WSOU Investments v. Salesforce: Caller ID Patent Dismissed With Prejudice After 842 Days
WSOU Investments LLC, operating as Brazos Licensing and Development, sued Salesforce over US7551731B2 — a patent covering flexible caller ID and calling name information presentation. The parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice after 842 days of litigation in Judge Alan Albright’s court in the Western District of Texas, with each side bearing its own fees and costs.
A Patent Monetisation Play That Ends at the Courtroom Door
On 25 January 2023, WSOU Investments LLC — a patent assertion entity operating under the Brazos Licensing and Development brand — filed suit against Salesforce.com, Inc. in the Western District of Texas before Judge Alan D. Albright. The asserted patent, US7551731B2, covers flexible caller ID and calling name information presentation technology, a capability embedded in modern CRM and unified communications platforms.
After 842 days of litigation, the parties resolved the dispute by filing a joint stipulation of dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Under the stipulation’s asymmetric terms, WSOU’s claims against Salesforce were dismissed with prejudice — permanently extinguishing any future assertion of the same patent against Salesforce on the same grounds — while Salesforce’s defences were dismissed without prejudice, preserving its ability to raise those arguments in other proceedings.
The 842-day duration suggests the case progressed well into substantive litigation phases before resolution, though the public record does not disclose whether a licensing agreement was reached or what, if any, commercial terms accompanied the dismissal. The asymmetric prejudice terms — plaintiff’s claims dismissed with prejudice, defendant’s defences without — are consistent with a negotiated exit in which Salesforce secured permanent immunity from re-assertion of this patent on these claims while retaining optionality on its invalidity or non-infringement positions for other contexts.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 842 days
842 days — above the median for W.D. Texas patent cases before resolution
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated exit means for both parties
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): Joint Stipulation, No Court Order Required
Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), parties may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a signed stipulation. This mechanism allowed WSOU and Salesforce to exit the litigation on privately negotiated terms without judicial scrutiny of those terms. The dismissal became effective upon filing, making it one of the cleanest exits available in federal civil litigation — fast, bilateral, and not subject to court approval.
Procedural exit — no merits rulingWSOU’s Claims Permanently Extinguished Against Salesforce
Dismissal with prejudice of WSOU’s claims operates as a final adjudication on the merits under res judicata. WSOU — as Brazos Licensing — cannot reassert US7551731B2 against Salesforce for the same accused conduct. For a patent assertion entity whose business model depends on serial assertion, this is a meaningful concession. It suggests either a licensing payment was received off-record, or continued litigation risk outweighed the expected recovery.
Re-assertion permanently barredSalesforce Retains Its Defence Positions for Other Proceedings
Salesforce’s defences — which may have included invalidity, non-infringement, or patent-eligibility arguments — were dismissed without prejudice. This asymmetry is strategically significant: Salesforce preserved its ability to deploy those same defences if US7551731B2 surfaces in a different venue or against a related entity. For a company of Salesforce’s scale, retaining IPR or declaratory judgment options is consistent with standard enterprise IP defence practice.
Defence positions preservedCaller ID Patent Survives — Threat to Other Licensees Persists
US7551731B2 has not been adjudicated invalid or found non-infringed. The patent remains enforceable and WSOU/Brazos may assert it against other CRM, UCaaS, or communications platforms that implement flexible caller ID or calling name presentation features. Companies in those sectors should note that the Salesforce settlement — if there was one — creates no precedent that limits WSOU’s licensing demands elsewhere in the ecosystem.
Patent remains live against othersFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | WSOU Investments, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity (Brazos Licensing) — holder of US7551731B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Salesforce.com, Inc. | Company | Salesforce.com, Inc. — global CRM and enterprise cloud software platformSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Chen Jia | Attorney | Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Darcy L. Jones | Attorney | Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Gregory Phillip Love | Attorney | Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Heather S. Kim | Attorney | Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John W. Downing | Attorney | Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathan H. Hicks | Attorney | Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathan K. Waldrop | Attorney | Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joseph M. Abraham | Attorney | Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Julianne Laporte | Attorney | Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Marcus A. Barber | Attorney | Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Mark D. Siegmund | Attorney | Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Paul G. Williams | Attorney | Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Scott Russell Maynard | Attorney | Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | ThucMinh Nguyen | Attorney | Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Timothy Franklin Dewberry | Attorney | Counsel for WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Cherry Johnson Siegmund James PLLC | Law Firm | Representing WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Folio Law Group PLLC | Law Firm | Representing WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Kasowitz Benson Torres, LLP | Law Firm | Representing WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rade LLC | Law Firm | Representing WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Steckler Wayne Cherry & Love PLLC | Law Firm | Representing WSOU Investments, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christopher Sidney Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | G. Blake Thompson | Attorney | Counsel for Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kevin P.B. Johnson | Attorney | Counsel for Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nathan Sun | Attorney | Counsel for Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ray Robert Zado | Attorney | Counsel for Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Sam Stake | Attorney | Counsel for Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Scott Lamar Cole | Attorney | Counsel for Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Todd M. Briggs | Attorney | Counsel for Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Mann, Tindel & Thompson Attorneys at Law | Law Firm | Representing Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP | Law Firm | Representing Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Reichman Jorgensen Lehman & Feldberg LLP | Law Firm | Representing Salesforce.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The joint stipulation’s language is precise and asymmetric by design. WSOU’s dismissal ‘with prejudice’ of all claims ‘raised or could have raised’ invokes res judicata broadly, foreclosing future assertion of US7551731B2 against Salesforce on any theory available at filing. Salesforce’s dismissal ‘without prejudice’ of defences preserves its invalidity and non-infringement arguments for future use — in IPR, declaratory judgment, or third-party proceedings. No court order was required, and no merits ruling was issued, meaning the patent’s validity and infringement were never adjudicated.
