ProudLion IP v. Amazon.com — Dismissed With Prejudice in 78 Days
ProudLion IP, LLC asserted US9967389B2 — covering selectable alteration of portable computing device operation and appearance — against Amazon.com in the Western District of Texas. The case ended via voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), extinguishing ProudLion’s right to re-assert the patent against Amazon, all within 78 days of filing.
A Swift Exit: ProudLion Surrenders Its Patent Claim Against Amazon
ProudLion IP, LLC filed suit against Amazon.com, Inc. on 20 November 2024 in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 7:24-cv-00297), asserting infringement of US9967389B2. The patent relates to technology for selectably altering the operation and appearance of a portable computing device — a claim area with clear relevance to Amazon’s broad portfolio of consumer devices and software platforms.
The case closed on 6 February 2025 when ProudLion filed a notice of voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), exercising its right to dismiss before Amazon had answered or filed a motion for summary judgment. Crucially, ProudLion elected — or agreed — to take the dismissal with prejudice, permanently barring any future assertion of the patent against Amazon. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.
The 78-day lifecycle is notably short, consistent with a pre-answer resolution that may suggest a licensing negotiation, a strategic withdrawal, or a commercial agreement outside the public record. The with-prejudice designation is the most consequential element: unlike a standard Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal which defaults to without prejudice, this express election signals a deliberate and final disposition. The terms of any underlying deal, if one exists, are not disclosed in the public court record.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 78 days
78 days — well below the typical 2–3 year district court lifecycle for patent cases
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral right to exit — with a permanent twist
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss without court approval before the defendant answers or files a summary judgment motion. By default such a dismissal is without prejudice. Here, ProudLion expressly designated the dismissal as with prejudice — an unusual and consequential departure that permanently extinguishes the claim against Amazon on this patent.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — with prejudiceProudLion permanently forfeits its right to sue Amazon on US9967389B2
A with-prejudice dismissal operates as a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes. ProudLion cannot re-file against Amazon on this patent in any court. The voluntary nature of the dismissal suggests ProudLion chose this outcome — possibly in exchange for a confidential settlement or licensing arrangement — rather than having it imposed by the court.
Patent claim extinguished vs. AmazonAmazon exits with permanent immunity from this patent claim
Amazon.com emerges with a with-prejudice dismissal on the record, providing full protection against any future infringement action by ProudLion on US9967389B2. The pre-answer timing means Amazon incurred limited litigation exposure. The each-party-bears-own-costs arrangement is standard in pre-answer exits and does not signal any particular leverage by either side.
Amazon: fully protected on this patentA with-prejudice exit this early typically signals a resolution was reached
The combination of a 78-day lifecycle, a pre-answer exit, and the voluntary with-prejudice designation is consistent with a confidential licensing or settlement arrangement. For the portable computing device sector, the case signals that assertion of US9967389B2 against large device manufacturers may be resolved quickly and quietly. Other potential defendants should monitor whether ProudLion pursues similar claims against other platforms.
Confidential resolution likelyFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | ProudLion IP, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9967389B2 covering portable computing device UX controlSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Amazon.com, Inc. | Company | Amazon.com, Inc. — global e-commerce and consumer electronics platform operatorSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jeffrey Eugene Kubiak | Attorney | Counsel for ProudLion IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William P. Ramey , III | Attorney | Counsel for ProudLion IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ramey LLP | Law Firm | Representing ProudLion IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jonathan J. Lamberson | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | White & Case LLP | Law Firm | Representing Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice explicitly designates the termination as with prejudice — an atypical election under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which ordinarily produces a without-prejudice result. This language carries significant legal weight: it functions as a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes, permanently barring ProudLion from re-asserting US9967389B2 against Amazon. The pre-answer timing and mutual cost-bearing arrangement suggest the parties reached an understanding outside the public record, with the with-prejudice designation serving as Amazon’s principal consideration.
