Longhorn HD v. Noon Technology & TerraMaster: Case Dismissed in 152 Days
Longhorn HD LLC brought patent infringement claims against Noon Technology and TerraMaster in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting two data storage patents covering backup systems and removable hard drive assemblies. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice within five months of filing, with each party bearing its own costs.
Data storage patent claims dropped before defendants responded
On 30 December 2022, Longhorn HD LLC filed an infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:22-cv-00502) against Noon Technology Co., Ltd. and TerraMaster Technology Co., Ltd., asserting two patents: US8725924B2, covering an information backup system with a storing mechanism and method of operation, and US6938104B2, covering a removable hard disk drive assembly, computer implementation, and initialization method.
The recorded basis of termination is 'Case Dismissed.' The docket order states that Longhorn HD LLC filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal representing that the case is dismissed with prejudice; the court accepted the notice and, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), dismissed all pending claims and causes of action with prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees. All pending requests for relief not explicitly granted were denied as moot.
The case closed on 31 May 2023, just 152 days after filing — before any defendant agents or law firms were recorded on the docket. The speed of resolution and absence of recorded defense counsel suggests the matter concluded at a very early procedural stage. What drove the plaintiff's decision to dismiss is not disclosed in the available public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Case Dismissed in 152 days
Case resolved in under 6 months — well below the E.D. Texas median for patent cases
US8725924B2 & US6938104B2 — data backup and removable drive assembly patents
Any R&D or product team developing or commercialising information backup systems, NAS appliances, or removable hard drive assemblies for the US market should assess their exposure to US8725924B2 and US6938104B2. This case confirms that Longhorn HD is willing to file in E.D. Texas against storage hardware companies, and both patents remain enforceable. The dismissal provides no claim construction guidance, so the scope of risk remains uncharted.
Official order — verbatim text
The court accepted Longhorn HD's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal and entered dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), without requiring defendant consent, as no answer or summary judgment motion had been filed. The with-prejudice designation forecloses Longhorn HD from reasserting these specific claims against Noon Technology and TerraMaster, but carries no merits adjudication on infringement or patent validity. Each party bears its own costs and attorneys' fees.
Case dismissed: what the voluntary dismissal with prejudice means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff-initiated dismissal without a court order
Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The court accepted the notice and entered dismissal with prejudice, meaning the same claims cannot be refiled against these defendants. The recorded basis of termination is 'Case Dismissed'; the docket order characterises it as a voluntary dismissal with prejudice.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissalDismissal with prejudice bars Longhorn HD from refiling these claims
A dismissal with prejudice operates as an adjudication on the merits for preclusion purposes. Longhorn HD LLC cannot reassert US8725924B2 or US6938104B2 against Noon Technology or TerraMaster in future litigation on the same claims. The patents themselves remain in force and could be asserted against other parties, but the specific claims against these defendants are extinguished. No damages or injunctive relief were recorded as awarded.
Claims extinguished vs. these defendantsDefendants exit litigation with no merits ruling and no recorded costs liability
Noon Technology and TerraMaster secured dismissal with prejudice — the strongest form of plaintiff-initiated exit — without any recorded defendant counsel filing an appearance. The cost-neutrality order means neither party recovers attorneys' fees from the other. While preclusion protects the defendants from these specific claims, no invalidity finding was entered, leaving the patents' validity undisturbed for third-party enforcement purposes.
No costs, no merits rulingStorage hardware makers retain exposure on these patents from other claimants
Because no invalidity ruling was entered, US8725924B2 and US6938104B2 remain valid and enforceable against other defendants in the backup system and removable drive space. Companies in the NAS, external storage, and enterprise backup sectors should monitor these patents for continued assertion activity. The early dismissal provides no guidance on claim scope, leaving uncertainty in freedom-to-operate assessments for competing products.
Patents remain enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Longhorn HD, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Noon Technology Co., Ltd. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | TerraMaster Technology Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John Andrew Rubino | Attorney | Counsel for Longhorn HD, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Justin Kurt Truelove | Attorney | Counsel for Longhorn HD, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Mondelli , III | Attorney | Counsel for Longhorn HD, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Vincent J. Rubino , III | Attorney | Counsel for Longhorn HD, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fabricant LLP (NY) | Law Firm | Representing Longhorn HD, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rubino Ip | Law Firm | Representing Longhorn HD, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rubino Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing Longhorn HD, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Truelove Law Firm | Law Firm | Representing Longhorn HD, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in data backup and removable storage IP
Forward-looking patent intelligence signals derived from Longhorn HD v. Noon Technology & TerraMaster — covering backup systems, removable drives, and NAS IP activity.