US7551731B2 — Flexible Caller ID and Calling Name Presentation
US7551731B2 covers technology enabling flexible presentation of caller identification and calling name information — functionality that sits at the intersection of telephony signalling and user-facing communications interfaces. The application number US10/930285 indicates a filing in the mid-2000s, placing it in the era when VoIP and hosted PBX systems were beginning to displace legacy PSTN infrastructure. The patent’s claims likely address how calling identity metadata is processed, formatted, and displayed across network boundaries.
For modern CRM and UCaaS platforms — which routinely integrate caller ID enrichment, screen-pop functionality, and dynamic calling name presentation into their contact centre and sales engagement products — this patent represents a non-trivial assertion risk. WSOU/Brazos acquired it as part of a portfolio of legacy Nokia or Alcatel-Lucent assets, consistent with their broader strategy of targeting enterprise software vendors with telecommunications-origin patents. Competitors offering similar caller ID or CLI customisation features should treat this patent as an active monitoring priority.
Should your team run an FTO against US7551731B2?
Any company developing or deploying flexible caller ID presentation, dynamic calling name display, or CLI enrichment features within a CRM, UCaaS, contact centre, or enterprise telephony product should assess exposure under US7551731B2. The patent was asserted against Salesforce — a leading CRM platform — suggesting WSOU/Brazos considers its claims broadly applicable to enterprise software products that surface telephony identity metadata to end users. The absence of a merits ruling means no invalidity finding exists to rely on.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim language of US7551731B2 against your product’s feature set, identify prior art candidates that could support an invalidity position, and surface related WSOU/Brazos portfolio patents that may pose adjacent risks. Given WSOU’s serial assertion history, a single-patent FTO review is rarely sufficient — Eureka’s portfolio-level analysis helps identify the full scope of Brazos assertion risk before you receive a demand letter.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7551731B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Caller ID and Telephony Patent Cases in W.D. Texas
Related patent infringement actions asserting telecommunications and caller ID technology patents in the Western District of Texas before Judge Albright.
What this case signals for the CRM and caller ID patent landscape
WSOU’s Brazos programme has filed dozens of suits in W.D. Texas. This resolution pattern carries sector-wide implications.
WSOU’s asymmetric dismissal terms are a template worth studying
The with-prejudice/without-prejudice split in this stipulation is not accidental. It reflects a negotiated outcome where Salesforce paid for permanent immunity while WSOU preserved optionality elsewhere. Any enterprise facing a Brazos assertion should understand this structure before entering settlement discussions.
US7551731B2 remains a live risk for UCaaS and CRM competitors
The patent was never adjudicated on the merits. Companies offering caller ID customisation, calling name presentation, or dynamic CLI features in cloud communications or CRM contexts should monitor WSOU/Brazos docket activity and evaluate their exposure under this patent’s claim scope.
WSOU v Salesforce.com — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice as to WSOU’s claims and without prejudice as to Salesforce’s defences, pursuant to a joint stipulation filed under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Each party bore its own attorneys’ fees and costs. No court order was required and no merits ruling was issued.
WSOU Investments LLC asserted US7551731B2, a patent covering flexible caller ID and calling name information presentation technology. The underlying application number is US10/930285. The patent was asserted in connection with Salesforce’s CRM platform features.
Dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits under res judicata. WSOU cannot reassert US7551731B2 against Salesforce for the same accused conduct or claims that were or could have been raised in this suit. The patent remains enforceable against other defendants.
The asymmetric dismissal terms — plaintiff’s claims with prejudice, defendant’s defences without — reflect a negotiated structure. Salesforce preserved its invalidity, non-infringement, or other defences for potential use in future proceedings such as IPR petitions or declaratory judgment actions, while WSOU accepted permanent preclusion from re-asserting its claims against Salesforce.
Yes. Because the case was resolved by stipulated dismissal with no merits adjudication, US7551731B2 was never found invalid or non-infringed by a court. The patent remains enforceable and WSOU/Brazos Licensing may continue to assert it against other parties operating in the CRM, UCaaS, or enterprise telephony space.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.