Amazon.com, Inc. v. AlmondNet, Inc.

Case Overview and Background

This Inter Partes Review (IPR) is a component of a larger, multi-front patent dispute between AlmondNet, Inc., a pioneering adtech company, and retail and technology giant [Amazon.com, Inc.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Amazon.com%2C%20Inc.) AlmondNet, an operating company established in 1998, develops and licenses privacy-focused targeted advertising technologies. The company has engaged in a broad patent assertion campaign, targeting several major technology companies. This specific IPR proceeding, filed by Amazon, sought to invalidate U.S. Patent No. 8,494,904. While the IPR was instituted, the parties reached a global settlement in April 2026, leading to a joint motion to terminate this proceeding.

The dispute centers on Amazon's vast digital advertising platform, including its demand-side platform (Amazon DSP) and other services that enable advertisers to programmatically buy ads and target audiences on and off Amazon's own properties. AlmondNet alleged that this technology infringes on its patented methods for targeted advertising. The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 8,494,904, is titled "Targeted advertising using temporal analysis of user specific data." It generally describes methods for selecting and delivering targeted advertisements to a user based on a temporal analysis of that user's recent online activities and inferred interests. This allows for the delivery of ads that are relevant to a user's immediate context and needs.

The IPR was filed at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), a common venue for accused infringers to challenge the validity of asserted patents in parallel with district court litigation. Amazon's petition was filed on March 10, 2025, and the PTAB instituted trial on October 7, 2025, finding a reasonable likelihood that Amazon would prevail in proving at least one of the challenged claims unpatentable. However, before a final written decision could be reached, the parties filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR on April 15, 2026, citing a confidential settlement agreement. This case is notable as part of a significant legal battle in the adtech space, highlighted by a related district court case in the Western District of Texas where a jury awarded AlmondNet a $122 million verdict against Amazon for infringing two other targeted advertising patents. The settlement resolves all outstanding litigation between the two companies, including this PTAB proceeding, and includes a license to AlmondNet's broader patent portfolio.

Key Legal Developments

The Inter Partes Review (IPR) of U.S. Patent No. 8,494,904 ("the '904 patent"), initiated by Amazon.com, Inc. ("Amazon") against patent owner AlmondNet, Inc. ("AlmondNet"), is part of a broader legal conflict between the two companies over targeted advertising technology. The IPR proceeding is currently pending, and its outcome will likely have a significant impact on parallel district court litigation.

Parallel District Court Litigation

2024-05-03: Complaint Filed in the Western District of Texas
AlmondNet, along with its subsidiary Datonics LLC, filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Amazon in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The complaint, docketed as Case No. 6:24-cv-00234, alleges that Amazon's advertising platform and services infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 8,494,904 and 10,984,445. The '904 patent generally relates to methods for accumulating and using user profile data to target third-party advertisements.

Inter Partes Review (IPR) Proceeding: IPR2025-00545

2025-03-10: Amazon Files IPR Petition
Amazon filed a petition with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for an Inter Partes Review of AlmondNet's '904 patent, arguing that certain claims of the patent are invalid as obvious over prior art. The case was assigned number IPR2025-00545. The specific claims challenged and the prior art cited in the petition are not publicly available at this time, which is not unusual while a case is pending.

2025-05-28: District Court Litigation Stayed
In the parallel Texas litigation, Judge Robert Pitman granted Amazon's motion to stay the case pending the outcome of IPR2025-00545. This order effectively paused all district court proceedings, including discovery and claim construction, until the PTAB issues a Final Written Decision on the validity of the challenged '904 patent claims. The court ordered the parties to file quarterly status reports to monitor the IPR's progress.

2025-10-07: PTAB Institutes Trial
The PTAB issued a decision to institute trial for IPR2025-00545. This decision signifies that the Board determined Amazon had established a "reasonable likelihood that it would prevail" in showing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims of the '904 patent. The detailed reasoning for the institution is contained in the Board's written decision, which has not been made widely public.

Other PTAB Proceedings Involving the '904 Patent

In a related matter, a separate petition for an IPR against the same '904 patent was filed by LiveIntent, Inc. However, that petition was not instituted by the PTAB. The reasons for the non-institution in that proceeding have not been made public but do not preclude the PTAB from instituting the review initiated by Amazon.

Current Status and Outlook

As of the current date, May 4, 2026, the IPR proceeding is in the trial phase. Key upcoming milestones would include the patent owner's response to the institution decision, depositions of expert witnesses, an oral hearing before the PTAB panel, and ultimately, a Final Written Decision. The statutory deadline for the PTAB to issue a Final Written Decision is one year from the institution date, which would be on or around October 7, 2026.

