TurboCode LLC v. Acer Inc. — Dismissed With Prejudice in 22 Days
TurboCode LLC filed a patent infringement action against Acer Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting US6813742B2 against seven Acer product lines including the Swift 3, Swift 7, and Iconia Talk S. TurboCode voluntarily dismissed the case with prejudice just 22 days after filing — before Acer answered — with each party bearing its own costs.
A 22-day EDTX infringement action that ended before Acer filed a single pleading
On February 13, 2025, TurboCode LLC filed an infringement action against Acer Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, asserting US6813742B2 against a broad range of Acer consumer and commercial devices: the Iconia Talk S, Liquid Z6, Swift 3, Swift 7, TravelMate P2, TravelMate P4, and TravelMate Spin P4. The case was assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00175 and represented a targeted assertion across both tablet and laptop-class products.
On March 7, 2025 — just 22 days after filing — TurboCode filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Judge Gilstrap accepted the notice and ordered the case closed, with each party bearing its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. Because Acer had not yet answered the complaint nor moved for summary judgment, TurboCode was entitled to dismiss unilaterally under the rule.
The 22-day duration is strikingly short even for pre-answer dismissals. The dismissal with prejudice — rather than without — is a meaningful distinction: TurboCode permanently surrendered its right to assert the same claims against Acer based on the same patent. The public record does not disclose whether a settlement was reached, licensing terms were agreed, or the case was dropped for strategic or evidentiary reasons. The mutual cost-bearing order is consistent with a negotiated exit, though this cannot be confirmed from available filings.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 22 days
22 days — well under the median lifespan for EDTX patent cases, which typically run 18–36 months
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows unilateral dismissal before answer
Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order at any time before the opposing party serves an answer or moves for summary judgment. Here, Acer had done neither, giving TurboCode the right to exit unilaterally. The choice to dismiss with prejudice — rather than without — was TurboCode’s own election, making the termination permanent as to these claims.
Pre-answer dismissalWith-prejudice dismissal permanently bars TurboCode’s claims against Acer
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final judgment on the merits. TurboCode cannot re-file the same infringement claims based on US6813742B2 against Acer for the same accused products. This is the most significant consequence for the plaintiff: it forecloses any future attempt to re-litigate this dispute. Whether this reflects a settlement, a licensing resolution, or a unilateral strategic withdrawal is not disclosed in the public record.
Claims permanently barredAcer exits with no liability finding and no cost exposure
Acer Inc. never answered the complaint and faces no court-imposed liability, injunction, or damages award. The mutual cost-bearing order means Acer absorbs its own defence costs to date — typically minimal at this pre-answer stage — but receives no fee award. The with-prejudice dismissal gives Acer certainty that TurboCode cannot re-assert these specific claims under US6813742B2 for the same accused products.
No liability, no fee awardPatent survives — third-party risk from US6813742B2 remains live
The dismissal resolves only this dispute between TurboCode and Acer. US6813742B2 remains in force and TurboCode retains the right to assert it against other defendants. Competitors manufacturing similar devices — particularly those with comparable connectivity or processing architectures — should note that this patent has been actively asserted. The EDTX filing venue and the breadth of accused products suggest a potentially wider assertion campaign is possible.
Patent still enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | TurboCode, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US6813742B2, asserted against Acer device portfolioSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Acer, Inc. | Company | Acer Inc. — global PC, tablet, and mobile device manufacturer headquartered in TaiwanSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David R. Bennett | Attorney | Counsel for TurboCode, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Steven Kalberg | Attorney | Counsel for TurboCode, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s acceptance of the Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice is procedural rather than substantive — no merits were adjudicated and no claim construction occurred. The with-prejudice designation, however, carries real legal weight: it functions as a final judgment, precluding TurboCode from re-asserting the same claims against Acer under US6813742B2 for these products. The mutual cost order suggests neither party sought to characterise the other as a prevailing party, which is consistent with a negotiated or commercial resolution behind the scenes.
