AlmondNet, Inc. et al. v. LiveIntent, Inc.

Case Overview & Background

This patent infringement lawsuit is part of a broader, high-stakes licensing and litigation campaign by pioneers in the digital advertising technology sector against major industry players. The plaintiffs are AlmondNet, Inc. and its subsidiaries, Intent IQ, LLC, and Datonics LLC. These are operating companies founded in 1998 that develop and sell "privacy-friendly" targeted advertising, data aggregation, and identity resolution services. However, they are also sophisticated and frequent patent asserters, focusing on monetizing an extensive patent portfolio that they describe as foundational to the ad-tech landscape. The defendant, LiveIntent, Inc., is also an ad-tech operating company that provides a "people-based marketing platform" for brands to reach audiences through email and other channels, leveraging first-party data and hashed email addresses to deliver personalized ads. The lawsuit accuses LiveIntent's core advertising platform—specifically its systems for audience management, ad delivery, and targeting based on user profiles and hashed email identifiers—of infringing the plaintiffs' patents.

The case is proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware before Chief Judge Maryellen Noreika, a popular and influential venue for patent litigation due to its experienced judiciary and case law favorable to patent holders. While the initial complaint asserted four patents, the current focus is on U.S. Patent No. 8,494,904. The '904 patent, titled "Targeted advertising," generally covers systems and methods for using audience data, including search and purchase-intent data, to deliver relevant advertisements. The case is procedurally in the discovery phase, with a claim construction hearing scheduled for December 2026 and a jury trial for October 2027.

The litigation is notable as a key front in AlmondNet and Intent IQ's widespread enforcement effort across the ad-tech industry. Intent IQ has active cases against numerous companies, including Amazon, Microsoft, and Roku, and secured a $122 million jury verdict against Amazon in a separate case over different ad-tech patents. This pattern of targeting major technology companies that rely on targeted advertising makes the AlmondNet portfolio a significant legal risk in the sector. The dispute also has a parallel front at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), where LiveIntent has filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) seeking to invalidate a related patent asserted by the plaintiffs, a common defensive strategy in high-stakes patent cases. The case's outcome could have broad implications for the ad-tech market, particularly as the industry moves away from third-party cookies and towards alternative identity and targeting solutions like those at the heart of this dispute.

Patent Litigation Analyst Report: Key Developments & Outcome

Case: AlmondNet, Inc. et al. v. LiveIntent, Inc.
Case Number: 1-24-cv-00831
Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Report Date: 2026-05-04

This report details the key legal developments in the patent infringement litigation between AlmondNet and its affiliates and LiveIntent, Inc. The case is active and in the discovery phase, marked by significant parallel challenges to the asserted patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

---

Chronological Developments

Filing and Initial Pleadings

• 2024-07-18: Initial Complaint Filed
  The lawsuit was initiated by AlmondNet, Inc., Intent IQ, LLC, and Datonics LLC (collectively, "AlmondNet") against LiveIntent, Inc. ("LiveIntent"). The original complaint asserted infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,494,904.
  (Source: Case Caption)

• 2024-11-12: First Amended Complaint
  AlmondNet filed a First Amended Complaint (D.I. 13), expanding the scope of the lawsuit to allege infringement of four patents:

  • 8,494,904: "Providing collected profiles to media properties having specified interests"
  • 8,677,398: "Systems and methods for taking action with respect to one network-connected device based on activity on another device connected to the same network"
  • 8,959,146: "Media properties selection method and system based on expected profit from profile-based ad delivery"
  • 10,984,445: "Providing collected profiles to media properties having specified interests"
    The amended complaint alleges that LiveIntent's "People-Based Marketing Platform" and related services infringe these patents.

• Pleadings from Defendant (Status as of 2026-05-04)
  While docket reports indicate that LiveIntent is a "Counter Claimant," specific filings for an Answer and Counterclaims to the First Amended Complaint have not been publicly located in the available search results. Multiple stipulations were filed and granted to extend the time for LiveIntent to answer the original and amended complaints.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

LiveIntent has aggressively challenged the validity of the asserted patents by filing petitions for Inter Partes Review (IPR) at the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). These proceedings have had a significant impact on the overall dispute.

• IPR on U.S. Patent 8,677,398 (IPR2025-01317)

  • Filing: LiveIntent filed a petition on 2025-07-18.
  • Outcome: Discretionary Denial. On 2025-11-20, the USPTO Director exercised discretion to deny institution of the IPR. These denials have often been based on new guidance emphasizing factors like the "settled expectations" of the patent owner, particularly for patents that have been in force for a number of years, or the status of parallel district court litigation under the Fintiv framework.

• IPR on U.S. Patent 8,494,904 (IPR2025-01160)

  • Filing: LiveIntent filed a petition on 2025-06-20.
  • Outcome: Not Instituted - Procedural. The PTAB declined to institute this IPR on procedural grounds as of 2025-11-20. The specific reasons for the procedural denial are not detailed in the available results but can include issues like the failure to name all real parties-in-interest.

• IPR on U.S. Patent 8,959,146 (IPR2025-01163)

  • Filing: A petition was filed on 2025-06-20 listing both LiveIntent and Viant Technology LLC as petitioners.
  • Outcome: Not Instituted - Procedural. This petition was also denied institution on procedural grounds as of 2025-11-20.

