Advanced Transactions v. Advance Auto Parts: Consent Judgment after 267 days
Advanced Transactions, LLC asserted eight patents covering global electronic commerce, email campaign tracking, and third-party provider systems against Advance Auto Parts and E-Advance, LLC in the Western District of Texas. The case was resolved by Consent Judgment on April 5, 2023, less than nine months after filing.
Eight-patent e-commerce suit resolved by court-entered Consent Judgment
Advanced Transactions, LLC filed suit on July 12, 2022 in the Western District of Texas against Advance Auto Parts, Inc. and E-Advance, LLC (Case No. 6:22-cv-00775). The complaint asserted eight United States patents — US8150736B2, US7693950B2, US7386594B2, US7979057B2, US9747608B2, US8175519B2, US7065555B2, and US10783529B2 — covering a global electronic commerce system, systems and methods related to generating and tracking email campaigns, and third-party provider methods and systems.
The recorded Basis of Termination is Consent Judgment. The docket order dated April 5, 2023 reflects a Joint Motion to Dismiss filed by the defendants Advance Auto Parts, Inc. and E-Advance, LLC. A Consent Judgment is a binding, court-entered judgment on terms agreed by the parties, bringing the litigation to a final resolution. The specific terms agreed by the parties are not disclosed in the available public record.
The case reached its recorded resolution in approximately 267 days — a notably compressed timeline for an eight-patent infringement action. What drove the parties to agree to a Consent Judgment at this stage, and the commercial terms underpinning it, are not disclosed in the public record. The early resolution before any substantive claim construction or merits rulings leaves the underlying patent validity and infringement questions unadjudicated on the merits.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Consent Judgment in 267 days
267 days — filed July 2022, closed April 2023, well under median patent case duration
US8150736B2 and 7 further patents — global e-commerce and email campaign systems
Any company operating a global e-commerce platform, deploying email campaign tracking systems, or integrating third-party provider technology should treat this portfolio as a live FTO priority. Because the case concluded by Consent Judgment without claim construction or validity rulings, there is no judicial narrowing of the patent claims available to rely on. The portfolio spans eight issued patents with application dates from 2001 to 2017, meaning different claim generations may cover distinct product architectures.
Official order — verbatim text
The docket records a Joint Motion to Dismiss filed by defendants Advance Auto Parts, Inc. and E-Advance, LLC on April 5, 2023, with a proposed order attached. The recorded Basis of Termination is Consent Judgment. These two characterisations are reported as-is; the specific terms underlying both the motion and the judgment are not disclosed in the available public record.
Consent judgment: what the agreed resolution means for both parties
A consent judgment is a binding, court-entered final judgment
A consent judgment is not merely a private settlement — it is a formal judgment entered by the court on terms the parties have agreed to, carrying the full force of a judicial order. It terminates the litigation with finality. The docket records a Joint Motion to Dismiss filed by defendants as the procedural vehicle. The specific terms of the judgment are not disclosed in the available public record.
Court-entered final judgmentAdvanced Transactions obtains a court-entered judgment resolving all claims
As the plaintiff and patent holder, Advanced Transactions, LLC secured a Consent Judgment — a court-entered resolution — across all eight asserted patents. The judgment provides a binding conclusion to the dispute. Whether the consent judgment encodes any licensing arrangement, royalty, or other commercial terms is not disclosed in the available public record.
Plaintiff: Consent Judgment enteredAdvance Auto Parts and E-Advance reach agreed resolution of all patent claims
Advance Auto Parts, Inc. and E-Advance, LLC, represented by DLA Piper, filed the Joint Motion to Dismiss that preceded entry of the Consent Judgment. The defendants obtain certainty and closure across all eight patent claims without a merits adjudication. The specific obligations, if any, imposed on the defendants under the consent judgment are not disclosed in the available public record.
Defendants: no merits adjudicationEight e-commerce patents remain unadjudicated on the merits
Because the case ended by Consent Judgment before any claim construction or validity ruling, the eight asserted patents — covering global e-commerce systems, email campaign tracking, and third-party provider methods — have not been found valid or invalid by a court. Third parties operating in these technology spaces cannot rely on this case as precedent on patent scope or validity and should conduct independent freedom-to-operate analysis.
No merits ruling on patent validityFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Advanced Transactions, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Advance Auto Parts, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | E-advance, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Oded Burger | Attorney | Counsel for Advanced Transactions, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Zachary H. Ellis | Attorney | Counsel for Advanced Transactions, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Daignault Iyer LLP | Law Firm | Representing Advanced Transactions, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jennifer Librach Nall | Attorney | Counsel for Advance Auto Parts, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | John Michael Guaragna | Attorney | Counsel for Advance Auto Parts, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nicholas G. Papastavros | Attorney | Counsel for Advance Auto Parts, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | DLA Piper US LLP | Law Firm | Representing Advance Auto Parts, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the e-commerce and digital marketing patent space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from the Advanced Transactions v. Advance Auto Parts portfolio — covering e-commerce infrastructure, email campaign systems, and third-party commerce integration.
