Accessify v. Statista: Seven-Patent Infringement Suit Ends in Dismissal With Prejudice
Accessify, LLC filed suit against Statista GmbH in the Eastern District of Texas asserting seven patents covering web accessibility, data access, and online content delivery technologies against statista.com. The case resolved in 182 days via joint stipulation and was dismissed with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs.
Seven-Patent Web Accessibility Assault on Statista Ends Quietly
On May 7, 2024, Accessify, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Statista GmbH in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00333), asserting seven patents: US10554424B2, US7316032B2, US11418356B2, US7039722B1, US7562397B1, US8069489B2, and US7752656B2. The asserted patents span web accessibility, online data access, content delivery, and network authentication technologies. The accused product was statista.com, Statista’s flagship data and statistics platform.
The case closed on November 5, 2024 — 182 days after filing — when both parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal. The court accepted the stipulation and dismissed all claims and causes of action with prejudice, meaning Accessify is permanently barred from re-filing the same claims against Statista based on the same patents and accused conduct. No costs, expenses, or attorneys’ fees were awarded to either side.
A resolution in under six months across a seven-patent docket is notably swift and is consistent with a negotiated settlement reached before substantial litigation expenditure — though the public record is silent on financial terms or any licensing arrangement. The mutual cost-bearing provision and joint nature of the stipulation suggest the parties reached a commercially acceptable resolution, though whether Statista obtained a license or simply secured a release cannot be confirmed from the docket alone.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 182 days
182 days — resolved faster than the E.D. Texas median for multi-patent cases
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Dismissal with prejudice bars all reasserted claims
A dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 is a final adjudication on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes. Accessify cannot re-file infringement claims against Statista based on the same seven patents and the same accused conduct. The joint stipulation signals mutual agreement — neither party litigated to a contested outcome.
Permanent bar on re-filingAccessify forfeits future claims against Statista on these patents
By agreeing to dismissal with prejudice, Accessify surrenders any ability to reassert these seven patents against Statista for the accused platform. The absence of a fee award against Accessify suggests the case was not found to be objectively unreasonable. Whether Accessify extracted a licensing fee or other commercial consideration before dismissing is not disclosed in the public record.
No re-filing permittedStatista secures permanent release on all seven asserted patents
Statista obtains a permanent bar against Accessify reasserting these claims. With each party bearing its own costs, Statista avoided a fee-shifting award despite fielding counsel from Morgan Lewis, Locke Lord, and Lambourn Law. The swift resolution — under six months — is consistent with a commercially negotiated exit rather than a litigated win, though no settlement terms are public.
Claims permanently extinguishedWeb accessibility patent risk for data platform operators remains live
The dismissal resolves only Accessify’s claims against Statista. The seven asserted patents remain enforceable against other platforms. Operators of data and statistics platforms should treat this case as a signal that web accessibility and content-delivery patent portfolios are being actively asserted in E.D. Texas. An FTO analysis against the Accessify portfolio is advisable for comparable platform businesses.
Patents still enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Accessify, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US10554424B2 and 6 web accessibility and data access patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Statista GmbH | Company | Statista GmbH — operator of statista.com, a global online data and statistics platformSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Carey Matthew Rozier | Attorney | Counsel for Accessify, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James Francis McDonough , III | Attorney | Counsel for Accessify, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathan Lloyd Hardt | Attorney | Counsel for Accessify, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kristin M. Whidby | Attorney | Counsel for Accessify, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Accessify, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David Leichtman | Attorney | Counsel for Statista GmbHSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert K Goethals | Attorney | Counsel for Statista GmbHSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robin Richard Lambourn | Attorney | Counsel for Statista GmbHSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Lambourn Law Firm, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Statista GmbHSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell – NYC | Law Firm | Representing Statista GmbHSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Morgan Lewis & Bockius – NY | Law Firm | Representing Statista GmbHSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order accepts the parties’ Joint Stipulation of Dismissal and explicitly dismisses all claims and causes of action with prejudice. The operative phrase ‘DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE’ forecloses any future action by Accessify against Statista on these seven patents for the accused platform conduct. The mutual cost-bearing provision — rather than a fee award under 35 U.S.C. § 285 — indicates the court made no exceptional-case finding, which is consistent with a voluntary resolution before the court reached substantive merits. The denial of all pending relief as moot confirms no injunctive or damages orders were entered.
