Adnexus v. Google — Dismissed With Prejudice After 180 Days
Adnexus Incorporated, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Google, LLC in the Western District of Texas, asserting US8719101B1 covering a system and method of online advertising. The parties jointly stipulated to dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) within six months, with each side bearing its own costs and fees.
A swift stipulated exit: Adnexus v. Google in W.D. Texas
On 23 February 2023, Adnexus Incorporated, LLC filed a patent infringement action against Google, LLC in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:23-cv-00150), presided over by Judge Jason K. Pulliam. The sole patent in suit is US8719101B1, directed to a system and method of online advertising. Adnexus was represented by Warren Rhoades LLP; Google fielded a seven-attorney team drawn from Jackson Walker LLP and Munger Tolles & Olson LLP.
The case closed on 22 August 2023 — exactly 180 days after filing — via a joint stipulation of dismissal executed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The recorded basis of termination is dismissal with prejudice. Under the stipulation's terms, all claims Adnexus raised or could have raised in this action are dismissed with prejudice, and each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. The specific terms driving the parties' agreement are not disclosed in the available record.
Resolution in 180 days — before any substantive motion practice is typical for a patent case in W.D. Texas — suggests the parties reached their position without extended litigation. The asymmetry in counsel size (two attorneys for Adnexus versus seven for Google) is consistent with a well-resourced defendant mounting a rapid response. What prompted Adnexus to accept a with-prejudice bar on all claims, including claims it could have raised, is not disclosed in the available public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 180 days
180 days from filing to closure — a relatively swift resolution for a district court patent case in W.D. Texas
US8719101B1 — System and method of on-line advertising
Any company developing, licensing, or operating online advertising platforms — including programmatic ad-serving systems, contextual targeting engines, behavioural advertising networks, or ad exchange infrastructure — should consider a freedom-to-operate review against US8719101B1. The patent's dismissal with prejudice resolved only the dispute with Google; it does not affect enforceability against other market participants. Product and R&D teams building on ad-serving architectures that involve system-level methods for online advertising delivery face meaningful exposure until a claim-level analysis is completed.
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation recites dismissal 'with prejudice' of all claims 'raised or could have raised' — language that goes beyond a standard with-prejudice bar by expressly foreclosing latent or unpleaded claims. No merits ruling accompanies this disposition: neither infringement nor invalidity was adjudicated. The with-prejudice character of the dismissal is res judicata as between Adnexus and Google on these claims, but leaves US8719101B1 intact against the rest of the market.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal with prejudice
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal is a voluntary joint stipulation signed by all parties — no court order required to effect it. The 'with prejudice' designation is critical: it operates as a final adjudication on the merits, permanently barring Adnexus from re-filing the same claims against Google in any court. The breadth of the language — covering claims 'raised or could have raised' — further narrows any future assertion room.
Permanent bar on re-filingAdnexus forfeits the right to re-assert US8719101B1 against Google
The with-prejudice dismissal extinguishes Adnexus's ability to pursue Google on the asserted patent — and on any claim it could have raised — in future litigation. US8719101B1 itself remains in force as an issued patent, and Adnexus retains the right to assert it against other parties. However, any litigation strategy relying on this patent against Google is now permanently closed.
Claims vs. Google extinguishedGoogle exits with no liability finding and no cost exposure
Google obtains a with-prejudice dismissal without a merits ruling, meaning no infringement finding was made — and equally, no invalidity ruling that could weaken the patent in actions against third parties. Each party bearing its own fees means Google receives no fee award under 35 U.S.C. § 285, but equally absorbs its own substantial defence costs. The outcome insulates Google from future Adnexus litigation on this patent.
No liability; no cost awardUS8719101B1 survives — other online advertising players remain exposed
Because the dismissal was not accompanied by any invalidity ruling, US8719101B1 remains a live, enforceable patent. Companies operating online advertising platforms, programmatic ad systems, or behavioural targeting tools outside Google's specific resolution should treat this patent as an active assertion risk. The case's swift trajectory and with-prejudice outcome — without disclosed settlement terms — does not signal weakness in the patent on its face.
