Dynamic Data Innovations v. TravisMathew: Dismissed With Prejudice After 439 Days
Dynamic Data Innovations LLC filed a patent infringement action against apparel and lifestyle brand TravisMathew, LLC in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting US9632676B1. The parties jointly stipulated to dismiss all claims with prejudice after 439 days, with each side bearing its own costs — a resolution that also closed a consolidated lead case.
A Consolidated E.D. Texas Patent Dispute Ends in Mutual Dismissal
On September 12, 2024, Dynamic Data Innovations LLC filed a patent infringement action against TravisMathew, LLC in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, asserting US9632676B1 in connection with TravisMathew’s consumer-facing web platform. The case was assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00748 and formed part of a consolidated series, with Lead Case No. 2:24-cv-00712 running in parallel under the same judge.
The case closed on November 25, 2025, via a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The court accepted the stipulation, dismissing all of Dynamic Data Innovations’ claims against TravisMathew with prejudice — permanently barring re-assertion of the same claims — while TravisMathew’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, preserving the defendant’s ability to revive those specific claims. Each party was ordered to bear its own legal costs.
The 439-day duration suggests the parties engaged in meaningful litigation activity — including likely claim construction and discovery — before reaching a negotiated exit. The simultaneous closure of the lead consolidated case indicates this was a coordinated resolution across multiple defendants or related actions. The public record does not disclose whether a financial settlement accompanied the dismissal, which is consistent with confidential licensing resolutions common in E.D. Texas patent litigation.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 439 days
439 days — above the median for E.D. Texas patent cases resolved before trial
With-prejudice dismissal: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41 joint stipulation — no court merits ruling required
A dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) is a consent-based procedural exit: both parties sign, and the court accepts without adjudicating the merits. Here, the plaintiff’s infringement claims were dismissed with prejudice by agreement, meaning the court never ruled on whether US9632676B1 was valid or infringed — but the plaintiff cannot re-file the same claims against TravisMathew.
Consent dismissal — no merits rulingWith-prejudice bar permanently closes this claim against TravisMathew
Dynamic Data Innovations accepted a with-prejudice dismissal of its infringement claims, which functions as a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes. The plaintiff cannot re-assert US9632676B1 against TravisMathew in a future action based on the same accused conduct. Whether a confidential licence or payment accompanied this exit is not disclosed in the public record, but the with-prejudice posture typically suggests either a settlement or a strategic decision to cease pursuit.
Claims extinguished against this defendantCounterclaims survive — TravisMathew retains future flexibility
TravisMathew’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, meaning the defendant preserved the right to revive those claims — potentially including invalidity or declaratory judgment arguments — in a future proceeding if circumstances warrant. This asymmetric dismissal structure is commercially meaningful: TravisMathew avoided a with-prejudice bar on its own affirmative positions while securing finality on the plaintiff’s claims.
Counterclaims preserved without prejudiceConsolidated case closure signals coordinated resolution across the series
The court’s simultaneous closure of Lead Case No. 2:24-cv-00712 — noted in the same order — indicates this was part of a broader coordinated resolution involving multiple defendants or related entities. For other defendants in the consolidated series, or companies operating comparable e-commerce platforms, US9632676B1 remains a live enforcement risk: the patent’s validity was not adjudicated and no IPR outcome is reflected in this record.
Broader enforcement risk remainsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Dynamic Data Innovations LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9632676B1 covering digital data managementSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | TravisMathew, LLC | Company | TravisMathew, LLC — apparel and lifestyle brand operating travismathew.comSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Anthony Hao | Attorney | Counsel for Dynamic Data Innovations LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Carey Matthew Rozier | Attorney | Counsel for Dynamic Data Innovations LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Danielle De La Paz | Attorney | Counsel for Dynamic Data Innovations LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James Francis McDonough , III | Attorney | Counsel for Dynamic Data Innovations LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathan Lloyd Hardt | Attorney | Counsel for Dynamic Data Innovations LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Travis E. Lynch | Attorney | Counsel for Dynamic Data Innovations LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Dynamic Data Innovations LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brandon Scott Avers | Attorney | Counsel for TravisMathew, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David M. Stein | Attorney | Counsel for TravisMathew, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | J. Thad Heartfield | Attorney | Counsel for TravisMathew, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Neil J McNabnay | Attorney | Counsel for TravisMathew, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Riley James Green | Attorney | Counsel for TravisMathew, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson PC | Law Firm | Representing TravisMathew, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson PC (Dallas) | Law Firm | Representing TravisMathew, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Olson Stein LLP | Law Firm | Representing TravisMathew, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | The Heartfield Law Firm | Law Firm | Representing TravisMathew, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation’s asymmetric dismissal structure is legally precise: plaintiff’s claims exit with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), creating a res judicata bar equivalent to an adverse judgment, while defendant’s counterclaims exit without prejudice. The court’s acceptance without modification, combined with the mutual cost-bearing order and simultaneous closure of the lead consolidated case, is consistent with a confidential settlement. No merits ruling on US9632676B1’s validity or infringement scope was issued.