Longhorn HD's assertion footprint in storage patent families
Longhorn HD LLC's willingness to assert both a backup-system patent and a removable drive patent in a single action suggests a coordinated portfolio strategy in the storage hardware space. Mapping Longhorn HD's full patent holdings may reveal additional continuation or related patents in backup management and drive interfacing that could be deployed in future enforcement campaigns against NAS and external storage OEMs.
Portfolio monitoring priorityFiling trends in backup system and NAS storage architectures
The backup system and removable storage drive segments continue to attract patent filings as cloud-adjacent NAS, hybrid backup, and edge storage architectures evolve. Tracking filing trends around storing mechanisms, drive initialization methods, and backup orchestration can surface both assertion risk and white-space opportunities for next-generation storage product teams planning US market entry.
NAS & backup IP trendsTerraMaster's defensive patent position in the NAS market
TerraMaster Technology Co., Ltd. operates in the consumer and SMB NAS segment. Assessing TerraMaster's own patent filings and any cross-licensing relationships can reveal how well-defended its product lines are against future storage patent assertions. A thin defensive portfolio relative to competitors may indicate ongoing vulnerability to assertion campaigns in the US market.
TerraMaster IP vulnerabilityDesign-around opportunities in backup and removable drive initialization
The claim scope of US8725924B2 and US6938104B2 spans storing-mechanism-based backup and hot-swap drive initialization. R&D teams can identify white space by analysing claim boundaries and finding adjacent technical approaches — such as cloud-integrated backup orchestration or firmware-level drive management — that fall outside asserted claim scope while meeting the same functional need in modern storage products.
Design-around white spaceSimilar patent cases: data backup & removable storage in E.D. Texas
Explore related infringement actions asserting backup system and removable hard drive patents in the Eastern District of Texas and comparable US venues.
What this case signals for the data storage patent IP landscape
An early voluntary dismissal with prejudice in E.D. Texas raises questions about assertion strategy and patent durability in the storage hardware sector.
Early dismissal with prejudice suggests a resolved dispute or strategic retreat
When a plaintiff dismisses with prejudice at Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) stage — before defendants even appear — it typically signals either a private resolution or a reassessment of claim viability. The specific terms driving this outcome are not disclosed in the available record. Competitors and licensees should treat the dismissal as inconclusive on patent validity.
US8725924B2 and US6938104B2 remain active enforcement tools post-dismissal
Neither patent was invalidated or disclaimed. Any company selling information backup systems or removable hard drive assemblies that overlaps with the claim scope of these two patents retains exposure from Longhorn HD or any future assignee. An updated FTO analysis against both patents is advisable for NAS and external storage product teams.
Longhorn v Noon — key questions answered
Longhorn HD LLC asserted two patents: US8725924B2, covering an information backup system with a storing mechanism and method of operation, and US6938104B2, covering a removable hard disk drive assembly, a computer configured for such a drive, and the method of initializing and operating it. Both patents were asserted in a single infringement action filed in the Eastern District of Texas on 30 December 2022.
The recorded basis of termination is 'Case Dismissed.' The docket order states that Longhorn HD LLC filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal representing that the case was dismissed with prejudice; the court accepted the notice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and dismissed all pending claims with prejudice. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees. The specific terms driving the plaintiff's decision to dismiss are not disclosed in the available record.
The dismissal with prejudice forecloses Longhorn HD LLC from reasserting US8725924B2 or US6938104B2 against Noon Technology and TerraMaster on the same claims. However, it does not prevent Longhorn HD or any future assignee from asserting these patents against different defendants. No invalidity or non-infringement finding was entered, so the patents remain enforceable against third parties.
Yes. Because the case was dismissed without any merits adjudication — no claim construction, no invalidity ruling, and no infringement finding — both US8725924B2 and US6938104B2 remain in force and enforceable. Companies operating in the backup system and removable storage hardware space should treat these patents as active enforcement risks and consider FTO analysis against both patent families.
The public record does not disclose the reason for the voluntary dismissal. The notice was filed before any defendant counsel appeared on the docket, and the court dismissed the case under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — which permits dismissal before an answer or summary judgment motion is filed. Whether the dismissal reflects a private resolution, a strategic reassessment, or another factor cannot be determined from the available record.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.