Secure Matrix LLC v. Sony Corp.: Authentication Patent Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
Secure Matrix LLC sued Sony Corp. in the Eastern District of Texas alleging infringement of US8677116B1, a patent covering systems and methods for authentication and verification. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice just 134 days after filing, permanently surrendering its claims against Sony on this patent.
A quick, permanent exit: Secure Matrix drops Sony infringement claims
On June 18, 2024, Secure Matrix LLC — a patent assertion entity holding US8677116B1 — filed an infringement action against Sony Corp. in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00459). The asserted patent, US8677116B1, covers systems and methods for authentication and verification, a technology domain directly relevant to Sony’s broad consumer electronics and online services portfolio. Representation for Secure Matrix was handled by Rabicoff Law LLC, a firm with a notable volume of patent assertion cases.
The case closed on October 30, 2024, just 134 days after filing, when Secure Matrix filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The court accepted and acknowledged the notice, dismissed all pending claims with prejudice, and denied all unresolved relief requests as moot. A with-prejudice dismissal is a final, permanent disposition: Secure Matrix cannot re-file the same claims against Sony based on the same patent.
The speed of resolution — fewer than five months, with no recorded defendant law firm appearance — suggests the matter may have been resolved through a pre-litigation agreement, licensing negotiation, or a strategic decision to withdraw before Sony formally appeared and incurred defense costs that could trigger a fee-shifting motion. The public record does not disclose any settlement terms, payment, or licensing arrangement, and no merits ruling was ever reached. What remains unknown is whether a commercial resolution accompanied the dismissal.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 134 days
134 days — resolved well below the typical 2–3 year Eastern District patent trial cycle
Dismissed with prejudice: what this closure means for both parties
Rule 41 voluntary dismissal with prejudice — a one-way door
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss before the defendant serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. By electing to dismiss with prejudice, Secure Matrix triggered a final adjudication on the merits by agreement — the same claims under US8677116B1 cannot be re-filed against Sony. This is the strongest form of voluntary exit available to a plaintiff and forecloses any future action on the same transactional facts.
Rule 41 — permanent bar on re-filingSecure Matrix permanently surrenders its claims against Sony
A with-prejudice dismissal means Secure Matrix LLC accepted a complete, irrevocable end to its infringement claims against Sony on US8677116B1. Whether or not a settlement payment or licensing fee was exchanged — which the public record does not confirm — Secure Matrix received no court-ordered relief and retains no ability to re-assert these claims against Sony. The patent itself remains in force and could still be asserted against other defendants.
Claims extinguished vs. SonySony exits without a merits ruling — and no recorded fee motion
Sony Corp. was dismissed from litigation without any finding of infringement or validity. Notably, no defendant law firm is recorded as having appeared, suggesting Sony may have engaged privately or the matter resolved before formal defense was required. Sony did not pursue an attorneys’ fee motion under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which is sometimes sought after a with-prejudice dismissal. The dismissal shields Sony from this specific claim but does not affect the patent’s validity for other purposes.
No liability finding; patent validity intactUS8677116B1 remains a live enforcement risk in authentication markets
The with-prejudice dismissal resolves only Secure Matrix’s claims against Sony — it does not invalidate or limit US8677116B1. Companies operating in authentication, digital identity, and access verification markets should note that the patent survived this action unchallenged on its merits. Patent assertion entities targeting large consumer electronics and services companies in the Eastern District of Texas continue to represent a credible enforcement vector in this technology space.
Patent remains enforceable vs. othersFull 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 | Sony, Corp. | Company | Sony Corp. — global consumer electronics and digital services conglomerateSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Phillip Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for Secure Matrix LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rabicoff Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing Secure Matrix LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order is procedurally straightforward but commercially significant: it accepted Secure Matrix’s notice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), meaning Sony had not yet served an answer, and entered a with-prejudice dismissal. The phrase ‘ACCEPTS AND ACKNOWLEDGES’ indicates no judicial discretion was exercised — this was a ministerial act. The denial of all pending relief as moot confirms no substantive rulings were made. The with-prejudice designation is the operative term: it extinguishes Secure Matrix’s claims against Sony on these facts permanently, while leaving the patent’s validity and enforceability against third parties entirely intact.
