R2 Solutions v. 7-Eleven: Five Search Patents, Dismissed With Prejudice in 260 Days
R2 Solutions LLC asserted five search technology patents against convenience retail giant 7-Eleven Inc. in the Northern District of Texas. The parties jointly stipulated to dismiss all claims and counterclaims with prejudice after just 260 days, with each side bearing its own costs.
Five Search Patents, One Stipulated Exit: R2 Solutions v. 7-Eleven
On 21 December 2022, R2 Solutions LLC filed a patent infringement action against 7-Eleven Inc. in the Northern District of Texas before Judge Karen Gren Scholer. R2 asserted five patents covering search query reconstruction, search result quality, indexing methodology, intent-driven result presentation, and adaptive widget sizing — all directed at search technology. The defendant, a major convenience retail operator, was represented by Fish & Richardson LLP.
The recorded basis of termination is Dismissed with Prejudice. The docket order reflects a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal, filed jointly by the parties, stating that R2's claims against 7-Eleven and 7-Eleven's counterclaims against R2 are dismissed with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. The specific terms of any resolution between the parties are not disclosed in the available record.
The case closed on 7 September 2023 — approximately 260 days after filing — before any substantive merits ruling. The relatively swift resolution, combined with a mutual cost-bearing arrangement, is consistent with parties who reached an early understanding, though the precise drivers are not disclosed in the public record. The with-prejudice designation forecloses R2 from re-filing the same claims against 7-Eleven in a future action.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 260 days
Days from filing to dismissal — resolved well inside the median patent case duration
US8341157B2 and four further search patents asserted by R2 Solutions
Any company operating search, product discovery, recommendation, or adaptive UI features in a digital retail or e-commerce environment should treat the R2 Solutions portfolio as an active FTO priority. The five asserted patents cover different functional layers of a search stack, meaning a single product implementation could potentially implicate multiple claims simultaneously. The lack of any public invalidity or claim construction record from this case makes independent assessment essential.
Official order — verbatim text
The joint stipulation invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which takes effect upon filing without requiring a court order. The with-prejudice designation is the operative legal consequence: it bars R2 from re-filing these specific claims against 7-Eleven, functioning as a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes. No finding on infringement, validity, or damages was made by the court. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement means neither party was adjudged the prevailing party for fee purposes under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal with prejudice
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal is filed by joint stipulation of both parties — no court order is required to take effect. The with-prejudice designation makes the dismissal final and operates as an adjudication on the merits, meaning R2 cannot re-file the same claims against 7-Eleven in any future action. Each party agreed to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees.
Mutually stipulated exitR2 Solutions cannot re-assert these five patents against 7-Eleven
The with-prejudice dismissal extinguishes R2's ability to bring the same infringement claims against 7-Eleven in the future. However, all five patents remain in force and R2 retains the right to assert them against other parties. The specific terms of any arrangement between R2 and 7-Eleven are not disclosed in the available record.
Patents remain enforceable vs. others7-Eleven exits litigation without a merits ruling or cost award
7-Eleven secured a with-prejudice dismissal of all R2's claims without any court finding on infringement, validity, or damages. The mutual cost-bearing term means 7-Eleven absorbs its own legal spend without recovery. 7-Eleven's counterclaims against R2 are also dismissed with prejudice under the same stipulation.
No merits finding; counterclaims also dismissedSearch IP enforcement signals remain active across the retail tech sector
R2's five search patents cover broadly applicable search and retrieval technology. The swift, prejudice dismissal without a validity ruling leaves the patents' legal status intact, meaning other companies operating search, recommendation, or digital commerce features remain potential enforcement targets. Companies in retail tech with similar search functionalities should assess their exposure to this portfolio.
Portfolio remains live enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | R2 Solutions, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | 7-Eleven, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brent N. Bumgardner | Attorney | Counsel for R2 Solutions, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Carder Wright Brooks | Attorney | Counsel for R2 Solutions, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christopher Granaghan | Attorney | Counsel for R2 Solutions, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Edward R. Nelson , III | Attorney | Counsel for R2 Solutions, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John Paul Murphy | Attorney | Counsel for R2 Solutions, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Nelson Bumgardner Albritton PC | Law Firm | Representing R2 Solutions, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Nelson Bumgardner Conroy PC | Law Firm | Representing R2 Solutions, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Nelson Bumgardner PC | Law Firm | Representing R2 Solutions, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David B. Conrad | Attorney | Counsel for 7-Eleven, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael R. Ellis | Attorney | Counsel for 7-Eleven, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nan Lan | Attorney | Counsel for 7-Eleven, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Neil J McNabnay | Attorney | Counsel for 7-Eleven, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ricardo Joel Bonilla | Attorney | Counsel for 7-Eleven, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fish & Richardson LLP | Law Firm | Representing 7-Eleven, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Karen Gren Scholer | Judge | Texas Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the search and information retrieval patent space
Forward-looking patent intelligence derived from the R2 Solutions v. 7-Eleven dispute — tracking portfolio depth, filing trends, and white space in search technology IP.
