Rich Media Club v. DMG Media: Infringement Claims Dismissed With Prejudice After 595 Days
Rich Media Club, LLC asserted two US patents covering online advertising technology against DMG Media Limited, operator of Dailymail.co.uk, in the Eastern District of Texas. The parties reached a stipulated dismissal with prejudice after nearly 21 months, with each side bearing its own attorneys’ fees — a resolution that forecloses any refiling of the same claims.
Ad-Tech Patent Clash Ends in Mutual Walk-Away at E.D. Texas
Rich Media Club, LLC filed suit against DMG Media Limited on August 29, 2023 in the Eastern District of Texas before Judge Rodney Gilstrap, one of the most active patent benches in the country. The complaint alleged infringement of US11443329B2 and US11741482B2 — two patents directed at online advertising technology — arising from DMG Media’s operation of Dailymail.co.uk, one of the world’s highest-traffic English-language news websites. Rich Media Club was represented by Gillam & Smith, LLP and Global IP Law Group LLC; DMG Media retained Fenwick & West LLP.
The case closed on April 15, 2025, via a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice jointly filed by both parties and accepted by Judge Gilstrap. The dismissal is with prejudice — meaning Rich Media Club is permanently barred from reasserting these same claims against DMG Media on the same patents. Critically, the stipulation specified that each party bears its own attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses, suggesting neither side extracted a monetary concession as a condition of resolution.
At 595 days, the case ran longer than many E.D. Texas matters that settle early, suggesting meaningful litigation activity — likely claim construction briefing or discovery — before the parties agreed to walk away. The public record does not disclose whether any licence, covenant not to sue, or other commercial arrangement accompanied the dismissal. The mutual cost-bearing structure and prejudice dismissal are consistent with either a confidential settlement or a strategic decision by Rich Media Club to discontinue pursuit of this particular defendant.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 595 days
595 days — longer than the median E.D. Texas patent case resolved without trial
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulation means for both parties
Stipulated dismissal with prejudice bars all future refiling
A dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) is a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes. Rich Media Club cannot refile these specific infringement claims against DMG Media on US11443329B2 or US11741482B2. The Court accepted and acknowledged the stipulation, directing the clerk to close the case and denying all pending relief as moot.
Permanent bar on refilingRich Media Club surrenders its infringement claims permanently
By agreeing to dismissal with prejudice, Rich Media Club, LLC relinquished its right to pursue DMG Media for past or ongoing infringement of the two asserted patents. No damages award, royalty, or fee recovery is reflected in the public record. Whether a confidential licence or covenant not to sue accompanied the stipulation cannot be confirmed from the court docket alone, but the mutual cost-bearing structure is consistent with a clean walk-away or undisclosed commercial resolution.
Claims permanently extinguishedDMG Media secures finality on these patent claims at no public cost
DMG Media Limited exits the litigation without any finding of infringement and without a public fee award against it. The with-prejudice dismissal provides finality: it cannot face a second action from Rich Media Club on the same patents for the same accused conduct. Fenwick & West’s defence work over 595 days culminated in a clean dismissal — a commercially valuable outcome for a high-traffic publisher operating under a complex ad-tech stack.
Full finality, no liability findingAd-tech publishers face continued PAE exposure in E.D. Texas
Rich Media Club’s campaign against major publishers suggests a broader assertion strategy targeting online advertising infrastructure. Digital publishers operating programmatic or rich-media ad stacks should treat US11443329B2 and US11741482B2 as live enforcement risks against other defendants — the patents remain valid and enforceable against third parties. This outcome does not resolve the underlying claim scope or validity of the patents.
Patents remain enforceable vs. third partiesFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Rich Media Club, LLC | Company | Online advertising technology patent assertion entity — holder of US11443329B2 and US11741482B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | DMG Media Limited | Individual | DMG Media Limited — UK digital publisher, operator of Dailymail.co.ukSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alison Aubry Richards | Attorney | Counsel for Rich Media Club, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David P. Berten | Attorney | Counsel for Rich Media Club, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Rich Media Club, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Gillam & Smith, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Rich Media Club, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Global IP Law Group LLC | Law Firm | Representing Rich Media Club, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ezra Isaacs | Attorney | Counsel for DMG Media LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Geoffrey Robert Miller | Attorney | Counsel for DMG Media LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael J. Sacksteder | Attorney | Counsel for DMG Media LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fenwick & West LLP | Law Firm | Representing DMG Media LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fenwick & West, LLP (New York) | Law Firm | Representing DMG Media LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fenwick & West LLP (San Francisco) | Law Firm | Representing DMG Media LimitedSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Rodney Gilstrap | Judge | Texas Eastern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Court’s order accepts the parties’ joint stipulation verbatim, confirming dismissal with prejudice of all claims and counterclaims. The equal cost-bearing provision — explicitly negotiated by the parties — signals neither side conceded fault or extracted a litigation-cost recovery. Pending motions were denied as moot, indicating no substantive rulings were preserved for appeal. The dismissal’s with-prejudice character carries full res judicata effect, but the underlying patents’ validity and claim scope remain judicially untested, preserving enforcement risk for the broader market.
