Flick Intelligence v. Lucid Software: Dismissed With Prejudice in 72 Days
Flick Intelligence LLC asserted US9459762B2 — covering bidirectional communications and data-sharing methods — against Lucid Software’s Visual Collaboration Suite in Utah federal court. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice before Lucid answered, ending the case in just 72 days with each party bearing its own costs.
Pre-answer dismissal with prejudice ends Lucid collaboration patent dispute
On September 29, 2025, Flick Intelligence LLC filed suit against Lucid Software Inc in the District of Utah (Case No. 2:25-cv-00868), before Judge Ann Marie McIff Allen. The complaint asserted infringement of US9459762B2, a patent directed at methods, systems, and processor-readable media for supporting bidirectional communications and data sharing, which Flick Intelligence alleged was practised by Lucid’s Visual Collaboration Suite — a widely used diagramming and collaboration platform.
On December 10, 2025 — just 72 days after filing — Flick Intelligence filed a notice of voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which permits a plaintiff to dismiss without a court order before the defendant has answered or moved for summary judgment. Critically, the notice expressly stated the dismissal is with prejudice as to the asserted patent, and that each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.
The speed and prejudice designation are notable. A with-prejudice dismissal is an unusual self-imposed outcome — Flick Intelligence permanently forfeits the right to re-assert US9459762B2 against Lucid Software. The public record does not disclose whether a confidential settlement was reached or what drove the decision, but the cost-neutrality term and pre-answer timing together suggest a negotiated resolution or a strategic reassessment by the plaintiff is plausible.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 72 days
72 days — resolved well before the typical 18–24 month district court patent trial cycle
Dismissed with prejudice: what the voluntary exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral right to exit before answer
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss without a court order, provided the defendant has not yet answered or moved for summary judgment. Flick Intelligence exercised this right, but added an express with-prejudice designation — an unusual and binding self-limitation that goes further than the rule requires. The court need not approve this dismissal; it is effective upon filing.
Pre-answer voluntary dismissalWith prejudice is a permanent bar — not the default under Rule 41
A Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal is ordinarily without prejudice unless the notice states otherwise. Here, Flick Intelligence expressly chose with prejudice as to the asserted patent. This means the plaintiff is permanently barred from re-filing the same claims against Lucid Software based on US9459762B2. The public record does not specify why this stronger designation was chosen — whether reflecting a settlement term or a unilateral concession remains unknown.
Permanent bar on re-filingFlick Intelligence exits with no recovery and no path back against Lucid
By accepting a with-prejudice outcome, Flick Intelligence surrenders any future enforcement of US9459762B2 against Lucid Software specifically. Each party bearing its own fees means no cost award softens the exit. Whether the patent retains value for assertion against other defendants is unaffected by this dismissal — the bar is party-specific, not a finding on validity or infringement.
Patent still live vs. third partiesLucid Software obtains permanent peace on this patent without litigating
Lucid Software never filed an answer, meaning it incurred limited litigation costs and avoided any invalidity or non-infringement adjudication on the merits. The with-prejudice designation delivers a durable litigation shield: Flick Intelligence cannot return with the same patent. Lucid’s Visual Collaboration Suite continues operating without any court-ordered restriction, and no royalty or injunction exposure was established.
No merits ruling — clean exitFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Flick Intelligence LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9459762B2, bidirectional data-sharing methodsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Lucid Software Inc | Company | Lucid Software Inc — developer of the Visual Collaboration Suite (Lucidchart/Lucidspark)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William P. Ramey , III | Attorney | Counsel for Flick Intelligence LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ramey, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Flick Intelligence LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christopher D. Mays | Attorney | Counsel for Lucid Software IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jackson Stephen Walker | Attorney | Counsel for Lucid Software IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | James C. Yoon | Attorney | Counsel for Lucid Software IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Lucid Software IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Ann Marie McIff Allen | Judge | Utah District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice is explicit: Flick Intelligence invoked Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and designated the dismissal with prejudice as to the asserted patent. This phrasing permanently extinguishes Flick Intelligence’s infringement claims against Lucid Software under US9459762B2. Because no answer had been filed, no court approval was required, and no merits determination — on validity, claim construction, or infringement — was made. The cost-neutrality clause removes any fee-shifting exposure for either party, delivering a clean procedural close.
