Ortiz & Associates v. Microsoft: Wireless Data Brokering Patents Dismissed Without Prejudice
Ortiz & Associates Consulting LLC filed suit against Microsoft in the Western District of Texas asserting two patents covering systems for brokering data between wireless devices, servers, and rendering devices. The case closed just 27 days after filing, with Ortiz voluntarily dismissing all claims without prejudice before Microsoft had answered or filed any dispositive motion.
A 27-day patent filing that left the door open for Microsoft
On September 6, 2024, Ortiz & Associates Consulting LLC filed a patent infringement action against Microsoft Co. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Case No. 7:24-cv-00213), assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright. The complaint asserted two patents — US9147299B2 and US9549285B2 — both directed to systems, methods, and apparatuses for brokering data between wireless devices, servers, and data rendering devices.
Just 27 days after filing, on October 3, 2024, Ortiz voluntarily dismissed all claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Critically, the dismissal was expressly without prejudice as to the asserted patents, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. Because Microsoft had not yet answered or filed a motion for summary judgment, this Rule 41 mechanism was available to the plaintiff as of right — no court order was required.
The speed of dismissal — less than four weeks — suggests the litigation may have served a strategic purpose beyond trial, whether as a licensing negotiation catalyst or a placeholder filing. The public record does not disclose whether any agreement was reached. The without-prejudice designation is commercially significant: Ortiz preserves the right to re-assert these patents against Microsoft or any other party, and no legal determination on the merits was made.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 27 days
Closed in 27 days — well below the median district court patent case duration of 2+ years
Voluntarily dismissed without prejudice: what the terms mean for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s right to dismiss without court approval
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Microsoft had done neither, making this route available to Ortiz as of right. The court played no substantive role; the dismissal was self-executing upon filing of the notice.
Pre-answer voluntary dismissalOrtiz retains full right to re-file; no res judicata protection for Microsoft
A dismissal without prejudice does not adjudicate the merits. Ortiz expressly preserved its rights as to the asserted patents, meaning it can re-file against Microsoft or assert the same patents against other defendants in the future. This contrasts with a dismissal with prejudice, which would bar re-litigation. The public record does not disclose whether a licensing agreement or settlement was reached — that distinction is legally and commercially significant but remains unknown.
No res judicata; re-filing preservedNo merits ruling secured; Microsoft faces continued patent exposure
Because the case was dismissed before any substantive proceedings, Microsoft received no invalidity finding, no claim construction, and no declaratory judgment. The without-prejudice designation means these same patents could be asserted again. To obtain lasting protection, Microsoft would need to pursue inter partes review (IPR) or another post-grant challenge at the USPTO — tools not triggered by this litigation’s early exit.
No invalidity finding; IPR pathway openEach party bears its own fees — no exceptional case finding
The dismissal notice stipulated that each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. No motion for attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 was filed or granted. At this early stage — before any answer or merits ruling — an exceptional-case finding would have been highly unlikely in any event. The fee arrangement is consistent with the standard outcome in pre-answer voluntary dismissals.
No fee-shifting; § 285 not triggeredFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Ortiz & Associates Consulting, LLC | Company | IP licensing consultancy — holder of US9147299B2 and US9549285B2, wireless data brokering patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Microsoft, Co. | Company | Microsoft Co. — global technology company, developer of cloud and device software platformsSearch 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 | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Microsoft, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gillam & Smith LLP | Law Firm | Representing Microsoft, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) precisely, confirming Microsoft had not yet answered or moved for summary judgment. The express without-prejudice designation as to the asserted patents — rather than the action generally — suggests deliberate drafting to preserve maximum optionality. No substantive determination was made on infringement, validity, or claim scope. The fee-bearing clause is standard for pre-answer exits and carries no adverse inference for either party.
US9147299B2 & US9549285B2 — Wireless data brokering systems and methods
US9147299B2 (application no. US13/777273) and US9549285B2 (application no. US14/919108) both cover systems, methods, and apparatuses for brokering data between wireless devices, servers, and data rendering devices. These patents sit at the intersection of mobile communications infrastructure and cloud-relay architecture — a domain with broad applicability across enterprise mobility, IoT platforms, and cloud-connected consumer devices. Both patents issued from continuation-style lineages, suggesting a deliberately layered claim strategy.
