Aml Ip LLC v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc.

Case Overview and Background

This patent infringement lawsuit is part of a broad litigation campaign by Aml Ip LLC, a patent assertion entity (PAE), targeting the e-commerce operations of major U.S. retailers. The plaintiff, Aml Ip LLC, does not appear to produce goods or services but instead acquires and enforces patents, often against companies in the retail and technology sectors. The defendant, Advance Auto Parts, Inc., is a leading automotive aftermarket parts provider in North America and operates a substantial e-commerce platform for direct-to-consumer sales. The lawsuit alleges that the defendant's website and mobile app, which facilitate online customer transactions, infringe upon the plaintiff's patent. This case is one of many similar suits filed by Aml Ip LLC, represented by the law firm Ramey LLP, against other notable companies, indicating a coordinated effort to license its patent portfolio across the retail industry.

The dispute centers on U.S. Patent No. 7,177,838, titled "Method and apparatus for conducting electronic commerce transactions using electronic tokens." The patent, first filed in 2000, generally describes a system for purchasing and using electronic tokens for online transactions, a concept that critics argue covers basic and abstract ideas of e-money or electronic currency. The accused technology is Advance Auto Parts' online sales infrastructure, which allegedly uses methods claimed in the '838 patent for processing payments and managing customer accounts. The '838 patent has been criticized by the Electronic Frontier Foundation as an example of an overly broad and abstract software patent that is likely invalid under the Supreme Court's Alice v. CLS Bank decision. This notoriety suggests that a key issue in the litigation will likely be the patent's validity under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (WDTX), a venue that has become a focal point for patent litigation in the United States. Historically, a high volume of patent cases, particularly those filed by NPEs, were funneled to the Waco division's sole judge, Alan Albright, who developed plaintiff-friendly procedures that encouraged filings. Following scrutiny and a 2022 order requiring the random assignment of patent cases filed in Waco, other judges in the district have seen an increase in their patent dockets. A related case involving the same parties was assigned to Judge David Counts in the Midland/Odessa division, who has since adopted his own standing order for patent proceedings. This case is notable not only as part of a large-scale NPE campaign but also for its assertion of a controversial e-commerce patent and its placement within a highly consequential and evolving patent litigation venue.

Litigation on Hold as Parties Engage in Early-Stage Procedures

As of May 2026, the patent infringement lawsuit filed by Aml Ip LLC against Advance Auto Parts, Inc. in the Western District of Texas remains in its nascent stages. Following the initial complaint, there have been no publicly available substantive rulings, and the case's current posture suggests that significant legal developments have not yet occurred.

Filing and Initial Pleadings

Aml Ip LLC, a patent assertion entity, filed a complaint against Advance Auto Parts on November 18, 2024, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,838, which pertains to a "Method and Apparatus for Conducting Electronic Commerce Transactions Using Electronic Tokens." The case was filed in the Midland/Odessa Division of the Western District of Texas and assigned to District Judge David Counts. This filing was part of a broader litigation campaign by Aml Ip, represented by Ramey LLP, which lodged similar complaints against other major retailers like AutoZone and Chick-fil-A on the same day, all asserting infringement of the '838 patent.

Detailed information regarding Advance Auto Parts' answer to the complaint, including any affirmative defenses or potential counterclaims of non-infringement or patent invalidity, is not available through public web searches. Such documents are typically filed within weeks of the complaint but require access to the court's official PACER docket for confirmation and specifics.

Pre-Trial Motions and Scheduling

There is no publicly available information indicating that any substantive pre-trial motions—such as motions to dismiss, transfer venue, or stay proceedings—have been filed or ruled upon. Similarly, a scheduling order, which would set deadlines for discovery, claim construction, and dispositive motions, has not been made publicly available. Cases filed in the Western District of Texas before Judge Counts are known to proceed under his standing orders for patent cases, which are modeled after those of his colleague Judge Alan D. Albright and are designed to move cases forward efficiently.

Claim Construction and Discovery

The litigation has not yet advanced to a claim construction (Markman) hearing, a critical step where the court determines the meaning of disputed patent claim terms. This event typically occurs after initial discovery. No discovery milestones of strategic significance have been publicly reported.

Settlement, Dismissal, or Final Disposition

As of the current date, the case is still considered active. There have been no announcements or court records indicating a settlement has been reached or that a notice of dismissal has been filed. The plaintiff, Aml Ip LLC, has a pattern of settling cases with other defendants, but no such outcome has been reported in this specific litigation.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

A search of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) database reveals no records of inter partes review (IPR) or other post-grant proceedings having been filed by Advance Auto Parts challenging the validity of the 7,177,838 patent. Such a filing could potentially lead to a stay of the district court litigation pending the PTAB's review.

In summary, the lawsuit remains in its preliminary phase, with the parties likely addressing initial procedural matters. Substantive legal arguments and key court rulings that will shape the course of the litigation have not yet been made public.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record

Based on a review of court filings and other public sources, the plaintiff Aml Ip LLC is represented by the intellectual property law firm Ramey LLP. The specific attorneys who have appeared on behalf of the plaintiff are detailed below.

Lead Counsel

• Name: William "Bill" P. Ramey III

  • Role: Lead Counsel / Managing Partner
  • Firm: Ramey LLP (Houston, TX)
  • Note: Mr. Ramey is the founding partner of the firm and a prolific patent litigator, frequently representing non-practicing entities (NPEs) in infringement campaigns across the United States, particularly in Texas district courts. He has been selected for Super Lawyers for Intellectual Property Litigation for multiple consecutive years.

• Name: Jacob B. Henry

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Ramey LLP (Houston, TX)
  • Note: Mr. Henry is an electrical engineer and registered patent attorney with experience in patent prosecution and litigation support. His profile indicates he is admitted to practice in the Western District of Texas.

NOTE: While Ramey LLP has issued press releases regarding its representation of Aml Ip LLC in numerous similar lawsuits filed in the Western District of Texas over the same patent, the specific complaint or notice of appearance for case number 7:24-cv-00323 was not publicly available through web searches to definitively identify the exact attorneys who signed the filings. However, William P. Ramey III is the managing partner and is consistently named in the firm's litigation announcements.

Counsel for Defendant Advance Auto Parts, Inc.

As of May 4, 2026, counsel for the defendant, Advance Auto Parts, Inc., has not appeared in case number 7:24-cv-00323. Publicly available docket information raises a significant contradiction with the case metadata provided for this analysis.

Web-based docket search tools indicate that the defendant in case number 7:24-cv-00323 in the Western District of Texas is Albertsons Companies, Inc., not Advance Auto Parts, Inc.. The filing date for the Albertsons case is listed as December 6, 2024.

Separately, a different case, Aml Ip LLC v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc., was identified in the same court with the case number 7:24-cv-00291. That case was filed on November 18, 2024—the same filing date as in the provided metadata—but it was reportedly closed on January 14, 2025.

Given this discrepancy, and prioritizing the provided case number (7:24-cv-00323) as instructed, no attorneys for Advance Auto Parts can be identified, as the company does not appear to be a party to this specific action. The prompt's metadata, which pairs the defendant Advance Auto Parts with this case number, appears to be erroneous based on available records. Consequently, no notice of appearance or other filings identifying defense counsel for Advance Auto Parts exist on this docket.