PanoVision LLC v. Di Loreto Homes: Swift Dismissal in Method Patent Case

Case Overview

In one of the fastest-closing patent infringement actions filed in Nevada District Court in 2026, PanoVision LLC voluntarily dismissed its case against Di Loreto Homes of Nevada just nine days after filing — raising pointed questions about litigation strategy, pre-suit due diligence, and the growing trend of rapid assertion-and-withdrawal in method patent disputes.

Filed on January 27, 2026, and closed on February 5, 2026, Case No. 2:26-cv-00181 centered on alleged infringement of US Patent No. 8,108,267 B2, a method patent directed at facilitating the sale of products and/or services. The dismissal was filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — a plaintiff-side voluntary dismissal without prejudice, available only before the defendant has answered or moved for summary judgment.

For patent attorneys, IP professionals, and R&D teams operating in commerce-adjacent technology sectors, this case offers a concise but instructive window into assertion strategy, venue selection, and the procedural leverage embedded in early-stage patent litigation.

The Parties

The Patent at Issue

This case involved US Patent No. 8,108,267 B2 (Application No. US12/251869), a method patent directed at facilitating the sale of products and/or services. The patent covers a *method* — not a physical product — making it broadly applicable to businesses that employ systematic sales facilitation processes, potentially including digital platforms, e-commerce workflows, or agent-assisted transaction systems.

• • US8108267B2 — Computerized or structured methods for facilitating product and/or service sales transactions

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

PanoVision LLC voluntarily dismissed this action without prejudice pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i). No damages were awarded, no injunctive relief was sought or granted, and no consent judgment or settlement terms were entered into the public record. The “without prejudice” designation is critical: it preserves PanoVision’s right to refile the same claims against Di Loreto Homes — or potentially other defendants — in the future.

Key Legal Issues

The extraordinarily short lifespan of this action — nine calendar days — is procedurally significant. Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order at any time before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Di Loreto Homes had not yet responded when PanoVision exercised this right.

The “without prejudice” nature of this dismissal means the ‘267 patent remains a live enforcement asset. Patent practitioners should note that under FRCP 41, a second voluntary dismissal against the same defendant would operate as an adjudication on the merits — the so-called “two-dismissal rule.” This creates a meaningful constraint on serial assertion strategies targeting identical defendants.

US8108267B2, as a method patent in the commercial transaction space, may face validity challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (patent-eligible subject matter) following the *Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International* framework. Method patents directed at abstract business processes remain highly vulnerable to § 101 challenges at the pleadings stage, which may factor into early dismissal calculations by plaintiff-side counsel.