Verna IP Holdings v. Alert Media: Digitized Voice Alerts Patent Dismissed With Prejudice
Verna IP Holdings, LLC asserted US11403932B2 — a patent covering digitized voice alert technology — against emergency communications platform Alert Media, Inc. in the Western District of Texas. After 666 days of litigation before Judge Alan D. Albright, the parties jointly stipulated to dismiss all of Verna’s claims with prejudice, with each side bearing its own costs.
A patent assertion targeting emergency alert infrastructure ends without a merits ruling
On May 16, 2023, Verna IP Holdings, LLC — a Texas-based IP holding entity — filed suit against Alert Media, Inc. in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:23-cv-00373), asserting infringement of US11403932B2, a patent directed at digitized voice alert systems. Alert Media operates an emergency mass-notification platform serving enterprise customers. The case was assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright, a jurist well-known for his active patent docket in Waco.
The action concluded on March 12, 2025, when all parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Under the stipulation, all of Verna’s infringement claims were dismissed with prejudice — permanently barring Verna from re-asserting the same claims against Alert Media. Alert Media’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice as moot, preserving Alert Media’s ability to revive those claims if circumstances change. Each party agreed to bear its own attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses.
The 666-day duration suggests the parties engaged in meaningful pre-trial proceedings before reaching resolution. The with-prejudice dismissal of Verna’s claims is a commercially significant concession by the plaintiff — it forecloses any future infringement action on this patent against this defendant. The public record does not disclose whether a confidential settlement agreement underlies the stipulation, nor does it reveal what, if any, consideration changed hands. The moot-based without-prejudice dismissal of Alert Media’s counterclaims is a standard mechanism that avoids unnecessary judicial resources when the primary dispute is resolved.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 666 days
666 days — longer than the median W.D. Texas patent case before voluntary resolution
Rule 41 joint dismissal: what the with-prejudice terms mean for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) — dismissal by joint stipulation
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal requires the signed agreement of all parties who have appeared. Unlike a unilateral voluntary dismissal, neither side can reverse course. The with-prejudice designation on Verna’s claims carries the same claim-preclusive effect as a judgment on the merits — Verna cannot sue Alert Media again on US11403932B2.
Claim preclusion appliesVerna IP permanently barred from re-asserting against Alert Media
By agreeing to dismissal with prejudice, Verna IP Holdings surrendered any future opportunity to assert US11403932B2 against Alert Media. This is a meaningful concession for an IP holding entity whose commercial model depends on enforcement. The public record does not disclose whether Verna received any settlement consideration that may have motivated this concession.
No re-assertion permittedAlert Media’s counterclaims preserved as moot, not decided
Alert Media’s counterclaims — likely invalidity and/or non-infringement — were dismissed without prejudice as moot. This means no court ruled on the validity of US11403932B2. Alert Media avoids a precedent-setting invalidity ruling, but also did not secure a formal patent invalidation that would benefit the broader industry. The counterclaims could theoretically be revived if the underlying dispute were to resurface.
Patent validity unresolvedUS11403932B2 remains valid and potentially enforceable against others
Because no court adjudicated the patent’s validity or scope, US11403932B2 survives with full presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282. Other emergency notification or digitized voice alert platform providers remain exposed to assertion by Verna or any future assignee. Companies operating in the mass-notification technology space should consider their FTO position relative to this patent.
Third-party risk remainsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Verna IP Holdings, LLC | Company | IP holding entity — holder of US11403932B2 covering digitized voice alert systemsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Alert Media, Inc. | Company | Alert Media, Inc. — enterprise emergency mass-notification and communications platform providerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William P. Ramey , III | Attorney | Counsel for Verna IP Holdings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ramey LLP | Law Firm | Representing Verna IP Holdings, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David Brandon Conrad | Attorney | Counsel for Alert Media, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Neil J. McNabnay | Attorney | Counsel for Alert Media, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Philip Gregory Brown | Attorney | Counsel for Alert Media, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson LLP | Law Firm | Representing Alert Media, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The joint stipulation is carefully structured to achieve asymmetric finality. Verna’s claims are extinguished with prejudice — a res judicata bar against Alert Media specifically — while Alert Media’s counterclaims exit without prejudice, preserving optionality but yielding no invalidity ruling. The ‘as moot’ framing is significant: it signals the counterclaims had no independent commercial survival value once the primary infringement claims fell away. The each-party-bears-own-costs provision is consistent with a negotiated resolution where neither side was confident of a cost-shifting award under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
US11403932B2 — Digitized voice alert systems and emergency notification
US11403932B2 (application number US16/985041) covers digitized voice alert technology — a domain central to enterprise mass-notification platforms. The patent’s application number places its filing timeline in the period when automated emergency communication systems were rapidly evolving from analogue broadcast models toward software-defined, IP-delivered alert infrastructure. The patent is assigned to Verna IP Holdings, LLC, an entity whose business model is consistent with IP monetisation rather than commercial product deployment.
