Alto Dynamics v. Coldwell Banker: Five-Patent Real Estate Platform Dispute Ends in 145 Days
Alto Dynamics, LLC asserted five patents against Coldwell Banker Real Estate, LLC targeting the coldwellbanker.com platform’s search, user-tracking, and authentication functionality. The parties jointly stipulated to dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) after just 145 days — each side bearing its own costs, suggesting a private resolution was reached.
Five-Patent E.D. Tex. Assault on Coldwell Banker’s Online Platform
Filed on 15 January 2025 in the Eastern District of Texas, Alto Dynamics, LLC brought an infringement action against Coldwell Banker Real Estate, LLC asserting five patents: US7392160B2, USRE046513E, US6604100B1, US7152018B2, and US7657531B2. The accused product is the coldwellbanker.com website and its associated hardware, software, and functionality — specifically features enabling users to view, search, save, and purchase real estate listings, track user activities and preferences via cookies, and authenticate users through login processes and secured sessions.
The case closed on 9 June 2025 via a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The court accepted the stipulation and dismissed all claims with prejudice, meaning Alto Dynamics is permanently barred from re-asserting the same claims against Coldwell Banker on these patents. The court’s order directed each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees — a cost-neutral resolution that neither confirms nor denies any payment between the parties.
Resolution in 145 days is notably swift for a five-patent E.D. Tex. infringement case, suggesting the parties reached a private agreement — likely a licence or covenant not to sue — before significant motion practice or claim construction. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement is consistent with a negotiated settlement rather than a capitulation by either side. The public record does not disclose any financial terms, licence scope, or which patents, if any, were the focal point of negotiations.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 145 days
145 days — resolved well below the median E.D. Tex. patent case lifecycle
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal with prejudice explained
A joint stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) allows parties to dismiss an action by agreement without a court order. When entered with prejudice — as here — it operates as a final adjudication on the merits, permanently extinguishing the dismissed claims. Alto Dynamics cannot re-file these specific infringement claims against Coldwell Banker on these five patents.
Permanent bar on re-filingAlto Dynamics voluntarily closes the door — likely for commercial value
Agreeing to dismissal with prejudice is a significant concession by a plaintiff — it permanently surrenders the right to re-litigate these claims against this defendant. That Alto Dynamics accepted this outcome within 145 days, before claim construction, strongly suggests it received commercial consideration (e.g., a licence fee or royalty agreement) that made continued litigation unnecessary. The public record does not confirm any payment.
Likely licence securedColdwell Banker obtains permanent peace on five asserted patents
The with-prejudice dismissal gives Coldwell Banker certainty: Alto Dynamics cannot revive these claims. However, the five patents remain in force and could theoretically be asserted against other real estate or e-commerce platforms. Each party bearing its own costs suggests Coldwell Banker did not obtain a fee award, consistent with a negotiated exit rather than a litigated victory.
Claims permanently extinguishedOnline real estate platforms remain in scope for this patent portfolio
With five patents covering search, user-tracking, and authentication on real estate platforms, Alto Dynamics retains the ability to assert the same portfolio against other operators — Zillow, Realtor.com, Redfin, and similar platforms all deploy functionally comparable features. The swift resolution here may embolden or accelerate outreach to other targets, consistent with a portfolio licensing campaign strategy.
Broader licensing campaign riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Alto Dynamics, LLC | Company | Patent licensing entity — holder of US7392160B2 and four further platform IP patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Coldwell Banker Real Estate, LLC | Company | Major U.S. residential real estate brokerage operating coldwellbanker.com online platformSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Carey Matthew Rozier | Attorney | Counsel for Alto Dynamics, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James Francis McDonough , III | Attorney | Counsel for Alto Dynamics, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathan Lloyd Hardt | Attorney | Counsel for Alto Dynamics, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Alto Dynamics, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jonathan Clark LaMendola | Attorney | Counsel for Coldwell Banker Real Estate, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Cobb, Martinez, Woodward, PLLC – Dallas | Law Firm | Representing Coldwell Banker Real Estate, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order tracks the joint stipulation precisely, accepting the parties’ representation that the case ‘has been resolved’ — phrasing that implies an underlying private agreement whose terms are not disclosed. The with-prejudice designation is significant: unlike a without-prejudice dismissal, it forecloses any future refiling of these claims against Coldwell Banker. The mutual cost-bearing direction — neither party recovering fees — is neutral and consistent with a commercially negotiated exit rather than any finding on the merits of infringement or validity.
