Pay As You Go LLC v. Verizon Communications — Dismissed with Prejudice (115 Days)
Pay As You Go, LLC filed suit against Verizon Communications in the Eastern District of Texas asserting US8295458B2, covering systems and methods for monitoring pay-as-you-go telecommunication services. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice after just 115 days — permanently extinguishing its right to reassert the same claims against Verizon.
A swift voluntary exit: Pay As You Go drops Verizon suit with prejudice
On May 31, 2024, Pay As You Go, LLC filed an infringement action against Verizon Communications, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The asserted patent, US8295458B2, covers systems and methods for monitoring pay-as-you-go telecommunication services — a technology directly relevant to Verizon’s prepaid wireless business. Plaintiff was represented by Garteiser Honea PLLC, a firm known for asserting NPE patents in the Eastern District.
The case ended on September 23, 2024, when Pay As You Go filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Judge Gilstrap accepted and acknowledged the dismissal, closed the case, and denied all pending relief as moot. A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits under Federal Rules — meaning Pay As You Go is permanently barred from reasserting the same patent claims against Verizon in any future action.
The 115-day duration from filing to closure is notably short even by NPE litigation standards, and the with-prejudice designation — chosen voluntarily by the plaintiff — goes beyond what Rule 41 requires at that procedural stage. This pattern is consistent with a negotiated resolution (such as a licensing agreement or covenant not to sue) rather than a simple strategic withdrawal, though the precise terms, if any, are not disclosed in the public record. The absence of any attorney fees motion by Verizon further complicates the picture.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 115 days
Resolved in 115 days — well under the typical E.D. Tex. patent case timeline
Dismissed with prejudice: what the voluntary exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral dismissal right
Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Here, Pay As You Go invoked this right but elected dismissal with prejudice — a stricter outcome than the rule requires. The court accepted and acknowledged the dismissal, closing all pending relief as moot.
Voluntary Rule 41 dismissalWith prejudice: a permanent bar on the same claims
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final judgment on the merits. Pay As You Go cannot refile the same infringement claims against Verizon based on US8295458B2. This is a significantly stronger outcome for Verizon than a without-prejudice dismissal, which would leave the door open to refiling. The plaintiff’s choice to accept this finality is commercially notable and suggests the litigation has been conclusively resolved as between these two parties.
Claims permanently extinguishedPay As You Go surrenders future enforcement rights against Verizon
By filing with prejudice, Pay As You Go permanently forfeited the right to pursue US8295458B2 infringement claims against Verizon. This limits its enforcement leverage with respect to the largest U.S. carrier. However, the patent remains in force and may still be asserted against other wireless or telecom operators that have not secured a covenant or license — meaning the broader enforcement campaign may continue elsewhere.
Enforcement rights waived vs. VerizonVerizon achieves full closure — no lingering exposure to this patent
Verizon exits this action with a with-prejudice dismissal and no adverse finding on infringement or validity. The outcome effectively immunises Verizon from further litigation by Pay As You Go on US8295458B2. No attorney-fees motion appears in the public record, suggesting Verizon did not pursue an exceptional case designation under 35 U.S.C. § 285 — consistent with a clean, negotiated close rather than a contested win.
Full exposure eliminatedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Pay As You Go, LLC | Company | NPE / patent assertion entity — holder of US8295458B2 (pay-as-you-go telecom monitoring)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Verizon Communications, Inc. | Company | Verizon Communications, Inc. — major U.S. telecommunications carrier with prepaid wireless servicesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Randall T. Garteiser | Attorney | Counsel for Pay As You Go, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Garteiser Honea PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Pay As You Go, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Deron R. Dacus | Attorney | Counsel for Verizon Communications, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Shannon Marie Dacus | Attorney | Counsel for Verizon Communications, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | The Dacus Firm PC | Law Firm | Representing Verizon Communications, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order is purely procedural — it accepts the plaintiff’s Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice without ruling on infringement or validity. The phrase ‘DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE’ carries full res judicata weight between these parties: no future court may entertain the same claims by Pay As You Go against Verizon on US8295458B2. The denial of all pending relief as moot confirms no substantive findings were made, leaving the patent’s validity and Verizon’s non-infringement unestablished as a matter of law.
