Afterwords Inc. v. Gettattle Inc.: Infringement Suit Stayed Pending IPR
Afterwords Inc. filed suit against Gettattle Inc. in Florida’s Middle District alleging infringement of US10430811B1, a patent covering a guest survey system. Rather than proceed to trial, the parties jointly moved to stay the litigation pending inter partes review at the PTAB — halting the case 277 days after filing.
Florida Patent Suit Frozen as PTAB Takes Center Stage
Afterwords Inc. initiated this infringement action against Gettattle Inc. on June 6, 2024, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Case No. 8:24-cv-01386). The suit centers on US10430811B1, a patent covering a guest survey system — technology designed to automate and manage post-visit or post-experience customer feedback collection. Afterwords alleged that Gettattle’s competing product or service infringes one or more claims of that patent.
The case was formally closed on March 10, 2025, not through a merits decision or settlement, but via a court-ordered stay. The parties filed a joint motion requesting the court pause district court proceedings pending the USPTO’s decision on whether to institute an inter partes review (IPR) of the asserted patent. The joint motion signals that Gettattle had petitioned the PTAB to challenge the validity of US10430811B1 — a common defensive move in patent litigation that can invalidate asserted claims before trial.
The 277-day timeline from filing to stay is consistent with cases where a defendant files an IPR petition relatively early in litigation. The fact that both parties jointly requested the stay suggests a degree of procedural alignment, though this does not necessarily indicate settlement discussions. The substantive question of infringement and patent validity remains entirely unresolved — the public record is silent on claim construction, damages theories, or any preliminary injunction filings.
Filing to Case Stayed in 277 days
277 days from filing to stay — shorter than the median district court patent case lifecycle
What a litigation stay pending IPR means for both parties
A stay suspends district court proceedings entirely
When a court grants a stay pending IPR, all district court activity — discovery, claim construction, dispositive motions — is paused until the PTAB resolves the inter partes review. Here, the parties jointly requested the stay, and the court obliged. The PTAB has up to six months from petition filing to decide whether to institute the IPR; if instituted, a final written decision typically follows within 12 months.
Proceedings paused at PTAB gateAfterwords faces a validity gauntlet before trial can resume
For Afterwords, the stay represents a delay in enforcing US10430811B1. If the PTAB institutes IPR and ultimately cancels or narrows the asserted claims, Afterwords’ infringement case could be significantly weakened or mooted. If the PTAB declines to institute, the stay lifts and district court litigation resumes — potentially with claim validity reinforced by the PTAB’s decision not to review.
Validity challenge aheadGettattle’s IPR petition shifts the battlefield to the PTAB
Filing an IPR petition is a well-established defensive tactic: PTAB proceedings apply a lower validity threshold than district courts and can cancel claims with broader estoppel consequences if the petitioner wins. By securing a stay, Gettattle avoids costly district court discovery while the validity challenge plays out. If the IPR is not instituted, however, litigation resumes and Gettattle loses the procedural advantage.
PTAB route preferred over trialGuest survey tech IP remains contested and commercially uncertain
The stay leaves the competitive landscape in the guest survey system market unresolved. Neither party can claim a definitive IP victory. Competitors and investors in automated customer feedback technology should monitor the PTAB docket for the IPR institution decision, as the outcome will shape enforceability of US10430811B1 across the sector.
Watch the PTAB docketFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Afterwords Inc. | Company | Guest feedback technology company — holder of US10430811B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Gettattle Inc. | Company | Gettattle Inc. — competing guest survey or customer feedback platform providerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jeffrey B. Fabian | Attorney | Counsel for Afterwords Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John Todd Timmerman | Attorney | Counsel for Afterwords Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Mindi M. Richter | Attorney | Counsel for Afterwords Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Samantha Regala | Attorney | Counsel for Afterwords Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Afterwords Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Adam Michaels | Attorney | Counsel for Gettattle Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Anthony Joseph Mazzeo | Attorney | Counsel for Gettattle Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Joshua F. P. Long | Attorney | Counsel for Gettattle Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Timothy J. Bechen | Attorney | Counsel for Gettattle Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Hand Baldachin & Associates LLP | Law Firm | Representing Gettattle Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Vandeventer Black LLP | Law Firm | Representing Gettattle Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Woods Rogers V & eventer Black PLC | Law Firm | Representing Gettattle Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Florida Middle District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The joint motion text does not constitute a merits ruling — it is a procedural record of both parties’ agreed position. The language reflects a conditional framework: the stay persists if IPR is instituted; it lifts promptly if the USPTO declines. This phrasing suggests the parties negotiated the stay terms carefully, preserving their respective litigation positions while deferring to the PTAB’s gatekeeping function. No infringement findings, claim constructions, or damages determinations have been made.
