PanoVision LLC v. Builders FirstSource Inc: Voluntary Dismissal After 275 Days
PanoVision LLC asserted US8108267B2 — a patented method for facilitating product and service sales — against Builders FirstSource Inc in the Northern District of Texas. The case ended via voluntary dismissal before the defendant answered, leaving the door open for future litigation.
Sales-method patent asserted against national building materials supplier
PanoVision LLC filed suit against Builders FirstSource Inc on 27 January 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas before Judge Brantley Starr. The complaint alleged infringement of US8108267B2, which claims a method for facilitating the sale of a product and/or service. Builders FirstSource is a major national supplier of building materials and construction services, making it a commercially significant target for a commerce-method patent assertion.
The case closed on 29 October 2025 when PanoVision filed a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). That rule permits a plaintiff to dismiss as of right — without a court order — provided the defendant has not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The notice confirms Builders FirstSource had not yet done either, meaning the dismissal was self-executing and required no judicial approval.
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal is presumed to be without prejudice unless the plaintiff has previously dismissed the same claim, which the public record does not indicate here. The 275-day duration before dismissal is notable: it suggests the parties may have engaged in negotiations or that PanoVision was reassessing claim viability, though the record is silent on any settlement or licensing terms. The patent remains active and enforceable, and PanoVision retains the legal ability to refile against Builders FirstSource or any other party.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 275 days
275 days from filing to close — resolved before defendant answered the complaint
Voluntarily dismissed: what Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral right to exit
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order at any time before the defendant serves an answer or a summary judgment motion. The dismissal is self-executing upon filing. Because Builders FirstSource had not yet answered, PanoVision exercised this right unilaterally. No judicial approval was required, and no merits ruling was issued.
No merits adjudicationWith or without prejudice? The public record is silent
Under Rule 41(a)(1)(B), a voluntary dismissal under this rule is without prejudice by default unless the plaintiff has previously dismissed the same claim in any federal or state court. The notice states the action is dismissed without prejudice, meaning PanoVision is free to refile. However, a second voluntary dismissal of the same claim would operate as an adjudication on the merits — a critical risk to monitor.
Refiling risk remainsBuilders FirstSource exits without a merits win — or loss
Builders FirstSource faces no adverse judgment and incurred no formal liability. However, the dismissal without prejudice means the company cannot claim res judicata protection against the same patent claims. PanoVision may refile with an amended complaint. Builders FirstSource would be prudent to preserve its invalidity and non-infringement analysis for US8108267B2 in anticipation of potential future action.
No immunity from refilingUS8108267B2 remains a live enforcement risk for the sector
The without-prejudice dismissal leaves US8108267B2 fully enforceable. Companies operating digital or assisted sales channels for products and services — particularly in construction, retail, and e-commerce — should assess their exposure to this sales-method claim. PanoVision’s willingness to refile remains a credible possibility, and the patent’s broad method claims may extend to a wide range of commercial platforms.
Patent remains enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | PanoVision LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US8108267B2 covering sales-method technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Builders FirstSource Inc | Company | Builders FirstSource Inc — national building materials and construction services supplierSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Benjamin C. Deming | Attorney | Counsel for PanoVision LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Philip Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for PanoVision LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | DNL Zito | Law Firm | Representing PanoVision LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rabicoff Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing PanoVision LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Benjamin L Nabors | Attorney | Counsel for Builders FirstSource IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Henry Mark Pogorzelski | Attorney | Counsel for Builders FirstSource IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Victoria Forson | Attorney | Counsel for Builders FirstSource IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | K&L Gates, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Builders FirstSource IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Brantley Starr | Judge | Texas Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and expressly confirms that Builders FirstSource had not yet answered or moved for summary judgment, satisfying the procedural prerequisite for a unilateral plaintiff exit. The filing carries the presumption of a without-prejudice dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(B), meaning no claim preclusion attaches. No court order was entered, no liability was found, and US8108267B2 remains fully enforceable. The scope of this dismissal is purely procedural — it resolves nothing on the merits.
