Adaptive Avenue v. MySpace: Consent Judgment After 296 Days
Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc. filed suit against MySpace LLC in Delaware District Court, asserting two patents covering customizable web site access systems. The action resolved by consent judgment in approximately 296 days, with the court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement.
A rapid consent judgment resolves a two-patent web access dispute
On 12 April 2022, Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against MySpace LLC in the Delaware District Court before Judge Maryellen Noreika. The complaint asserted two patents — US7171629B2 and US7428707B2 — covering a customizable web site access system and method. MySpace, once a dominant social networking platform, was the named defendant in what the docket characterises as an infringement action over web access personalisation technology.
The recorded basis of termination is Consent Judgment. The docket order reflects a stipulated dismissal filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with all claims dismissed with prejudice and each party bearing its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. Notably, the court expressly retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement. The specific terms of that agreement are not disclosed in the available record.
The case resolved in 296 days — less than ten months — which is notably swift for a two-patent district court infringement action in Delaware. The speed of resolution and the cost-neutrality provision are consistent with a negotiated commercial resolution reached before significant pre-trial litigation. What drove the parties to resolve, and on what substantive terms, remains undisclosed in the public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Consent Judgment in 296 days
296 days from filing to consent judgment — under one year for a multi-patent district court action
US7171629B2 & US7428707B2 — Customizable Web Site Access System
Any company developing or operating a customizable web site access system — including social platforms, SaaS portals, consumer web applications, or personalised content delivery products — should consider both patents in scope for a freedom-to-operate review. The consent judgment, with court-retained enforcement jurisdiction, confirms these patents remain active enforcement vehicles. Neither patent was invalidated or disclaimed in this proceeding.
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulated order reflects dismissal of all claims with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with each party bearing its own costs. The court's express retention of jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement distinguishes this from a clean walk-away — it suggests binding post-judgment commitments exist between the parties, though their content is not disclosed in the available 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 a formal judgment entered by the court on terms that the parties have agreed to, ending the litigation with the full force of a judicial order. It differs from a simple voluntary dismissal because the court actively enters judgment — here retaining jurisdiction to enforce the underlying settlement agreement. The stipulation was filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), and claims were dismissed with prejudice.
Court-entered, binding and finalAdaptive Avenue exits with prejudice — and court-backed enforcement rights
Dismissal with prejudice means Adaptive Avenue cannot re-file the same infringement claims against MySpace on these two patents for the same accused conduct. However, the court's express retention of jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement suggests Adaptive Avenue secured some form of ongoing protection — though the specific terms are not disclosed in the available record.
Claims dismissed with prejudiceMySpace obtains dismissal with prejudice and bears its own legal costs
MySpace LLC obtains a dismissal with prejudice of all asserted claims, meaning the patents US7171629B2 and US7428707B2 cannot form the basis of new proceedings by Adaptive Avenue for the same accused conduct. Each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees under the agreed terms. The substantive obligations, if any, imposed on MySpace by the settlement agreement are not disclosed in the public record.
No fee-shifting, own costsCourt-retained jurisdiction signals an enforceable post-judgment obligation
The court's retention of jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement is a commercially meaningful feature — it elevates any agreed obligations to court-enforceable commitments, reducing the risk of non-compliance for either side. For competitors and technology teams working in customizable web access or personalised site delivery, US7171629B2 and US7428707B2 remain issued patents and may still be asserted against unrelated third parties. An FTO assessment against both patents remains advisable for relevant product teams.
Settlement terms undisclosedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc. | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US7171629B2 and US7428707B2 covering customizable web site accessSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | MySpace | Individual | MySpace LLC — social networking platform operator, defendant in web access patent infringement actionSearch 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 | John C. Phillips , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for MySpaceSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Megan C. Haney | Attorney | Counsel for MySpaceSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | William R. Zimmerman | Attorney | Counsel for MySpaceSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Phillips, McLaughlin & Hall PA | Law Firm | Representing MySpaceSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Maryellen Noreika | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the web personalisation and access technology space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from the Adaptive Avenue v. MySpace dispute — covering portfolio activity, filing trends, and white-space opportunities in customizable web access technology.
