Digi Portal v. Five Guys: Five-Patent Dynamic Page Generator Dispute Settled
Digi Portal, LLC filed suit against Five Guys Enterprises LLC in the Northern District of Illinois, asserting five patents covering dynamic page generation technology. The case resolved by settlement in principle within 188 days, with the court dismissing the complaint subject to an automatic conversion to dismissal with prejudice if no relief was sought by July 31, 2023.
Five-patent infringement claim against Five Guys ends in settlement
On November 29, 2022, Digi Portal, LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against Five Guys Enterprises LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:22-cv-06680), assigned to Judge Steven C. Seeger. The action asserted five patents — US7565359B2, US9626342B2, US5983227A, US7171414B1, and US8352854B2 — all directed to dynamic page generator technology, against the well-known burger chain's digital operations.
The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Case Settled.' The docket order states that the parties confirmed settlement in principle and were in the process of memorialising that agreement, upon which the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, with an automatic conversion to dismissal with prejudice unless a party sought and obtained relief from the court by July 31, 2023. The specific terms of the settlement are not disclosed in the available record.
Resolution within 188 days — before substantive motion practice or claim construction — suggests the parties reached commercial accommodation early, potentially avoiding significant litigation cost. What drove the settlement terms, and whether any licensing arrangement was agreed, is not disclosed in the public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Case Settled in 188 days
188 days — resolved well inside the median patent case lifecycle for N.D. Illinois
US7565359B2 and four further patents — dynamic page generation technology
Any company operating a dynamic web ordering platform, digital menu system, or interactive web application in the restaurant, hospitality, or e-commerce sector should consider an FTO review against this five-patent portfolio. The case demonstrates that Digi Portal is willing to assert these patents against well-funded consumer brands, and the settlement leaves claim scope unresolved.
Official order — verbatim text
The docket order reflects that the parties twice confirmed settlement in principle before the court acted. The dismissal-without-prejudice structure with a July 31, 2023 conversion trigger is a procedural mechanism that gives finality to defendants while allowing parties time to execute settlement documentation — no merits findings were made on infringement or validity of any of the five asserted patents.
Case settled: what the agreed resolution means for both parties
Settlement-driven dismissal with a conversion trigger
The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice upon the parties' joint confirmation of settlement in principle. The order built in an automatic conversion to dismissal with prejudice unless either party sought court relief by July 31, 2023. This mechanism is commonly used to protect defendants from refiling while giving parties a brief window to finalise documentation. The specific agreed terms are not disclosed in the available record.
Conditional dismissal structureDigi Portal achieves resolution without trial on all five patents
Digi Portal secured a settlement before any adverse ruling on validity or infringement of its five asserted patents. The patents remain unchallenged on the merits by this litigation. Whether the settlement included any licensing terms, royalties, or covenants is not disclosed in the available record. The portfolio's enforceability against other potential defendants is unaffected by this resolution.
Patents survive on meritsFive Guys exits litigation before claim construction or trial
Five Guys Enterprises avoided a merits adjudication — no finding of infringement or validity was made against it. The company resolved the dispute within six months of the complaint being filed. The specific terms agreed, including any financial consideration or product modifications, are not disclosed in the available record.
No infringement findingDynamic page generator patents remain active enforcement tools
Because the case settled without any invalidity or non-infringement ruling, all five asserted patents retain their full presumption of validity. Other operators of dynamic web or app-based ordering platforms in the restaurant and hospitality sector should treat this portfolio as an active enforcement risk. Organisations deploying similar dynamic page generation architectures may wish to assess their exposure through a freedom-to-operate review.
Portfolio risk remains liveFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Digi Portal, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Five Guys Enterprises LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David Randolph Bennett | Attorney | Counsel for Digi Portal, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Steven G. Kalberg | Attorney | Counsel for Digi Portal, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Direction IP law | Law Firm | Representing Digi Portal, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jacob Steven Wharton | Attorney | Counsel for Five Guys Enterprises LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | James P. Murphy | Attorney | Counsel for Five Guys Enterprises LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Clark Hill LLP | Law Firm | Representing Five Guys Enterprises LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP | Law Firm | Representing Five Guys Enterprises LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Steven C. Seeger | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the dynamic page generation technology space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from the Digi Portal v. Five Guys dispute across the dynamic web content and digital ordering technology landscape.
