Horace Mann Insurance v. Aloft Media: Patent Action Dismissed After 77 Days
Horace Mann Insurance Company filed suit against Aloft Media, LLC in the Illinois Central District Court asserting US10372793B2 in connection with the Horace Mann Website. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice in light of settlement after just 77 days — suggesting the parties reached resolution before substantive litigation began.
Insurance firm’s website patent claim ends in swift voluntary dismissal
Horace Mann Insurance Company, a prominent insurance provider, filed a patent infringement action against Aloft Media, LLC on September 5, 2025 in the Illinois Central District Court. The suit asserted US10372793B2 in connection with technology relating to the Horace Mann Website. Aloft Media, LLC appears to be the technology entity whose products or services were alleged to infringe the asserted patent.
The case closed on November 21, 2025 — just 77 days after filing — when Horace Mann’s counsel filed a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The dismissal notice expressly states it was filed ‘in light of settlement,’ with no costs awarded to either side. The public record does not specify the financial or licensing terms of any settlement reached between the parties.
A 77-day resolution is notably brief even by the standards of early-stage settlements, suggesting the parties may have entered negotiations shortly after or even before filing. The settlement-linked dismissal leaves US10372793B2 unchallenged on its merits. Whether the resolution involved a licence, a design-around agreement, or a payment arrangement remains undisclosed from publicly available court records.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 77 days
77 days — resolved well before typical district court patent trial timelines of 2–3 years
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41 notice means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): unilateral dismissal before responsive pleading
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. This mechanism requires no judicial approval and takes effect upon filing. The notice here cites settlement as the trigger, but the dismissal itself carries no merits determination — the court made no ruling on infringement or patent validity.
No merits adjudicationThe public record is silent on with/without prejudice distinction
A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ permits the plaintiff to refile the same claims in future; one ‘with prejudice’ permanently bars re-assertion. The dismissal notice in this case states ‘without prejudice and without costs.’ This means Horace Mann retains the theoretical right to refile claims under US10372793B2 against Aloft Media, though any settlement agreement reached privately may contain its own re-filing restrictions not visible in the public record.
Dismissed without prejudiceAloft Media avoids a court ruling — but on undisclosed terms
Aloft Media secured an exit from the litigation without any judicial finding of infringement or validity. However, because the dismissal was prompted by settlement rather than a defendant’s motion to dismiss or summary judgment win, Aloft Media did not obtain a declaration that US10372793B2 is invalid or not infringed. The commercial terms of any settlement — including potential licence fees or product modifications — are not part of the public record.
No invalidity findingUS10372793B2 remains enforceable and unchalleneged on the merits
Because the case resolved before any substantive court ruling, US10372793B2 emerges from this litigation with its validity and scope untested. For other companies operating in the web technology or insurance portal space, this patent retains full enforcement potential. The swift settlement may signal that Aloft Media perceived meaningful infringement risk, or conversely that Horace Mann sought a commercial resolution rather than a protracted litigation win.
Patent validity intactFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Horace Mann Insurance Company | Company | Insurance company — holder of US10372793B2 covering web-based technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Aloft Media, LLC | Company | Aloft Media, LLC — technology entity alleged to infringe web platform patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jason Callicoat | Attorney | Counsel for Horace Mann Insurance CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathan L Schwartz | Attorney | Counsel for Horace Mann Insurance CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Horace Mann Insurance CompanySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael A Benefield , I | Attorney | Counsel for Aloft Media, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | BUSS & BENEFIELD, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Aloft Media, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Illinois Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — a plaintiff-initiated unilateral exit available before the defendant has answered. Crucially, the notice states the dismissal was filed ‘in light of settlement,’ directly linking the procedural step to a private commercial resolution. No infringement finding, claim construction, or invalidity ruling was issued. The patent’s enforceability is therefore unchanged, and the notice’s ‘without costs’ language confirms neither party bears litigation expense obligations from this proceeding.
