Onscreen Dynamics v. Carvana: Touchscreen Patent Suit Dismissed With Prejudice in 56 Days
Onscreen Dynamics, LLC filed suit against Carvana, LLC in the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of two touchscreen interface patents covering vehicles with electronic touchscreen devices. The case ended with a voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) just 56 days after filing, with each party bearing its own costs.
A rapid exit: touchscreen patent suit against Carvana closes in under two months
On April 16, 2024, Onscreen Dynamics, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Carvana, LLC in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00248), presided over by Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The suit alleged infringement of US9645663B2 and US9395917B2 — two patents covering touchscreen interface technology — in connection with Carvana’s unlicensed vehicles incorporating electronic devices with touchscreens. Onscreen Dynamics was represented by Kent & Risley LLC.
The case closed on June 11, 2024 — just 56 days after filing — when Onscreen Dynamics filed a Notice of Dismissal with Prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Judge Gilstrap accepted and acknowledged the dismissal, formally closing all claims against Carvana with prejudice. The order further directed that each party bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees, and denied all pending relief requests as moot.
The 56-day duration and dismissal with prejudice is notably short even by E.D. Texas standards. The with-prejudice designation permanently bars Onscreen Dynamics from reasserting these specific claims against Carvana, which typically suggests the parties may have reached a private resolution — though the public record is silent on any settlement terms. The absence of a defendant law firm on record may indicate Carvana had not yet formally appeared before the dismissal was filed.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 56 days
56 days — well below the E.D. Texas median for patent cases, suggesting early resolution
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal: plaintiff’s unilateral early exit
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. Critically, Onscreen Dynamics chose to make this dismissal ‘with prejudice’ — a voluntary upgrade from the default without-prejudice effect, permanently extinguishing its right to re-litigate these claims against Carvana on these patents.
Voluntary — no merits rulingOnscreen Dynamics forfeits future claims against Carvana on these patents
By opting for dismissal with prejudice, Onscreen Dynamics permanently surrenders the right to sue Carvana again under US9645663B2 and US9395917B2 on the same accused conduct. This is an unusually firm concession for a plaintiff to make unilaterally. It may reflect a private licensing resolution, a strategic withdrawal, or an assessment that the case lacked viability — the public record does not disclose which.
Claims permanently barred vs. CarvanaCarvana walks away free of liability and future exposure on these claims
Carvana achieves a with-prejudice dismissal without having to file an answer, engage in discovery, or litigate on the merits. No costs were awarded to Carvana despite its early-stage status as a prevailing party. The with-prejudice designation provides Carvana with a strong preclusion shield against any future attempt by Onscreen Dynamics to reassert these two patents for the same accused products.
Full preclusion — no liability foundThe patents survive — third parties and the broader auto-tech sector remain exposed
A with-prejudice dismissal resolves only the dispute between these two parties. US9645663B2 and US9395917B2 remain in force and can be asserted against other vehicle retailers, OEMs, or software vendors incorporating touchscreen interfaces. Companies in the automotive digital retail and in-vehicle HMI sectors should monitor Onscreen Dynamics’ assertion activity across its portfolio and assess FTO exposure against these patents.
Patents remain active — third parties at riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Onscreen Dynamics, LLC | Company | Touchscreen interface patent assertion entity — holder of US9645663B2 and US9395917B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Carvana, LLC | Company | Carvana, LLC — online used-vehicle retailer operating vehicle inventory with in-vehicle touchscreen technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Cortney Alexander | Attorney | Counsel for Onscreen Dynamics, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Kent & Risley LLC (Alpharett) | Law Firm | Representing Onscreen Dynamics, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal order reflects a straightforward acceptance of Onscreen Dynamics’ unilateral Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice. Notably, the plaintiff elected dismissal with prejudice — a stronger form than the rule’s default — permanently barring these claims against Carvana. The court’s direction that each party bear its own costs is consistent with early-stage voluntary dismissals where no substantive litigation effort by the defendant has been recorded. No merits determination was made on either asserted patent.