Digitized voice alert technology sits at the intersection of enterprise SaaS, public safety infrastructure, and telecommunications. Any platform that programmatically generates, schedules, or delivers voice-based emergency notifications to end-users could fall within the scope of claims under this patent. For providers of mass-notification services — particularly those serving regulated industries such as healthcare, education, or critical infrastructure — the continued validity of US11403932B2 represents a live enforcement risk. The absence of a court-ordered invalidity finding from this case means the patent emerges from litigation with its presumption of validity fully intact.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US11403932B2?
Any company developing or deploying digitized voice alert, automated emergency notification, or mass-communication platforms should assess its exposure to US11403932B2. This is especially true for SaaS vendors serving enterprise, government, or regulated-sector customers where voice-based alerts are a core feature. The case against Alert Media demonstrated that Verna IP Holdings is actively enforcing this patent — and the with-prejudice dismissal did not produce any claim construction or invalidity record that competitors can leverage.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claims of US11403932B2 against your product’s technical architecture, identify relevant prior art, and flag design-around opportunities — all before litigation risk materialises. Eureka’s litigation monitoring tools also track Verna IP Holdings and Ramey LLP filing activity in real time, so your team receives early warning of new assertions in the emergency notification and voice alert technology space.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11403932B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: digitized voice alert and notification technology
Cases involving emergency notification and voice alert IP in W.D. Texas and comparable district courts, including other Ramey LLP-filed patent assertions.
What this case signals for the emergency notification IP landscape
A with-prejudice resolution without merits leaves the patent intact — and the broader sector unprotected by an invalidity ruling.
With-prejudice dismissal is defendant-favorable but sector-neutral
Alert Media secured permanent protection from this specific plaintiff on this specific patent. However, the absence of an invalidity judgment means no other emergency notification company benefits. Competitors still face the same assertion risk from Verna or any future patent assignee holding US11403932B2.
Judge Albright’s docket: W.D. Texas remains a high-risk venue for patent defendants
Despite recent venue transfer activity nationally, this case ran its full course in W.D. Texas before Judge Albright. Companies in the notification technology space should monitor patent filings in this district and assess transfer eligibility early — well before the one-year deadline typically applies.
Verna v Alert — key questions answered
The with-prejudice dismissal of Verna’s claims means Verna IP Holdings is permanently barred from suing Alert Media again on the same claims under US11403932B2. It carries the same legal effect as a judgment on the merits under res judicata principles, even though no court actually ruled on infringement or validity.
No. US11403932B2 was not adjudicated as invalid. Alert Media’s invalidity counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice as moot when the primary infringement claims were resolved. The patent retains its statutory presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282 and remains enforceable against third parties.
When a defendant’s counterclaims are defensive in nature — typically invalidity or non-infringement — they often lose their practical purpose once the plaintiff’s claims are dismissed with prejudice. Dismissing them as moot without prejudice is a standard procedural mechanism that avoids unnecessary judicial resources while preserving Alert Media’s theoretical ability to revive them if circumstances warrant.
Each party agreed to cover its own attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses. This means neither party sought a fee award under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (exceptional case) or 28 U.S.C. § 1927. It is a common feature of negotiated resolutions where both sides prefer a clean exit over the uncertainty of a fee-shifting motion outcome.
The dismissal offers no protection to other companies. Because no invalidity or non-infringement ruling was issued, US11403932B2 remains valid and enforceable. Other emergency notification and digitized voice alert platform providers should conduct their own freedom-to-operate analysis and monitor Verna IP Holdings for future assertion activity.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.