US8108267B2 — method of facilitating a sale of a product and/or service
US8108267B2, filed under application number US12/251869, claims a method for facilitating the sale of a product and/or a service. Commerce-method patents of this type typically cover the structured steps by which a seller presents, configures, or closes a transaction — potentially encompassing digital sales tools, assisted selling platforms, and e-commerce workflows. The patent’s issued status means it has survived examination and carries a presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282.
For the building materials and construction retail sector, where large-format sales increasingly involve digital configuration tools, assisted specification workflows, and contractor-facing platforms, a broadly framed sales-method patent represents a non-trivial enforcement risk. PanoVision’s decision to assert this patent against Builders FirstSource — one of the largest players in the U.S. residential and commercial construction supply chain — suggests the patent holder views its claims as commercially applicable to enterprise-scale sales operations in this sector.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US8108267B2?
Any company operating a digital or assisted sales platform for products or services — particularly in building materials, construction supply, home improvement retail, or adjacent B2B commerce — should evaluate its exposure to the method claims in US8108267B2. The without-prejudice dismissal against Builders FirstSource does not signal that the patent is weak or abandoned; it signals the opposite: PanoVision retains full enforcement rights and may refile or target new defendants at any time.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can rapidly map the independent and dependent claims of US8108267B2 against your product workflows, identify prior art that could support an invalidity argument, and flag whether similar method patents have been asserted in parallel proceedings. For R&D and product teams building sales-enablement or e-commerce infrastructure, running this analysis before a demand letter arrives is materially less costly than responding to one.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8108267B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar commerce-method patent cases in the Northern District of Texas
Cases involving sales-method and commerce-process patents litigated in the Northern District of Texas before Judge Starr and comparable courts.
What this case signals for the commerce-method patent IP landscape
Pre-answer voluntary dismissals can signal licensing activity, claim reassessment, or strategic repositioning — none of which is visible in the public record.
Pre-answer dismissals often precede licensing resolution or refiling
When a patent plaintiff dismisses before the defendant answers, it frequently suggests one of three scenarios: a licensing agreement was reached privately, the plaintiff is reassessing claim mapping, or litigation economics shifted. The 275-day gap before dismissal here is longer than typical early exits, which suggests substantive back-channel activity — though no terms are on the public record.
US8108267B2 is still live — other companies in building retail should take note
Builders FirstSource is not the only large-format building materials or home improvement retailer operating assisted sales platforms. The method claims in US8108267B2 could plausibly be mapped against any competitor using digitally facilitated sales workflows. Companies in adjacent sectors should conduct FTO analysis before assuming this action is concluded.
PanoVision v Builders — key questions answered
The dismissal notice expressly states the action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i). This means PanoVision is not barred from refiling the same claims against Builders FirstSource. A second voluntary dismissal of the same claim, however, would operate as an adjudication on the merits under Rule 41(a)(1)(B).
US8108267B2 is a U.S. issued patent filed under application number US12/251869. It claims a method of facilitating a sale of a product and/or a service. Commerce-method patents of this type typically cover structured transactional steps — such as assisted configuration, product presentation, or checkout workflows — and may apply to digital and in-person sales platforms.
The public record does not disclose the reason for the dismissal. Common explanations for pre-answer voluntary dismissals include a privately negotiated license agreement, a strategic decision to refile with a more developed claim chart, or a reassessment of litigation economics. The 275-day duration before dismissal suggests more than a simple early exit.
Yes. A without-prejudice dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) does not create claim preclusion. PanoVision retains the right to refile claims based on US8108267B2 against Builders FirstSource or any other party. Builders FirstSource would be prudent to maintain its invalidity and non-infringement analysis for future proceedings.
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order at any time before the defendant serves an answer or a summary judgment motion. The dismissal is self-executing, requires no judicial approval, and is presumed to be without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(B). No merits ruling is issued, and the patent remains fully enforceable.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.