SynchroFi LLC v. Foris DAX, Inc. — Dismissed Without Prejudice in 44 Days
SynchroFi LLC brought a patent infringement action against cryptocurrency platform operator Foris DAX, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting US7613919B2 covering single-use password authentication. The case resolved in just 44 days when SynchroFi voluntarily dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41 before Foris DAX filed any answer — leaving the door open for refiling.
Early voluntary exit: SynchroFi retreats before Foris DAX answers
On October 21, 2025, SynchroFi LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against Foris DAX, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, asserting US7613919B2, a patent directed to single-use password authentication technology. Foris DAX, Inc. is associated with the Crypto.com platform, placing this dispute at the intersection of authentication IP and digital asset services.
Before Foris DAX filed an answer or moved for summary judgment, SynchroFi invoked Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) to file a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice. Judge Gilstrap acknowledged and accepted the dismissal on December 4, 2025, ordering the case closed with each party bearing its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. A dismissal without prejudice means the claims have not been adjudicated on the merits and SynchroFi retains the right to refile.
The 44-day lifecycle is notably short even for pre-answer dismissals, suggesting either rapid private settlement, a licensing agreement reached off the docket, or a strategic decision to refile in a different venue or against a different defendant. The public record is silent on what, if any, commercial terms accompanied the dismissal, and no answer, claim construction briefing, or substantive motion practice appears to have occurred.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 44 days
44 days — resolved well below the E.D. Texas median of 730+ days to trial
Voluntarily dismissed: what a Rule 41 exit without prejudice means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s right to dismiss before answer
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because Foris DAX had not yet answered, SynchroFi exercised this right unilaterally. The court’s role is ministerial — it acknowledges and accepts the dismissal rather than approving it.
No merits adjudicationWithout prejudice: the case can be refiled
A dismissal without prejudice does not resolve the underlying infringement claims. SynchroFi retains the ability to refile the same claims against Foris DAX or other defendants, subject to applicable statutes of limitations and any intervening developments in the patent’s validity. This stands in contrast to a dismissal with prejudice, which would bar refiling. The public record here confirms the ‘without prejudice’ designation explicitly.
Refiling right preservedForis DAX exits without admission — but exposure persists
Foris DAX secured dismissal without having to answer, brief, or litigate any substantive issue. No finding of non-infringement or invalidity was made. The cost-neutrality order means neither side recovered fees. However, Foris DAX remains exposed to reassertion of US7613919B2 by SynchroFi or any future assignee, and the underlying authentication patent remains in force.
No liability finding; exposure remainsSilent exit may signal off-docket resolution or venue strategy
Voluntary dismissals at this early stage — 44 days, before any answer — frequently accompany confidential licensing discussions or settlement. Equally, they can reflect a plaintiff’s decision to refile in a more favourable venue or consolidate claims against multiple defendants. Companies operating authentication systems in fintech and crypto should monitor US7613919B2 for reassertion activity and consider whether FTO clearance is warranted.
Monitor for reassertionFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | SynchroFi LLC | Company | Authentication technology patent assertion entity — holder of US7613919B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Foris DAX, Inc. | Company | Foris DAX, Inc. — operator associated with the Crypto.com digital asset platformSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Phillip Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for SynchroFi LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rabicoff Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing SynchroFi LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Elizabeth Danielle Thompson Williams | Attorney | Counsel for Foris DAX, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | William Mitchell Logan | Attorney | Counsel for Foris DAX, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Winston Strawn LLP(Houston) | Law Firm | Representing Foris DAX, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Winston Strawn LLP (Chicago) | Law Firm | Representing Foris DAX, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order is procedural rather than substantive: Judge Gilstrap acknowledged SynchroFi’s Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice and directed the clerk to close the case. No claim construction, infringement finding, or validity ruling was made. The without-prejudice designation is the critical operative term — it preserves SynchroFi’s right to refile identical claims, and the cost-neutrality provision forecloses any fee-recovery argument by either side arising from this proceeding.
