Alto Dynamics v. Back Market: 5-Patent Infringement Action Dismissed With Prejudice
Alto Dynamics, LLC brought a five-patent infringement action against Jung SAS, operating as Back Market, in the Eastern District of Texas, targeting technologies spanning relational data conversion, usage-pattern monitoring, and stateless authentication. The case resolved by joint stipulation and was dismissed with prejudice after 308 days, with each party bearing its own costs.
Five-Patent E.D. Texas Assertion Against Back Market Ends in Prejudicial Dismissal
Alto Dynamics, LLC filed suit against Jung SAS, doing business as Back Market, in the Eastern District of Texas on February 19, 2024. The complaint asserted five U.S. patents — US7392160B2, USRE046513E, US6604100B1, US7152018B2, and US7657531B2 — covering a range of software and systems technologies including methods for converting relational data into structured documents, systems for monitoring usage patterns, and stateless authentication frameworks. Back Market is a prominent European refurbished electronics marketplace, making it an atypical defendant in an E.D. Texas software patent case.
The case closed on December 23, 2024, via a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The court accepted and acknowledged the stipulation, dismissing all claims and causes of action with prejudice. Crucially, the order specified that each party bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees — a term typically associated with negotiated resolutions rather than outright capitulation by either side. The lead case, No. 2:24-cv-375, was explicitly ordered to remain open, suggesting this member case was one of multiple related proceedings.
At 308 days, the case resolved well before any trial date, consistent with a confidential licensing agreement or commercial settlement. The with-prejudice dismissal bars Alto Dynamics from re-asserting these five patents against Back Market on the same claims, representing a permanent resolution of this specific dispute. The public record is silent on any financial terms. The existence of a continuing lead case signals that Alto Dynamics’ broader assertion campaign against other defendants may still be active, which is a pattern commonly seen with NPE-style multi-defendant patent enforcement strategies.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 308 days
308 days — resolved before trial, consistent with pre-trial settlement or licensing resolution
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) requires consent from all parties and, when filed with prejudice, operates as a final adjudication on the merits. Neither party can relitigate the same claims. This mechanism is commonly used to formalise a settlement without disclosing financial terms in the public record. The court’s role is ministerial — it accepts and acknowledges the stipulation rather than adjudicating the merits.
Voluntary, bilateral, permanentAlto Dynamics loses right to re-assert these patents against Back Market
The with-prejudice dismissal permanently bars Alto Dynamics from bringing the same infringement claims against Back Market under any of the five asserted patents. However, if a confidential license was granted as part of the resolution, Alto Dynamics may have achieved commercial value. The patents themselves remain enforceable against other defendants — and the open lead case suggests enforcement activity is ongoing elsewhere.
Bars re-assertion; patents remain liveBack Market secures permanent closure of this specific action
Back Market obtains a with-prejudice dismissal, meaning Alto Dynamics cannot revive these claims in any future action. The each-party-bears-own-costs term avoids any public admission of liability or damages. If a license was negotiated, Back Market may have accepted a royalty in exchange for this resolution — a commercially pragmatic outcome for a marketplace operating across multiple jurisdictions where patent risk management is material.
Permanent resolution securedMulti-patent NPE assertions in E.D. Texas remain a live risk for tech platforms
This case illustrates how software patent portfolios spanning data management, monitoring, and authentication can be bundled into multi-patent assertions against platform companies. Back Market’s refurbished electronics model relies on software infrastructure that may intersect with broadly drafted legacy patents. The open lead case (2:24-cv-375) suggests other defendants face similar exposure, and the pattern is consistent with coordinated NPE enforcement campaigns in the Eastern District of Texas.
NPE enforcement; platform riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Alto Dynamics, LLC | Company | Software patent assertion entity — holder of US7392160B2 and four related patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Jung, SAS | Individual | Jung SAS dba Back Market — French operator of a global refurbished electronics 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 Jung, SASSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jennifer Parker Ainsworth | Attorney | Counsel for Jung, SASSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Peter J. Brann | Attorney | Counsel for Jung, SASSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Stacy O. Stitham | Attorney | Counsel for Jung, SASSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Brann & Isaacson | Law Firm | Representing Jung, SASSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Wilson, Robertson & Vandeventer, PC | Law Firm | Representing Jung, SASSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order adopts the joint stipulation verbatim, confirming that all claims are dismissed with prejudice and that each party bears its own costs and fees. The explicit preservation of lead case No. 2:24-cv-375 is analytically significant — it confirms this was a member case within a coordinated multi-defendant action. No merits determination was made; the dismissal reflects a negotiated resolution, the terms of which remain confidential. The with-prejudice standard means Back Market is fully protected from any future re-assertion of these five patents by Alto Dynamics on the same claims.
