Emerald Lake Hills v. Cloudera: Voluntary Dismissal After 34 Days
Emerald Lake Hills, LLC filed a patent infringement suit against Cloudera, Inc. in the Western District of Texas asserting US11636413B2 against Cloudera’s entire data platform portfolio. The case closed just 34 days after filing when the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims before Cloudera filed any answer.
A 34-day patent assertion against Cloudera’s data platform ends before it begins
On May 15, 2024, Emerald Lake Hills, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Cloudera, Inc. in the Western District of Texas before Judge Robert Pitman, asserting US11636413B2 against a broad range of Cloudera’s commercial offerings — including Cloudera Data Platform (CDP Private and Public Cloud), Cloudera Data Engineering, Cloudera DataFlow, Cloudera Data Hub, Cloudera Data Mesh, Cloudera Enterprise, Cloudera Management Console, Cloudera SDX, and Cloudera Unified Data Fabric.
On June 17, 2024, just 34 days after filing, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), dismissing all claims without prejudice. Because Cloudera had not yet served an answer or motion for summary judgment, the dismissal was self-effectuating and required no court order. The court formally closed the case the following day. The public record does not specify whether a settlement or licence was reached, nor whether re-filing is anticipated.
A 34-day lifespan is strikingly short even by early-dismissal standards and typically signals one of several scenarios: a pre-answer settlement, a licensing resolution, a strategic withdrawal pending claim amendments, or a venue reconsideration. Because the dismissal carries no prejudice, Emerald Lake Hills retains the right to refile the same claims. The absence of any defendant law firm on the docket suggests Cloudera had minimal formal engagement before the case dissolved, leaving the underlying infringement questions entirely unresolved.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 34 days
34 days — well below the median district court patent case lifespan of 2+ years
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): a unilateral, self-effectuating exit
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order simply by filing a notice, provided the opposing party has not yet served an answer or summary judgment motion. The dismissal takes effect immediately upon filing — no judicial approval is required. The court’s closing order was administrative, not substantive. No merits ruling was made on infringement or validity of US11636413B2.
No merits adjudicationWithout prejudice: the distinction the public record leaves open
A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ preserves the plaintiff’s right to refile the same claims against the same defendant in the future. A dismissal ‘with prejudice’ would bar refiling permanently. The verdict text expressly states ‘without prejudice,’ meaning Emerald Lake Hills retains full refiling rights. However, the public record is silent on whether any side agreement — such as a licence, covenant not to sue, or standstill — further constrains that right in practice.
Refiling right preservedCloudera exits without conceding anything — but risk remains
Cloudera faces no injunction, no damages award, and no finding of infringement. Because no answer was filed, Cloudera also made no invalidity arguments on the record. The without-prejudice nature of the dismissal means the threat to CDP Private Cloud, CDP Public Cloud, Cloudera DataFlow, and the broader unified data fabric portfolio is not formally extinguished. Cloudera would be well-served to assess its FTO position on US11636413B2 proactively.
No liability — but exposure unresolvedPortfolio-wide assertion scope suggests a licensing strategy in play
The complaint named nine distinct Cloudera products spanning private cloud, public cloud, data engineering, and data governance — a breadth consistent with a licensing-focused assertion rather than a targeted infringement remedy. Early voluntary dismissals in PAE-pattern cases frequently precede refiling in a different venue, claim mapping refinements, or concluded licence negotiations. Data platform and hybrid cloud vendors operating in this technology space should monitor US11636413B2 and related family members closely.
Licensing play likelyFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Emerald Lake Hills, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US11636413B2, a data platform management patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Cloudera, Inc. | Company | Cloudera, Inc. — enterprise data platform and hybrid cloud analytics providerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Timothy Devlin | Attorney | Counsel for Emerald Lake Hills, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Devlin Law Firm LLC | Law Firm | Representing Emerald Lake Hills, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Robert Pitman | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s closing order confirms the dismissal was self-effectuating under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — no merits finding on infringement or patent validity was made. The express ‘without prejudice’ designation is legally significant: it preserves Emerald Lake Hills’ right to refile identical claims against Cloudera at any future point, subject only to any private agreement between the parties that the public record does not disclose. The citation to In re Amerijet confirms this is a clean procedural close, not a substantive adjudication.
