Infringement action filed 28 Jun 2022 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware and closed 19 Apr 2023, with 2 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: consent judgment.
A customizable web site access system is comprised of a software program incorporating both a composing portion and a performing portion. The composing portion of the software program is used to create a presentation. The presentation includes a list of URLs for display, a desired sequence of display of the URLs, and a duration of display of the URLs. The performing portion of the software program operates to load and display the presentation to a user of the web in an automatic slide show presentation.
The web site access system comprises an auto composer including the components of a composer and performer. The composer composes a web slide show presentation through automatic extraction of web page details from a desired web page. The web page details includes one or more of the following: a plurality of hyperlinks found within the desired web page that provides a plurality of URLs; a presentation/rendition text file within the desired web page that provides a plurality of URLs; and a meta tag within the desired web page that provides a plurality of URLs. The performer display the web slide show presentation in order of the plurality of URLS provided by the extracted web page details.
Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket.Compare both portfolios
Outcome
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim
"Plaintiff Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc. and Defendant Overstock.com, Inc. pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), hereby stipulate to dismiss all claims in this action asserted between them WITH PREJUDICE with each Party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement."
Case 1:22-cv-00866 · D. Del. · closed 19 April 2023
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
1:22-cv-00866 is a patent infringement action brought by Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc. against Overstock.com, Inc., filed on 28 Jun 2022 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The case closed on 19 April 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 1:22-cv-00866?
US7171629B2 (“Customizable web site access system and method therefore”), assigned to ADAPTIVE AVENUE ASSOCIATES, INC., currently inactive; US7428707B2 (“Customizable web site access system and method therefore”), assigned to ADAPTIVE AVENUE ASSOCIATES, INC., currently inactive. The record also lists Customizable web site access system and method therefore.
How was case 1:22-cv-00866 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is consent judgment. The termination text reads: "Plaintiff Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc. and Defendant Overstock.com, Inc. pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), hereby stipulate to dismiss all claims in this action asserted between them WITH PREJUDICE with each Party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement."
What does dismissal with prejudice mean?
A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.
How long did case 1:22-cv-00866 take?
295 calendar days, from filing on 28 Jun 2022 to closure on 19 April 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 1:22-cv-00866?
Chief Judge Maryellen Noreika presided. David R. Bennett and Jimmy C. Chong are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Adaptive Avenue Associates. Jeremy Douglas Anderson, Lance E. Wyatt, Michael A. Vincent, Nan Lan and Neil J. McNabnay appear for defendant Overstock.com.
Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 1:22-cv-00866 and do not constitute legal advice.Ask your own question
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 1:22-cv-00866 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.
