Lowe's v. Adaptive Avenue: Web Customization Patent Case Dismissed With Prejudice
Lowe's Companies and Lowe's Home Centers filed a patent infringement action against Adaptive Avenue Associates in the Western District of North Carolina, asserting two patents covering customizable web site access systems. The parties jointly stipulated to dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41 after 157 days, with each side bearing its own costs and fees.
Lowe's web patent dispute ends in mutual stipulated dismissal
Lowe's Companies, Inc. and its subsidiary Lowe's Home Centers, LLC filed an infringement action on October 24, 2025, in the Western District of North Carolina (Case No. 5:25-cv-00176) against Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc. The suit asserted two patents — US7171629B2 and US7428707B2 — both directed to customizable web site access systems and methods. The case was assigned to Judge Susan C. Rodriguez.
The recorded basis of termination is Dismissed with Prejudice. The docket order states that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (c), both parties stipulated to dismissal of all claims with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits that bars refiling the same claims against the same defendant.
The case resolved in 157 days — before any substantive merits rulings appear in the public record. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement suggests a negotiated resolution, though the specific terms driving that agreement are not disclosed in the available record. What prompted the filing by Lowe's as a plaintiff — rather than as a defendant asserting invalidity — and what led to the swift stipulated close remain unknown from public filings alone.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 157 days
157-day lifespan — resolved well before trial in W.D. North Carolina
US7171629B2 & US7428707B2 — Customizable Web Site Access Systems
Any organisation developing or deploying customizable web site access platforms, user-configurable portals, or role-based web interface systems should assess freedom to operate against US7171629B2 and US7428707B2. These patents were asserted in active litigation and received no invalidity ruling — their claims remain intact and enforceable. E-commerce platforms, SaaS providers, and digital retail infrastructure teams are particularly exposed.
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation records a mutual, voluntary agreement to end all claims with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with no costs awarded to either side. No merits rulings — on infringement, validity, or claim construction — are recorded in the available docket. The with-prejudice designation is the operative legal fact: it permanently bars re-assertion of these specific claims by Lowe's against Adaptive Avenue Associates on these patents.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated resolution means for both parties
Rule 41 stipulated dismissal with prejudice explained
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), parties may jointly stipulate to dismiss an action at any time. When the dismissal is 'with prejudice,' it operates as a final judgment on the merits, extinguishing the asserted claims permanently. Lowe's cannot refile the same patent infringement claims against Adaptive Avenue Associates on these two patents arising from the same acts.
Final — no refiling permittedLowe's forfeits right to reassert these claims against this defendant
As the party who initiated the action, Lowe's agreement to dismiss with prejudice means it surrenders the ability to relitigate these specific infringement claims against Adaptive Avenue Associates. The patents US7171629B2 and US7428707B2 remain in force and enforceable against other parties, but the avenue against this particular defendant is permanently closed.
Patents survive; this claim does notAdaptive Avenue escapes with prejudice — and no cost award
Adaptive Avenue Associates obtains a final, with-prejudice dismissal without a validity finding or damages award against it. Critically, no costs or attorneys' fees were awarded — each party bears its own. This outcome is commercially significant: no admission of infringement appears in the record, and the defendant avoids any monetary exposure from this action.
No liability, no fee awardWeb customization patent risk persists for the broader market
Because the case resolved before any claim construction or validity ruling, US7171629B2 and US7428707B2 remain untested on the merits. Companies operating customizable web access platforms cannot draw comfort from this dismissal — the patents' scope and validity were never adjudicated. Potential defendants in adjacent technology spaces should assess their FTO position independently.
