Digi Portal v. V.F. Corp. — Five-Patent Dynamic Page Generator Dispute Dismissed
Digi Portal LLC brought a five-patent infringement action against V.F. Corp. in Delaware District Court over dynamic page generator technology. The case resolved after 611 days, with all plaintiff claims dismissed with prejudice and defendant counterclaims dismissed without prejudice, each party bearing its own costs.
Five-Patent Dynamic Page Generator Suit Ends in Stipulated Dismissal
Digi Portal LLC filed suit against V.F. Corp. in the District of Delaware on September 27, 2021, asserting infringement of five United States patents — US7565359B2, US9626342B2, US5983227A, US7171414B1, and US8352854B2 — all directed to dynamic page generator technology. The case was assigned to Judge Maryellen Noreika. V.F. Corp. was represented by Fish & Richardson PC, while Digi Portal was represented by Chong Law Firm PA.
The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Case Dismissed.' The docket order states that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) and (c), the parties stipulated that all claims asserted by Digi Portal against V.F. Corp. be dismissed with prejudice, and all counterclaims asserted by V.F. Corp. against Digi Portal be dismissed without prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees.
The case closed on May 31, 2023, approximately 611 days after filing. The asymmetric prejudice structure — plaintiff's claims dismissed with prejudice, defendant's counterclaims dismissed without prejudice — is notable. What drove the resolution and whether any separate agreement exists between the parties is not disclosed in the available public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Case Dismissed in 611 days
611 days from filing to dismissal — consistent with pre-trial resolution in Delaware patent cases
US7565359B2 and four further patents — dynamic page generator technology
Any company building or licensing dynamic page generation, web personalisation, or server-side content assembly technology should treat this five-patent portfolio as a live enforcement risk. The with-prejudice dismissal only bars Digi Portal from suing V.F. Corp. — it does not affect enforceability against any other party. E-commerce platforms, CMS vendors, and SaaS companies with dynamic content delivery features are the most directly exposed product categories.
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation invokes Rule 41(a)(2) and (c), creating a binding dismissal entered by the court. The asymmetric prejudice terms are the analytically significant feature: Digi Portal's offensive position is permanently foreclosed against this defendant, while V.F. Corp. retains its defensive posture. The parties each bear their own costs, and no further terms are disclosed in the available record.
Case dismissed: what the stipulated resolution means for both parties
Rule 41 Stipulated Dismissal — asymmetric prejudice terms
The parties filed a joint stipulation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) and (c). Plaintiff's infringement claims were dismissed with prejudice, meaning Digi Portal cannot re-file those same claims against V.F. Corp. on these five patents. Defendant's counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, preserving V.F. Corp.'s ability to reassert them in future proceedings if circumstances warrant.
Rule 41(a)(2) & (c) stipulationPlaintiff's claims extinguished with prejudice on all five patents
Digi Portal's dismissal with prejudice on all asserted claims operates as a final adjudication on the merits under Rule 41. Digi Portal cannot re-litigate these infringement claims against V.F. Corp. based on US7565359B2, US9626342B2, US5983227A, US7171414B1, or US8352854B2. The patents themselves remain in force as to third parties, but enforcement against this defendant is concluded.
Claims extinguished vs. V.F. Corp.V.F. Corp. counterclaims preserved — dismissed without prejudice
V.F. Corp.'s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, meaning they are not permanently extinguished. Fish & Richardson's defense secured a structurally favorable asymmetry: the plaintiff's offensive claims are gone permanently, while the defendant retains optionality on its counterclaims. Whether those counterclaims included invalidity challenges to the five patents is not disclosed in the available record.
Counterclaims preservedNo cost award signals negotiated exit over litigated outcome
The each-party-bears-own-costs term, combined with the asymmetric prejudice structure, suggests the parties reached a negotiated resolution rather than a court-determined outcome. The specific terms of any underlying agreement are not disclosed in the available public record. Companies operating dynamic page generator or web personalisation technology should note that Digi Portal's portfolio of five patents remains active and enforceable against other parties.
Portfolio remains active vs. third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Digi Portal, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | V.F, Corp. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David R. Bennett | Attorney | Counsel for Digi Portal, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jimmy C. Chong | Attorney | Counsel for Digi Portal, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Chong Law Firm PA | Law Firm | Representing Digi Portal, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Collin J. Marshall | Attorney | Counsel for V.F, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jeremy Douglas Anderson | Attorney | Counsel for V.F, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Neil J. McNabnay | Attorney | Counsel for V.F, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ricardo J. Bonilla | Attorney | Counsel for V.F, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson PC | Law Firm | Representing V.F, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Maryellen Noreika | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the dynamic page generation technology space
Forward-looking patent intelligence derived from Digi Portal's five-patent portfolio and V.F. Corp.'s technology posture in dynamic web content and e-commerce personalisation.
