Diorite Technology v. Avaya LLC — Voluntarily Dismissed in 18 Days
Diorite Technology, LLC filed a patent infringement claim against Avaya LLC in Delaware District Court, asserting US8761746B2 against the Avaya Cloud Office and Avaya IP Office platforms. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) just 18 days after filing — before Avaya filed any answer or motion for summary judgment.
An 18-day patent filing against Avaya’s cloud telephony stack
On 23 October 2025, Diorite Technology, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Avaya LLC in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware before Judge Colm F. Connolly. The complaint asserted US8761746B2 against Avaya’s Cloud Office and IP Office platforms, as well as Avaya IP phones operating on those systems — targeting Avaya’s core unified communications and cloud telephony product lines.
The case closed on 10 November 2025 — just 18 days after filing — when Diorite Technology filed a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Critically, the notice states the dismissal is without prejudice, and Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits unilateral dismissal before the defendant has filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment, which Avaya had not done. This means Diorite retains the legal right to re-file the same claims.
The speed of this resolution — 18 days — is highly atypical and suggests the dismissal may have been driven by early settlement negotiations, licensing discussions, a strategic reassessment, or procedural considerations rather than a merits adjudication. No defendant counsel is recorded, and no substantive court activity appears in the public record, leaving the underlying commercial rationale unknown.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 18 days
18 days from filing to dismissal — well below the typical district court median of 2+ years
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 notice means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral right to dismiss
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without court approval before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Avaya had done neither. The dismissal notice itself states ‘without prejudice,’ meaning the claims are not extinguished — Diorite could theoretically re-file against Avaya in the same or another court.
No court approval requiredThe notice says ‘without prejudice’ — re-filing remains possible
The filed notice explicitly states ‘without prejudice,’ which means Diorite Technology retains the right to bring the same infringement claims again. A ‘with prejudice’ dismissal would have permanently barred re-filing. Under Rule 41(a)(1), a first voluntary dismissal is without prejudice by default unless the notice states otherwise — and here the notice confirms that position. Avaya gains no preclusive protection from this dismissal.
Claims can be re-filedAvaya faces no preclusion but retains infringement exposure
Avaya LLC receives no judgment in its favour and no finding of non-infringement. The patent US8761746B2 remains valid and enforceable. Avaya’s Cloud Office and IP Office platforms remain potentially exposed to a refiled or reasserted claim. The absence of any recorded defendant counsel suggests Avaya may not have had the opportunity — or need — to mount a formal defence before dismissal.
No non-infringement findingCloud telephony IP risk: the case signals ongoing assertion activity
The rapid voluntary dismissal is consistent with early licensing discussions or a pre-litigation settlement, though no agreement is confirmed on the public record. For competitors operating cloud office and IP phone platforms, this case suggests US8761746B2 is being actively asserted. Companies in the unified communications and cloud telephony space should assess their exposure to this patent and monitor Diorite Technology’s litigation activity.
Monitor for re-filingFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Diorite Technology, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US8761746B2 covering cloud-integrated IP telephonySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Avaya LLC | Company | Avaya LLC — provider of Avaya Cloud Office and IP Office unified communications platformsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brian E. Farnan | Attorney | Counsel for Diorite Technology, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael J. Farnan | Attorney | Counsel for Diorite Technology, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Farnan LLP | Law Firm | Representing Diorite Technology, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Colm F. Connolly | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and expressly states ‘without prejudice,’ confirming this is a plaintiff-initiated exit before any substantive defence was mounted. No merits adjudication occurred — the court made no findings on infringement, validity, or claim scope. For Avaya, the practical effect is that litigation is paused rather than resolved; for Diorite, the patent and its claims remain fully intact and actionable against Avaya or other parties.
US8761746B2 — cloud-integrated IP telephony and office communications
US8761746B2, filed under application number US12/798978, covers technology in the domain of IP telephony and cloud-integrated office communications systems. The patent was asserted specifically against Avaya’s Cloud Office and IP Office platforms and the IP phones operating on those systems — suggesting its claims bear on how cloud-hosted PBX, call management, or device integration is implemented in enterprise telephony environments.
For the unified communications sector, US8761746B2 represents meaningful assertion risk. Cloud office platforms — including those offered by Avaya, Cisco, Microsoft, RingCentral, and others — share broadly similar IP phone integration architectures. A patent successfully asserted against Avaya’s platform may have claim scope broad enough to reach competing products, making this a priority patent for FTO review across the sector.
Should you run an FTO against US8761746B2?
Any product team developing or deploying cloud-hosted PBX systems, IP phone management software, or unified communications platforms should treat US8761746B2 as a live risk. Diorite Technology has demonstrated willingness to litigate in Delaware — a highly plaintiff-friendly venue for patent cases. The without-prejudice dismissal means the patent remains armed and Diorite retains full enforcement rights. Early FTO analysis is far less costly than defending a Delaware infringement action.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim language of US8761746B2 against your product architecture, identify prior art that may limit enforceability, and flag related patents in Diorite Technology’s portfolio. Eureka’s litigation monitoring tools also track new filings citing this patent — giving your team early warning before a complaint lands.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8761746B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases in cloud telephony and IP communications
Cases asserting IP telephony and cloud office communications patents in Delaware District Court — relevant precedents for assessing US8761746B2 litigation risk.
What this case signals for the cloud telephony IP landscape
An 18-day lifecycle and a without-prejudice exit raise strategic questions for any company competing in the cloud office and IP phone market.
Without-prejudice dismissals preserve plaintiff optionality — watch for re-filing
Diorite Technology’s dismissal does not extinguish US8761746B2 claims against Avaya or any other party. Patent assertion entities frequently use early voluntary dismissals to reset leverage, negotiate licensing terms, or re-file in a more favourable venue. Competitors in the unified communications sector should monitor for new filings citing this patent.
18-day cases often signal pre-litigation commercial resolution
When a case closes before the defendant even files an answer, the most common driver is rapid settlement or licensing agreement. While the public record is silent on terms, the timeline is consistent with a quick commercial resolution. This pattern is frequently observed in patent assertion entity litigation across the software and communications technology space.
Diorite v Avaya — key questions answered
Diorite Technology, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Avaya LLC in Delaware District Court on 23 October 2025, asserting US8761746B2 against Avaya Cloud Office and IP Office platforms. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on 10 November 2025 — 18 days after filing — before Avaya filed any answer or motion for summary judgment.
A without-prejudice dismissal means Diorite Technology can re-file the same claims against Avaya in the future. Avaya received no judgment of non-infringement and no finding that US8761746B2 is invalid. The patent remains fully enforceable and Avaya’s Cloud Office and IP Office products remain potentially exposed to refiled claims.
Diorite Technology asserted US8761746B2, filed under application number US12/798978, against Avaya’s Cloud Office and IP Office platforms and the IP phones operating on those systems. The patent covers technology in the domain of cloud-integrated IP telephony and office communications systems.
The case closed 18 days after filing, which is highly atypical for patent infringement litigation. This timeline is consistent with early settlement negotiations, a licensing agreement, or a strategic decision to re-file. The public record does not disclose the specific reason, and no defendant counsel or court activity was recorded before the dismissal notice was filed.
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a first voluntary dismissal is without prejudice unless otherwise stated. The notice here confirms without prejudice, preserving Diorite’s right to re-file. Notably, under Rule 41(d), if Diorite re-files against Avaya and previously dismissed the same claims, a court may order payment of costs from the prior action — a strategic consideration for both parties.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.