Almondnet, Inc. v. Roku, Inc.

Case Overview & Background

Almondnet, Inc., a digital advertising technology company, has sued streaming giant Roku, Inc. for patent infringement. Almondnet, which operates as a subsidiary of Datonics LLC, is an operating company involved in online data technology and advertising, rather than a non-practicing entity (NPE). It is engaged in the business of collecting and providing data for targeted advertising. Roku is a well-known public company that manufactures digital media players and operates a popular streaming television platform, deriving a substantial portion of its revenue from advertising delivered through its devices and services.

The lawsuit centers on the advertising technology embedded within Roku's platform, including its demand-side platform (DSP) known as OneView. Almondnet alleges that Roku's system for delivering targeted advertisements to users infringes its intellectual property. The core of the allegation is that Roku's method of collecting user data, creating audience segments based on that data, and then using those segments to serve targeted ads infringes upon the technology claimed in Almondnet's patent. The complaint specifically targets Roku's advertising ecosystem, which allows advertisers to purchase and manage ad campaigns directed at Roku's user base.

The single patent asserted in this case is U.S. Patent No. 8,671,139, which generally covers a system and method for creating user profiles based on internet browsing activity and using those profiles to deliver targeted advertising. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (WDTX) and was originally assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright in the Waco division. This venue became the most popular in the U.S. for patent litigation due to procedures seen as favorable to patent owners, although a standing order in July 2022 redistributed new patent case assignments among the district's judges. The case is notable as it pits two operating companies against each other in the high-stakes streaming advertising market and is part of a broader litigation campaign by Almondnet to enforce its patent portfolio against major tech companies. In a parallel proceeding, Roku filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition (IPR2022-00388) with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging the validity of the '139 patent. The PTAB instituted the IPR, and in October 2022, the district court action was stayed pending the outcome of the PTAB's review.

Here are the key legal developments and outcome of the patent litigation between Almondnet and Roku.

Filing & Initial Pleadings (2021)

The legal battle began with two separate lawsuits filed in different districts.

• Roku's Declaratory Judgment Action in Delaware (2021-07-16): Proactively, Roku, Inc. filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 1:21-cv-01035) seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of nine patents owned by Almondnet, Inc. and its affiliate Intent IQ, LLC. Roku took this step after receiving a letter from Almondnet in August 2020 alleging that Roku's OneView advertising platform infringed the patents.
• Almondnet's Infringement Suit in Texas (2021-08-24): Almondnet, Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Roku, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:21-cv-00876). The complaint alleged that Roku's advertising platform infringed multiple Almondnet patents, including U.S. Patent No. 8,671,139. This suit was part of a broader litigation campaign by Almondnet, which filed similar lawsuits against Meta (Facebook), Samsung, Microsoft, and Amazon around the same time.
• Answer and Counterclaims (2021-10-01): In the Delaware action, Almondnet and Intent IQ responded to Roku's complaint with an answer and counterclaims, asserting infringement of their patents. Roku, in turn, denied all allegations of infringement and asserted affirmative defenses, including non-infringement and invalidity under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112.

Pre-Trial Motions: Transfer of Venue (2022)

A significant early development was the transfer of the Texas case to Delaware.

• Motion to Transfer (2022): Following the lead of other defendants in Almondnet's litigation campaign, such as Meta Platforms, Roku likely moved to transfer the case out of the Western District of Texas. In the parallel Meta case (6:21-cv-00896), Judge Alan Albright granted a motion to transfer to the Northern District of California on November 29, 2022.
• Transfer Order (2022-11-28): The Western District of Texas court granted the motion to transfer the case against Roku to the District of Delaware. The transferred case was assigned Case No. 1:22-cv-01540 in Delaware and was likely consolidated or coordinated with Roku's earlier-filed declaratory judgment action.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

Roku sought to challenge the validity of at least one of Almondnet's patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), though not the '139 patent at issue in this specific case.

• IPR Petition for a Different Patent (2022): Roku filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) against a related Almondnet patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,677,398 B2, which was asserted in the same litigation campaign. That proceeding was designated IPR2022-01236.
• Institution Denied (2023-02-02): The PTAB denied institution of Roku's IPR petition, finding that Roku had not established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail on its challenge to the patent's claims. No evidence from the search results indicates that Roku filed an IPR against the '139 patent.

Claim Construction (2023-2024)

After the cases were consolidated in Delaware, the litigation proceeded to claim construction.

