Advanced Transactions v. Crunch LLC: 8-Patent Digital Commerce Dispute Settled With Prejudice
Advanced Transactions, LLC brought a sweeping infringement action against four Crunch fitness entities in the Western District of Texas, asserting eight patents spanning digital marketing, mobile apps, and loyalty reward services. The case closed after 564 days with a stipulated dismissal with prejudice, signalling a confidential settlement across all claims.
Eight-Patent Assertion Against Crunch Fitness Ends in Confidential Settlement
Filed on 29 March 2024 in the Western District of Texas before Judge David Alan Ezra, this case saw Advanced Transactions, LLC — a non-practising entity represented by Daignault Iyer LLP — assert eight US patents against the full Crunch fitness franchise structure: Crunch, LLC, Crunch Franchising, LLC, Crunch Holdings, LLC, and Crunch IP Holdings, LLC. The asserted patents cover a broad range of digital commerce and consumer-engagement technologies, including email marketing, mobile applications, website-based shopping, online and in-store purchasing systems, and loyalty rewards programmes.
The case closed on 14 October 2025 via a Rule 41(a)(1) stipulated voluntary dismissal with prejudice, filed by Advanced Transactions and agreed to by all defendants. The dismissal language explicitly states that ‘all matters in controversy between these parties have been compromised and resolved,’ which is the standard formulation indicating a private financial settlement. Costs and attorneys’ fees were to be borne by each incurring party, meaning no fee-shifting award was sought or granted.
At 564 days, the case ran longer than many NPE assertions in W.D. Tex. that settle early on filing alone, suggesting some substantive claim construction, discovery activity, or licensing negotiation occurred before resolution. The dismissal with prejudice forecloses any refiling of these specific claims against these defendants. The financial terms of any settlement remain confidential and cannot be inferred from the public record.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 564 days
564 days — above the median W.D. Tex. patent case lifespan, suggesting substantive pre-settlement negotiation
Dismissed with prejudice by stipulation: what the resolution means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1) stipulated dismissal with prejudice — what it means
A Rule 41(a)(1) voluntary dismissal with prejudice is the procedural vehicle parties use to close a case after reaching a private settlement. ‘With prejudice’ means Advanced Transactions cannot refile the same claims against any of the four Crunch defendants. The court’s involvement ends without a merits adjudication — no validity ruling on the eight patents was issued.
No merits ruling — patents not adjudicatedPublic record confirms resolution — financial terms remain sealed
The dismissal states all matters have been ‘compromised and resolved,’ the standard formulation for a negotiated settlement. However, the actual financial terms — any licence fees, lump-sum payment, or cross-licence — are not disclosed in the public court record. Unlike consent judgements, Rule 41 stipulations do not require the court to endorse specific deal terms, so the commercial value of the resolution cannot be determined from available filings.
Settlement amount undisclosedAll four Crunch entities released from claims — with finality
The dismissal covers Crunch, LLC, Crunch Franchising, LLC, Crunch Holdings, LLC, and Crunch IP Holdings, LLC — the full franchise stack. Dismissal with prejudice provides each entity finality against re-litigation of these eight patents by Advanced Transactions. However, the patents themselves remain valid and enforceable against third parties unless separately challenged at the USPTO.
Full franchise group releasedEight patents remain live and assertable against other fitness and retail operators
The settlement with Crunch does not extinguish Advanced Transactions’ patent portfolio. The eight asserted patents — covering email marketing, mobile apps, e-commerce, and loyalty systems — remain active and enforceable. Fitness, retail, and hospitality operators relying on similar digital customer-engagement stacks should treat this case as a signal that Advanced Transactions is an active assertion entity in this technology space.
Portfolio remains active enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Advanced Transactions, LLC | Company | Non-practising IP assertion entity — holder of US8150736B2 and 7 further digital commerce patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Crunch, LLC | Company | Crunch fitness franchise group — operator and franchisor of gym locations across the USSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Crunch Franchising, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Crunch Holdings, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Crunch IP Holdings, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Chandran B. Iyer | Attorney | Counsel for Advanced Transactions, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Oded Burger | Attorney | Counsel for Advanced Transactions, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Ronald M. Daignault | Attorney | Counsel for Advanced Transactions, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Tedd W. Van Buskirk | 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 | Joanna Lippman Salinas | Attorney | Counsel for Crunch, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fletcher, Farley, Shipman & Salinas, L.L.P. | Law Firm | Representing Crunch, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge David Alan Ezra | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal language — ‘all matters in controversy between these parties have been compromised and resolved’ — is the operative signal of a private settlement. The Rule 41(a)(1) stipulation carries no judicial validity or infringement determination on any of the eight patents. Both parties agreed to the terms, no fee award was sought, and the court was asked only to enter the dismissal by stipulation — meaning Judge Ezra made no substantive ruling on the merits of the infringement claims or the patent claims themselves.
