Alto Dynamics v. GetYourGuide: Five-Patent E-Commerce Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
Alto Dynamics, LLC brought a five-patent infringement action against Berlin-based travel marketplace GetYourGuide Deutschland GmbH in the Eastern District of Texas, targeting the platform’s search, cookie-based tracking, and session authentication functionality. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice after 272 days — leaving every asserted patent available for future assertion.
PAE Targets Travel Marketplace Over Core E-Commerce Technologies
Alto Dynamics, LLC filed suit against GetYourGuide Deutschland GmbH on December 10, 2024 in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-01016), asserting infringement of five U.S. patents spanning e-commerce search and data retrieval, user activity and preference tracking (including cookie-based mechanisms), and website and session authentication. The accused product is the getyourguide.com platform and its associated hardware, software, and backend functionality — systems that are central to GetYourGuide’s consumer-facing travel experience marketplace.
On September 8, 2025 — 272 days after filing — Alto Dynamics filed a Notice of Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), voluntarily dismissing all claims without prejudice. The court accepted and acknowledged the notice, denied all pending relief requests as moot, and directed the clerk to close the case. Critically, each party was ordered to bear its own costs, suggesting no settlement payment was memorialized in the public record at the time of dismissal.
The without-prejudice designation is the most consequential detail in the public record: Alto Dynamics retains the right to refile these same claims against GetYourGuide — or any other defendant — at any future date, subject to applicable statutes of limitation. Whether this dismissal reflects a confidential settlement, a strategic reset, or a decision to pursue different defendants remains unknown from the docket alone. The early Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal — before any answer or summary judgment motion was filed — suggests the case ended before substantial litigation on the merits.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 272 days
272 days — resolved before trial, well within E.D. Texas median disposition time
Voluntarily dismissed: what a without-prejudice exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unconditional exit right
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. This mechanism requires no judicial approval and carries no merits determination. The court here accepted and acknowledged the notice as a ministerial act. No findings of validity, invalidity, infringement, or non-infringement were made.
No merits adjudicationWithout prejudice: the critical distinction the public record confirms
A dismissal without prejudice does not extinguish the underlying claims. Alto Dynamics expressly represented — and the court’s order confirms — that the dismissal is WITHOUT PREJUDICE, meaning the five asserted patents remain available for future enforcement against GetYourGuide or any other party. A with-prejudice dismissal would have permanently barred refiling of the same claims. The public record is explicit here: this is a without-prejudice exit.
Claims remain re-assertableGetYourGuide exits without a validity ruling — but risk remains
GetYourGuide obtains a clean exit from this specific proceeding with no adverse merits finding and no costs award against it. However, because the dismissal is without prejudice, it receives no declaratory judgment of non-infringement or invalidity. The five patents remain live threats. GetYourGuide — and operators of comparable online booking or e-commerce platforms — should treat these patents as active enforcement risks and consider proactive FTO or IPR strategies.
No invalidity shield obtainedFive live patents over core e-commerce functionality: sector-wide exposure
The asserted patents cover functionality that is broadly deployed across e-commerce and online marketplace platforms: product search and retrieval, behavioural tracking via cookies, and session-based authentication. Any operator of a consumer-facing web platform with similar features — particularly travel, retail, or SaaS marketplaces — faces potential exposure to these patents. The without-prejudice exit preserves Alto Dynamics’ option to refile against GetYourGuide or pivot to new targets in the same sector.
Broad sector exposureFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Alto Dynamics, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US7392160B2 and 4 further e-commerce and web technology patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | GetYourGuide Deutschland GmbH | Company | GetYourGuide Deutschland GmbH — Berlin-based online travel experiences marketplaceSearch 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 | David Asher Swetnam-Burland | Attorney | Counsel for GetYourGuide Deutschland GmbHSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jennifer Parker Ainsworth | Attorney | Counsel for GetYourGuide Deutschland GmbHSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Brann & Isaacson | Law Firm | Representing GetYourGuide Deutschland GmbHSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Wilson, Robertson & Vandeventer, PC | Law Firm | Representing GetYourGuide Deutschland GmbHSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order mirrors the exact language of the plaintiff’s notice, confirming the dismissal is without prejudice and that no pending claims survived. The Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) mechanism used here is self-executing upon filing where, as appears to be the case, no answer or motion for summary judgment had been served — the court’s acceptance is acknowledgment, not adjudication. The denial of all pending relief ‘as moot’ confirms that no substantive motions were decided on their merits. Each party bearing its own costs is the default under this rule absent agreement otherwise.
