Dynamic Data Innovations v. Old Navy: Patent Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
Dynamic Data Innovations LLC filed suit against Old Navy, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas asserting US9632676B1 against Old Navy’s e-commerce platform and products. The case closed after 453 days when the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, extinguishing all plaintiff claims permanently.
E-commerce patent assertion ends in with-prejudice stipulated dismissal
Dynamic Data Innovations LLC, a patent assertion entity holding US9632676B1, filed this infringement action against Old Navy, Inc. on August 29, 2024, in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The asserted patent relates to dynamic data management and was alleged to be infringed by Old Navy’s online platform at oldnavy.gap.com and associated products and services. The case was part of a broader consolidated series that included a related member case, No. 2:24-cv-00748, also assigned to Judge Gilstrap.
The case closed on November 25, 2025, via a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal filed by the parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The court accepted and acknowledged the stipulation, dismissing all of Dynamic Data Innovations’ claims against Old Navy with prejudice and all of Old Navy’s counterclaims against Dynamic Data Innovations without prejudice. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. Both the lead case and the consolidated member case were formally closed simultaneously.
The 453-day duration and the with-prejudice dismissal structure are consistent with a confidential settlement reached shortly before or at trial preparation, though the public record does not confirm any financial terms. The asymmetric prejudice treatment — plaintiff claims gone permanently, defendant counterclaims preserved in theory — is a standard settlement construct that suggests Old Navy obtained resolution it was satisfied with. The absence of fee-shifting indicates neither party sought or secured an exceptional-case finding under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 453 days
453 days — slightly above median for E.D. Tex. patent cases that settle pre-trial
Joint stipulation accepted: what the with-prejudice dismissal means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal: a consensual, final exit
A stipulated dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires agreement from all parties who have appeared. Dismissal of plaintiff’s claims with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes — Dynamic Data Innovations cannot refile the same claims against Old Navy on US9632676B1. The without-prejudice treatment of Old Navy’s counterclaims preserves theoretical rights but those counterclaims are practically extinguished unless a new dispute arises.
Permanent bar on refilingWith-prejudice exit forecloses any second attempt against Old Navy
For Dynamic Data Innovations, the with-prejudice dismissal means it cannot reassert US9632676B1 against Old Navy in any future action. This is the most legally consequential concession a patent plaintiff can make short of a judgment of invalidity. Whether a licensing payment was received in exchange is not disclosed in the public record, but the structure is consistent with a negotiated resolution that gave Old Navy permanent protection from this patent as asserted here.
No future suit on this patent vs. Old NavyOld Navy secures permanent immunity on these claims
Old Navy achieved what defendants in PAE suits typically seek: permanent closure. Its own counterclaims — which may have included invalidity or non-infringement declarations — were dismissed without prejudice, preserving optionality. The no-fee-shifting outcome suggests Old Navy did not pursue or obtain an exceptional-case fee award under § 285, which is typical in settlements where both sides want a clean exit. Defense was handled by Findlay Craft PC and Klarquist Sparkman LLP.
Permanent immunity from this assertionUS9632676B1 remains active against other e-commerce defendants
The settlement resolves only the Old Navy dispute. US9632676B1 is not invalidated and Dynamic Data Innovations retains enforcement rights against other retailers and e-commerce operators. Companies operating similar dynamic data or personalisation features on retail platforms should note that this patent survived litigation without a validity ruling. The Eastern District of Texas and Judge Gilstrap’s docket remain a high-risk venue for future assertions of this patent family.
Patent intact for other targetsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Dynamic Data Innovations LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9632676B1, dynamic data management technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Old Navy, Inc. | Company | Old Navy, Inc. — major U.S. apparel retailer, subsidiary of Gap Inc., operating oldnavy.gap.comSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Anthony Hao | Attorney | Counsel for Dynamic Data Innovations LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Carey Matthew Rozier | Attorney | Counsel for Dynamic Data Innovations LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Danielle De La Paz | Attorney | Counsel for Dynamic Data Innovations LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James Francis McDonough , III | Attorney | Counsel for Dynamic Data Innovations LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathan Lloyd Hardt | Attorney | Counsel for Dynamic Data Innovations LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathan R. Miller | Attorney | Counsel for Dynamic Data Innovations LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Travis E. Lynch | Attorney | Counsel for Dynamic Data Innovations LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rozier Hardt McDonough PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Dynamic Data Innovations LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Eric Hugh Findlay | Attorney | Counsel for Old Navy, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Robert Cruzen | Attorney | Counsel for Old Navy, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Roger Brian Craft | Attorney | Counsel for Old Navy, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ryan Frei | Attorney | Counsel for Old Navy, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Findlay Craft PC | Law Firm | Representing Old Navy, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Klarquist, Sparkman LLP | Law Firm | Representing Old Navy, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order reflects a purely procedural acceptance of the parties’ agreed terms — there is no merits adjudication. The asymmetric prejudice structure (plaintiff claims with prejudice, defendant counterclaims without prejudice) is the standard settlement construct in PAE cases: it gives the defendant permanent protection while technically preserving the plaintiff’s right to challenge any counterclaim if a new dispute arose. The explicit no-fee-shifting direction and the moot denial of pending relief confirm the litigation ended entirely by agreement, not judicial determination.