US7392160B2 and four co-asserted patents — software data, monitoring, and auth tech
The five asserted patents span three core software technology areas. US7392160B2 and related cases cover methods for converting relational database data into structured document formats — a foundational operation in data interchange and API-driven architectures. USRE046513E is a reissue patent, which typically signals that the original claims were broadened or clarified post-grant to extend enforceability. US6604100B1 addresses usage-pattern monitoring systems, and US7152018B2 and US7657531B2 cover stateless authentication frameworks — technologies central to modern web session management and platform security.
Collectively, these patents represent a portfolio assembled around commodity software infrastructure that virtually every technology platform relies upon. Stateless authentication (as in token-based or sessionless login flows) and usage monitoring are pervasive in marketplace platforms, SaaS products, and consumer-facing web applications. Back Market’s platform, which connects buyers and sellers of refurbished electronics across multiple countries, almost certainly depends on architectures that could be mapped to these claim families. Any company operating a web platform with user authentication, data transformation pipelines, or analytics instrumentation should treat these patent families as priority FTO subjects.
Should your platform run an FTO against these five Alto Dynamics patents?
Any organisation operating a web-based marketplace, SaaS product, or platform with user authentication and data processing functionality should assess its exposure to these five patents. The claim families cover broad software operations — converting relational data to structured formats, monitoring user activity patterns, and managing stateless authentication — that are architectural staples across the technology industry. The fact that Alto Dynamics is pursuing a multi-defendant campaign (with a lead case still open) increases the probability that additional targets are being evaluated.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables R&D and IP teams to run automated freedom-to-operate screening against all five patent families simultaneously, mapping your product’s technical architecture against asserted claims and flagging overlap risk. Eureka can also identify prior art, track the prosecution history of the reissue patent USRE046513E, and surface related continuation or divisional applications that may extend the enforcement perimeter beyond the patents already asserted in this case.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7392160B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar software patent infringement cases in E.D. Texas
Explore comparable multi-patent software assertions filed in the Eastern District of Texas involving data processing, authentication, and platform monitoring technologies.
What this case signals for the software patent IP landscape in E.D. Texas
A five-patent assertion resolved in under a year signals structured enforcement — and persistent risk for platform operators relying on legacy software architectures.
E.D. Texas remains a preferred venue for multi-patent software assertions
Alto Dynamics filed in the Eastern District of Texas, consistent with the venue’s reputation for patent-friendly procedures and plaintiffs’ bar activity. Technology platform companies — especially those with European headquarters like Back Market — should monitor incoming filings in E.D. Texas as an early-warning signal for broader enforcement campaigns.
Legacy software patents covering data conversion and auth remain active enforcement tools
Three of the five patents asserted relate to foundational software operations: relational-to-structured data conversion, usage monitoring, and stateless authentication. These technologies underpin virtually every modern SaaS and marketplace platform. Companies that have not run FTO analysis against patents in these claim families face meaningful exposure, particularly as assertion entities continue to monetise older portfolios.
Alto v Jung — key questions answered
Dismissed with prejudice means all of Alto Dynamics’ infringement claims against Back Market under the five asserted patents are permanently terminated. Alto Dynamics cannot re-file the same claims against Back Market in any future proceeding. The dismissal was filed by joint stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), indicating both parties agreed to the resolution.
Alto Dynamics asserted five U.S. patents: US7392160B2 (relational data to structured document conversion), USRE046513E (reissue — stateless authentication), US6604100B1 (usage pattern monitoring), US7152018B2, and US7657531B2 (stateless authentication systems). The patents span data processing, monitoring, and authentication software technologies.
The court’s order explicitly preserved lead case No. 2:24-cv-375 as open while closing member case No. 2:24-cv-00109. This structure is consistent with a multi-defendant litigation where one master case coordinates proceedings against several defendants. The closure of the Back Market member case does not affect the lead case or any co-defendants in that proceeding.
The case was not decided on the merits. A joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice was filed by both parties, suggesting a negotiated resolution — potentially a licensing agreement — rather than a court determination that Back Market did not infringe. The with-prejudice designation does protect Back Market from re-assertion of these specific claims.
The Eastern District of Texas is a historically favoured venue for patent assertion entities due to its patent-friendly procedural history and plaintiff-friendly jury pool. Foreign companies operating in the U.S. market, including Back Market, are subject to U.S. patent jurisdiction for infringing activities occurring within the United States, making E.D. Texas a viable and strategically attractive forum for plaintiffs.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.