Biogy v. Albertsons: Patent Infringement Case Dismissed With Prejudice in 193 Days
Biogy, Inc. asserted US7669236B2 — a patent covering passcode-protected system access — against grocery retail giant Albertsons Companies in the Eastern District of Texas. The case closed in under seven months via a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs.
Biogy’s Passcode Access Patent Suit Against Albertsons Ends Bilaterally
On October 17, 2024, Biogy, Inc. filed suit against Albertsons Companies, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:24-cv-00838) before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, alleging infringement of US7669236B2. The patent relates to determining whether to grant access to a passcode-protected system — a technology relevant to digital authentication and retail access-control environments. Biogy was represented by Global IP Law Group, LLC and Gillam & Smith, LLP; Albertsons deployed a substantially larger team from Fish & Richardson and Greenberg Traurig.
The case concluded on April 28, 2025, when the court accepted a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice filed by both parties under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. All claims and counterclaims — including any asserted by Albertsons — were dismissed with prejudice. The court ordered each side to bear its own costs and fees, and denied all pending relief requests as moot. A dismissal with prejudice means Biogy cannot re-file the same claims against Albertsons on this patent.
At 193 days from filing to closure, the resolution is notably swift for an E.D. Texas patent matter, suggesting that substantive negotiations — possibly including licensing — were underway early or that Biogy’s litigation posture shifted after assessing Albertsons’ defence team. The mutual, cost-neutral structure of the stipulation is consistent with a confidential settlement, though the public record does not confirm any financial terms or licensing agreement. The rapid assembly of a six-attorney defence team by Albertsons may have been a contributing factor in the early resolution.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 193 days
193 days — faster than the median E.D. Texas patent case disposition
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41 dismissal with prejudice — a final, bilateral resolution
Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, parties may jointly stipulate to dismiss an action. A dismissal ‘with prejudice’ is a final adjudication on the merits — it bars the plaintiff from re-filing the same claims against the same defendant. The court accepted the stipulation, closing the case and mooting all pending motions. No judicial findings on infringement or validity were made.
Rule 41 — with prejudiceBiogy cannot re-assert this patent against Albertsons
The with-prejudice designation extinguishes Biogy’s right to pursue US7669236B2 infringement claims against Albertsons in any future action. While the patent itself remains in force against third parties, Biogy has permanently surrendered its enforcement rights vis-à-vis Albertsons. The cost-neutral arrangement may suggest a private settlement, but the public record confirms no licence or compensation was disclosed.
Enforcement rights extinguished vs AlbertsonsAlbertsons exits with no liability finding and no adverse costs order
Albertsons avoided any judicial determination of infringement or validity, and the court imposed no fee award against either party. The deployment of a six-attorney defence team from Fish & Richardson and Greenberg Traurig — a significantly larger counsel bench than Biogy’s — may have contributed to the swift resolution. Albertsons’ products and services are not encumbered by any court-imposed licence obligation from this case.
No liability — clean exitPasscode access IP remains live against the broader retail sector
US7669236B2 remains enforceable. Biogy’s willingness to resolve swiftly and on cost-neutral terms suggests the assertion may have been part of a licensing campaign targeting retail and digital access-control implementers. Other retailers or technology vendors in the passcode-protected authentication space should monitor Biogy’s litigation activity — the patent’s claims remain unlitigated to a merits decision and its scope untested by court ruling.
Patent still enforceable vs third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Biogy, Inc. | Company | Authentication and access-control IP licensing entity — holder of US7669236B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Albertsons Companies, Inc. | Company | Albertsons Companies, Inc. — major U.S. grocery and pharmacy retail chainSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alison Aubry Richards | Attorney | Counsel for Biogy, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David P. Berten | Attorney | Counsel for Biogy, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Biogy, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Global IP Law Group, LLC | Law Firm | Representing Biogy, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Gillam & Smith, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Biogy, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Aaron P Pirouznia | Attorney | Counsel for Albertsons Companies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ahmed Jamal Davis | Attorney | Counsel for Albertsons Companies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Andrew Gordon Pearson | Attorney | Counsel for Albertsons Companies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ashley N. Moore | Attorney | Counsel for Albertsons Companies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Elliot Scher | Attorney | Counsel for Albertsons Companies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jeffrey Allen Shneidman | Attorney | Counsel for Albertsons Companies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson LLP | Law Firm | Representing Albertsons Companies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson PC (Dallas) | Law Firm | Representing Albertsons Companies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson PC (Boston) | Law Firm | Representing Albertsons Companies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson PC (Washington DC) | Law Firm | Representing Albertsons Companies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson, P.C. – Boston | Law Firm | Representing Albertsons Companies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Greenberg Traurig LLP | Law Firm | Representing Albertsons Companies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s acceptance of the joint stipulation is purely procedural — no findings on infringement, validity, or claim construction were made. The with-prejudice designation carries substantive weight: it functions as a final judgment barring re-litigation of these specific claims between these specific parties. The cost-neutral fee arrangement is notable; under 35 U.S.C. § 285, a prevailing party may seek fees in exceptional cases, but neither party pursued this, suggesting neither sought to characterise the other’s conduct as exceptional. The patent’s validity and scope remain entirely untested by judicial determination.
