DatRec v. Capgemini U.S.: Infringement Suit Ends in Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice
DatRec, LLC filed suit against Capgemini U.S., LLC in the Western District of Texas asserting US8381309B2 in connection with Capgemini’s Bookplan system. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) just 137 days after filing — before Capgemini served an answer or dispositive motion.
Early exit: DatRec drops infringement claims against Capgemini with prejudice
On July 18, 2025, DatRec, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Capgemini U.S., LLC in the Western District of Texas, asserting US8381309B2. The complaint centred on Capgemini’s alleged use of Bookplan and related systems — including customer instruction through its website and product manuals — as conduct constituting infringement of DatRec’s patent covering data record management technology.
On December 1, 2025, DatRec filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Because Capgemini had not yet served an answer or motion for summary judgment, the notice was self-effectuating under Fifth Circuit precedent and required no court order to terminate the case. The dismissal with prejudice extinguishes DatRec’s right to re-file the same claims against Capgemini on this patent.
The case resolved in just 137 days — unusually fast for patent litigation in the Western District of Texas. The public record does not disclose whether a settlement agreement was reached or what consideration, if any, changed hands; the with-prejudice designation and the mutual cost-bearing order are consistent with either a negotiated resolution or a unilateral decision to abandon the claims. The absence of any answer from Capgemini suggests the dispute was resolved before substantive litigation commenced.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 137 days
137 days — resolved well before typical district court patent trial timelines of 2–3 years
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): a self-effectuating exit before any answer
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or summary judgment motion. Because Capgemini had done neither, DatRec’s notice automatically terminated the case — no judicial approval was required. The Fifth Circuit confirmed in In re Amerijet that such notices are self-effectuating. The with-prejudice designation, however, was DatRec’s own choice and forecloses refiling.
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i)With prejudice: DatRec permanently relinquishes this claim against Capgemini
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes, barring DatRec from reasserting the same infringement claims under US8381309B2 against Capgemini in any future action. This is a materially stronger concession than a without-prejudice dismissal. Why DatRec accepted this finality is not disclosed in the public record — possibilities include a confidential settlement, a licensing arrangement, or a litigation economics decision.
Claims extinguished as to CapgeminiCapgemini exits without admissions and with full claim finality
Capgemini U.S. achieved dismissal without serving a single pleading, incurring no public finding of liability or infringement. The with-prejudice dismissal provides Capgemini with permanent protection against re-litigation of these specific claims by DatRec under US8381309B2. Each party bearing its own costs means Capgemini received no fee award, but also avoided the cost and reputational risk of contested patent litigation in the Western District of Texas.
No liability finding; claims barredUS8381309B2 remains live — enforcement risk persists for other defendants
The dismissal resolves only DatRec’s claims against Capgemini. US8381309B2 remains an issued, enforceable patent and DatRec retains the right to assert it against other parties. Companies deploying Bookplan-adjacent data record management systems or similar instruction-delivery workflows should note that this case does not establish any ruling on the patent’s validity or scope. The rapid resolution suggests assertion risk in this patent family remains commercially active.
Patent still enforceable vs. third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | DatRec, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US8381309B2 covering data record managementSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Capgemini U.S., LLC | Company | Capgemini U.S., LLC — U.S. subsidiary of global IT services and consulting group Capgemini SESearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William P. Ramey , III | Attorney | Counsel for DatRec, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ramey LLP | Law Firm | Representing DatRec, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order confirms that DatRec’s Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice was self-effectuating, consistent with Fifth Circuit authority. The with-prejudice designation — chosen by DatRec, not imposed by the court — carries the weight of a merits adjudication for res judicata purposes, permanently barring re-litigation of these claims against Capgemini. The cost-neutrality order suggests neither party sought or obtained a fee award, leaving the underlying commercial terms, if any, undisclosed.
US8381309B2 — data record management and instruction delivery systems
US8381309B2, filed under application number US12/518212, covers technology in the data record management domain — specifically relating to systems and methods associated with Bookplan-style plan-based data organisation and customer instruction delivery. The patent is an issued U.S. utility patent and remains in force. Its application date context places it within a generation of software and data management innovations that have since become embedded in enterprise IT and SaaS platforms.
For IT services companies and enterprise software vendors, US8381309B2 represents a non-trivial assertion risk given its application to instruction delivery workflows and data management systems — capabilities that are broadly used across consulting, SaaS, and managed services sectors. Capgemini’s involvement suggests the patent holder views large IT services firms as within scope. Any company operating analogous Bookplan-type systems, data plan management tools, or customer-facing instruction platforms should assess exposure proactively.
Should you run an FTO against US8381309B2?
If your organisation develops, licences, or deploys data record management systems, plan-based data workflows, or customer instruction delivery platforms — including SaaS products, enterprise content management tools, or IT consulting platforms — US8381309B2 warrants a formal freedom-to-operate analysis. The patent remains enforceable and DatRec has demonstrated willingness to assert it against major IT services providers. Early FTO analysis is substantially cheaper than defending an assertion in W.D. Texas.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent claims of US8381309B2 against your product’s technical architecture, identify prior art that may limit the patent’s enforceable scope, and surface any continuation or related family members that could extend risk. Eureka also tracks DatRec’s litigation and licensing activity, giving your legal and product teams real-time intelligence before a demand letter arrives.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8381309B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: data management IP assertions in W.D. Texas
Explore related patent infringement actions involving data record management and software IP asserted in the Western District of Texas federal court.
What this case signals for the data management IP landscape
A swift with-prejudice exit before any answer in W.D. Texas is rarely accidental — it carries distinct signals for patent risk professionals.
Pre-answer dismissals with prejudice often mask confidential settlements
When a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses with prejudice before the defendant files any pleading, it frequently signals a negotiated resolution rather than simple abandonment. The mutual cost-bearing order here is consistent with a structured exit. IP teams tracking DatRec’s assertion behaviour should monitor for licensing agreements or assignment activity around US8381309B2.
US8381309B2 remains a live enforcement risk for IT services companies
The case produced no validity ruling, no claim construction, and no prosecution history estoppel. DatRec retains full enforcement rights against third parties. IT service providers and SaaS vendors whose platforms involve data record management, customer instruction workflows, or plan-based data systems should consider an FTO review against this patent family.
DatRec v Capgemini — key questions answered
A voluntary dismissal with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) operates as a final adjudication on the merits, barring DatRec from re-asserting the same infringement claims under US8381309B2 against Capgemini in any future action. The patent remains enforceable against other defendants.
US8381309B2 (application US12/518212) is an issued U.S. utility patent covering data record management technology, including systems and methods related to Bookplan-type plan-based data organisation and instruction delivery. It was asserted against Capgemini’s Bookplan system and related customer instruction workflows.
The public record does not disclose the reason. Resolution in 137 days before any answer was served is consistent with a confidential settlement or licensing arrangement, or a unilateral decision to abandon the claims. The with-prejudice designation and mutual cost-bearing order do not clarify whether consideration changed hands.
No. The dismissal produced no ruling on the patent’s validity, no claim construction, and no finding of non-infringement. US8381309B2 remains a fully issued, enforceable patent. Third parties cannot rely on this dismissal as any indication of the patent’s scope or vulnerability.
Ramey LLP, led by William P. Ramey III, represented DatRec as plaintiff’s counsel in this case. The firm is a prolific patent assertion practice in the Western District of Texas. Companies evaluating demand letters or complaints from Ramey LLP-represented entities should factor the firm’s known filing patterns and settlement behaviour into early-stage litigation strategy and pre-suit licensing decisions.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.