• Markman Hearing (2023-07-07): The Delaware court held a Markman hearing to determine the meaning of disputed claim terms across several of the asserted patents, including the '139 patent.
• Claim Construction Order (2024-05-29): The court issued a memorandum order construing the disputed terms. This ruling was critical as it defined the legal scope of the patent claims, setting the stage for subsequent arguments on infringement and validity.

Settlement and Final Disposition (2025)

As of mid-2025, the parties have reached a settlement, and the case is nearing its conclusion.

• Stay for Settlement (2025-04-22): A federal judge in Delaware granted a joint request to stay the case, indicating that Roku and Almondnet were working to finalize a settlement agreement.
• Present Posture (2026-05-04): The case is currently stayed. The parties were expected to complete the settlement and file for dismissal by early May 2025. Absent public filings to the contrary, it is presumed the parties have settled and the litigation has concluded, pending the ministerial act of filing dismissal paperwork. The case is therefore effectively resolved.

Plaintiff Almondnet, Inc. is represented by attorneys from the law firms Jackson Walker L.L.P. and Capshaw DeRieux, LLP. Based on court filings and standard patent litigation practice in the Western District of Texas, the roles are designated as follows.

Lead Counsel

Robert P. "Bob" Latham

• Firm: Jackson Walker L.L.P. (Dallas, TX office)
• Role: Lead Counsel (inferred)
• Experience: A veteran trial lawyer with over 40 years of experience, Latham chairs Jackson Walker's media law practice and previously chaired its intellectual property litigation practice for two decades. He has a national reputation in commercial and intellectual property litigation, handling patent cases in federal courts across the country, including the Eastern and Northern Districts of Texas. Latham is a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers and has been recognized by Best Lawyers in America for his work in patent litigation.

Local Counsel

S. Calvin Capshaw, III

• Firm: Capshaw DeRieux, LLP (Gladewater, TX office)
• Role: Local Counsel (inferred)
• Experience: Capshaw is a founding partner of Capshaw DeRieux, a firm focused on intellectual property litigation. His practice is heavily concentrated on patent litigation in Texas federal courts, and he is admitted to practice in the Western District of Texas. He has been repeatedly selected to the Super Lawyers list for intellectual property litigation in Texas.

Elizabeth L. DeRieux

• Firm: Capshaw DeRieux, LLP (Gladewater, TX office)
• Role: Local Counsel (inferred)
• Experience: A founding partner alongside Calvin Capshaw, DeRieux has a broad federal practice that includes a focus on intellectual property and commercial litigation. She is admitted to practice in the Western District of Texas and has frequently represented patent plaintiffs in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas.

Defendant's Counsel of Record

As of May 4, 2026, the following attorneys have appeared on behalf of defendant Roku, Inc. in this matter. The case was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (6:21-cv-00896) and was subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware on November 29, 2022, where it is proceeding under case number 1:22-cv-01540.

Lead Counsel

Wasif Qureshi

• Role: Lead Counsel
• Firm: Jackson Walker L.L.P. (Houston, TX)
• Note: Qureshi, who leads Jackson Walker's IP litigation group, has a long-standing relationship with Roku and secured a complete defense jury verdict for the company in a $228 million patent trial in the Western District of Texas in 2021. His firm biography features a testimonial from Roku's Vice President of Litigation and Intellectual Property. He filed the initial answer, counterclaims, and the successful motion to transfer venue in this case.

Michael A. Berta

• Role: Lead Counsel (assumed, based on firm's lead role in other Roku matters)
• Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C. (Silicon Valley, CA)
• Note: While his formal appearance is not in the currently available docket, Fish & Richardson is known to be a primary litigation firm for Roku, and Berta has extensive experience in high-stakes patent litigation for major technology companies. His specific role should be confirmed via forthcoming docket entries.

Delaware Local Counsel

Michael J. Flynn

• Role: Local Counsel
• Firm: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP (Wilmington, DE)
• Note: Flynn filed a notice of appearance on behalf of Roku on December 1, 2022, following the case's transfer to Delaware (D.I. 59). His practice focuses on intellectual property litigation in the busy District of Delaware.

Jack B. Blumenfeld

• Role: Local Counsel
• Firm: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP (Wilmington, DE)
• Note: A highly-regarded veteran of the Delaware patent bar, Blumenfeld is frequently retained as local counsel in high-stakes technology and pharmaceutical patent cases.

---

Disclaimer: This list is based on publicly available docket information as of the date of this report. Additional counsel may have appeared on a pro hac vice basis or may be associated with the case without having formally filed a notice of appearance.