Patents unchallenged on meritsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Lowe's Companies, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Cary Baxter Davis | Attorney | Counsel for Lowe's Companies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kelley Marie Storey | Attorney | Counsel for Lowe's Companies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Keyonn L. Pope | Attorney | Counsel for Lowe's Companies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael H. Fleck | Attorney | Counsel for Lowe's Companies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Shaun Zhang | Attorney | Counsel for Lowe's Companies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP | Law Firm | Representing Lowe's Companies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson PA | Law Firm | Representing Lowe's Companies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Claire Grantham | Attorney | Counsel for Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jeffrey S. Southerland | Attorney | Counsel for Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Tuggle, Duggins & Meschan PA | Law Firm | Representing Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Susan C Rodriguez | Judge | North Carolina Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the web customization and digital access IP space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from the Lowe's v. Adaptive Avenue dispute — covering portfolio activity, filing trends, and white-space opportunities in customizable web access technology.
Lowe's digital commerce IP: enforcement signals and portfolio scope
Lowe's initiated this action as plaintiff asserting web customization patents — an unusual posture for a large retailer. Analysing Lowe's broader patent portfolio in digital commerce, e-commerce UX, and web infrastructure may reveal whether this filing is part of a structured offensive IP programme or a one-off enforcement event.
Lowe's IP enforcement postureFiling trends in customizable web access and user personalisation patents
Customizable web site access and role-based user interface systems have attracted sustained patenting activity across e-commerce, SaaS, and enterprise portal sectors. Mapping current filing trends around these technologies can identify which players are building defensive or offensive positions in adjacent claim spaces to US7171629B2 and US7428707B2.
Web personalisation patent trendsAdaptive Avenue Associates: patent posture and related filings
Adaptive Avenue Associates has a limited public patent footprint relative to Lowe's. Understanding whether the company holds competing or blocking IP in the web customization space — or has a history of licensing activity — is critical for any party assessing residual risk or potential cross-licensing dynamics following this dismissal.
Adaptive Avenue IP profileAdjacent innovation opportunities near web access customization patents
The claim boundaries of US7171629B2 and US7428707B2 were never construed in this case, leaving adjacent design-around space undefined. R&D teams building next-generation personalisation engines, AI-driven web access controls, or dynamic UI configuration systems may find white space in claim domains that fall outside the asserted patents' apparent scope.
Design-around white spaceSimilar web customization patent cases in U.S. district courts
Explore related patent infringement actions involving customizable web site access and personalisation technologies litigated in U.S. district courts, including the W.D. North Carolina.
What this case signals for the web technology IP landscape
A swift, cost-neutral dismissal with prejudice in a two-patent web customization suit raises questions any IP team in the digital platform space should be asking.
Pre-trial dismissal with prejudice signals rapid negotiation dynamic
Cases that close within 157 days under a mutual cost-bearing stipulation typically reflect a negotiated resolution reached before significant litigation costs accumulate. IP teams monitoring Lowe's enforcement posture or Adaptive Avenue's licensing exposure should note this pattern — the specific trigger is not in the public record.
Two unchallenged web patents remain enforceable against third parties
US7171629B2 and US7428707B2 received no validity challenge, no claim construction, and no merits ruling. Any company operating customizable web site access or personalization systems should treat these patents as live enforcement risk and consider a formal FTO review before deployment or product expansion.
Lowe's v Adaptive — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and (c), Lowe's Companies, Inc., Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, and Adaptive Avenue Associates, Inc. jointly stipulated to dismissal of all claims with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. The case closed on March 30, 2026, after 157 days.
Lowe's asserted two patents: US7171629B2 (application no. US10/014929) and US7428707B2 (application no. US10/698332). Both patents relate to customizable web site access systems and methods. Neither patent received a claim construction ruling or validity adjudication before the case was dismissed.
A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final judgment on the merits under U.S. federal procedure. It permanently bars Lowe's from refiling the same infringement claims against Adaptive Avenue Associates on US7171629B2 and US7428707B2 arising from the same accused conduct. The patents themselves remain enforceable against other parties.
No. The stipulation expressly provides that each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. No cost award or fee-shifting determination appears in the available record.
Yes. The dismissal with prejudice resolves only the claims between Lowe's and Adaptive Avenue Associates. The patents were not declared invalid or unenforceable in this proceeding — no validity challenge was adjudicated. US7171629B2 and US7428707B2 remain in force and can be asserted against other parties operating customizable web site access systems.
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.