Peregrine Data v. Solera Holdings: Patent Case Transferred to Fort Worth in 8 Days
Peregrine Data LLC asserted US8319619B2 — covering stored vision technology for automobiles — against Solera Holdings LLC in the Northern District of Texas. Before any substantive litigation commenced, the court sua sponte transferred the case to the Fort Worth Division within 8 days of filing, citing Solera’s Westlake, Texas business location.
Venue misstep sends automotive data patent suit to Fort Worth
On December 12, 2024, Peregrine Data LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against Solera Holdings LLC in the Dallas Division of the Northern District of Texas, asserting US8319619B2, which covers stored vision technology for automobiles. Peregrine alleged that Solera directly infringed one or more claims of the patent and that the defendant maintained an established place of business within the district.
Despite filing in the Dallas Division, Peregrine’s own complaint identified Solera’s established place of business as Westlake, Texas — a location in Tarrant County, which falls within the Fort Worth Division of the Northern District of Texas. Acting on its own motion, Judge Ed Kinkeade determined that a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in Tarrant County and transferred the case to the Fort Worth Division on December 20, 2024.
The eight-day lifespan of this docket entry is notable: no defendant response, no claim construction, and no substantive ruling on infringement were reached. The transfer suggests Peregrine’s venue selection was inconsistent with its own factual allegations, a pattern that courts in the Northern District of Texas have acted on swiftly in recent years. Whether the case will proceed on the merits in Fort Worth remains to be seen from this public record.
Filing to Case Transferred in 8 days
Case closed in 8 days — well below the district median; no merits were reached
Case transferred to Fort Worth Division: what the venue ruling means
Sua sponte transfer: court acts without a party’s motion
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a district court may transfer a civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought, including on its own initiative. Here, Judge Kinkeade acted without any motion from Solera, finding that Peregrine’s own complaint placed the relevant conduct in Tarrant County — Fort Worth Division territory — rather than Dallas Division territory.
Procedural transfer — no merits rulingPeregrine’s venue choice undermined by its own allegations
By identifying Westlake, Texas as Solera’s established place of business in the complaint, Peregrine effectively conceded that the stronger venue connection lay in the Fort Worth Division. The case survives the transfer and Peregrine retains its infringement claims, but the filing strategy created an immediate procedural setback and signals a need for more careful venue analysis before filing.
Claims intact — venue recalibratedSolera gains Fort Worth venue without filing a single brief
Solera Holdings did not need to file a motion to transfer or even appear on the docket before the court acted. The Fort Worth Division may present a different litigation environment than Dallas, potentially affecting scheduling, jury pool, and local rules. Solera’s registered agents and counsel will now engage in the Fort Worth Division going forward.
Defendant benefits without motion practiceNorthern District of Texas actively policing intra-district venue
This transfer reflects a broader pattern in the Northern District of Texas, where judges have become more attentive to intra-district division assignments following heightened scrutiny of venue choices in patent cases. Patent plaintiffs asserting claims tied to a defendant’s specific Texas location should align their divisional filing with the defendant’s actual place of business to avoid immediate sua sponte correction.
Venue discipline — N.D. Tex. trendFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Peregrine Data LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US8319619B2 covering automotive stored vision technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Solera Holdings LLC | Company | Solera Holdings LLC — automotive data, software, and claims management solutions providerSearch 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 ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Ed Kinkeade | Judge | Texas Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s transfer order is strictly procedural — it resolves venue placement within the Northern District of Texas and makes no finding on patent validity, claim scope, or infringement. The order’s reliance on Peregrine’s own complaint allegations to establish the Fort Worth Division connection is significant: it demonstrates that self-defeating venue choices can be corrected sua sponte within days of filing, without any defendant participation. The infringement action under US8319619B2 continues in the Fort Worth Division.
US8319619B2 — Stored Vision Technology for Automobiles
US8319619B2, filed under application number US12/661217, covers stored vision technology for automobiles — a domain encompassing the capture, storage, and retrieval of visual data from vehicle-mounted systems. This patent sits at the intersection of automotive electronics and data management, addressing how visual information from vehicles is stored and accessed, which has growing relevance in connected vehicle, fleet management, and ADAS-adjacent applications.
