Adaptive Avenue Associates v. GameStop: Dismissed With Prejudice in 129 Days
Adaptive Avenue Associates filed a patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas against GameStop, asserting two patents covering web-based adaptive navigation technology against www.gamestop.com. The case ended by agreed motion after just 129 days, with each party bearing its own costs — a resolution that forecloses any future re-filing on the same claims.
A swift agreed exit with permanent consequences for both parties
On 29 August 2023, Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc. filed a patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:23-cv-00389) against GameStop Corp., the video game and consumer electronics retailer. The suit asserted two patents — US7171629B2 and US7428707B2 — against GameStop’s website, www.gamestop.com, alleging that the site’s functionality infringed web-based adaptive navigation or interaction technology protected by those patents.
The case closed on 5 January 2024, just 129 days after filing, when the court granted an Agreed Motion to Dismiss filed by Adaptive Avenue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). The dismissal was WITH prejudice, meaning Adaptive Avenue permanently surrendered its right to assert the same claims against GameStop. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, attorneys’ fees, and expenses — a customary feature of privately negotiated exits that suggests neither side sought a formal damages determination.
A 129-day lifespan is notably short even by E.D. Texas standards, where dockets are comparatively fast. Dismissal this early — before any substantive motion practice would typically conclude — is consistent with a pre-litigation settlement or licensing agreement reached shortly after service, though the public record is silent on the specific financial terms or any licence granted. The with-prejudice designation is the material legal fact: whatever drove the resolution, Adaptive Avenue cannot revive this case against GameStop.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 129 days
129 days — resolved well under the E.D. Tex. median for patent cases, suggesting an early negotiated exit
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41(a)(2) order means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal with prejudice ends the case permanently
An agreed motion under FRCP 41(a)(2) allows a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss an action on terms the court considers proper. Here, both parties consented and the court granted dismissal WITH prejudice. This is the critical qualifier: a with-prejudice dismissal has the same preclusive effect as a final judgment on the merits. Adaptive Avenue cannot re-file these patent claims against GameStop in any court.
Permanent bar on re-filingAdaptive Avenue permanently relinquished its claims against GameStop
By agreeing to a with-prejudice dismissal, Adaptive Avenue accepted a final resolution of its infringement claims. The patents themselves — US7171629B2 and US7428707B2 — remain in force and can still be asserted against other defendants, but GameStop is shielded from any future action on these same claims. This outcome is consistent with a privately negotiated resolution, though no terms are publicly disclosed.
Claims extinguished vs. GameStopGameStop secured a permanent shield at low disclosed cost
GameStop agreed to the dismissal, suggesting it consented to whatever private terms — if any — were reached. With the case closed with prejudice, GameStop faces no ongoing litigation risk from Adaptive Avenue on these patents for www.gamestop.com. The each-party-bears-own-costs order means no fee award was entered, and no public damages figure was recorded.
No cost award; permanent protectionBoth patents remain live enforcement risks for other e-commerce operators
The with-prejudice dismissal resolves only this defendant. US7171629B2 and US7428707B2 remain valid and enforceable against third parties. Other e-commerce and retail website operators in the interactive navigation space should note that Adaptive Avenue has demonstrated willingness to file in E.D. Texas and to pursue quick resolutions — a pattern consistent with structured licensing campaigns. An FTO assessment against both patents is prudent for any comparable website.
Live risk for other e-commerce sitesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc. | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US7171629B2 and US7428707B2 (web adaptive navigation)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Gamestop, Corp. | Company | GameStop Corp. — multinational video game and consumer electronics retailer, operator of www.gamestop.comSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David R. Bennett | 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 ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order tracks the agreed motion precisely: all claims and causes of action are dismissed with prejudice, with no substantive merits determination. The with-prejudice designation carries full res judicata effect — it is legally equivalent to a final judgment and bars Adaptive Avenue from reasserting these patent claims against GameStop. The each-party-bears-own-costs provision, entered without a finding of exceptionality, reflects a consensual exit rather than any judicial assessment of claim strength or defendant conduct.