US11636413B2 — enterprise data platform management and orchestration
US11636413B2 (application US17/542351) covers technology in the enterprise data platform and data management orchestration domain. The patent’s assertion against nine Cloudera products — spanning private cloud, public cloud, data engineering pipelines, data flow, data governance (SDX), and unified data fabric — suggests claims with broad applicability to cloud-native and hybrid data infrastructure. The corrected application number indicates a continuation-style filing lineage, which may be relevant to claim scope analysis.
The strategic significance of US11636413B2 lies in its apparent coverage of core architectural functions common to modern enterprise data platforms. Cloudera’s CDP suite competes directly with offerings from Databricks, Snowflake, and Palantir in the data lakehouse and data fabric space — all of which could theoretically fall within scope if the claims are construed broadly. For competitors and adjacent vendors, understanding the precise claim boundaries of this patent is commercially urgent, particularly given the without-prejudice exit and the plaintiff’s preserved refiling rights.
Should your data platform run an FTO against US11636413B2?
Any vendor building or deploying enterprise data platform infrastructure — including hybrid cloud data pipelines, data fabric architectures, data engineering orchestration tools, or unified data governance layers — should treat US11636413B2 as an active risk. The without-prejudice dismissal means the assertion is unresolved. R&D teams developing features that overlap with data platform management or cloud data orchestration functionality are particularly exposed, and product counsel should evaluate claim mapping before the next product release cycle.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claims of US11636413B2 against your specific product architecture, surface the full patent family including any pending continuations, and identify prior art that could support an IPR or inter partes validity challenge. For data platform vendors seeking to understand whether their CDP-equivalent workflows fall within the patent’s scope, Eureka provides claim-level analysis without requiring manual prosecution history review.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11636413B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar data platform patent cases in W.D. Texas and related venues
Cases involving enterprise data platform and cloud infrastructure patents litigated in the Western District of Texas and comparable PAE-active venues.
What this case signals for the enterprise data platform IP landscape
A 34-day lifecycle and nine-product claim scope together tell a pointed story about patent assertion tactics in the data platform sector.
Without-prejudice exits in W.D. Tex. frequently precede renewed assertion
The Western District of Texas remains a favoured venue for patent assertion entities. A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal before any responsive pleading preserves venue options and resets the clock. Data platform vendors should treat this as a pause, not a resolution — particularly where the asserting entity holds continuation or divisional patents in the same family.
Nine-product scope signals licence-seeking, not targeted infringement relief
Naming CDP Public Cloud, CDP Private Cloud, Cloudera DataFlow, Cloudera SDX, and five other products in a single complaint is atypical for a focused infringement case. This breadth is consistent with a royalty-base maximisation strategy. Enterprise data platform vendors facing similar assertion patterns should assess claim mapping across their product portfolios before any litigation response.
Emerald v Cloudera — key questions answered
Emerald Lake Hills, LLC filed a patent infringement suit against Cloudera, Inc. in the Western District of Texas on May 15, 2024, asserting US11636413B2. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims without prejudice on June 17, 2024 — 34 days after filing — before Cloudera filed any answer, under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The court closed the case the following day with no merits ruling.
A without-prejudice dismissal means Emerald Lake Hills retains the right to refile the same infringement claims against Cloudera in the future. Cloudera received no formal liability finding but also obtained no invalidity ruling on US11636413B2. The underlying patent threat to Cloudera’s data platform products — including CDP Public Cloud, CDP Private Cloud, and Cloudera DataFlow — remains legally unresolved.
The public record does not disclose the reason. A 34-day voluntary dismissal before any responsive pleading is consistent with several scenarios: a pre-litigation licence or settlement reached shortly after filing, a strategic withdrawal to refile in a different venue or after claim amendments, or a decision to pause pending further claim mapping. The without-prejudice designation preserves all future options for the plaintiff.
The complaint named nine Cloudera products: Cloudera Data Engineering, Cloudera Data Hub, Cloudera Data Mesh, Cloudera Data Platform (including CDP Private Cloud and CDP Public Cloud), Cloudera DataFlow, Cloudera Enterprise, Cloudera Management Console, Cloudera SDX, and Cloudera Unified Data Fabric. This portfolio-wide scope is atypical of targeted infringement actions and suggests a broad licensing assertion strategy.
Yes. Because the dismissal was expressly without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Emerald Lake Hills is legally entitled to refile the same claims against Cloudera. However, a second voluntary dismissal of the same claims against the same defendant would operate as a dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(B), the ‘two-dismissal rule.’ Any private agreement between the parties — such as a covenant not to sue — could further restrict refiling but is not disclosed in the public record.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.