Pay As You Go, LLC v. Cloudera: Three-Patent Suit Dismissed in 42 Days
Pay As You Go, LLC filed an infringement action against Cloudera, Inc. in the Western District of Texas, asserting three patents against the Cloudera Data Platform. Before Cloudera filed any answer or dispositive motion, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice — closing the case in just 42 days.
A rapid pre-answer dismissal with prejudice signals strategic retreat
On April 29, 2024, Pay As You Go, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Cloudera, Inc. in the Western District of Texas before Judge Robert Pitman. The complaint asserted three patents — US8295458B2, US8068810B2, and US7013127B2 — against Cloudera’s flagship cloud data management product, the Cloudera Data Platform. Plaintiff was represented by Garteiser Honea PLLC, a Texas-based firm with a track record in NPE litigation.
On June 7, 2024 — just 39 days after filing — the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Because Cloudera had not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment, the dismissal was self-effectuating and required no court order. The court formally closed the case on June 10, 2024, and directed each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.
A dismissal with prejudice before the defendant has even answered is an unusually swift resolution and suggests a negotiated resolution, licensing agreement, or a plaintiff determination that further pursuit was not viable — though the public record is silent on the specific driver. The 42-day duration and the absence of any fee-shifting order are notable: Cloudera avoided litigation costs and faces no res judicata risk from a merits determination, yet the with-prejudice designation bars Pay As You Go from re-filing the same claims against Cloudera.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 42 days
42 days from filing to closure — well below the typical 18–36 month district court patent lifecycle
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 filing means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — self-effectuating pre-answer dismissal
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the opposing party serves an answer or summary judgment motion. Because Cloudera had not yet responded, Pay As You Go’s notice was self-effectuating — the case terminated automatically upon filing, with no judicial merits analysis required.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissalWith prejudice: plaintiff cannot re-assert these claims against Cloudera
The plaintiff expressly chose to dismiss with prejudice — a more final step than the default without-prejudice dismissal available under Rule 41. This bars Pay As You Go from re-filing the same patent claims (US8295458B2, US8068810B2, US7013127B2) against Cloudera in any court. It is consistent with a settlement or licensing resolution, but the public record does not confirm the underlying reason.
Claims barred against ClouderaCloudera exits without a merits ruling — and without fee exposure
Cloudera, Inc. was dismissed from the suit before serving any responsive pleading. The court’s cost order — each party bears its own fees — means Cloudera received no attorneys’ fee award despite the early exit. Cloudera faces no declaratory judgment or invalidity finding on record, but benefits from the with-prejudice bar preventing Pay As You Go from re-asserting these three patents against it.
No fee award; with-prejudice barThird parties remain exposed — the patents live on
Dismissal with prejudice resolves the dispute only as between Pay As You Go and Cloudera. The three asserted patents remain active and enforceable against other cloud data platform vendors and enterprise software providers. Companies with products in similar technical territory should treat this resolution as a signal that Pay As You Go continues to hold and potentially assert these patents across the sector.
Patents remain enforceable vs. othersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Pay As You Go, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Cloudera, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christopher A. Honea | Attorney | Counsel for Pay As You Go, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | M. Scott Fuller | Attorney | Counsel for Pay As You Go, LLCSearch 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 | Paige Arnette Amstutz | Attorney | Counsel for Cloudera, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Scott, Douglass & McConnico LLP | Law Firm | Representing Cloudera, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Robert Pitman | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s closing order confirms the dismissal was procedurally self-effectuating under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — no merits were adjudicated and no invalidity or non-infringement findings were made. The explicit with-prejudice designation, chosen by the plaintiff rather than imposed by the court, is the operative legal event: it permanently bars Pay As You Go from re-asserting these three patents against Cloudera. The mutual cost-bearing order suggests no party sought or obtained exceptional-case status under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
US8295458B2, US8068810B2 & US7013127B2 — Cloud & Wireless Data Platform Technologies
The three patents asserted in this case — US8295458B2, US8068810B2, and US7013127B2 — span technologies relating to cloud-based and wireless data platform services, consistent with the plaintiff’s name and commercial focus on usage-metered data systems. Their application numbers (filed across the early-to-mid 2000s) suggest they predate widespread cloud adoption, potentially covering foundational methods that read broadly onto modern distributed data platforms such as Cloudera’s.
