Nostromo LLC v. Kyocera Corp. — Four-Patent Infringement Action Dismissed With Prejudice
Nostromo LLC asserted four US patents against Kyocera smartphones and tablets — including the DuraForce PRO 3 with AV1 video codec — in the Eastern District of Texas. After 275 days, Nostromo voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), permanently extinguishing its right to refile the same claims against Kyocera.
Four-Patent Assault on Kyocera Ends in Permanent Surrender by Plaintiff
On July 19, 2024, Nostromo LLC — a patent assertion entity represented by Fabricant LLP — filed suit against Kyocera Corp. in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00563), asserting infringement of four US patents: US9319453B2, US9298565B1, US8572440B1, and US9112942B2. The accused products included Kyocera smartphones and tablets, with specific reference to the Kyocera DuraForce PRO 3 equipped with an AV1 video codec.
On April 20, 2025 — 275 days after filing — Nostromo filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The Eastern District of Texas accepted and acknowledged the notice, dismissing all pending claims with prejudice and denying all outstanding relief requests as moot. A dismissal with prejudice carries res judicata effect: Nostromo cannot reassert these same patent claims against Kyocera on the same accused products.
The sub-nine-month resolution is notably swift for a four-patent E.D. Texas infringement action, suggesting the parties may have reached a private arrangement or that pre-trial developments — such as claim construction signals or early invalidity positions — made continued litigation unfavourable for Nostromo. The public record does not disclose any settlement agreement, licensing terms, or monetary consideration, leaving the commercial resolution opaque.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 275 days
275 days from filing to closure — below the median E.D. Texas patent case lifecycle
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — plaintiff’s unilateral exit, but at a cost
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. Critically, Nostromo chose to dismiss with prejudice — a self-imposed, permanent bar. The court accepted the notice and formally closed the case, meaning no judicial merits ruling was ever issued on the four patents.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) exitNostromo permanently barred from suing Kyocera on these patents
A with-prejudice dismissal carries res judicata effect. Nostromo, LLC cannot refile infringement claims based on US9319453B2, US9298565B1, US8572440B1, or US9112942B2 against Kyocera for the same accused products. This is a significant concession by the plaintiff — it forfeits all future leverage against this defendant on these patents, suggesting either a confidential settlement was reached or the litigation risk calculus shifted decisively against Nostromo.
Permanent claim barKyocera walks away — no liability, no admitted infringement
Kyocera Corp. avoids any finding of infringement, damages exposure, or injunctive risk on all four patents. Because no merits ruling was issued, Kyocera does not gain a formal invalidity judgment it could use offensively. However, the with-prejudice dismissal eliminates Nostromo as a litigation threat on these specific patents. Kyocera’s freedom to operate with AV1 video codec and related smartphone/tablet technology remains commercially intact.
No liability foundPatents survive — but Nostromo’s enforcement posture weakens
The four patents remain in force and Nostromo may assert them against other parties in the smartphone and tablet ecosystem. However, a with-prejudice capitulation — especially at the pre-answer stage — can signal to other defendants and prospective licensees that the patent portfolio carries litigation risk the holder is unwilling to fully press. Companies in the mobile video codec and smartphone manufacturing space should monitor whether Nostromo pursues parallel actions against other AV1 implementers.
Patents remain live vs. othersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Nostromo, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9319453B2 and three related smartphone/tablet patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Kyocera, Corp. | Company | Kyocera Corp. — Japanese electronics manufacturer of smartphones, tablets, and rugged mobile devicesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alfred Ross Fabricant | Attorney | Counsel for Nostromo, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Peter Lambrianakos | Attorney | Counsel for Nostromo, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Vincent J. Rubino , III | Attorney | Counsel for Nostromo, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fabricant LLP | Law Firm | Representing Nostromo, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fabricant LLP (NY) | Law Firm | Representing Nostromo, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Catherine Margaret Maness | Attorney | Counsel for Kyocera, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David Samuel Wilson | Attorney | Counsel for Kyocera, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jose Luis Patino | Attorney | Counsel for Kyocera, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Buchalter APC | Law Firm | Representing Kyocera, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Buchalter, A Professional Corporation | Law Firm | Representing Kyocera, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s acceptance of Nostromo’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) constitutes a procedural closure — not a merits adjudication. No findings were made on infringement, validity, or claim construction for any of the four asserted patents. The with-prejudice designation is legally significant: it operates as a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes, permanently barring Nostromo from reasserting these claims against Kyocera on the same accused products. All pending motions were denied as moot.
