SAFECAST LIMITED v. Microsoft Corporation
- Garnett
- 1:23-cv-05466
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In SafeCast v. Microsoft, Judge Garnett dismissed the patent case without prejudice after SafeCast failed to obtain U.S. counsel or communicate with the court.
SafeCast Limited’s patent-infringement action was dismissed without prejudice. Microsoft Corporation was the defendant affected by the case’s closure, and William P. Ramey, III, and David J. Hoffman were relieved as SafeCast’s counsel.
What happened
SAFECAST LIMITED sued Microsoft Corporation, alleging infringement of claims in a patent. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board later ruled that the claims underlying the lawsuit were unpatentable, and the deadline to appeal that ruling passed without an appeal. SafeCast’s lawyers also asked to withdraw because SafeCast had not paid their fees.
The court allowed the lawyers to withdraw after giving SafeCast 30 days to hire new counsel or voluntarily dismiss the case. The court warned that a company cannot appear in federal court without a licensed lawyer. SafeCast did not obtain new counsel and did not communicate with the court after the 30-day period.
Judge Margaret M. Garnett dismissed the case without prejudice under Rule 41(b), which permits dismissal when a plaintiff fails to follow court rules or a court order. The court also relieved William P. Ramey, III, and David J. Hoffman as SafeCast’s lawyers and directed the clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- SAFECAST LIMITED v. Microsoft Corporation · No. 1:23-cv-05466
- Garnett
- Mar. 11, 2025
Background
SafeCast Limited sued Microsoft Corporation for allegedly infringing U.S. Patent No. 9,392,302. The case was initially filed in the Western District of Texas and later transferred to the Southern District of New York. The court stayed the case while the Patent Trial and Appeal Board considered two petitions challenging the validity of claims underlying SafeCast’s lawsuit. On October 3, 2024, the Board ruled that those claims were unpatentable. The deadline to appeal expired in January 2025, and no appeal was filed.
SafeCast had been represented by Ramey LLP. On January 6, 2025, the firm moved to withdraw because of unpaid fees. At a January 22, 2025 conference, the court granted the withdrawal motion but delayed its effect for 30 days so SafeCast could find replacement counsel. The court told SafeCast’s CEO and co-founder, Alistair Kelman, that a company may appear in federal court only through a licensed attorney and instructed SafeCast either to obtain new counsel within 30 days or voluntarily dismiss the case. More than 30 days passed without a lawyer appearing for SafeCast or any communication from the company.
Rule 41(b) Analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) allows a court to dismiss an action when a plaintiff fails to prosecute the case or comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or a court order. The court considered the factors identified in LeSane v. Hall’s Security Analyst, Inc., including the duration of the failure, notice that dismissal could result, prejudice to the defendant, the court’s interest in managing its docket, and whether a less severe sanction would work.
The court found that these factors strongly favored dismissal. SafeCast had been expressly warned that it needed to retain counsel within 30 days or face dismissal. The court also stated that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decision had effectively eliminated SafeCast’s prospect of recovery in the action, that continued proceedings would prejudice Microsoft, and that no sanction short of dismissal would be effective.
Disposition
Judge Margaret M. Garnett ordered that the case be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(b). The court separately ordered that William P. Ramey, III, and David J. Hoffman be relieved as SafeCast’s counsel, directed the clerk to terminate them from the docket, and directed the clerk to close the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.