Adaptive Avenue Associates v. OpticsPlanet: Web Customisation Patents Dismissed With Prejudice
Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc. asserted two patents covering customisable web site access systems against online retail platform OpticsPlanet, Inc. in the Northern District of Illinois. After 691 days of litigation, both parties filed a stipulated dismissal with prejudice — closing all claims and counterclaims permanently and suggesting a negotiated resolution was reached off the public record.
Two Web Customisation Patents Extinguished by Stipulated Dismissal
Filed on 15 November 2023 in the Northern District of Illinois before Judge John Robert Blakey, this infringement action saw Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc. assert US7171629B2 and US7428707B2 against OpticsPlanet, Inc., a major online retailer specialising in outdoor, sporting, and tactical equipment. Both patents relate to customisable web site access systems and methods — technology directly relevant to how e-commerce platforms personalise user experiences and manage site access.
The case closed on 6 October 2025 via a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (c). Dismissal with prejudice extinguishes all asserted claims permanently — Adaptive Avenue cannot re-file these patent claims against OpticsPlanet. The fact that both parties agreed to this mechanism, covering claims and counterclaims alike, strongly suggests a confidential settlement was reached, though no financial terms appear in the public record.
At 691 days, the case ran well beyond typical pre-trial dispositions, suggesting the parties engaged meaningfully — potentially through claim construction briefing, fact discovery, or settlement negotiations — before reaching agreement. What remains unknown is whether any licence, royalty arrangement, or product design change formed part of any private resolution. The public docket sheds no light on the commercial terms that may have concluded this dispute.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 691 days
691 days — notably longer than the median district court patent case resolved pre-trial (~400 days), suggesting substantive negotiation or claim construction activity before resolution
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated exit means for both parties
Rule 41 stipulated dismissal with prejudice explained
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), parties may jointly stipulate to dismiss an action without a court order. Where that stipulation specifies ‘with prejudice’, the dismissal is final — the same claims cannot be re-filed in any federal court. Here, both claims and counterclaims were dismissed with prejudice, making this a complete and permanent resolution of all disputes between these two parties on these patents.
Permanent bar on re-filingAdaptive Avenue exits permanently — enforcement against OpticsPlanet ends
By agreeing to dismiss with prejudice, Adaptive Avenue Associates permanently surrendered its right to assert US7171629B2 and US7428707B2 against OpticsPlanet on the accused products. This is a significant concession if no licence or compensation was secured. However, the with-prejudice mechanism is also the standard exit route following a confidential settlement — the patents themselves remain valid and enforceable against other defendants.
Patents remain live vs. third partiesOpticsPlanet gains permanent immunity on these patent claims
OpticsPlanet achieved a with-prejudice dismissal, meaning Adaptive Avenue cannot reassert these two patents against OpticsPlanet for the accused customisable web site access system. Whether OpticsPlanet obtained this protection through litigation leverage, invalidity arguments, or a paid settlement is not disclosed. The dismissal of counterclaims with prejudice also means OpticsPlanet cannot later pursue any declaratory judgement or invalidity claims it had raised in this action.
Full immunity on accused productsWeb personalisation IP remains a live risk for other e-commerce operators
US7171629B2 and US7428707B2 cover customisable web site access systems — technology broadly relevant to e-commerce personalisation, user session management, and adaptive content delivery. This dismissal resolves only the dispute with OpticsPlanet. Other online retailers operating similar systems should note that Adaptive Avenue retains full enforcement rights against third parties. The 691-day duration suggests these patents withstood initial challenge long enough to compel negotiation.
Third-party enforcement risk persistsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc. | Company | Web technology IP licensing entity — holder of US7171629B2 and US7428707B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Opticsplanet, Inc. | Company | OpticsPlanet, Inc. — online retailer of outdoor, tactical, and sporting goodsSearch 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 ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Daniel Charles Curth | Attorney | Counsel for Opticsplanet, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Harley Justin Goldstein | Attorney | Counsel for Opticsplanet, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Neha Paresh Khandhadia | Attorney | Counsel for Opticsplanet, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Goldstein & McClintock, LLLP | Law Firm | Representing Opticsplanet, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Tucker Ellis LLP | Law Firm | Representing Opticsplanet, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge John Robert Blakey | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation expressly invokes Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (c), confirming that both claims and counterclaims are dismissed with prejudice by mutual agreement — no court adjudication of the merits occurred. The ‘with prejudice’ designation is the operative legal feature: it operates as a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes, permanently barring Adaptive Avenue from reasserting these patents against OpticsPlanet and foreclosing OpticsPlanet’s counterclaims. The symmetry of the dismissal — covering both sides’ pleadings — is consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a unilateral concession.