US6813742B2 — core patent asserted across seven Acer devices
US6813742B2 was filed as application US09/681093 and covers technology in the electronic device processing and communication domain. The patent was asserted against a diverse range of Acer products spanning tablets (Iconia Talk S, Liquid Z6), consumer laptops (Swift 3, Swift 7), and commercial-grade notebooks (TravelMate P2, TravelMate P4, TravelMate Spin P4), suggesting the claimed invention relates to functionality common across both mobile and portable computing form factors.
The breadth of the accused product list — spanning entry-level to premium commercial devices — indicates TurboCode believes the patent’s claims are not limited to a narrow implementation. For competitors operating in the same device categories, this signals that the patent may cover architectural features present across a wide product portfolio. The active enforceability of this patent following the dismissal makes it a relevant monitoring target for any company in the Windows-based laptop and Android tablet space.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US6813742B2?
Any company designing, manufacturing, or importing laptops, tablets, or convertible devices with processing or communication architectures similar to Acer’s Swift or TravelMate product lines should treat US6813742B2 as a live risk. TurboCode has demonstrated willingness to file in EDTX — the most assertive patent jurisdiction in the US — and to target a wide product sweep in a single action. The patent’s apparent applicability across both consumer and commercial device tiers amplifies exposure.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map US6813742B2’s claim scope against their own product architectures, identify the full patent family including any continuations or related applications, and surface prior art that may support invalidity arguments. Running this analysis before product launch — or before entering the US market — is materially cheaper than defending an EDTX infringement action, even one that resolves in 22 days.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US6813742B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent infringement cases in EDTX consumer electronics litigation
Explore comparable patent infringement actions asserting device architecture patents against consumer electronics manufacturers before Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the consumer electronics IP landscape
A 22-day EDTX lifespan and a with-prejudice exit raise strategic questions for any company in Acer’s product category.
With-prejudice dismissals at Day 22 often signal off-docket resolution
When a plaintiff dismisses with prejudice this rapidly — before the defendant even answers — it typically suggests the parties reached an understanding off the record. A pure walk-away would more commonly be without prejudice, preserving optionality. The with-prejudice election here, combined with mutual cost-bearing, is consistent with a licensing or settlement outcome, though this cannot be confirmed from public filings.
US6813742B2 remains enforceable against other device makers
The dismissal only resolves TurboCode’s claims against Acer. Any manufacturer of devices with architecturally similar designs to the accused Acer product lines — including the Swift series and TravelMate range — should conduct FTO analysis against US6813742B2. TurboCode’s willingness to file in EDTX and its broad product sweep suggest this may not be its only assertion target.
TurboCode v Acer — key questions answered
The with-prejudice dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) operates as a final judgment on the merits. TurboCode LLC cannot re-file infringement claims against Acer Inc. based on US6813742B2 for the same accused products. The dismissal is permanent and Acer faces no ongoing liability risk from this specific action.
The public record does not confirm a settlement. The case was closed on TurboCode’s voluntary dismissal with prejudice, with mutual cost-bearing ordered. This combination is consistent with a negotiated resolution or licensing agreement, but no settlement terms have been publicly disclosed.
TurboCode accused seven Acer products: the Acer Iconia Talk S, Acer Liquid Z6, Acer Swift 3, Acer Swift 7, TravelMate P2, TravelMate P4, and TravelMate Spin P4. The range spans Android-based tablets, consumer laptops, and commercial notebook lines.
The public record does not explain TurboCode’s choice to dismiss with prejudice. Strategically, a with-prejudice dismissal typically accompanies a settlement or licensing arrangement, as it provides the defendant certainty that the claims will not be re-filed. A dismissal without prejudice would have preserved TurboCode’s ability to re-assert the same claims.
Yes. The dismissal only resolves TurboCode’s claims against Acer Inc. US6813742B2 remains a valid and enforceable patent. TurboCode retains the right to assert it against other defendants. Companies manufacturing devices with similar architectures to the accused Acer products should conduct freedom-to-operate analysis against this patent.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.