US10554424B2 and six co-asserted patents — web accessibility and data access technology
The seven asserted patents span multiple application families filed between 2000 and 2019, covering technologies including web accessibility, online data retrieval, content delivery, network authentication, and access control. US10554424B2 (application US12/497687) and US11418356B2 (application US16/728621) represent the more recent filings, while US7039722B1 (application US09/709645) and US7316032B2 (application US10/307832) reflect foundational internet-era inventions. Together the portfolio presents layered coverage across the technical stack of a modern data platform.
For operators of public-facing data and analytics platforms — particularly those serving subscription-based access to structured datasets — this portfolio represents meaningful assertion risk. The breadth of technologies covered, from authentication to content delivery, means that standard platform architectures may touch multiple claims simultaneously. Accessify’s decision to assert all seven patents in a single action against statista.com suggests the portfolio was assembled or licensed with exactly this class of defendant in mind.
Should your platform run an FTO against US10554424B2 and the Accessify portfolio?
Any company operating a web-based data platform, statistics portal, or subscription analytics service with U.S. users should treat this case as a direct FTO signal. The seven asserted patents cover core infrastructure elements — content delivery, access control, authentication, and data retrieval — that are foundational to virtually all modern SaaS data platforms. The dismissal with prejudice only resolves Accessify’s rights against Statista; every other similarly situated platform remains exposed.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your platform’s technical architecture against the claim sets of all seven Accessify patents, identify prior art that may support invalidity arguments, and flag claim elements with the highest infringement risk. For R&D and product teams planning new data access features or platform expansions into the U.S. market, an FTO run against this portfolio before launch is strongly advisable given the demonstrated willingness to assert these patents in E.D. Texas.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10554424B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: web accessibility and data platform disputes in E.D. Texas
Cases involving web accessibility, online data access, and content delivery patents filed in the Eastern District of Texas by patent assertion entities against platform operators.
What this case signals for the web data platform IP landscape
A seven-patent assertion in E.D. Texas resolved in under six months — the pattern warrants attention from any operator of subscription data platforms.
E.D. Texas remains a preferred venue for PAE multi-patent web cases
Accessify’s filing in the Eastern District of Texas reflects continued plaintiff preference for that venue in web technology patent disputes. Platform operators with U.S. users and no Texas nexus should monitor how venue challenges play out in comparable filings and assess their own jurisdictional exposure proactively.
Seven-patent breadth suggests portfolio pressure, not a single-claim dispute
Asserting seven patents simultaneously across web accessibility, authentication, and content delivery is a common portfolio-pressure tactic. Defendants facing such broad assertions should prioritise rapid claim mapping to identify the weakest asserted patents and focus IPR or invalidity arguments early to reduce settlement leverage on the stronger claims.
Accessify v Statista — key questions answered
Accessify, LLC filed a seven-patent infringement action against Statista GmbH in the Eastern District of Texas on May 7, 2024. The case was resolved and dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation on November 5, 2024 — 182 days after filing — with each party bearing its own costs. No financial terms were publicly disclosed.
Accessify asserted seven patents: US10554424B2, US7316032B2, US11418356B2, US7039722B1, US7562397B1, US8069489B2, and US7752656B2. The patents cover web accessibility, online data access and retrieval, content delivery, and network authentication technologies. The accused product was statista.com.
A dismissal with prejudice permanently bars Accessify from re-filing the same infringement claims against Statista based on the same seven patents and accused platform. It functions as a final adjudication for claim-preclusion purposes. However, the patents remain valid and enforceable against other defendants who were not party to the stipulation.
The public record shows a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, which is consistent with a negotiated resolution, but no financial terms or licensing arrangements were publicly disclosed. The court ordered each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees — no fee-shifting or exceptional-case finding was made under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
Yes. The dismissal with prejudice only extinguishes Accessify’s claims against Statista GmbH for the specific accused conduct. All seven patents — US10554424B2, US7316032B2, US11418356B2, US7039722B1, US7562397B1, US8069489B2, and US7752656B2 — remain in force and can be asserted against other parties. Operators of comparable web data platforms should consider an FTO analysis.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.