Ortiz & Associates v. Kroger: Patent Infringement Dismissed With Prejudice
Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC asserted US9549285B2 — covering wireless data brokering between devices, servers and rendering endpoints — against Kroger Co. in the Western District of Texas. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice after 190 days, before Kroger filed any answer or summary judgment motion.
Early voluntary exit: Ortiz drops wireless data brokering claims against Kroger
On January 29, 2025, Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Kroger Co. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Case No. 7:25-cv-00034). The asserted patent, US9549285B2 (application no. US14/919108), covers systems, methods, and apparatuses for brokering data between wireless devices, servers, and data rendering devices — a technology domain with potential relevance to retail data infrastructure and mobile commerce.
On August 6, 2025 — 190 days after filing — Ortiz filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Because Kroger had not yet served an answer or motion for summary judgment, the notice was self-effectuating and required no court order. The dismissal with prejudice is final: Ortiz cannot refile these specific claims against Kroger on this patent. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorney fees.
The case resolved before Kroger entered a substantive defence, which typically signals either a pre-litigation settlement, a licensing agreement reached after filing, or a plaintiff reassessment of claim strength. The public record is silent on any consideration exchanged. The early termination — before any answer — is consistent with a pattern seen frequently in cases brought by Ramey LLP, where pre-answer resolution is a common outcome. What drove Ortiz to dismiss with prejudice rather than without prejudice remains undisclosed.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 190 days
190 days from filing to closure — resolved before defendant answered
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): self-effectuating dismissal before answer
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the opposing party serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. Because Kroger had not yet done either, the notice was automatically effective — the court’s order merely instructed the clerk to close the docket. The ‘with prejudice’ designation was plaintiff’s own election, not a judicial sanction.
Self-effectuating under Rule 41With prejudice: these claims against Kroger are permanently extinguished
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits and bars Ortiz from reasserting the same infringement claims under US9549285B2 against Kroger. This is a materially different outcome from a without-prejudice dismissal, which would preserve the right to refile. The public record does not disclose why Ortiz elected the more severe with-prejudice form — possibilities include a settlement, licensing deal, or a strategic concession, but none can be confirmed from available filings.
Claims permanently barred vs. KrogerKroger exits without answering — but faces no res judicata shield on the patent itself
Kroger achieved case closure without incurring the costs of full litigation and without filing a single substantive pleading. However, the with-prejudice dismissal extinguishes only Ortiz’s claims against Kroger specifically — it does not invalidate US9549285B2. Kroger retains exposure if a different patent holder ever asserts overlapping rights, though that scenario is not indicated by this record.
Resolved before answer; patent survivesPatent remains live: other retailers and wireless data platform operators retain exposure
US9549285B2 has not been invalidated or litigated to a merits decision. The patent remains enforceable, and Ortiz retains full rights to assert it against other parties in the wireless data brokering and retail technology space. Companies operating mobile commerce platforms, retail data middleware, or device-to-server rendering pipelines should treat this patent as an active enforcement risk and consider freedom-to-operate analysis.
US9549285B2 still enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC | Company | Patent licensing entity — holder of US9549285B2 covering wireless data brokering systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Kroger, Co. | Company | Kroger Co. — U.S. multinational retail corporation and grocery chainSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William P. Ramey , III | Attorney | Counsel for Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ramey LLP | Law Firm | Representing Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | William P. Atkins. | Attorney | Counsel for Kroger, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP | Law Firm | Representing Kroger, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order confirms the procedural posture precisely: because Kroger had served neither an answer nor a motion for summary judgment, Ortiz’s notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice was self-effectuating under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and required no judicial approval. The court’s role was purely administrative — ordering the clerk to close the action. The with-prejudice designation, elected by Ortiz, extinguishes all asserted claims against Kroger on the merits, precluding any future refiling of the same claims. The cost-bearing order — each party bears its own — is standard for consensual pre-answer exits and does not imply any finding of fault or litigation misconduct by either party.
