ServStor Technologies v. Celestica: Five-Patent Server & Storage Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
ServStor Technologies, LLC asserted five patents covering disk drive partitioning, independent server functionality, and web caching for management appliances against Celestica, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas. After 433 days of litigation, ServStor filed a voluntary dismissal with prejudice — permanently closing all claims before any merits ruling.
A Five-Patent Storage Portfolio Asserted — Then Permanently Abandoned
On April 21, 2023, ServStor Technologies, LLC filed suit against Celestica, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:23-cv-00181), asserting infringement of five U.S. patents spanning disk drive partitioning, environmental monitoring for industrial PCs, independent server functionality within a single PC, and web-page caching on management appliances. Celestica is a global electronics manufacturing services and supply chain solutions provider, and the asserted patents appear directed at server and storage management infrastructure.
On June 27, 2024 — 433 days after filing — ServStor 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, formally dismissing all pending claims and causes of action with prejudice and denying all remaining relief requests as moot. A dismissal with prejudice is a permanent resolution: ServStor cannot re-file the same claims against Celestica on these five patents.
The 433-day duration before voluntary dismissal with prejudice — without a publicly recorded settlement, judgment, or merits ruling — is consistent with cases that reach an inflection point after initial motion practice or licensing negotiations. The public record does not disclose whether a confidential settlement was reached, whether claim construction weakened the plaintiff’s position, or whether another commercial factor drove the withdrawal. What is clear is that ServStor’s decision to dismiss with prejudice, rather than without prejudice, forecloses any future assertion of these five patents against Celestica.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 433 days
433 days — longer than the E.D. Texas median for cases ending before claim construction
Dismissed with prejudice: what the voluntary withdrawal means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff-initiated dismissal with permanent bar
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss a case before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Filing with prejudice goes further than required — it permanently extinguishes the plaintiff’s right to re-assert the same claims against the same defendant. The court’s role is ministerial: it accepts the notice and confirms dismissal. No merits adjudication occurs.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — with prejudiceWith prejudice bars re-filing — a stronger concession than voluntary withdrawal alone
A voluntary dismissal without prejudice would preserve the plaintiff’s option to refile. Here, ServStor explicitly chose ‘with prejudice,’ which the court confirmed. This distinction matters: it functions as a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes, meaning these five patents cannot be re-asserted against Celestica in a new action. The public record does not disclose whether a confidential agreement accompanied this concession.
Permanent bar on re-filingCelestica walks away with permanent protection on all five patent claims
Celestica — whose defendant agents are not recorded in the public docket — achieved a complete resolution without a merits ruling. The with-prejudice dismissal provides Celestica with res judicata protection against any future action by ServStor on these five patents. No damages, injunction, or ongoing obligations were publicly recorded. The resolution is commercially clean for Celestica’s supply chain and server product lines.
Full dismissal — no liability recordedFive patents retired from enforcement — reduced assertion risk for the sector
The five asserted patents — covering disk drive partitioning, server management, environmental monitoring, and web caching for industrial PCs — are now effectively neutralised as enforcement tools against Celestica. Competitors and supply chain partners operating similar server and storage management infrastructure should note that while the patents remain in force against third parties, ServStor’s willingness to abandon this suit with prejudice may signal reduced enforcement appetite or portfolio monetisation constraints.
Enforcement risk reduced for sectorFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | ServStor Technologies, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of five server, storage, and PC management patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Celestica, Inc. | Company | Celestica, Inc. — global electronics manufacturing services and supply chain solutions providerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John Andrew Rubino | Attorney | Counsel for ServStor Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael Mondelli , III | Attorney | Counsel for ServStor Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Vincent J. Rubino , III | Attorney | Counsel for ServStor Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fabricant LLP (NY) | Law Firm | Representing ServStor Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rubino Ip | Law Firm | Representing ServStor Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rubino Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing ServStor Technologies, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order is procedural rather than substantive: it accepts ServStor’s Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice and confirms dismissal with prejudice, denying all remaining relief as moot. The explicit ‘WITH PREJUDICE’ language in both the notice and the order is significant — it converts what could have been a reversible tactical withdrawal into a permanent bar. No finding of validity, invalidity, infringement, or non-infringement was made. For Celestica, the order functions as a final judgment for preclusion purposes on all five asserted patents.
