GeoSymm Ventures v. Relinns Technologies: Assistive Agent Patent Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
GeoSymm Ventures, LLC filed suit against Relinns Technologies, Inc. in the Southern District of Texas asserting US9130900B2, a patent covering assistive agent technology. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice after 181 days, before the defendant filed any answer or summary judgment motion.
Early voluntary exit: GeoSymm drops assistive agent suit before answer
On May 8, 2024, GeoSymm Ventures, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Relinns Technologies, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Case No. 4:24-cv-01707), before Judge Lee H. Rosenthal. The asserted patent, US9130900B2 (application no. US13/841294), covers assistive agent technology — a category that broadly encompasses intelligent agent-based communication and network assistance systems. The accused product is described as an ‘assistive agent’ offered by Relinns Technologies.
The case closed on November 5, 2024, after just 181 days, when GeoSymm invoked Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) to voluntarily dismiss the action. Critically, the dismissal was filed before Relinns Technologies had answered the complaint or moved for summary judgment, meaning the plaintiff was entitled to dismiss as of right without requiring court approval. The dismissal was without prejudice, meaning GeoSymm retains the legal right to refile claims based on the same patent against the same defendant in future proceedings.
The speed of resolution — 181 days from filing to closure, with no recorded defendant appearance — is consistent with early-stage patent assertion campaigns where pre-litigation negotiations or reassessment of claim strength prompt withdrawal. No costs or fee-shifting ruling appears in the public record. What drove the dismissal — whether a licensing agreement, strategic reassessment, or inability to maintain the action — remains unknown from publicly available information. The without-prejudice posture preserves GeoSymm’s optionality, which may be commercially significant depending on Relinns’ product roadmap.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 181 days
181 days — resolved before defendant response; faster than average district court patent litigation
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s right to dismiss without court order
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. GeoSymm exercised this right, making the dismissal self-executing and immediately effective. No judicial approval was required, and no merits determination was made. This mechanism is among the cleanest procedural exits available in U.S. federal litigation.
Procedural dismissal — no merits rulingWithout prejudice: the distinction matters, but the record is silent on terms
A ‘without prejudice’ dismissal means the plaintiff is not barred from refiling the same claims. This contrasts with a ‘with prejudice’ dismissal, which operates as a final adjudication on the merits and forecloses future action. The public record confirms this was without prejudice, but does not disclose whether a private licensing agreement, covenant not to sue, or other arrangement accompanied the dismissal. Practitioners should not assume the absence of a resolution — only its non-public nature.
Refiling rights preservedGeoSymm retains enforcement optionality against Relinns
By dismissing without prejudice, GeoSymm Ventures preserves the right to reassert US9130900B2 against Relinns Technologies in future proceedings, subject to applicable statutes of limitations and any private agreements not reflected in the public record. This posture is consistent with licensing-focused assertion strategies where early dismissal accompanies a commercial resolution or signals intent to reinitiate if negotiations fail.
Patent enforcement rights intactRelinns exits without prejudice ruling — but faces residual risk
Relinns Technologies secured a closure without any adverse judgment, costs award, or injunction. However, because the dismissal was without prejudice, it does not provide the finality of a dismissal with prejudice or an invalidity ruling. Relinns remains exposed to future infringement claims under US9130900B2 unless it obtained a covenant not to sue, a license, or otherwise addressed the underlying IP risk — none of which appear in the public record.
No res judicata protectionFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | GeoSymm Ventures, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9130900B2 covering assistive agent technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Relinns Technologies, Inc. | Company | Relinns Technologies, Inc. — technology company accused of infringing assistive agent patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Philip Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for GeoSymm Ventures, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rabicoff Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing GeoSymm Ventures, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Lee H Rosenthal | Judge | Texas Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and confirms the action is dismissed without prejudice. The phrasing explicitly references that the defendant had not yet answered or moved for summary judgment — the precise procedural threshold that entitles a plaintiff to dismiss as of right. No merits adjudication occurred. For Relinns Technologies, there is no res judicata protection. For GeoSymm, US9130900B2 remains fully enforceable and the claims are preserved for potential future assertion.
