Skip to content
Proof of concept · Explore the dossiers · Enquiries and subscriptions are unavailable

accessiBe: the business, the claims and the limits of the record

AudioEye: patent litigation ended in a global settlement

The parties reported a settlement and dismissals without prejudice. The retained documents do not disclose the financial terms or decide the infringement allegations.

published
12 oct 2026
records as of
10 oct 2026
entities
114
sources
130
cite entities.csv

the questionWhat does the 2022 settlement establish about the patent disputes?

1The global settlement

analysisaccessiBe and AudioEye litigated patent and related marketing claims in several US proceedings between 2020 and 2022. AudioEye’s 2022 annual filing records a global settlement announced on 24 October 2022 and says the three identified complaints were dismissed without prejudice. A joint patent-board filing describes a sealed settlement agreement. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

qualification
The reported mutual covenants not to sue and freedom-to-operate arrangement resolved disputes without a disclosed financial amount. Settlement and procedural venue rulings do not establish the merits of either side’s infringement or advertising allegations.
response
accessiBe defended AudioEye’s cases, asserted counterclaims and filed its own Delaware patent action.
outcome
The parties announced a global settlement; patent-board termination requests accompanied closure of the court proceedings.

sources in this section

  1. Court record source · s-d164 identified by category only · Court record
  2. US Patent and Trademark Office retained record 166 US Patent and Trademark Office
  3. Other source · s-d167 identified by category only · Other
  4. Company statement source · s-d197 identified by category only · Company statement
  5. Court record source · s-d200 identified by category only · Court record
  6. Court record source · s-d201 identified by category only · Court record
  7. Media source · s-d227 identified by category only · Media

2Audioeye venue

analysisThe Federal Circuit denied accessiBe’s December 2021 transfer petition without prejudice to seeking reconsideration below. In March 2022 the district court granted reconsideration and transferred the AudioEye case to western New York. The venue record discussed Israeli development personnel, New York servers and offices, and claimed sales-partner activity involving BigCommerce and Volusion. 1 2

qualification
These are historical venue facts and party submissions, not proof of current infrastructure or adjudicated marketing liability. All substantive disputes were later reported settled.

sources in this section

  1. Court record source · s-d200 identified by category only · Court record
  2. Court record source · s-d201 identified by category only · Court record

3Audioeye context

analysisAudioEye’s 2022 filing identifies Sero Capital as a shareholder with more than 10% and David Moradi as its sole member and AudioEye’s CEO and director. 1

qualification
This is context for the identified counterparty at the filing date. It establishes no ownership or management link between Moradi and accessiBe.

sources in this section

  1. Company statement source · s-d197 identified by category only · Company statement

cite this dossier

DossierTwist, “accessiBe: the business, the claims and the limits of the record”, dt.005, 12 October 2026, https://osint.v3rta.com/dossiers/accessibe/

Free to read, cite and republish with credit under CC BY 4.0: credit “DossierTwist” and link to the dossier.

Data: JSON, CSV and the network graph.

We listen to all sides: responses are shown next to the claims they answer. To send a correction or a reply, write to .