Random Chat v. Bass Pro Shops: TCP/IP Patent Suit Dismissed With Prejudice in 145 Days
Random Chat, LLC sued Bass Pro Shops in the Western District of Texas alleging infringement of US8402099B2, a method patent covering TCP/IP and UDP-based multimedia communication. Plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before the defendant served any answer, ending the case in under five months with each party bearing its own costs.
TCP/IP Patent Assertion Against Bass Pro Shops Ends Before Answer Filed
Random Chat, LLC filed suit against BPS Direct, LLC d/b/a Bass Pro Shops in the Western District of Texas on July 24, 2024, asserting infringement of US8402099B2. The patent covers a method for carrying out multimedia communication over network protocols, specifically TCP/IP and UDP — technologies foundational to internet-based audio, video, and chat applications. Plaintiff was represented by Ramey LLP, a firm frequently active in patent assertion in Texas federal courts.
On December 13, 2024, Random Chat filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which permits unilateral dismissal before the opposing party serves an answer or summary judgment motion. Bass Pro Shops had not yet served an answer, making the notice self-effectuating. The court formally closed the action on December 16, 2024, ordering each party to bear its own costs and denying all pending motions as moot.
At 145 days, this case resolved unusually quickly — before any substantive defense pleading was filed. The with-prejudice designation means Random Chat cannot re-file the same claims against Bass Pro Shops on this patent, which is a meaningful concession. The public record does not reveal whether a confidential settlement was reached; the own-costs order is consistent with either a private resolution or a decision to abandon the assertion without compensation.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 145 days
145 days — resolved before defendant filed an answer, faster than most W.D. Tex. patent cases
Dismissed with prejudice: what Rule 41 voluntary dismissal means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral exit before answer
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or summary judgment motion. Because Bass Pro Shops had not yet answered, Random Chat’s notice was self-effectuating — the case terminated automatically upon filing. No judicial merits analysis was required or issued.
Pre-answer voluntary dismissalWith prejudice bars re-filing the same claims on this patent
A dismissal with prejudice operates as an adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes. Random Chat cannot re-assert the same claims under US8402099B2 against Bass Pro Shops in any future action. This is a stronger concession than a without-prejudice dismissal, which would preserve the right to refile. The public record does not disclose whether a confidential settlement underlies this outcome.
Permanent bar on re-filingBass Pro Shops exits without admitting infringement
Bass Pro Shops obtains a permanent resolution of this specific claim without any finding of infringement and without paying court-ordered costs or fees. The own-costs order means no fee-shifting occurred. However, because no invalidity ruling was issued, US8402099B2 remains a live patent that could be asserted against Bass Pro Shops by a different patent holder or successor in interest.
No infringement findingUS8402099B2 remains enforceable against other defendants
The dismissal resolves only the claim against Bass Pro Shops. US8402099B2 is not invalidated and Random Chat — or any future assignee — retains the right to assert it against other parties operating TCP/IP or UDP-based multimedia communication systems. Companies in e-commerce, retail tech, and customer engagement platforms should monitor this patent’s assertion history.
Patent remains liveFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Random Chat, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US8402099B2, a TCP/IP multimedia communication method patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | BPS Direct, LLC d/b/a Bass Pro Shops | Company | BPS Direct, LLC d/b/a Bass Pro Shops — major U.S. outdoor and sporting goods retailerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jeffrey Eugene Kubiak | Attorney | Counsel for Random Chat, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William P. Ramey , III | Attorney | Counsel for Random Chat, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ramey LLP | Law Firm | Representing Random Chat, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Benjamin Baek | Attorney | Counsel for BPS Direct, LLC d/b/a Bass Pro ShopsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | G. Blake Thompson | Attorney | Counsel for BPS Direct, LLC d/b/a Bass Pro ShopsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael A. Lavine | Attorney | Counsel for BPS Direct, LLC d/b/a Bass Pro ShopsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael C. Hendershot | Attorney | Counsel for BPS Direct, LLC d/b/a Bass Pro ShopsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Jones Day | Law Firm | Representing BPS Direct, LLC d/b/a Bass Pro ShopsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Mann, Tindel & Thompson Attorneys at Law | Law Firm | Representing BPS Direct, LLC d/b/a Bass Pro ShopsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order confirms that Random Chat’s dismissal was self-effectuating under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — no judicial merits determination was made. The with-prejudice designation carries res judicata effect as between these two parties on these specific claims, foreclosing future re-assertion of US8402099B2 against Bass Pro Shops by Random Chat. The own-costs ruling reflects the default position when no fee-shifting motion was adjudicated, and does not signal a finding of exceptional case conduct in either direction.
