Adaptive Avenue v. Barnes & Noble: Dismissed With Prejudice After 924 Days
Adaptive Avenue Associates filed suit against Barnes & Noble in the Eastern District of Texas, asserting two patents covering web auto-composition and multi-site access customisation methods. After 924 days, the parties jointly moved to dismiss all claims with prejudice, with each side bearing its own costs.
E.D. Texas web-patent suit ends by agreed dismissal with prejudice
Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc. filed this patent infringement action on 24 October 2023 in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:23-cv-00500) against Barnes & Noble, Inc. The suit asserted two United States patents — US7171629B2 and US7428707B2 — directed at methods for auto-composing a web site and for customising access to a plurality of websites, with the accused product identified as the barnesandnoble.com platform.
The case closed on 5 May 2026 when the Court granted the parties' Agreed Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2). The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Dismissed with Prejudice'; the docket order states that all claims and causes of action between the parties are dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. The specific terms underlying the agreed motion are not disclosed in the available record.
The 924-day duration from filing to closure, combined with the agreed and joint nature of the dismissal, suggests the parties reached some form of resolution before trial. What drove the timing and any conditions attached to the resolution are not apparent from the public record. Because the dismissal is with prejudice, Adaptive Avenue is barred from re-filing the same claims against Barnes & Noble in any federal court.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 924 days
924 days — longer than the median E.D. Texas patent case before resolution
US7171629B2 & US7428707B2 — web auto-composition and site customisation methods
Any company operating a dynamic e-commerce site, content personalisation engine, or multi-site access management system should consider whether its implementation falls within the method claims of US7171629B2 or US7428707B2. This case demonstrates that these patents are being actively asserted in U.S. litigation; the agreed dismissal with prejudice binds only Barnes & Noble, leaving all other operators exposed. R&D and product teams building or acquiring web-composition or site-customisation technology should prioritise FTO clearance before launch or deployment.
Official order — verbatim text
The court's order grants the parties' agreed motion in full, dismissing all claims with prejudice and directing each party to bear its own costs. The 'with prejudice' designation is the operative legal consequence — it operates as a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes, permanently barring Adaptive Avenue from re-asserting the same claims against Barnes & Noble. The order provides no substantive ruling on infringement, validity, or claim scope; the merits of US7171629B2 and US7428707B2 remain untested by this court.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the agreed resolution means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(2) agreed dismissal with prejudice — a final, bar-creating order
A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2) is a court-entered final judgment that extinguishes the plaintiff's claims permanently. Because it is agreed and joint, the court treated the motion as non-contested. The order is res judicata: Adaptive Avenue cannot re-assert US7171629B2 or US7428707B2 against Barnes & Noble on the same facts in any future federal proceeding.
Final — no re-filing permittedAdaptive Avenue's claims are extinguished against Barnes & Noble
The dismissal with prejudice forecloses any further infringement action by Adaptive Avenue against Barnes & Noble under these two patents on the same accused conduct. However, the patents themselves remain in force unless separately challenged or expired. Adaptive Avenue retains the ability to enforce US7171629B2 and US7428707B2 against other parties not bound by this order. The specific terms that led the plaintiff to agree to dismissal are not in the public record.
Patents survive; claims against BN extinguishedBarnes & Noble obtains permanent protection from these specific claims
Barnes & Noble achieves certainty: Adaptive Avenue cannot re-sue it under US7171629B2 or US7428707B2 for the conduct alleged in this action. The 'own costs' order means Barnes & Noble bears its own legal expenses with no fee recovery from plaintiff. Whether any licence, covenant, or other arrangement accompanied the agreed dismissal is not disclosed in the available record.
Permanent bar on re-litigationWeb-method patents remain enforceable against the broader market
The agreed dismissal resolves only the dispute between these two parties. US7171629B2 and US7428707B2 — covering web auto-composition and multi-site customisation methods — remain active assets that can be asserted against other e-commerce or content-delivery operators. Companies running comparable website personalisation or dynamic page-assembly systems should monitor these patents' status and expiry, and consider FTO analysis if their platforms fall within the claims' scope.