US7171629B2 & US7428707B2 — Customisable Web Site Access Systems
US7171629B2 (application no. US10/014929) and US7428707B2 (application no. US10/698332) both relate to customisable web site access systems and associated methods. These patents cover technologies that allow web platforms to adapt content, navigation, and access controls based on user or context parameters — functionality directly relevant to personalised e-commerce experiences, session management, and adaptive user interfaces. The application numbers suggest filings in the early 2000s, meaning these patents were granted during a formative period in web platform development.
From a strategic standpoint, patents covering adaptive or customisable web access systems sit at the intersection of e-commerce infrastructure and user experience technology — a space where a wide range of online retailers, SaaS platforms, and content delivery services may have overlapping implementations. The assertion against OpticsPlanet, an online retail platform, signals that the patent holder views e-commerce personalisation tools as within scope. Companies operating product recommendation engines, adaptive storefronts, or user-specific site configurations should assess whether their implementations intersect with the claims of these two patents.
Should your platform run an FTO against US7171629B2 and US7428707B2?
Any online retailer or SaaS provider deploying customisable web site access features — including adaptive storefronts, personalised navigation, or user session-based content control — should consider whether US7171629B2 and US7428707B2 present a freedom-to-operate risk. The fact that these patents sustained nearly two years of litigation before a with-prejudice resolution suggests they were not easily knocked out on invalidity grounds at the district court level. E-commerce platforms in the outdoor, sporting goods, or tactical sectors are especially proximate to the defendant’s profile.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claims of US7171629B2 and US7428707B2 against your platform architecture, flag overlapping prior art, and surface related litigation involving Adaptive Avenue Associates or similar web personalisation patents. For R&D and product teams building or updating adaptive web access systems, an FTO analysis at the design stage is significantly cheaper than defending a 691-day infringement action. Start with a claim-level search on Eureka to identify your exposure before the next product release.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7171629B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Web Customisation Patent Cases in the Northern District of Illinois
Cases involving web site personalisation and adaptive access system patents litigated in the Northern District of Illinois — with comparable claim profiles and resolution patterns.
What this case signals for the e-commerce web personalisation IP landscape
Two web customisation patents survived 691 days of litigation before extracting a with-prejudice exit — a pattern worth tracking across e-commerce and online retail IP.
With-prejudice exits at 691 days typically signal a negotiated resolution
Cases that run nearly two years before a stipulated dismissal with prejudice rarely end without some commercial exchange. While no terms are public, the duration and mechanism are consistent with a confidential settlement or licence agreement. Online retailers facing similar assertions should factor in the cost of prolonged litigation when evaluating early resolution strategies.
US7171629B2 and US7428707B2 remain enforceable against all other defendants
This dismissal resolves only the dispute between Adaptive Avenue and OpticsPlanet. Both patents covering customisable web site access systems are unaffected in their enforceability against third parties. E-commerce platforms operating personalised web access or adaptive content delivery systems should assess their exposure independently — particularly those in the sporting goods, outdoor, or tactical retail sectors.
Adaptive v Opticsplanet — key questions answered
The with-prejudice dismissal permanently bars Adaptive Avenue from reasserting US7171629B2 and US7428707B2 against OpticsPlanet for the accused products. However, both patents remain valid and fully enforceable against any other defendant — the dismissal affects only the bilateral dispute between these two parties.
No settlement has been confirmed publicly. The stipulated dismissal with prejudice is the standard mechanism used to close a case following a confidential settlement, but the parties have not disclosed any financial terms, licence grant, or other commercial arrangements. The 691-day duration is consistent with a negotiated resolution rather than a unilateral walk-away.
Both patents relate to customisable web site access systems and methods — covering how web platforms adapt content, navigation, and access controls based on user or contextual parameters. This technology is broadly applicable to e-commerce personalisation, adaptive storefronts, and user session management systems.
The 691-day duration suggests the parties engaged substantively before reaching resolution — potentially through claim construction briefing, fact discovery, or extended settlement negotiations. Cases resolved by stipulated dismissal after this length of time typically reflect a meaningful litigation process rather than an early tactical exit.
Yes. US7171629B2 and US7428707B2 remain in force and enforceable against third parties. The with-prejudice dismissal solely extinguishes claims between Adaptive Avenue and OpticsPlanet. Other e-commerce platforms operating customisable web access or adaptive content delivery systems should independently assess their FTO exposure against these patents.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.