Pop Top Corp. v. Amazon.com — Kindle Patent Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
Pop Top, Corp. asserted two UI-related patents against Amazon’s Kindle product line — including the Kindle Kids Edition, Oasis, Paperwhite, and the Kindle application — in the Northern District of California. After 870 days of litigation, the court dismissed the case without prejudice, leaving the door open for potential refiling.
Two-Patent Kindle Suit Ends Without a Merits Ruling After 870 Days
Pop Top, Corp. filed suit against Amazon.com, Inc. on January 10, 2022, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 5:22-cv-00112). The complaint alleged infringement of US10866713B2 and US7966623B2 — two patents covering user-interface interaction technology — by Amazon’s Kindle Kids Edition, Kindle Oasis, Kindle Paperwhite, and the Kindle application. Amazon was represented by Perkins Coie LLP’s Palo Alto office, signalling the defendant’s intent to mount a well-resourced defence.
The case closed on May 29, 2024, after 870 days, with the court entering a dismissal without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice means the court did not rule on the underlying infringement claims; Pop Top retains the legal right to refile the same claims subject to applicable statutes of limitation and any tolling agreements. No settlement terms, licensing outcomes, or fee-shifting awards appear in the public record, so the commercial resolution — if any — remains confidential.
An 870-day lifespan without a merits judgment is consistent with cases that resolve through negotiated exits or strategic repositioning rather than full trial. The without-prejudice designation is notable: it suggests the parties may have reached a private arrangement that did not require a formal dismissal with prejudice, or that Pop Top preserved optionality for future enforcement. What drove the specific timing — and whether any licensing agreement was reached — is not determinable from the public docket alone.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 870 days
870 days — above the median duration for patent cases in N.D. California before dismissal
Dismissed without prejudice: what the termination means for both parties
Without prejudice dismissal leaves claims legally alive
A dismissal without prejudice means the court has not adjudicated the merits of Pop Top’s infringement claims. The action is terminated for procedural or strategic reasons, but the underlying patent rights are not extinguished. Pop Top retains the right to refile suit on the same patents against Amazon or other defendants, subject to the applicable six-year statute of limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 286 and any claim-preclusion considerations.
No merits ruling issuedPop Top preserves enforcement optionality on both patents
Because the dismissal carries no prejudice, Pop Top has not lost its day in court on US10866713B2 or US7966623B2. The patents remain in force subject to their own validity and term. Pop Top could refile against Amazon, assert the same patents against other Kindle-like e-reader platforms, or leverage the litigation posture in licensing negotiations. Whether any confidential settlement or licence was reached in parallel is not visible from the public record.
Refiling right preservedAmazon exits without an invalidity or non-infringement finding
Amazon’s dismissal without prejudice provides operational relief but not legal certainty. Without a court ruling of non-infringement or invalidity, Amazon cannot use this case as a shield against future assertion of the same patents. The Kindle product lines named in the complaint — Kids Edition, Oasis, Paperwhite, and the Kindle application — remain potentially exposed if Pop Top or a successor refiles. Amazon’s engagement of Perkins Coie suggests it was prepared to litigate substantively if required.
No invalidity ruling obtainedE-reader UI patents remain a live enforcement risk for the sector
The without-prejudice exit leaves both asserted patents fully enforceable. Companies operating in the e-reader, tablet, or reading-application space — particularly those with UI interaction features similar to those claimed in US10866713B2 and US7966623B2 — should treat this outcome as a signal that the patents have not been invalidated. The absence of a final judgment means no Federal Circuit precedent was set, and the claim scope has not been narrowed by judicial construction.
Patents remain enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Pop Top, Corp. | Company | UI patent assertion entity — holder of US10866713B2 and US7966623B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Amazon.com, Inc. | Company | Amazon.com, Inc. — global e-commerce and consumer electronics company; maker of Kindle devicesSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Henry Artoush Ohanian | Attorney | Counsel for Pop Top, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew M. Wawrzyn | Attorney | Counsel for Pop Top, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew Michael Wawrzyn | Attorney | Counsel for Pop Top, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | FisherBroyles LLP | Law Firm | Representing Pop Top, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Ohanianip | Law Firm | Representing Pop Top, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | WAWRZYN & Jarvis LLC | Law Firm | Representing Pop Top, Corp.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Daniel T. Shvodian | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Daniel Thomas Shvodian | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kevin A. Zeck | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | M. Craig Tyler | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | W. Matthew Pierce | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Perkins Coie LLP | Law Firm | Representing Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Perkins Coie LLP – Palo Alto | Law Firm | Representing Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The verdict text confirms that the matter ‘came to trial or hearing’ and that a decision was rendered ‘dismissing the case without prejudice.’ The phrase ‘issues have been tried or heard’ is standard procedural language and does not indicate a full merits trial occurred; it encompasses pre-trial hearings and dispositive motions. The operative legal effect is a termination that binds neither party on the substance of the infringement or validity questions, preserving Pop Top’s right to refile and leaving Amazon without a judicial shield against future assertion of US10866713B2 or US7966623B2.
