Stasit LLC v. Meta Platforms: Patent Infringement Dismissed with Prejudice in 98 Days
Stasit LLC brought a patent infringement action against Meta Platforms in the Western District of Texas, asserting US8855723B2 covering temporal incoming communication notification management. The case resolved in just 98 days, with all claims dismissed with prejudice and each party bearing its own costs.
98-Day Dismissal: Stasit's Notification Patent Claim Against Meta
On July 21, 2023, Stasit LLC filed a patent infringement action against Meta Platforms Inc. in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:23-cv-00528) before Judge Orlando L. Garcia. The sole asserted patent was US8855723B2, directed to temporal incoming communication notification management. Stasit was represented by DNL Zito Castellano and Ramey LLP, while Meta retained Allen & Overy LLP.
The recorded basis of termination is dismissal with prejudice. The docket order states that the parties stipulated to dismissal of all claims with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, with each party bearing its own costs and attorney fees. The case closed on October 27, 2023.
The case resolved in 98 days — well before any substantive merits ruling, claim construction, or trial. The bilateral cost arrangement is consistent with a negotiated resolution, though the specific terms beyond the cost split are not disclosed in the available record. What drove the swift closure remains unknown from the public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 98 days
Days from filing to dismissal — a notably fast resolution for a district court patent case
US8855723B2 — Temporal Incoming Communication Notification Management
Any organisation shipping products that manage, triage, or temporally prioritise incoming communications — including messaging apps, email clients, unified communications platforms, and social notification systems — should consider a formal freedom-to-operate analysis against US8855723B2. The case against Meta resolved without any claim construction, meaning no court has narrowed or invalidated the claims. The patent is live and its scope is commercially untested.
Official order — verbatim text
The parties' stipulation invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which requires no court order — the dismissal is self-executing upon filing. The with-prejudice designation makes the termination final and res judicata as between Stasit and Meta on the asserted claims. No substantive ruling on infringement, validity, or claim scope was issued, leaving the patent's legal boundaries entirely unaddressed by the court.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the agreed stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41 stipulated dismissal with prejudice explained
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal is a voluntary stipulated dismissal signed by all parties. Where it is 'with prejudice,' it operates as a final adjudication on the merits, permanently barring Stasit from re-filing the same infringement claims against Meta on US8855723B2. The court enters no separate judgment — the stipulation itself is the operative dismissal.
Voluntary, binding, permanent barStasit cannot reassert these claims against Meta
The with-prejudice designation extinguishes Stasit's right to bring the same infringement claims against Meta based on US8855723B2. The patent itself remains in force and may be asserted against other defendants, but this specific dispute with Meta is permanently resolved. The specific terms beyond the cost allocation are not disclosed in the available record.
Claims extinguished vs. MetaMeta secures a permanent bar on these specific claims
Meta Platforms obtains finality: Stasit cannot relitigate the same infringement claims under US8855723B2 in any US federal court. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement means Meta absorbs its own litigation costs, including Allen & Overy LLP fees. No damages or injunctive relief were awarded against Meta. Beyond the cost allocation, no further terms are disclosed in the public record.
Permanent protection from these claimsSwift closure limits precedent but raises portfolio watch signals
The 98-day resolution without any claim construction or merits ruling leaves the scope of US8855723B2 judicially untested. This means the patent's validity and claim breadth remain unaddressed by any court, preserving uncertainty for other companies operating in the notification management and communications technology space. Product teams in this domain should monitor Stasit's broader portfolio activity.
No merits ruling; patent scope untestedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Stasit, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Meta Platforms, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joseph J. Zito | Attorney | Counsel for Stasit, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William P. Ramey , III | Attorney | Counsel for Stasit, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dnl Zito Castellano | Law Firm | Representing Stasit, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ramey LLP | Law Firm | Representing Stasit, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lisa K. Nguyen | Attorney | Counsel for Meta Platforms, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Allen & Overy LLP | Law Firm | Representing Meta Platforms, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Orlando L. Garcia | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the communication notification technology space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from Stasit v. Meta — covering notification management IP, platform filing trends, and adjacent white space.
Stasit LLC's patent portfolio beyond US8855723B2
Stasit's assertion of a single notification management patent against Meta suggests potential for a broader portfolio play. R&D and IP teams should map Stasit's full US and international patent holdings to identify additional notification, messaging, or communications management assets that may be deployed in future assertion campaigns.
PAE portfolio monitoringFiling trends in temporal notification management IP
The temporal prioritisation of incoming communications is an active innovation zone, driven by AI-powered inbox triage, cross-platform notification orchestration, and real-time messaging systems. Tracking patent filing activity in this space over the past five years reveals key innovators, whitespace zones, and potential prior art relevant to US8855723B2's claim scope.
Notification IP filing trendsMeta's defensive patent position in notification infrastructure
Meta Platforms holds a substantial patent portfolio across messaging, notification delivery, and real-time communications infrastructure. Understanding Meta's own filing activity in the notification management domain helps identify whether their technology is independently developed or potentially in tension with third-party claims like those in US8855723B2.
Meta notification patentsAdjacent innovation opportunities near notification management claims
The claims of US8855723B2 focus on temporal management of incoming communications. Adjacent white-space areas — including AI-driven notification suppression, cross-device notification synchronisation, and context-aware message prioritisation — may offer patentable differentiation for R&D teams seeking to innovate near but clear of the asserted claim scope.
Notification IP white spaceSimilar patent cases: notification technology in the Western District of Texas
Explore related patent infringement actions involving communication notification technology and platform defendants filed in the Western District of Texas.
What this case signals for the notification technology IP landscape
A 98-day patent dismissal against a major platform with no merits ruling leaves open questions for the broader communications notification sector.
Unlitigated claims leave notification patent scope judicially untested
Because the case resolved before claim construction, the scope and validity of US8855723B2 have never been tested in court. Companies in the communication notification management space cannot rely on this outcome as precedent — the patent remains enforceable against third parties with an undefined claim perimeter.
Ramey LLP's involvement signals a pattern worth tracking for tech defendants
Ramey LLP is a prolific filer in the Western District of Texas patent space. Defendants in the communications and social media technology sectors should monitor filings by this firm and its associated entities as an early-warning indicator of targeted assertion campaigns.
Stasit v Meta — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice. The parties stipulated to dismissal of all claims under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, with each party bearing its own costs and attorney fees. The case closed on October 27, 2023, 98 days after filing. No merits ruling was issued.
Stasit LLC asserted US8855723B2 (application number US13/244679), which covers temporal incoming communication notification management. No additional patents were asserted in this action. The case resolved before any claim construction order was entered.
Dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits. Stasit LLC is permanently barred from bringing the same infringement claims against Meta Platforms based on US8855723B2. The patent itself remains in force and may be asserted against other defendants, but this specific dispute with Meta is permanently closed.
Stasit LLC was represented by DNL Zito Castellano (Joseph J. Zito) and Ramey LLP (William P. Ramey III). Meta Platforms was represented by Allen & Overy LLP (Lisa K. Nguyen). The case was assigned to Judge Orlando L. Garcia in the Western District of Texas.
No. The case resolved before any claim construction, validity ruling, or merits adjudication. The dismissal with prejudice only bars Stasit from re-suing Meta on these claims — it has no preclusive effect on the patent's validity or enforceability against other parties. The claim scope of US8855723B2 remains judicially untested.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.