MarketDial v. Applied Predictive Technologies: Dismissed With Prejudice After 541 Days
MarketDial, Inc. filed suit against Applied Predictive Technologies, Inc. in the District of Utah alleging infringement of reissue patent USRE049562E in connection with Mastercard’s Test & Learn platform. After 541 days of litigation, both parties jointly stipulated to dismissal of all claims and counterclaims with prejudice, each side bearing its own costs.
Reissue patent battle over retail analytics ends in bilateral finality
MarketDial, Inc. filed this patent infringement action on July 24, 2023 in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, asserting reissue patent USRE049562E against Applied Predictive Technologies, Inc. (APT), a Mastercard subsidiary, in connection with APT’s Test & Learn platform — a widely used retail and business testing analytics product. The case was assigned to Judge Jill N. Parrish and litigated by Maschoff Brennan PLLC for MarketDial against a Dentons-led defense team for APT.
The case closed on January 15, 2025, when the parties filed a joint stipulation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissing all claims and counterclaims with prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs. A with-prejudice dismissal means MarketDial cannot re-file the same infringement claims against APT on this patent, and APT’s counterclaims — which likely included invalidity and non-infringement defenses — are equally extinguished. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement suggests neither party extracted a clear financial concession from the other.
At 541 days, the case ran longer than many patent matters that resolve early through motion practice, suggesting meaningful litigation activity occurred before the parties reached their resolution. Whether the outcome reflects a confidential licensing agreement, a business-driven decision to exit litigation, or a litigation risk assessment on both sides is not determinable from the public record. The with-prejudice nature of the dismissal is the most legally significant feature: it forecloses any future assertion of USRE049562E against APT on the claims litigated here.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 541 days
541 days — above the median timeline for patent cases resolved short of trial in federal district court
Joint dismissal with prejudice: what the stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii): joint stipulation, no court order required
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), parties may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a signed stipulation. The ‘with prejudice’ designation is the critical qualifier: it operates as a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes, permanently barring re-litigation of the same claims between these parties. No judicial approval was required — the parties controlled the exit entirely.
Bilateral, court-approved by filingMarketDial permanently surrenders its infringement claims against APT
By agreeing to dismissal with prejudice, MarketDial cannot reassert USRE049562E against Applied Predictive Technologies for the conduct alleged in this action. The patent itself remains enforceable against third parties, but this defendant is effectively immunised. The equal cost-bearing term means MarketDial recovered no fees or costs, though a confidential settlement payment — if any — would not appear in the public record.
Claims extinguished against this defendantAPT’s counterclaims also dismissed — invalidity challenge ends here
APT’s counterclaims, which in patent cases typically include invalidity and non-infringement allegations, are also dismissed with prejudice. This means APT did not obtain a court ruling invalidating USRE049562E — the patent stands. APT retains no preclusive judgment it could use in future disputes, but it is shielded from further suit by MarketDial on these claims. The Test & Learn platform continues operating without an adverse infringement finding.
No invalidity finding; patent survivesReissue patent remains live — third-party risk persists in analytics sector
USRE049562E is a reissue patent, meaning its claims were deliberately broadened or corrected after original issuance — a signal that MarketDial refined its IP for enforcement purposes. The patent survives this litigation fully intact and can still be asserted against other companies operating in the retail and business testing analytics space. Competitors offering similar A/B testing or controlled experiment platforms should treat this patent as an active enforcement risk.
Reissue patent remains enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | MarketDial, Inc. | Company | Predictive retail analytics software company — holder of USRE049562ESearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Applied Predictive Technologies, Inc. | Company | Applied Predictive Technologies, Inc. — Mastercard subsidiary, developer of the Test & Learn platformSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Lannie Rex Sears | Attorney | Counsel for MarketDial, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Mark W. Ford | Attorney | Counsel for MarketDial, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Maschoff Brennan PLLC | Law Firm | Representing MarketDial, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ashley M. Gregson | Attorney | Counsel for Applied Predictive Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David W. Tufts | Attorney | Counsel for Applied Predictive Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kirk Robert Ruthenberg | Attorney | Counsel for Applied Predictive Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nicholas Hunt Jackson | Attorney | Counsel for Applied Predictive Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Dentons Durham Jones & Pinegar PC | Law Firm | Representing Applied Predictive Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | DENTONS US LLP | Law Firm | Representing Applied Predictive Technologies, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jill N. Parrish | Judge | Utah District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation’s language — ‘all claims and counterclaims dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own costs’ — is legally precise and bilaterally final. The with-prejudice designation forecloses any future action between these parties on the same subject matter, functioning as a merits adjudication for res judicata purposes even though no court ruling on infringement or validity was issued. The equal cost-bearing term is consistent with a negotiated resolution in which neither side achieved a dominant outcome on the merits, or in which a confidential commercial arrangement was reached separately from the public filing.