Digi Portal's five-patent portfolio — filing timeline and family scope
Digi Portal holds at least five patents spanning dynamic page generation from early internet-era filings (US5983227A) through to post-2012 grants (US9626342B2). Understanding the continuation structure and expiry timeline of this portfolio helps competitors and product teams assess how long enforcement risk persists and whether divisional applications may expand claim scope.
Portfolio depth & expiry riskFiling trends in dynamic web page generation and server-side personalisation
Dynamic page generation sits at the intersection of CMS, e-commerce, and edge computing. Patent filing activity in server-side rendering, personalisation engines, and headless CMS architectures has accelerated. Mapping filing trends around the claim space of US7565359B2 and US9626342B2 reveals where R&D investment is concentrating and which players are building defensive portfolios.
CMS & personalisation filing trendsV.F. Corp.'s patent activity in digital commerce and web technology
As a major apparel and outdoor brand conglomerate, V.F. Corp. operates significant direct-to-consumer digital channels. Its patent posture in web technology and e-commerce infrastructure — and whether it holds defensive IP in dynamic content delivery — is relevant context for understanding its litigation exposure and competitive positioning against PAE assertions.
Defendant defensive IP positionAdjacent claim space near dynamic page generation — where to build defensively
The five-patent portfolio leaves potential white space in adjacent areas such as edge-side rendering, AI-driven content personalisation, and real-time page assembly via microservices. Companies building in these areas can identify claim language gaps around the Digi Portal patents to design around existing claims or file defensively to block future enforcement vectors.
Design-around & white spaceSimilar dynamic page generator patent cases in Delaware District Court
Cases involving dynamic page generation and web content delivery patents in Delaware District Court — covering PAE enforcement patterns, multi-patent assertions, and Rule 41 dismissal outcomes.
What this case signals for the dynamic page generator IP landscape
A five-patent assertion resolved with prejudice against the plaintiff — but the underlying portfolio stays live for future enforcement.
Digi Portal's five-patent portfolio remains an active enforcement risk
The with-prejudice dismissal extinguishes claims only against V.F. Corp. All five patents — including the foundational US5983227A and the more recent US9626342B2 — remain enforceable against any third party building or deploying dynamic page generator technology. Companies in e-commerce, web personalisation, and CMS sectors should assess exposure.
Asymmetric dismissal terms favour defendants in future settlement negotiations
The structure here — plaintiff with prejudice, defendant without prejudice — is a strong negotiating precedent. Defendants facing serial patent assertion entities (PAEs) in Delaware should press for counterclaim preservation as a condition of any dismissal. It preserves invalidity arguments and creates leverage if the patentee attempts enforcement elsewhere.
Digi v V.F — key questions answered
The case was dismissed. The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Case Dismissed.' The docket order reflects a stipulation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) and (c): all of Digi Portal's claims were dismissed with prejudice, and all of V.F. Corp.'s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees.
Digi Portal asserted five patents: US7565359B2, US9626342B2, US5983227A, US7171414B1, and US8352854B2. All five are directed to dynamic page generator technology. The case was filed September 27, 2021 in the District of Delaware.
A with-prejudice dismissal of Digi Portal's claims extinguishes those specific claims against V.F. Corp. — Digi Portal cannot re-file the same infringement action against this defendant on these five patents. However, the patents themselves remain valid and enforceable against any other third party. The dismissal has no effect on Digi Portal's ability to assert these patents against different defendants.
The asymmetric prejudice structure was agreed by the parties in their stipulation. The public record does not disclose the reasons behind this structure. The practical effect is that V.F. Corp.'s counterclaims — which may have included invalidity challenges — are preserved and could potentially be reasserted in future proceedings, while Digi Portal's offensive position against this defendant is permanently extinguished.
V.F. Corp. was represented by Fish & Richardson PC, with attorneys Collin J. Marshall, Jeremy Douglas Anderson, Neil J. McNabnay, and Ricardo J. Bonilla on record. Digi Portal LLC was represented by Chong Law Firm PA, with David R. Bennett and Jimmy C. Chong listed as plaintiff agents. Judge Maryellen Noreika presided over the case.
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.