Strategically, a patent covering stored vision for automobiles touches a rapidly expanding market segment. Solera Holdings operates across automotive claims management and data services, making it a commercially logical enforcement target. For automotive OEMs, fleet operators, insurers, and telematics software providers, US8319619B2 represents a potential blocking position in product lines that rely on vehicle-mounted camera storage or vision data logging. The outcome of the Fort Worth proceedings will be closely watched by the sector.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US8319619B2?
Any company developing or deploying automotive stored vision systems — including dashcam platforms, fleet telematics recorders, ADAS data loggers, or insurance telematics products — should assess exposure against US8319619B2. Peregrine Data’s willingness to assert this patent in federal court against a major automotive data company like Solera suggests active enforcement intent. R&D and product teams should not assume the patent is dormant.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim language of US8319619B2 against your specific product architecture, flag design-around opportunities, and surface related patents in the same family or citation cluster. Given that this case has now moved to active litigation in Fort Worth, building an FTO file now — before claim construction is set — positions your legal and engineering teams to respond quickly if a similar assertion arrives.
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 comparable patent infringement actions involving automotive data, stored vision, and telematics systems litigated in the Northern District of Texas and related venues.
What this case signals for the automotive data IP landscape
A swift sua sponte transfer reveals how Northern District of Texas judges are enforcing intra-district venue rules against patent plaintiffs.
Verify divisional venue before filing in N.D. Texas patent cases
When a complaint identifies a defendant’s specific Texas address, that address controls divisional venue. Filing in the Dallas Division while citing a Tarrant County address is likely to trigger immediate sua sponte transfer. Patent counsel should map defendant locations to the correct N.D. Tex. division before any complaint is filed.
US8319619B2 remains active — Solera still faces infringement claims
The transfer did not dispose of Peregrine’s infringement claims. US8319619B2 covering stored vision for automobiles remains asserted against Solera in the Fort Worth Division. Automotive data and telematics companies with similar product profiles should monitor this case’s progression for claim construction and infringement findings.
Peregrine v Solera — key questions answered
Peregrine Data LLC filed a patent infringement suit against Solera Holdings LLC on December 12, 2024 in the Dallas Division of the Northern District of Texas, asserting US8319619B2. On December 20, 2024, Judge Ed Kinkeade sua sponte transferred the case to the Fort Worth Division because Solera’s identified place of business in Westlake, Texas falls within Tarrant County, which is Fort Worth Division territory.
The transfer occurred because Peregrine’s own complaint identified Solera’s established place of business as Westlake, Texas — located in Tarrant County within the Fort Worth Division. Under 28 U.S.C. § 124(a)(2), Tarrant County is part of the Fort Worth Division, not the Dallas Division. The court found the case had a more substantial connection to Fort Worth and acted on its own motion under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
US8319619B2 (application no. US12/661217) covers stored vision technology for automobiles, relating to how visual data captured by vehicle-mounted systems is stored and retrieved. This intersects with dashcam systems, fleet telematics recorders, ADAS data logging, and insurance telematics — sectors experiencing significant commercial growth — making the patent strategically relevant to multiple automotive data providers.
No. A case transfer is purely a venue correction — the case and all claims travel with it to the receiving court. Peregrine Data’s infringement allegations against Solera Holdings under US8319619B2 remain live and will be adjudicated in the Fort Worth Division of the Northern District of Texas. No merits ruling of any kind was made in the Dallas Division.
A sua sponte transfer means the judge acted without any motion from the defendant. In Northern District of Texas patent cases, courts have been increasingly willing to correct intra-district venue errors based on a plaintiff’s own complaint allegations. This signals that patent plaintiffs must carefully verify divisional venue based on a defendant’s precise geographic location in Texas before filing, as missteps can result in immediate reassignment with no opportunity to cure.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.