True Return Systems v. MakerDAO: Blockchain Ledger Patent Case Ends in Voluntary Dismissal
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | True Return Systems, LLC v. MakerDAO |
| Case Number | 1:22-cv-08478 (S.D.N.Y.) |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Duration | Oct 2022 – Aug 2024 ~1 year 10 months |
| Outcome | Defendant Win — Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | MakerDAO’s decentralized smart contract protocol |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
A patent assertion entity (PAE) focused on monetizing intellectual property related to computerized ledger systems.
🛡️ Defendant
A decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) governing the Maker Protocol on the Ethereum blockchain.
The Patent at Issue
This case centered on a single patent covering fundamental computerized ledger architectural elements. Patents are registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and protect novel and non-obvious inventions.
- • U.S. 10,025,797 B1 — Method and System for Separating Storage and Process of a Computerized Ledger for Improved Function
Building a blockchain protocol?
Check if your architecture might infringe this or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
On August 9, 2024, True Return Systems filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). Chief Judge Swain directed the Clerk to close the action and terminate all open motions. No damages were awarded. No injunctive relief was granted. The dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits — True Return Systems cannot refile this infringement action against MakerDAO based on the same patent and accused conduct.
Strategic Analysis of the Dismissal
A voluntary dismissal with prejudice after nearly two years of active litigation — with multiple motions still pending — is a significant strategic signal. It typically reflects one or more of the following:
- Unfavorable Claim Construction Positioning: If MakerDAO’s defense team successfully reframed the scope of patent claims during Markman proceedings or briefing, the plaintiff may have faced an infringement theory that no longer survived scrutiny.
- Validity Pressure: Perkins Coie’s defense team likely mounted prior art and invalidity challenges. The patent’s broad architectural claims risk invalidation under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (patent-eligible subject matter) or obviousness grounds.
- Defendant Identification Complexity: MakerDAO’s decentralized structure raises novel jurisdictional and party identification questions. Establishing proper service, legal standing, and damages attribution against a DAO presents meaningful litigation obstacles.
- Economic Calculus: With a well-resourced defense team and no clear path to damages or injunction, continued litigation costs may have outweighed projected recovery.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in blockchain protocol design. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View related patents in the distributed ledger space
- See which companies are most active in blockchain patents
- Understand claim construction patterns for blockchain architecture
🔍 Check My Protocol’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own blockchain technology or product.
- Input your protocol description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
Architectural separation of ledger components
Distributed Ledger Patents
Review related patent families
Strategic IP defense
Options for decentralized protocols
✅ Key Takeaways
Voluntary dismissal with prejudice after 678 days signals significant defense-side pressure, likely on claim construction and § 101 grounds.
Search related case law →Naming a DAO as patent defendant raises unresolved issues of party identification, service, and damages attribution.
Explore precedents →Frequently Asked Questions
U.S. Patent No. 10,025,797 B1 (Application No. 15/923,317), covering a method and system for separating storage and processing functions in a computerized ledger.
True Return Systems filed a voluntary dismissal with prejudice on August 9, 2024. No court ruling on the merits was issued; the dismissal may reflect unfavorable claim construction positioning, validity risk, or strategic economic considerations.
It highlights the challenges of asserting software-architecture patents against decentralized protocols and reinforces the importance of § 101 eligibility and claim construction strategy in blockchain IP disputes.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- PACER — Case No. 1:22-cv-08478, S.D.N.Y.
- USPTO Patent Center — U.S. Patent No. 10,025,797 B1
- Docket Navigator — IP Litigation Database
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — 35 U.S.C. § 101
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Law Firms
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.