US7613919B2 — Single-Use Password Authentication
US7613919B2 (application no. US10/963,334) covers single-use password authentication — technology commonly associated with one-time password (OTP) systems, challenge-response mechanisms, and session-limited credential schemes. Patents in this space typically claim methods of generating, transmitting, and validating time- or use-limited credentials to authenticate users or transactions, which are foundational to multi-factor authentication architectures widely deployed across banking, fintech, and digital asset platforms.
The assertion of this patent against a crypto platform operator signals that the patent holder views authentication flows in digital asset services — such as login, transaction confirmation, or withdrawal authorisation — as potentially within the claim scope. With MFA and OTP authentication now standard across regulated fintech, the patent carries broad assertion potential. Any company deploying single-use credential systems in financial or crypto services should treat this patent as a monitoring priority.
Should your product team run an FTO against US7613919B2?
If your platform authenticates users or authorises transactions using single-use passwords, OTPs, or session-limited credentials — particularly in fintech, crypto, or digital banking — US7613919B2 warrants a freedom-to-operate review. The Foris DAX action demonstrates that the patent holder is actively asserting against digital asset operators, and a pre-answer dismissal does not extinguish that risk.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and product legal teams to map your authentication implementation against the claim language of US7613919B2 and its family, identify design-around options, and surface prior art relevant to any IPR petition strategy — all before a demand letter arrives. Early FTO work is significantly cheaper than responding to E.D. Texas litigation.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7613919B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar authentication patent cases in E.D. Texas and fintech sector
Cases involving single-use password and OTP authentication patents litigated in the Eastern District of Texas, including PAE assertions against fintech and crypto platforms.
What this case signals for the authentication IP landscape in fintech
A 44-day lifecycle in E.D. Texas before any answer is rarely the end of the story for an asserted authentication patent.
Pre-answer dismissals in E.D. Texas often precede refiling or licensing
When a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before the defendant answers, the most common explanations are a confidential license deal or a strategic pivot to refile. Patent professionals tracking SynchroFi should watch for new complaints asserting US7613919B2 against other fintech or crypto platforms in the coming months.
Single-use password authentication patents remain live enforcement tools
US7613919B2 was asserted against a digital asset operator, indicating plaintiff’s view that authentication flows in crypto platforms read on the claims. Companies deploying OTP, session-token, or challenge-response authentication in financial services applications should assess whether their implementations present claim overlap with this patent family.
SynchroFi v Foris — key questions answered
A dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) means the infringement claims were never adjudicated on the merits. SynchroFi retains the right to refile the same claims against Foris DAX or other defendants, subject to the statute of limitations. No finding of non-infringement or invalidity was made, so the patent remains fully enforceable.
SynchroFi asserted US7613919B2, a patent covering single-use password authentication technology. The application number on record is US10/963,334. The patent was asserted in connection with Foris DAX’s authentication systems, which are associated with the Crypto.com platform.
The 44-day resolution reflects SynchroFi’s decision to file a voluntary dismissal before Foris DAX answered the complaint. This is permitted as of right under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The public record does not disclose the reason, but early exits of this type are commonly associated with off-docket licensing negotiations, a decision to refile in a different venue, or a strategic consolidation of claims.
No judicial finding was made in favour of either party. The case was dismissed without prejudice on SynchroFi’s own motion before Foris DAX filed an answer. Each party bears its own costs. While Foris DAX avoided litigation, it received no formal non-infringement or invalidity ruling, meaning it remains exposed to potential reassertion of US7613919B2.
US7613919B2 covers single-use password authentication — including methods and systems for generating and validating one-time, session-limited, or challenge-response credentials. Fintech companies, cryptocurrency platforms, digital banking operators, and any enterprise deploying OTP or MFA authentication workflows should monitor this patent for reassertion activity and consider an FTO analysis against its claim language.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.