Sorrentino v. VJDJ Frisco Property LP: Patent Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice in 23 Days
Inventor Claudio Vicenzo Sorrentino filed a patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas against VJDJ Frisco Property LP, alleging infringement of US10801224B1 through development of ‘The Bays Golf Experience and Suites.’ The plaintiff voluntarily sought dismissal without prejudice just 23 days after filing, leaving the door open for future litigation.
A 23-Day Golf Venue Patent Suit That Ended Before It Began
On May 6, 2025, inventor Claudio Vicenzo Sorrentino, represented by Sriplaw PA, filed a patent infringement complaint in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 4:25-cv-00481) against VJDJ Frisco Property LP. The suit alleged infringement of US10801224B1 — a patent covering golf entertainment venue and suite design — through the defendant’s development and building of ‘The Bays Golf Experience and Suites,’ as well as inducement of third parties to practice that patented design.
Just 23 days after filing, on May 29, 2025, Sorrentino filed a Motion to Dismiss without Prejudice (Dkt. #10). Judge Amos L. Mazzant granted the motion, ordering the complaint and lawsuit dismissed without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice means the plaintiff retains the legal right to refile the same claims in the future, provided applicable statutes of limitations have not elapsed — no merits adjudication occurred.
The speed of the dismissal — before any defendant agents or law firm appeared on the record — is notable and consistent with several strategic scenarios: a settlement reached privately after filing, a decision to refile in a different venue, or a reassessment of claim scope. The public record is silent on the underlying reason. VJDJ Frisco Property LP never formally appeared, meaning no adverse judgment attaches to either party.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 23 days
23 days — resolved before any substantive briefing or defendant response
Dismissed without prejudice: what the order means for both parties
Without-prejudice dismissal leaves claims legally alive
A dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) terminates the current action but does not extinguish the underlying claims. Sorrentino retains the right to refile the same infringement allegations based on US10801224B1 against VJDJ Frisco Property LP or related parties. No finding was made on the merits of infringement, validity, or enforceability.
Claims survive dismissalWithout vs. with prejudice: the distinction that matters here
A with-prejudice dismissal would have permanently barred Sorrentino from re-asserting these patent claims in a new action. A without-prejudice dismissal imposes no such bar. The public record does not disclose any agreement between the parties regarding the terms driving this dismissal — whether a settlement, a covenant not to sue, or a unilateral strategic withdrawal — leaving the future litigation posture uncertain.
Refiling remains possibleVJDJ Frisco exits without any adverse record — for now
VJDJ Frisco Property LP never formally appeared in the action; no defense counsel was recorded. The dismissal without prejudice means no judgment, injunction, or liability finding attaches to the defendant. However, the patent claim has not been adjudicated invalid or not infringed, so the development and operation of ‘The Bays Golf Experience and Suites’ remains potentially exposed to future patent assertions on the same patent.
No merits shield for defendantGolf entertainment venue developers face unresolved patent risk
US10801224B1 remains in force and unadjudicated. Third parties involved in developing, financing, or operating golf entertainment and hospitality venue concepts similar to ‘The Bays’ should note that the patent’s scope has not been tested in court. The inducement allegations in the complaint suggest the patent holder views architects, contractors, and co-developers as potential targets, broadening the risk profile beyond the primary property owner.
Patent remains enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Claudio Vicenzo Sorrentino | Individual | Independent inventor — holder of US10801224B1 covering golf entertainment venue designSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | VJDJ Frisco Property LP | Company | VJDJ Frisco Property LP — property developer of ‘The Bays Golf Experience and Suites’ in Frisco, TXSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joel Benjamin Rothman | Attorney | Counsel for Claudio Vicenzo SorrentinoSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Layla Nguyen | Attorney | Counsel for Claudio Vicenzo SorrentinoSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Sriplaw PA | Law Firm | Representing Claudio Vicenzo SorrentinoSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Amos L Mazzant | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order granting the plaintiff’s own motion to dismiss is purely procedural — Judge Mazzant made no finding on infringement, validity, or claim scope. The phrase ‘dismissed without prejudice’ is legally significant: it forecloses no future action by Sorrentino. Because the defendant never appeared and no adversarial briefing occurred, this order carries no precedential weight on the merits of US10801224B1 and does not resolve the underlying dispute between the parties.