US9130900B2 — Assistive Agent Network Communication Technology
US9130900B2 (application US13/841294) is a U.S. patent in the domain of assistive agent technology — broadly covering intelligent agent systems that facilitate communication, routing, or assistance functions within networked environments. The patent was asserted by GeoSymm Ventures, LLC, a patent holding entity, against Relinns Technologies’ accused ‘assistive agent’ product. The application number suggests a filing in the early 2010s, placing it in the era of growing interest in AI-assisted communication architectures.
From a strategic standpoint, patents covering assistive agent frameworks carry meaningful risk for software and SaaS companies whose products incorporate virtual assistants, automated routing, or intelligent agent layers. GeoSymm’s assertion against Relinns suggests the patent holder views the claims as broadly applicable to commercial assistive agent implementations. Companies operating in this space — particularly those offering AI-powered customer service, network assistance, or automated communication tools — should assess their exposure to US9130900B2 before a demand letter arrives.
Should your product team run an FTO against US9130900B2?
Any company developing or commercialising assistive agent technology — including virtual assistants, AI-powered communication platforms, intelligent routing systems, or automated customer engagement tools — should consider whether US9130900B2’s claims read on their product. GeoSymm’s willingness to file suit in the Southern District of Texas signals active enforcement intent. The absence of a merits ruling means claim scope has not been judicially narrowed, making independent claim analysis essential.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claims of US9130900B2 against your product’s feature set, identify relevant prior art that could support an IPR petition, and surface related patents in GeoSymm’s portfolio or the broader assistive agent IP landscape. For R&D and product teams building in this space, a proactive FTO review is a lower-cost alternative to defending infringement litigation in federal court.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9130900B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar assistive agent patent infringement cases in U.S. district courts
Cases involving assistive agent and intelligent network communication patents asserted by NPEs in U.S. district courts, including the Southern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the assistive agent IP landscape
Early voluntary dismissals in patent assertion cases often mask commercial activity. Here is what practitioners and product teams should consider.
Without-prejudice exits preserve enforcement — monitor GeoSymm’s next moves
GeoSymm’s Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal before any defendant response is a classic pattern in licensing-first patent assertion. The without-prejudice posture means US9130900B2 remains live against Relinns and, importantly, against any other assistive agent technology provider that has not secured a license or invalidity ruling.
No answer filed means no invalidity defenses on record — a gap for the sector
Because Relinns never answered, no invalidity contentions, prior art arguments, or claim construction positions were placed on the public record. Competitors and potential targets of US9130900B2 assertions cannot rely on any judicial narrowing of the patent’s scope from this litigation. An independent FTO or IPR analysis of US9130900B2 is advisable for companies in the assistive agent space.
GeoSymm v Relinns — key questions answered
GeoSymm Ventures, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Relinns Technologies, Inc. in the Southern District of Texas in May 2024, asserting US9130900B2 covering assistive agent technology. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice after 181 days under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), before the defendant filed any answer or summary judgment motion.
A voluntary dismissal without prejudice means GeoSymm Ventures is not barred from refiling infringement claims based on US9130900B2 against Relinns Technologies or other defendants in the future. No merits determination was made, and the patent remains fully enforceable. The dismissal provides no invalidity or non-infringement protection to Relinns or any third party.
US9130900B2 (application US13/841294) covers assistive agent technology in the context of networked communication systems. It is relevant to companies whose products incorporate intelligent agents, virtual assistants, automated communication routing, or AI-assisted interaction layers. GeoSymm asserted the patent against Relinns’ ‘assistive agent’ product, suggesting broad claim applicability across software and SaaS platforms in this category.
Yes. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, GeoSymm Ventures retains the right to refile against Relinns Technologies based on the same patent, subject to applicable statutes of limitations and any private agreements not disclosed in the public record. The dismissal does not constitute a final adjudication and provides no res judicata protection to Relinns.
No IPR or PTAB proceeding against US9130900B2 is reflected in the public record from this case. Because the district court litigation ended without a merits ruling and no invalidity contentions were placed on record, the patent’s validity has not been judicially tested. Companies in the assistive agent sector may wish to evaluate whether an IPR petition is warranted based on their own prior art searches.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.