US7669236B2 — Passcode-Protected System Access Determination
US7669236B2 (application no. US11/100803) covers technology for determining whether to grant access to a passcode-protected system — a foundational claim in the authentication and access-control domain. The patent falls within the broader field of digital security and user authentication, addressing the logic and methodology by which a system evaluates passcode inputs to make access decisions. Its application filing date and prosecution history would be material to any validity or claim scope analysis.
In the modern retail environment, passcode-protected access is ubiquitous — spanning customer loyalty apps, self-checkout kiosks, employee POS authentication, and pharmacy management systems. A patent with broad claims in this space could implicate multiple product lines simultaneously. The fact that this case resolved without any claim construction ruling means the patent’s scope remains undefined by judicial precedent, preserving optionality for the holder in future assertions against other defendants in the sector.
Should you run an FTO against US7669236B2?
Any company deploying passcode-based access controls in retail, hospitality, or digital commerce environments should treat US7669236B2 as an active risk. Biogy has demonstrated willingness to assert this patent against a major retail operator in a high-activity venue. The absence of a claim construction or invalidity ruling means the patent’s scope is undefined — which typically favours the patent holder in early-stage negotiations. Product teams building or procuring authentication, loyalty access, or employee identity systems should commission FTO analysis before deployment.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim language of US7669236B2 against your product architecture, identify prior art that could support an invalidity argument, and flag other Biogy-held or related patents that may pose adjacent risk. Eureka’s citation and prosecution history tools surface the full file wrapper context, giving your legal team the analytical foundation needed to assess design-around options or challenge the patent’s validity before litigation is filed.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US7669236B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Patent Infringement Cases: Authentication & Access Control in E.D. Texas
Explore related patent infringement cases involving authentication and passcode access technology litigated in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Gilstrap.
What this case signals for the authentication IP landscape in retail
A swift, cost-neutral exit in E.D. Texas often signals licensing dynamics at work — and leaves the asserted patent fully intact for future campaigns.
E.D. Texas remains a preferred venue for authentication IP assertions
Biogy’s choice of Judge Gilstrap’s court in the Eastern District of Texas is consistent with established practice among IP assertion entities targeting large retail defendants. The venue’s docket efficiency and plaintiff-friendly reputation for patent cases continues to make it a strategic first choice. Retailers operating digital access or loyalty authentication systems should audit their E.D. Texas exposure proactively.
Cost-neutral dismissal with prejudice is a hallmark settlement signal
When both parties stipulate to dismissal with each side bearing its own costs, it typically signals a negotiated resolution — often a licensing agreement or covenant not to sue — rather than a unilateral capitulation. The absence of a costs award removes the strongest public signal of who ‘won.’ Companies facing similar assertions should treat this pattern as a settlement indicator, not a litigation victory.
Biogy v Albertsons — key questions answered
Biogy filed a patent infringement suit against Albertsons in the Eastern District of Texas on October 17, 2024, asserting US7669236B2. The case was dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation under Rule 41 on April 28, 2025 — 193 days after filing. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs. No merits rulings on infringement or validity were issued.
Dismissal with prejudice in this case means Biogy cannot re-file the same patent infringement claims against Albertsons. However, the patent itself remains in force and enforceable against other third parties. The dismissal does not invalidate the patent or limit its claims — it solely bars Biogy from re-asserting it against Albertsons in future litigation.
The public record does not confirm a settlement. However, a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice filed by both parties, combined with a cost-neutral fee arrangement, is commonly associated with a confidential resolution such as a licence or covenant not to sue. Neither party disclosed any financial terms or licensing agreement in the public court record.
US7669236B2 covers methods and systems for determining whether to grant access to a passcode-protected system. The patent is potentially relevant to any organisation deploying passcode-based authentication, including retail loyalty platforms, employee POS systems, self-checkout kiosks, and digital access management tools. The claims have not been construed by a court, meaning their scope remains undefined and potentially broad.
The Eastern District of Texas — particularly Judge Gilstrap’s court — is a historically active and plaintiff-favoured venue for patent infringement cases. Its well-developed patent litigation procedures, experienced judiciary, and established precedent on patent issues make it a frequent choice for IP assertion entities. Biogy’s selection of E.D. Texas is consistent with established practice for plaintiffs seeking efficient case management and favourable local rules.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.