US9645663B2 & US9395917B2 — Touchscreen Interface Technology for Electronic Devices
US9645663B2 (Application No. US15/211678) and US9395917B2 (Application No. US14/224049) both cover touchscreen interface technology for electronic devices. The patents sit within the human-machine interface (HMI) domain, addressing how users interact with touch-enabled displays — a technical area increasingly central to automotive cabin design, digital retail kiosks, and mobile-first commerce platforms. Both patents have issued and remain in force.
In the context of this case, the asserted products were vehicles incorporating electronic devices with touchscreens — directly targeting Carvana’s inventory of unlicensed vehicles. The breadth of ‘electronic devices with touchscreens’ as a product category suggests these patents could map onto a wide range of automotive retail, in-vehicle entertainment, and digital commerce applications. Any company in the connected vehicle, automotive retail, or in-vehicle HMI space should assess exposure against these claim families.
Should your team run an FTO against US9645663B2 and US9395917B2?
If your company develops, sells, or integrates touchscreen-based interfaces into vehicles, vehicle retail platforms, or connected device ecosystems, these two patents warrant FTO review. Onscreen Dynamics has demonstrated willingness to file in E.D. Texas — one of the most plaintiff-friendly patent venues in the US — and the with-prejudice dismissal against Carvana suggests active licensing negotiations are ongoing in the automotive sector.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US9645663B2 and US9395917B2 against your product architecture, flag overlapping claim elements, and surface prior art that may support invalidity arguments. Running a structured FTO analysis now — before you receive a demand letter — is far more cost-effective than reactive litigation in E.D. Texas.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9645663B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar touchscreen patent infringement cases in E.D. Texas
Explore patent infringement actions involving touchscreen interface technology filed in the Eastern District of Texas with comparable assertion profiles and early dismissal outcomes.
What this case signals for the automotive touchscreen IP landscape
A 56-day with-prejudice exit in E.D. Texas touchscreen litigation carries strategic implications well beyond the two named parties.
With-prejudice exits often indicate undisclosed licensing activity
When a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses with prejudice this early — before the defendant even appears — it typically signals a private resolution rather than a pure walk-away. Companies in the in-vehicle touchscreen space should treat this case as a signal that Onscreen Dynamics is actively licensing these patents and willing to enforce them in E.D. Texas.
Judge Gilstrap’s docket: E.D. Texas remains the preferred venue for this patent profile
Filing before Judge Gilstrap in E.D. Texas is a deliberate strategic choice for patent assertion entities. The court’s familiarity with patent cases and plaintiff-friendly procedural history makes it a credible enforcement threat even for suits that close quickly. Defendants in this venue should prepare early — ideally before service.
Onscreen v Carvana — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice. Onscreen Dynamics filed a voluntary notice of dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) on or before June 11, 2024. This permanently bars Onscreen Dynamics from re-filing the same claims against Carvana under US9645663B2 and US9395917B2.
Onscreen Dynamics asserted two patents: US9645663B2 (Application No. US15/211678) and US9395917B2 (Application No. US14/224049). Both cover touchscreen interface technology for electronic devices. The accused products were vehicles incorporating electronic devices with touchscreens in Carvana’s inventory.
The public record does not disclose the reason. The 56-day timeline and with-prejudice designation are consistent with a private licensing resolution, though no settlement was publicly announced. Alternatively, it may reflect a strategic reassessment of claim viability or a decision to prioritise other enforcement targets.
Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas presided over Case No. 2:24-cv-00248. E.D. Texas, and Judge Gilstrap’s docket in particular, is a well-established venue for patent assertion entities due to the court’s procedural familiarity with patent cases and historically high plaintiff filing volumes.
Yes. A dismissal with prejudice only resolves claims between Onscreen Dynamics and Carvana. The patents themselves remain in force and can be asserted against other parties. Companies operating touchscreen-enabled vehicle platforms or automotive retail systems should consider conducting an FTO analysis against these patent families.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.