Smart Order LLC v. Target Corp. — Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice in 51 Days
Smart Order LLC asserted US9390424B2 — covering systems for improving customer wait time and service in retail and hospitality — against retail giant Target Corporation in the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice just 51 days after filing, before Target had answered or moved for summary judgment.
Pre-answer dismissal with prejudice signals swift resolution in E.D. Tex. retail patent suit
On March 10, 2025, Smart Order LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against Target Corporation in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, asserting US9390424B2 — a patent directed to systems and methods for improving customer wait times, customer service, and marketing efficiency across the restaurant, retail, hospitality, travel, and entertainment sectors. Target, one of the largest U.S. retailers, was the sole defendant. Plaintiff was represented by Rabicoff Law LLC; Target retained Findlay Craft PC.
On April 30, 2025 — just 51 days after filing and before Target had filed any answer or summary judgment motion — Smart Order LLC filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Judge Gilstrap accepted and acknowledged the notice, dismissing all claims with prejudice and ordering each side to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. A with-prejudice dismissal is a final adjudication on the merits, permanently barring Smart Order from reasserting the same claims against Target.
The 51-day window between filing and dismissal is notably compressed, suggesting the parties likely reached a private resolution — or that Smart Order LLC reassessed the strength of its position upon Target engaging experienced patent defense counsel. The public record does not disclose any licensing agreement, payment, or settlement terms. The with-prejudice designation forecloses any re-filing of these specific claims against Target, though Smart Order retains the right to assert US9390424B2 against other defendants.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 51 days
51 days — resolved well before an initial scheduling order would typically issue in E.D. Tex.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 order means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal — plaintiff’s unilateral right before answer
Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss without a court order before the defendant has answered or moved for summary judgment. Crucially, Smart Order elected to dismiss WITH prejudice — a self-imposed, permanent bar stronger than the rule requires. The court accepted the notice and formalised the dismissal by court order, making it a final disposition on the merits for these specific claims.
Final on the meritsPlaintiff permanently barred from reasserting these claims against Target
A with-prejudice dismissal extinguishes Smart Order’s right to refile the same infringement claims against Target Corporation based on US9390424B2. This is a materially stronger concession than a without-prejudice dismissal, which would preserve the right to refile. The public record does not reveal whether a private agreement — such as a license or covenant not to sue — was reached, but the with-prejudice designation makes any future suit against Target legally untenable.
No refiling against TargetTarget exits without admissions, no fee award, and no public merits ruling
Target Corporation achieved a clean exit: no answer was required, no invalidity or non-infringement ruling was issued, and the court awarded no attorneys’ fees. Each party bearing its own costs is standard in Rule 41 dismissals but also consistent with a negotiated resolution. Target faces no collateral estoppel risk from this proceeding, and the patent’s validity was never litigated on the merits.
Clean exit, no merits findingUS9390424B2 remains live against other retail and hospitality operators
The dismissal is party-specific. Smart Order LLC retains full enforcement rights under US9390424B2 against any other party in the restaurant, retail, hospitality, travel, or entertainment sectors. The swift resolution — before any claim construction or invalidity briefing — means the patent’s scope and validity remain untested by this litigation. Competitors and operators deploying wait-time or queue-management systems should treat this patent as an active enforcement risk.
Patent still enforceable elsewhereFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Smart Order LLC | Company | Retail and hospitality patent licensing entity — holder of US9390424B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Target, Corp. | Company | Target Corporation — major U.S. omnichannel retailer operating thousands of stores nationwideSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Phillip Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for Smart Order LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rabicoff Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing Smart Order LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Eric Hugh Findlay | Attorney | Counsel for Target, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Findlay Craft PC | Law Firm | Representing Target, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order is purely procedural — it accepts and acknowledges a plaintiff-initiated Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice and imposes no merits findings. The with-prejudice designation was chosen by Smart Order, not ordered by the court, making it a permanent self-imposed bar. The instruction that each party bear its own costs is conventional for pre-answer voluntary dismissals and does not indicate any finding of exceptionality under 35 U.S.C. § 285. No claim construction, invalidity ruling, or infringement determination was issued.
