Adaptive Avenue v. Micro Electronics: Consent Judgment After 432 Days
Adaptive Avenue Associates filed a patent infringement action against Micro Electronics in Delaware, asserting US7171629B2 covering a customizable web site access system. The case resolved by consent judgment 432 days after filing, with the court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement.
Customizable Web Access Patent Dispute Ends in Consent Judgment
Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc. filed this patent infringement action on 22 December 2021 in the Delaware District Court before Judge Maryellen Noreika. The sole patent in suit is US7171629B2, directed to a customizable web site access system and method. The defendant, Micro Electronics, Inc. — a consumer electronics and computer retailer — was alleged to infringe through its web-based operations and systems.
The recorded basis of termination is Consent Judgment. The docket order reflects that the parties filed a stipulation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) to dismiss all claims with prejudice, each party bearing its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees, with the court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement. The specific terms of the underlying settlement agreement are not disclosed in the available record.
The case closed on 27 February 2023 — approximately 14 months after filing. Resolution before any substantive merits ruling is consistent with settlement activity seen in Delaware patent cases involving smaller patent holders and single-patent assertions. The court's retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement is a notable structural feature, suggesting the parties agreed to ongoing obligations beyond a simple dismissal, though the nature of those obligations is not disclosed in the public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Consent Judgment in 432 days
432 days from filing to consent judgment — just under 15 months in Delaware District Court
US7171629B2 — Customizable Web Site Access System and Method
Any company operating a customizable or personalised web portal, retail e-commerce platform, or managed web-access system should treat US7171629B2 as a live FTO consideration. The patent has now generated a consent judgment against Micro Electronics in Delaware — a signal that the claim set is actively enforced and has demonstrated enforcement credibility. Product and engineering teams building or deploying web-access customisation features should assess their designs against the patent's independent claims before launch or platform update.
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation entered under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) reflects a jointly filed dismissal with prejudice — a procedural vehicle commonly used to implement agreed resolutions. Consistent with the recorded basis of termination as Consent Judgment, the court's explicit retention of jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement elevates this beyond a standard voluntary dismissal and confirms the existence of binding post-judgment obligations, the specific terms of which are not disclosed in the available public record.
Consent judgment: what the agreed resolution means for both parties
Consent judgment: a court-entered, binding resolution on agreed terms
A consent judgment is not merely a private settlement — it is a judgment entered by the court on terms the parties have agreed to, carrying the full force of a judicial order. Here, the Delaware District Court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement, meaning either party may return to court to compel compliance without filing a new action. This is a meaningful structural distinction from a bare stipulated dismissal.
Court-entered binding judgmentAdaptive Avenue secures an agreed resolution with enforcement backstop
For Adaptive Avenue Associates, the consent judgment provides a court-enforceable resolution to its infringement claims regarding US7171629B2. The court's retained jurisdiction offers a mechanism to enforce compliance without re-litigating the underlying claims. The specific commercial terms — including any licensing arrangements or covenants — are not disclosed in the available public record.
Enforceable resolution securedMicro Electronics exits litigation with prejudice under agreed terms
The dismissal with prejudice bars Adaptive Avenue from re-asserting the same claims in this action against Micro Electronics. Each party bearing its own fees means Micro Electronics avoids any fee-shifting exposure. The substantive terms governing Micro Electronics' post-judgment obligations — if any — are not disclosed in the available public record.
Claims dismissed with prejudiceCourt-retained jurisdiction elevates this beyond a standard dismissal
The court's explicit retention of jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement is a structural signal that the parties agreed to terms with ongoing effect — whether payment obligations, usage rights, or operational changes. Competitors and product teams operating in the customizable web access space should note that US7171629B2 remains an active patent asset, and its assertion history now includes a consent judgment against a major retailer.
Patent remains enforceable assetFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc. | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US7171629B2 covering customizable web site accessSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Micro Electronics, Inc. | Company | Micro Electronics, Inc. — consumer electronics and computer retail chainSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David R. Bennett | Attorney | Counsel for Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jimmy C. Chong | Attorney | Counsel for Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Chong Law Firm PA | Law Firm | Representing Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jeremy Douglas Anderson | Attorney | Counsel for Micro Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lance E. Wyatt | Attorney | Counsel for Micro Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael A. Vincent | Attorney | Counsel for Micro Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nan Lan | Attorney | Counsel for Micro Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Neil J. McNabnay | Attorney | Counsel for Micro Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson PC | Law Firm | Representing Micro Electronics, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Maryellen Noreika | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the web access and portal technology space
Patent filing trends and portfolio signals around customizable web access technology — relevant to e-commerce, retail-tech, and managed internet service operators following Adaptive Avenue v. Micro Electronics.