US9319453B2 — Smartphone and tablet network communication technologies
The four asserted patents — US9319453B2, US9298565B1, US8572440B1, and US9112942B2 — were filed between 2010 and 2013 (application numbers US12/946057 through US13/974473), placing them squarely within the smartphone platform build-out era. The patents collectively appear to cover network communication, data processing, and application-layer technologies implemented in smartphones and tablets, with Nostromo’s complaint specifically targeting AV1 video codec functionality in the Kyocera DuraForce PRO 3.
For the broader mobile device sector, this portfolio represents a class of platform-layer patents that can be asserted against any Android OEM implementing standard video codec or communication protocols. The AV1 codec — developed by the Alliance for Open Media and increasingly mandated by streaming platforms — is now a standard feature in mid-range and rugged smartphones. Patent holders targeting AV1 implementers can cast a wide net across OEMs, chipset vendors, and platform licensees, making these assets strategically significant beyond any single defendant.
Should your team run an FTO against US9319453B2 and the Nostromo portfolio?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or distributing Android smartphones, tablets, or devices implementing AV1 video codec should treat this portfolio as a live risk. Nostromo’s claims against Kyocera have been extinguished with prejudice, but the patents remain enforceable against all other parties. Device makers, chipset vendors, and ODMs supplying AV1-capable hardware should assess their exposure to all four patents — particularly US9319453B2 and US9298565B1 — before commercial launch or platform update.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables your IP or R&D team to map each claim of the Nostromo portfolio against your product architecture, identify prior art that could support IPR petitions, and flag any co-pending Nostromo litigation against competitors in the same technology space. Running this analysis now — before any litigation service date starts the one-year IPR clock — gives your team maximum strategic optionality.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9319453B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent infringement cases in mobile device and video codec IP
Explore comparable infringement actions asserting smartphone, tablet, and video codec patents in the Eastern District of Texas and related federal venues.
What this case signals for the mobile device and video codec IP landscape
A four-patent E.D. Texas action ending in a with-prejudice voluntary dismissal raises pointed questions about assertion strategy and portfolio strength.
With-prejudice exits in E.D. Texas often signal a private resolution or weakened claim position
When a patent assertion entity voluntarily dismisses with prejudice before the defendant even answers, it typically signals either a confidential licensing agreement or a recognition that claim construction, prior art, or IPR risk made continued litigation untenable. Neither scenario is disclosed in the public record here, but the timing — 275 days — is consistent with early-stage settlement pressure.
AV1 codec implementation is an active patent battleground worth monitoring
The explicit reference to the Kyocera DuraForce PRO 3’s AV1 video codec in Nostromo’s complaint indicates these patents may be positioned to target AV1 adopters broadly. Android OEMs, chipset vendors, and streaming platform partners implementing AV1 should assess whether these four patents represent a systemic assertion campaign beyond Kyocera.
Nostromo v Kyocera — key questions answered
The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice by Nostromo LLC on April 20, 2025. This permanently bars Nostromo from asserting the four patents against Kyocera on the same accused products. No infringement finding, damages award, or invalidity ruling was issued — Kyocera carries no liability from this action.
Nostromo asserted four US patents: US9319453B2, US9298565B1, US8572440B1, and US9112942B2. The complaint specifically accused the Kyocera DuraForce PRO 3 equipped with AV1 video codec, along with other Kyocera smartphones and tablets.
Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action before the defendant answers without a court order. Choosing ‘with prejudice’ means the plaintiff permanently surrenders the right to refile the same claims against the same defendant. It carries res judicata effect — equivalent to a final judgment on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes.
No. A with-prejudice dismissal is a procedural termination — no court ruled on the validity, claim scope, or infringement of any of the four patents. US9319453B2, US9298565B1, US8572440B1, and US9112942B2 remain in force and enforceable against third parties. Other defendants in the smartphone and AV1 codec space cannot rely on this dismissal as an invalidity defense.
The public record does not disclose the reason. Common drivers of with-prejudice voluntary dismissals at this stage include: a confidential licensing or settlement agreement, unfavourable claim construction signals, strong invalidity or IPR risk identified during early proceedings, or a strategic decision to conserve litigation resources. The 275-day timeline is consistent with pre-trial settlement pressure in E.D. Texas patent cases.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.