US10372793B2 — web-based technology for insurance portal delivery
US10372793B2 was filed under application number US16/243044 and asserted in connection with the Horace Mann Website. The patent sits within the web-based technology domain, and its assertion by an insurance company against a media or technology entity suggests it covers methods or systems relating to online content delivery, interactive web functionality, or digital service presentation — technology increasingly central to how insurers engage policyholders and prospects online.
For the insurance and insurtech sector, web platform patents represent a growing enforcement frontier. Incumbents like Horace Mann hold IP covering digital delivery infrastructure built during earlier waves of internet adoption, and these assets are now being deployed against vendors and technology partners. Because US10372793B2 emerged from this litigation without any validity challenge or claim construction, its commercial scope remains intact — making it a material risk for any entity developing or supplying website technology to insurance carriers.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US10372793B2?
Any company developing web platform technology, insurance portals, or digital customer-engagement tools for the financial services sector should treat US10372793B2 as an active FTO consideration. The patent has now been asserted in litigation and settled — meaning the holder has demonstrated both the intent and the infrastructure to enforce it. Product teams building or licensing web technology to insurance carriers face the highest exposure.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the full claim landscape of US10372793B2, identify related family members filed under US16/243044, and surface prior art that could inform invalidity arguments. Eureka’s patent analytics also allow R&D and legal teams to benchmark claim scope against competitor filings, identify design-around opportunities, and monitor new publications from Horace Mann’s portfolio — all before a demand letter arrives.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10372793B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar web technology patent infringement cases in US district courts
Cases involving web platform and insurance technology patents in US federal district courts, including the Illinois Central District, with comparable Rule 41 voluntary dismissal outcomes.
What this case signals for the web technology and insurance IP landscape
A 77-day settlement-linked dismissal leaves US10372793B2 fully intact — and signals active enforcement appetite in insurance web technology.
Swift resolution does not equal weak patent — enforcement risk persists
Horace Mann’s willingness to file and settle quickly suggests a strategic enforcement posture rather than an opportunistic or weak claim. US10372793B2 has not been invalidated, narrowed, or adjudicated. Companies operating web platforms in the insurance or financial services space should treat this patent as an active enforcement risk and consider FTO analysis before product launches.
Rule 41 dismissals linked to settlement preserve future filing rights
Absent a private agreement barring refiling, a without-prejudice dismissal allows Horace Mann to reassert US10372793B2 against Aloft Media or new defendants. IP teams monitoring this space should note that settlement-linked voluntary dismissals are a common soft-close mechanism — they do not signal abandonment of the underlying patent enforcement strategy.
Horace v Aloft — key questions answered
Horace Mann Insurance Company filed a patent infringement action against Aloft Media, LLC in the Illinois Central District Court on September 5, 2025, asserting US10372793B2 in connection with the Horace Mann Website. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice and without costs on November 21, 2025, after 77 days, with the dismissal notice citing settlement as the reason.
A voluntary dismissal without prejudice means no court ruled on whether US10372793B2 is valid or infringed. The patent retains its full legal force and enforceability. Horace Mann also retains the right to refile infringement claims under this patent in future proceedings, subject to any private terms agreed in the undisclosed settlement.
Horace Mann asserted US10372793B2, filed under application number US16/243044, in connection with the Horace Mann Website. The patent relates to web-based technology in the insurance services domain. Its precise claim scope was not adjudicated in this case, as the matter resolved by voluntary dismissal before any substantive court ruling.
The public record does not disclose the terms or motivations behind the settlement. The 77-day resolution — well before any answer, claim construction, or discovery — is consistent with a pre-litigation or early-stage negotiation that was formalised after filing. It may reflect a licensing arrangement, product modification, or commercial agreement, but none of these details appear in publicly available court documents.
Yes, indirectly. Because US10372793B2 was not invalidated or narrowed through litigation, it remains a live enforcement risk for any entity operating similar web platform technology in the insurance or financial services space. The case demonstrates Horace Mann’s willingness to file suit, and companies in adjacent technology areas should consider freedom-to-operate analysis against this patent and its related family members.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.