Riccardo Vieri vs. Braze, Inc.: Voluntary Dismissal in Ad Tech Patent Dispute

Case Overview

In a case that quietly closed after ten months of litigation, Riccardo Vieri v. Braze, Inc. (Case No. 7:25-cv-00200) concluded with a voluntary dismissal without prejudice — an outcome that, while procedurally unremarkable on its surface, carries meaningful strategic signals for patent practitioners and IP professionals operating in the competitive advertising technology space.

Filed on April 25, 2025, in the Texas Western District Court and closed February 25, 2026, the case centered on alleged infringement of **U.S. Patent No. 8,156,005 B2**, directed to a customized advertisement delivery system. Plaintiff Riccardo Vieri, represented by boutique IP litigation firm Garteiser Honea PLLC, brought infringement claims against Braze, Inc. — a publicly traded customer engagement platform — only to voluntarily withdraw before the defendant had filed an answer or summary judgment motion.

The Parties

Patents at Issue

This case centered on a single patent covering fundamental advertisement delivery and personalization technology:

• • US8156005B2 — Customized advertisement delivery systems and methods.

The Verdict & Legal Analysis

Outcome

On February 25, 2026, the Texas Western District Court accepted **Plaintiff Riccardo Vieri’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice** pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). No damages were awarded. No injunctive relief was granted. All claims against Braze, Inc. were dismissed without prejudice, meaning Vieri theoretically retains the right to refile substantially similar claims in the future, subject to applicable statutes of limitations and any strategic or jurisdictional constraints.

Key Legal Issues

The dismissal was procedurally clean: because Braze had not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment, no court order was required to effectuate the dismissal. Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss as of right at this stage — the court’s role was confirmatory rather than adjudicatory.

Publicly available docket data does not disclose the underlying reason for dismissal. However, common drivers include settlement, plaintiff reassessment of claim strength or resources, or venue strategy.