Adaptive Avenue's web access patent family: what else is live?
US7171629B2 and US7428707B2 share related application lineage, suggesting a family of filings in the customizable web access space. Mapping Adaptive Avenue's full portfolio — including any continuations, divisionals, or related applications — reveals the true breadth of potential enforcement exposure for companies in personalised web delivery and access control technology.
Portfolio mappingFiling trends in customizable web access and user personalisation
The customizable web site access domain has seen sustained filing activity as platforms evolve from static profiles to dynamic, AI-driven personalisation engines. Tracking recent patent filings in user-configurable web access, session personalisation, and access control reveals which companies are staking out next-generation claims — and where enforcement pressure may migrate beyond legacy patents like these.
Filing trend analysisMySpace's patent posture in web personalisation technology
As a defendant in a web access patent action, understanding MySpace LLC's own patent holdings in personalisation and social platform technology provides context on whether the company holds defensive IP assets in this space or relies primarily on licensed or prior-art-based defences. This signal is relevant for any party assessing the broader IP dynamics of legacy social platform operators.
Defendant IP postureAdjacent innovation: where the next web access claims may emerge
Beyond the specific claims of US7171629B2 and US7428707B2, adjacent white space exists in areas such as AI-driven personalised access control, federated identity management for web platforms, and cross-device customisable web sessions. These areas represent potential filing opportunities for R&D teams looking to build defensible IP in the next generation of web access technology.
White space mappingSimilar patent cases: web access and personalisation IP in Delaware
Explore related patent infringement actions involving customizable web access and personalisation technology litigated in Delaware District Court.
What this case signals for the web access and personalisation IP landscape
A fast consent judgment in Delaware over web personalisation patents signals active enforcement of legacy internet-era IP — and enforceable settlement leverage.
Legacy web personalisation patents remain viable enforcement tools
US7171629B2 and US7428707B2 cover customizable web site access — technology foundational to modern social platforms and SaaS products. The fact that Adaptive Avenue successfully brought this case to a consent judgment against a named operator suggests these patents retain enforceability. Teams building personalised web access features should audit exposure to this patent family.
Delaware consent judgments with retained jurisdiction warrant FTO attention
When a Delaware district court retains jurisdiction post-consent judgment, it signals the settlement carries enforceable obligations. Competitors in the customizable web access space should note that both patents remain live and may be asserted in future actions. Proactive FTO review against US7171629B2 and US7428707B2 is advisable for any product team with personalised site delivery features.
Adaptive v MySpace — key questions answered
The case closed by consent judgment on 2 February 2023, approximately 296 days after filing. All claims were dismissed with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with each party bearing its own costs and fees. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement. The specific terms of that agreement are not disclosed in the available record.
Adaptive Avenue asserted two patents: US7171629B2 (application no. US10/014929) and US7428707B2 (application no. US10/698332). Both relate to a customizable web site access system and method. The action was filed in the Delaware District Court before Judge Maryellen Noreika.
The consent judgment is a court-entered, binding resolution on terms agreed by the parties. Dismissal with prejudice means Adaptive Avenue cannot re-file the same infringement claims against MySpace for the same accused conduct. The court's retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement means any agreed obligations carry court-backed enforceability. The substantive terms are not publicly disclosed.
No. The case resolved by consent judgment before any merits determination. Neither US7171629B2 nor US7428707B2 was found invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed by this court. Both patents remain issued and potentially enforceable against third parties not party to this consent judgment.
Adaptive Avenue was represented by David R. Bennett and Jimmy C. Chong of Chong Law Firm PA. MySpace was represented by John C. Phillips Jr., Megan C. Haney, and William R. Zimmerman of Phillips, McLaughlin & Hall PA. The case was presided over by Judge Maryellen Noreika in the Delaware District Court.
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.