Secure Matrix LLC v. Mouser Electronics: Authentication Patent Suit Ends at 67 Days
Secure Matrix LLC asserted US8677116B1 — covering systems and methods for authentication and verification — against Mouser Electronics in the Northern District of Texas. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action with prejudice before Mouser filed any responsive pleading, closing the case in just 67 days.
Authentication patent claim extinguished before Mouser answered
On October 24, 2025, Secure Matrix LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against Mouser Electronics, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Case No. 4:25-cv-01193), assigned to Judge Mark Pittman. The asserted patent, US8677116B1, covers systems and methods for authentication and verification — a foundational technology area relevant to electronic component distribution platforms and customer-facing portals.
The action closed on December 30, 2025, when Secure Matrix invoked Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) to voluntarily dismiss with prejudice. Because Mouser had neither answered the complaint nor moved for summary judgment at the time of dismissal, plaintiff was entitled to dismiss as of right — no court approval was required. Dismissal with prejudice is a permanent extinguishment: Secure Matrix is legally barred from reasserting the same infringement claims against Mouser on US8677116B1.
A resolution in 67 days — before any substantive litigation activity by the defendant — is notably swift and typically signals either a private settlement, a strategic reassessment of claim strength, or a licensing resolution reached shortly after service. The public record is silent on any financial terms or side agreement. What remains unknown is whether Mouser made any payment or entered any licence, and whether Secure Matrix intends to assert the same patent against other parties in the electronics distribution sector.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 67 days
67 days — well below the median district court patent case lifespan of 2–3 years
Dismissed with prejudice: what the voluntary exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — plaintiff’s unilateral right to dismiss
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order at any point before the defendant has served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The dismissal is self-executing — Secure Matrix filed a notice, and the case closed immediately. Selecting ‘with prejudice’ converts what would have been a procedural exit into a final adjudication on the merits for preclusion purposes.
Plaintiff-initiated, no court approvalWith prejudice: Secure Matrix’s claims against Mouser are permanently extinguished
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final judgment on the merits under res judicata principles. Secure Matrix cannot refile this infringement action against Mouser Electronics on US8677116B1 in any U.S. court. This is a materially stronger outcome for Mouser than a without-prejudice dismissal, which would have left open the prospect of a re-filed suit. The permanence here suggests either a negotiated resolution or a deliberate concession by the plaintiff.
Permanent bar on re-filingMouser exits without submitting a single pleading — and without liability
Mouser Electronics achieved resolution before incurring the cost of a formal answer or any merits briefing. Because the dismissal carries prejudice, Mouser holds a preclusion shield against future suits by Secure Matrix on the same patent claims. No damages, no injunction, and no admission of infringement appear on the public record. Foley & Lardner’s representation suggests Mouser was prepared to defend vigorously if required.
No liability, preclusion shield obtainedEarly exit suggests negotiated terms — or a weakened assertion position
Pre-answer dismissals with prejudice in patent cases typically correlate with one of two scenarios: a confidential licence or settlement payment, or a plaintiff’s reassessment of claim viability after defendant signalled a strong defence. For the electronic components distribution sector, this outcome suggests US8677116B1 may face validity or non-infringement challenges that limit its assertion value. Other potential targets in the sector should monitor whether Secure Matrix pursues parallel filings.
Watch for parallel assertionsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Secure Matrix LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US8677116B1, authentication and verification systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Mouser Electronics, Inc. | Company | Mouser Electronics, Inc. — global electronic components distributorSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Benjamin C. Deming | Attorney | Counsel for Secure Matrix LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Philip Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for Secure Matrix LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | DNL Zito | Law Firm | Representing Secure Matrix LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rabicoff Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing Secure Matrix LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Paul V. Storm | Attorney | Counsel for Mouser Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Foley & Lardner, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Mouser Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Mark Pittman | Judge | Texas Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and explicitly confirms Mouser had not yet answered or moved for summary judgment — preserving plaintiff’s unilateral right to exit. The critical strategic element is the ‘with prejudice’ election: Secure Matrix voluntarily surrendered any future right to sue Mouser on these claims. This phrasing is consistent with either a confidential settlement or a plaintiff’s acknowledgment that the case lacked sufficient claim strength to survive anticipated defences.
