TG-2006 Holdings v. Monday.com: Dismissed With Prejudice After 115 Days
TG-2006 Holdings, LLC asserted US9805323B2 — a patent covering systems and methods for tracking information in a business environment — against Monday.com Ltd in the Eastern District of Texas. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all claims with prejudice within 115 days, closing the case permanently before any merits ruling.
A swift voluntary exit: TG-2006 drops Monday.com patent suit with prejudice
On March 2, 2025, TG-2006 Holdings, LLC filed an infringement action against Monday.com Ltd in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:25-cv-00250), before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The sole patent asserted was US9805323B2, directed to a system and method for tracking information in a business environment — a technology claim with potential relevance to Monday.com’s project and workflow management platform.
Just 115 days after filing, TG-2006 Holdings filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Judge Gilstrap accepted and acknowledged the dismissal on June 25, 2025, formally closing the case. Critically, the dismissal was entered with prejudice, meaning TG-2006 Holdings is permanently barred from re-asserting the same claims against Monday.com based on this patent. The Court also ordered each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.
The speed of resolution — 115 days, before any substantive motion practice or claim construction proceeding appears on the public record — is consistent with an early negotiated resolution or a strategic decision to withdraw following an assessment of the merits. The with-prejudice designation goes beyond a typical unilateral walkaway and suggests either a formal settlement containing that condition, or a considered decision by plaintiff’s counsel at Rabicoff Law LLC to foreclose further litigation risk. The precise commercial terms, if any, remain undisclosed in the public record.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 115 days
115 days — resolved well before the typical E.D. Texas district court schedule reaches claim construction
Dismissed with prejudice: what the voluntary exit means for both parties
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i): the plaintiff’s unilateral exit before answer
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss without a court order before the defendant has served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Here, the plaintiff invoked this mechanism but chose to do so with prejudice — an uncommon election that transforms what would ordinarily be a no-harm withdrawal into a permanent bar against re-filing the same claims. The Court accepted and acknowledged the dismissal, which is the standard judicial posture for Rule 41(a)(1) notices.
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — with prejudiceTG-2006 permanently forfeits the right to re-sue Monday.com on this patent
By dismissing with prejudice, TG-2006 Holdings has extinguished its ability to reassert US9805323B2 against Monday.com in any future action. This is a significant strategic concession: most plaintiffs who wish to preserve optionality dismiss without prejudice. The with-prejudice election here suggests either a negotiated condition of settlement or a deliberate decision to close off the litigation permanently. No damages, injunction, or monetary award in TG-2006’s favour appears in the public record.
Claims permanently barredMonday.com secures permanent closure — no fee award but full case dismissal
Monday.com Ltd receives the strongest possible procedural protection short of a full invalidity ruling: the asserted patent can never again be brought against it by this plaintiff in this action. The Court’s cost order — each party bears its own — means Monday.com did not recover attorneys’ fees, which is the default under U.S. patent law absent a finding of an ‘exceptional case’ under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Represented by Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Monday.com’s early defence strategy appears to have been effective.
Case closed; no fee recoveryEarly dismissals signal enforcement risk calculus for SaaS workflow platforms
The filing of a business-process tracking patent against a major SaaS platform in E.D. Texas — and its rapid with-prejudice dismissal — is consistent with a pattern of pre-litigation licensing attempts that do not survive early scrutiny or defendant pushback. For SaaS and work-management platform operators, this case suggests that robust prior art analysis and early declaratory posturing can accelerate resolution. The with-prejudice outcome removes US9805323B2 as a litigation threat against Monday.com specifically, but the patent remains enforceable against third parties.
SaaS sector — patent risk persists for othersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | TG–2006 Holdings, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9805323B2, a business information tracking system patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Monday.com Ltd | Company | Monday.com Ltd — cloud-based work operating system and project management platform providerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Phillip Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for TG–2006 Holdings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rabicoff Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing TG–2006 Holdings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Benjamin L. Bernell | Attorney | Counsel for Monday.com LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP | Law Firm | Representing Monday.com LtdSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The verdict language confirms a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) voluntary dismissal with prejudice — the most plaintiff-unfavourable form of unilateral withdrawal available. The Court’s phrasing — ‘ACCEPTS and ACKNOWLEDGES’ — reflects the ministerial nature of the proceeding: no judicial merits analysis was required or conducted. The cost-neutrality order (‘each party to bear its own costs’) is the default and does not reflect any merits finding. The denial of pending relief ‘as moot’ confirms no substantive motions were decided, leaving no precedential record on the validity or scope of US9805323B2.
