinction matters: a without-prejudice dismissal would preserve the right to refile, while the with-prejudice designation permanently extinguishes DatRec’s ability to sue Omnicell again on US8381309B2. The public record does not explain why DatRec accepted this more onerous outcome.
Permanent bar on US8381309B2 vs. OmnicellOmnicell secures a durable shield — without ever filing a responsive pleading
Omnicell achieved a highly favourable result: the case was extinguished with prejudice before it was required to answer, expend significant resources on discovery, or litigate claim construction. The with-prejudice designation functions as a permanent litigation shield against DatRec on this patent. Omnicell’s counsel at Kelley Drye & Warren — a defence-side firm experienced in patent matters — appear to have achieved this outcome efficiently, consistent with early resolution strategy.
Omnicell — permanent protection securedPre-answer resolution limits sector exposure — but patent remains live
US8381309B2 remains an active, granted patent. While Omnicell is now protected, other healthcare automation vendors deploying outbound patient communications technology should note that DatRec retains the right to assert this patent against different defendants. The rapid closure and with-prejudice terms may suggest the patent’s claim scope or claim construction presented challenges for DatRec — but this is not confirmed by the public record. Competitors should conduct independent FTO analysis.
Patent live — FTO analysis recommendedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | DatRec, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US8381309B2 covering patient data communicationsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Omnicell Inc | Company | Omnicell Inc — healthcare automation company, provider of Outbound Patient Communications solutionsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kirby Blair Drake | Attorney | Counsel for DatRec, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William P. Ramey , III | Attorney | Counsel for DatRec, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Kirby Drake Law PLLC | Law Firm | Representing DatRec, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ramey LLP | Law Firm | Representing DatRec, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joshua Brooks Long | Attorney | Counsel for Omnicell IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael J. Zinna | Attorney | Counsel for Omnicell IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Vincent M Ferraro | Attorney | Counsel for Omnicell IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Kelley Drye & Warren LLP | Law Firm | Representing Omnicell IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Karen Gren Scholer | Judge | Texas Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice is notable for its express with-prejudice designation — a qualification DatRec volunteered, not one the court or Omnicell imposed. Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), the default for a unilateral pre-answer dismissal is without prejudice. By specifying otherwise, DatRec permanently surrendered its right to re-assert US8381309B2 against Omnicell. The fee-bearing clause — each party bearing its own costs — suggests no financial consideration changed hands on the public record, though the underlying commercial dynamics remain undisclosed.
US8381309B2 — Automated outbound patient communications technology
US8381309B2 (application number US12/518212) is a granted U.S. utility patent covering technology in the automated patient communications domain — broadly, systems and methods for transmitting data to patients outside a clinical setting. The patent’s asserted relevance to Omnicell’s Outbound Patient Communications product suggests claim coverage over automated messaging workflows used for appointment reminders, medication adherence alerts, or discharge follow-up communications. The application lineage and grant date should be reviewed for prosecution history estoppel implications.
In the healthcare automation sector, patents covering outbound patient engagement workflows are strategically significant as providers and vendors scale digital health communication infrastructure. A patent assertion entity holding rights to US8381309B2 can credibly threaten any vendor whose platform automates patient-facing communications. The rapid dismissal with prejudice in this case — without claim construction or summary judgment briefing — leaves the patent’s actual claim scope judicially untested, meaning its litigation value against other defendants remains uncertain but non-zero.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US8381309B2?
If your company develops, sells, or integrates automated outbound patient communications products — including appointment reminder systems, medication adherence messaging platforms, or post-discharge follow-up tools — US8381309B2 is a live patent that has already been asserted in litigation. The with-prejudice dismissal protects only Omnicell. Every other vendor in this product category remains potentially exposed. R&D and product teams should review this patent’s independent claims against their current feature sets before the next product release cycle.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to map US8381309B2’s claim language against competitor product descriptions and prior art landscapes in minutes. Eureka can surface related patents in DatRec’s portfolio, identify prosecution history estoppel points that may narrow enforceability, and benchmark the patent against the closest prior art — giving in-house counsel the analytical foundation needed to make a rapid, defensible FTO determination without commissioning a full outside-counsel opinion from scratch.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8381309B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent infringement cases in patient communications & health IT
Explore related patent assertion cases involving automated patient communications and health IT software filed in Texas federal courts and comparable PAE-active venues.
What this case signals for the healthcare automation IP landscape
An 80-day lifecycle and a with-prejudice exit raise pointed questions about assertion strategy and claim viability in the patient communications technology space.
Pre-answer dismissals with prejudice are a strong signal of shifted plaintiff leverage
When a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses with prejudice before the defendant has even answered, it typically signals the plaintiff concluded that proceeding carried more risk than exit. Whether driven by claim strength concerns, freedom-to-operate issues, or negotiated resolution, the outcome hands Omnicell a permanent defence at minimum litigation cost — a notable result for a healthcare software company facing patent assertion.
Ramey LLP’s involvement flags a serial assertion pattern worth monitoring
Plaintiff co-counsel William P. Ramey III and Ramey LLP are associated with a high volume of patent assertion filings in Texas federal courts. Practitioners and in-house teams in the healthcare technology sector should monitor DatRec’s assertion activity against other defendants — US8381309B2 remains enforceable and may be reasserted elsewhere.
DatRec v Omnicell — key questions answered
The with-prejudice dismissal permanently bars DatRec from reasserting US8381309B2 against Omnicell in any future action. Unlike a default Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal — which is without prejudice — DatRec expressly stipulated that the dismissal carries finality equivalent to a judgment on the merits. Omnicell cannot be sued again by DatRec on this patent.
Yes. The with-prejudice designation in DatRec v. Omnicell binds only the parties to that action. DatRec retains full rights to assert US8381309B2 against any other defendant. The patent remains granted and enforceable. Companies in the outbound patient communications sector should not assume Omnicell’s protection extends to them.
The public record does not disclose the reason. Possible explanations include: a private settlement or licensing agreement not reflected in the docket; DatRec’s reassessment of claim strength after pre-suit due diligence; concerns about patent validity or claim construction risk; or a commercial resolution that made continued litigation unnecessary. The with-prejudice designation suggests DatRec had sufficient reason to accept finality.
US8381309B2 (filed under application US12/518212) is a granted U.S. patent in the automated patient communications space. Based on its assertion against Omnicell’s Outbound Patient Communications product, it appears to cover systems or methods for automated transmission of data or messages to patients outside a clinical setting. Full claim-by-claim analysis requires reviewing the patent specification and prosecution history.
Ramey LLP, led by William P. Ramey III, is a Texas-based firm with a high-volume patent assertion practice. Its involvement is consistent with a non-practising entity enforcement model. Patent practitioners monitoring assertion activity in the health IT sector should track DatRec’s filing history alongside Ramey LLP’s broader docket for early signals of enforcement campaigns targeting patient communications or healthcare automation technology.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.