R2 Solutions' search patent portfolio: depth beyond five asserted patents
R2 Solutions asserted five distinct search patents spanning query reconstruction, indexing, ranking, and UI rendering in a single case. This structural breadth suggests a larger underlying portfolio. IP teams should map R2's full patent family to identify additional assertion vectors — particularly patents covering personalisation, session-based search, and natural language query processing — before building or acquiring competing products.
Portfolio landscapeFiling trends in intent-driven and adaptive search result technology
The asserted patents cover intent-driven result presentation (US10176272B2) and adaptive widget sizing (US7698329B2) — areas seeing renewed filing activity as AI-powered search and personalised discovery become standard retail features. Companies building next-generation on-site search or conversational commerce tools should monitor claim trends in these subdomains to avoid inadvertently entering crowded or litigated claim space.
Filing trend alert7-Eleven's digital search and discovery patent position
7-Eleven, as a major convenience retail operator expanding digital commerce and app-based services, may hold or be building its own patent position in search, recommendation, and loyalty platform technology. Analysing 7-Eleven's filing activity in these domains can reveal defensive IP gaps and indicate where strategic partnerships or in-licensing may be preferable to organic R&D exposure.
Competitive IP postureAdjacent search IP white space: session context and query reformulation
The R2 portfolio's focus on query reconstruction and indexing quality leaves adjacent domains — including session-contextual query reformulation, multi-modal search input, and real-time inventory-aware result ranking — with potentially thinner patent coverage. R&D teams in retail search can explore these areas as lower-risk innovation zones while ensuring FTO clearance against the existing R2 claim landscape.
Innovation white spaceSimilar search technology patent cases in Texas federal courts
Browse comparable patent infringement actions involving search query, indexing, and result-ranking technology litigated in the Northern District of Texas and related venues.
What this case signals for the search technology IP landscape
A five-patent assertion against a major retailer resolved in under nine months — signalling key dynamics in search IP enforcement strategy.
With-prejudice dismissal bars re-filing but leaves patents weaponised elsewhere
The dismissal with prejudice closes the door on R2 v. 7-Eleven permanently, but R2's five search patents remain valid and enforceable against the rest of the market. Companies operating digital search, product recommendation, or adaptive UI features should treat this portfolio as an active risk, not a resolved one.
Early resolution before claim construction limits public prior art record
No Markman hearing or invalidity ruling was issued, meaning 7-Eleven's Fish & Richardson defence team generated no public claim construction or validity record. Future defendants facing these patents cannot rely on arguments developed in this case and must build their own defensive positions from scratch.
R2 v 7-Eleven — key questions answered
R2 Solutions asserted five patents: US8341157B2 (search query reconstruction), US8209317B2 (search result provision), US9805097B2 (selective indexing for result quality), US10176272B2 (intent-driven result presentation), and US7698329B2 (adaptive widget sizing). All five were asserted in the Northern District of Texas before Judge Karen Gren Scholer.
The case was dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a joint stipulation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Both parties agreed that all of R2's claims and 7-Eleven's counterclaims would be dismissed with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. The specific terms of any arrangement between the parties are not disclosed in the available record.
The with-prejudice dismissal bars R2 Solutions from re-filing the same claims against 7-Eleven in any future action. However, the five asserted patents remain valid and in force. R2 retains the right to assert all five patents against other defendants. No court ruling on infringement or validity was issued in this case.
The joint stipulation explicitly includes dismissal of 7-Eleven's counterclaims against R2 with prejudice, on the same terms. This is standard in mutual stipulated exits where both parties resolve their respective claims simultaneously. The with-prejudice designation means 7-Eleven also cannot re-assert those specific counterclaims against R2 in a future proceeding.
Companies operating digital search, product discovery, recommendation, or adaptive UI features in retail environments should treat the R2 Solutions portfolio as an active risk. The five patents cover distinct functional layers of a search stack, and no invalidity or claim construction record was generated in this case. Running a freedom-to-operate analysis against the portfolio before receiving an assertion is advisable.
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.