• IPR on U.S. Patent 10,984,445 (IPR2025-01318 and IPR2025-00873)

  • LiveIntent Petition (IPR2025-01318): LiveIntent filed a petition against the '445 patent on 2025-07-18. As of early 2026, this petition is listed as "Pending" with no institution decision yet publicly available.
  • Amazon Petition (IPR2025-00873): In a related matter, Amazon filed an IPR against the same '445 patent. On 2025-10-31, the PTAB instituted this IPR, finding a "reasonable likelihood" that Amazon would prevail on its challenge to claims 1-14. This proceeding lists the AlmondNet v. LiveIntent case as related litigation. The institution of this parallel IPR on the same patent strengthens the invalidity arguments available to LiveIntent in the district court case.

Pre-Trial Motions and Discovery

• Motion to Stay Pending IPR (Unconfirmed)
  While it is standard practice for a defendant to file a motion to stay the district court case pending the outcome of IPRs, no such motion or a corresponding ruling has been identified in the available search results. The active discovery and scheduling in the case suggest that either a stay was not requested or was denied by the court.

• Discovery
  The case is currently in the discovery phase. Docket entries from April 2026 reflect ongoing discovery activities, including service of interrogatories and requests for production.

• Discovery Conference
  A discovery conference is scheduled before Judge Maryellen Noreika for today, 2026-05-04, at 2:00 PM, indicating that the parties are actively litigating discovery disputes.

Claim Construction (Markman)

The court has set a schedule for claim construction, the process by which the court determines the legal meaning of disputed patent terms.

• Joint Claim Construction Chart Due: 2026-06-15
• Markman Hearing: A claim construction hearing is scheduled for 2026-12-11. No substantive rulings on claim terms have been issued to date.

---

Present Posture and Outlook

Current Status: The case is active and proceeding through discovery in the District of Delaware.

Key Factors:

• Partial PTAB Success for AlmondNet: AlmondNet successfully defeated three of LiveIntent's IPR petitions at the institution stage (two on procedural grounds, one via discretionary denial). This is a significant victory for the patent owner, as it prevents a parallel, and often faster, validity challenge on those patents at the PTAB.
• Ongoing PTAB Threat: The '445 patent, however, has been instituted for IPR review based on Amazon's petition. This means the patent's validity will be fully litigated before the PTAB. The outcome of that IPR will likely have a substantial impact on the district court litigation, as an invalidity finding at the PTAB can be used defensively by LiveIntent. LiveIntent's own IPR petition on this patent remains pending.
• District Court Trajectory: With a trial not scheduled until October 2027, the litigation is still in its early stages. The denial of LiveIntent's IPRs on three of the four patents means the validity of those patents will likely be fully contested in district court rather than at the PTAB. The upcoming claim construction process will be a critical inflection point, as the court's interpretation of key patent terms will shape the infringement and validity arguments for the remainder of the case.

Based on a review of the case docket and related filings, counsel for the plaintiffs AlmondNet, Inc., Intent IQ, LLC, and Datonics LLC are from the Delaware-based intellectual property litigation firm Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC. While the publicly available docket summaries do not explicitly name the individual attorneys who have entered an appearance, the firm's consistent representation of AlmondNet in other patent cases and the nature of this filing strongly indicate the following partners are the counsel of record.

Plaintiffs' Counsel

Stamatios "Stam" Stamoulis

• Role: Lead Counsel
• Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Wilmington, DE)
• Relevant Experience: Co-founder of his firm, he has over two decades of experience in patent litigation in Delaware and other high-volume patent venues like the Eastern District of Texas.

Richard C. Weinblatt

• Role: Lead Counsel
• Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Wilmington, DE)
• Relevant Experience: A registered patent attorney and co-founder of his firm, he focuses on patent litigation and appeals to the Federal Circuit, with experience at premier IP firms like Fish & Richardson.

---

Disclaimer: While Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC is clearly the firm representing the plaintiffs, and the listed attorneys are the primary patent litigators at that firm, no document with a signature block confirming their specific appearance in case 1-24-cv-00831 was available in the public search results. Their roles are inferred from their positions at the firm and their extensive history in patent litigation.

Defendant LiveIntent, Inc. Represented by Yetter Coleman and Potter Anderson & Corroon

As of May 4, 2026, court filings in the District of Delaware and related proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) show that defendant LiveIntent, Inc. is represented by attorneys from the litigation boutique Yetter Coleman LLP and the Delaware-based firm Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP.

An inter partes review (IPR) petition filed by LiveIntent against AlmondNet's U.S. Patent No. 8,494,904, identified as case IPR2025-01160 before the PTAB, confirms the identities of the legal counsel. While notices of appearance in the district court case (AlmondNet, Inc. et al. v. LiveIntent, Inc., 1-24-cv-00831) have not been made publicly available through general searches, the attorneys representing LiveIntent in the parallel PTAB proceeding are listed in the petition documents. It is standard practice for counsel in such PTAB proceedings to also serve as counsel in the corresponding district court litigation.

Lead Counsel

• R. Paul Yetter, Partner

  • Firm: Yetter Coleman LLP (Houston)
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Note: A nationally recognized trial lawyer, Yetter has led numerous high-stakes commercial and intellectual property cases, often representing clients in the technology and energy sectors.

• Jeffrey A. Andrews, Partner

  • Firm: Yetter Coleman LLP (Houston)
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Note: Andrews leads Yetter Coleman's intellectual property practice and has extensive experience in complex patent litigation across various technologies, including software and telecommunications.

Local Counsel

• David E. Moore, Partner

  • Firm: Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP (Wilmington, DE)
  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Note: Moore is a seasoned Delaware litigator with a strong focus on intellectual property cases, frequently serving as local counsel for national and international clients in the District of Delaware.

• Bindu Ann Palapura, Partner

  • Firm: Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP (Wilmington, DE)
  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Note: Palapura's practice centers on patent and trademark litigation, with experience in cases involving pharmaceuticals, software, and other technologies.