Adaptive Avenue Associates v. Hibbett Retail: Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice
Adaptive Avenue Associates filed a patent infringement action against sports retailer Hibbett Retail over two web interface patents covering hibbett.com. The case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1) after just 140 days — before the defendant filed any answer or summary judgment motion.
Early voluntary exit: Adaptive Avenue drops web patent claims against Hibbett
On January 26, 2024, Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc. filed suit against Hibbett Retail, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois before Judge Nancy L. Maldonado. The complaint asserted infringement of two patents — US7171629B2 and US7428707B2 — in connection with Hibbett’s retail website at hibbett.com. Both patents relate to web interface technology and share a lineage through application numbers in the early-to-mid 2000s, suggesting coverage of foundational e-commerce or adaptive web presentation methods.
The case terminated on June 14, 2024, when Adaptive Avenue filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). Because Hibbett had not yet filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment, the rule permitted the plaintiff to dismiss unilaterally without a court order. The ‘with prejudice’ designation is critical: it means the same claims against Hibbett on these two patents cannot be re-filed, permanently barring any future action on the same grounds.
The 140-day resolution — before any substantive pleading from the defendant — is consistent with patterns seen in patent assertion campaigns where early settlement negotiations or licensing discussions conclude quickly. The public record does not disclose whether a settlement or license was reached. No defendant counsel appeared on the docket, which may suggest the matter resolved through direct negotiation rather than formal litigation proceedings.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 140 days
140 days — resolved before defendant filed any responsive pleading
Voluntary dismissal with prejudice: what Rule 41(a)(1) means for both sides
Rule 41(a)(1): plaintiff dismisses unilaterally, no court order needed
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or summary judgment motion. Because Hibbett filed neither, Adaptive Avenue could act alone. The ‘with prejudice’ election converts what would otherwise be a default without-prejudice dismissal into a permanent bar — the plaintiff chose finality.
Pre-answer dismissalWith prejudice: these patent claims against Hibbett are permanently extinguished
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits — Adaptive Avenue cannot re-file the same infringement claims against Hibbett based on US7171629B2 or US7428707B2. This contrasts with a without-prejudice dismissal, which preserves the right to refile. The public record is silent on whether a settlement or license payment accompanied this election, which is typical when parties resolve matters confidentially.
Claims permanently barredHibbett exits litigation without any court-imposed liability
Hibbett Retail faced no adjudication of patent validity or infringement. No defendant counsel appeared on the public docket, and no answer was ever filed. The with-prejudice dismissal protects Hibbett from any future suit by the same plaintiff on these specific patents. However, the patents remain in force against other parties — the dismissal confers no broader freedom-to-operate beyond the Hibbett-specific bar.
No liability findingSettlement signal: early closures often reflect licensing resolution
Cases dismissed with prejudice at the pre-answer stage — before any substantive litigation costs accumulate — are frequently consistent with a confidential licensing or settlement agreement. For Hibbett and similarly situated e-commerce retailers, this pattern suggests the asserted web interface patents may carry licensing risk. Other retailers operating comparable digital storefronts should assess exposure to these patents, which remain enforceable against third parties.
Possible confidential settlementFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc. | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US7171629B2 and US7428707B2 (web interface technology)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Hibbett Retail, Inc. | Company | Hibbett Retail, Inc. — national sporting goods retailer operating hibbett.comSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David Randolph Bennett | Attorney | Counsel for Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Steven G. Kalberg | Attorney | Counsel for Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Direction IP law | Law Firm | Representing Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Nancy L. Maldonado | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1) explicitly and elects the ‘with prejudice’ designation — a legally significant choice. Rule 41(a)(1) ordinarily permits dismissal without prejudice absent specification; by affirmatively selecting with-prejudice, Adaptive Avenue permanently relinquished its right to re-assert these claims against Hibbett. The phrasing provides no indication of any court-ordered terms, confirming this was a unilateral plaintiff action. The absence of any defendant appearance throughout the docket suggests the matter was commercially resolved outside formal litigation channels.