US9967389B2 — Selectable Alteration of Portable Computing Device Operation
US9967389B2, filed under application number US15/654609, protects technology for selectably altering the operation and appearance of a portable computing device. This domain encompasses configurable device behavior — including UI modes, operational profiles, and appearance-switching mechanisms — that are fundamental to modern smartphone, tablet, and embedded consumer device platforms. The patent’s claims are positioned in a space where hardware control intersects with software-defined user experience.
The commercial significance of this patent lies in its potential applicability to any device platform that enables users or administrators to switch between operational states or visual configurations — a feature present in virtually every major mobile OS and consumer device ecosystem. Amazon’s Fire device range, Alexa-integrated hardware, and app distribution platforms could all plausibly be implicated. The with-prejudice resolution against Amazon does not affect enforceability against third parties, making this patent a live risk for other device manufacturers and platform operators.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US9967389B2?
Any company shipping configurable portable computing devices, mobile operating systems, or device management software should treat US9967389B2 as a patent requiring active FTO assessment. The claim language around ‘selectably altering operation and appearance’ is broad enough to implicate profile-switching, kiosk modes, accessibility overlays, and device administration frameworks common across iOS, Android, and embedded platforms. The Amazon dismissal with prejudice covers only Amazon — all other parties remain exposed.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can rapidly map the claims of US9967389B2 against your product’s feature set, identify relevant prior art that may support invalidity arguments, and surface related patents in the same family that could generate follow-on risk. For device and platform teams evaluating configurable UX features, an automated FTO run through Eureka provides a defensible, documented clearance baseline before product launch or feature expansion.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9967389B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar portable computing device patent cases in W.D. Texas
Explore patent infringement cases involving portable computing device and mobile UX patents litigated before Judge Albright in the Western District of Texas.
What this case signals for the portable computing device IP landscape
A 78-day with-prejudice exit against Amazon raises pointed questions for IP teams in the consumer device and mobile platform space.
With-prejudice Rule 41 exits often mask confidential commercial resolutions
When a plaintiff files a with-prejudice dismissal before the defendant even answers, it almost invariably reflects a negotiated outcome rather than a unilateral surrender. IP teams at consumer device companies should treat this as a signal that US9967389B2 may carry licensing value — and factor that into FTO and clearance decisions.
Western District of Texas continues to attract rapid pre-trial patent resolutions
Judge Albright’s docket is associated with aggressive scheduling and early resolution pressure. The 78-day close is consistent with that dynamic. Companies sued in W.D. Tex. over device-related patents should anticipate swift timelines and prepare early-stage invalidity and non-infringement positions before any answer is due.
ProudLion v Amazon.com — key questions answered
A with-prejudice dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permanently bars ProudLion from re-asserting US9967389B2 against Amazon in any future action. It functions as a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes, even though no court ruling on the substance of the infringement claim was ever issued.
Yes. The with-prejudice dismissal is defendant-specific — it bars claims only against Amazon.com, Inc. ProudLion retains full enforcement rights against any other party. Companies in the portable computing device, mobile OS, and device management sectors should not assume the Amazon resolution provides them any protection.
A standard Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal defaults to without prejudice, preserving the plaintiff’s right to refile. The express with-prejudice designation suggests ProudLion received something of value — most likely a licensing payment or commercial arrangement — in exchange for permanently releasing Amazon from the claim. The terms are not disclosed in the public court record.
US9967389B2 (application no. US15/654609) covers technology for selectably altering the operation and appearance of a portable computing device. This encompasses configurable device behavior such as operational mode switching and UI appearance changes — features broadly present in smartphones, tablets, and consumer electronics platforms.
Judge Albright’s court in W.D. Tex. is one of the most active patent litigation venues in the United States, known for tight scheduling orders and early resolution pressure. The 78-day case duration is consistent with the accelerated pace of Albright’s docket. Patent assertion entities, including Ramey LLP clients, have historically favored this venue for these dynamics.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.