US7392160B2 and Four Further Patents — E-Commerce Search, Tracking & Authentication
The five patents asserted in this case — US7392160B2, USRE046513E, US6604100B1, US7152018B2, and US7657531B2 — span foundational e-commerce and web platform technologies. The portfolio covers methods and systems for searching and retrieving items on online shopping platforms, tracking user activities and preferences (including cookie-based mechanisms), and authenticating users via login processes and secured session management. USRE046513E is a reissue patent, indicating the original claims were amended post-grant to broaden or clarify scope — a designation that typically signals strategic enforcement intent.
These technologies are not niche features: search, behavioural tracking, and session authentication are core functional layers of virtually every consumer-facing web platform, from travel marketplaces to retail e-commerce to SaaS subscription services. Assertion of this portfolio against GetYourGuide’s platform suggests the claim language is drafted broadly enough to read on standard commercial implementations. Any online platform deploying cookie-based personalisation, user account authentication, or keyword search faces potential exposure, and IP teams in this sector should conduct claim-level analysis against their own product architectures.
Should your platform run an FTO check against US7392160B2 and this portfolio?
If your product or engineering team operates an online marketplace, travel platform, or e-commerce site that incorporates user search, cookie-based preference tracking, or session-authenticated login flows, these five patents are directly relevant to your freedom-to-operate position. The E.D. Texas filing and without-prejudice dismissal — rather than a settled or invalidated conclusion — means the portfolio remains live and its owner has demonstrated willingness to assert it in litigation. R&D and product teams adding or updating these features should treat an FTO review as a prerequisite, not an afterthought.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows IP and product teams to map specific patent claim language against their technology stack, identify relevant prior art, and assess prosecution history for each of the five asserted patents. Eureka can also flag related continuations or divisionals in the Alto Dynamics portfolio that may not yet have been asserted, giving your team a comprehensive view of the enforcement landscape before your next product release or investment decision.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7392160B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar E-Commerce and Web Platform Patent Cases in E.D. Texas
Explore related patent infringement actions involving e-commerce search, user tracking, and authentication technologies filed in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the e-commerce and online marketplace IP landscape
A five-patent PAE action dismissed without prejudice in E.D. Texas is a pattern worth tracking — especially when the asserted technology underpins virtually every consumer web platform.
Without-prejudice exits in E.D. Texas PAE cases rarely signal permanent peace
When a patent assertion entity voluntarily dismisses without prejudice before any substantive court ruling, the most commercially cautious interpretation is that the dispute is paused, not resolved. Alto Dynamics retains full rights to refile. Online marketplace operators with similar search, tracking, or authentication stacks should treat these five patents as live enforcement risks and monitor Alto Dynamics’ docket activity.
The cost-bearing clause is informative: no settlement payment was publicly recorded
The court’s instruction that each party bears its own costs is standard in Rule 41(a)(1) dismissals but notably does not preclude a confidential side agreement. Where a settlement drives an early PAE dismissal, the public record often looks exactly like this. IP professionals should weigh both the possibility of a private resolution and the possibility of a strategic redirection toward other defendants or co-defendants.
Alto v GetYourGuide — key questions answered
Alto Dynamics, LLC filed a patent infringement action against GetYourGuide Deutschland GmbH in the Eastern District of Texas on December 10, 2024, asserting five patents covering e-commerce search, user tracking, and authentication. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on September 8, 2025 after 272 days, with each party bearing its own costs and no merits ruling entered.
Alto Dynamics asserted five U.S. patents: US7392160B2, USRE046513E (a reissue patent), US6604100B1, US7152018B2, and US7657531B2. The patents collectively cover online shopping search and retrieval systems, cookie-based user activity and preference tracking, and website session authentication mechanisms. All five remain in force following the without-prejudice dismissal.
A dismissal without prejudice means that Alto Dynamics’ claims were not decided on their merits and were not permanently extinguished. Alto Dynamics retains the right to refile the same claims against GetYourGuide or any other defendant in the future, subject to applicable statutes of limitation. No finding of infringement, non-infringement, validity, or invalidity was made by the court.
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The court’s acceptance and acknowledgment of the notice — rather than a formal ruling — is consistent with GetYourGuide not having yet filed an answer, meaning the early procedural stage made this self-executing dismissal mechanism available to the plaintiff.
The order directing each party to bear its own costs is the default outcome under Rule 41(a)(1) dismissals and does not, by itself, confirm or deny the existence of a confidential settlement. It is consistent with both a private settlement (where financial terms are separately agreed) and a genuine withdrawal without resolution. The public docket does not contain a settlement agreement, and the actual basis for the dismissal remains unknown from publicly available records.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.