Kephart Consulting v. ClearView AI: Patent Infringement Action Voluntarily Dismissed
Kephart Consulting, LLC asserted US10796137B2 — a patent covering a technique for providing security — against facial recognition company ClearView AI, Inc. in the Southern District of New York. The case closed after 145 days when Kephart filed a voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), leaving the door open for future enforcement.
Security technique patent asserted against ClearView AI, then withdrawn
On 26 September 2024, Kephart Consulting, LLC filed an infringement action against ClearView AI, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:24-cv-07307), presided over by Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke. The asserted patent, US10796137B2, covers a technique for providing security — a technology domain directly relevant to ClearView AI’s facial recognition and identity-verification platform.
On 18 February 2025, Kephart Consulting filed a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), expressly stating that the dismissal is without prejudice. Because ClearView AI had not yet answered the complaint or filed a motion for summary judgment, Kephart was entitled to dismiss as of right under the rule, requiring no court approval. The without-prejudice designation means all claims survive and may be refiled.
The 145-day resolution — before any substantive defendant response — suggests the parties may have reached a preliminary commercial understanding, or that Kephart elected to reassess litigation strategy, though the public record does not disclose the reason. The absence of any fee or cost award is consistent with a pre-answer dismissal. Whether Kephart refiles, in this or another venue, remains an open question that competitors and licensees in the security-technology space should monitor.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 145 days
145 days — closed before defendant answered or moved for summary judgment
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 withdrawal means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): dismissal as of right, no court order needed
Federal Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order at any time before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Kephart invoked this right on 18 February 2025. Because ClearView AI had not yet responded to the complaint, no judicial approval was required. The dismissal is self-executing upon filing of the notice.
Pre-answer voluntary dismissalKephart expressly chose without prejudice — claims survive
The notice explicitly states the dismissal is without prejudice, meaning Kephart retains the right to refile the same infringement claims against ClearView AI in the future, subject to applicable statutes of limitations. A with-prejudice dismissal would have permanently extinguished those claims. The public record does not disclose whether any settlement or licensing agreement was reached; the without-prejudice election alone does not confirm or deny a resolution.
Claims not extinguishedClearView AI exits without a merits ruling — but exposure persists
ClearView AI avoids any infringement finding, injunction, or damages award from this action. The company never filed an answer or invalidity challenge, so no claim construction or validity record was created. However, the without-prejudice dismissal means ClearView AI cannot treat this case as a final resolution. The same patent, US10796137B2, remains in force and assertable, and ClearView AI’s product remains a potential target for future litigation.
No merits adjudicationSecurity-tech patent remains live: FTO risk persists for the sector
US10796137B2 was not challenged, construed, or invalidated in this proceeding, leaving its scope entirely intact. Companies operating in biometric security, facial recognition, and identity-verification technology should treat this patent as an active enforcement risk. The early withdrawal pattern — before any defendant response — is consistent with a licensing discussion or strategic repositioning, both of which suggest the patent holder views the asset as commercially viable.
Active enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Kephart Consulting, LLC | Company | IP licensing entity — holder of US10796137B2, security technique patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | ClearView AI, Inc. | Company | ClearView AI, Inc. — facial recognition and biometric identity technology companySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David John Hoffman | Attorney | Counsel for Kephart Consulting, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Law Office David J. Hoffman | Law Firm | Representing Kephart Consulting, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ronald Andrew Giller | Attorney | Counsel for ClearView AI, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gordon & Rees, LLP | Law Firm | Representing ClearView AI, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke | Judge | New York Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The notice of voluntary dismissal explicitly invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and states the dismissal is without prejudice. This is a plaintiff-controlled procedural exit requiring no judicial ruling on the merits. The express without-prejudice language is significant: it preserves Kephart’s right to refile identical claims. ClearView AI receives no declaratory judgment and no invalidity finding — its freedom-to-operate position is unchanged by this termination.
US10796137B2 — Technique for Providing Security
US10796137B2, filed under application number US16/372346, covers a technique for providing security — a broad designation that, in the context of this litigation against a facial recognition company, suggests claims relevant to biometric authentication, identity verification, or surveillance-based access control. The patent’s issued status and its deployment against ClearView AI indicate the patentee views it as directly applicable to automated visual recognition systems.
The patent’s strategic value lies in its potential breadth across the security-technology sector. ClearView AI’s core business — large-scale facial recognition for law enforcement and commercial clients — sits squarely within the target zone of security-technique patents. No claim construction has occurred, meaning the scope remains undefined and potentially expansive. For competitors and investors, this is an asset to track: an unlitigated, unchallenged patent in a high-growth, high-scrutiny technology vertical.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US10796137B2?
Any company building or deploying biometric security systems, facial recognition platforms, identity verification tools, or access-control technologies should assess their exposure to US10796137B2. The patent has been asserted against one of the most prominent companies in the facial recognition space, and the without-prejudice dismissal signals the patentee has not abandoned enforcement intentions. Product teams releasing new security-tech features should flag this patent for pre-launch FTO review.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claims of US10796137B2 against your product architecture, identify prior art that could support an invalidity challenge, and surface any related continuation or family patents that may present parallel risk. Because no court has construed these claims, a proactive Eureka analysis is the most reliable way to define your risk perimeter before a demand letter arrives.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10796137B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar biometric security patent infringement cases in SDNY and related courts
These cases involve security and biometric technology patents litigated at the district court level, comparable in procedural posture or technology domain to Kephart v. ClearView AI in the Southern District of New York.
What this case signals for the biometric security IP landscape
A pre-answer voluntary dismissal without prejudice in a facial recognition patent case rarely signals the end of the dispute.
Without-prejudice dismissals are a negotiating tool, not a concession
Plaintiffs routinely file and withdraw infringement actions to create licensing leverage or test defendant resolve. The Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) mechanism costs the plaintiff nothing in terms of claim preservation. Companies in the biometric and security-technology space should monitor refiling activity around US10796137B2 closely.
ClearView AI’s lack of response left no invalidity record on the table
Because ClearView AI did not answer or file a motion, no invalidity arguments, claim charts, or prior art analysis entered the public record. If this patent is asserted again, any defendant will be starting from scratch without the benefit of prior litigation history to draw on.
Kephart v ClearView — key questions answered
It means Kephart Consulting withdrew all claims against ClearView AI using Federal Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which allows dismissal as of right before the defendant answers. The without-prejudice designation preserves Kephart’s right to refile the same infringement claims in the future. No merits ruling was made and the patent US10796137B2 remains fully enforceable.
Kephart Consulting asserted US10796137B2, filed under application number US16/372346, which covers a technique for providing security. The patent was asserted in the context of ClearView AI’s facial recognition and biometric identity technology products and services.
The public record does not disclose the reason. The dismissal occurred before ClearView AI filed any answer or motion, which is consistent with early-stage licensing negotiations, a strategic reassessment by the plaintiff, or a preliminary commercial arrangement. The without-prejudice election suggests the plaintiff did not consider the matter permanently resolved.
No. The patent was not challenged, construed, or reviewed on the merits during this proceeding. US10796137B2 remains in force with its claims entirely intact. The dismissal creates no invalidity record, estoppel, or prosecution history that would limit future enforcement or affect claim scope.
Yes. A dismissal without prejudice explicitly preserves the plaintiff’s right to refile. Kephart Consulting may bring the same claims based on US10796137B2 against ClearView AI again, in the Southern District of New York or another appropriate venue, subject to applicable statutes of limitations. There is no court order or agreement on the record preventing refiling.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.