Advanced Transactions' eight-patent estate spans two decades of e-commerce filings
The asserted portfolio spans application dates from approximately 2001 to 2017, indicating a systematically built patent estate across multiple generations of e-commerce technology. Teams entering the global online retail, digital marketing, or third-party commerce integration space should map this portfolio's family trees to identify continuation filings and assess whether unexpired claims track current product architectures.
Multi-generation e-commerce portfolioGlobal e-commerce system patents remain an active assertion domain
Patents covering global electronic commerce infrastructure — transaction processing, third-party provider integration, and digital campaign tracking — continue to attract assertion activity. The filing of a Consent Judgment in under nine months in this space suggests that defendants with large digital retail footprints often view early resolution as commercially preferable to prolonged litigation. R&D teams building new e-commerce or email automation tooling should track filing trends in these IPC classes.
E-commerce assertion activity risingAdvance Auto Parts' digital commerce patent position post-resolution
Advance Auto Parts operates a significant digital retail and e-commerce presence. The Consent Judgment resolves this specific eight-patent dispute, but the public record does not disclose whether the resolution includes any IP licensing arrangement. Competitors and technology partners should assess Advance Auto Parts' own patent filings in digital commerce and online retail to understand the defensive IP landscape in the automotive parts e-commerce sector.
Automotive e-commerce IP landscapeAdjacent innovation opportunities near email campaign and third-party commerce patents
The asserted patents focus on email campaign generation/tracking and third-party provider integration in e-commerce — domains where significant downstream innovation in AI-driven personalisation, real-time analytics, and API-based commerce orchestration has emerged since the earliest filings. R&D teams can identify white-space opportunities in these adjacent areas where the existing patent landscape may be thinner and claim coverage by legacy portfolios less likely.
Innovation white space identifiedSimilar e-commerce patent assertions in W.D. Texas and comparable venues
Explore patent infringement cases involving global e-commerce systems, email campaign technology, and third-party commerce platforms filed in the Western District of Texas and comparable federal venues.
What this case signals for the e-commerce and digital retail IP landscape
An eight-patent assertion resolved by Consent Judgment in under nine months carries meaningful signals for online retail and digital commerce IP strategy.
Multi-patent assertions in e-commerce can resolve rapidly without a merits ruling
This case reached a Consent Judgment in 267 days despite involving eight patents spanning e-commerce infrastructure, email campaign systems, and third-party provider methods. Companies operating in digital retail and online marketing should expect that patent assertion entities may bundle broad portfolios to increase settlement pressure, and that such cases can conclude before any claim construction narrows the patent scope.
Western District of Texas remains a high-volume venue for e-commerce patent assertions
Advanced Transactions chose the W.D. Texas — a plaintiff-preferred forum — for an eight-patent e-commerce complaint. Defendants in digital commerce and automotive retail sectors should monitor this venue for similar portfolio assertions and ensure IP counsel is briefed on local procedural expectations, including the compressed timelines that can drive early resolution.
Advanced v Advance — key questions answered
The case ended by Consent Judgment, which is the recorded Basis of Termination. The docket dated April 5, 2023 reflects a Joint Motion to Dismiss filed by defendants Advance Auto Parts, Inc. and E-Advance, LLC. A Consent Judgment is a binding, court-entered judgment on terms the parties agreed to. The specific terms are not disclosed in the available public record.
Advanced Transactions asserted eight US patents: US8150736B2, US7693950B2, US7386594B2, US7979057B2, US9747608B2, US8175519B2, US7065555B2, and US10783529B2. These cover a global electronic commerce system, systems and methods for generating and tracking email campaigns, and third-party provider methods and systems.
No. The case resolved by Consent Judgment before any substantive merits rulings — including claim construction or validity determinations — were recorded in the available public docket. The eight asserted patents have not been adjudicated as valid or invalid, or infringed or not infringed, by this court.
The complaint named both Advance Auto Parts, Inc. and E-Advance, LLC as defendants. The precise relationship between the two entities and the basis for naming E-Advance as a separate defendant are not detailed in the available public record beyond their joint appearance in the case and their joint filing of the Motion to Dismiss.
Because the case ended by Consent Judgment without any claim construction or validity ruling, third parties cannot rely on this case as precedent narrowing the scope or validity of the eight asserted patents. Companies operating global e-commerce platforms, email campaign systems, or third-party commerce integrations should conduct independent freedom-to-operate analysis against the Advanced Transactions portfolio.
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.