US9805323B2 — System and method for tracking information in a business environment
US9805323B2 (application number US15/277865) covers a system and method for tracking information in a business environment. Patents in this category typically claim structures for organising, monitoring, and surfacing task, project, or workflow data across enterprise users — a broad functional description that can potentially read on a wide range of modern SaaS collaboration and project management tools. The patent’s issuance number and application lineage suggest it was prosecuted through a standard utility patent examination pathway.
Business-process tracking patents of this type occupy a contested space in U.S. patent law following Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, which raised the threshold for patent eligibility of software-implemented business methods under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The rapid voluntary dismissal in this case may be consistent with vulnerability to an Alice-based § 101 challenge. For competitors and adjacent SaaS platform operators, the patent’s claim scope warrants independent FTO analysis, particularly given that the with-prejudice dismissal only resolves Monday.com’s exposure — not the market’s.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US9805323B2?
Any company developing or commercialising systems for tracking, organising, or surfacing business information — including project management, workflow automation, CRM, or enterprise collaboration platforms — should assess whether their product architecture could read on the claims of US9805323B2. The fact that TG-2006 Holdings targeted Monday.com, one of the most prominent platforms in this category, signals active enforcement intent. The dismissal resolves Monday.com’s risk but does not eliminate the patent’s enforceability against third parties.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to map claim language from US9805323B2 against your product’s feature set, identify prior art that may undermine key claims, and benchmark the patent’s litigation history across all asserted defendants. With E.D. Texas remaining a preferred venue for assertion entities, running a proactive FTO analysis now — before a demand letter arrives — is the commercially prudent step for any SaaS platform operating in the business workflow or project tracking space.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9805323B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar business-software patent infringement cases in E.D. Texas
Cases involving business-process and workflow tracking patents asserted against SaaS platforms in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Gilstrap.
What this case signals for the SaaS and business-software IP landscape
A swift with-prejudice exit in E.D. Texas raises pointed questions about enforcement strategy and patent quality in the workflow software sector.
With-prejudice dismissals in E.D. Texas often follow early settlement or defendant pressure
When a plaintiff in an Eastern District of Texas patent case dismisses with prejudice this early — before claim construction or substantive motion practice — it typically signals either a confidential settlement or a recognition that the litigation posture was untenable. IP teams monitoring assertion activity against SaaS platforms should track these outcomes as leading indicators of enforcement strategy shifts.
US9805323B2 remains a live threat against non-Monday.com defendants
The with-prejudice dismissal only extinguishes claims against Monday.com Ltd. TG-2006 Holdings retains the right to assert US9805323B2 against any other party whose products may read on the patent’s claims. Companies operating business workflow, project tracking, or enterprise information management platforms should evaluate their exposure independently.
TG–2006 v Monday.com — key questions answered
A dismissal with prejudice permanently bars TG-2006 Holdings from reasserting the same patent claims (US9805323B2) against Monday.com Ltd in any future action. It is the most final form of voluntary dismissal under FRCP 41 and eliminates all litigation risk for Monday.com from this plaintiff on this patent.
The public record does not confirm a settlement. The with-prejudice designation and rapid resolution within 115 days is consistent with a confidential settlement, but no settlement agreement has been filed. The Court’s order is silent on any commercial terms, and the cost-neutrality ruling is consistent with both a negotiated resolution and an unconditional withdrawal.
Yes. The dismissal with prejudice only extinguishes TG-2006 Holdings’ claims against Monday.com Ltd. The patent US9805323B2 remains in force and can be asserted against any other party. Companies in the SaaS, workflow management, or enterprise information tracking space should conduct independent FTO analysis.
The Eastern District of Texas, and specifically Judge Gilstrap’s docket, is a historically preferred venue for patent assertion entities due to its plaintiff-friendly reputation, established patent case management procedures, and local patent rules. Rabicoff Law LLC has filed multiple patent infringement actions in this district. The choice of venue is a strategic election rather than a reflection of any connection between the parties and Texas.
US9805323B2 (application no. US15/277865) is a U.S. utility patent covering a system and method for tracking information in a business environment. This category of patent typically encompasses software-implemented methods for organising, monitoring, and managing task or workflow data in enterprise settings. Such patents are subject to validity challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 101 following Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank (2014).
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.