Secure Matrix LLC v. Hanley-Wood Fine Living: Authentication Patent Dismissed With Prejudice
Secure Matrix LLC asserted US8677116B1 — covering systems and methods for authentication and verification — against Hanley-Wood Fine Living, Inc. in the Western District of Texas. The parties jointly stipulated to dismissal with prejudice just 43 days after filing, suggesting a rapid resolution outside the public record.
A 43-day authentication patent dispute ends with finality
On October 6, 2025, Secure Matrix LLC filed a patent infringement action against Hanley-Wood Fine Living, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asserting US8677116B1, which covers systems and methods for authentication and verification. The Western District of Texas remains a frequently selected venue for patent plaintiffs, and the case was assigned under case number 7:25-cv-00452. Plaintiff was represented by Rabicoff Law LLC, a firm known for patent assertion work, while defendant retained Fish & Richardson PC, a leading patent defence firm.
On November 17, 2025 — just 43 days after filing — the parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal With Prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The court granted the stipulation the following day, November 18, 2025. A with-prejudice dismissal is legally significant: Secure Matrix LLC is permanently barred from reasserting the same patent claims against Hanley-Wood Fine Living, Inc. The stipulation was signed by all appearing parties, making it self-executing upon filing under Fifth Circuit precedent.
The 43-day resolution is notably swift and strongly suggests the parties reached a private settlement, though no financial terms or licence agreement have been disclosed in the public record. The engagement of Fish & Richardson — one of the most prominent patent litigation defence firms — may have signalled to the plaintiff that a prolonged contest would be costly. Whether Secure Matrix LLC received any compensation or cross-licence, or simply withdrew, cannot be confirmed from available court documents. The with-prejudice character of the dismissal provides Hanley-Wood Fine Living with permanent protection against re-assertion of this specific patent.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 43 days
43 days — well below the typical 18–36 month district court patent litigation cycle
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) — self-executing joint stipulation
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), a plaintiff may dismiss an action by filing a stipulation signed by all appearing parties. No court approval is required — the dismissal is effective automatically upon filing. The Fifth Circuit confirmed this in Yesh Music v. Lakewood Church (2013). Here, all parties signed, making the November 17 filing immediately operative. The court’s November 18 order was confirmatory rather than constitutive.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissalWith prejudice bars any future re-assertion of this patent against this defendant
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits under res judicata principles. Secure Matrix LLC cannot re-file infringement claims under US8677116B1 against Hanley-Wood Fine Living, Inc. in any federal court. This provides the defendant with a permanent shield against this specific plaintiff-patent combination. The with-prejudice designation was expressly agreed by the plaintiff, which is consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a unilateral withdrawal.
Permanent bar on re-assertionSecure Matrix retains the patent but loses this enforcement avenue
While Secure Matrix LLC retains title to US8677116B1 and may assert it against other parties, the with-prejudice dismissal forecloses any future claim against Hanley-Wood Fine Living. The rapid 43-day timeline and the involvement of Fish & Richardson on the defence side suggests the plaintiff may have assessed litigation risk or reached a private arrangement. The public record does not disclose whether any consideration was exchanged.
Patent retained; this claim extinguishedFast resolution limits precedent but confirms patent remains active
No claim construction, invalidity ruling, or infringement finding was issued, meaning the scope and validity of US8677116B1 remain legally untested by this litigation. For third parties operating in the authentication and verification technology space, the patent continues to carry enforcement risk. The absence of any merits ruling means competitors cannot rely on this case as a validity challenge. Organisations using similar authentication systems should assess their own exposure independently.
No merits ruling; patent enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Secure Matrix LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US8677116B1 covering authentication and verification systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Hanley-Wood Fine Living, Inc. | Company | Hanley-Wood Fine Living, Inc. — media and information services company, defendant in authentication IP disputeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for Secure Matrix LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rabicoff Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing Secure Matrix LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lance E. Wyatt , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Hanley-Wood Fine Living, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Neil J. McNabnay | Attorney | Counsel for Hanley-Wood Fine Living, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson PC | Law Firm | Representing Hanley-Wood Fine Living, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson, PC | Law Firm | Representing Hanley-Wood Fine Living, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order adopts the parties’ joint stipulation verbatim, confirming dismissal with prejudice of all claims against the defendant as to the asserted patent. The with-prejudice qualifier is legally material: it extinguishes the plaintiff’s right to re-assert US8677116B1 against Hanley-Wood Fine Living in any future proceeding. The court explicitly notes the self-executing nature of Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulations under Fifth Circuit authority, meaning its order formalised an already-operative dismissal. No merits determination was made.
