Secure Matrix LLC v. Santikos Real Estate Services — Dismissed With Prejudice
Secure Matrix LLC asserted US8677116B1, covering authentication and verification systems, against Santikos Real Estate Services in the Western District of Texas. The parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal after 124 days, with plaintiff’s claims dismissed with prejudice and defendant’s counterclaims dismissed without prejudice. Each party bears its own attorney fees and costs.
Authentication patent suit ends swiftly via joint stipulation in W.D. Tex.
Secure Matrix LLC filed suit against Santikos Real Estate Services LLC in the Western District of Texas on March 12, 2025, asserting infringement of US8677116B1, a patent covering systems and methods for authentication and verification. Santikos, a real estate services company, was accused of deploying products or services that allegedly fell within the scope of the asserted claims. The case was assigned to the Western District — a court that has become a significant venue for patent assertions, including NPE-driven litigation.
On July 11, 2025, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The court ordered closure on July 14, 2025. All claims for relief against Santikos were dismissed with prejudice, meaning Secure Matrix cannot re-file the same claims against the same defendant. Santikos’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, preserving the defendant’s ability to reassert those claims in a future proceeding. No damages award was entered, and each party bears its own attorney fees and costs.
The 124-day resolution is notably short and suggests the parties likely reached a commercial resolution — potentially a licence, covenant not to sue, or agreed exit — before substantive litigation milestones such as claim construction or discovery completion. The with-prejudice dismissal of plaintiff’s claims is the critical asymmetry: it forecloses future suit on this patent against Santikos. What drove the resolution, and whether any financial consideration changed hands, is not disclosed in the public record.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 124 days
124 days — resolved well below the typical 2–3 year district court patent trial lifecycle
Joint stipulation unpacked: what the dismissal terms mean for each party
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): self-executing dismissal, no judicial approval needed
A stipulated dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) becomes effective automatically upon filing — the court’s order here is confirmatory, not constitutive. Both parties signed, satisfying the rule’s requirements. This mechanism is frequently used when parties reach a private resolution and wish to exit the court record cleanly without disclosing settlement terms.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulationWith-prejudice dismissal bars Secure Matrix from re-filing against Santikos
All of Secure Matrix’s claims against Santikos were dismissed with prejudice — a final adjudication on the merits for preclusion purposes. Secure Matrix cannot refile this action or assert US8677116B1 against Santikos in a future suit. This outcome is consistent with a settlement in which the plaintiff received consideration in exchange for a permanent release, though no financial terms are disclosed in the public record.
Claims: dismissed with prejudiceCounterclaims dismissed without prejudice — Santikos retains future options
Santikos’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, meaning they were not adjudicated on the merits and could theoretically be reasserted in a future proceeding. This asymmetric structure — plaintiff’s claims extinguished, defendant’s preserved — is a common negotiating outcome where the defendant obtains a clean exit without waiving potential future defences or invalidity arguments.
Counterclaims: without prejudiceEarly exit and split costs signal a pragmatic commercial resolution
The 124-day timeline, mutual cost-bearing, and asymmetric dismissal terms collectively suggest a negotiated outcome — likely a licence or covenant not to sue — rather than a contested adjudication. For other companies in the authentication and identity-verification technology space, US8677116B1 remains an active enforcement asset. The with-prejudice bar is limited to Santikos; third parties face no direct estoppel from this outcome.
Likely commercial resolutionFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Secure Matrix LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US8677116B1 (authentication and verification systems)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Santikos Real Estate Services, LLC | Company | Texas-based real estate services company accused of infringing authentication patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Benjamin Charles Deming | Attorney | Counsel for Secure Matrix LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac 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 | Lance E. Wyatt , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Santikos Real Estate Services, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Neil J. McNabnay | Attorney | Counsel for Santikos Real Estate Services, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson LLP | Law Firm | Representing Santikos Real Estate Services, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation’s asymmetric structure is legally significant: plaintiff’s claims are extinguished with prejudice — creating a res judicata bar as to Santikos — while defendant’s counterclaims survive without prejudice. The court’s explicit citation of Yesh Music v. Lakewood Church confirms the self-executing nature of the dismissal. No merits adjudication occurred; the patent’s validity and claim scope remain untested by any court. The cost-bearing provision — each party pays its own fees — is standard in negotiated exits and forecloses any fee-shifting claim under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
US8677116B1 — Systems and Methods for Authentication and Verification
US8677116B1 was filed under application number US13/963941 and granted to cover systems and methods for authentication and verification. Authentication patents in this family typically protect mechanisms for verifying user identity, managing credentials, or controlling access to digital systems. The B1 designation indicates the patent issued without any pre-grant publication, suggesting an expedited or straightforward prosecution history. The specific technical claims will determine the scope of exposure for any product that authenticates users or verifies identities electronically.
