Almondnet, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.

Case Overview: AlmondNet's Ad-Targeting Campaign Reaches Amazon

This patent infringement suit involves players from the digital advertising technology ("ad-tech") sector. The plaintiff, Almondnet, Inc., is a New York-based ad-tech company founded in 1998 that has developed a portfolio of patents related to targeted advertising. Almondnet and its subsidiaries, such as Datonics and Intent IQ, operate in the ad-tech space by providing data aggregation, ad-targeting, and "identity resolution" services that help companies target users with advertising, including in "cookieless" environments. While it operates as a technology provider, Almondnet is also an active patent licensor and has been characterized as a patent assertion entity in other contexts. The defendant is Amazon.com, Inc., a global technology giant with massive operations in e-commerce, cloud computing (Amazon Web Services), and digital advertising. Amazon's advertising platforms, which allow sellers and other third parties to target ads to consumers based on their browsing and purchasing behavior, are the focus of the infringement allegations.

The lawsuit, filed in August 2021, originally asserted ten patents but was narrowed to three by the time of trial. The asserted patents relate to foundational methods in behavioral ad-targeting. They include U.S. Patent No. 8,494,904, covering methods for data providers to monetize user data by delivering targeted ads. U.S. Patent No. 7,822,639, titled "Added-revenue off-site targeted internet advertising," describes a method for displaying ads to a user on one website based on their having previously visited another site. U.S. Patent No. 8,671,139, "Media properties selection method and system based on expected profit from profile-based ad delivery," covers a system for selecting where to place ads based on the expected profitability of showing an ad to a user with a specific profile. Almondnet alleged that Amazon's advertising systems, including its ad exchange and targeting services, utilized these patented methods without a license.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division, and assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright. This venue became the most popular in the U.S. for patent litigation following Judge Albright's 2018 appointment, attracting nearly 25% of all new patent suits nationwide by 2021. The court was known for procedures seen as favorable to patent plaintiffs, including a fast timeline to trial and a reluctance to grant early dispositive motions on issues like patent eligibility. The concentration of cases eventually led the district to randomly assign patent cases among its judges starting in mid-2022. This case is notable as another significant verdict against a major tech company in a plaintiff-friendly Texas court, underscoring the ongoing high-stakes litigation between ad-tech innovators and the dominant platforms that deploy similar technology at scale. The case also intersects with parallel administrative challenges at the U.S. Patent Office; for instance, Amazon and Meta jointly succeeded in invalidating claims of a different Almondnet patent via an inter partes review (IPR).

An ad-tech patent dispute that began with a ten-patent complaint culminated in a $136 million judgment for patent-holder Almondnet, followed by a settlement and dismissal during the appeal. The litigation in the Western District of Texas saw a full jury trial and was accompanied by parallel validity challenges at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Filing and Initial Pleadings (2021)

2021-08-27: Almondnet, Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Amazon.com, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Waco Division), presided over by Judge Alan D. Albright. The original complaint accused Amazon's advertising platform, including its ad exchange and targeting services, of infringing ten U.S. patents. This suit was part of a broader litigation campaign, with Almondnet filing similar complaints against Microsoft, Meta, Samsung, and Roku around the same time. Amazon denied the allegations in its answer.

Pre-Trial Motions and Developments (2022-2023)

Over the course of the pre-trial phase, Almondnet significantly narrowed its case, dropping eight of the ten initially asserted patents. The case proceeded to trial on two patents: U.S. Patent No. 8,671,139 ("Media properties selection method and system based on expected profit from profile-based ad delivery") and U.S. Patent No. 7,822,639 ("Added-revenue off-site targeted advertising").

Claim Construction (Markman Ruling):
2023-06-19: Judge Albright issued a claim construction order, resolving disputes over the meaning of patent terms. The ruling was part of a consolidated order that also covered the parallel case against Microsoft. The court, in that order, declined to find any of the disputed claim terms indefinite. The specific citation for the order is AlmondNet, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., Nos. 6:21-CV-00897-ADA, 6:21-CV-00898-ADA, 2023 WL 11983063 (W.D. Tex. June 19, 2023).

The case proceeded through discovery to a jury trial, indicating that any dispositive motions for dismissal or summary judgment were either not filed or were denied.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings (IPRs)

In a press release following the ultimate settlement, Almondnet touted "numerous Inter Partes Review ('IPR') patent-office wins." IPRs are a common defense tactic where an accused infringer challenges the validity of a patent before the PTAB.

