ProudLion IP v. Microsoft: Infringement Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice After 244 Days
ProudLion IP, LLC asserted US9967389B2 — covering selectable alteration of operation and appearance of portable computing devices — against Microsoft in the Western District of Texas. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims without prejudice after 244 days, before Microsoft filed any answer or motion for summary judgment.
Patent assertion against Microsoft ends before Microsoft responds
On June 1, 2023, ProudLion IP, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Microsoft Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Case No. 1:23-cv-00615), before Judge Robert Pitman. The sole patent asserted was US9967389B2 (application no. US15/654609), which covers a system and method for selectable alteration of the operation and appearance of a portable computing device — a claim scope broadly relevant to mobile and desktop computing platform behaviour.
On January 30, 2024, ProudLion IP filed a notice of voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), dismissing all claims without prejudice. Because Microsoft 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 the same day. A dismissal without prejudice means ProudLion IP retains the right to refile the same claims against Microsoft or any other party, subject to applicable statutes of limitations.
The 244-day duration and pre-answer timing are notable. The case ended before Microsoft’s counsel at White & Case LLP submitted any substantive filing on the merits, suggesting the matter may have resolved through licensing negotiations, a business decision to retarget enforcement, or a reassessment of claim strength — though the public record is silent on the precise motivation. ProudLion IP’s use of Ramey LLP, a firm with a substantial patent assertion practice, is consistent with a structured licensing programme.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 244 days
244 days — resolved before defendant answered, suggesting early commercial or strategic pivot
Voluntary dismissal without prejudice: what the closure means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): self-effectuating dismissal, no court order needed
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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 a motion for summary judgment. Because Microsoft had not filed either, ProudLion IP’s notice was self-effectuating — the case terminated immediately upon filing, with no judicial ruling on the merits required.
Pre-answer voluntary dismissalWithout prejudice: claims survive for potential refiling
A dismissal without prejudice does not extinguish the underlying patent claims. ProudLion IP retains the legal right to refile suit on US9967389B2 against Microsoft or other defendants, provided the statute of limitations and patent term permit. This contrasts sharply with a dismissal with prejudice, which would bar refiling. The public record does not disclose whether any licensing agreement or settlement accompanied this dismissal.
Claims preserved for refilingMicrosoft exits with no adverse ruling — but uncertainty remains
Microsoft secured no invalidity ruling, no finding of non-infringement, and no fee award. While the immediate litigation risk is resolved, a without-prejudice dismissal provides Microsoft with no legal estoppel against future assertion of US9967389B2. The absence of an answer or summary judgment filing suggests Microsoft’s defence strategy — likely including invalidity and non-infringement arguments — was never tested on the merits.
No merits adjudicationPortable computing device patent risk persists across the sector
US9967389B2 covers selectable alteration of operation and appearance of portable computing devices — a scope that could extend to OS-level UI frameworks, device management APIs, and mobile platform customisation features. The without-prejudice dismissal means other companies operating in this space face ongoing uncertainty. Competitors and platform developers should monitor ProudLion IP’s future enforcement activity against this patent.
Sector-wide risk unresolvedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | ProudLion IP, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9967389B2 covering portable computing device UI alterationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Microsoft, Co. | Company | Microsoft Corporation — global software and cloud platform company targeted for alleged patent infringementSearch 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 | Henry Yee-Der Huang | Attorney | Counsel for Microsoft, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jonathan J. Lamberson | Attorney | Counsel for Microsoft, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Shridhar Jayanthi | Attorney | Counsel for Microsoft, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | White & Case LLP | Law Firm | Representing Microsoft, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Robert Pitman | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s closure order reflects the mechanical operation of Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) rather than any substantive adjudication. The verdict text confirms that Microsoft had served neither an answer nor a motion for summary judgment, leaving ProudLion IP’s unilateral dismissal self-effectuating under Fifth Circuit authority. No merits findings were made, no fee shifting was ordered, and the without-prejudice qualifier preserves ProudLion IP’s full enforcement rights in future proceedings.
