Secure Matrix LLC v. Souper Salad LLC: Authentication Patent Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
Secure Matrix LLC filed suit in the Western District of Texas asserting US8677116B1 — a patent covering systems and methods for authentication and verification — against restaurant chain Souper Salad LLC. The case ended after 125 days when Secure Matrix voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice before the defendant had filed any answer or dispositive motion.
Authentication PAE exits early: dismissed with prejudice before first answer
On March 12, 2025, Secure Matrix LLC filed a patent infringement action against Souper Salad LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Case No. 7:25-cv-00119). The asserted patent, US8677116B1 (Application No. US13/963941), covers systems and methods for authentication and verification — a technology domain frequently asserted against businesses that operate customer-facing digital access or payment systems.
On July 14, 2025 — just 125 days after filing — Secure Matrix filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Because Souper Salad had not yet served an answer or motion for summary judgment, the notice was self-effectuating under Fifth Circuit precedent, requiring no further court order. The dismissal with prejudice permanently bars Secure Matrix from re-asserting the same claims against Souper Salad on this patent. The court ordered each party to bear its own costs.
The 125-day timeline and pre-answer exit are consistent with either a confidential settlement or a strategic withdrawal — the public record does not disclose which. The absence of any defendant responsive pleading suggests Souper Salad mounted no formal defense on the merits before the case ended. What drove Secure Matrix to abandon claims with prejudice, rather than without, remains unknown from publicly available filings.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 125 days
125 days — resolved before defendant’s first responsive pleading was filed
Dismissed with prejudice: what the voluntary exit means for both parties
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i): self-effectuating dismissal, no court order needed
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss an action before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The Fifth Circuit confirms such notices are self-effectuating — the case terminates automatically upon filing. Because Souper Salad had not yet answered, Secure Matrix’s July 14 notice closed the case by operation of law, with the court’s subsequent order merely confirming that fact.
Pre-answer voluntary dismissalWith prejudice: Secure Matrix permanently barred from re-filing these claims
A dismissal with prejudice carries full res judicata effect — it operates as a final adjudication on the merits. Secure Matrix cannot re-file this infringement action against Souper Salad based on US8677116B1 for the accused conduct. This is a materially stronger outcome for Souper Salad than a without-prejudice dismissal, which would leave the door open for a renewed suit. The public record does not reveal whether a settlement payment accompanied this choice of dismissal type.
Permanent bar on re-filingSouper Salad exits without admitting liability and bears own costs only
Souper Salad obtained a full exit from litigation without filing an answer, engaging in claim construction, or any merits adjudication. The court’s cost order — each party bears its own fees — means Souper Salad recovers none of its defense expenditure. However, the with-prejudice dismissal provides durable protection: the specific patent claims asserted in this action cannot be re-asserted by Secure Matrix against Souper Salad for the same accused products or conduct.
Full exit, no liability findingAuthentication patent pressure on SME retailers: pattern worth monitoring
Secure Matrix’s assertion of an authentication and verification patent against a mid-market restaurant operator is consistent with a PAE strategy targeting businesses reliant on digital access or POS authentication systems. Other companies in the food service and retail sector using similar authentication infrastructure should assess their exposure to US8677116B1. The pre-answer dismissal with prejudice may signal a confidential resolution, suggesting the patent retains some perceived licensing value despite this outcome.
PAE authentication risk for retailFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Secure Matrix LLC | Company | Authentication patent assertion entity — holder of US8677116B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Souper Salad, LLC | Company | Souper Salad LLC — restaurant chain operating customer-facing digital systemsSearch 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 | Andrew T. O’Connor | Attorney | Counsel for Souper Salad, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Califf T. Cooper | Attorney | Counsel for Souper Salad, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Peter C. Schechter | Attorney | Counsel for Souper Salad, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Goulston & Storrs PC | Law Firm | Representing Souper Salad, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Osha Bergman Watanabe & Burton LLP | Law Firm | Representing Souper Salad, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order confirms the procedural mechanics of FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i): because Souper Salad had not served an answer or motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff’s notice was self-effectuating under Fifth Circuit authority. The explicit with-prejudice designation is significant — it reflects a deliberate plaintiff choice to permanently extinguish claims, not a neutral procedural exit. The cost neutrality order is standard for voluntary dismissals and does not indicate any merits finding in either party’s favour.