US8295458B2 — Systems and methods for monitoring pay-as-you-go telecom services
US8295458B2, filed under application number US13/278377, protects systems and methods for monitoring pay-as-you-go telecommunication services. The patent addresses the technical architecture for tracking and managing prepaid wireless usage — a commercially significant function in both consumer and enterprise mobile markets. Its claim scope is directed at the monitoring infrastructure underpinning prepaid billing, usage controls, and service continuity in telecommunications networks.
For carriers, MVNOs, and platform providers operating prepaid or pay-as-you-go wireless services, this patent represents a targeted enforcement risk. The assertion against Verizon — one of the largest prepaid wireless operators in the U.S. — suggests the patent holder views major carrier prepaid infrastructure as within scope. Any competitor offering similar monitoring, usage-tracking, or prepaid service management systems should evaluate whether their implementation intersects with the asserted claims before treating the Verizon dismissal as sector-wide clearance.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US8295458B2?
If your organisation operates, develops, or licenses systems that monitor, manage, or control prepaid or pay-as-you-go telecommunication services — including MVNOs, carrier billing platforms, IoT connectivity managers, or prepaid SIM infrastructure — US8295458B2 warrants a targeted freedom-to-operate review. The Verizon dismissal resolves only the Verizon exposure; the patent is active and the holder has demonstrated a willingness to assert it in litigation.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim language of US8295458B2 against your specific product architecture, identify design-around opportunities, and surface any continuation or related applications in the same family. Given the early resolution of this case, no public claim construction record exists — making a proactive FTO analysis even more important for operators who cannot rely on prior adjudication to define the patent’s boundaries.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8295458B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar pay-as-you-go telecom patent cases in E.D. Texas
Explore related NPE infringement actions asserting prepaid and pay-as-you-go telecommunication patents in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Gilstrap.
What this case signals for the pay-as-you-go telecom IP landscape
A rapid, prejudice-laden exit from E.D. Tex. raises questions about the economics of NPE enforcement against major carriers.
With-prejudice dismissals often signal a commercial resolution
When a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses with prejudice — particularly this early in litigation — it typically signals a negotiated outcome: a license, a covenant not to sue, or a settlement payment. The absence of any public terms means competing wireless operators cannot assume Verizon’s resolution sets a market rate for US8295458B2 licensing.
US8295458B2 remains live against other telecom defendants
The with-prejudice dismissal binds only Verizon. Other prepaid wireless operators, MVNOs, and carriers offering pay-as-you-go services may still face assertion of this patent. Any operator whose platform monitors or manages prepaid usage should assess exposure to US8295458B2’s claim scope before relying on this outcome as industry-wide clearance.
Pay v Verizon — key questions answered
The dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication that permanently bars Pay As You Go, LLC from reasserting US8295458B2 infringement claims against Verizon Communications. It does not affect the patent’s enforceability against other parties. No findings of infringement or invalidity were made.
Pay As You Go, LLC asserted US8295458B2, which covers systems and methods for monitoring pay-as-you-go telecommunication services, filed under application number US13/278377. The patent is directed at prepaid wireless usage monitoring infrastructure.
The public record does not disclose the reason. However, a voluntary with-prejudice dismissal within 115 days of filing — before significant docket activity — is consistent with a negotiated resolution such as a license or covenant not to sue. No fee motion was filed by Verizon, suggesting a clean commercial exit rather than a contested defence win.
The Eastern District of Texas, particularly before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is a favoured venue for NPE patent assertions due to its established patent docket and plaintiff-friendly procedural history. Garteiser Honea PLLC regularly files in this district. Verizon’s engagement of The Dacus Firm — a local E.D. Tex. specialist — reflects standard defence strategy for carrier defendants in this venue.
No. The with-prejudice dismissal only extinguishes Pay As You Go’s claims against Verizon. US8295458B2 remains in force, and the patent holder retains the right to assert it against other wireless carriers, MVNOs, or prepaid platform providers. The absence of any claim construction or validity ruling means no public record defines or narrows the patent’s enforceable scope.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.