Sorrentino v. VJDJ Frisco Property LP: Patent Suit Dismissed in 11 Days
Claudio Vicenzo Sorrentino filed a patent infringement action against VJDJ Frisco Property LP in the Northern District of Texas, asserting US10801224B1 in connection with The Bays Golf Experience and Suites. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice just 11 days after filing, leaving the door open for future proceedings.
A swift voluntary exit: patent suit over golf venue tech ends in 11 days
On April 24, 2025, plaintiff Claudio Vicenzo Sorrentino, represented by Sriplaw PA, filed a patent infringement action in the Northern District of Texas (Case No. 3:25-cv-01021) against VJDJ Frisco Property LP. The suit centred on US10801224B1 and alleged infringement in connection with The Bays Golf Experience and Suites, an entertainment golf venue concept. The case was assigned to Judge Jane J. Boyle.
On May 5, 2025 — just 11 days after filing — the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), without prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs and attorneys’ fees. A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal occurs before any answer or motion for summary judgment has been served, meaning it is a unilateral plaintiff action requiring no court order. The without-prejudice designation means the claims may be refiled.
The near-immediate resolution suggests the dispute may have prompted early-stage negotiations, a licensing agreement, or a strategic reassessment by the plaintiff — though the public record does not disclose the specific driver. The 11-day window is strikingly short even by the standard of pre-answer dismissals, and no defendant counsel of record appeared, which is consistent with settlement or pre-litigation resolution occurring outside the court docket.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 11 days
11 days from filing to dismissal — well below the median district court patent case duration
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral right to exit
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order, as of right, before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. No judicial approval is needed. The dismissal is effective upon filing the notice. This is the earliest and cleanest procedural exit available to a plaintiff in federal litigation.
Pre-answer voluntary dismissalWithout prejudice — but what does the public record actually say?
The dismissal notice expressly states ‘without prejudice,’ meaning the plaintiff retains the right to refile the same claims against the same defendant. This contrasts with a with-prejudice dismissal, which would bar refiling. The without-prejudice outcome is typical of Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissals and suggests the plaintiff has not waived its rights under US10801224B1 against this defendant.
Refiling rights preservedNo judgment, no admission — defendant exits without liability
VJDJ Frisco Property LP obtained no formal judgment in its favour. No defendant counsel appeared on the docket, suggesting the dispute may have been resolved informally before formal engagement. The cost-bearing arrangement — each party pays its own fees — is standard for pre-answer dismissals and does not imply any financial settlement between the parties from the public record alone.
No liability establishedPatent remains live — enforcement risk persists for golf venue operators
Because the dismissal is without prejudice, US10801224B1 remains a live enforcement asset. Other operators of similar entertainment golf venue formats could face similar assertions. The rapid resolution is consistent with a licensing negotiation concluding before the litigation became costly — a pattern common in venue-technology patent enforcement campaigns.
Ongoing enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Claudio Vicenzo Sorrentino | Individual | Patent holder asserting US10801224B1 relating to golf venue technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | VJDJ Frisco Property LP | Company | Operator of The Bays Golf Experience and Suites entertainment venue in Frisco, TexasSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joel Benjamin Rothman | Attorney | Counsel for Claudio Vicenzo SorrentinoSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joseph A. Dunne | Attorney | Counsel for Claudio Vicenzo SorrentinoSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sangheon Han | Attorney | Counsel for Claudio Vicenzo SorrentinoSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Sriplaw PA | Law Firm | Representing Claudio Vicenzo SorrentinoSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jane J Boyle | Judge | Texas Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — a unilateral plaintiff mechanism requiring no judicial order when exercised before the defendant answers. The explicit ‘without prejudice’ language is legally significant: it preserves the plaintiff’s right to refile the identical claims. The cost-neutrality clause is standard in such notices and does not, on its own, confirm or deny a settlement. No merits adjudication occurred; the patent’s validity and the defendant’s alleged infringement remain untested by the court.