For the cloud and enterprise data management sector, pre-smartphone-era patents asserted against modern platforms represent a structurally challenging category: claim scope was often drafted before the technology matured, creating ambiguity that both plaintiffs and defendants can exploit. Pay As You Go’s willingness to file in W.D. Texas — a plaintiff-friendly venue — and assert all three patents simultaneously against Cloudera’s core commercial product suggests these patents are treated as a coordinated licensing portfolio rather than isolated innovations. Other cloud data platform vendors should assess whether their architectures fall within the claim language of any of these three patents.
Should your team run an FTO against US8295458B2, US8068810B2 & US7013127B2?
Any company developing or commercialising cloud data management platforms, distributed data processing infrastructure, or usage-metered enterprise data services should treat this case as a prompt to conduct freedom-to-operate analysis. Pay As You Go has demonstrated a willingness to assert all three patents together in W.D. Texas — a venue known for accelerated patent schedules. The rapid dismissal against Cloudera does not eliminate the risk to others; if anything, a possible licensing resolution increases the likelihood of further assertion activity.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map their cloud platform product features against the claim language of US8295458B2, US8068810B2, and US7013127B2 in minutes — identifying overlap, prosecution history estoppel, and prior art vectors. With NPE enforcement risk elevated in the cloud data sector, proactive FTO analysis before product launch or investor disclosure is commercially prudent.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8295458B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar NPE patent suits targeting cloud data platform vendors
Explore related patent infringement cases filed in W.D. Texas asserting cloud data platform and wireless network management patents against enterprise software companies.
What this case signals for the cloud data platform IP landscape
A 42-day with-prejudice dismissal before any answer suggests a calculated move — not a routine filing abandoned mid-stream.
Pre-answer dismissals with prejudice often signal a deal was reached
When a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses with prejudice before the defendant has even answered, it typically signals either a licensing arrangement or a settlement. Pay As You Go obtained a with-prejudice bar — structurally unnecessary unless something of value was exchanged. Cloud data platform vendors should monitor whether Cloudera subsequently obtained a license to these patents.
The three patents remain live threats to non-Cloudera competitors
US8295458B2, US8068810B2, and US7013127B2 are not invalidated or adjudicated. Any enterprise cloud data management vendor operating in the same technical space as the Cloudera Data Platform should conduct an FTO analysis against these patents — particularly given Pay As You Go’s apparent willingness to litigate in W.D. Texas.
Pay v Cloudera — key questions answered
Pay As You Go, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Cloudera, Inc. in the Western District of Texas on April 29, 2024, asserting three patents against the Cloudera Data Platform. On June 7, 2024, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before Cloudera filed any answer. The court closed the case on June 10, 2024, ordering each party to bear its own costs.
Pay As You Go, LLC asserted three patents: US8295458B2 (App. No. 13/278377), US8068810B2 (App. No. 11/270965), and US7013127B2 (App. No. 10/337301). All three were asserted against the Cloudera Data Platform. No claim construction or validity analysis was issued by the court as the case was dismissed before any responsive pleading.
A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permanently bars Pay As You Go from re-filing the same patent claims against Cloudera. Cloudera received no invalidity or non-infringement ruling. The three patents remain enforceable against other defendants. The with-prejudice designation — voluntarily chosen by plaintiff — is consistent with a negotiated resolution, though the public record does not confirm this.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order before the opposing party serves an answer or summary judgment motion. Because Cloudera had not yet responded, the notice was self-effectuating. The court’s closing order confirmed this, quoting Fifth Circuit precedent: the notice ‘terminates the case in and of itself; no order or other action of the district court is required.’
Yes. The voluntary dismissal resolved the dispute only between Pay As You Go and Cloudera. No invalidity, unenforceability, or non-infringement findings were made. The three patents remain active and potentially enforceable against other parties. Cloud data platform and enterprise software vendors operating in similar technical territory should conduct freedom-to-operate analysis against these patents.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.