US8677116B1 — Systems and methods for authentication and verification
US8677116B1 (Application No. US13/963941) covers systems and methods for authentication and verification — a broad technical domain encompassing mechanisms for confirming user identity and authorising access to digital systems. Patents in this category frequently claim methods applicable to login workflows, session management, two-factor authentication, and access control systems. The patent’s grant status and B1 designation indicate it issued without any post-grant reexamination at time of assertion, suggesting it has faced limited prior art challenge.
Authentication patents occupy a contested space in U.S. patent litigation: they are technically broad, frequently asserted by PAEs against businesses that are not pure technology companies, and difficult to design around without operational disruption. Secure Matrix’s choice to assert this patent against a restaurant chain suggests the claims may read on widely-deployed commercial authentication infrastructure — including POS systems, loyalty platforms, or employee access controls — rather than bespoke enterprise technology. Third parties in retail and food service should treat this patent as an active enforcement risk.
Should you run an FTO against US8677116B1?
Any company operating customer-facing authentication systems — including digital ordering, loyalty programme login, employee access management, or POS verification — should assess whether its implementation falls within the claim scope of US8677116B1. The assertion against a restaurant operator signals that Secure Matrix interprets the claims broadly enough to cover non-technology businesses. R&D and product teams deploying or updating authentication workflows face the highest exposure.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim language of US8677116B1 against your specific product architecture, flag overlapping claim elements, and surface prior art or invalidity arguments that could reduce your litigation risk. Given the PAE enforcement pattern suggested by this case, proactive FTO analysis is a more cost-effective intervention than reactive litigation defence.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8677116B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar authentication patent infringement cases in WDTX and beyond
Explore related authentication and verification patent assertions filed in the Western District of Texas and comparable PAE enforcement actions targeting retail and food service operators.
What this case signals for the authentication patent IP landscape
A pre-answer exit with prejudice in a PAE assertion case carries specific risk signals for businesses operating authentication and verification systems.
Pre-answer dismissal with prejudice is typically a settlement signal
When a PAE voluntarily dismisses with prejudice — rather than without — before the defendant has even answered, it strongly suggests a confidential resolution was reached. Businesses in the food service and retail sectors facing similar authentication patent assertions should treat early-stage exits as indicators of settlement value, not weakness in the asserted patent.
US8677116B1 remains enforceable against third parties despite this dismissal
The with-prejudice dismissal protects Souper Salad only. Secure Matrix retains full rights to assert US8677116B1 against other defendants. Any company deploying authentication or identity verification systems in customer-facing environments should evaluate its exposure to this patent, particularly in the Western District of Texas where PAE filings remain prolific.
Secure v Souper — key questions answered
The dismissal with prejudice means Secure Matrix permanently relinquished its infringement claims against Souper Salad based on US8677116B1. Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), the notice was self-effectuating because Souper Salad had not yet answered. With prejudice carries full res judicata effect — Secure Matrix cannot re-file the same claims against Souper Salad for the accused conduct.
Yes. The with-prejudice dismissal binds only Secure Matrix and Souper Salad. Secure Matrix retains full rights to assert US8677116B1 against any other party. The patent remains in force and the dismissal creates no estoppel or limitation on enforcement against third parties. Other businesses using similar authentication systems should treat this patent as an active risk.
US8677116B1 covers systems and methods for authentication and verification — broad claims applicable to digital access control, identity confirmation, and session management. Its assertion against a restaurant operator suggests the claims may read on widely-used commercial infrastructure such as POS authentication, loyalty login systems, or employee access controls, rather than proprietary technology. This PAE assertion pattern is consistent with broad claim language targeting non-technology businesses.
Secure Matrix LLC was represented by Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC, a firm with a known history of patent assertion matters. Souper Salad LLC was represented by Andrew T. O’Connor, Califf T. Cooper, and Peter C. Schechter, with counsel from Goulston & Storrs PC and Osha Bergman Watanabe & Burton LLP.
Under Fifth Circuit precedent (In re Amerijet Int’l, Inc., 785 F.3d 967), a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice terminates a case automatically without any court order. The court’s subsequent order in this case served an administrative function — confirming the termination, denying pending motions as moot, and memorialising the costs ruling. It did not constitute a separate judicial act giving effect to the dismissal.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.