US7171629B2 & US7428707B2 — Web Interface Technology Patents
US7171629B2 and US7428707B2 are utility patents with application numbers filed in the early-to-mid 2000s (application nos. 10/014929 and 10/698332 respectively), placing their priority dates during a formative period for commercial web interfaces. Both patents relate to web interface technology — the precise claim scope is not disclosed in the litigation record, but the assertion against a major retail website suggests claims covering methods or systems for presenting or navigating web-based content in an adaptive or structured manner.
From a strategic standpoint, web interface patents with early-2000s priority dates can carry broad claim language that predates modern framework-based web development. Any retailer operating a feature-rich e-commerce platform — particularly those using adaptive layout, personalised navigation, or dynamic content presentation — should regard these patents as potential assertion vehicles. The fact that Adaptive Avenue pursued a national sporting goods retailer specifically over its website suggests the claims are being read against standard retail e-commerce architectures.
Should your e-commerce platform be assessed against US7171629B2 and US7428707B2?
Any company operating a consumer-facing retail website — particularly those with adaptive layouts, dynamic product presentation, or personalised navigation — should consider an FTO assessment against US7171629B2 and US7428707B2. Both patents remain in force following this dismissal, and the plaintiff has demonstrated willingness to assert them against major retail operators. The risk is not theoretical: Hibbett’s resolution suggests real commercial exposure.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map your web platform’s technical features against the claim language of both patents in minutes. By inputting your platform’s architecture — adaptive rendering, navigation logic, content delivery methods — Eureka surfaces overlap risk, identifies relevant prior art, and helps counsel prioritise design-around or licensing strategy before a demand letter arrives.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7171629B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar web interface patent cases in U.S. district courts
Explore related patent infringement actions involving web interface and e-commerce technology asserted in U.S. district courts against retail operators.
What this case signals for the e-commerce and retail IP landscape
A rapid pre-answer dismissal with prejudice over web interface patents warrants attention from any retailer operating a digital storefront.
Pre-answer closure suggests negotiated resolution, not litigation defeat
When a patent plaintiff dismisses with prejudice before the defendant even files an answer — and no defense counsel appears on the docket — the pattern is consistent with a confidential license or settlement. Retailers facing similar assertions should treat early demand letters seriously and engage IP counsel before assuming the claimant will simply withdraw.
US7171629 and US7428707 remain live against other e-commerce operators
The dismissal only resolves Hibbett’s exposure. Both patents remain in force and enforceable against any other retailer whose website falls within the claims. Companies operating adaptive or dynamically presented web storefronts should conduct a freedom-to-operate assessment against these patent numbers before assuming they are unaffected.
Adaptive v Hibbett — key questions answered
The dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1) permanently bars Adaptive Avenue from re-asserting US7171629B2 and US7428707B2 against Hibbett Retail specifically. However, both patents remain fully in force and enforceable against all other parties. The dismissal confers no invalidity finding or claim construction ruling that third parties could rely upon.
The public record does not disclose the reason. However, pre-answer dismissals with prejudice are frequently consistent with a negotiated resolution — such as a confidential patent license or settlement payment. Rule 41(a)(1) was used because it allows unilateral dismissal before the defendant serves an answer or summary judgment motion, requiring no court approval.
US7171629B2 is a U.S. utility patent with application number 10/014929, filed in the early 2000s. Based on the assertion context against Hibbett’s retail website, the patent appears to cover web interface or adaptive web presentation technology. The precise claim scope is not detailed in the publicly available litigation record for this case.
No. The Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal with prejudice only extinguishes Adaptive Avenue’s claims against Hibbett Retail specifically. US7171629B2 and US7428707B2 remain valid and enforceable. Other retailers operating websites with similar technical architectures remain exposed to potential assertion by the patent holder.
The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:24-cv-00690) and assigned to Judge Nancy L. Maldonado. The case closed on June 14, 2024, after 140 days, without any substantive ruling on the merits.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.