US7392160B2 — Online platform search, user tracking, and authentication patents
The five asserted patents — US7392160B2, USRE046513E, US6604100B1, US7152018B2, and US7657531B2 — span application dates from 2001 to 2007, placing their priority in the formative era of consumer internet platforms. Collectively they appear to cover foundational e-commerce and web platform capabilities: enabling users to search, view, and save listings; tracking user activity and preferences via cookies; and authenticating users through login and secured session processes. USRE046513E is a reissued patent, suggesting the original claims were broadened or corrected after initial grant.
This portfolio’s strategic value lies in claiming infrastructure-level functionality rather than application-specific implementations — search, tracking, and authentication are not unique to real estate platforms. That breadth makes the patents potentially relevant to any operator running a consumer-facing platform with user accounts and personalisation features. The assertion against coldwellbanker.com, one of the most trafficked real estate sites in the U.S., suggests Alto Dynamics views the portfolio as having meaningful coverage over modern platform architectures built on these foundational capabilities.
Should you run an FTO against US7392160B2 and the Alto Dynamics portfolio?
Any company operating an online platform with property search, saved searches, cookie-based personalisation, or user authentication should treat this portfolio as a live FTO priority. The accused functionality at coldwellbanker.com — search, tracking, login, and session management — is functionally indistinguishable from features deployed across real estate portals, rental platforms, and broader e-commerce sites. The swift settlement here suggests the claims have sufficient perceived strength to drive commercial resolution.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map all five patent numbers — including the reissued USRE046513E — against your platform’s technical stack, identifying claim elements that may read on your search UX, cookie implementation, or authentication flows. Eureka surfaces prior art, claim-by-claim analysis, and related litigation history to help your team assess exposure and prioritise any design-around or licensing response before a demand letter arrives.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7392160B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar E.D. Tex. patent cases: online platform search and authentication IP
Cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas asserting foundational web platform patents — search, user tracking, and authentication — against real estate and e-commerce operators.
What this case signals for the online real estate and proptech IP landscape
A five-patent E.D. Tex. filing resolved in under five months is a textbook licensing campaign signal — other platform operators should take note.
E.D. Tex. venue choice signals an experienced NPE litigation strategy
The Eastern District of Texas remains a preferred venue for patent assertion entities. Filing five patents simultaneously against a high-profile defendant like Coldwell Banker maximises settlement pressure. The 145-day resolution timeline is consistent with early-stage licensing discussions converting into a formal agreement before any substantive court proceedings.
Real estate search, cookies, and login authentication are live infringement vectors
The accused functionality — search, cookie-based tracking, and session authentication — is ubiquitous across real estate and broader e-commerce platforms. Any operator running comparable features should treat this portfolio as an active risk. The patents span application dates from at least 2001 to 2007, suggesting broad foundational claims that may read on widely deployed architectures.
Alto v Coldwell — key questions answered
Alto Dynamics asserted five patents: US7392160B2, USRE046513E, US6604100B1, US7152018B2, and US7657531B2. The patents collectively cover online platform search and listing functionality, cookie-based user activity and preference tracking, and website authentication via login and secured sessions — all targeted at the coldwellbanker.com platform.
The case was dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) after the parties represented the case had been ‘resolved.’ A with-prejudice dismissal permanently bars re-filing the same claims. The rapid 145-day resolution and mutual cost-bearing arrangement are consistent with a private licence or settlement agreement, though no financial terms are publicly disclosed.
Coldwell Banker obtains permanent protection against these specific claims from Alto Dynamics on the five asserted patents. However, the patents remain valid and enforceable against third parties. Coldwell Banker is not required to modify its platform as a result of this dismissal, and no court made any finding on infringement or patent validity.
Yes, USRE046513E is a reissued patent, meaning the USPTO granted a corrected or broadened version of the original patent after initial issuance. Reissued patents often carry expanded claim scope, which can increase the infringement surface area relative to the original grant. Operators with authentication or session management features should specifically analyse the reissued claims when assessing freedom to operate.
Any platform deploying user account creation, saved property searches, cookie-based personalisation, or session-based authentication faces potential exposure from this portfolio. This would include real estate portals such as Zillow, Realtor.com, Redfin, and Homes.com, as well as rental and commercial property platforms. The foundational nature of the accused functionality suggests the portfolio is not limited to residential real estate operators.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.