Televo LLC v. Kyocera Corp. — Dismissed Without Prejudice (247 Days)
Televo LLC filed a patent infringement action against Kyocera Corp. in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting US8521927B2 covering a system and method for text entry. After 247 days, Televo voluntarily dismissed all claims without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i).
A voluntary exit before merits: Televo v. Kyocera in E.D. Texas
Televo LLC, asserting rights in US8521927B2 — a patent covering a system and method for text entry — filed suit against Kyocera Corp. in the Eastern District of Texas on 16 July 2025. The case, assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00721, alleged patent infringement arising from Kyocera's products. No judge assignment is recorded in the available public data.
The recorded basis of termination is 'Dismissed without Prejudice.' The docket order states that Plaintiff Televo LLC filed a Notice of Dismissal and represented that the case is voluntarily dismissed without prejudice; the Court accepted and acknowledged the notice and, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), dismissed all pending claims and causes of action without prejudice. The case closed on 20 March 2026 after 247 days.
The dismissal without prejudice leaves open the possibility that Televo could refile claims against Kyocera in the future. No merits ruling was reached, and no settlement terms, licensing arrangements, or other resolution details are disclosed in the available public record. What specifically drove Televo's decision to withdraw before any substantive court ruling is not apparent from the public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 247 days
247 days from filing to dismissal — under 12 months in E.D. Texas
US8521927B2 — System and method for text entry
If your company develops, manufactures, or licenses products with text entry functionality — including mobile devices, tablets, embedded systems, or software keyboards — US8521927B2 warrants a freedom-to-operate assessment. The patent was asserted against a major device OEM and remains unadjudicated following a without-prejudice dismissal. R&D and product teams shipping new text input features or entering the mobile input market should prioritise this review.
Official order — verbatim text
The court order records a straightforward Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) voluntary dismissal without prejudice, accepted and acknowledged by the court on Televo's notice alone. No substantive findings were made: no infringement, validity, or claim construction rulings appear in the record. The dismissal without prejudice preserves Televo's right to refile and affords Kyocera no preclusive protection on the merits.
Dismissed without prejudice: what the voluntary exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff's right to voluntarily dismiss
Under Rule 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. Here, the Court accepted and acknowledged Televo's notice, and dismissed all claims without prejudice. This is a procedural exit — no merits adjudication occurred.
No merits rulingWithout prejudice: the refiling door remains open
A dismissal without prejudice does not bar Televo from reasserting the same patent claims against Kyocera in a future action, subject to applicable statutes of limitations and any other procedural constraints. This contrasts with a dismissal with prejudice, which would permanently extinguish the claims. The public record is silent on any conditions attached to this dismissal.
Refiling possibleKyocera escapes judgment — but uncertainty persists
Kyocera Corp. obtains no formal adjudication in its favour. While the immediate litigation burden is lifted, a without-prejudice dismissal provides no res judicata protection. Kyocera remains exposed to a potential refiling by Televo asserting the same US8521927B2 patent. No invalidity finding or non-infringement ruling was made on the public record.
No res judicata shieldText entry patent remains active and unlitigated to judgment
US8521927B2 has not been adjudicated invalid or found unenforceable. Device manufacturers, software developers, and others operating in the text input or mobile interface space who have not assessed exposure to this patent should note that Televo retains the right to enforce it. The specific commercial terms of any resolution, if any exist, are not disclosed in the available record.
Patent still enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Televo LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Kyocera, Corp. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Phillip Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for Televo LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rabicoff Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing Televo LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the text entry and input method patent space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from Televo v. Kyocera and the broader text entry technology landscape.
Televo LLC's enforcement footprint around US8521927B2
Televo LLC's assertion of US8521927B2 against a major device OEM suggests an active enforcement strategy in the text entry space. Monitoring Televo's broader patent holdings — including any continuations, divisionals, or related applications in the US11/774578 family — can reveal the full scope of potential exposure for device and software companies in this domain.
PAE portfolio watchFiling trends in text entry and keyboard input technology
The text entry and on-screen keyboard space has seen sustained patent filing activity from both device OEMs and specialised IP holders. Tracking recent filing trends in predictive text, gesture input, and keyboard software patents can surface competitive risks and white-space opportunities for product and R&D teams developing next-generation input methods.
Input method IP trendsKyocera's patent position in text input and mobile interfaces
As a mobile device and communications equipment manufacturer, Kyocera holds its own patent portfolio in hardware and software interface technologies. Analysing Kyocera's defensive filings and cross-licensing activity in the text entry and input method domain can inform competitive intelligence and identify areas where the company is building IP protection for future products.
Kyocera IP landscapeAdjacent innovation opportunities near the text entry patent space
Areas adjacent to the core text entry system covered by US8521927B2 — including AI-assisted predictive input, voice-to-text integration, haptic feedback in virtual keyboards, and multimodal input — may represent relative white space in the current patent landscape. R&D teams can use these signals to direct innovation towards less encumbered technical approaches.
Emerging input methodsSimilar text entry patent infringement cases in E.D. Texas
Explore related patent infringement actions involving text entry, keyboard input, and mobile interface technologies filed in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the text entry and mobile input IP landscape
A voluntary early dismissal in E.D. Texas without prejudice leaves the enforcement posture of US8521927B2 unresolved — and potentially in play.
Without-prejudice dismissal signals unresolved enforcement risk
Televo's decision to voluntarily dismiss before any substantive ruling means US8521927B2 remains unadjudicated. Companies developing or commercialising text entry or keyboard input technologies should treat this patent as an active enforcement risk until a merits ruling or expiry removes the uncertainty.
E.D. Texas remains a preferred venue for PAEs asserting input method patents
The Eastern District of Texas is a consistently favoured forum for patent assertion entities. The filing of this case — and the speed of its dismissal — is consistent with a litigation strategy that may include settlement discussions, licensing approaches, or portfolio-level negotiations that do not surface on the public docket.
Televo v Kyocera — key questions answered
The case was dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff Televo LLC filed a Notice of Dismissal and the court, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), accepted and acknowledged the notice and dismissed all pending claims and causes of action without prejudice on 20 March 2026, 247 days after filing.
Televo LLC asserted US8521927B2, filed under application number US11/774578, which covers a system and method for text entry. The case was filed in the Eastern District of Texas on 16 July 2025.
A without-prejudice dismissal means no merits ruling was made and Kyocera receives no preclusive finding of non-infringement or invalidity. Kyocera remains potentially exposed to a refiling by Televo asserting the same patent, as the dismissal does not bar future claims. The specific terms of any resolution between the parties are not disclosed in the available public record.
Yes, in principle. A dismissal without prejudice does not permanently extinguish the claims. Televo could refile an action asserting US8521927B2 against Kyocera, subject to applicable statutes of limitations and any procedural constraints that may apply. No covenant not to sue or other restriction is recorded in the available public docket.
The case was filed in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:25-cv-00721). Televo LLC was represented by Isaac Phillip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC. No defendant law firm or agent is recorded in the available case data.
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.