Book a demo
Flick Intelligence v. Jam City — Mobile Gaming Patent Infringement Case | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID6:23-cv-00653
FiledSep 2023
ClosedJan 2024
Patent Litigation

Flick Intelligence v. Jam City — Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice After 139 Days

Flick Intelligence, LLC asserted US9465451B2 against Jam City’s Jurassic World Alive mobile game in the Western District of Texas. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims without prejudice before Jam City answered, leaving the patent available for future assertion. Each party bore its own costs.

Resolution time
139days
Resolved in 139 days — well under the median for contested patent cases in W.D. Tex.
Patents asserted
1
US9465451B2 — Jurassic World Alive mobile game; gaming application interaction technology
Outcome
Dismissed
Without prejudice — Flick Intelligence may refile the same claims against Jam City
Cost ruling
Own costs
Each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees — no cost award made
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

Early pre-answer dismissal in mobile gaming patent dispute, W.D. Texas

On 7 September 2023, Flick Intelligence, LLC filed an infringement action against Jam City in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:23-cv-00653), before Chief Judge Alan D. Albright. The asserted patent was US9465451B2, and the accused products were Jam City’s Jurassic World Alive game and related gaming applications and systems. Flick Intelligence was represented by Ramey LLP, a firm frequently active in the W.D. Texas patent docket.

On 24 January 2024 — just 139 days after filing — Flick Intelligence filed a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), available as of right because Jam City had neither answered the complaint nor filed a motion for summary judgment. The dismissal was expressly stated to be without prejudice as to the asserted patent. Each party was directed to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees, consistent with the default Rule 41 position where no cost order is sought.

The pre-answer timing is commercially significant: dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) requires no court approval and leaves no adjudication on the merits. The public record does not disclose whether a settlement, licence agreement, or strategic reassessment drove the withdrawal. The without-prejudice designation means US9465451B2 remains a live enforcement asset — Jam City and others in the mobile gaming sector cannot treat this filing as a final resolution of their exposure under this patent.

Case at a glance
Case no.6:23-cv-00653
PlaintiffFlick Intelligence, LLC
DefendantJam City
CourtTexas Western
JudgeAlan D Albright
FiledSeptember 7, 2023
ClosedJanuary 24, 2024
Duration139 days
OutcomeVoluntarily dismissed
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisVoluntary dismissal
Case data sourced from PACER / Texas Western District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to resolution in 139 days

Resolved in 139 days — well under the median for contested patent cases in W.D. Tex.

Case timeline: Complaint filed May 13 2025, NOV–DEC — 139 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Flick Intelligence, LLC v Jam City from filing to voluntary dismissal. Source: PACER, Texas Western District Court. SEP 7 2023 Complaint filed NOV–DEC 2023 Pre-trial proceedings JAN 24 2024 Dismissed with prejudice 139 DAYS TOTAL
Dismissal terms

Voluntary dismissal without prejudice — what the record shows and what it leaves open

Legal mechanism

Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): dismissal as of right, no court approval needed

Because Jam City had not yet answered or filed a dispositive motion, Flick Intelligence could file a notice of voluntary dismissal unilaterally under FRCP Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). This mechanism requires no judicial sign-off and is effective immediately upon filing. It is frequently used when parties reach an off-docket resolution or when a plaintiff elects to pause litigation before incurring further expense.

FRCP Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)
Prejudice status

Without prejudice: the patent remains an active enforcement tool

The dismissal is expressly without prejudice as to the asserted patent, meaning no claim was decided on the merits and Flick Intelligence retains the right to reassert US9465451B2 against Jam City or any other defendant. The public record does not disclose whether a confidential licence or settlement underlies this filing — the without-prejudice designation alone does not resolve that question either way.

No merits adjudication
Cost allocation

Each party bears own costs — no fee-shifting triggered

The dismissal notice specifies that each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. This is the standard Rule 41 default where neither party seeks a cost order. It also means no § 285 exceptional-case fee-shifting motion was pursued by Jam City — consistent with the early, pre-answer posture of the dismissal.

No fee award
Enforcement signal

Ramey LLP’s filing pattern: W.D. Texas volume filer on gaming patents

Ramey LLP is one of the highest-volume plaintiff-side patent filers in the Western District of Texas. Pre-answer voluntary dismissals in this firm’s caseload can signal successful early licensing resolution, portfolio reassessment, or strategic reloading before refiling. Gaming sector defendants facing Ramey LLP complaints should treat early resolution as a plausible but unconfirmed outcome driver rather than an indicator of patent weakness.

