Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company v. Aloft Media, LLC et al.

Case Background: Insurer Challenges Alleged Patent Troll in Declaratory Judgment Action

In a preemptive legal maneuver, Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company, a prominent insurer for churches and related ministries, filed a declaratory judgment action against Aloft Media, LLC, and its associates. The lawsuit, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, sought to invalidate U.S. Patent No. 10,372,793 and secure a ruling of non-infringement. Brotherhood Mutual, an operating company based in Fort Wayne, Indiana, took this step after receiving a demand for a licensing payment from Aloft Media. The defendants are identified in the complaint as a network of non-practicing entities (NPEs), sometimes referred to as "patent trolls," who generate revenue by asserting patents against operating companies. Specifically, Aloft Media is described as an entity of Oso IP, LLC, known for patent assertion activities.

The dispute centers on Aloft's U.S. Patent No. 10,372,793, which generally covers a "hyperlink with graphical cue" and computer-implemented methods for improving the functionality of hyperlinks on web pages, such as those involving drop-down menus. Aloft Media alleged that the drop-down menu functionality on Brotherhood Mutual's website infringed upon this patent. In its complaint, Brotherhood Mutual countered that the patent is invalid, particularly under the standards set by the Supreme Court's Alice decision regarding abstract ideas implemented on computers. The insurer also alleged that the patent was unenforceable due to inequitable conduct during its prosecution. This case is notable as it exemplifies a strategy employed by operating companies: using the declaratory judgment process to proactively challenge the validity of patents asserted by NPEs, rather than waiting to be sued for infringement.

The case was filed in the Northern District of Indiana, Brotherhood Mutual's home jurisdiction, a venue choice that flips the script on typical patent assertion campaigns, which are often filed in districts perceived as friendly to patent holders. The case was assigned to Judge Holly A. Brady. Brotherhood Mutual's complaint highlighted what it characterized as a pattern of aggressive litigation by Aloft, which had reportedly filed at least 14 similar infringement lawsuits in Texas. The action also sought attorneys' fees under Indiana's Bad Faith Assertions of Patent Infringement Act, underscoring the plaintiff's position that the infringement claims were baseless. The case was short-lived, terminating just over a month after it was filed, suggesting a quick resolution or settlement between the parties, though the specific terms are not publicly detailed. The patent continues to be a subject of scrutiny, with Unified Patents offering a bounty for prior art that could challenge its validity.

Final Case Summary: Rapid Dismissal Precludes Substantive Litigation

This declaratory judgment action was resolved just over one month after it was filed, concluding before the defendants formally appeared or any substantive legal motions were contested. The case was terminated after the plaintiff, Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company, filed a notice of voluntary dismissal.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

Filing and Initial Pleadings (2025-06-02)
Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company ("Brotherhood Mutual") filed a complaint for a declaratory judgment in the Northern District of Indiana on June 2, 2025. The insurer sought a ruling that it did not infringe U.S. Patent No. 10,372,793 and that the patent is invalid and unenforceable. The named defendants were Aloft Media, LLC, along with associated entities and individuals George Street Partners, Todd Schmidt, and George Andrew Gordon.

In its complaint, Brotherhood Mutual characterized Aloft Media as a "non-practicing entity," or "patent troll," that uses "questionable patents to pressure companies into settlements to avoid the cost of litigation." The complaint was filed after Aloft allegedly demanded licensing payments from Brotherhood Mutual, asserting that the insurer's website, with its drop-down menu functionality, infringed the '793 patent. Brotherhood Mutual argued the patent was invalid under the Supreme Court's Alice decision for claiming abstract ideas implemented on a computer and also alleged inequitable conduct during the patent's prosecution.

Given the swift dismissal, the defendants, Aloft Media et al., did not file an answer or any counterclaims.

Final Disposition: Voluntary Dismissal (2025-07-07)
The litigation terminated on July 7, 2025, when Brotherhood Mutual filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). This rule allows a plaintiff to unilaterally dismiss a case without a court order before the opposing party has filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The dismissal was without prejudice, meaning Brotherhood Mutual could potentially refile the case at a later date. The reason for the dismissal is not stated in the court docket, though such actions are commonly the result of a confidential settlement between the parties.