Patents enforceable against third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Barnes & Noble, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David R. Bennett, Esq., | Attorney | Counsel for Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | David R. Bennett | Law Firm | Representing Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Eric Hugh Findlay | Attorney | Counsel for Barnes & Noble, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Findlay Craft PC | Law Firm | Representing Barnes & Noble, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in web personalisation and auto-composition IP
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from Adaptive Avenue's assertions against Barnes & Noble in the web auto-composition and multi-site customisation domain.
Adaptive Avenue's web-method patent holdings and filing activity
Adaptive Avenue's assertion of two methodologically related patents against a single high-profile e-commerce target suggests a focused portfolio built around web assembly and access-management methods. Mapping Adaptive Avenue's full patent family — including any continuations, divisionals, or related applications — can reveal whether additional claims in this space remain available for future enforcement.
Portfolio depth signalFiling trends in dynamic web-page assembly and personalisation methods
The technology domain covered by US7171629B2 and US7428707B2 — dynamic web-page composition and multi-site personalisation — continues to evolve rapidly with AI-driven content assembly and headless CMS architectures. Tracking patent filing activity in this space can identify which players are building defensive or offensive positions around next-generation web-composition techniques.
Active filing domainBarnes & Noble's patent position in web and digital retail technology
Barnes & Noble operates one of the US's major retail e-commerce platforms. Assessing its own patent filings and licensing posture in web-delivery and digital-retail technology can reveal how it positions itself defensively against method-patent assertions — and whether its IP strategy has evolved following this litigation.
Defendant defensive postureAdjacent innovation gaps in multi-site access management and web assembly
The claim scope of US7171629B2 and US7428707B2 leaves adjacent technical territory — such as AI-personalised page generation, cross-platform session management, and API-driven content orchestration — potentially uncovered by these specific claims. Engineering and product teams innovating in these adjacent areas may find white space for their own filing strategies.
Filing white space identifiedSimilar web-method patent infringement cases in E.D. Texas
Cases involving web auto-composition and site personalisation method patents litigated in the Eastern District of Texas — comparable assertion strategies and resolution patterns.
What this case signals for the web-method patent IP landscape
An agreed dismissal with prejudice after nearly three years signals strategic resolution — and leaves two web-method patents active against the wider market.
Web auto-composition patents remain a litigation risk for e-commerce operators
US7171629B2 and US7428707B2 cover methods directly relevant to how modern e-commerce sites assemble and personalise web pages. Any platform using dynamic page composition or multi-site access customisation should assess its exposure to these patents, which survive this case fully intact.
Eastern District of Texas remains an active venue for web-method patent assertion
Adaptive Avenue chose E.D. Texas — a historically plaintiff-friendly patent venue — to pursue its web-composition claims. Companies with significant US e-commerce operations should factor venue risk into their patent clearance and litigation readiness strategies, particularly for method claims tied to website operation.
Adaptive v Barnes — key questions answered
Adaptive Avenue asserted two patents: US7171629B2, covering a method for auto-composing a web site, and US7428707B2, covering a method for customising access to a plurality of websites. The accused product was the barnesandnoble.com website platform.
The case ended via an agreed Rule 41(a)(2) motion, resulting in dismissal with prejudice. The Basis of Termination is recorded as 'Dismissed with Prejudice.' This is a final court order extinguishing Adaptive Avenue's claims against Barnes & Noble permanently — it cannot re-file the same claims against Barnes & Noble. Each party bears its own costs. The specific terms that led the parties to agree are not disclosed in the available record.
The court ordered that each party — Adaptive Avenue and Barnes & Noble — is responsible for its own legal costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees arising from the litigation. Neither side is entitled to recover fees from the other. No finding of exceptionality under 35 U.S.C. § 285 is reflected in the public record.
Yes. The dismissal with prejudice resolves only the dispute between Adaptive Avenue and Barnes & Noble. The patents themselves are not invalidated or limited by this order. They remain enforceable against other parties, subject to their remaining term. No claim-construction or validity ruling was issued by the court in this proceeding.
The Eastern District of Texas is a historically active venue for patent infringement litigation, frequently chosen by patent holders for its procedural familiarity with patent cases and historically plaintiff-favourable outcomes. The case does not disclose the specific venue rationale on the public docket. The court accepted jurisdiction and the case ran its full lifecycle there before the agreed dismissal.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.