US9549285B2 — Wireless data brokering between devices, servers & rendering endpoints
US9549285B2 (application US14/919108) covers systems, methods, and apparatuses for brokering data between wireless devices, servers, and data rendering devices. This technical domain sits at the intersection of wireless communication protocols, server-side data management, and endpoint rendering — infrastructure components that underpin mobile commerce, retail loyalty platforms, and enterprise IoT data pipelines. The patent’s claims are directed at the brokering layer that intermediates between wireless input devices and rendering or processing endpoints, which suggests broad potential claim coverage across modern connected retail architectures.
For the retail technology sector, US9549285B2 represents a potentially high-reach enforcement asset. Modern grocery and retail chains — including those operating self-checkout kiosks, mobile loyalty apps, and in-store wireless data systems — deploy exactly the kind of device-to-server-to-rendering architectures this patent describes. The patent survived this litigation without any validity challenge reaching the record, meaning its enforceability posture is unchanged. Competitors and technology suppliers in the retail wireless data space should assess whether their product architectures fall within the claim scope before scaling deployment.
Should you run an FTO against US9549285B2?
Any organisation deploying systems that broker data between wireless devices and server or rendering endpoints — including retail middleware providers, mobile commerce platform developers, in-store IoT vendors, and grocery technology suppliers — should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against US9549285B2. This case demonstrates that the patent is actively asserted against major retail operators, and its claim scope may read on architectures that are common in modern connected retail infrastructure. The dismissal with prejudice in this case does not limit Ortiz’s ability to enforce the patent against other defendants.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim landscape of US9549285B2 against your product architecture in hours, not weeks. Upload your technical specifications or system diagrams and Eureka will identify claim elements that overlap with your implementation, surface prior art that may be relevant to validity, and flag related patents in the same family that may also require clearance — giving your R&D and legal teams the intelligence needed to make informed build-versus-license decisions.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9549285B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar wireless data brokering patent cases in the Western District of Texas
Browse related patent infringement actions involving wireless device and data brokering technologies filed in the Western District of Texas.
What this case signals for the wireless data brokering IP landscape
A pre-answer dismissal with prejudice in a patent case often reflects negotiated resolution — or a plaintiff recalibrating enforcement strategy.
Pre-answer dismissals with prejudice frequently mask undisclosed settlements
When a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses with prejudice before the defendant answers, it suggests the parties reached some form of resolution — potentially a licensing agreement or lump-sum payment — without any public disclosure obligation. IP teams monitoring Ortiz & Associates enforcement activity should treat this outcome as consistent with a licensing event, not a concession of weakness.
US9549285B2 remains a live enforcement asset — FTO analysis is warranted
No validity challenge, IPR petition, or merits ruling has touched this patent in this case. Retailers, mobile commerce operators, and wireless data platform developers operating in the Western District of Texas should conduct freedom-to-operate analysis against US9549285B2 before expanding product lines that broker data between wireless devices and rendering endpoints.
Ortiz v Kroger — key questions answered
The dismissal with prejudice permanently bars Ortiz & Associates from reasserting the same patent infringement claims under US9549285B2 against Kroger Co. It does not affect the patent’s enforceability against other defendants, and Ortiz retains all rights to pursue infringement claims against third parties.
No. The case was dismissed before Kroger filed any answer or dispositive motion. No invalidity challenge, IPR petition, or merits ruling was recorded. US9549285B2 remains in force and its claims have not been adjudicated in this proceeding.
The public record does not disclose the reason. Possible explanations include a negotiated settlement or licensing agreement, a strategic decision to release claims in exchange for consideration, or a reassessment of case merits. The choice of with-prejudice dismissal is notable because it is more final than necessary under Rule 41 and may suggest a negotiated resolution.
US9549285B2 covers systems, methods, and apparatuses for brokering data between wireless devices, servers, and data rendering devices. This scope potentially encompasses retail middleware, mobile loyalty platforms, in-store wireless data systems, and IoT architectures that route data between wireless input endpoints and server or display rendering systems. A full FTO analysis is recommended for operators in these spaces.
Pre-answer voluntary dismissals — both with and without prejudice — are relatively common in W.D. Tex. patent litigation, particularly in cases brought by non-practising entities and assertion-focused plaintiffs. They typically occur when parties reach a resolution before the defendant incurs the cost of answering, and are consistent with licensing-driven enforcement campaigns. The with-prejudice form is less common and suggests a more complete resolution was reached.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.