Peregrine Data LLC v. Solera Holdings LLC — Dismissed With Prejudice in 137 Days
Peregrine Data LLC asserted US8319619B2 — a patent covering stored vision technology for automobiles — against automotive data giant Solera Holdings LLC in the Northern District of Texas. The parties jointly stipulated to dismiss all claims with prejudice in just 137 days, with each side bearing its own costs.
A Fast-Resolved Automotive Data Patent Dispute in Texas
On December 12, 2024, Peregrine Data LLC filed a patent infringement action against Solera Holdings LLC in the Northern District of Texas before Judge Reed C. O’Connor. The suit alleged infringement of US8319619B2, a patent directed at stored vision technology for automobiles — a domain squarely within Solera’s automotive data and claims management business. Peregrine was represented by Dnl Zito and Rabicoff Law LLC, while Solera retained Fish & Richardson LLP.
The case closed on April 28, 2025, via a joint stipulation of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). All of Peregrine’s infringement claims against Solera were dismissed with prejudice, meaning Peregrine is permanently barred from re-asserting the same claims against Solera. Solera’s counterclaims, by contrast, were dismissed without prejudice, preserving Solera’s ability to revive them in future proceedings. Each party agreed to bear its own litigation costs.
The 137-day duration is notably short for patent litigation in the Northern District of Texas, suggesting the parties likely reached a private resolution — whether a licence, covenant not to sue, or commercial agreement — before any substantive court rulings were issued. The public record is silent on the specific commercial terms. The asymmetric dismissal structure (plaintiff’s claims with prejudice, defendant’s counterclaims without) is a common hallmark of a negotiated exit that favoured the defendant’s posture.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 137 days
137 days — well under the typical 2–3 year district court patent lifecycle, suggesting early resolution
Stipulated dismissal with prejudice: what the terms mean for each party
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal explained
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal is a voluntary, court-approved stipulation signed by all parties. Unlike a unilateral dismissal, it requires mutual consent. Dismissal ‘with prejudice’ on the plaintiff’s claims is a final adjudication on the merits — Peregrine cannot refile the same infringement claims against Solera on US8319619B2. This is the strongest form of closure a defendant can obtain short of a full trial win.
Consensual — no court merits rulingPeregrine’s claims permanently extinguished against Solera
Dismissal with prejudice bars Peregrine from re-asserting US8319619B2 against Solera in any future action. Peregrine retains the patent and may still enforce it against other parties. The no-costs order means Peregrine avoided an adverse fee award under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which would have required a finding of an ‘exceptional case.’ The terms suggest a pragmatic exit, potentially having secured some form of private consideration from Solera.
Patent survives; enforcement ends vs. SoleraSolera’s counterclaims preserved without prejudice
Solera’s counterclaims — which may have included invalidity or unenforceability challenges to US8319619B2 — were dismissed without prejudice. This preserves Solera’s right to raise them again if Peregrine were ever to reassert the patent in a different context. The retention of this option, combined with Fish & Richardson’s involvement, suggests Solera negotiated from a position of strength and secured a permanent bar on the asserted claims.
Counterclaims preserved; strong defensive postureAutomotive data platforms face continued PAE assertion risk
The Northern District of Texas remains an active venue for patent assertion entity (PAE) filings targeting automotive software and data companies. Solera’s swift resolution of this dispute — likely through private negotiation rather than protracted litigation — is consistent with the industry playbook for high-value data platforms facing assertion campaigns. Companies operating in vehicle telematics, ADAS, or automotive claims technology should monitor US8319619B2 and related patent families for ongoing assertion activity.
PAE risk remains for automotive data sectorFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Peregrine Data LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US8319619B2 covering stored vision for automobilesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Solera Holdings LLC | Company | Solera Holdings LLC — global automotive data, software, and claims management companySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Benjamin C. Deming | Attorney | Counsel for Peregrine Data LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Philip Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for Peregrine Data LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dnl Zito | Law Firm | Representing Peregrine Data LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rabicoff Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing Peregrine Data LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lance Eric Wyatt , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Solera Holdings LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Neil J McNabnay | Attorney | Counsel for Solera Holdings LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson LLP | Law Firm | Representing Solera Holdings LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Reed C. O’Connor | Judge | Texas Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation’s asymmetric structure is analytically significant: Peregrine’s claims are dismissed with prejudice — a permanent bar equivalent in effect to a judgment on the merits — while Solera’s counterclaims exit without prejudice, leaving Solera’s invalidity or unenforceability arguments intact as a latent threat. No costs were awarded, which avoids any ‘exceptional case’ determination under § 285. The phrasing is consistent with a privately negotiated resolution in which Solera secured the stronger exit.