US10430811B1 — Automated Guest Survey System Technology
US10430811B1, filed under application number US16/456490, protects an automated guest survey system — technology that structures how post-visit or post-experience feedback is solicited, collected, and managed from customers or guests. The patent’s B1 designation indicates it issued without any post-grant amendment, suggesting the claims as granted reflect the original prosecution scope. The application falls within the broader domain of customer experience management and SaaS-delivered feedback platforms.
For competitors in the guest experience, hospitality technology, and customer feedback SaaS markets, US10430811B1 represents a potential enforcement risk wherever automated survey workflows are a core product feature. Afterwords’ willingness to pursue district court litigation signals intent to enforce the patent commercially. The PTAB’s forthcoming institution decision will be a critical data point for any company operating adjacent to this patent’s claims.
Should you run an FTO against US10430811B1?
Any company developing or commercialising automated guest survey systems, post-visit feedback platforms, or customer experience management tools should assess their exposure to US10430811B1. The active enforcement posture demonstrated by Afterwords v. Gettattle — and the parallel PTAB validity challenge — makes this patent a live risk factor for product teams building in this space. Even if IPR narrows the claims, surviving claims may still cover core survey automation workflows.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US10430811B1 against your product’s technical architecture, surface prior art relevant to any validity challenge, and monitor the PTAB docket for the IPR institution decision in real time. R&D and legal teams can use Eureka to build a defensible FTO position before launching or scaling a competing guest feedback product.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10430811B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Patent Cases: Guest Survey & Customer Feedback Technology
Cases involving customer feedback, survey automation, and SaaS-delivered experience management patents litigated in Florida federal courts and before the PTAB.
What this case signals for the guest survey technology IP landscape
A jointly-requested litigation stay signals the PTAB, not the district court, will decide the fate of this guest survey patent.
IPR petitions remain the go-to defensive move in software patent suits
Gettattle’s apparent IPR strategy is consistent with broader industry trends — defendants in software and SaaS patent cases increasingly route validity challenges through the PTAB rather than district courts. The PTAB’s inter partes review process offers a lower invalidity threshold and a faster, more predictable timeline than jury trial.
A joint stay motion does not signal settlement — it signals strategic alignment on process
Both parties agreeing to pause litigation is procedurally efficient but should not be read as a sign of imminent resolution. The underlying infringement dispute and any damages claims remain fully live. The case could resume with full force if the PTAB declines to institute IPR.
Afterwords v Gettattle — key questions answered
The case is formally closed as of March 10, 2025, but not on the merits. The district court granted a joint motion to stay proceedings pending inter partes review of US10430811B1 at the USPTO PTAB. Litigation may resume depending on the PTAB’s institution decision.
Afterwords asserts US10430811B1 (application no. US16/456490), a patent covering a guest survey system — automated technology for soliciting and managing post-visit customer feedback. The B1 designation indicates the patent issued without post-grant amendment.
A stay suspends all district court activity — discovery, claim construction, and trial preparation — while the PTAB evaluates Gettattle’s IPR petition. If IPR is instituted, the stay continues until a final written decision. If the USPTO declines institution, the parties jointly requested the stay be lifted promptly to resume litigation.
Joint stay motions pending IPR are common when both parties see procedural efficiency in letting the PTAB resolve validity first. For Gettattle, it avoids costly discovery while challenging patent validity. For Afterwords, consent may reflect recognition that opposing the stay risked a contested motion loss. A joint request does not indicate settlement.
Afterwords was represented by Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP, with attorneys Jeffrey B. Fabian, John Todd Timmerman, Mindi M. Richter, and Samantha Regala. Gettattle was represented by Hand Baldachin & Associates LLP, Vandeventer Black LLP, and Woods Rogers Vandeventer Black PLC, with attorneys Adam Michaels, Anthony Joseph Mazzeo, Joshua F. P. Long, and Timothy J. Bechen.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.