US8677116B1 — Systems and Methods for Authentication and Verification
US8677116B1 is a granted U.S. patent covering systems and methods for authentication and verification, filed under application number US13/963941. Authentication patents in this class typically protect mechanisms by which a system confirms the identity of a user or entity — encompassing multi-factor authentication, token-based verification, cryptographic credential validation, or challenge-response protocols. The B1 designation indicates the patent issued without any post-grant publication, suggesting it proceeded directly to grant without pre-issuance publication.
Authentication and verification technology sits at the intersection of cybersecurity, digital identity, and access management — sectors that have experienced significant patent assertion activity in recent years. A patent asserting broad claims in this space can present risk to a wide range of companies deploying login, access control, or identity verification systems, including media, e-commerce, and SaaS platforms. The absence of any claim construction ruling in this case means the patent’s scope remains unnarrated by any court, which preserves both its enforcement potential and its uncertainty for third parties.
Should your product team run an FTO against US8677116B1?
Any organisation deploying authentication or identity verification systems — including multi-factor authentication, single sign-on, token-based login, or credential management tools — should treat US8677116B1 as an active enforcement risk. Secure Matrix LLC has demonstrated willingness to assert this patent in federal court, and the with-prejudice dismissal here does not affect the patent’s enforceability against other parties. Media companies, SaaS platforms, and digital services operators are particularly relevant targets given the defendant profile in this case.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and product teams to map the claims of US8677116B1 against their specific implementation architecture, identify relevant prior art that could support invalidity arguments, and surface related patents in the same family or owned by the same assignee. Given that no court has construed the claims of this patent, understanding claim scope through a structured FTO analysis is essential before building or shipping authentication-dependent features.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8677116B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar authentication patent cases in the Western District of Texas
Cases involving authentication and verification patents litigated in the Western District of Texas, including actions by patent assertion entities using Rabicoff Law LLC.
What this case signals for the authentication technology IP landscape
A 43-day dismissal with prejudice in a Texas authentication patent case carries specific implications for technology companies and IP teams monitoring enforcement risk.
Fish & Richardson’s involvement may have accelerated resolution
Defendants represented by top-tier patent litigation firms like Fish & Richardson frequently secure faster, more favourable resolutions. Their early engagement here — before any substantive motions — likely signalled credible invalidity or non-infringement arguments that changed the plaintiff’s calculus within weeks of filing.
No merits ruling leaves US8677116B1 legally intact for future assertions
Because the case ended before claim construction or any substantive ruling, US8677116B1 carries no judicial validity record from this dispute. Companies in the authentication and verification space — particularly those using multi-factor or token-based access systems — cannot treat this outcome as precedent. Independent FTO analysis remains necessary.
Secure v Hanley-Wood — key questions answered
The dismissal with prejudice means Secure Matrix LLC is permanently barred from re-asserting the claims of US8677116B1 against Hanley-Wood Fine Living, Inc. in any federal court. It operates as a final adjudication on the merits under res judicata principles, even though no court ever ruled on the substance of the infringement or validity claims.
No. The case resolved via a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice after just 43 days, before any claim construction hearing or merits ruling. The validity and scope of US8677116B1 were never adjudicated. The patent remains enforceable against third parties not party to this stipulation.
The public record does not disclose the reason. The 43-day timeline and the involvement of Fish & Richardson PC on the defence side are consistent with a private settlement or licence agreement, or alternatively with a plaintiff reassessment of litigation risk following the defendant’s choice of counsel. No financial terms were disclosed.
No. The dismissal binds only the parties to the stipulation. US8677116B1 remains active and enforceable against any other company that Secure Matrix LLC chooses to target. No claim construction or invalidity ruling was issued that could be cited as persuasive authority in other proceedings.
The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (case 7:25-cv-00452). This court remains a strategically significant venue for patent plaintiffs due to its case management practices and historical plaintiff-friendly outcomes. Defendants in this district often face meaningful cost and scheduling pressure, which can influence early settlement decisions.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.