AlmondNet, Inc. et al. v. Amazon.com, Inc.

Case Overview and Background

This patent infringement lawsuit was filed by AlmondNet, Inc. and its subsidiary Datonics, LLC, against Amazon.com, Inc. on May 3, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The plaintiffs, New York-based advertising technology companies, assert that Amazon's advertising systems misappropriate their patented methods for online ad targeting. AlmondNet, founded in 1998, develops and licenses a large portfolio of intellectual property related to targeted advertising. Datonics is also involved in providing advertising and data-related services. The case is one of several similar lawsuits AlmondNet has filed against major technology companies, including Meta, Microsoft, and Oracle, signaling a broad campaign to enforce its patent rights across the ad tech industry.

The complaint alleges that Amazon's advertising business, including its Amazon DSP and Sponsored Display platforms, infringes on U.S. Patent No. 8,494,904. This patent, entitled "Method and system for targeting advertisements," generally covers a method for accumulating a user's descriptive profile data as they browse the internet and then using that data to target advertisements to them. The core of the infringement allegation is that Amazon's systems build profiles of user interests and behaviors to deliver relevant ads, a practice that the plaintiffs claim is covered by their patented technology. This case is part of a larger, multi-patent dispute between the parties; a separate, earlier case involving different AlmondNet patents resulted in a $122 million jury verdict against Amazon in the same court.

The case (6:24-cv-00234) is before Judge Robert Pitman in the Austin division of the Western District of Texas. This venue is highly significant in patent litigation. For years, the Waco division under Judge Alan Albright was the nation's top venue for patent cases, attracting nearly 25% of all new patent lawsuits by 2021 due to his plaintiff-friendly procedures and reluctance to transfer cases. Following an order in 2022 to randomly assign patent cases throughout the district, Judge Albright's dominance has waned, though the district remains a key battleground. The case's notability stems from its connection to AlmondNet's broader litigation campaign and the ongoing legal battles over the foundational technologies of the multi-billion dollar online advertising industry. Further complicating the matter for the plaintiffs, Amazon has filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), challenging the validity of the '904 patent, which could lead to a stay of the district court proceedings.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

The patent infringement litigation between AlmondNet and Amazon, case number 6:24-cv-00234, was active for approximately two years before concluding as part of a global settlement between the parties. The case followed a typical trajectory for high-stakes technology patent disputes, involving parallel challenges to the patent's validity at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

Filing and Initial Pleadings (2024)

• 2024-05-03: Complaint Filed. AlmondNet, Inc. and its subsidiary Datonics, LLC filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, accusing Amazon.com, Inc. of infringing U.S. Patent No. 8,494,904. The complaint alleged that Amazon's advertising systems, which collect user data to target advertisements, utilized AlmondNet's patented technology without a license. The complaint also reportedly asserted U.S. Patent No. 10,984,445.
• Answer and Counterclaims: While specific docket entries for Amazon's answer are not available, standard procedure would have involved an answer denying infringement and asserting affirmative defenses, as well as counterclaims seeking a declaratory judgment that Amazon did not infringe and/or that the '904 patent is invalid.

Pre-Trial and Parallel PTAB Proceedings (2024-2025)

• 2024-11-05: Motion to Dismiss. By this date, Amazon had filed a motion to dismiss certain claims in AlmondNet's complaint, specifically challenging allegations of joint and willful infringement. This is indicated by a reply brief Amazon filed in support of its motion.
• Inter Partes Review (IPR) Petitions: In a key strategic move, Amazon challenged the validity of the asserted patents before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the USPTO. Filings confirm that the district court case was officially related to these PTAB proceedings. For instance, IPR2025-00873 was filed by Amazon against the related '445 patent, and the PTAB instituted a review on October 31, 2025, finding a reasonable likelihood that Amazon would prevail on at least one challenged claim. The existence of these IPRs, which can result in the invalidation of a patent, significantly increases the risk for the patent holder in the district court litigation and often leads to a stay of the court proceedings pending the PTAB's final decision.
• Motion to Stay: Although a specific docket entry is not available in the search results, the institution of IPR proceedings by the PTAB would have provided strong grounds for Amazon to file a motion to stay the district court case. Such a motion is a standard tactic to pause the expensive district court litigation pending the outcome of the more streamlined and often faster patent validity review at the PTAB.

Settlement and Dismissal (2026)

• 2026-04-07: Global Settlement Announced. AlmondNet publicly announced that it had resolved its worldwide patent infringement dispute with Amazon. The resolution included a license agreement for Amazon to use AlmondNet's intellectual property portfolio. The press release explicitly stated that the agreement "resolves all outstanding matters between the parties related to the asserted patents."
• Dismissal: Following the settlement announcement, the parties would have filed a joint stipulation of dismissal in the district court, likely with prejudice, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). This type of dismissal permanently ends the lawsuit and bars the plaintiff from re-filing the same claims against the defendant. While the specific court order is not in the search results, this is the standard and expected procedural conclusion to a case that settles. The case is now considered closed.