Authentication and identity verification technology underpins virtually every sector that manages user access — from real estate and proptech platforms to financial services, healthcare portals, and enterprise SaaS. Patents in this space are actively asserted by NPEs who acquire broad early-filing-date claims and target companies that have independently developed similar functionality. US8677116B1’s deployment against a real estate services firm suggests the claims are drafted broadly enough to reach industry-specific implementations of general authentication architectures. Any company operating in adjacent verticals should treat this patent as a live enforcement risk.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US8677116B1?
If your product or platform authenticates users, verifies identities, or controls access to digital systems — whether in real estate technology, proptech, enterprise software, or consumer apps — US8677116B1 warrants a freedom-to-operate review. This case demonstrates the patent is being actively asserted against commercial operators, not just direct technology competitors. The with-prejudice dismissal against Santikos creates no protection for third parties; each new defendant faces the full scope of the patent’s claims.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim language of US8677116B1 against your product architecture, identify prior art that may undermine key claims, and surface related patents in Secure Matrix’s portfolio that could form part of a broader assertion campaign. Running this analysis before receiving a demand letter is materially cheaper than responding to one. Use Eureka to generate a defensible FTO opinion and monitor for new filings by Secure Matrix LLC across all US district courts.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8677116B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar authentication patent infringement cases in W.D. Texas
Cases involving authentication and identity verification patents asserted in the Western District of Texas, including comparable NPE assertion patterns and dismissal outcomes.
What this case signals for the authentication technology IP landscape
A swift, quiet exit in W.D. Tex. — but the patent survives and the playbook repeats.
US8677116B1 remains enforceable against third parties after this dismissal
The with-prejudice bar applies only to Santikos. Companies deploying authentication and verification systems — particularly in real estate tech, proptech, or identity management — should treat this patent as an active enforcement risk. The short case duration and cost-bearing split do not signal patent invalidity; they are consistent with a paid resolution.
W.D. Tex. remains a favoured venue for NPE authentication patent assertions
Filing in the Western District of Texas reflects a deliberate venue strategy. Patent assertion entities have consistently leveraged this court for rapid case management and plaintiff-favourable procedural dynamics. In-house IP teams at companies with authentication or access-control products should actively monitor new filings in this district against comparable defendants.
Secure v Santikos — key questions answered
Dismissal with prejudice of Secure Matrix’s claims means the action is terminated on the merits for preclusion purposes. Secure Matrix cannot re-file the same patent infringement claims (US8677116B1) against Santikos in any future proceeding. The bar is party-specific and does not protect third parties from future assertions of the same patent.
This asymmetric structure is a common feature of negotiated patent exits. The plaintiff agrees to a permanent release of its claims (with prejudice) while the defendant preserves its invalidity or non-infringement counterclaims (without prejudice) as leverage or optionality. It suggests Santikos secured a favourable commercial exit without conceding the substantive merits of the defendant’s arguments.
No. The dismissal was stipulated and no court adjudicated the validity or claim scope of US8677116B1. The patent remains in force and enforceable against all parties other than Santikos. The resolution is consistent with a licensing agreement or covenant not to sue, neither of which constitutes a finding of invalidity or non-infringement.
W.D. Tex. has been a strategically preferred venue for patent assertion entities due to its historically active patent dockets and case management. Filing here for an authentication patent suit against a Texas-based real estate services company is consistent with NPE venue selection strategies that target defendants with a local presence in the district. In-house counsel should monitor W.D. Tex. filings closely for emerging assertion campaigns.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action by filing a stipulation signed by all appearing parties, without requiring court approval. The dismissal is self-executing upon filing. The court’s July 14, 2025 order simply directed the Clerk to close the docket; it did not independently create the dismissal. This mechanism is regularly used in patent cases when parties reach a private resolution and wish to exit the record without disclosing settlement terms.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.