USRE049562E — reissue patent for predictive business testing and analytics
USRE049562E is a United States reissue patent, corresponding to application number US17/241771, covering technology in the domain of predictive testing and controlled-experiment analytics — the computational and methodological foundation underlying platforms such as Mastercard’s Test & Learn. Reissue patents are granted when a patentee demonstrates that the original patent contained an error, enabling the USPTO to reissue with corrected or expanded claims. The reissue designation here suggests MarketDial made a deliberate post-grant strategic decision to refine claim scope for enforcement.
For the retail analytics and business intelligence sector, USRE049562E represents a meaningful IP asset. Controlled-experiment platforms — tools that allow businesses to isolate the causal effect of interventions such as pricing changes, promotions, or store layout modifications — have become core infrastructure for large retailers and financial services firms. MarketDial’s decision to assert a reissue patent against one of the category’s most established players (APT, owned by Mastercard) signals confidence in the claim scope and a willingness to enforce aggressively. Competitors and new entrants in this space should evaluate their technology stacks carefully against the reissued claims.
Should your team run an FTO against USRE049562E?
Any software company, analytics vendor, or retail technology provider building controlled-experiment, A/B testing, or causal inference platforms for business users should consider USRE049562E a live freedom-to-operate concern. The fact that this patent was asserted against a Mastercard subsidiary’s enterprise testing platform — and survived that litigation without an invalidity ruling — signals real enforcement teeth. Product teams developing test design, holdout group management, or experiment analytics features are the most directly exposed.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s technical features against the reissued claim set of USRE049562E, flag claim elements that present overlap risk, and surface prior art that may support design-around or challenge strategies. Because this is a reissue patent, Eureka’s analysis will compare both the original and reissued claim language to identify where scope was expanded — the highest-risk zone for any FTO assessment.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on USRE049562E to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent cases: retail analytics and predictive testing platforms in federal court
Explore related patent infringement actions involving predictive analytics and controlled-experiment software technology litigated in federal district courts, including D. Utah.
What this case signals for the retail analytics and predictive testing IP landscape
A live reissue patent, a bilateral exit, and no merits ruling — the enforcement story for USRE049562E is far from over.
With-prejudice exits leave the patent fully armed against the rest of the market
Because the dismissal is bilateral and no invalidity ruling was obtained, USRE049562E emerges from this litigation unscathed. Any competitor offering controlled experiment or A/B testing platforms for retail analytics faces the same enforcement risk that brought APT to the table for 541 days. This is not a safe harbour for the broader market.
Reissue status signals deliberate claim broadening — monitor scope carefully
A reissue patent indicates the patentee returned to the USPTO to correct or expand claim scope. For R&D and product teams building testing or experimentation platforms, the reissued claims of USRE049562E may be broader than the original grant. FTO analysis should be conducted against the reissued — not the original — claim set.
MarketDial v Applied — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation of the parties under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) on January 15, 2025, after 541 days of litigation. All claims and counterclaims were extinguished, with each party bearing its own costs. No court ruling on infringement or patent validity was issued.
MarketDial asserted reissue patent USRE049562E, corresponding to U.S. application number US17/241771, in connection with APT’s Test & Learn platform, a business analytics and controlled-experiment product operated under the Mastercard brand.
Dismissal with prejudice extinguishes MarketDial’s claims against APT specifically but does not affect the patent’s validity or enforceability against other parties. USRE049562E remains an active patent that MarketDial can assert against other competitors. No invalidity finding was entered, preserving the patent’s presumption of validity.
A reissue patent is granted when a patentee identifies an error in the original grant and seeks USPTO correction, which can include broadening or narrowing claims. The reissue designation for USRE049562E suggests MarketDial deliberately revised claim scope post-grant, potentially expanding coverage. FTO analyses should assess the reissued claims, not just the original patent, as the broadened scope is what governs enforcement.
MarketDial was represented by Maschoff Brennan PLLC, with attorneys Lannie Rex Sears and Mark W. Ford. Applied Predictive Technologies was represented by Dentons Durham Jones & Pinegar PC and Dentons US LLP, with attorneys Ashley M. Gregson, David W. Tufts, Kirk Robert Ruthenberg, and Nicholas Hunt Jackson. The case was presided over by Judge Jill N. Parrish in the District of Utah.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.