In summary, the litigation was actively contested for over a year, with Amazon employing a common two-front defense strategy: challenging the infringement claims in district court while simultaneously attacking the patent's validity at the PTAB. The institution of IPR proceedings by the PTAB likely served as a catalyst, leading the parties to a global settlement in early 2026 that resolved this case and all other outstanding patent disputes between them.

Counsel for Plaintiff AlmondNet, Inc. and Datonics, LLC

Based on court filings and reporting on related litigation, the plaintiffs AlmondNet and Datonics are represented by attorneys from the law firm Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP. Although the formal appearances for this specific case (6:24-cv-00234) are not yet fully detailed in publicly available documents, counsel from this firm have been consistently involved in AlmondNet's broader litigation campaign, including against Amazon.

Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP

• Jonathan K. Waldrop

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm & Location: Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, Redwood Shores, CA
  • Note: As chair of his firm's Intellectual Property group, Waldrop has led litigation for major tech companies and patent holders, including a significant victory for Google and YouTube that was reported by Wired.com as striking "Down Patent Troll's Claim to Own the Interactive Web." He has also been recognized as a "Top Intellectual Property Lawyer" by the Daily Journal for his work on behalf of patent assertion entities like WSOU Investments.

• John W. Downing

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm & Location: Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, Redwood Shores, CA
  • Note: Downing's practice is focused on patent infringement and trade secret litigation, with experience in cases involving software, wireless networking, and satellite communications technologies. He has been listed as counsel for AlmondNet's parent company, Mozido, in PTAB proceedings.

• Chad J. Hammons

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm & Location: Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, Redwood Shores, CA
  • Note: While specific patent litigation history for Hammons is not as readily available, his role within the firm's litigation practice group involves complex commercial disputes.

• S. Taylor White

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm & Location: Duggins Wren Mann & Romero, LLP, Austin, TX
  • Note: Attorneys from Duggins Wren Mann & Romero (which recently joined Balch & Bingham LLP) frequently serve as local counsel in the Western District of Texas. While public dockets for this specific case are still developing, the firm's role is consistent with the typical need for out-of-state lead counsel to associate with a firm licensed in the district.

Note on Related Cases: It is important to note that in a separate, but related, patent case that resulted in a $122 million verdict for AlmondNet against Amazon, the company was represented by Marc Fenster of Russ August & Kabat and Andrea Fair of Miller Fair Henry (formerly Ward, Smith & Hill) as local Texas counsel. While those attorneys are not yet on record in this specific case, the shared plaintiff and defendant suggest a possible future involvement or a strategic division of litigation efforts between different law firms.

Counsel for Defendant Amazon.com, Inc.

Based on an analysis of available docket information and filings in related inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), Amazon.com, Inc. has retained counsel from the law firms of Perkins Coie LLP and Fish & Richardson P.C.

Notices of appearance for the district court case (6:24-cv-00234) have identified attorneys from these firms representing Amazon. Specific filings list Ravi Ranganath of Perkins Coie and Min Wu. While a comprehensive list of every attorney who has appeared is not available from the search results, the key counsel and their firms are identified below.

Perkins Coie LLP

Perkins Coie is a prominent international law firm known for its strong technology and intellectual property practices, frequently representing major tech companies like Amazon in complex patent litigation.

• J. David Hadden | Role: Lead Counsel (presumed)

  • Firm & Office: Fenwick & West LLP, Mountain View, CA. Note: While some sources associate Hadden with Perkins Coie historically, recent profiles place him at Fenwick. His role as lead counsel for Amazon in other major patent cases makes his involvement likely, though his appearance in this specific case is not explicitly confirmed by the search results.
  • Experience: A nationally recognized trial lawyer with extensive experience leading high-stakes patent litigation for major technology clients, including Amazon, Intel, and Zillow.

• Ravi R. Ranganath | Role: Of Counsel

  • Firm & Office: Perkins Coie LLP, Seattle, WA.
  • Experience: Has filed documents on behalf of Amazon in this case, including status reports and responses to motions.

• Jessica Lin | Role: Of Counsel

  • Firm & Office: Perkins Coie LLP.
  • Experience: Has filed status reports on behalf of Amazon in this litigation.

• Min Wu | Role: Of Counsel

  • Firm & Office: Perkins Coie LLP.
  • Experience: Filed a notice of attorney appearance on behalf of Amazon on February 19, 2025.

Fish & Richardson P.C.

Fish & Richardson is a premier global intellectual property law firm with a deep bench of trial lawyers and extensive experience in all venues for patent disputes, including district courts, the PTAB, and the Federal Circuit.

• Christopher J. Gaspar | Role: Of Counsel (presumed)
  • Firm & Office: Milbank LLP, New York, NY. Note: Sources from 2018 and 2019 place Gaspar at Milbank. His appearance for Amazon in this specific case is not confirmed in the search results, but Fish & Richardson's involvement is noted.
  • Experience: Focuses on intellectual property litigation across a wide range of technologies, including computer, semiconductor, and electrical fields.

In-House Counsel

• Charles Davis | Role: In-House Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Amazon.com Services LLC.
  • Experience: Listed as Corporate Counsel for IP Disputes with authority to represent Amazon in related PTAB proceedings.