Specific IPRs filed by Amazon against Almondnet patents include:

• IPR2023-00384: Filed by Amazon on 2022-12-21. The outcome of this proceeding is not detailed in the available public records, but Almondnet's characterization of its PTAB record as containing "numerous...wins" suggests it was likely terminated in Almondnet's favor, possibly through a denial of institution.
• IPR2025-00545: Filed by Amazon on 2025-03-09 against U.S. Patent No. 8,494,904, one of the patents originally asserted in the district court case but not one of the two that went to trial. The PTAB instituted a trial for this IPR on 2025-10-06. However, following the global settlement between the parties, a joint motion to terminate the proceeding was filed on 2026-04-15.

Trial and Verdict (2024)

2024-06-14: After a week-long trial in Waco, a federal jury returned a verdict in favor of Almondnet. The jury found that Amazon had infringed both the '139 and '639 patents and that Amazon had failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the asserted patent claims were invalid. The jury awarded Almondnet $121.95 million in damages. The verdict was a significant event in patent litigation for the year.

Final Judgment and Appeal (2024-2026)

2024-09-25: Judge Albright entered a final judgment in the case. He affirmed the jury's $121.95 million damage award and added $14.7 million in pre-judgment interest, bringing the total judgment against Amazon to over $136 million.

Appeal and Final Disposition:
Amazon subsequently appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. However, the appeal was short-lived.

2026-04-07: Almondnet announced that the parties had resolved their patent dispute and entered into a license agreement. The agreement resolved all outstanding litigation between the companies. Following this settlement, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the appeal at the Federal Circuit, which was granted, officially ending the case.

Based on court filings and media reports, the following counsel represented the plaintiff, Almondnet, Inc.

Lead Counsel

Firm: Russ August & Kabat (Los Angeles, CA)

This Los Angeles-based intellectual property and litigation firm served as lead counsel for Almondnet. The firm's attorneys led the trial team that secured a significant jury verdict against Amazon.

• Marc A. Fenster

  • Role: Lead Trial Counsel
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat (Los Angeles, CA)
  • Note: Fenster, chair of the firm's Patent Litigation department, is a veteran trial lawyer who has secured multiple nine-figure jury verdicts in high-stakes patent cases.

• Reza Mirzaie

  • Role: Lead Trial Counsel
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat (Los Angeles, CA)
  • Note: Co-chair of the plaintiff's patent infringement department, Mirzaie has co-led trial teams with Marc Fenster in numerous successful patent verdicts, including against Samsung, Google, and Verizon.

• James A. Milkey

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat (Los Angeles, CA)
  • Note: A partner specializing in intellectual property litigation, Milkey was named on the original complaint and has experience in disputes before federal courts and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Local Counsel

Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC (Longview, TX)

Formerly known as Ward, Smith & Hill, this Texas-based firm is known for its extensive trial experience in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas and frequently acts as local counsel in major patent infringement cases.

• Andrea L. Fair
  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC (Longview, TX)
  • Note: A partner at the firm, Fair has served as local counsel in numerous high-profile patent trials, securing significant verdicts against companies like Samsung and Amazon.

Based on a review of court filings and legal publications, the following attorneys have appeared on behalf of the defendant, Amazon.com, Inc., in this matter.

Lead Counsel

• Name: J. David Hadden

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Fenwick & West LLP (Silicon Valley)
  • Note: A top-ranked patent litigator who often represents major technology companies like Amazon, Intel, and Zillow in high-stakes disputes.

• Name: Saina S. Shamilov

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Fenwick & West LLP (Mountain View, CA)
  • Note: Co-chair of Fenwick's patent litigation group, she is a trial lawyer with over two decades of experience representing major technology companies.

• Name: Brian M. Hoffman

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Fenwick & West LLP
  • Note: Represented Amazon during the jury trial that concluded in June 2024. Further details on his specific background are not prominent in the search results.

Local Counsel

• Name: J. Mark Mann

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Mann | Tindel | Thompson (Henderson / Tyler / Waco, TX)
  • Note: An experienced Texas trial attorney with a practice covering intellectual property and commercial litigation in federal courts.

• Name: G. Blake Thompson

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Mann | Tindel | Thompson (Henderson / Tyler, TX)
  • Note: Handles complex civil litigation, including intellectual property cases, in the federal districts of Texas.

• Name: Deron Dacus

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: The Dacus Firm, P.C. (Tyler, TX)
  • Note: Mentioned as Texas counsel for Amazon in reporting on the trial verdict.