Metzger v. Schedule A Defendants: Infringement Action Dismissed Without Prejudice
Brandon Metzger, represented by Boies Schiller & Flexner, filed a patent infringement action in the Southern District of Florida asserting two patents against a broad class of unnamed defendants selling METZFAB products. The case closed in just 66 days after Metzger filed a voluntary dismissal before any defendant had answered or moved for summary judgment.
A swift Schedule A campaign ends before defendants respond
On July 25, 2025, Brandon Metzger filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 0:25-cv-61501) alleging patent infringement by a large, anonymised group of defendants — the so-called ‘Schedule A’ defendants — in connection with products identified as DOE 6, DOE 7, and METZFAB Products. The action asserted two issued U.S. patents: US9671272B1 and US9285259B1, both associated with measurement or fabrication technology covered under the METZFAB product line.
Before any defendant filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment, Metzger’s counsel filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on September 25, 2025. Judge Melissa Damian issued an order on September 29, 2025, formally dismissing the case without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and (B). The without-prejudice designation is critical: it means Metzger is not barred from refiling the same claims against the same or different defendants at a future date.
At 66 days from filing to closure, the resolution is notably swift even by Schedule A litigation standards, where early dismissals are not uncommon. The public record does not disclose whether the dismissal followed private settlement negotiations, enforcement difficulties in identifying defendants, or a strategic reassessment. No fees or costs were adjudicated. The patents-in-suit remain active and enforceable, leaving open the possibility of future enforcement action.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 66 days
66 days — resolved faster than the median S.D. Fla. patent case (~18 months)
Dismissed without prejudice: what the ruling means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s right of unilateral dismissal
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order at any time before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because no defendant had yet responded, Metzger could dismiss as of right — the court’s order was administrative confirmation, not a discretionary ruling. This is the lowest-friction exit route available in federal civil litigation.
No court discretion requiredWithout prejudice: the distinction that keeps options open
A dismissal without prejudice does not resolve the underlying claims on the merits and does not preclude refiling. By contrast, a dismissal with prejudice would permanently bar Metzger from asserting the same patents against the same parties. The court’s order explicitly invokes the without-prejudice standard, though the public record is silent on whether any side agreement governs future enforcement. Practitioners should treat the patents as still in play.
Claims may be reassertedDefendants exit without a merits ruling — but face ongoing risk
The Schedule A defendants obtained dismissal without any liability finding, costs award, or injunction. However, because the dismissal is without prejudice, they cannot rely on this case as a defence against future infringement claims on the same patents. Any defendant who received notice of the suit and has not obtained a licence or conducted an FTO analysis should treat this closure as temporary relief, not permanent resolution.
No permanent safe harbourMETZFAB IP remains live: enforcement risk persists for the sector
Schedule A litigation campaigns often involve iterative enforcement — filing, obtaining TROs, then dismissing and refiling against new or different defendant cohorts. The swift closure here, with no disclosed settlement terms, is consistent with a tactical reassessment or undisclosed resolution. Sellers of competing measurement or fabrication products operating in the same technology space should monitor Metzger’s enforcement activity and assess their exposure to US9671272B1 and US9285259B1.
Monitor for refilingFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Brandon Metzger | Individual | Individual patent holder and inventor — asserted US9671272B1 and US9285259B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Individuals, Corporations, Limited Liability Companies, Partnerships, and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous Schedule A defendants — sellers of DOE 6, DOE 7, and METZFAB-related productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jared Jules Schifman | Attorney | Counsel for Brandon MetzgerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Marshall Dore Louis | Attorney | Counsel for Brandon MetzgerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Brandon MetzgerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Melissa Damian | Judge | Florida Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order is purely procedural: Judge Damian confirmed that because no defendant had yet answered or moved for summary judgment, Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) entitled the plaintiff to dismiss as of right. The explicit without-prejudice designation under Rule 41(a)(1)(B) is the operative term for practitioners — it signals no merits adjudication occurred, no estoppel attaches, and the patents-in-suit remain fully enforceable. The order forecloses no future action by Metzger against these or other defendants.