US9459762B2 — Bidirectional Communications and Data Sharing Methods
US9459762B2, filed under application number US14/253223, covers methods, systems, and processor-readable media for supporting bidirectional communications and data sharing. The patent sits in the technical domain of interactive collaborative software — the class of invention that enables real-time, multi-directional data exchange between users or processes within a shared digital environment. This is directly relevant to modern cloud-based collaboration and diagramming platforms.
The commercial significance of this patent lies in its potential coverage of core interaction features within visual collaboration tools — precisely the category in which Lucid Software operates with Lucidchart and Lucidspark. As cloud-based co-editing, real-time whiteboarding, and integrated workflow platforms proliferate, patents claiming bidirectional data-sharing architectures represent a credible assertion vector. Any competitor offering synchronous multi-user editing, shared canvas functionality, or real-time data sync should treat this patent as a monitoring priority.
Should your product team run an FTO against US9459762B2?
If your organisation develops or deploys software featuring real-time collaborative editing, shared digital workspaces, bidirectional data sync, or multi-user communication frameworks — including diagramming tools, virtual whiteboards, project management platforms, or co-authoring applications — US9459762B2 warrants a formal freedom-to-operate assessment. The patent’s dismissal against Lucid does not affect its enforceability against other parties, and the case confirms Flick Intelligence is actively asserting it.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables product and IP teams to map US9459762B2 claim language against your specific feature set, identify prior art that could support an IPR petition, and benchmark your exposure against known assertion targets in the collaboration software sector. With the IPR window tied to service of a complaint, early analysis is time-critical for any company that receives a demand related to this patent.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9459762B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: bidirectional communications software disputes in US courts
Cases involving bidirectional communications and data-sharing patents asserted against collaboration software platforms in US district courts, including the District of Utah.
What this case signals for the visual collaboration IP landscape
A pre-answer, with-prejudice exit in 72 days raises pointed questions about assertion strategy and patent value in the collaboration software sector.
Pre-answer dismissals with prejudice are rare — they often signal a deal
Most Rule 41(a)(1) dismissals are without prejudice, preserving optionality. A plaintiff choosing the with-prejudice form before the defendant even answers is uncommon and typically suggests either a confidential settlement that required the stronger bar, or a plaintiff who concluded the case lacked merit. IP teams tracking Flick Intelligence’s portfolio should monitor whether similar rapid resolutions appear in parallel cases.
No fee-shifting means neither party claimed exceptional case status
The own-costs term forecloses any 35 U.S.C. § 285 exceptional-case fee motion by Lucid Software, which is consistent with an agreed exit. Had Lucid believed the case was objectively baseless, it could have pursued fees after dismissal under certain conditions. The clean cost split suggests both sides preferred finality to further litigation risk — a pattern common in early-stage NPE settlements.
Flick v Lucid — key questions answered
It means Flick Intelligence permanently waived its right to sue Lucid Software again on US9459762B2. Unlike a without-prejudice dismissal — which preserves the right to refile — a with-prejudice dismissal is a final disposition on the merits of the plaintiff’s claims against that specific defendant, even though no court adjudication on infringement or validity occurred.
Yes. The with-prejudice designation in this case is party-specific — it bars Flick Intelligence from re-suing Lucid Software on this patent, but has no bearing on enforcement against third parties. US9459762B2 remains a live, issued patent and can be asserted in new actions against other companies operating in the collaboration software, diagramming, or real-time data-sharing space.
The public record does not disclose the reason. Plausible explanations include: a confidential settlement in which Lucid required the with-prejudice bar as a condition; a plaintiff assessment that the case lacked sufficient merit to continue; or a commercial agreement that rendered ongoing litigation unnecessary. The cost-neutrality clause is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a unilateral plaintiff concession.
US9459762B2 is a US utility patent filed under application number US14/253223. It covers methods, systems, and processor-readable media for supporting bidirectional communications and data sharing. The patent is relevant to collaborative software environments — particularly platforms that enable real-time, multi-directional data exchange between users, such as visual collaboration, co-editing, and integrated workflow tools.
The case was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Utah as Case No. 2:25-cv-00868, assigned to Judge Ann Marie McIff Allen. Plaintiff Flick Intelligence was represented by William P. Ramey III of Ramey LLP; Lucid Software was represented by Christopher D. Mays, Jackson Stephen Walker, and James C. Yoon of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, LLP.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.