US11443329B2 & US11741482B2 — Online Advertising Technology Patents
US11443329B2 (Application No. US17/317627) and US11741482B2 (Application No. US17/961952) are both assigned to Rich Media Club, LLC and sit within the online advertising technology domain. These patents likely cover methods and systems for delivering, managing, or optimising rich-media digital advertising — a space that encompasses programmatic ad serving, creative rendering, and publisher-side ad stack management. Both patents carry ‘B2’ designations, indicating they issued following re-examination or with corrected claims, which may indicate heightened prosecution history.
For digital publishers generating revenue through programmatic and direct-sold advertising, these patents represent a meaningful enforcement vector. The assertion against Dailymail.co.uk — a site generating hundreds of millions of monthly visits and operating a sophisticated ad-tech stack — suggests the claimed technology is broad enough to implicate standard publisher-side ad infrastructure. Any company operating a high-traffic content site with rich-media or video advertising capability should treat both patents as active enforcement risks, particularly given Rich Media Club’s demonstrated willingness to litigate in plaintiff-friendly E.D. Texas.
Should you run an FTO against US11443329B2 and US11741482B2?
If your organisation operates a website monetised through rich-media, programmatic, or video advertising — or if you develop ad-serving platforms, SSPs, or publisher ad management tools — both patents warrant a freedom-to-operate review. Rich Media Club’s assertion against one of the world’s largest news publishers signals an enforcement posture targeting mainstream digital advertising infrastructure, not niche implementations. The absence of any public claim construction ruling means the true scope of these patents has not been judicially narrowed.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim language of US11443329B2 and US11741482B2 against your specific ad-tech workflows, identifying overlap risk and prior art candidates that could support an IPR petition. Eureka’s litigation monitoring layer also tracks new filings by Rich Media Club, alerting your team if additional assertions emerge against competitors — an early signal that can shape your defensive IP strategy before a demand letter arrives.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11443329B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Online Advertising Patent Cases in E.D. Texas
Cases involving online advertising and rich-media patent assertions before Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas, with comparable PAE enforcement profiles.
What this case signals for the online advertising IP landscape
A 595-day dismissal with prejudice in E.D. Texas carries strategic weight for digital publishers and ad-tech platforms assessing patent exposure.
With-prejudice dismissals do not extinguish the patents themselves
US11443329B2 and US11741482B2 remain fully enforceable against any third party not covered by this stipulation. Digital publishers, SSPs, DSPs, and ad-tech vendors operating rich-media or programmatic advertising technology should independently assess their exposure — the DMG Media resolution provides no protection to the broader market.
E.D. Texas remains the preferred venue for PAE ad-tech assertions
Judge Gilstrap’s docket is well-established as a high-activity patent forum. The filing of this case in the Eastern District of Texas — despite DMG Media being a UK entity — signals plaintiff confidence in the venue’s plaintiff-friendly procedural history. Defendants facing similar complaints should anticipate transfer motions as a primary early strategy.
Rich v DMG — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice by stipulation of both parties on April 15, 2025. Judge Rodney Gilstrap accepted the joint stipulation, terminating all claims. Each party agreed to bear its own attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses. No damages award, validity ruling, or claim construction order was publicly issued.
Rich Media Club asserted two patents: US11443329B2 (Application No. US17/317627) and US11741482B2 (Application No. US17/961952). Both cover online advertising technology. The accused product was Dailymail.co.uk, operated by DMG Media Limited.
No. A dismissal with prejudice is not a validity determination. US11443329B2 and US11741482B2 remain valid and enforceable against third parties. The dismissal only bars Rich Media Club from re-asserting those specific claims against DMG Media. No IPR, inter partes review, or invalidity finding was recorded in the public docket.
The Eastern District of Texas, and specifically Judge Gilstrap’s docket, is a historically plaintiff-favourable venue for patent infringement actions. Patent assertion entities frequently select this court for its procedural predictability and established patent case management. DMG Media is a UK entity, making venue selection a strategic plaintiff decision rather than a forum-convenience choice.
In patent assertion entity (PAE) litigation, a mutual cost-bearing dismissal with prejudice frequently accompanies a confidential licence agreement or covenant not to sue, though this cannot be confirmed from the public docket in this case. It signals that neither side obtained a court-awarded remedy, and the commercial resolution — if any — was negotiated privately. The with-prejudice designation provides the defendant with permanent protection from re-assertion of the same claims.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.