AML IP, LLC v. Torrid, LLC: Voluntary Dismissal in E-Commerce Token Patent Case
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | AML IP, LLC v. Torrid, LLC |
| Case Number | 7:25-cv-00057 (W.D. Tex.) |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas |
| Duration | Feb 2025 – Jan 2026 ~350 days |
| Outcome | Plaintiff Voluntary Dismissal (with prejudice) |
| Patent at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Torrid’s E-commerce Transaction Infrastructure |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
A patent licensing and assertion entity, seeking to enforce intellectual property rights covering electronic commerce transaction methods.
🛡️ Defendant
A well-known American specialty retailer focused on plus-size women’s fashion, operating both e-commerce and brick-and-mortar channels.
The Patent at Issue
This case centered on a foundational patent in digital commerce: U.S. Patent No. 7,177,838 B1, covering a method and apparatus for conducting electronic commerce transactions using electronic tokens.
- • US 7,177,838 B1 — Method and apparatus for conducting electronic commerce transactions using electronic tokens.
Claims in this patent family are relevant to a wide range of e-commerce platforms, digital wallets, and payment processing systems.
Utilizing e-commerce tokens in your product?
Check if your platform might infringe this or related patents before scaling up.
Litigation Timeline & Procedural History
| Milestone | Date |
| Complaint Filed | February 6, 2025 |
| Case Closed | January 22, 2026 |
| Total Duration | ~350 days |
AML IP filed its complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas — a historically plaintiff-favorable venue for patent litigation. Notably, the case closed before the defendant filed an answer or any motion for summary judgment. This procedural posture is significant: under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order when the opposing party has not yet served a responsive pleading. The court confirmed the dismissal was “self-effectuating,” citing In re Amerijet Int’l, Inc., 785 F.3d 967, 973 (5th Cir. 2015).
The 350-day duration — spanning filing to closure — suggests that while formal motion practice had not advanced to summary judgment, some pre-trial activity, including correspondence, preliminary filings, and likely licensing negotiations, occurred behind the scenes before the plaintiff elected to withdraw.
Drafting e-commerce patent claims?
Learn from this case. Use AI to draft stronger claims that can withstand litigation.
Power Your Patent Strategy with PatSnap Eureka IP
From novelty searches to patent drafting, PatSnap Eureka’s AI-powered tools help you navigate the patent landscape with confidence. Trusted by law firms and technology teams worldwide.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in e-commerce token technologies. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View AML IP’s patent portfolio
- See which companies are most active in e-commerce patents
- Understand claim construction patterns for token technologies
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own e-commerce technology.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
E-commerce token transaction methods
1 Patent at Issue
US 7,177,838 B1
FTO Analysis
Crucial for digital payment systems
✅ Key Takeaways
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissals before answer filing are self-effectuating in the Fifth Circuit.
Search related case law →Dismissal with prejudice bars re-assertion of the same claims against the same defendant.
Explore precedents →Frequently Asked Questions
The case involved U.S. Patent No. 7,177,838 B1, covering a method and apparatus for conducting electronic commerce transactions using electronic tokens. The application number is US 09/553,695.
AML IP filed a voluntary notice of dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) on January 21, 2026. Because Torrid had not yet served an answer or summary judgment motion, the dismissal was self-effectuating. Each party bore its own costs and fees.
The case reflects ongoing assertion activity targeting token-based e-commerce platforms. Companies in digital retail and payments should maintain active FTO programs and monitor AML IP’s broader patent enforcement portfolio for future litigation risk.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- USPTO Patent Full-Text Database – US7177838B1
- PACER Case Lookup – Case No. 7:25-cv-00057
- Western District of Texas Patent Litigation Docket
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i)
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Law Firms
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.