Mobility Workx v. Intertek USA — Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice
Mobility Workx, LLC filed a patent infringement action against testing and assurance firm Intertek USA, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting US7231330B2 covering emulation products and services. After 209 days, Mobility Workx voluntarily dismissed its own complaint before Intertek even filed an answer — leaving the door open for future re-filing.
Pre-answer dismissal in Eastern Texas emulation patent dispute
Mobility Workx, LLC — a patent assertion entity holding US7231330B2 — filed suit against Intertek USA, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 4:24-cv-01061) on November 29, 2024, alleging infringement through Intertek’s emulation products and services. The case was assigned to Judge Amos L. Mazzant, a judge known for his active patent docket in the Eastern District. Mobility Workx was represented by Machat & Associates PC and Zeisler PLLC; Intertek retained the Dallas and Chicago offices of Winston & Strawn LLP.
On June 26, 2025 — 209 days after filing — Mobility Workx filed a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), dismissing the action without prejudice. Critically, this rule permits a plaintiff to dismiss as of right, without a court order, provided the defendant has not yet served an answer or motion for summary judgment. Because Intertek had not yet answered the complaint, the dismissal took immediate effect upon filing. Each party was directed to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.
The pre-answer timing is commercially significant: it suggests the matter resolved — or that strategy shifted — before meaningful merits litigation commenced. The without-prejudice designation means Mobility Workx retains the right to refile the same claims against Intertek, subject to applicable statutes of limitations. What the public record does not reveal is whether the parties reached any informal resolution, licensing arrangement, or whether Mobility Workx simply reassessed the strength of its infringement position. The absence of fee-shifting is consistent with a plaintiff-initiated exit at the earliest procedural stage.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 209 days
209 days — case closed before defendant’s answer was due
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s right to exit without court approval
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss its own action as of right — with no court order required — by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or a Rule 12 motion. Because Intertek had not yet answered, Mobility Workx exercised this right unilaterally. The dismissal became effective the moment the notice was filed, with no judicial discretion involved.
No court order requiredWithout prejudice: the public record does not confirm a settlement
A dismissal without prejudice means the claims are not extinguished — Mobility Workx could theoretically refile the same patent infringement action against Intertek in the future, subject to the applicable statute of limitations. A dismissal with prejudice would permanently bar re-filing. The public record here states only ‘voluntary dismissal’ without specifying a confidential settlement, license, or other resolution. Practitioners should not assume a deal was reached — the basis is silent on that point.
Re-filing right preservedIntertek exits without a merits ruling — but exposure remains
Intertek USA obtained a cost-neutral exit before being required to file an answer, avoiding substantive litigation costs at the merits stage. However, the without-prejudice dismissal means Intertek has not secured a finding of non-infringement or invalidity. The patent US7231330B2 remains in force, and Intertek’s emulation products remain potentially exposed to a refiled action. No injunction, damages award, or consent judgment was entered.
No merits adjudicationEach party bears its own fees — no prevailing party designation
The voluntary dismissal notice specifies that each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. This is the standard outcome for a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal and does not indicate any exceptional case finding under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Neither party is designated a prevailing party, which also forecloses any Rule 54(d) cost award in favour of Intertek. The fee allocation is neutral and consistent with an agreed or uncontested exit.
No fee-shiftingFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Mobility Workx, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US7231330B2 covering emulation technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Intertek USA, Inc. | Company | Intertek USA, Inc. — global testing, inspection and assurance services providerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Daniel B Ravicher | Attorney | Counsel for Mobility Workx, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Machat | Attorney | Counsel for Mobility Workx, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Machat & Associates PC | Law Firm | Representing Mobility Workx, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Zeisler PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Mobility Workx, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Chad Brian Walker | Attorney | Counsel for Intertek USA, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Krishnan Padmanabhan | Attorney | Counsel for Intertek USA, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Saranya Raghavan | Attorney | Counsel for Intertek USA, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Winston Strawn LLP (Chicago) | Law Firm | Representing Intertek USA, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Winston Strawn LLP (Dallas) | Law Firm | Representing Intertek USA, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Winston Strawn LLP | Law Firm | Representing Intertek USA, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Amos L Mazzant | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) explicitly and confirms that Intertek had not yet answered — making this a plaintiff’s unilateral right of dismissal, not a negotiated consent order. The without-prejudice designation is outcome-determinative: US7231330B2 remains enforceable and Mobility Workx’s claims are not extinguished. The mutual cost-bearing provision, while standard for this procedural posture, may also suggest that both parties agreed to the exit terms informally without a formal settlement agreement being placed on the record.