Patent still enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Adnexus Incorporated, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Google, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | R. Scott Rhoades | Attorney | Counsel for Adnexus Incorporated, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sanford E. Warren , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Adnexus Incorporated, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Warren Rhoades LLP | Law Firm | Representing Adnexus Incorporated, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Amanda N. Crouch | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Erica Benites Giese | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nathaniel St. Clair , II | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Peter E. Gratzinger | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robin Gray Schweitzer | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Vincent Y. Ling | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Zachary M. Briers | Attorney | Counsel for Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Jackson Walker LLP | Law Firm | Representing Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Munger Tolles & Olson LLP | Law Firm | Representing Google, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jason K. Pulliam | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the online advertising patent space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from the Adnexus v. Google dispute — relevant for ad-tech R&D teams and IP strategists tracking the online advertising IP landscape.
Adnexus's patent assertion footprint in online advertising
Adnexus's assertion of US8719101B1 against Google suggests a focused patent position in online advertising systems. Tracking Adnexus's full portfolio — including any continuations, divisionals, or related applications under US12/731973 — can reveal the breadth of potential future assertions and whether adjacent claim sets cover other advertising technologies.
Portfolio monitoringFiling trends in online advertising system and method patents
The online advertising system patent space continues to attract filing activity from both platform operators and assertion entities. Mapping patent filing trends around ad-serving systems, programmatic delivery methods, and behavioural targeting infrastructure can identify technology clusters where IP risk is concentrating — and where design-around opportunities may exist.
Ad-tech filing trendsGoogle's defensive patent position in ad-serving infrastructure
Google maintains an extensive patent portfolio covering advertising delivery, targeting algorithms, and ad exchange infrastructure. Analysing Google's granted patents and pending applications in the online advertising domain can reveal the defensive perimeter it has built — and signal technology directions where competitors or assertion entities may find claim space.
Google ad-tech IPAdjacent R&D opportunities near US8719101B1's claim scope
With the asserted patent covering system and method claims in online advertising, R&D teams should probe adjacent white space — including privacy-preserving ad targeting, cookieless attribution methods, and AI-driven contextual ad placement — where filing density may be lower and design-around or first-mover IP positions remain available.
Innovation white spaceSimilar online advertising patent cases in W.D. Texas
Browse comparable online advertising patent infringement cases filed in the Western District of Texas, including cases involving ad-serving system patents and Rule 41 dismissals.
What this case signals for the online advertising IP landscape
A 180-day with-prejudice exit in W.D. Texas — with no merits ruling — leaves several strategic questions open for the ad-tech sector.
US8719101B1 remains enforceable against all non-Google parties
The dismissal resolves only Adnexus's claims against Google. No invalidity ruling was entered. Any online advertising platform operator — particularly those running programmatic, behavioural, or contextual ad-serving systems — should assess exposure to this patent independently. A freedom-to-operate analysis is warranted before building on similar ad-serving architectures.
Swift with-prejudice exits in W.D. Texas can signal early-stage negotiating leverage
When a patent case closes in 180 days with prejudice and no cost award to either side, it is consistent with a negotiated resolution reached before significant motion practice — though the specific drivers are not disclosed. Companies that face similar assertions in W.D. Texas should note how quickly resource-asymmetric cases can resolve, and plan litigation budgets and defence strategy accordingly.
Adnexus v Google — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice. On 22 August 2023, the parties filed a joint stipulation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissing all claims Adnexus raised or could have raised against Google. Each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. The case closed 180 days after filing.
Adnexus asserted US8719101B1 (application number US12/731973), a patent directed to a system and method of online advertising. The patent issued as a B1 grant — meaning without prior publication. No invalidity ruling was entered in this case; the patent remains in force.
The dismissal with prejudice bars Adnexus from re-asserting the patent against Google in future litigation. However, no invalidity ruling was entered, meaning the patent retains its presumption of validity. Google or other parties could potentially challenge the patent's validity through inter partes review or other proceedings — but this case did not adjudicate validity.
This clause expands the preclusive effect of the dismissal beyond only the specific claims pleaded. It forecloses Adnexus from later asserting against Google any infringement theory — including unpleaded theories under US8719101B1 — that existed at the time of the stipulation. This is broader than a standard with-prejudice dismissal and is notable for its scope.
Yes. The dismissal resolved only Adnexus's dispute with Google. No invalidity ruling was entered. US8719101B1 remains an issued, enforceable patent. Other companies operating online advertising platforms, programmatic ad systems, or related infrastructure should independently assess their exposure through a freedom-to-operate analysis.
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.