Adaptive Avenue Associates v. Petco Animal Supplies: Web Patent Suit Dismissed in 7 Days
Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc. asserted two patents covering customizable web site access systems against Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas. Before Petco filed any answer or dispositive motion, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice — closing the case just 7 days after filing.
Petco web-access patent suit closed before defendant even responded
On 31 March 2025, Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, before Judge Sean D. Jordan. The complaint asserted two patents — US7171629B2 and US7428707B2 — both directed to customizable web site access systems and methods. The accused product category is identified in the record as a ‘Customizable web site access system and method therefore,’ suggesting the claims target Petco’s online customer-facing infrastructure.
Just seven days after filing, on 7 April 2025, Adaptive Avenue filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). Because Petco had not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff was entitled to dismiss as of right — requiring no court order. The case was terminated on that basis. A dismissal without prejudice means the underlying claims are not extinguished: Adaptive Avenue retains the legal right to refile the same infringement allegations against Petco in the future.
The seven-day lifecycle is notably short even for early voluntary dismissals. Cases resolved this quickly before any defendant response typically suggest either a rapid pre-litigation settlement, a change in litigation strategy, a refiling in a different venue, or a recognition of procedural issues with the original complaint. The public record does not disclose the reason for the withdrawal, and no settlement terms have been filed. Whether Petco made any informal concession or whether Adaptive Avenue intends to refile remains unknown from publicly available documents.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 7 days
7 days — well below the district median; case closed before defendant response was due
Voluntarily dismissed: what Rule 41(a)(1) means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1): plaintiff’s unilateral right to exit
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action as of right — without a court order — by filing a notice of dismissal before the defendant serves an answer or a summary judgment motion. Petco had not yet responded, so Adaptive Avenue exercised this right unconditionally. The court played no adjudicatory role; the dismissal was self-executing upon filing.
No court order requiredPublic record is silent on any settlement; ‘without prejudice’ preserves refiling rights
A dismissal without prejudice does not resolve the merits. Adaptive Avenue retains the right to reassert US7171629B2 and US7428707B2 against Petco in a future action, subject to any applicable statute of limitations. A dismissal with prejudice, by contrast, would bar refiling permanently. The filed notice expressly states ‘without prejudice.’ No settlement agreement appears on the public docket, and the distinction matters: the threat of renewed litigation remains live.
Refiling rights preservedPetco avoids judgment — but the litigation risk is not extinguished
Petco Animal Supplies escapes this action without any adverse finding on infringement, validity, or damages. No costs or attorney fees were awarded. However, because the dismissal is without prejudice, Petco cannot treat this as a final resolution. The same patents remain enforceable, and Petco’s web access infrastructure remains a potential target. Monitoring Adaptive Avenue’s future filing activity is advisable for in-house counsel.
No adverse judgment; risk remainsWeb customisation patents remain a live risk for e-commerce operators
US7171629B2 and US7428707B2 covering customizable web site access systems can potentially read on a wide range of e-commerce platforms and personalisation features. The swift dismissal here does not signal weakness in the patents — it may reflect a strategic pivot. Retailers and digital platform operators with personalisation or adaptive web access features should assess FTO exposure against both patents before treating this case as a precedent of non-enforcement.
E-commerce sector watchFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc. | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US7171629B2 and US7428707B2 (web access systems)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc. | Company | Petco Animal Supplies Stores, Inc. — national pet retail chain with major e-commerce operationsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David R. Bennett | Attorney | Counsel for Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Steven Kalberg | Attorney | Counsel for Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Sean D. Jordan | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The voluntary dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1) with precision, confirming the action ended without any court-ordered disposition or merits adjudication. The explicit ‘without prejudice’ designation is legally significant: it preserves Adaptive Avenue’s right to refile identical infringement claims against Petco. For Petco, there is no res judicata protection. The absence of any defendant appearance on the docket suggests Petco had not yet retained litigation counsel of record in this action at the time of dismissal.