US8319619B2 — Stored Vision Technology for Automobiles
US8319619B2, filed under application number US12/661217, covers stored vision technology for automobiles — a technical domain encompassing the capture, storage, and retrieval of visual or sensor data generated by vehicle-mounted systems. This class of invention sits at the intersection of automotive electronics, onboard data management, and vehicle event recording. The patent’s grant designation (B2) indicates it issued following an examination with published amendments, which may affect claim scope interpretation.
Stored vision and vehicle event data technology has become strategically significant as ADAS, dashcam, fleet telematics, and insurance telematics markets have expanded. Solera’s core business — automating automotive claims, repair, and data workflows — places it directly within the commercial scope of patents in this domain. US8319619B2 remains in force and unchallenged on validity following this dismissal, making it a live risk for any platform processing or storing vehicle-generated visual data.
Should your product team run an FTO against US8319619B2?
Any company developing or deploying systems that capture, store, or process visual or sensor data from vehicles — including dashcam platforms, fleet management software, ADAS data pipelines, automotive insurance telematics, or vehicle event recorders — should assess freedom to operate against US8319619B2. The patent was asserted against one of the largest automotive data companies in the world, and it survived this litigation with its enforceability intact. No invalidity ruling was issued.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and legal teams to map claim language in US8319619B2 against your product architecture, identify design-around opportunities, and surface related continuation or divisional patents in Peregrine’s portfolio that may pose additional risk. Run a full claim-by-claim analysis before your next product launch in the automotive data space.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8319619B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Patent Cases: Automotive Data & Stored Vision Technology
Explore related infringement actions involving vehicle data capture and stored vision patents filed in the Northern District of Texas and comparable U.S. district courts.
What this case signals for the automotive data IP landscape
A fast, asymmetric dismissal in a Texas patent case rarely means nothing happened — it typically signals a private commercial resolution.
With-prejudice dismissals in PAE cases often mask licensing deals
When a plaintiff’s claims are dismissed with prejudice but the defendant’s counterclaims survive, the structure strongly suggests the defendant paid — or received a covenant — sufficient to end the dispute on favourable terms. Competitors of Solera operating in automotive data should assess whether a similar assertion against them is forthcoming.
Fish & Richardson’s involvement signals Solera took this seriously
Retaining Fish & Richardson — a top-tier patent litigation firm — for a case resolved in 137 days suggests Solera came prepared with a strong invalidity or non-infringement position. The preservation of counterclaims without prejudice is consistent with holding a credible challenge in reserve as negotiating leverage.
Peregrine v Solera — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice as to all of Peregrine Data’s infringement claims against Solera Holdings, and without prejudice as to Solera’s counterclaims. The dismissal was entered by joint stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) on April 28, 2025. Each party bore its own costs and attorneys’ fees. No merits ruling was issued by the court.
Peregrine Data asserted US8319619B2, filed under application number US12/661217. The patent covers stored vision technology for automobiles — a domain encompassing the capture, storage, and retrieval of vehicle-generated visual or sensor data. The patent remains in force following the dismissal, as no invalidity determination was made.
Dismissal with prejudice permanently bars Peregrine Data from filing any future infringement action against Solera Holdings based on US8319619B2 arising from the same or related conduct. It is functionally equivalent to a judgment on the merits. Peregrine retains the patent and may assert it against third parties not covered by this stipulation.
Counterclaims dismissed without prejudice are not permanently extinguished — Solera retains the right to re-raise them in future proceedings if the circumstances warrant. This asymmetric structure, where the plaintiff’s claims exit with prejudice but the defendant’s counterclaims do not, is a common feature of negotiated patent settlements where the defendant secures a permanent bar on assertion while preserving its own optionality.
Peregrine Data LLC was represented by Dnl Zito and Rabicoff Law LLC, with attorneys Benjamin C. Deming and Isaac Philip Rabicoff on record. Solera Holdings LLC retained Fish & Richardson LLP, with Lance Eric Wyatt Jr. and Neil J. McNabnay as counsel of record. The case was heard by Judge Reed C. O’Connor in the Northern District of Texas.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.