SynchroFi LLC v. Salesforce, Inc. — Dismissed With Prejudice in 48 Days
SynchroFi LLC asserted US7613919B2, a single-use password authentication patent, against Salesforce in the Western District of Texas. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice after just 48 days — before Salesforce filed an answer — extinguishing its right to refile the same claims.
A swift exit: SynchroFi drops authentication patent suit against Salesforce
SynchroFi LLC, a patent assertion entity holding US7613919B2 directed at single-use password authentication technology, filed an infringement action against Salesforce, Inc. on October 21, 2025, in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 7:25-cv-00478). Salesforce is a leading cloud-based CRM and enterprise software platform — a defendant whose authentication infrastructure sits at the core of its product ecosystem. The asserted patent, filed under application number US10/963334, covers methods of generating and validating single-use passwords, a technology central to modern identity and access management.
On December 5, 2025 — just 48 days after filing — SynchroFi filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Because Salesforce had not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment, the dismissal was self-effectuating and required no court order. The with-prejudice designation is legally significant: SynchroFi permanently forfeits the right to reassert the same claims against Salesforce on the same patent. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, fees, and expenses.
A resolution in under seven weeks, before any substantive motion practice, suggests the parties likely reached a private arrangement — or that SynchroFi identified a strategic reason to exit early. The public record does not disclose whether any consideration changed hands. The absence of an answer from Salesforce means no invalidity defenses were formally lodged, leaving the patent’s validity untested in this proceeding. The with-prejudice bar nevertheless removes Salesforce as a future litigation target under this patent.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 48 days
48 days — well below the median patent case duration in W.D. Texas, suggesting pre-answer resolution
Dismissed with prejudice: what the voluntary exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): self-effectuating dismissal before answer
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. Because Salesforce had not responded substantively, SynchroFi’s notice was legally self-executing — the case terminated automatically upon filing. The court’s order merely confirmed what the rule already effected.
No court order requiredWith prejudice: SynchroFi cannot refile against Salesforce on this patent
A voluntary dismissal with prejudice operates as an adjudication on the merits under Rule 41(a)(1)(B). SynchroFi permanently extinguishes its right to reassert US7613919B2 infringement claims against Salesforce. This is materially different from a without-prejudice dismissal, which would preserve the option to refile. The public record does not disclose whether any settlement consideration was exchanged.
Permanent bar on refilingSalesforce walks away without lodging a single formal defense
Salesforce secured a complete exit from this litigation without filing an answer, invalidity contentions, or any dispositive motion. The with-prejudice dismissal provides permanent protection from SynchroFi on this patent. However, because no invalidity challenge was pursued, US7613919B2 remains presumptively valid and available for assertion against other defendants in the authentication technology space.
Full protection, no defenses filedPatent survives intact — threat to other authentication platforms remains
The early dismissal leaves US7613919B2 unchallenged and enforceable. Companies operating single-use password, OTP, or token-based authentication systems — particularly SaaS and identity management platforms — should note that SynchroFi retains the ability to assert this patent against other defendants. The rapid resolution and with-prejudice terms are consistent with a licensing resolution or a strategic pivot to new targets.
Patent validity untestedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | SynchroFi LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US7613919B2 covering single-use password authenticationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Salesforce, Inc. | Company | Salesforce, Inc. — global cloud CRM and enterprise software platform providerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for SynchroFi LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rabicoff Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing SynchroFi LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jacqueline P. Altman | Attorney | Counsel for Salesforce, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ryan Richardson | Attorney | Counsel for Salesforce, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Salvador Manuel Bezos | Attorney | Counsel for Salesforce, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Uma Everett | Attorney | Counsel for Salesforce, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Naman, Howell, Smith & Lee PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Salesforce, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Salesforce, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order confirms that SynchroFi’s Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice was self-effectuating — no judicial determination of the merits occurred. The with-prejudice designation, chosen by the plaintiff rather than imposed by the court, permanently bars SynchroFi from reasserting the same claims against Salesforce. The fee-bearing provision — each party covers its own costs — is standard for pre-answer voluntary dismissals and does not imply any finding of bad faith or exceptional case status under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
US7613919B2 — Single-Use Password Authentication Technology
US7613919B2 (application no. US10/963334) covers methods and systems for generating and validating single-use passwords — a foundational technology in modern authentication infrastructure. The patent addresses the security vulnerability of reusable static passwords by introducing a mechanism for one-time-use credentials, a concept that underpins OTP tokens, SMS verification codes, and hardware authenticators widely deployed across enterprise and consumer platforms today.