US9967389B2 — Selectable alteration of portable computing device operation and appearance
US9967389B2 (application no. US15/654609) claims a system and method for selectable alteration of the operation and appearance of a portable computing device. This covers technology enabling users or administrators to switch between operational profiles or visual configurations on a portable device — a capability relevant to device management, enterprise mobility, and OS-level UI frameworks. The patent was asserted in its granted form, covering issued claims in the computing device customisation domain.
The commercial reach of US9967389B2 extends well beyond any single defendant. Device manufacturers, mobile OS vendors, MDM platform providers, and enterprise computing solution developers may each face exposure if their products enable configurable operational modes or appearance settings on portable devices. The patent’s survival through this litigation — with no invalidity ruling — means it retains full presumption of validity, making it a credible tool for continued assertion across the sector.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US9967389B2?
Any R&D or product team developing features that allow selectable changes to the operational mode or visual appearance of portable computing devices should assess exposure to US9967389B2. This includes mobile OS customisation layers, enterprise device management tools, kiosk-mode software, and firmware-level profile switching systems. The patent’s without-prejudice dismissal against Microsoft provides no protection to other market participants.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables rapid claim-level mapping against US9967389B2, identifying which product features or technical implementations are most likely to fall within claim scope. Eureka can also surface related family members, prosecution history estoppel signals, and prior art candidates that could support an IPR petition — giving your team a defensible position before enforcement activity resumes.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9967389B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: portable computing device UI and device management assertions
Cases involving portable computing device operation and appearance patents filed in the Western District of Texas by patent assertion entities, including Ramey LLP-represented plaintiffs.
What ProudLion IP v. Microsoft signals for the portable computing IP landscape
A pre-answer dismissal without prejudice in a PAE-led assertion rarely signals the end of enforcement — it often marks a tactical reset.
Pre-answer dismissals by PAEs often precede re-targeted enforcement
When a patent assertion entity dismisses without prejudice before the defendant answers, it typically signals a licensing pivot or a decision to pursue different defendants rather than a concession on claim strength. Companies operating in the portable computing and mobile platform space should treat this dismissal as a monitoring trigger, not a clearance signal.
US9967389B2 remains active and enforceable — FTO exposure is real
The dismissal confers no invalidity finding and no covenant not to sue. Any company whose products involve selectable alteration of UI behaviour or operating modes on portable devices — including MDM vendors, OS developers, and device OEMs — should assess freedom-to-operate against this patent before the next enforcement action names them.
ProudLion v Microsoft — key questions answered
ProudLion IP, LLC filed a patent infringement suit against Microsoft Corporation in the Western District of Texas on June 1, 2023, asserting US9967389B2. On January 30, 2024, ProudLion IP voluntarily dismissed all claims without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), before Microsoft filed any answer or motion for summary judgment. The court closed the case the same day with no merits ruling.
A without-prejudice dismissal does not extinguish the underlying patent claims. ProudLion IP retains the right to refile suit against Microsoft or any other defendant on US9967389B2, subject to the applicable statute of limitations and the patent’s remaining term. No invalidity finding or non-infringement ruling was made, so the patent retains its full presumption of validity.
The public record does not disclose the reason for the pre-answer dismissal. Common explanations in similar PAE cases include entry into a licensing agreement, a decision to refile against different defendants, a reassessment of claim mapping, or strategic timing considerations. The involvement of Ramey LLP — a firm with a serial assertion practice — suggests ongoing enforcement activity against this patent is possible.
US9967389B2 (application US15/654609) covers a system and method for selectable alteration of the operation and appearance of a portable computing device. The patent’s claim scope is relevant to configurable UI behaviour, device profile switching, and appearance customisation on portable platforms — technology that intersects with mobile OS development, enterprise device management, and computing hardware design.
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal without prejudice provides Microsoft with no legal estoppel and no covenant not to sue. Microsoft received no invalidity ruling and no non-infringement finding. While the immediate litigation risk is resolved, Microsoft — and other companies in the portable computing sector — remain exposed to future assertion of US9967389B2 unless a licensing agreement was reached privately or the patent is later invalidated through IPR or reexamination.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.