Adaptive Avenue's web-access patent portfolio activity
US7171629B2 may not be the only web-access patent held by Adaptive Avenue Associates or related entities. Understanding the breadth of their portfolio — including continuation applications, related family members, and any co-pending applications — is critical for companies assessing ongoing assertion risk in the customizable web portal and access-control space.
Portfolio depth signalFiling trends in customizable web access and portal personalisation
The customizable web access domain has seen sustained filing activity from both platform companies and assertion-focused entities. Mapping recent granted patents and published applications around web portal personalisation, user-configurable access controls, and managed internet access reveals the density of the IP landscape that retail-tech and e-commerce operators must navigate.
Filing trend activeMicro Electronics' IP position in web-facing retail technology
Despite being the defendant, Micro Electronics operates at the intersection of consumer retail and digital commerce — a space with its own proprietary technology development. Assessing their own patent filings and third-party licensing posture in web-access and e-commerce infrastructure helps competitors understand the IP dynamics shaping this retail-tech segment.
Defensive IP postureAdjacent R&D opportunities near US7171629B2's claim scope
Around the core claim set of US7171629B2 — customizable access, user-specific web configurations, and session-level personalisation — there are adjacent technical areas with lighter patent coverage, including AI-driven personalisation layers, privacy-preserving access control, and federated identity management for web portals. These represent potential white-space opportunities for R&D investment.
White space identifiedSimilar Web Access Patent Cases in Delaware District Court
Explore related patent infringement actions involving web access, portal customisation, and internet technology asserted in Delaware District Court with similar consent judgment or stipulated dismissal outcomes.
What this case signals for the web access IP landscape
A consent judgment with retained jurisdiction in Delaware signals ongoing post-resolution obligations — not simply a clean exit.
Single-patent assertions in Delaware remain a credible litigation path
Adaptive Avenue's ability to bring Micro Electronics — defended by Fish & Richardson PC — to a consent judgment in under 15 months on a single patent demonstrates that targeted web-technology assertions in Delaware District Court can produce enforceable outcomes without full trial. Companies with customer-facing web platforms should assess exposure to US7171629B2 and related prior art.
Fish & Richardson's involvement signals Micro Electronics treated this seriously
Micro Electronics retained Fish & Richardson PC with a five-attorney team, suggesting the matter was not treated as a nuisance case. The consent judgment outcome — rather than early dismissal — is consistent with substantive engagement on the merits. Patent holders in the web-access and customisation space may read this as validation of the patent's resilience to early challenge.
Adaptive v Micro — key questions answered
The recorded basis of termination is Consent Judgment. The docket order reflects a stipulation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissing all claims with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs and the court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. The specific terms of the settlement are not disclosed in the available public record.
The sole patent asserted was US7171629B2 (application no. US10/014929), covering a customizable web site access system and method. The case involved allegations of infringement by Micro Electronics, a consumer electronics and computer retailer, through its web-based systems and operations.
The Delaware District Court's explicit retention of jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement means either party can seek court intervention to compel compliance with the agreed terms without filing a new lawsuit. This elevates the resolution beyond a simple voluntary dismissal. The specific obligations covered by this retained jurisdiction are not disclosed in the public record.
Adaptive Avenue Associates was represented by Chong Law Firm PA (attorneys David R. Bennett and Jimmy C. Chong). Micro Electronics was represented by Fish & Richardson PC with a five-attorney team including Jeremy Douglas Anderson, Lance E. Wyatt, Michael A. Vincent, Nan Lan, and Neil J. McNabnay. The case was before Judge Maryellen Noreika.
The case was filed on 22 December 2021 and closed on 27 February 2023 — a duration of 432 days, or approximately 14 months. This is a relatively swift resolution for a patent infringement action in Delaware District Court, consistent with settlement before substantive merits rulings were issued.
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.