US7310750B1 — Disk Drive Partitioning Methods and Apparatus
The five asserted patents — US7310750B1, US7191274B1, US6738930B1, US7870271B2, and US7000010B1 — all issued as U.S. utility patents with application dates tracing to the early 2000s. They span a coherent technology cluster: disk drive partitioning, environmental monitoring extensions for industrial PCs, single-PC independent server provisioning, and management-appliance web caching. This portfolio reflects an era of significant innovation in server consolidation and storage virtualisation, and the claims likely reflect foundational architectural approaches that may read on modern equivalents in EMS and cloud hardware.
For electronics manufacturing services providers and server OEMs, patents covering disk drive partitioning logic and independent server functionality within a single hardware unit are strategically relevant: these concepts underpin modern hyper-converged infrastructure and embedded management controllers. ServStor’s decision to assert all five patents together against a single EMS target like Celestica suggests a portfolio licensing strategy. The with-prejudice dismissal removes Celestica from the risk pool but leaves the portfolio available for assertion against other server hardware and contract manufacturing companies.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US7310750B1 and the ServStor portfolio?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or distributing server hardware, storage management solutions, industrial PC platforms, or management appliances should assess exposure to these five patents. The claims cover disk drive partitioning, environmental monitoring extensions, independent server provisioning, and web caching for management controllers — technology categories that appear in a wide range of current enterprise and edge server products. The dismissal with prejudice only protects Celestica; third-party exposure is unaffected.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claims of all five ServStor patents against your product specifications, flagging overlap risk and identifying relevant prior art that may support invalidity arguments. Given that these patents have application dates from the early 2000s, prosecution history and prior art landscapes are well-developed — making targeted FTO analysis both feasible and high-value before any demand letter arrives.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7310750B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar server and storage patent infringement cases in E.D. Texas
Cases involving server management, disk partitioning, and storage infrastructure patents litigated in the Eastern District of Texas by patent assertion entities.
What this case signals for the server and storage management IP landscape
A with-prejudice dismissal after 433 days, without a public merits ruling, carries strategic signals for IP professionals monitoring assertion patterns in server infrastructure.
With-prejudice dismissals are not the same as losses — read the distinction carefully
ServStor’s choice to dismiss with prejudice rather than without prejudice suggests a deliberate decision — not a forced one. This may reflect a confidential settlement, a licensing agreement, or a strategic choice to close exposure cleanly. IP teams tracking NPE enforcement patterns should distinguish between these dismissal types before drawing conclusions about patent strength.
Five mature patents covering server management infrastructure remain live against others
The five asserted patents — with application dates ranging from the early 2000s — cover foundational server and storage management concepts. Although neutralised against Celestica, they remain enforceable against third parties. OEMs, contract manufacturers, and enterprise storage vendors with overlapping product lines should assess their exposure independently.
ServStor v Celestica — key questions answered
The dismissal with prejudice means ServStor Technologies permanently relinquished its right to assert the five patents against Celestica on these claims. Filed under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and accepted by the E.D. Texas court, it operates as a final judgment for res judicata purposes. No merits ruling — on infringement, validity, or damages — was issued.
ServStor asserted five U.S. patents: US7310750B1 (disk drive partitioning), US7191274B1 (environmental monitor extension for industrial PCs), US6738930B1 (independent server functionality in a single PC), US7870271B2 (web-page caching on a management appliance), and US7000010B1 (server functionality in a single PC). All share application dates in the early 2000s.
No. A dismissal with prejudice is a permanent bar. Under res judicata principles, ServStor cannot bring a new action against Celestica asserting the same five patents on the same or substantially similar claims. The public record does not preclude assertion against other defendants, however.
Common drivers include a confidential licensing or settlement agreement (where with-prejudice dismissal is the agreed mechanism), a reassessment of claim viability following informal claim construction exchanges or prior art disclosures, or a commercial decision to withdraw rather than risk an adverse ruling or fee award. The public record in this case is silent on the specific reason.
Yes. The dismissal with prejudice only extinguishes claims against Celestica. US7310750B1, US7191274B1, US6738930B1, US7870271B2, and US7000010B1 remain in force and theoretically enforceable against third parties, subject to their expiry dates and any intervening invalidity proceedings. Server hardware OEMs, EMS providers, and management appliance vendors should conduct independent FTO analysis.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.