PAE enforcement pattern
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 6:23-cv-00653 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffFlick Intelligence, LLCCompanyPatent assertion entity — holder of US9465451B2 (gaming application interaction technology)Search in Eureka ↗
DefendantJam CityCompanyJam City — mobile gaming developer and publisher; creator of Jurassic World AliveSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselJeffrey Eugene KubiakAttorneyCounsel for Flick Intelligence, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselWilliam P. Ramey , IIIAttorneyCounsel for Flick Intelligence, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselChristopher S. PonderAttorneyCounsel for Jam CitySearch in Eureka ↗
Defendant counselHarper S. BattsAttorneyCounsel for Jam CitySearch in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge Alan D AlbrightChief JudgeTexas Western District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Stipulation of dismissal — official text

“Pursuant to Federal Rule 41 (a)(1)(A)(i), the Plaintiff, Flick Intelligence, LLC, files this notice of voluntary dismissal of this action for all of Plaintiff’s claims as defendant has not answered or filed a motion for summary judgment. The dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims shall be WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to the asserted patent. Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees.”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 6:23-cv-00653, Texas Western District Court · Filed January 24, 2024

The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) precisely — signalling Jam City had not yet filed any responsive pleading, giving Flick Intelligence the unilateral right to exit. The explicit without-prejudice carve-out as to the asserted patent is deliberate drafting: it preserves every infringement claim for future use. The own-costs provision forecloses any fee motion. Together, this language is consistent with a confidential resolution or a tactical pause, but the public record supports neither conclusion definitively.

PACER case 6:23-cv-00653 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

US9465451B2 — Mobile Gaming Application Interaction Technology

Publication No.US9465451B2
Application No.US13/413859
Patent details
AssigneeFlick Intelligence, LLC
ProductUS9465451B2 — Jurassic World Alive; gaming application interaction systems
Publication typeB2 — grant (with prior publication)
Cited in actionSeptember 7, 2023

US9465451B2 (application number US13/413859) covers technology in the mobile gaming interaction space, asserted here against Jam City’s Jurassic World Alive game and related gaming application systems. The patent sits within a technical domain that typically encompasses user-device interaction mechanics — potentially including gesture, sensor, or location-based inputs used to drive gameplay events. The application number suggests a filing timeline consistent with the early smartphone gaming era, when foundational interaction-layer patents were actively prosecuted.

For the mobile gaming sector, a patent of this type carries meaningful strategic weight. Jurassic World Alive is a location-aware, augmented-reality-adjacent mobile game — a product category that relies heavily on device-sensor integration and real-time interaction logic. If US9465451B2 claims read on those mechanics, the patent is potentially relevant to a wide class of AR and location-based mobile games beyond Jam City’s portfolio. The without-prejudice dismissal leaves this question entirely unresolved, making the patent a continuing risk asset for the sector.

Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Freedom to operate

Should your gaming product run an FTO against US9465451B2?

Any R&D or product team building mobile games that incorporate gesture-based controls, sensor-driven gameplay, location-aware mechanics, or augmented reality interaction layers should assess their exposure to US9465451B2. The fact that this patent survived to litigation — and was dismissed without prejudice rather than invalidated — means it has not been stress-tested through claim construction or IPR. Products with feature overlaps to Jurassic World Alive are the clearest candidates for an FTO review.

PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows IP teams to map the claims of US9465451B2 against your specific product feature set, identify prior art that could support an IPR challenge, and monitor for related continuation filings from Flick Intelligence’s portfolio. Claim monitoring for this patent family is particularly advisable given the without-prejudice dismissal — the next assertion may arrive with less pre-litigation notice than this case provided.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9465451B2 to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

Similar mobile gaming patent infringement cases in W.D. Texas

PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Flick Intelligence, LLC patent enforcement history, Texas Western case history, Flick Intelligence, LLC’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
PAE v. mobile AR gameRamey LLP W.D. Texas casesGaming interaction patentsRule 41 pre-answer dismissals
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this case signals for the mobile gaming IP landscape

A pre-answer dismissal without prejudice leaves every substantive question open. Gaming developers and IP teams should take the right lessons — not assume closure.

Without-prejudice dismissal means US9465451B2 is still live — plan accordingly

Jam City received no invalidity ruling, no non-infringement finding, and no licence on the public record. Any mobile gaming developer whose products touch the technology claimed in US9465451B2 should treat this patent as an active enforcement risk. The 139-day lifecycle of this case is too short to have produced any claim construction or prior art analysis that could assist future defendants.

W.D. Texas remains a high-activity venue for gaming patent assertions

Chief Judge Albright’s docket continues to attract patent assertion entities targeting app-based and mobile gaming products. Companies with meaningful gaming application portfolios — particularly those featuring location-based, augmented reality, or interaction-layer mechanics — face elevated filing risk in this venue. Monitoring Ramey LLP’s filing activity in W.D. Texas is a practical early-warning measure.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Includes sector IP trends, Judge Treadwell’s case history, and FTO risk assessment for the truck equipment space
Claim-level risk mappingFlick Intelligence portfolio depthRamey LLP filing velocity trend
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Flick v Jam — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

Run a patent risk analysis for your gaming product

US9465451B2 remains assertable after this dismissal. Use PatSnap Eureka to run an FTO search against your product’s interaction mechanics and monitor for new filings from this patent family.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.