US8677116B1 — Systems and methods for authentication and verification
US8677116B1 (application number US13/963941) is a granted U.S. patent covering systems and methods for authentication and verification. Authentication patents in this class typically protect multi-factor or challenge-response mechanisms used to verify user or device identity in online and networked environments. The patent’s assignment to Secure Matrix LLC — an entity with no apparent product line — is consistent with a patent assertion portfolio strategy rather than practising commercialisation.
Authentication and identity verification technology underpins virtually every digital commerce and distribution platform. For electronic components distributors like Mouser, customer portal login, account verification, and API authentication workflows could all potentially intersect with broadly claimed authentication patents. The patent’s assertion value depends heavily on claim scope and whether the independent claims read on commercially prevalent authentication architectures — questions that were never resolved in this proceeding.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US8677116B1?
Any company operating an electronic commerce platform, customer-facing portal, or API ecosystem that incorporates authentication and verification workflows should assess exposure to US8677116B1. The patent was asserted against a major electronic components distributor, suggesting the holder views digital distribution platforms as within the claim scope. The absence of any invalidity ruling means the patent’s claims remain untested and potentially enforceable against new targets.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to map product authentication architectures against the independent and dependent claims of US8677116B1 in minutes. Eureka surfaces the prosecution history, prior art landscape, and comparable litigated patents — giving counsel and product teams the evidence base needed to assess infringement risk and design-around options before a demand letter lands.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8677116B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar authentication patent infringement cases in U.S. district courts
Explore related patent assertion cases involving authentication and verification technology litigated in the Northern District of Texas and comparable federal venues.
What this case signals for the authentication IP landscape
A 67-day lifecycle and prejudicial dismissal raise pointed questions about US8677116B1’s assertion trajectory and defensive value.
Pre-answer exits with prejudice often mask confidential resolutions
When a plaintiff selects ‘with prejudice’ under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), it typically reflects either a payment-for-dismissal arrangement or a strategic concession. Neither appears on the public docket. Companies in the authentication and identity verification space should treat this dismissal as inconclusive on patent validity — the patent was never tested on the merits.
US8677116B1 remains live against third parties despite this dismissal
The with-prejudice dismissal binds only Secure Matrix and Mouser. The patent itself is unaffected — no invalidity finding was made. Any electronic commerce or distribution platform using authentication and verification systems comparable to the patent’s claims should assess exposure independently and not assume this outcome creates broad safe harbour.
Secure v Mouser — key questions answered
Dismissal with prejudice means Secure Matrix LLC permanently relinquished its right to sue Mouser Electronics on US8677116B1. Filed under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before Mouser answered, the dismissal is self-executing and carries the legal effect of a final judgment on the merits for preclusion purposes — Secure Matrix cannot refile the same claims against Mouser in any U.S. court.
Secure Matrix LLC asserted US8677116B1 (application no. US13/963941), a granted U.S. patent covering systems and methods for authentication and verification. The patent was the sole asserted patent in the complaint filed October 24, 2025 in the Northern District of Texas.
The public record does not disclose the reason for the rapid resolution. A 67-day lifecycle ending in a pre-answer voluntary dismissal with prejudice is consistent with either a confidential settlement or licence agreement, or a plaintiff’s decision that the case lacked sufficient strength to withstand anticipated defences. No financial terms or side agreements are disclosed on the docket.
No. The dismissal binds only Secure Matrix and Mouser. No invalidity finding, claim construction ruling, or merits adjudication was issued. US8677116B1 remains a granted, potentially enforceable patent against third parties. Companies operating authentication-dependent platforms should conduct independent FTO analysis rather than relying on this dismissal as a general clearance.
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action as of right — without a court order — before the defendant has served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. In patent cases, this procedural rule is frequently used to exit early after a pre-litigation resolution. The plaintiff’s choice to dismiss with rather than without prejudice is the strategically significant election, as it permanently extinguishes the specific claims against Mouser.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.