Secure Matrix LLC v. Rent-A-Center: Authentication Patent Dismissed With Prejudice
Secure Matrix LLC asserted US8677116B1 — covering systems and methods for authentication and verification — against Rent-A-Center in the Eastern District of Texas. The case resolved in 189 days via joint stipulation, with Secure Matrix’s claims dismissed with prejudice and Rent-A-Center’s counterclaims dismissed without prejudice.
Authentication Patent Suit Ends in Asymmetric Dismissal After 189 Days
Secure Matrix LLC filed this patent infringement action on January 6, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:25-cv-00009), asserting US8677116B1, which covers systems and methods for authentication and verification. The defendant, Rent-A-Center Inc., a major rent-to-own retailer, was represented by Fish & Richardson LLP. Plaintiff was represented by Rabicoff Law LLC and Dnl Zito.
The case closed on July 14, 2025 via a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Under the agreed stipulation, all of Secure Matrix’s claims against Rent-A-Center were dismissed with prejudice — permanently barring Secure Matrix from re-asserting the same claims based on the same patent against Rent-A-Center. Rent-A-Center’s counterclaims, by contrast, were dismissed without prejudice, preserving the company’s ability to revive those claims in future proceedings.
The 189-day resolution suggests the parties reached a negotiated outcome — likely a license or covenant not to sue — without full merits adjudication, which is consistent with the pattern of NPE assertion cases in E.D. Tex. The asymmetric dismissal structure (plaintiff with prejudice, defendant without prejudice) is commercially notable: it is a typical hallmark of a settled dispute rather than a pure capitulation, but the public record does not disclose any financial terms. The absence of a cost award means neither side secured an exceptional-case finding under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 189 days
189 days to resolution — faster than the E.D. Tex. median for patent cases, suggesting early negotiated resolution
Asymmetric Rule 41 dismissal: what the prejudice split means for each party
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal by joint stipulation
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal requires the written consent of all parties who have appeared, making it a negotiated exit rather than a unilateral act. The court accepted and acknowledged the stipulation rather than issuing a substantive ruling, meaning there is no merits adjudication on infringement, validity, or claim scope. The patent US8677116B1 was never adjudicated as valid or invalid.
Negotiated exit — no merits rulingPlaintiff’s claims are permanently extinguished against Rent-A-Center
Dismissal with prejudice of Secure Matrix’s claims operates as a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes. Secure Matrix cannot re-file the same infringement claims based on US8677116B1 against Rent-A-Center in any U.S. court. This is typically the concession a plaintiff makes in exchange for a license payment, royalty agreement, or other commercial resolution — though those terms remain undisclosed in the public record.
Claims permanently barred vs. Rent-A-CenterRent-A-Center’s counterclaims survive — dismissed without prejudice
Rent-A-Center’s counterclaims — which in patent cases typically include invalidity and unenforceability defences — were dismissed without prejudice. This means Rent-A-Center retains the option to revive those counterclaims in future litigation, for example if Secure Matrix were to assert US8677116B1 against a Rent-A-Center affiliate or if a declaratory judgment action becomes necessary. This asymmetry is a standard negotiating lever for defendants.
Defendant retains invalidity argumentsNo cost award signals a commercially negotiated resolution
Each party bearing its own costs and attorneys’ fees indicates neither side successfully argued exceptionality under 35 U.S.C. § 285. The structure — plaintiff’s claims gone with prejudice, defendant’s defences preserved without prejudice, no fee shifting — is consistent with a licensing settlement or covenant not to sue. Companies operating authentication and identity verification systems in retail and fintech should note that US8677116B1 remains in force and asserted against others.
Patent still in force — sector risk persistsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Secure Matrix LLC | Company | Authentication patent assertion entity — holder of US8677116B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Rent-A-Center | Individual | Rent-A-Center Inc. — major U.S. rent-to-own retail and fintech services companySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Benjamin Charles Deming | Attorney | Counsel for Secure Matrix LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Phillip 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 | Alexander Hale Martin | Attorney | Counsel for Rent-A-CenterSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lance Eric Wyatt , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Rent-A-CenterSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Neil J McNabnay | Attorney | Counsel for Rent-A-CenterSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson LLP | Law Firm | Representing Rent-A-CenterSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson PC (Dallas) | Law Firm | Representing Rent-A-CenterSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order accepts and acknowledges the joint stipulation rather than issuing an independent ruling, confirming this is a party-driven resolution with no substantive patent law findings. The deliberate asymmetry — plaintiff’s claims dismissed with prejudice, counterclaims without — is legally significant: it creates res judicata as to Secure Matrix’s infringement claims against Rent-A-Center while leaving Rent-A-Center’s invalidity arguments available for future deployment. No claim construction, infringement, or validity rulings were made.