US9390424B2 — customer wait time and service efficiency system for retail and hospitality
US9390424B2 (application number US13/088046) covers a system and method directed at improving customer wait times, service quality, and marketing efficiency across the restaurant, retail, hospitality, travel, and entertainment industries. The breadth of the described industries — spanning both physical retail and digital service touchpoints — suggests the patent may encompass software-based queue management, customer notification, and targeted marketing integration. Its issued status as a B2 grant confirms it has survived at least one round of examination.
From a strategic standpoint, US9390424B2 sits at the intersection of customer experience technology and digital retail operations — a space seeing significant investment from major retailers, quick-service restaurant chains, and hospitality platforms. Any operator deploying mobile queue management, estimated wait-time notifications, or integrated loyalty marketing should evaluate whether their implementation falls within the patent’s claims. The absence of any invalidity ruling in this case means the patent enters the market with its presumption of validity intact.
Should your retail or hospitality platform run an FTO against US9390424B2?
Any company operating customer-facing queue management, wait-time notification, appointment scheduling, or integrated loyalty marketing systems in retail, restaurant, hospitality, travel, or entertainment contexts should treat US9390424B2 as a relevant FTO target. Smart Order’s willingness to sue a major retailer like Target in a patent-friendly venue signals active enforcement intent. In-house counsel and product teams launching or expanding such features face non-trivial assertion risk until this patent expires or is invalidated.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim language of US9390424B2 against your product specifications and identify relevant prior art that could support a freedom-to-operate position or an IPR petition. Eureka also enables real-time monitoring of Smart Order LLC’s portfolio for continuation applications or new filings, giving your IP team early warning of expanded enforcement activity before a complaint lands.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9390424B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent infringement cases: retail tech and customer service systems in E.D. Tex.
Cases involving customer service, queue management, and retail technology patents before the Eastern District of Texas — a key venue for NPE enforcement actions.
What this case signals for the retail and hospitality patent IP landscape
A rapid with-prejudice dismissal in E.D. Tex. before any answer filed is a pattern worth tracking across retail service-technology patents.
Pre-answer dismissals in E.D. Tex. often reflect quiet resolutions — monitor for follow-on suits
When a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses with prejudice before an answer is filed in the Eastern District of Texas, it frequently suggests a private agreement was reached — though this is not confirmed here. IP teams at retailers and hospitality operators should monitor Smart Order LLC’s future filing activity to assess whether a broader campaign is underway using US9390424B2.
With-prejudice election signals plaintiff confidence in the patent — not weakness
Electing a with-prejudice dismissal, rather than without prejudice, suggests Smart Order may have achieved its commercial objective with Target. It avoids the reputational cost of a without-prejudice filing that could signal an inability to maintain the suit. R&D and IP teams should not interpret this dismissal as a signal that US9390424B2 is weak — its claims were never tested.
Smart v Target — key questions answered
The dismissal with prejudice permanently bars Smart Order LLC from filing the same infringement claims under US9390424B2 against Target Corporation. Target received no merits ruling but is protected from any re-litigation of these specific claims. No attorneys’ fees were awarded — each party bears its own costs.
The public record does not confirm any settlement. The Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice was filed by Smart Order under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before Target answered. The 51-day timeline and with-prejudice election are consistent with a private resolution, but no terms have been disclosed in the docket.
US9390424B2 covers systems and methods for improving customer wait times, service quality, and marketing efficiency. Its stated scope spans restaurant, retail, hospitality, travel, and entertainment industries. Operators deploying digital queue management, wait-time notifications, or integrated loyalty marketing platforms should conduct a freedom-to-operate review against this patent.
The Eastern District of Texas — particularly before Judge Rodney Gilstrap — has historically been a preferred venue for patent assertion entities due to its established patent docket, experienced bench, and plaintiff-friendly procedural reputation. Smart Order’s choice of E.D. Tex. is consistent with a deliberate enforcement strategy targeting large commercial defendants.
Yes. The with-prejudice dismissal is party-specific — it only bars Smart Order from reasserting US9390424B2 claims against Target Corporation. Smart Order retains full enforcement rights against any other party. The patent’s validity was never adjudicated, so it remains presumptively valid and enforceable against third parties in the retail, hospitality, and related sectors.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.