In the context of cloud SaaS platforms such as Salesforce, single-use password technology is embedded in multi-factor authentication flows, API token generation, and session management. The patent’s broad application to authentication systems makes it strategically relevant to any vendor offering identity, access, or login services. With enterprise security compliance mandates accelerating MFA adoption, patents covering OTP and single-use credential mechanisms carry elevated assertion value — and elevated FTO risk for platform developers.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US7613919B2?
Any company developing or integrating single-use password, OTP, time-based token, or one-time credential authentication features should assess exposure under US7613919B2. This includes SaaS platform vendors, identity-as-a-service providers, enterprise SSO developers, and mobile authentication SDK builders. Given that SynchroFi has already demonstrated willingness to assert this patent against a major cloud platform, the risk to smaller or mid-market vendors — who may lack Salesforce’s litigation resources — is proportionally higher.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US7613919B2 against your product’s authentication architecture, identify relevant prior art that could support an IPR or ex parte reexamination, and flag related continuations or family members that may extend the patent’s reach. Running a targeted FTO before product launch, partnership, or M&A due diligence on authentication technology reduces the risk of costly post-hoc litigation exposure.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7613919B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar single-use password and OTP patent cases in W.D. Texas
Explore related patent infringement cases involving authentication and single-use password technology filed in the Western District of Texas against enterprise software defendants.
What this case signals for the authentication technology IP landscape
A 48-day lifecycle and with-prejudice exit suggests deliberate strategy — not accidental abandonment — with implications across the identity and access management sector.
Pre-answer dismissals often signal undisclosed licensing activity
When a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses with prejudice before the defendant answers, the most commercially rational explanation is a private licensing agreement or a lump-sum settlement. SynchroFi achieved a permanent bar on Salesforce litigation — an outcome that typically has commercial value. Counsel monitoring PAE activity in the authentication space should treat this case as a potential licensing data point.
US7613919B2 remains valid and assertable against other defendants
Because no invalidity challenge was formally raised, the patent exits this litigation with its presumption of validity intact. Any company deploying single-use password or OTP authentication — particularly SaaS platforms, identity providers, and enterprise SSO vendors — faces residual exposure if SynchroFi continues its assertion campaign. An FTO analysis against this patent is advisable before product launch or acquisition.
SynchroFi v Salesforce — key questions answered
A with-prejudice dismissal operates as a final adjudication on the merits under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B). SynchroFi permanently forfeits the right to reassert US7613919B2 infringement claims against Salesforce in any future proceeding. The patent itself remains valid and enforceable against other parties.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because Salesforce had not yet filed either, SynchroFi’s December 5, 2025 notice was self-effectuating and terminated the case automatically.
No. Because the dismissal occurred before any invalidity contentions or dispositive motions were filed, the patent’s validity was never adjudicated. US7613919B2 retains its statutory presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282 and remains available for assertion against other defendants in the authentication technology space.
SynchroFi was represented by Rabicoff Law LLC (attorney Isaac Rabicoff), a firm known for patent assertion entity litigation. Salesforce was represented by Naman, Howell, Smith & Lee PLLC and Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC, with attorneys Jacqueline P. Altman, Ryan Richardson, Salvador Manuel Bezos, and Uma Everett listed on the docket.
US7613919B2 covers methods and systems for single-use password authentication — technology underlying OTP tokens, SMS verification, and one-time credential systems. Any SaaS platform, identity provider, enterprise SSO vendor, or mobile authentication developer deploying similar mechanisms may face assertion risk from SynchroFi or subsequent assignees, particularly given the patent’s uncontested validity status following this dismissal.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.