US8150736B2 and Seven Further Patents — Digital Commerce, Mobile & Loyalty Systems
The eight asserted patents — US8150736B2, US7693950B2, US7386594B2, US7979057B2, US9747608B2, US8175519B2, US7065555B2, and US10783529B2 — span application filing dates from the early 2000s through to 2017, indicating a long-running and systematically expanded portfolio. The technical claims appear to cover consumer-facing digital engagement infrastructure: email marketing systems, mobile application commerce, web-based purchasing flows, in-store digital transaction processing, and loyalty reward architectures. The breadth across eight distinct grant numbers suggests a deliberate continuation and divisional strategy to capture evolving implementations of core digital commerce concepts.
For the fitness, retail, and hospitality sectors, this portfolio represents a notable assertion risk. Any operator running branded mobile apps, email campaigns, online checkout, or points-based loyalty programmes could plausibly fall within claim scope of one or more of these patents. Advanced Transactions’ willingness to sue across the entire Crunch franchise corporate structure — including the IP holding entity — signals a sophisticated enforcement approach that targets both operating companies and their IP affiliates. Competitors and analogous service operators should conduct claim-chart analysis against the asserted patent claims before deploying or upgrading digital engagement platforms.
Should you run an FTO against Advanced Transactions’ digital commerce portfolio?
Any company operating loyalty rewards programmes, branded mobile applications, marketing email infrastructure, or online and in-store checkout systems should treat this case as a trigger for FTO review. Advanced Transactions has now demonstrated willingness to assert this portfolio against a national fitness franchise — suggesting the assertion programme extends beyond a single target. Gym operators, subscription service platforms, and retail loyalty operators with similar digital stacks carry directly comparable risk profiles.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can rapidly map your product features against the claim sets of US8150736B2 and the seven co-asserted patents, identify continuation families that may still have pending claims, and surface prior art that could support a USPTO challenge. Eureka’s litigation analytics layer also lets you monitor Advanced Transactions’ future assertion activity in real time — so your legal and product teams are never caught off-guard by the next filing.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8150736B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar NPE Digital Commerce Patent Cases in W.D. Texas
Cases involving NPE assertions of digital marketing, mobile app, and loyalty system patents in the Western District of Texas before Judge Ezra and comparable courts.
What this case signals for the digital commerce and fitness tech IP landscape
A broad eight-patent assertion by an NPE against a major franchise operator — resolved privately after 564 days — carries clear lessons for digital loyalty and e-commerce operators.
NPE portfolio breadth amplifies settlement pressure on franchise operators
Asserting eight patents across email, mobile, web, and loyalty simultaneously forces defendants to assess infringement risk across their entire digital stack. Franchise structures — with separate operating, IP, and holding entities — face compounded exposure. W.D. Tex. venue combined with multi-patent assertions from NPEs historically produces early settlement pressure.
Dismissal with prejudice protects Crunch entities but leaves patents intact for future targets
The finality of a with-prejudice dismissal benefits Crunch across its full corporate structure. However, Advanced Transactions retains all eight patents in its enforcement arsenal. Any operator of loyalty rewards programmes, branded mobile apps, or marketing email infrastructure should review their FTO position against this portfolio before the next assertion cycle begins.
Advanced v Crunch — key questions answered
Advanced Transactions asserted eight patents: US8150736B2, US7693950B2, US7386594B2, US7979057B2, US9747608B2, US8175519B2, US7065555B2, and US10783529B2. The patents collectively cover digital marketing emails, mobile applications, website commerce, online and in-store shopping services, and loyalty reward programmes as operated by the Crunch fitness franchise group.
The parties filed a stipulated Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal with prejudice by mutual agreement, with the dismissal language stating all matters were ‘compromised and resolved.’ Dismissal with prejudice is the standard mechanism used to close a case after a private settlement, as it bars Advanced Transactions from refiling the same claims against any of the four Crunch defendants in future litigation.
No. The case was resolved by a Rule 41(a)(1) stipulated dismissal before any merits adjudication. Judge David Alan Ezra issued no claim construction ruling, validity determination, or infringement finding. The eight patents remain issued, valid on their face, and enforceable against third parties not party to this dismissal.
The stipulation states each party bears its own attorneys’ fees, costs of court, and expenses. This means neither side sought or obtained a fee-shifting award under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which requires a court finding of an ‘exceptional case.’ The mutual fee-bearing arrangement is consistent with a negotiated resolution in which neither party conceded bad faith or frivolousness.
Potentially, yes. The settlement with the Crunch entities resolves claims only against those four defendants. Advanced Transactions retains ownership of all eight asserted patents, which remain active and enforceable. Operators of loyalty programmes, branded mobile apps, email marketing systems, and online or in-store digital shopping platforms — particularly in fitness, retail, and hospitality — should assess their FTO position against this portfolio.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.