Almondnet, Inc. et al. v. AT&T Inc.

Ad Tech Patents Asserted Against AT&T's Former Xandr Platform

In a patent infringement suit filed in February 2019, plaintiffs Almondnet, Inc. and its subsidiary Intent IQ, LLC, both advertising technology companies, have accused telecommunications giant AT&T Inc. of infringing a patent related to targeted online advertising. The plaintiffs, who are operating companies that also engage in significant patent licensing and enforcement, assert that AT&T's advertising technology platform, formerly known as Xandr, utilizes their patented methods without authorization. AT&T, a major operating company in the telecommunications sector, has a history of defending against patent assertions from various entities. The case centers on AT&T's systems for programmatic advertising, which involves the automated buying and selling of online ad space. AT&T sold its Xandr business to Microsoft in a deal announced in late 2021.

The lawsuit, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, initially involved multiple patents, but now focuses on U.S. Patent No. 8,671,139. The '139 patent, titled "Media properties selection method and system based on expected profit from profile-based ad delivery," describes a system for automatically selecting which websites or "media properties" to display an advertisement on, based on a user's profile and the expected profit from showing the ad. The technology essentially involves tagging a user on one website and then using that user's collected data and profile to deliver targeted ads to them on other websites, calculating the potential profit before doing so. This same patent was successfully asserted by Almondnet in a separate, high-profile case against Amazon, which resulted in a jury awarding Almondnet approximately $122 million in damages in June 2024 for infringement by Amazon's advertising systems.

The case is proceeding in the District of Delaware, a venue known for its expertise in handling a high volume of complex patent litigation, due in part to the large number of U.S. companies incorporated there. The case was originally assigned to Judge Leonard P. Stark, a highly experienced patent judge who handled thousands of intellectual property cases before his elevation to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in March 2022. The case's significance is amplified by Almondnet and Intent IQ's broader litigation campaign, which has targeted numerous major technology and ad-tech companies, including Amazon, Microsoft, and Meta. This pattern of assertion against key players in the digital advertising market underscores the plaintiffs' strategy of enforcing what they deem to be foundational patents in the ad-tech industry, making the outcome of this case against AT&T a noteworthy event for the sector.

Litigation Timeline and Key Developments

While the case Almondnet, Inc. et al. v. AT&T Inc. remains ongoing, a review of available litigation data provides insight into its procedural history. The pace and nature of events are typical for complex patent litigation in the District of Delaware, a jurisdiction accustomed to managing such disputes.

Initial Stages (2019)

• Complaint Filed (2019-02-08): Almondnet and Intent IQ filed their original complaint, initiating the lawsuit against AT&T for alleged infringement of multiple patents, including the now-central '139 patent.
• Answer and Counterclaims: Following the complaint, AT&T would have filed an answer, denying the allegations of infringement and likely asserting affirmative defenses, such as non-infringement and invalidity of the asserted patents. It is standard practice for defendants in such cases to also file counterclaims seeking a declaratory judgment that they do not infringe and that the patents are invalid. (Specific docket entries for the answer and counterclaims are not available in the search results).

Pre-Trial and Discovery

The period following the initial pleadings would have involved extensive discovery, where parties exchange information through document requests, depositions, and interrogatories. Key milestones during this multi-year phase typically include:

• Scheduling Order: The court would have issued a scheduling order setting deadlines for all phases of the litigation, including fact and expert discovery, the claim construction process, and dispositive motions.
• Claim Construction (Markman Hearing): A crucial step in any patent case is the Markman hearing, where the court construes the meaning of disputed terms in the patent's claims. For a case filed in Delaware in 2019, this hearing would likely have occurred within 18-24 months. The outcome of claim construction significantly shapes the scope of the infringement and validity arguments for the remainder of the case. (Specific rulings on claim construction are not detailed in the available search results).
• Motions to Dismiss or Stay: It is common for defendants like AT&T to file early motions to dismiss or to stay the case. One frequent reason for a stay is the filing of an inter partes review (IPR) petition with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to challenge the validity of the asserted patent. There is no public record indicating that a stay was granted in this district court case.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

There is no information in the public search results indicating that AT&T filed an IPR against U.S. Patent No. 8,671,139. In patent litigation, defendants often use IPRs as a parallel strategy to invalidate patents in a specialized administrative forum at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The absence of a documented IPR filed by AT&T against the '139 patent suggests the validity challenges are being handled exclusively within the district court litigation.

