R2 Solutions v. Southwest Airlines: Dismissed With Prejudice After 233 Days
R2 Solutions LLC asserted five search technology and widget patents against Southwest Airlines Co. in the Northern District of Texas. The parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with each side bearing its own costs, ending the case in under eight months.
Search patent portfolio targeting Southwest Airlines ends in agreed dismissal
On 21 December 2022, R2 Solutions LLC filed an infringement action against Southwest Airlines Co. in the Northern District of Texas (Case No. 3:22-cv-02869), before Judge Karen Gren Scholer. R2 asserted five U.S. patents covering search query reconstruction, search result provision and quality improvement, intent-driven result presentation, and adaptive widget sizing — technologies directly relevant to airline digital search and booking experiences.
The case closed on 11 August 2023. The recorded basis of termination is 'Dismissed with Prejudice.' The docket order reflects a joint stipulation filed by both parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), stating that the parties had resolved the matters in controversy and that R2's claims against Southwest shall be dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. The specific terms of any underlying resolution are not disclosed in the available record.
The 233-day duration suggests the matter was resolved before significant merits litigation, consistent with early-stage resolution. What drove the outcome — whether claim scope, non-infringement arguments, or commercial considerations — is not disclosed in the public record. The with-prejudice dismissal bars R2 from re-asserting the same claims against Southwest on these patents.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 233 days
233 days — resolved well under the median N.D. Texas patent case timeline
US8341157B2 — Search query reconstruction and related search technology
Any company operating a consumer-facing search interface — travel platforms, e-commerce sites, content portals, or enterprise search tools — should assess exposure to R2's portfolio. The asserted patents cover query handling, result ranking, index quality, intent inference, and adaptive widget rendering: functions present in virtually every modern search implementation. A targeted FTO is particularly urgent for teams building or acquiring search infrastructure in the travel and hospitality sector.
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation records that the parties 'resolved the matters in controversy' and asks the court to enter a dismissal with prejudice, with each side bearing its own costs. This phrasing confirms a voluntary, agreed conclusion to the litigation; the court makes no findings on infringement, validity, or claim scope. The absence of any fee-shifting language means neither party claimed — or was awarded — exceptional-case status under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the agreed resolution means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulated dismissal with prejudice
A dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires a signed stipulation from all parties who have appeared. When entered with prejudice, it operates as a final adjudication on the merits, permanently barring the plaintiff from re-filing the same claims in any federal court. The court enters no findings on validity or infringement — the litigation simply ends.
Final; no merits adjudicationR2 Solutions loses the right to re-assert these claims against Southwest
The with-prejudice dismissal extinguishes R2's ability to bring the same infringement claims against Southwest on these five patents. R2 retains ownership of the patents and may continue to assert them against other defendants. The specific terms of any resolution with Southwest are not disclosed in the available record.
Claims barred vs. Southwest onlySouthwest secures permanent bar on these specific claims
Southwest Airlines obtains a with-prejudice dismissal, meaning R2 cannot re-file these five patent claims against it. Each party bears its own costs under the stipulation, so Southwest faces no fee award. The dismissal does not constitute a finding that Southwest's products do not infringe, nor that the patents are invalid — only that this litigation has ended.
No costs awarded; claims permanently barredSearch and widget patents remain active enforcement tools against others
R2's portfolio covering search query reconstruction, intent-driven results, and adaptive widgets remains in force. Other travel, e-commerce, and digital platform companies operating similar search architectures should monitor R2's enforcement activity. The early resolution here offers no claim-construction or validity guidance that would benefit other potential defendants.
Portfolio remains live for third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | R2 Solutions, LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Southwest Airlines, Co. | 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 | Elliott Richard Charles Riches | Attorney | Counsel for Southwest Airlines, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael C. Wilson | Attorney | Counsel for Southwest Airlines, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | S. Wallace Dunwoody , IV | Attorney | Counsel for Southwest Airlines, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Munck Wilson Mandala LLP | Law Firm | Representing Southwest Airlines, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Karen Gren Scholer | Judge | Texas Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the search technology and digital UI patent space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from R2 Solutions' assertion of five search and adaptive widget patents against Southwest Airlines.
