Minotaur Systems v. Stellantis: Power Management Patent Case Voluntarily Dismissed
Minotaur Systems, LLC filed suit against Stellantis in the Eastern District of Texas asserting US9652023B2, a power management system patent. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice just 352 days after filing, before Stellantis had answered the complaint or moved for summary judgment.
Power management patent case ends before Stellantis files any response
Minotaur Systems, LLC, represented by Rabicoff Law LLC, filed a patent infringement action against Stellantis in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:25-cv-00640) on 16 June 2025, before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The sole patent asserted was US9652023B2 (application no. US12/508789), directed to a power management system. Stellantis is the named defendant.
The recorded basis of termination is Voluntary dismissal. The docket order states that Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Court accepted and acknowledged that all claims against Stellantis were dismissed without prejudice. The order expressly notes that Stellantis had not yet answered the Complaint or moved for summary judgment at the time of dismissal.
The case closed on 3 June 2026, approximately 352 days after filing. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, Minotaur Systems retains the ability to refile claims subject to applicable statutes of limitations. No merits ruling was reached and no settlement terms are disclosed in the available public record. The specific reasons driving the early voluntary dismissal before any responsive pleading are not stated in the public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 352 days
352 days from filing to voluntary dismissal in E.D. Texas
US9652023B2 — Power Management System
Any automotive OEM, tier-one supplier, or EV technology company developing power management systems, vehicle energy controllers, or related architectures should consider a freedom-to-operate assessment against US9652023B2. The patent remains in force following this without-prejudice dismissal, and no invalidity finding has been recorded. Product teams integrating power distribution or energy management modules into vehicles face the greatest exposure.
Official order — verbatim text
The court's order is procedural in nature: it accepts and acknowledges a plaintiff-initiated voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), expressly recording the without-prejudice qualifier and confirming that Stellantis had not yet answered. No finding on infringement, validity, or claim construction was made, meaning the legal status of US9652023B2 is entirely unaffected by this proceeding.
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 dismissal means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff-initiated dismissal before answer
Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Here, the court accepted and acknowledged the dismissal as without prejudice. No judicial merits determination was made. The procedural posture confirms Stellantis had not yet filed any responsive pleading.
No merits rulingWithout prejudice: what the public record does and does not confirm
A dismissal without prejudice means the claims are not extinguished and may potentially be refiled. A dismissal with prejudice would bar future claims on the same patent against the same defendant. The docket order expressly states the dismissal is without prejudice. The specific terms or conditions, if any, underlying the decision to dismiss are not disclosed in the available public record.
Claims not extinguishedStellantis exits without a binding merits judgment
Stellantis is dismissed from this action without having filed an answer or summary judgment motion. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, no collateral estoppel or res judicata protection attaches on the merits of US9652023B2. Stellantis's exposure to re-litigation under this patent in another action or a refiled complaint is not foreclosed by this order.
No preclusive effectPatent remains enforceable; automotive sector should monitor
US9652023B2 survives this proceeding unscathed — no invalidity or non-infringement finding was made. Automotive OEMs and tier-one suppliers developing power management systems should note that the patent remains in force and may be asserted again. The early voluntary dismissal without prejudice leaves the enforcement posture of this patent unresolved.
Patent still liveFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Minotaur Systems, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Stellantis | Individual | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Phillip Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for Minotaur Systems, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rabicoff Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing Minotaur Systems, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the automotive power management IP space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from the Minotaur Systems v. Stellantis case — tracking portfolio activity, filing trends, and white space in vehicle power management.
Minotaur Systems' patent holdings in power management
Minotaur Systems' assertion of US9652023B2 against a major OEM suggests a focused enforcement strategy around power management IP. R&D teams should map the full scope of this entity's patent portfolio to identify whether additional related patents exist that could be asserted against vehicle energy management architectures — particularly as electrification expands the attack surface.
Portfolio watchFiling trends in automotive power management systems
Power management systems for vehicles sit at the intersection of electrification, software-defined vehicles, and energy optimisation — all high-filing-activity domains. Tracking patent application trends in this space can reveal where competitors are building IP moats around power distribution, battery management, and energy harvesting architectures relevant to next-generation OEM platforms.
Sector filing trendStellantis's own patent activity in power management
Stellantis is a global OEM with active R&D in vehicle electrification. Assessing Stellantis's own patent filings in power management and energy control systems provides insight into their defensive IP position and the technical approaches they are protecting — useful intelligence for competitors and suppliers evaluating freedom to operate in this domain.
Competitor IP mapAdjacent innovation opportunities near US9652023B2
The claims of US9652023B2 define a boundary in the power management system IP landscape. Mapping the white space adjacent to this patent — including next-generation energy optimisation algorithms, solid-state power controllers, and vehicle-to-grid integration — can reveal R&D directions where patent protection is thinner and innovation investment is less contested.
White space mapSimilar power management patent cases in E.D. Texas
Explore comparable patent infringement actions involving power management and vehicle electronics technology filed in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Gilstrap.
What this case signals for the automotive power management IP landscape
An early voluntary dismissal before answer is a strategic pause, not a final resolution — the patent and the enforcement question both remain open.
Early dismissal before answer preserves all future options for the patentee
Minotaur Systems withdrew before Stellantis could mount any invalidity or non-infringement defence on the record. This preserves US9652023B2 from any adverse merits finding in this case. Competitors and licensees in the power management space should treat this patent as still active and subject to enforcement.
Eastern District of Texas remains a preferred venue for power management assertions
Filing before Judge Gilstrap in E.D. Texas signals deliberate venue selection consistent with patterns seen in patent assertion activity. Even though this case closed early, the choice of forum is a data point that suggests continued enforcement activity in this district for this technology category is plausible.
Minotaur v Stellantis — key questions answered
The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. Minotaur Systems filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before Stellantis answered the complaint or moved for summary judgment. The court accepted and acknowledged the dismissal. No merits ruling was made on the infringement claims.
Minotaur Systems asserted US9652023B2 (application no. US12/508789), directed to a power management system. This was the sole patent at issue in the action filed in the Eastern District of Texas. The patent was not challenged or invalidated in these proceedings.
A dismissal without prejudice means no final merits judgment was entered and the patent claims were not adjudicated. US9652023B2 remains in force and, subject to applicable statutes of limitations, Minotaur Systems could potentially refile claims against Stellantis or others. No invalidity or non-infringement finding attaches from this case.
The case was assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Gilstrap is one of the most prolific patent trial judges in the United States, and E.D. Texas remains a frequently selected venue for patent infringement actions.
Not on the merits of US9652023B2. Because the dismissal is without prejudice and no merits determination was made, no collateral estoppel or res judicata protection arises from this proceeding on issues of infringement or validity. Stellantis would need to defend any refiled action on its own terms. The specific terms underlying the dismissal are not disclosed in the available public 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.