Current Status and Disposition

As of early 2026, the case is officially categorized as "Ongoing." This status indicates that the case has not been terminated through a final judgment, settlement, or dismissal. Given the 2019 filing date, the litigation has been active for over seven years, which, while lengthy, is not unprecedented for high-stakes patent disputes.

The ultimate outcome remains to be determined. The litigation could conclude in several ways:

• Settlement: The vast majority of patent cases end in a negotiated settlement between the parties. Such resolutions are often confidential.
• Summary Judgment: Either party may have filed motions for summary judgment, asking the court to decide the case (or parts of it) without a full trial, arguing that there are no genuine disputes of material fact.
• Trial: If the case is not resolved by motion or settlement, it would proceed to a jury trial on the issues of infringement and validity, followed by a verdict.
• Appeal: Following a final judgment, the losing party has the right to appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Given the recent multi-million dollar jury verdict Almondnet secured against Amazon on the same patent in a different case, both parties in this litigation are likely re-evaluating their strategies, which could influence the path to resolution.

Counsel for Plaintiff(s) Almondnet, Inc. and Intent IQ, LLC

Based on court filings and law firm records, the plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from at least two firms: the Delaware-based firm Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC, serving as local counsel, and the Texas-based intellectual property boutique Buether Joe & Carpenter, LLC, acting as lead counsel.

Lead Counsel

• Name: Eric W. Buether

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Buether Joe & Carpenter, LLC (Dallas, TX)
  • Experience: Specializes in intellectual property and commercial litigation, with a focus on patent, trademark, and copyright disputes.

• Name: Christopher M. Joe

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Buether Joe & Carpenter, LLC (Dallas, TX)
  • Experience: A founding partner of the firm, focusing on patent, trademark, and other complex commercial and intellectual property litigation.

Local Counsel

• Name: Stamatios Stamoulis

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Wilmington, DE)
  • Experience: Represents clients in intellectual property litigation and other complex commercial disputes before Delaware's state and federal courts.

• Name: Richard C. Weinblatt

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Wilmington, DE)
  • Experience: Focuses on patent litigation and appellate work, having argued numerous appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Of Counsel

While not listed on all dockets, counsel from The Internicola Law Firm has appeared for Intent IQ in other intellectual property matters and may have a role in this case.

• Name: Brian A. Lincer
  • Role: Of Counsel (presumed, for Intent IQ)
  • Firm: The Internicola Law Firm, P.C. (Red Bank, NJ)
  • Experience: Advises on franchise law and intellectual property matters, including brand protection and trademark law.

This legal team composition is typical for patent litigation in Delaware, combining a specialized, out-of-state trial firm with an experienced local firm that is familiar with the court's specific procedures and judges. The lead counsel from Buether Joe & Carpenter also successfully represented Almondnet in its $122 million jury verdict against Amazon on the same patent family.

Defense Counsel for AT&T Inc.

AT&T is represented by a combination of national counsel from the prominent firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP and local Delaware counsel from Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP. This structure leverages a firm with a deep bench for high-stakes patent trials alongside a firm with extensive experience in the specific procedures of the District of Delaware.

Lead Counsel

• Name: David M. Ball

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (Washington, D.C.)
  • Experience: Co-chair of the firm's Patent Litigation Group, with experience in all phases of patent litigation, including jury trials and appeals before the Federal Circuit.

• Name: Joseph J. Bial

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP (New York, NY)
  • Experience: Focuses on patent litigation and other intellectual property disputes, particularly in the technology and life sciences sectors.

Local Counsel

• Name: Philip A. Rovner

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP (Wilmington, DE)
  • Experience: A partner in the firm's Litigation Group, frequently serving as Delaware counsel in significant intellectual property cases.

• Name: Jonathan A. Choa

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP (Wilmington, DE)
  • Experience: Primarily focuses on intellectual property and complex commercial litigation in the District of Delaware.

• Name: L. TImothy Londergan

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP (Wilmington, DE)
  • Experience: Concentrates his practice on intellectual property litigation, with an emphasis on patent disputes in Delaware's federal court.