Urban Marketing v. Kongregate: Call-to-Action Lockout Patents — Voluntarily Dismissed
Urban Marketing Pty Ltd filed suit against Kongregate, Inc. in the Southern District of California asserting two patents covering call-to-action lockout systems and methods. The case closed in just 117 days following a settlement agreement, with all claims dismissed and each party bearing its own costs.
A swift resolution: two lockout patents, one settlement, 117 days
On 3 February 2023, Urban Marketing Pty Ltd (UML), an Australian entity, filed an infringement action against Kongregate, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. UML asserted two U.S. patents — US8750843B2 and US8150386B2 — both relating to a call-to-action lockout system and method, a technology domain with direct relevance to mobile and interactive gaming platforms such as those operated by Kongregate.
The recorded basis of termination is Voluntary dismissal. The docket order states that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), UML moved for dismissal after UML and Kongregate executed a settlement agreement, and that all claims raised by UML are dismissed with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs and attorneys' fees. The specific terms of the settlement agreement are not disclosed in the available record.
The case closed on 31 May 2023 — just 117 days after filing. Such a compressed timeline suggests the parties moved directly to resolution without extended motion practice or claim construction proceedings. What drove the settlement, what consideration if any changed hands, and whether any licensing arrangement underlies the resolution are not disclosed in the public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 117 days
117 days from filing to voluntary dismissal — a notably short lifecycle for patent infringement litigation
US8750843B2 & US8150386B2 — Call-to-Action Lockout System and Method
Any company deploying call-to-action lockout features — including interstitial gates, engagement prompts, or timed action locks within mobile apps, games, or ad-tech platforms — should consider an FTO analysis against both asserted patents. The lack of any public claim construction or invalidity ruling means the patents' enforceable scope is fully intact as a matter of public record. UML has demonstrated willingness to litigate in U.S. federal court.
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal order invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and records that the parties executed a settlement agreement, with all of UML's claims dismissed with prejudice and each party bearing its own costs. No court has ruled on infringement, validity, or claim scope. The specific terms of the settlement agreement are not disclosed in the available record.
Voluntary dismissal: what the resolution means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) voluntary dismissal explained
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Here, UML invoked this procedural mechanism after executing a settlement agreement with Kongregate. The dismissal is stated as being with prejudice in the docket order, meaning UML cannot re-file the same claims against Kongregate on these patents.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissalWith prejudice vs. without prejudice: what the record says
The recorded basis of termination is Voluntary dismissal, which does not itself specify whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice. The docket order, however, states that all claims are dismissed with prejudice. A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits and bars UML from asserting the same claims against Kongregate again. Readers should note both characterisations as they appear in the record and reconcile them independently.
Claims barred — with prejudice per orderKongregate exits litigation with no public adverse finding
Kongregate faces no court-entered finding of infringement, validity, or liability in the available record. The dismissal, entered after a settlement agreement, ends UML's claims against Kongregate on these two patents. Each party bears its own costs and attorneys' fees, meaning Kongregate absorbs its own legal spend without reimbursement. The specific terms of the settlement agreement are not disclosed in the public record.
No adverse ruling — own costsCall-to-action lockout IP remains a live risk for gaming platforms
The swift resolution of this case — 117 days — without any public claim construction or validity ruling leaves the scope and enforceability of US8750843B2 and US8150386B2 untested in court. Other interactive gaming or mobile platform operators working with call-to-action lockout mechanisms should note that UML's patent portfolio remains active and has been enforced. An FTO analysis against these patents is advisable for any company in adjacent technology spaces.
Patents remain untested and activeFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Urban Marketing Pty, Ltd. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Kongregate, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Adam Turosky | Attorney | Counsel for Urban Marketing Pty, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Hollie Jessica Kucera | Attorney | Counsel for Urban Marketing Pty, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Trevor Coddington | Attorney | Counsel for Urban Marketing Pty, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Insigne PC | Law Firm | Representing Urban Marketing Pty, Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals: call-to-action lockout and interactive engagement IP
Forward-looking patent and R&D intelligence signals drawn from Urban Marketing's assertion of call-to-action lockout patents against Kongregate — relevant for gaming, ad-tech, and mobile UX teams.