US10801224B1 — entertainment golf venue and hospitality suite technology
US10801224B1 (application number US16/874535) is a granted US patent asserted in connection with The Bays Golf Experience and Suites — an entertainment venue format combining technology-augmented golf bays with hospitality suite facilities. The patent covers structural and/or operational innovations in this venue format. The application number suggests a filing in the 2020 timeframe, placing it in the wave of experiential entertainment IP that emerged alongside the rapid growth of venue-based golf concepts.
The commercial significance of this patent lies in the rapid expansion of the entertainment golf sector, exemplified by operators such as Topgolf, Drive Shack, and regional independents. Any patent asserting protectable elements of the bay-golf-plus-hospitality format carries meaningful strategic weight, as operators in this space have invested heavily in venue design and technology integration. A valid and enforceable claim in this domain could compel licensing conversations across a significant number of active venues nationwide.
Should your venue run an FTO against US10801224B1?
Any operator, developer, or investor involved in bay-style entertainment golf venues with integrated hospitality or suite offerings should treat US10801224B1 as a priority FTO subject. The assertion against The Bays Frisco — and the rapid resolution without prejudice — suggests the patent holder views the claims as commercially viable. Venue operators who have not assessed their design and operational configurations against this patent’s claims carry meaningful and unquantified infringement risk.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claims of US10801224B1 against your venue’s technical specifications, identify prior art that may affect enforceability, and surface any related continuation or divisional applications that could extend the IP family’s reach. For R&D and real estate development teams planning new entertainment golf concepts, an early-stage FTO is the most cost-effective risk mitigation available.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10801224B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent infringement cases in entertainment venue technology
Cases involving entertainment venue technology patents filed in the Northern District of Texas, including bay-golf and experiential hospitality concepts.
What this case signals for the entertainment venue IP landscape
A rapid voluntary dismissal in a patent case rarely signals abandonment — more often, it signals a deal was reached before litigation costs escalated.
Pre-answer dismissals often mask licensing activity
When a patent plaintiff dismisses without prejudice within days of filing and before the defendant engages counsel, the most commercially rational explanation is an early licensing resolution. IP teams monitoring US10801224B1 should treat this outcome as a potential precedent-setter for royalty rates in the entertainment golf venue sector.
Without-prejudice status keeps the patent enforcement window open
The patent holder retains the right to refile against VJDJ Frisco Property LP or assert US10801224B1 against other venue operators. Companies in adjacent entertainment venue formats — particularly those offering bay-style golf and hospitality suites — should evaluate their exposure to this patent now rather than at the point of a demand letter.
Sorrentino v VJDJ — key questions answered
The plaintiff dismissed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before the defendant answered, meaning no court order was required. The ‘without prejudice’ designation preserves the plaintiff’s right to refile the same patent infringement claims against VJDJ Frisco Property LP or other defendants in the future. No merits ruling was made and US10801224B1 remains valid and enforceable.
US10801224B1 is a granted US patent asserted in connection with The Bays Golf Experience and Suites entertainment venue. Based on the application number US16/874535, it relates to structural or operational innovations in bay-style entertainment golf and hospitality suite venue configurations. The specific claim scope requires a full FTO review to assess design-around opportunities.
The 11-day resolution is consistent with a pre-litigation settlement or licensing agreement reached before formal legal engagement by the defendant. No defendant counsel appeared on the docket, which further suggests the matter may have been resolved through direct negotiation. The public record does not confirm the specific reason for the rapid dismissal.
Yes. Because the dismissal was expressly without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), the plaintiff retains the right to refile claims based on US10801224B1 against VJDJ Frisco Property LP or assert the patent against other defendants. However, a second dismissal of the same action would typically be deemed with prejudice under the ‘two-dismissal rule’ of Rule 41(a)(1)(B).
The dismissal notice states each party bears its own costs, attorneys’ fees, and expenses. This is standard language in pre-answer voluntary dismissals and does not confirm or rule out a separate settlement agreement. It means neither party is entitled to seek fee recovery from the other arising from this specific filing, consistent with the default rule under Rule 41.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.