`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`6:21-CV-00023-ADA
`
`6:21-CV-00074-ADA
`
`§§
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`§§
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`ORDER
`
`TRAXCELL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
` Plaintiff
`
`-vs-
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
` Defendant
`
`TRAXCELL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
` Plaintiff
`
`-vs-
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`
` Defendant
`
`Plaintiff Traxcell filed the above-titled two actions against defendants Google and Apple,
`
`asserting infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,549,388 (“the ’388 patent”) and 9,918,196 (“the
`
`’196 patent”) (collectively, “the asserted patents”) against each defendant. On August 6, 2021,
`
`Traxcell filed a Motion to Amend Complaint in both cases, attempting to assert a third patent —
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,820,147 — against both defendants. -023 Action at Dkt. 26; -074 Action at
`
`Dkt. 27. Before the Court ruled on Traxcell’s Motion to Amend Complaint, on October 25, 2021,
`
`Traxcell filed an Unopposed Amended Motion to Dismiss in each action, requesting the Court to
`
`dismiss its infringement claims against Google and Apple regarding the ’388 and ’196 patents
`
`without prejudice. -023 Action at Dkt. 33; -074 Action at Dkt. 38. Neither defendant has filed an
`
`answer in either action. The Court subsequently granted Traxcell’s Motion to Amend Complaint
`
`on November 19, 2021. -023 Action at Dkt. 35; -074 Action at Dkt. 46. Defendants contend that
`
`Traxcell’s Unopposed Motion to Dismiss immediately divested this Court of jurisdiction to
`
`1
`
`Exhibit 1019 / IPR2022-00073/ Page 1 of 3
`Apple Inc. v. Traxcell Technologies, LLC
`
`
`
`resolve any motions, rendering all pending motions moot. The Court held hearings on December
`
`6 and 13, 2021, where the parties presented further arguments regarding the defendants’
`
`contentions. After careful consideration of the parties’ arguments during the hearings and the
`
`applicable law, the Court finds that the above-titled two actions should be DISMISSED
`
`WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) states, in pertinent part, that “the plaintiff
`
`may dismiss an action without a court order by filing . . . a notice of dismissal before the
`
`opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`41(a)(1)(A)(i). “[A] plaintiff’s right to file a notice of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before
`
`the service of an answer or motion for summary judgment is absolute and unconditional.” Int’l
`
`Driver Training Inc. v. J-BJRD Inc., 202 F. App’x 714, 715 (5th Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted).
`
`Furthermore, dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) is “immediately self-effectuating” and
`
`requires no response from the Court or the opposing party. Qureshi v. United States, 600 F.3d
`
`523, 525 (5th Cir. 2010).
`
`Although Traxcell filed an unopposed Motion to Dismiss, rather than a “notice of
`
`dismiss,” the Court finds that it is a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) in substance.
`
`See Rozelle v. Lowe, No. SA-16-CV-489-XR, 2016 WL 7228768, at *4-5, n.5 (W.D. Tex. Dec.
`
`13, 2016) (“Though [filings may] not [be] formally titled as notices of dismissal, ‘it is its content,
`
`not its label that matters’ in construing a filing as a notice of dismissal under Rule 41.”) (citation
`
`omitted); see also Williams v. Ezell, 531 F.2d 1261, 1263 (5th Cir. 1976) (finding a filing “styled
`
`a ‘Motion for Dismissal’ rather than a ‘Notice of Dismissal’ is, in our opinion, a distinction
`
`without a difference”). Because a dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) is “immediately self-
`
`effectuating,” “the district court is divested of jurisdiction over the case by the filing of the notice
`
`2
`
`Exhibit 1019 / IPR2022-00073
`Page 2 of 3
`
`
`
`of dismissal itself.” Qureshi, 600 F.3d at 525. Therefore, the Court finds that Traxcell’s claims
`
`against Google and Apple were effectively dismissed on October 25, 2021 when Traxcell filed
`
`its Unopposed Amended Motion to Dismiss.
`
`It is therefore ORDERED that the above-identified two actions be DISMISSED
`
`WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
`
`SIGNED this 16th day of December, 2021.
`
`ALAN D ALBRIGHT
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`3
`
`Exhibit 1019 / IPR2022-00073
`Page 3 of 3
`
`