Urban Marketing's lockout patent family: scope and continuation risk
Urban Marketing Pty Ltd has asserted two patents (US8750843B2 and US8150386B2) rooted in separate application chains. Patent teams should audit whether UML holds additional continuations, divisionals, or continuation-in-part applications that could extend claim coverage across newer call-to-action interaction paradigms in mobile and gaming UX.
Continuation risk — UML portfolioCall-to-action lockout filing trends: where the IP is clustering
Call-to-action gating and lockout mechanisms are a growing focus in mobile UX and in-app monetisation engineering. Patent filings in this space intersect with interactive advertising, gamification, and user engagement design. Tracking new applications in this domain can surface both white-space opportunities and freedom-to-operate risks for product teams building engagement features.
Filing trends — CTA lockout techKongregate's own patent position in interactive gaming infrastructure
Understanding Kongregate's own patent portfolio — particularly in areas of user interaction design, in-game monetisation, and engagement mechanics — helps map its defensive IP capabilities and any potential cross-licensing leverage it may hold in future disputes. Competitors and partners alike should assess the depth of Kongregate's filings in gaming platform infrastructure.
Kongregate — defensive IP postureAdjacent innovation space: beyond binary lockout to adaptive engagement gating
The asserted patents cover lockout system and method fundamentals. Adjacent white space may exist in adaptive or AI-driven call-to-action timing, personalised engagement gating, and context-aware lockout mechanisms — areas where newer filings may be sparse relative to the commercial opportunity. R&D teams in gaming and ad-tech should evaluate this space for differentiated IP development.
White space — adaptive CTA gatingSimilar patent cases: call-to-action lockout and mobile interaction IP
Explore related infringement actions asserting call-to-action lockout or interactive engagement patents in U.S. district courts, with a focus on mobile gaming and ad-tech defendants.
What this case signals for the mobile gaming and interactive IP landscape
A 117-day lifecycle and rapid settlement suggest high settlement leverage or low dispute complexity — both carry lessons for platforms facing call-to-action lockout patent assertions.
Early settlement before answer filing limits public record — plan for opacity
Because this case resolved under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — before any answer, claim construction, or motion practice — there is no public validity or claim scope ruling on US8750843B2 or US8150386B2. Companies in the mobile gaming or interactive advertising space should not treat this resolution as clearing those patents. An independent FTO assessment remains necessary.
Call-to-action lockout patents: a niche but real enforcement vector
UML's willingness to litigate in a U.S. federal court against a named gaming platform signals that call-to-action lockout technology is actively being monetised. Gaming platforms, ad-tech companies, and mobile app developers using interstitial or engagement-gating features should audit their implementations against the claims of both asserted patents.
Urban v Kongregate — key questions answered
Urban Marketing Pty Ltd asserted two patents: US8750843B2 (application no. US13/435275) and US8150386B2 (application no. US12/299366). Both relate to a call-to-action lockout system and method. The case was filed in the Southern District of California on 3 February 2023.
The recorded basis of termination is Voluntary dismissal. The docket order states UML filed for dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) after executing a settlement agreement with Kongregate, with all claims stated as dismissed with prejudice and each party bearing its own costs. The specific terms of the settlement are not disclosed in the available record.
No. The case resolved in 117 days via voluntary dismissal before any answer, claim construction, or substantive motion practice is reflected in the public record. There is no court ruling on infringement, validity, or claim scope for US8750843B2 or US8150386B2.
A call-to-action lockout system controls or gates when and how users can interact with prompts, purchase buttons, or engagement triggers within a digital interface. For gaming platforms, this technology is embedded in features such as interstitial content, in-app purchase flows, and reward prompts — making it directly relevant to Kongregate's product infrastructure.
The dismissal order states each party bears its own costs and attorneys' fees. This is a standard feature of many negotiated resolutions and does not indicate which party was in a stronger or weaker legal position. It does not imply any fee-shifting ruling under 35 U.S.C. § 285 or any finding of exceptional case status.
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.