US9671272B1 & US9285259B1 — METZFAB measurement and fabrication technology
US9671272B1 and US9285259B1 are both granted U.S. utility patents associated with the METZFAB product family, held by individual inventor-plaintiff Brandon Metzger. The patents were asserted in connection with DOE 6, DOE 7, and METZFAB Products, suggesting they cover measurement, sensing, or fabrication apparatus and methods. Both are B1 (single-publication) grants, indicating they issued without a prior publication, which is consistent with applications that proceeded relatively quickly through examination.
As individually held patents asserted against a broad Schedule A defendant group, these patents are consistent with a product-line enforcement strategy protecting a branded product category. The breadth of the defendant class — covering corporations, LLCs, partnerships, and individuals — suggests the plaintiff believes the relevant products are widely distributed, potentially via online marketplaces. Any company distributing products in the METZFAB-adjacent measurement or fabrication category should assess claim scope against their own product specifications.
Should your product team run an FTO against US9671272B1 and US9285259B1?
If your organisation manufactures, imports, or distributes measurement instruments, flow sensors, or fabrication equipment in categories that could overlap with the METZFAB product line, these two patents warrant a clearance review. The without-prejudice dismissal leaves both patents fully enforceable. The Schedule A litigation format means enforcement can resume rapidly against new defendant cohorts without warning.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and product teams to map claim scope for US9671272B1 and US9285259B1 against your product specifications, identify design-around opportunities, and flag prior art that may support an IPR petition. Running this analysis now — while no active litigation is pending — is lower cost and lower risk than responding to a future TRO application.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9671272B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Schedule A patent infringement cases in S.D. Florida
Browse comparable Schedule A patent infringement actions filed in the Southern District of Florida involving measurement, fabrication, or sensing technology IP.
What this case signals for the METZFAB and Schedule A IP landscape
A 66-day lifecycle and no merits ruling suggest this case is one chapter in a broader enforcement story — not the conclusion.
Without-prejudice dismissals in Schedule A cases rarely signal surrender
Plaintiffs in multi-defendant Schedule A actions frequently dismiss and refile to manage caseload, pursue settlements selectively, or address procedural obstacles. The absence of any disclosed settlement or injunction here means the METZFAB patents remain fully enforceable. Companies in the product space should not interpret this closure as a green light.
Both patents remain granted and asserted — FTO exposure is unchanged
US9671272B1 and US9285259B1 were not challenged, invalidated, or licensed on the public record. Any party manufacturing or distributing products that could read on these patents carries the same FTO risk today as before this case was filed. A proactive clearance analysis is warranted for anyone active in this product category.
Metzger v Individuals — key questions answered
The case was dismissed without prejudice. Judge Melissa Damian’s September 29, 2025 order, entered pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and (B), explicitly states the matter is dismissed without prejudice. This means Metzger retains the right to refile claims based on US9671272B1 and US9285259B1 against the same or different defendants.
Two U.S. patents were asserted: US9671272B1 (application no. US15/015909) and US9285259B1 (application no. US14/106497). Both are granted utility patents associated with the METZFAB product line and were asserted in connection with products identified as DOE 6, DOE 7, and METZFAB Products.
The public record does not disclose the reason for the voluntary dismissal. At 66 days from filing, the case closed before any defendant filed an answer. Possible explanations include undisclosed settlement, difficulty serving or identifying specific defendants, or a strategic reassessment of the enforcement approach. The without-prejudice nature of the dismissal suggests the plaintiff has preserved future options.
A without-prejudice dismissal means no liability was found and no permanent bar exists against the defendants. However, it also means they received no legal protection against future claims on the same patents. Unless a licence or settlement agreement was reached privately, the Schedule A defendants remain exposed to a new action asserting US9671272B1 and US9285259B1.
No. A voluntary dismissal without prejudice has no effect on patent validity or enforceability. Neither patent was challenged, subject to IPR, or adjudicated in this proceeding. Both US9671272B1 and US9285259B1 remain granted, in-force U.S. patents. Companies operating in product categories that may read on these patents should treat them as fully enforceable assets.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.