US8402099B2 — TCP/IP and UDP multimedia communication method
US8402099B2 protects a method for carrying out multimedia communication — encompassing audio, video, and data exchange — based on standard network protocols including TCP/IP and UDP. The patent originates from application number US12/675046 and covers the architectural and procedural steps enabling real-time or session-based media exchange over internet protocol infrastructure. At its priority date, such methods were commercially significant as businesses moved customer interaction online.
The patent’s scope is strategically broad — TCP/IP and UDP underpin virtually all internet-based multimedia features deployed in modern e-commerce, retail, and customer service platforms. This breadth makes it an attractive assertion vehicle against a wide range of technology users, not merely specialist communications companies. Any organisation operating live chat, video consultation, or streaming features on a web or mobile platform is potentially within the claim scope and should evaluate exposure proactively.
Should your product team run an FTO against US8402099B2?
Any company deploying web-based chat, video, voice-over-IP, or live-streaming features in customer-facing applications should assess exposure to US8402099B2. The patent’s claims are grounded in TCP/IP and UDP multimedia communication methods — protocols that are near-universal in digital commerce and customer engagement technology. Retailers, SaaS platforms, and consumer tech companies are all plausible targets, as this case against a major sporting goods retailer demonstrates.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s technical architecture against the claim language of US8402099B2, identify prior art that may limit or invalidate the claims, and surface any co-pending assertions of this patent against comparable defendants. Running this analysis now — before a demand letter arrives — is materially cheaper than litigation defense in W.D. Tex., where Ramey LLP filings are a recurring feature of the patent docket.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8402099B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar TCP/IP multimedia patent assertions in W.D. Texas
These cases involve comparable TCP/IP or internet protocol patent assertions filed in the Western District of Texas, including matters handled by Ramey LLP.
What this case signals for the TCP/IP patent assertion landscape
A pre-answer with-prejudice dismissal in W.D. Tex. typically signals either a private resolution or a reassessment of litigation economics.
Pre-answer dismissals with prejudice often mask confidential settlements
When plaintiffs dismiss with prejudice before a defendant answers, it frequently — though not always — suggests a private financial resolution. The own-costs order here is neutral and does not confirm or deny a payment. Companies facing similar assertions should treat the public record as incomplete and monitor for subsequent licensing activity around the same patent.
US8402099B2 is still enforceable — monitor for repeat assertions
This dismissal does not extinguish the patent. Ramey LLP has a documented history of serial patent assertion in W.D. Tex. across multiple defendants. Any company deploying TCP/IP or UDP-based multimedia communication in customer-facing applications — including chat, video, or live-streaming features — should conduct an FTO analysis against US8402099B2.
Random v BPS — key questions answered
Random Chat, LLC sued Bass Pro Shops in the Western District of Texas asserting infringement of US8402099B2, a method patent covering TCP/IP and UDP-based multimedia communication. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice on December 13, 2024, under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), before Bass Pro Shops served an answer. The court closed the action on December 16, 2024, with each party bearing its own costs.
A dismissal with prejudice bars Random Chat from re-asserting the same claims under US8402099B2 against Bass Pro Shops in any future action, as it carries res judicata effect. However, the patent itself is not invalidated — Random Chat or any future assignee retains the right to assert US8402099B2 against other defendants.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may unilaterally 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 Bass Pro Shops had not yet served an answer, Random Chat’s notice automatically terminated the case without requiring any judicial order.
Not necessarily. An own-costs order is the default when no fee-shifting motion is adjudicated and does not confirm or exclude a confidential private settlement. It is consistent with both a negotiated resolution with undisclosed financial terms and a decision by the plaintiff to abandon the assertion without compensation. The public record is silent on whether any payment changed hands.
Potentially. The patent claims a method for multimedia communication over TCP/IP and UDP, protocols foundational to web-based chat, video, voice, and streaming features. The assertion against a major retail defendant suggests the patent holder views a broad range of businesses as within scope. Companies deploying such features in customer-facing applications should consider an FTO analysis and monitor the patent’s litigation history.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.