US7231330B2 — emulation products and services technology
US7231330B2 (application number US10/909588) is a granted US patent asserted by Mobility Workx, LLC in this action. The patent relates to emulation products and services, a domain that encompasses software and hardware systems that replicate the behaviour of network devices, communication protocols, or hardware platforms for testing and assurance purposes. The patent’s application number prefix suggests filing in the mid-2000s, consistent with an era of active innovation in network emulation and simulation technology.
For testing and assurance companies like Intertek — which operates certification and compliance testing services for connected devices — emulation-based tools are central to their commercial offering. A valid, enforceable patent covering emulation methodology could implicate a wide range of testing platforms used in IoT, telecommunications, and consumer electronics certification. The patent has not been invalidated in this action, and no IPR petition appears to have been filed, meaning its claims remain intact and potentially applicable to multiple industry participants beyond Intertek.
Should you run an FTO against US7231330B2?
Any company developing, licensing, or deploying emulation-based testing or network simulation products should treat US7231330B2 as a live enforcement risk. The dismissal without prejudice does not extinguish the patent or signal that Mobility Workx has abandoned enforcement. R&D teams building emulation engines, virtualisation layers, or protocol simulation tools — particularly those targeting certification or compliance testing markets — should assess whether their implementations fall within the claim scope of this patent before commercialising.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows IP and R&D teams to run a claim-level freedom-to-operate analysis against US7231330B2 in minutes. Eureka can map your product’s technical features against the patent’s independent claims, surface relevant prior art that could support a validity challenge, and identify the prosecution history context that shapes claim interpretation. For companies operating in the Eastern District of Texas’s patent-active jurisdiction, early FTO analysis is a cost-effective alternative to reactive litigation defence.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7231330B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar emulation technology patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas
Explore related patent infringement actions involving emulation and network simulation technology litigated in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Mazzant and peers.
What this case signals for the emulation technology IP landscape
A pre-answer voluntary dismissal in the Eastern District of Texas raises questions about enforcement strategy and the durability of emulation patent claims.
Pre-answer exit preserves plaintiff optionality — watch for refiling
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal without prejudice is one of the lowest-cost ways for a plaintiff to pause litigation. Mobility Workx retains full rights to refile against Intertek or assert US7231330B2 against other emulation technology providers. Companies in the testing and assurance space operating emulation platforms should monitor this patent for renewed enforcement activity.
No answer filed signals very early-stage resolution or strategic pivot
The fact that Intertek never served an answer — and the case ran 209 days — suggests either protracted pre-answer negotiations or a strategic reassessment by Mobility Workx. In the Eastern District of Texas, defendants typically answer within 21 days absent an extension. A 209-day pre-answer window is atypical and suggests agreed extensions or informal resolution discussions were underway throughout.
Mobility v Intertek — key questions answered
Mobility Workx, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Intertek USA, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas asserting US7231330B2 related to emulation products and services. After 209 days, and before Intertek filed an answer, Mobility Workx voluntarily dismissed the case without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Each party bore its own costs.
Yes. A dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) does not extinguish the underlying claims. Mobility Workx retains the right to refile the same infringement action against Intertek USA, subject to the applicable statute of limitations for patent infringement (generally six years under 35 U.S.C. § 286). No settlement or licence agreement is confirmed by the public court record.
No. The case was dismissed before any substantive merits proceedings, and Intertek never filed an answer. There was no invalidity finding, no non-infringement ruling, and no IPR petition recorded in this action. US7231330B2 remains an enforceable granted US patent following the dismissal.
Plaintiffs exercise Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissals for several reasons: informal settlement or licensing negotiations, strategic reassessment of claim strength, desire to refile in a different venue, or resolution of a business dispute outside formal litigation. The public record in this case does not specify the reason, and practitioners should not infer a settlement from the dismissal notice alone.
Judge Mazzant of the Eastern District of Texas is an experienced patent judge with a substantial patent docket. His court is a preferred venue for patent assertion entities due to its procedural familiarity with patent cases and historically plaintiff-friendly scheduling. The case’s filing in his court is consistent with deliberate venue selection by Mobility Workx, even though the case was dismissed before any substantive rulings were issued.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.