US7171629B2 & US7428707B2 — Customizable Web Site Access Systems
US7171629B2 (application no. US10/014929) and US7428707B2 (application no. US10/698332) both protect technology in the customizable web site access domain — covering systems and methods that allow web platforms to deliver user-configurable or adaptive access experiences. The application numbers suggest filings in the early-to-mid 2000s, a formative era for personalised web architecture. Both patents have issued and remain in force as asserted in this complaint.
Web personalisation and adaptive access technology underpins the majority of modern retail e-commerce platforms, customer portals, and SaaS login systems. The breadth of the product category identified — ‘Customizable web site access system and method therefore’ — suggests the patents could be read against a wide range of front-end personalisation features. For large retailers like Petco, and for any operator of a consumer-facing web platform with configurable user experiences, these patents represent a credible monitoring priority regardless of the outcome of this particular action.
Should your platform team run an FTO against US7171629B2 and US7428707B2?
Any organisation operating a consumer-facing web platform with personalised or adaptive access features — including e-commerce sites, customer portals, SaaS dashboards, and configurable login systems — should assess freedom-to-operate against both US7171629B2 and US7428707B2. The asserted product category is broad, and the without-prejudice dismissal means Adaptive Avenue retains full enforcement rights. Retail, hospitality, and digital platform sectors are all potentially in scope.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows product and IP teams to map claim language from both patents against your specific platform architecture in minutes. By running automated claim charts against your web access and personalisation stack, you can identify design-around opportunities, assess claim scope relative to prior art, and build a defensible record — before a demand letter or complaint arrives.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7171629B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar web access and e-commerce patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas
Cases involving customizable web site access and e-commerce platform patents litigated in the Eastern District of Texas, including comparable early voluntary dismissals.
What this case signals for the e-commerce and web-platform IP landscape
A seven-day lifecycle in the Eastern District of Texas raises questions that go beyond this single defendant.
Eastern District of Texas remains a preferred venue for web patent assertions
Adaptive Avenue’s choice of the Eastern District of Texas is consistent with its reputation as a plaintiff-friendly patent venue. Even a short-lived filing here can generate pre-litigation leverage. Companies with e-commerce or web personalisation products should maintain active docket monitoring in this jurisdiction.
A without-prejudice dismissal is a pause, not a resolution
Seven-day dismissals without prejudice often precede refiling in the same or different venue, or signal a rapid pre-suit settlement. Petco and similarly positioned retailers should not treat this closure as a clean bill of health. Tracking Adaptive Avenue’s subsequent filings against other defendants provides early warning of renewed activity.
Adaptive v Petco — key questions answered
Adaptive Avenue Associates asserted two patents: US7171629B2 and US7428707B2. Both cover customizable web site access systems and methods. The accused product category is described in the complaint as a ‘Customizable web site access system and method therefore,’ targeting Petco’s web platform infrastructure.
The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1) just 7 days after filing. The public record does not disclose the reason. Seven-day dismissals of this type typically suggest a rapid pre-suit settlement, a strategic decision to refile in another venue, or a reassessment of the litigation position before the defendant responded.
No. A dismissal without prejudice does not bar Adaptive Avenue from refiling the same infringement claims against Petco in the future. There is no res judicata protection for Petco. The patents US7171629B2 and US7428707B2 remain in force, and Adaptive Avenue retains full rights to assert them again subject to the applicable statute of limitations.
Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a plaintiff to dismiss a case as of right — without needing a court order — by filing a notice of dismissal before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. In patent cases, this mechanism is frequently used to exit litigation quickly, preserve refiling rights, or respond to pre-suit settlement. The court plays no adjudicatory role in such a dismissal.
Both patents are directed to customizable web site access systems and methods. Filed in the early-to-mid 2000s based on their application numbers, they cover technology enabling web platforms to deliver user-configurable or adaptive access experiences. This broad category potentially encompasses e-commerce personalisation, user-configurable portals, adaptive login flows, and related front-end web architecture features.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.