Digi Portal LLC v. Panera LLC — Voluntarily Dismissed After 141 Days
Digi Portal LLC filed a five-patent infringement action against Panera LLC in the Northern District of Illinois, asserting patents covering dynamic page generator technology. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case 141 days after filing, before Panera filed an answer or motion for summary judgment.
Five-Patent Dynamic Page Generator Suit Against Panera Dismissed in Under Five Months
On 29 November 2022, Digi Portal LLC filed an infringement action against Panera LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, assigned to Judge Jorge L. Alonso. The complaint asserted five patents — US7565359B2, US9626342B2, US5983227A, US7171414B1, and US8352854B2 — all relating to dynamic page generator technology, against Panera's online or digital platform operations.
The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Voluntary dismissal.' The docket order states that Digi Portal LLC filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), dismissing the action against Panera with prejudice. Rule 41(a)(1) permits a plaintiff to dismiss without a court order before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment, which had not yet occurred at the time of filing.
Resolution in 141 days — before Panera retained recorded counsel or filed any responsive pleading — is notably swift for a five-patent infringement action. What drove the early exit remains undisclosed in the available public record; no settlement terms, licensing arrangements, or covenant details appear on the docket.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 141 days
141 days — resolved before defendant answer or summary judgment motion
US7565359B2 and four further patents — dynamic page generation technology
Any company operating dynamic web applications, digital ordering platforms, or server-side content rendering systems should treat the Digi Portal five-patent portfolio as a live freedom-to-operate concern. The portfolio spans foundational and later-generation dynamic page generation claims — a scope wide enough to implicate common web infrastructure. The absence of a merits ruling in this case means no claim has been invalidated or narrowed.
Official order — verbatim text
The docket notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1) and explicitly characterises the dismissal as 'with prejudice,' indicating Digi Portal LLC relinquished its right to refile these claims against Panera. Because the dismissal pre-dates any answer or dispositive motion, no merits ruling was issued, leaving the validity and infringement scope of all five asserted patents judicially undetermined.
Voluntary dismissal: what the exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1) lets plaintiffs exit before the defendant responds
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) allows a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order, simply by filing a notice, provided the defendant has not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. No court approval is required. The dismissal takes effect immediately upon filing. The public record records the Basis of Termination as 'Voluntary dismissal'; the docket notice styles the dismissal as 'with prejudice.'
Pre-answer voluntary exitWith prejudice bars re-filing; basis of termination is silent on this
A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits — Digi Portal cannot refile the same claims against Panera on these five patents. A dismissal without prejudice would leave that option open. The recorded Basis of Termination states only 'Voluntary dismissal' without specifying prejudice status; the docket notice explicitly states 'with prejudice.' The specific terms driving the choice of with-prejudice dismissal are not disclosed in the available record.
Re-filing foreclosed per docket noticePanera exits without admissions, no recorded costs award
Panera LLC filed no recorded responsive pleading and retained no recorded counsel of record before the case was dismissed. No adverse judgment, injunction, or damages finding was entered against Panera. No costs or fees award appears in the public record. The with-prejudice character of the dismissal — if operative — means Panera faces no continued exposure from Digi Portal on these five patents in this forum.
No liability recordedFive dynamic page generator patents remain active enforcement assets
The dismissal resolves only this action against Panera. Digi Portal's five asserted patents — covering dynamic page generation methods and systems — remain in force and could be asserted against other defendants. Companies operating dynamic web or digital ordering platforms in similar technology spaces should note the portfolio as an active enforcement signal. No court has ruled on validity or infringement scope for any of the five patents.
Portfolio remains enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Digi Portal, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Panera, 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 ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jorge L. Alonso | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the dynamic page generation patent space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from Digi Portal's five-patent portfolio and the dynamic web technology landscape implicated by this N.D. Illinois action.
Digi Portal's five-patent portfolio spans three decades of web technology
Digi Portal's asserted patents cover dynamic page generation across application dates from 1997 to 2012, suggesting a deliberately assembled portfolio rather than organic innovation. Monitoring continuation applications and related family members from these five patents can reveal whether the portfolio is still actively prosecuted and whether new claims are being shaped around modern web application architectures.
Multi-generational portfolioDynamic page generation filing trends in the modern web era
Patent filings in server-side rendering, dynamic content assembly, and web application frameworks have accelerated with the rise of single-page applications and API-driven architectures. Understanding how contemporary filing activity in these sub-domains intersects with older dynamic page generator claim sets can reveal validity challenges and design-around opportunities for platform operators facing similar assertion risk.
Web platform filing trendsPanera's digital platform IP position in web ordering technology
Panera LLC operates a digital ordering and loyalty platform with significant web infrastructure. Assessing Panera's own patent filings and any licensed third-party technology in the dynamic content and web ordering space can indicate whether it has built defensive IP coverage around its digital stack — relevant context for understanding its litigation posture and settlement calculus in this type of action.
Restaurant digital platform IPAdjacent white space: personalised dynamic content delivery
The gap between foundational dynamic page generation patents (late 1990s) and modern AI-driven personalised content delivery represents a potential white space for R&D investment. Methods that combine real-time user context, machine learning, and dynamic assembly — distinct from static claim language in older portfolio — may offer freedom to operate and patentable differentiation for platform technology teams.
Personalisation white spaceSimilar dynamic page generator patent cases in N.D. Illinois
Explore comparable patent infringement actions involving dynamic web and page generation technology filed in the Northern District of Illinois federal court.
What this case signals for the dynamic web technology IP landscape
A five-patent assertion dropped before answer in N.D. Illinois raises questions about portfolio strategy and target selection in the dynamic page generation space.
Pre-answer dismissals often signal rapid resolution or demand strategy
When a plaintiff dismisses before the defendant files any response, it typically suggests either a swift private resolution or a demand-letter strategy where litigation is a pressure mechanism rather than a path to trial. The specific terms here are not in the public record, but the 141-day timeline and absence of any defendant filings are consistent with this pattern.
Five-patent portfolio breadth signals deliberate claim coverage strategy
Asserting five patents — spanning application dates from the late 1990s to 2012 — across dynamic page generator technology suggests a portfolio assembled for broad claim coverage. Competitors and platform operators in digital ordering or web application spaces should map their products against all five patents, not just the lead asserted patent.
Digi v Panera — 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 in the Northern District of Illinois on 29 November 2022.
The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Voluntary dismissal.' The docket notice states Digi Portal LLC filed a Rule 41(a)(1) Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice, ending the case before Panera filed an answer. A with-prejudice dismissal bars Digi Portal from refiling the same claims against Panera on these patents. No merits ruling was issued.
No responsive pleading, answer, or motion for summary judgment appears in the available record for Panera LLC. No damages, injunction, or costs award was entered against Panera. The case was dismissed before any such filings were required under the litigation timeline.
Rule 41(a)(1) permits a plaintiff to dismiss without a court order before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. No merits adjudication occurs. Where the dismissal is with prejudice, as the docket notice states here, the plaintiff cannot refile the same claims. The patents themselves remain valid and enforceable against other parties.
Yes. The voluntary dismissal resolves only this action against Panera LLC. No court ruled on the validity or infringement scope of any of the five patents. All five — US7565359B2, US9626342B2, US5983227A, US7171414B1, and US8352854B2 — retain their presumption of validity and may be asserted against other parties in future proceedings.
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.