VeriBase LLC v. Twinhead International — Voluntarily Dismissed (109 Days)
VeriBase LLC filed a patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas against Twinhead International Corporation, asserting US9600661B2, which covers a system and method for securing computer systems via selective write-access control to data storage media. The case closed after 109 days when VeriBase filed a voluntary dismissal.
A Short-Lived Data Security Patent Suit in East Texas
VeriBase LLC, represented by Rabicoff Law LLC, filed suit on 18 December 2025 in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:25-cv-01238) against Twinhead International Corporation, alleging infringement of US9600661B2. The asserted patent relates to a system and method to secure a computer system by selectively controlling write access to a data storage medium.
The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Voluntary dismissal.' The docket order, however, states that Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which the court accepted, dismissing all claims with prejudice and directing each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. The specific terms underlying the dismissal are not disclosed in the available record.
The case closed on 6 April 2026, just 109 days after filing, before any substantive motion practice appears on the public docket. What drove the early exit — whether a licensing resolution, commercial negotiation, or another factor — is not disclosed in the available record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 109 days
Case lifespan — filed and closed within a single quarter
US9600661B2 — Selective Write-Access Control for Data Storage Security
Any company designing or manufacturing computer systems, embedded devices, or storage controllers that implement write-access protection or selective write-enable/disable mechanisms should consider whether US9600661B2 is within scope. The patent emerged from litigation without a validity or claim-scope ruling, meaning its enforceability is untested and its claims retain full presumptive weight.
Official order — verbatim text
The court's order accepts VeriBase's Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice and records dismissal of all claims with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs. No ruling was issued on infringement, validity, or claim construction of US9600661B2. The order is procedural in nature, and its own-costs provision is the only substantive term visible in the public record.
Voluntarily dismissed: what the exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) voluntary dismissal — how it works
Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The Basis of Termination is recorded as 'Voluntary dismissal.' The docket order states the dismissal was accepted as with prejudice, ending the litigation on those terms. The specific terms are not disclosed in the available record.
Plaintiff-initiated exitThe prejudice distinction matters — the public record is mixed
A dismissal with prejudice bars the plaintiff from re-filing the same claims against the same defendant — it is a final adjudication on the merits. A dismissal without prejudice preserves that option. The recorded Basis of Termination states 'Voluntary dismissal' without specifying either. The docket order states 'WITH PREJUDICE.' Readers should treat these as separately recorded data points; the specific operative effect on future claims should be verified against the full docket.
Prejudice status unconfirmed in Basis fieldTwinhead exits without a merits ruling on US9600661B2
Twinhead International Corporation did not face a substantive ruling on validity or infringement of US9600661B2. The case closed with each party bearing its own costs, meaning Twinhead incurred no awarded fee liability. Whether any commercial arrangement accompanied the dismissal is not disclosed in the available record.
No merits adjudicationUS9600661B2 remains in play — no validity finding issued
Because no court ruled on the validity or scope of US9600661B2, the patent retains its presumption of validity. Competitors and product teams working with data-storage write-access security systems should note that the patent survived this litigation without challenge on the merits. VeriBase's enforcement posture toward other parties is not constrained by this dismissal.
Patent validity untestedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | VeriBase LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Twinhead International Corporation | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Phillip Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for VeriBase LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rabicoff Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing VeriBase LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Theodore Victor Lapus | Attorney | Counsel for Twinhead International CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Lai, Corsini & Lapus, LLC | Law Firm | Representing Twinhead International CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the data storage write-access security space
Forward-looking patent and technology intelligence derived from VeriBase v. Twinhead and the broader write-access control security domain.
VeriBase's enforcement assets beyond US9600661B2
VeriBase LLC's assertion of US9600661B2 against a hardware OEM suggests a focused enforcement strategy in the storage security space. Monitoring VeriBase's full patent portfolio and any continuation or related applications filed under application no. US11/292910 can reveal the breadth of its IP position and likely next enforcement targets.
PAE enforcement landscapeFiling trends in write-access and storage write-protection IP
Patents covering selective write-access control to storage media sit at the intersection of endpoint security, firmware integrity, and hardware root-of-trust trends. Filing activity in this space has been influenced by growing regulatory pressure around firmware security and supply-chain integrity. Tracking CPC subclass G06F21 and related codes surfaces the competitive innovation frontier.
Storage security filing trendsTwinhead International's patent position in rugged and embedded computing
Twinhead International operates in rugged laptops, embedded computers, and industrial terminals — product categories where storage write-protection is a common security feature. Analysing Twinhead's own patent filings and defensive publications can indicate whether it holds independent prior art or design-around capability relevant to write-access control claims.
OEM defensive IPAdjacent innovation: hardware-enforced write protection below the OS layer
US9600661B2 addresses write-access control at the system level. Adjacent white space exists in hardware-enforced write protection implemented below the operating system — including firmware-level and controller-level mechanisms not covered by software-patent claims. R&D teams investing in trusted execution environments and secure boot may find filing opportunities in this adjacent space.
Firmware security white spaceSimilar data storage security patent cases in E.D. Texas
Explore related patent infringement actions involving data storage write-access and endpoint security technologies filed in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the data storage security IP landscape
A 109-day lifecycle with no merits ruling leaves US9600661B2 fully intact and available for future enforcement.
Early dismissals in E.D. Tex. patent cases often follow pre-litigation resolution
Cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas that close in under 120 days without any substantive motion practice typically suggest an early commercial resolution or licensing agreement, though none is confirmed on this docket. Companies monitoring VeriBase's enforcement activity should track subsequent filings involving US9600661B2.
Own-costs orders signal no leverage imbalance at exit
The court's direction that each party bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a contested win. Neither party secured a fee award, suggesting the dismissal was mutually acceptable at the point it was filed.
VeriBase v Twinhead — key questions answered
The case was voluntarily dismissed by plaintiff VeriBase LLC. The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Voluntary dismissal.' The docket order states the dismissal was filed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and accepted as with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs. No merits ruling on US9600661B2 was issued.
VeriBase LLC asserted US9600661B2 (application no. US11/292910), which covers a system and method to secure a computer system by selective control of write access to a data storage medium. No claim construction or invalidity ruling was issued in this litigation.
The case was filed in the Eastern District of Texas, a historically plaintiff-favoured patent venue known for its active patent docket. The case closed after 109 days without substantive motion practice, so no venue-related procedural rulings were issued.
No. Because the case was dismissed without any ruling on invalidity or infringement, US9600661B2 retains its full presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282. The patent remains enforceable against other parties, and its claim scope was never construed by the court.
VeriBase LLC was represented by Isaac Phillip Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC. Twinhead International Corporation was represented by Theodore Victor Lapus of Lai, Corsini & Lapus, LLC.
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.