US9632676B1 — dynamic data management for interactive digital platforms
US9632676B1 (application number US14/882679) is a granted U.S. patent in the dynamic data management space, asserted here against Old Navy’s e-commerce platform and associated products and services. The patent’s claims relate to technology for managing and presenting dynamic data in interactive digital environments — a technical domain directly relevant to modern retail websites that serve personalised content, manage user sessions, and update product displays dynamically. The application filing date and prosecution history provide context for assessing claim scope against current e-commerce architectures.
From a strategic standpoint, US9632676B1 represents exactly the type of software-implemented patent that PAEs routinely deploy against large online retailers — broadly drafted claims in a foundational data management space that map plausibly onto common e-commerce platform features. The fact that Old Navy — a major Gap Inc. subsidiary with significant legal resources — chose settlement over invalidity litigation suggests either claim scope was considered non-trivial or the economics of litigation favoured resolution. The patent remains a live enforcement risk for other online retailers until a validity ruling or inter partes review extinguishes it.
Should you run an FTO against US9632676B1?
Any company operating a consumer-facing e-commerce platform — particularly those with dynamic content delivery, personalised product recommendations, or session-based data management — should consider an FTO assessment against US9632676B1. The patent survived this litigation without a validity challenge reaching judgment, and Dynamic Data Innovations has demonstrated willingness to file and litigate in E.D. Tex. Retailers, SaaS platform vendors supplying retail clients, and online marketplace operators are all potentially within scope depending on how the claims are read.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claims of US9632676B1 against your specific platform architecture, identify design-around options, and surface any pending IPR proceedings or prior art that could be used offensively. Eureka can also monitor Dynamic Data Innovations’ litigation and filing activity to provide early warning of new assertions in the same patent family — giving your legal and product teams the lead time to respond strategically rather than reactively.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9632676B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar PAE e-commerce patent assertions in E.D. Texas
Cases involving PAE plaintiffs asserting dynamic data or e-commerce platform patents against online retailers before Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas.
What this case signals for the e-commerce and retail IP landscape
PAE assertions targeting online retail platforms in E.D. Tex. continue to generate early settlements — understanding the pattern matters.
E.D. Tex. remains the preferred venue for PAE e-commerce assertions
Judge Gilstrap’s docket in Marshall, Texas continues to attract patent assertion entities targeting online retailers. The consolidated filing structure here — two related cases filed simultaneously — is a common PAE tactic to increase settlement pressure. Online retailers with significant e-commerce infrastructure should treat E.D. Tex. filings as high-priority and triage quickly.
With-prejudice dismissal protects Old Navy but leaves the market exposed
The outcome extinguishes Dynamic Data Innovations’ claims against Old Navy only. US9632676B1 is not invalidated, not narrowed, and not licensed to the broader market. Other apparel and e-commerce companies operating dynamic data or recommendation features face continued exposure. A proactive freedom-to-operate assessment against this patent is advisable for similarly situated retailers.
Dynamic v Old — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) on November 25, 2025. Dynamic Data Innovations’ patent infringement claims against Old Navy were permanently extinguished. Old Navy’s counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice. Each party bears its own costs and attorneys’ fees. No merits ruling was issued.
Dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication for res judicata purposes. Dynamic Data Innovations cannot refile the same patent infringement claims against Old Navy based on US9632676B1. The dismissal does not invalidate the patent — it only bars this specific plaintiff from suing this specific defendant again on these claims.
Yes. The dismissal by stipulation did not include any validity ruling, claim cancellation, or IPR outcome. US9632676B1 remains in force and Dynamic Data Innovations retains the right to assert it against other parties. Companies with similar e-commerce platform features should treat the patent as an active enforcement risk.
This asymmetric structure is a standard feature of patent litigation settlements. Old Navy likely agreed to drop its invalidity or non-infringement counterclaims — which would have required continued litigation investment — in exchange for the plaintiff permanently surrendering its infringement claims. The without-prejudice treatment of counterclaims preserves theoretical optionality for Old Navy if a future dispute arose.
The case was filed in the Eastern District of Texas and presided over by Judge Rodney Gilstrap, one of the most experienced and active patent trial judges in the United States. The case was consolidated with a related member case, No. 2:24-cv-00748-JRG, both of which were closed simultaneously upon the stipulated dismissal.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.