US10801224B1 — Golf Entertainment Venue and Suite Design
US10801224B1 (application number US16/874535) is a granted US patent covering the design and architecture of a golf entertainment venue incorporating suites and experiential hospitality elements. The patent is held by individual inventor Claudio Vicenzo Sorrentino. The application number places its filing in the mid-2020 timeframe, coinciding with significant growth in golf entertainment venue development across the United States. The patent’s granted status means it carries a presumption of validity in any infringement proceeding.
The commercial context is significant: the golf entertainment sector — anchored by concepts such as Topgolf and its imitators — has attracted substantial real estate and hospitality investment. A patent asserting rights over venue design and suite configurations positions its holder to pursue licensing or litigation against a broad class of developers. The inclusion of inducement claims in this complaint signals that the patent may be read to cover not just the finished venue but the act of designing and constructing it, raising risk for the professional services ecosystem surrounding these projects.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US10801224B1?
Any company — developer, architect, hospitality operator, or investor — involved in the design, construction, or operation of a golf entertainment venue incorporating suites or experiential hospitality elements should assess freedom to operate against US10801224B1. The inducement theory advanced in this complaint means that professional services firms contributing to such projects are not necessarily shielded from exposure simply because they do not own or operate the venue directly.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim landscape of US10801224B1, surface relevant prior art that could support an invalidity argument, and identify similar granted patents in the golf entertainment and venue design space. For development teams mid-project, early FTO analysis substantially reduces the cost and disruption of a litigation event later — particularly given that this patent has never been contested on the merits.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10801224B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Golf Venue & Entertainment Patent Cases in Federal District Courts
Explore comparable patent infringement actions in the golf entertainment and venue design sector filed in the Eastern District of Texas and related federal courts.
What this case signals for the golf entertainment venue IP landscape
A rapidly withdrawn suit against a high-profile golf entertainment concept raises questions about patent scope, litigation strategy, and sector-wide exposure.
Rapid dismissal often signals off-record resolution or strategic reset
A 23-day lifecycle — filed, then voluntarily dismissed before the defendant even appeared — is consistent with an out-of-court settlement, a licensing discussion, or a decision to reframe the litigation. IP professionals monitoring this space should watch for a refiled action or licensing announcements tied to US10801224B1 and ‘The Bays Golf Experience and Suites’ project.
Inducement claims expand the defendant pool beyond the property owner
The original complaint explicitly named inducement of third parties as a basis for infringement. This framing suggests Sorrentino’s counsel at Sriplaw PA constructed a theory that could reach architects, general contractors, and co-developers of the venue — not just VJDJ Frisco Property LP. Any entity that contributed to designing or building the venue concept may warrant independent legal assessment.
Sorrentino v VJDJ — key questions answered
Claudio Vicenzo Sorrentino filed a patent infringement action against VJDJ Frisco Property LP in the Eastern District of Texas on May 6, 2025, asserting US10801224B1 against ‘The Bays Golf Experience and Suites.’ On May 29, 2025, Sorrentino moved to dismiss without prejudice; Judge Amos L. Mazzant granted the motion, ending the case after 23 days with no merits adjudication.
A dismissal without prejudice means the plaintiff retains the legal right to refile the same patent infringement claims in a future action. No court ruled on whether US10801224B1 was infringed, valid, or enforceable. The patent remains in force, and VJDJ Frisco Property LP received no merits-based protection such as a finding of non-infringement or invalidity.
The patent at issue is US10801224B1 (application number US16/874535), a granted US patent held by inventor Claudio Vicenzo Sorrentino covering golf entertainment venue and suite design. The complaint alleged that the development of ‘The Bays Golf Experience and Suites’ by VJDJ Frisco Property LP infringed this patent, including through inducement of third parties.
The public record does not disclose the reason for the rapid voluntary dismissal. Common explanations in comparable cases include: a private settlement or licensing agreement reached after filing, a decision to refile in a different jurisdiction, a reassessment of claim mapping to the accused product, or a strategic withdrawal pending further claim construction analysis. No defendant counsel appeared, suggesting the matter resolved — or paused — before formal engagement.
Plaintiff Claudio Vicenzo Sorrentino was represented by Joel Benjamin Rothman and Layla Nguyen of Sriplaw PA, a law firm known for intellectual property enforcement work including patent, copyright, and trademark litigation. No defendant counsel or law firm was recorded in the case docket, consistent with the case ending before the defendant formally appeared.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.