US8677116B1 — Systems and Methods for Authentication and Verification
US8677116B1, filed as application US13/963941, is a granted U.S. patent covering systems and methods for authentication and verification. Authentication and verification patents sit at the intersection of cybersecurity, identity management, and digital access control — technology embedded in virtually every modern consumer-facing digital platform. The B1 designation indicates the patent issued without any post-issuance certificate of correction, suggesting the claims as granted have been consistently asserted in their original form.
For retail, fintech, and rent-to-own operators like Rent-A-Center — which handles consumer identity verification for lease agreements, payment processing, and account access — authentication system patents represent a direct operational risk. The failure of this case to produce any invalidity or claim construction ruling means that US8677116B1’s claim scope remains undefined by any court, making freedom-to-operate analysis more complex for companies deploying two-factor authentication, identity verification APIs, or multi-factor login systems.
Should your product team run an FTO against US8677116B1?
If your company operates authentication systems, identity verification workflows, or secure login infrastructure — particularly in retail, fintech, e-commerce, or lease-to-own services — US8677116B1 warrants direct FTO assessment. This patent has been asserted in active litigation in 2025, resolved without any invalidity finding, and remains enforceable. The risk is not theoretical: Secure Matrix filed this case in Q1 2025, and the case number suggests coordinated multi-defendant activity.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claims of US8677116B1 against your product architecture, identify prior art that was not before the examiner, and flag prosecution history disclaimers that may limit claim scope. For companies that received demand letters or are monitoring Secure Matrix LLC’s assertion activity, Eureka’s litigation tracking tools provide real-time docket monitoring across E.D. Tex. and related NPE filing patterns.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8677116B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Authentication Patent Cases in E.D. Texas
Explore related patent infringement actions asserting authentication and identity verification patents in the Eastern District of Texas, including cases involving NPE plaintiffs and retail defendants.
What this case signals for the authentication patent IP landscape
This dismissal pattern in E.D. Tex. is a recurring signal for companies deploying digital authentication and identity verification systems.
E.D. Tex. NPE assertion pressure resolves fast — but at a cost
At 189 days, this case resolved well below the typical E.D. Tex. merits trial timeline. That speed, combined with a with-prejudice dismissal of plaintiff’s claims and no fee award, is consistent with a confidential licensing outcome. Companies receiving demand letters or complaints on authentication patents should model early resolution costs against full litigation exposure.
US8677116B1 remains live and asserted — sector-wide risk
The patent was never adjudicated invalid or unenforceable. Secure Matrix dismissed only its claims against Rent-A-Center. Any company deploying systems and methods for authentication and verification — particularly in retail, fintech, or lease-to-own platforms — should assess freedom to operate against US8677116B1 before it appears in their docket.
Secure v Rent-A-Center — key questions answered
Dismissal with prejudice of Secure Matrix’s claims means those specific infringement claims based on US8677116B1 against Rent-A-Center are permanently extinguished. Secure Matrix cannot refile the same claims against Rent-A-Center in any U.S. federal court. The dismissal operates as a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes, even though no court ruled on infringement or validity.
No. The case was resolved via joint stipulation of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) without any merits adjudication. The court issued no claim construction, infringement, or invalidity ruling. US8677116B1 remains a valid, enforceable patent. Rent-A-Center’s counterclaims — which likely included invalidity arguments — were dismissed without prejudice, meaning they were never ruled upon.
This asymmetric structure is a common feature of negotiated patent settlements. Secure Matrix agreed to a with-prejudice dismissal of its claims — permanently releasing Rent-A-Center from this action — while Rent-A-Center preserved its counterclaims (typically invalidity and unenforceability) without prejudice, retaining the right to raise them if Secure Matrix later pursues related claims. It reflects the defendant’s leverage in the negotiation.
Rent-A-Center was represented by Fish & Richardson LLP, specifically attorneys Alexander Hale Martin, Lance Eric Wyatt Jr., and Neil J. McNabnay from the firm’s Dallas office (Fish & Richardson PC). Fish & Richardson is one of the leading patent litigation defence firms in the United States, known for its strength in claim construction and invalidity arguments.
The stipulation provides that each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. This means neither party sought or obtained an exceptional case finding under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which would allow fee shifting to the losing side. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement is standard in negotiated dismissals and is consistent with a settlement rather than a contested ruling. It also avoids the reputational risk of an exceptional case designation for Secure Matrix.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.