R2 Solutions' search patent portfolio: scope and enforcement activity
R2 Solutions holds patents spanning query reconstruction, result quality filtering, intent-driven ranking, and adaptive UI components. Tracking the full breadth of R2's portfolio — beyond the five patents asserted here — can reveal which product categories face the highest litigation exposure and whether new continuation filings are extending coverage into emerging search modalities.
NPE portfolio monitoringFiling trends in search result ranking and query understanding patents
Patent filings around search query reconstruction, intent inference, and dynamic result presentation have intensified as AI-driven search architectures mature. Understanding who is filing in this space — major platforms, startups, and NPEs — helps R&D teams anticipate both competitive threats and potential licensing risks before products reach market.
Search IP filing trendsSouthwest Airlines' patent position in digital search and booking
Southwest Airlines' own patent filings, if any, in digital search, recommendation, and front-end UI adaptation can signal how deeply it has invested in proprietary technology versus relying on third-party platforms. Assessing Southwest's defensive patent posture helps gauge how similarly positioned travel companies might respond to comparable NPE assertions.
Travel sector defensive IPAdaptive widget and responsive UI: where patent white space exists
The adaptive widget sizing patent (US9805097B2) targets automatic UI scaling — a function now central to mobile-first and cross-device design. R&D teams building next-generation responsive interfaces should map claim boundaries around dynamic widget adaptation to identify unoccupied technical approaches that minimise overlap with the R2 portfolio and related filings.
Responsive UI patent white spaceSimilar search technology patent cases in N.D. Texas and beyond
Explore comparable NPE-driven search and information-retrieval patent actions filed in the Northern District of Texas and related federal venues.
What this case signals for the search technology IP landscape
R2 Solutions' five-patent assertion against a major airline illustrates active monetisation of legacy search IP. Here is what product and IP teams need to track.
With-prejudice bar protects Southwest; others in the travel sector remain exposed
The dismissal with prejudice insulates Southwest Airlines from these specific R2 claims. However, the resolution produces no claim construction, no invalidity ruling, and no public licensing benchmark. Other airlines and travel platforms operating comparable search and recommendation features should treat R2's portfolio as an active risk.
Early resolution without merits rulings is typical of NPE assertion strategies
The 233-day resolution, before any scheduled claim construction or trial, is consistent with a licensing-oriented enforcement model. IP teams in digital commerce should monitor R2 Solutions' broader docket for patterns of early resolution and assess whether their own search architectures overlap with the five asserted patent families.
R2 v Southwest — key questions answered
R2 Solutions asserted five patents: US8341157B2 (search query reconstruction), US8209317B2 (providing search results), US9805097B2 (improving search result quality by avoiding indexing certain page sections), US10176272B2 (intent-driven search result presentation), and US7698329B2 (automatically sizing and adapting a widget to available space).
The case was dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final judgment on the merits, permanently barring R2 Solutions from re-asserting the same claims against Southwest Airlines in any federal court. The court made no findings on infringement or patent validity.
Per the joint stipulation, each party agreed to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees. No fee-shifting was requested or awarded, meaning neither party sought an exceptional-case finding under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
No. The with-prejudice dismissal only bars R2 Solutions from re-asserting these specific claims against Southwest Airlines. R2 retains full ownership of all five patents and may continue to assert them against other defendants. The resolution provides no claim construction or invalidity guidance that would benefit third parties.
The case was filed in the Northern District of Texas (Case No. 3:22-cv-02869) and assigned to Judge Karen Gren Scholer. The case was filed on 21 December 2022 and closed on 11 August 2023, a duration of 233 days.
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.