US9632676B1 — digital data management and user interface technology
US9632676B1 is a granted US utility patent (application number US14/882679) directed to digital data management technology. The B1 designation indicates it issued without a prior publication, suggesting a relatively streamlined prosecution history. The patent was asserted in the context of TravisMathew’s consumer-facing web platform at travismathew.com, suggesting the claims cover functionality relevant to e-commerce or digital user experience systems — areas where broad claim language can capture a wide range of platform implementations.
For the apparel and lifestyle e-commerce sector, US9632676B1 represents the type of platform-agnostic digital IP that patent assertion entities deploy across multiple defendants simultaneously. The patent’s validity was never adjudicated in this proceeding, leaving it enforceable against other operators. Companies building or maintaining consumer web platforms with data management, personalisation, or UI-driven features should treat this patent as an active enforcement risk and consider prior art searches and claim mapping as a precautionary measure.
Should you run an FTO against US9632676B1?
Any company operating a consumer-facing e-commerce or digital platform with data management or user interface functionality similar to travismathew.com should consider a freedom-to-operate analysis against US9632676B1. Dynamic Data Innovations pursued a consolidated multi-defendant strategy in E.D. Texas — a pattern that typically signals continued enforcement activity. The patent’s claims were never narrowed or invalidated in this proceeding, meaning its full scope remains operative against new targets.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can rapidly map US9632676B1’s independent claims against your product architecture, surface relevant prior art that could support an IPR petition, and flag other pending Dynamic Data Innovations litigation. For in-house IP teams at apparel, retail, or digital platform companies, early FTO work on this patent is a lower-cost alternative to defending a full E.D. Texas infringement action.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9632676B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar digital data patent cases in E.D. Texas: what happened next
These cases involve comparable digital data management or e-commerce platform patent assertions before the Eastern District of Texas, including actions by patent assertion entities.
What this case signals for the digital data and e-commerce IP landscape
E.D. Texas remains a preferred venue for digital patent assertions. This consolidated action highlights recurring risk patterns for web platform operators.
E.D. Texas consolidation tactics amplify settlement pressure on defendants
Filing consolidated actions across multiple defendants in Judge Gilstrap’s court is a well-established enforcement strategy. Each defendant faces independent litigation costs even where the underlying patent and accused platform functionality are substantially similar. Companies operating consumer-facing web platforms should monitor docket activity around US9632676B1 and related Dynamic Data Innovations filings.
With-prejudice exit leaves patent validity unresolved — risk persists for the sector
Because no court ruled on the validity or scope of US9632676B1, the patent retains full presumptive validity. Any e-commerce or digital data platform operator with similar functionality to TravisMathew’s website should consider whether an FTO analysis or IPR petition is warranted before assuming this resolution eliminates broader enforcement risk.
Dynamic v TravisMathew — key questions answered
A with-prejudice dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) permanently bars Dynamic Data Innovations from re-asserting the same US9632676B1 infringement claims against TravisMathew based on the same accused conduct. It functions as a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes, even though no court ruled on validity or infringement.
This asymmetric structure reflects a negotiated outcome. TravisMathew agreed to the with-prejudice bar on plaintiff’s claims — providing finality for the defendant — while preserving its own counterclaims (potentially invalidity or declaratory judgment) without prejudice. This suggests TravisMathew retained leverage, possibly a strong invalidity argument, that it chose to keep available rather than waive.
The simultaneous closure of Lead Case No. 2:24-cv-00712 alongside Case No. 2:24-cv-00748 indicates Dynamic Data Innovations filed a coordinated multi-defendant action series. The resolution of all cases in the consolidated series in a single order is consistent with a global settlement covering all defendants in the group, though the financial terms remain undisclosed.
No. The dismissal was on consent and without any merits adjudication. US9632676B1 retains its full presumptive validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282. No court ruling narrowed its claims or found prior art. The patent remains enforceable against other parties, and Dynamic Data Innovations is free to assert it in new actions against different defendants.
The case was filed in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, one of the most active patent judges in the United States. E.D. Texas is a well-established plaintiff-favoured venue for patent assertion entity litigation due to its established patent procedures and historically plaintiff-friendly reputation, which often increases settlement pressure on defendants regardless of claim merits.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.