Utah District Court Rules for MarketDial in A/B Testing Patent Dispute
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Applied Predictive Technologies, Inc. v. MarketDial, Inc., Morgan Davis, and John M. Stoddard |
| Case Number | 2:19-cv-00496 (D. Utah) |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the District of Utah |
| Duration | July 2019 – March 2024 4 years 8 months |
| Outcome | Defendant Win — Judgment on Merits |
| Patent at Issue | |
| Accused Products | MarketDial’s A/B testing software |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
Analytics company known for its Test & Learn® platform, acquired by Mastercard. Actively protects its IP in controlled experimentation.
🛡️ Defendant
Utah-based startup developing A/B testing and controlled experimentation software, a direct competitor to APT’s core offering.
Patent at Issue
This litigation centered on a single software patent covering core technology in controlled business experimentation:
- • US 8,571,916 — Methods and systems for designing, executing, and analyzing A/B tests to measure the causal impact of business interventions.
Developing A/B testing software?
Check if your analytics platform might infringe this or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The United States District Court for the District of Utah entered final judgment on the merits in favor of all defendants — MarketDial, Inc., John M. Stoddard, and Morgan Davis — and against plaintiff Applied Predictive Technologies, Inc. This outcome represents a significant victory for MarketDial, affirming its ability to operate its core business in a competitive IP landscape.
Key Legal Issues
The judgment for defendants on the merits indicates the court likely resolved core substantive questions of infringement and/or validity. Software patent cases of this type frequently turn on detailed claim construction, with a narrow interpretation of the ‘916 patent’s method claims potentially excluding MarketDial’s implementation. Defendants may also have successfully argued for non-infringement or challenged the validity of the patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (patent-eligible subject matter), § 102 (anticipation), or § 103 (obviousness). The Federal Circuit’s scrutiny of abstract ideas in software patents, particularly since *Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International*, makes § 101 a frequent ground for such challenges.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis in A/B Testing Software
This case highlights critical IP risks in developing analytics platforms. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View all related patents in the analytics and A/B testing space
- See which companies are most active in software method patents
- Understand claim construction patterns for functional claims
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
Abstract method claims in software
Patent at Issue
US 8,571,916 on controlled experimentation
Claim Construction
Key to assessing infringement risk
✅ Key Takeaways
Merits-based judgment for defendants in a multi-year software patent case underscores the viability of non-infringement and validity defenses.
Search related case law →Claim construction strategy is the pivotal battleground in enterprise analytics patent disputes, particularly for functional claims.
Explore precedents & tools →Frequently Asked Questions
The case involved U.S. Patent No. 8,571,916 (Application No. 11/364,197), covering methods and systems for controlled business experimentation and A/B testing analytics.
The court entered judgment on the merits for defendants. Specific findings were not detailed in available records, but merits-based defendant verdicts in software patent cases typically reflect non-infringement determinations, successful validity challenges, or both.
The outcome reinforces that competing analytics platforms can successfully defend against infringement claims through technical differentiation and rigorous claim construction arguments, even in heavily litigated, resource-intensive proceedings.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- U.S. Patent No. 8,571,916 — Full Text & Claims
- PACER Case No. 2:19-cv-00496 — U.S. District Court for the District of Utah
- Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International — § 101 Software Patent Eligibility
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Law Firms
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.