Digi Portal's five-patent portfolio spans two decades of web technology
With filing dates from 1997 to 2012, Digi Portal's asserted portfolio covers foundational to mid-generation dynamic page generation methods. Tracking the full assignee history and any continuation or continuation-in-part filings from these five patents can reveal whether newer claims have been introduced that extend coverage to modern single-page application or server-side rendering architectures.
Multi-generation portfolioFiling trends in dynamic web content generation are accelerating
The dynamic page generation domain has seen sustained filing activity as frameworks like React, Next.js, and server-side rendering have matured. Patent filings in this space from both operating companies and non-practising entities suggest ongoing IP density. R&D teams building ordering platforms or CMS-driven web experiences should monitor claim trends to anticipate freedom-to-operate constraints.
Rising IP densityFive Guys' patent posture in digital ordering technology
Five Guys Enterprises settling a five-patent infringement action within six months without a recorded invalidity challenge suggests a limited internal patent portfolio in the dynamic web and digital ordering technology domain. Restaurant chains building or licensing digital ordering infrastructure without defensive IP coverage may remain exposed to future assertion campaigns in this space.
Limited defensive IP signalAdjacent R&D white space: personalised and AI-driven dynamic content delivery
The Digi Portal portfolio concentrates on structural dynamic page generation methods. Adjacent white space exists in AI-driven personalisation layers, real-time dynamic menu pricing, and edge-compute content delivery — areas where the existing claim language is unlikely to reach but where new filings are sparse. Product teams in restaurant-tech and digital commerce may find patentable innovation in these adjacent zones.
AI content delivery white spaceSimilar dynamic page generator patent cases in N.D. Illinois and beyond
Explore related patent infringement cases involving dynamic web content generation technology filed in N.D. Illinois and other U.S. district courts.
What this case signals for the dynamic web technology IP landscape
A five-patent assertion settled in under 200 days signals an active enforcement posture worth tracking across the restaurant-tech and digital-ordering sector.
Early settlement suggests enforcement economics favoured resolution
Cases resolving before claim construction — as this one did — typically indicate that the cost-benefit calculus for both parties tilted toward settlement. For Five Guys, avoiding prolonged litigation across five patents was likely material. For Digi Portal, monetisation without trial risk is consistent with a systematic assertion strategy.
Five asserted patents with no merits ruling — portfolio remains deployable
None of the five patents (US7565359B2, US9626342B2, US5983227A, US7171414B1, US8352854B2) received an invalidity or non-infringement ruling. Any entity in the digital ordering, dynamic content delivery, or web application space operating similar technology should flag this portfolio for FTO monitoring.
Digi v Five — key questions answered
Digi Portal, LLC asserted five patents: US7565359B2, US9626342B2, US5983227A, US7171414B1, and US8352854B2. All relate to dynamic page generator technology. The case was filed November 29, 2022 in the Northern District of Illinois and closed June 5, 2023 after the parties confirmed settlement in principle.
The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Case Settled.' The docket order states the parties confirmed settlement in principle and the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, with an automatic conversion to dismissal with prejudice unless a party sought court relief by July 31, 2023. No merits findings on infringement or validity were made. The specific settlement terms are not disclosed in the available record.
The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice on the basis of the parties' confirmed settlement in principle, but ordered automatic conversion to dismissal with prejudice by July 31, 2023 unless either party sought relief. This structure provides finality to the defendant — preventing refiling after that date — while giving the parties time to execute settlement documentation. No liability or invalidity findings were made.
Yes. Because the case settled before any merits adjudication, no court issued a ruling on the validity or infringement of any of the five asserted patents. Each patent retains its full statutory presumption of validity. Other entities operating dynamic page generation or digital ordering technology should treat the portfolio as an active enforcement risk.
US7565359B2 covers dynamic page generation systems and methods. Together with the four co-asserted patents spanning 1997–2012 filing dates, the portfolio potentially reaches a broad range of dynamic web architectures. Any company operating digital ordering platforms, CMS-driven websites, or interactive web applications in the restaurant, hospitality, or e-commerce sector may wish to conduct an FTO review against this portfolio.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.