Due to the case's termination at this nascent stage, there were no pre-trial motions, claim construction proceedings, discovery, or trial events.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings and Other Validity Challenges

As of today's date, a search of the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) database does not reveal any inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR) proceedings that have been filed challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 10,372,793.

However, the patent's validity has been subject to scrutiny by industry groups. On March 29, 2026, Unified Patents, a member-based organization that challenges patents asserted by non-practicing entities, initiated a "PATROLL" contest seeking prior art for claim 23 of the '793 patent. On May 12, 2026, Unified Patents announced it had awarded a $2,000 prize to a researcher for a prior art submission, suggesting that significant invalidating prior art may exist. This crowd-sourcing effort indicates a coordinated strategy to challenge the patent, which could lead to a future PTAB petition or be used as leverage in other litigation.

The '793 patent has also been asserted in other declaratory judgment actions brought by different companies against Aloft Media, evidencing a broader enforcement campaign by the patent owner.

Based on a review of the court docket and other public records, the following counsel represented the plaintiff, Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company.

Plaintiff's Counsel

Firm: Barrett McNagny LLP – Fort Wayne, IN

• Patrick G. Murphy – Lead Counsel

  • Firm: Barrett McNagny LLP, Partner, Fort Wayne, IN.
  • Note: Murphy, an experienced trial attorney, leads the firm's litigation practice and focuses on business and intellectual property litigation; his firm profile lists Brotherhood Mutual as a key client for whom they serve as lead counsel.

• Connor R. Fleck – Of Counsel

  • Firm: Barrett McNagny LLP, Associate, Fort Wayne, IN.
  • Note: A registered patent attorney, Fleck's practice focuses on intellectual property matters, including patent filing, trademarks, and copyrights.

The case docket shows that Patrick Murphy filed the initial complaint on June 2, 2025, and Connor Fleck filed a notice of appearance on June 3, 2025. The case was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on July 7, 2025. Both attorneys are based in Fort Wayne, Indiana, the same city as the plaintiff's corporate headquarters.

No Counsel of Record for Defendants in Dismissed Case

In the declaratory judgment action Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company v. Aloft Media, LLC et al. (1:25-cv-00273), no attorneys filed a notice of appearance or made any filings on behalf of the defendants Aloft Media, LLC, George Street Partners, Todd Schmidt, or George Andrew Gordon.

The case was active for just over a month, having been filed on June 2, 2025. The plaintiff, Brotherhood Mutual, filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on July 7, 2025, which terminated the case before any response from the defendants was required or entered onto the docket.

While no counsel appeared in this specific action, information from other recent patent litigation involving the same defendants provides insight into their likely legal representation.

Counsel in Other Recent Patent Litigation

In a similar declaratory judgment action filed in the District of Delaware in February 2026, Nouryon USA LLC v. Aloft Media, LLC et al. (1:26-cv-00193), the same four defendants are represented by the following counsel:

• Name: Brian E. Farnan
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Farnan LLP (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: Mr. Farnan is a prominent Delaware patent litigator who frequently serves as local or lead counsel in cases before the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, a major venue for patent disputes.

Additionally, one of the individual defendants is a licensed attorney:

• Name: George Andrew Gordon
  • Role: Individual Defendant / In-House Counsel
  • Firm: Andrew Gordon Law Firm, PLLC (Frisco, TX)
  • Note: Mr. Gordon, a defendant in the action, is an active attorney licensed by the State Bar of California. He has been named as a defendant alongside Aloft Media in multiple patent infringement demand letters and subsequent declaratory judgment actions.

Given the pattern of litigation, it is probable that had the Brotherhood Mutual case proceeded, the defendants would have been represented by counsel from Farnan LLP or another firm with whom they have an established relationship for patent defense matters, potentially with Mr. Gordon also acting in a legal capacity.