US10866713B2 & US7966623B2 — Kindle UI Interaction Technology Patents
US10866713B2 (application no. US16/354017) and US7966623B2 (application no. US11/766793) together cover user-interface interaction technology relevant to digital reading devices and applications. US7966623B2 is the earlier filing — its application number suggests it predates the proliferation of modern touchscreen e-readers — while US10866713B2 represents a later-generation claim set. Both patents were asserted against Amazon’s entire consumer Kindle ecosystem: dedicated hardware devices (Kids Edition, Oasis, Paperwhite) and the cross-platform Kindle application.
The breadth of accused products — spanning hardware and software — suggests Pop Top believes the core claims of both patents read on fundamental UI interaction patterns rather than device-specific implementations. For competitors in the e-reader or digital reading application market, this enforcement posture signals that the claimed inventions may apply across platforms. With no invalidity ruling issued, both patents retain their presumption of validity under 35 U.S.C. § 282, and the claim scope has not been narrowed by any judicial construction in this case.
Should you run an FTO against US10866713B2 and US7966623B2?
Any company developing or updating e-reader hardware, tablet reading modes, or mobile/desktop reading applications with touch-based UI interactions should treat these two patents as priority FTO targets. The Pop Top v. Amazon action demonstrates that both patents are being actively asserted against production-grade, mass-market products — not theoretical implementations. If your product involves user-interface navigation for digital reading content, these claims deserve direct mapping before launch or feature release.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent claims of US10866713B2 and US7966623B2 against your product specification, surface prior art that was not considered during prosecution, and identify continuation applications or related family members that may extend the claim footprint. With the case closed without prejudice, monitoring for new filings by Pop Top against adjacent platforms is equally important — Eureka’s litigation watch tools can alert your team to new enforcement activity as it emerges.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10866713B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar E-Reader UI Patent Cases in N.D. California
Explore comparable UI patent infringement cases targeting e-reader and reading application platforms in the Northern District of California and related federal venues.
What this case signals for the e-reader and reading-app IP landscape
A without-prejudice exit after 870 days against a defendant of Amazon’s scale raises pointed questions about patent enforceability strategy and UI IP risk.
Without-prejudice exits are not clean wins for defendants
Amazon avoided a merits ruling, but so did Pop Top. Without a finding of non-infringement or invalidity, the two asserted patents retain full enforcement potential. Any company in the e-reader or reading-application market that shares UI features with Kindle should monitor these patents closely — the litigation clock is not over.
N.D. California venue reflects a deliberate forum choice for tech patent cases
Pop Top filed in the Northern District of California — home to some of the most patent-experienced district judges in the country and the forum closest to Amazon’s AWS and consumer tech operations. Cases that survive initial pleadings in this district typically face rigorous claim-construction scrutiny, which may have influenced the strategic calculus around settlement timing.
Pop v Amazon.com — key questions answered
Pop Top, Corp. asserted two patents: US10866713B2 and US7966623B2. Both patents relate to user-interface interaction technology and were asserted against Amazon’s Kindle Kids Edition, Kindle Oasis, Kindle Paperwhite, and the Kindle application in the Northern District of California.
A dismissal without prejudice means the court did not rule on the merits of Pop Top’s infringement claims. The patents US10866713B2 and US7966623B2 remain valid and enforceable, and Pop Top retains the legal right to refile the same claims against Amazon or other defendants, subject to the applicable statute of limitations under 35 U.S.C. § 286.
The complaint named four Amazon products: Kindle Kids Edition, Kindle Oasis, Kindle Paperwhite, and the Kindle application. The inclusion of both hardware devices and the software application suggests the asserted UI patents were alleged to cover fundamental interaction patterns rather than device-specific hardware features.
The case ran for 870 days, from filing on January 10, 2022 to closing on May 29, 2024. This duration — nearly two and a half years — without a merits ruling is consistent with cases that resolve through negotiated exits, though no settlement terms appear in the public record.
The case was dismissed without prejudice, which is not a win for either party on the merits. Amazon did not obtain a finding of non-infringement or invalidity, so the two asserted patents remain potentially applicable to Kindle products. Pop Top did not obtain an infringement finding or damages award. The legal and commercial outcome between the parties, if any, is not reflected in the public docket.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.