Krueger International Inc v. Aloft Media LLC

Case Overview and Background

This declaratory judgment action represents a preemptive strike by an operating company against a non-practicing entity (NPE). The plaintiff, Krueger International Inc. (KI), is a Green Bay, Wisconsin-based manufacturer of commercial furniture and movable wall systems for various sectors, including education, healthcare, and government. The defendant, Aloft Media LLC, is a patent assertion entity that acquires patents to generate revenue through licensing and litigation. Public records indicate Aloft Media is associated with Oso IP, LLC, and has a pattern of asserting its patents against numerous companies, often leading them to file declaratory judgment actions to challenge the infringement claims and patent validity. This case is one of several similar lawsuits filed by companies that have been targeted by Aloft Media over the same patent.

The dispute centers on U.S. Patent No. 10,372,793, titled "Hyperlink with graphical cue." The patent generally describes a method for web navigation where a user's interaction with a first set of hyperlinks (e.g., a text-based menu) causes a second, different set of hyperlinks (e.g., graphical icons or a drop-down menu) to be displayed. Krueger International allegedly received infringement allegations from Aloft Media concerning the use of such drop-down menu technology on its corporate website. In response, Krueger filed this action on March 17, 2026, seeking a court declaration that it does not infringe the '793 patent and/or that the patent is invalid and unenforceable.

The case is filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, a venue of significance as it is Krueger International's home district, allowing the company to litigate on its own turf. The case's notability stems from its context within a broader assertion campaign by an NPE against a common web technology used by numerous businesses. The validity of the '793 patent is under scrutiny, highlighted by a public prior art contest sponsored by Unified Patents, an organization that challenges patents asserted by NPEs. These parallel challenges and multiple declaratory judgment actions suggest a coordinated effort by accused infringers to invalidate the patent and push back against Aloft Media's licensing demands, making this case a key front in a multi-pronged conflict over web-based patent claims.

As of May 13, 2026, the patent litigation between Krueger International Inc. and Aloft Media LLC remains in its early stages. The case centers on Krueger's request for a declaratory judgment that it does not infringe U.S. Patent No. 10,372,793 and/or that the patent is invalid.

Filing & Initial Pleadings (2026-03-17 to Present)

• Complaint for Declaratory Judgment (2026-03-17): Krueger International Inc. ("Krueger") filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against Aloft Media LLC ("Aloft Media") in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin (Case No. 1:26-cv-00425). Krueger's action was prompted by a demand letter from Aloft Media alleging that Krueger's website infringed the '793 patent. The complaint seeks a declaration that Krueger does not infringe the patent and that the patent's claims are invalid and unenforceable.
• Case Assignment (2026-03-17): The case was initially assigned to Judge Byron B. Conway, who recused himself on the same day. The case was immediately reassigned to Judge William C. Griesbach for all further proceedings.
• Defendant's Answer: As of mid-May 2026, Aloft Media's answer and any potential counterclaims for infringement have not yet appeared on the public docket. The deadline for a response is typically 21 days after service of the summons, but extensions are common.

Pre-trial Motions and Other Developments

No substantive pre-trial motions, such as motions to dismiss or transfer, have been filed to date. The litigation is in its infancy, and a scheduling order governing discovery and future deadlines has not yet been issued.

Parallel Proceedings at the PTAB

There are no inter partes review (IPR) proceedings currently filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) against U.S. Patent No. 10,372,793.

However, a significant related development is a public campaign for prior art. On March 26, 2026, Unified Patents, an organization that challenges patents asserted by non-practicing entities (NPEs), initiated a "PATROLL" contest seeking prior art to invalidate claim 23 of the '793 patent. The contest, which offered a $2,000 prize, explicitly mentioned the declaratory judgment action filed by Krueger International as a related litigation. This effort to crowdsource invalidating prior art suggests that Krueger's defense will likely focus heavily on challenging the patent's validity. The contest concluded on May 2, 2026. It is possible that the results of this search could lead to an IPR petition being filed in the near future.

Context and Posture of the Case

Aloft Media is a known patent licensing entity that has filed numerous infringement lawsuits. The '793 patent, titled "Hyperlink with graphical cue," has been asserted against multiple companies, leading to other declaratory judgment actions similar to Krueger's. Given the early stage of the litigation and the parallel effort to uncover invalidating prior art, the case is poised for a likely dispute over the patent's validity under sections 101 (patentable subject matter) and 102/103 (novelty and non-obviousness). The immediate next steps will be Aloft Media's answer to the complaint and the court's issuance of a scheduling order.

Counsel for Plaintiff Krueger International Inc.

Based on a review of the court docket, Krueger International Inc. (KI) is represented by attorneys from the Wisconsin-based intellectual property boutique firm Andrus Intellectual Property Law, LLP.

Aaron T. Olejniczak

• Role: Lead Counsel
• Firm: Andrus Intellectual Property Law, LLP (Partner), Milwaukee, Wisconsin
• Noteworthy Experience: Olejniczak is a registered patent attorney with significant first-chair litigation experience. His firm biography highlights his work leading patent jury trials, arguing appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and handling post-grant proceedings like inter partes reviews (IPRs) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). He has represented clients in a variety of patent, trademark, and copyright infringement suits across the United States.

John P. Dyro, Jr.

• Role: Counsel
• Firm: Andrus Intellectual Property Law, LLP (Associate), Milwaukee, Wisconsin
• Noteworthy Experience: Dyro's practice centers on domestic and international patent and trademark prosecution and enforcement. He advises clients on patentability and infringement matters and assists in preparing and prosecuting patent applications. A graduate of the University of Notre Dame Law School with a B.S. in Mechanical Engineering, he previously served as an officer in the U.S. Navy.

The initial complaint (Dkt. 1) was filed by Aaron Olejniczak on March 17, 2026. John Dyro filed a notice of appearance on the same day (Dkt. 3). Their firm, Andrus, is the longest-operating intellectual property law firm in Wisconsin, founded in 1939.

Defendant's Counsel Not Yet on Record

As of May 13, 2026, the defendant, Aloft Media LLC, has not yet formally appeared in this case, and no counsel has been entered on the court docket on its behalf.

The complaint was filed by Krueger International Inc. on March 17, 2026, and a summons was issued for Aloft Media LLC on March 18, 2026. A review of the case docket, last updated on May 1, 2026, shows filings only from the plaintiff and the court; there are no notices of appearance, answers, or motions filed by or on behalf of the defendant.

Typically, a defendant has 21 days to respond to a complaint after service of the summons under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. While that period has elapsed, it is not uncommon for extensions to be granted or for there to be a delay before an appearance is officially entered on the docket. Until Aloft Media files a responsive pleading or a notice of appearance, the attorneys representing the company in this matter will remain unknown.