US8677116B1 — Systems and Methods for Authentication and Verification
US8677116B1 was filed as application number US13/963941 and issued as a granted US patent. The patent claims cover systems and methods for authentication and verification — a technology domain spanning user identity confirmation, access control mechanisms, and secure session management. Authentication patents of this category are broadly applicable across consumer electronics, cloud services, mobile platforms, and enterprise security products, making them particularly attractive to patent assertion entities seeking licensable targets across multiple industries.
The strategic value of US8677116B1 lies in the breadth of its claimed methods relative to the ubiquity of authentication workflows in modern digital products. Sony’s product ecosystem — spanning PlayStation Network, smart TVs, mobile devices, and enterprise solutions — represents exactly the type of large-scale deployment that amplifies potential damages calculations in infringement assertions. The patent’s survival without a validity challenge means it presents ongoing risk to any competitor or adjacent technology company that has not conducted a thorough freedom-to-operate analysis against its claims.
Should your product team run an FTO against US8677116B1?
Any company building or deploying authentication and verification systems in the US market should assess exposure to US8677116B1, particularly given that this patent survived a lawsuit against a major defendant without any validity challenge on the merits. Consumer electronics manufacturers, identity platform providers, SaaS companies with login infrastructure, fintech firms, and cloud service operators are all plausible targets. The Eastern District of Texas remains a preferred venue for PAE plaintiffs, and Secure Matrix’s willingness to file against a company of Sony’s scale suggests no target is considered too large.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claims of US8677116B1 against your product architecture, identify prior art that could support an IPR petition if needed, and flag co-pending or related applications in Secure Matrix’s portfolio. Running this analysis before product launch or market expansion is materially lower-cost than defending an EDTX infringement action — even one that resolves quickly. Eureka’s prosecution history review tools can also surface claim amendments that may narrow or clarify the patent’s effective scope.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8677116B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar authentication patent infringement cases in the Eastern District of Texas
Cases involving PAE assertion of authentication and verification patents in the Eastern District of Texas follow patterns relevant to evaluating Secure Matrix LLC’s enforcement strategy.
What this case signals for the authentication IP enforcement landscape
A rapid with-prejudice exit in the Eastern District of Texas against a major defendant typically signals a negotiated resolution — and a patent still in play.
Fast dismissals in EDTX often precede undisclosed licensing arrangements
When a PAE dismisses with prejudice in under 134 days — before the defendant even appears on record — it is consistent with a pre-answer settlement or license. IP teams monitoring Secure Matrix LLC’s enforcement activity should track subsequent filings for patterns across its broader portfolio, particularly in authentication and digital security technology.
US8677116B1 remains a live threat for authentication technology companies
The patent was never challenged on validity or infringement merits. Any company developing or deploying systems and methods for authentication and verification — including consumer electronics firms, SaaS providers, and fintech platforms — should consider whether their products fall within the claims of US8677116B1 before scaling or entering the US market.
Secure v Sony — key questions answered
The with-prejudice dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permanently bars Secure Matrix from re-filing the same infringement claims against Sony based on US8677116B1. However, the patent itself was not invalidated and remains enforceable against other parties. Secure Matrix retains the right to assert US8677116B1 against different defendants.
The public record does not disclose any settlement agreement or licensing payment. The case was closed via a voluntary dismissal with prejudice filed by Secure Matrix. The rapid resolution — 134 days, before Sony formally appeared — is consistent with a confidential pre-answer resolution, but no such agreement has been made public.
US8677116B1 covers systems and methods for authentication and verification. Sony’s extensive consumer electronics, gaming, and digital services ecosystem — including PlayStation Network and connected devices — involves authentication workflows that potentially intersect with these claims. Patent assertion entities frequently target large technology companies with broad product portfolios to maximise licensing leverage.
Rabicoff Law LLC represented Secure Matrix LLC as plaintiff counsel in this case and is associated with a pattern of patent assertion filings in federal courts, including the Eastern District of Texas. The firm has represented PAE clients across multiple technology domains. Monitoring its filing activity can provide early signals of new enforcement campaigns in authentication and related sectors.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 285, a court may award attorneys’ fees in exceptional patent cases. Some courts have entertained § 285 motions even after voluntary dismissals with prejudice, though success is fact-dependent. Sony did not pursue such a motion in this case, and no fee ruling appears in the public record. The absence of a formal defendant appearance suggests the matter resolved before fee-shifting became a live issue.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.