US7171629B2 & US7428707B2 — adaptive web navigation and interaction technology
US7171629B2 (App. No. 10/014929) and US7428707B2 (App. No. 10/698332) both fall within the domain of adaptive, web-based user interface and navigation technology. These patents protect methods or systems by which a website dynamically adjusts its navigation or interaction model based on user behaviour, preferences, or contextual signals — a foundational capability for modern e-commerce platforms. The sequential application numbers suggest a related filing strategy, and the two patents together suggest layered protection across both method and system claim dimensions.
For retail e-commerce operators, adaptive navigation and personalised user-interface technology sits at the core of conversion optimisation and customer experience infrastructure. Any platform using behavioural personalisation, dynamic menu adaptation, or context-sensitive navigation flows should treat both patents as potential exposure points. The assertion against GameStop’s website signals that Adaptive Avenue is willing to target major retail web properties, and the quick resolution suggests its licensing demands may be calibrated for pre-litigation settlement — making early FTO analysis commercially essential.
Should your e-commerce platform be mapped against US7171629B2 and US7428707B2?
Any organisation operating a retail or consumer-facing website that incorporates adaptive navigation, dynamic menu personalisation, or behaviour-driven interface adjustments should treat US7171629B2 and US7428707B2 as active FTO concerns. Adaptive Avenue has demonstrated an active enforcement posture in E.D. Texas, and the GameStop case suggests its licensing model is designed for rapid resolution — meaning a demand letter, not a courtesy notice, is typically the first contact.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can generate a structured claim-by-claim mapping of both patents against your website’s documented functionality within hours. Eureka’s patent landscape tool also surfaces related continuations, family members, and any co-pending applications that may extend the risk horizon beyond the two asserted patents. For in-house IP teams, building a documented FTO memo now — before any demand arrives — substantially strengthens your negotiating position and reduces litigation exposure.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7171629B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar e-commerce web patent infringement cases in E.D. Texas
Explore comparable patent infringement actions asserting web interaction and adaptive navigation technology in the Eastern District of Texas federal court.
What this case signals for the e-commerce and retail website IP landscape
A 129-day agreed dismissal with prejudice in E.D. Texas is a recognised signature of a patent licensing campaign reaching its commercial objective.
E.D. Texas remains the venue of choice for short-cycle patent licensing actions
Filing in the Eastern District of Texas for a web-technology patent and reaching an agreed with-prejudice dismissal inside 130 days is a well-documented pattern for assertion entities. The court’s speed and plaintiff-friendly reputation make it structurally attractive for cases designed to resolve through licensing before substantive motion practice begins.
A with-prejudice exit does not neutralise the patents — other defendants remain exposed
US7171629B2 and US7428707B2 are still in force. Operators of interactive or adaptive web interfaces — particularly retail e-commerce platforms — should not interpret GameStop’s exit as patent exhaustion. The with-prejudice order protects only GameStop; it creates no estoppel or invalidity finding that other defendants can rely on.
Adaptive v Gamestop — key questions answered
A dismissal with prejudice is a final, permanent resolution equivalent to a judgment on the merits. In this case, Adaptive Avenue Associates cannot re-file its patent infringement claims — asserting US7171629B2 or US7428707B2 — against GameStop in any court. The order was entered by agreement under FRCP 41(a)(2) on 5 January 2024.
Adaptive Avenue asserted two patents: US7171629B2 (App. No. 10/014929) and US7428707B2 (App. No. 10/698332). Both fall within the domain of adaptive web-based navigation and user interface interaction technology. The infringement allegations targeted the functionality of www.gamestop.com.
The 129-day resolution is consistent with a pre-litigation or early-stage settlement or licensing agreement reached shortly after service, though the public record does not disclose any financial terms. Agreed with-prejudice dismissals at this stage — before any substantive motion practice — are a recognised pattern in assertion entity cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas.
No. The with-prejudice dismissal resolves only the claims between Adaptive Avenue and GameStop. No invalidity finding, no claim construction order, and no merits determination was entered. Both patents remain in force and can be asserted against other defendants. Other e-commerce operators cannot rely on this order as a shield.
The court’s 5 January 2024 order specified that each party is to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. No exceptional case finding under 35 U.S.C. § 285 was made, and no fee award was entered in favour of either party. This is a standard term in agreed dismissal orders reflecting a negotiated exit.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.