The commercial significance of these patents lies in their breadth: any platform that mediates data exchange between a wireless endpoint and a server-side rendering or processing layer is potentially within scope. This includes cloud streaming, mobile enterprise applications, and IoT gateway architectures. With no claim construction on record, the scope remains unresolved — elevating risk for competitors and partners in the wireless and cloud connectivity sectors who have not conducted formal freedom-to-operate analysis against these assets.
Should your team run an FTO against US9147299B2 and US9549285B2?
Any organisation building or integrating wireless device-to-server data relay, mobile content brokering, IoT gateway solutions, or cloud-connected rendering pipelines should assess exposure against these two patents. The without-prejudice dismissal means both patents remain fully enforceable and active — and no prior claim construction limits or defines their scope. Product and engineering teams launching new wireless or cloud data services are the primary audience for this FTO exercise.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim language of US9147299B2 and US9549285B2 against your product architecture, identify prior art that could support an IPR, and surface related patents in the Ortiz portfolio that may present parallel risk. Given the pre-answer posture of this case, the IPR window may still be open — Eureka can help you identify the optimal challenge strategy before any re-filing triggers a new statutory clock.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9147299B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar wireless data brokering patent cases in W.D. Texas
Cases involving wireless device-to-server data brokering and NPE enforcement before Judge Albright in the Western District of Texas follow recognisable litigation patterns.
What this case signals for the wireless data and cloud IP landscape
A 27-day lifecycle and without-prejudice exit is a recognisable pattern in NPE enforcement strategy — here is what it means.
Pre-answer dismissals are often licensing signals, not failures
When a plaintiff dismisses without prejudice before the defendant has answered — particularly in Waco, Texas before Judge Albright — it frequently suggests a negotiation has concluded or a strategic reset is underway. The patents remain live assets. Companies operating in wireless data brokering, cloud relay, or device management should treat this as a monitoring signal, not a resolved threat.
Judge Albright’s court remains a preferred venue for NPE patent filings
The Western District of Texas continues to attract a disproportionate share of U.S. patent infringement filings, particularly from licensing-focused plaintiffs. Ramey LLP, counsel for Ortiz, is a frequent filer in this jurisdiction. R&D and IP teams at technology companies should maintain active dockets monitoring for new filings by Ortiz and associated counsel in this venue.
Ortiz v Microsoft — key questions answered
A without-prejudice dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) means no merits determination was made. Ortiz retains the right to re-file suit against Microsoft or assert US9147299B2 and US9549285B2 against other defendants. Microsoft received no invalidity finding or claim construction that could be used defensively in future proceedings.
Ortiz asserted two patents: US9147299B2 (application US13/777273) and US9549285B2 (application US14/919108). Both cover systems, methods, and apparatuses for brokering data between wireless devices, servers, and data rendering devices. Neither patent received a claim construction or validity ruling in this proceeding.
The public record does not disclose the specific reason. However, a pre-answer voluntary dismissal of this speed is consistent with several possibilities: a licensing negotiation reaching a conclusion, a strategic decision to re-file in a different forum, or a placeholder filing. The without-prejudice designation preserves Ortiz’s ability to re-assert the patents, which is commercially significant.
Yes. The dismissal was expressly without prejudice as to the asserted patents. Microsoft received no declaratory judgment of non-infringement or invalidity. To secure lasting protection, Microsoft would need to pursue inter partes review (IPR) at the USPTO or wait for any re-filed action before asserting those defences. The IPR one-year bar timing should be assessed by counsel.
Judge Albright’s court in Waco, Texas has been among the most popular venues for NPE patent filings in recent years due to plaintiff-friendly scheduling and trial rates. The case resolved before any Albright-specific procedures — such as claim construction hearings — were engaged. However, the venue selection itself is a common signal of a licensing-oriented enforcement strategy.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.