The outcome of this IPR will be a critical development. If the PTAB finds the challenged claims unpatentable, Amazon will be estopped from raising the same invalidity arguments in the district court case, but would likely move for dismissal of the claims related to the '904 patent. If the PTAB upholds the validity of the claims, the stay on the Texas litigation would be lifted, and AlmondNet's infringement case would proceed, strengthened by the patent's survival of the PTAB review.

I'll search for press coverage from several angles.

Press coverage

Coverage specifically about IPR2025-00545 is, as far as I can find, essentially nil. No Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360, or trade-press item I located discusses the Amazon petition against the '904 patent, the October 7, 2025 institution decision, or the Board's handling of the proceeding as such. The AlmondNet–Amazon story that the press has actually covered is the parallel Western District of Texas litigation — and that coverage is what frames this IPR. I should also note up front that the two IPWatchdog roundups supplied with this assignment do not, on my reading of them, discuss this case: the IPWatchdog roundup of 2024‑03‑21 covers DraftKings' mixed PTAB outcomes, Malikie/Key Patent Innovations' first former-BlackBerry assertions against Acer and ASUSTeK, and Pointwise Ventures' nine-defendant Seiko Epson campaign — with no AlmondNet or Amazon entry — and the IPWatchdog roundup of 2021‑09‑01 mentions AlmondNet only in its district-court filing table, where AlmondNet and Intent IQ (with Datonics) sued Samsung, AdGear, and Samsung Electronics America in W.D. Tex. case 6:21‑cv‑00891 asserting the '946, '198, '164, '878, and '822 patents — again not this IPR. I flag this rather than manufacture a connection.

The most substantive reporting is on the June 2024 verdict. Reuters reported on 2024‑06‑14 (Blake Brittain) that a Waco, Texas jury, after a week-long trial, found that elements of Amazon's advertising platform infringe two AlmondNet patents on personalized ad targeting and returned a verdict of nearly $122 million — noting the award sat at "the lower end of a request that stretched upward to $348 million," that AlmondNet had sought an unspecified amount, and that Amazon denied infringement and argued invalidity. Reuters quoted AlmondNet's counsel Reza Mirzaie and Marc Fenster of Russ August & Kabat calling the verdict a "validating win" for founder Roy Shkedi and "the foundational technology he invented," with Mirzaie estimating that interest would push the total toward $200 million; Amazon did not respond to requests for comment. Reuters identified the case as AlmondNet Inc v. Amazon.com Inc, W.D. Tex. No. 6:21‑cv‑00898, and noted AlmondNet's parallel assertions against Meta, Samsung, and Oracle. Miller Fair Henry, AlmondNet's local counsel, reported on 2025‑01‑14 that Judge Albright entered final judgment in September 2024 for $121.95 million plus $14.6 million in prejudgment interest (over $136 million total), that Amazon has appealed, and that the Texas Lawbook ranked the result among the biggest verdicts of 2024. Law360 tracks the same arc in its headline feed: "Amazon On Hook For $122M In Ad Patent Case, Jury Says" (June 14, 2024), "Albright Bumps Up Amazon Patent Loss To $136M" (Sept. 25, 2024), Amazon's post-trial challenge to AlmondNet's damages expert (Oct. 23, 2024), "AlmondNet Sues Amazon Again After $136M Ad IP Victory" (April 16, 2025 — the follow-on suit over a television-advertising patent), and "Amazon Loses Bid To Upend AlmondNet's $136M Patent Win" (Dec. 18, 2025). Separately, IAM's Nisha Shetty published a 2024‑08‑15 feature interview with Shkedi — retrieved via the PTAB exhibit copy at PTA C TS rather than the IAM site — describing his Israeli Army background, AlmondNet's 1998 founding, near-collapse in 2013, and a take-it-or-leave-it Google license that kept the company afloat; IAM also flagged an "interesting Alice issue" in the W.D. Tex. case as a potential opening for patent owners, and noted Amazon declined comment.

On the settlement, the only reporting I could verify is syndicated Chinese-language coverage of the April 7, 2026 announcement. Jiemian News and 163.com both report that AlmondNet, with subsidiaries IntentIQ and Datonics, announced resolution of the patent dispute with Amazon and a license agreement covering all outstanding matters relating to the asserted patents, granting Amazon rights under the AlmondNet group's IP portfolio; both recap the 2021 suit and the 2024 finding of infringement with damages of nearly $122 million. Neither is an original report — both read as rewrites of a press release, and I found no Reuters, Law360, or IPWatchdog piece on the settlement. The settlement is corroborated, however, by non-press sources: the IP Verse PTAB database entry for IPR2025-00545 lists the proceeding as "Terminated‑Settled" with a termination date of May 6, 2026, and the CourtListener docket for AlmondNet v. Amazon, 7:25‑cv‑00165 shows a motion to dismiss filed April 3, 2026 and granted April 6, 2026.

Several discrepancies between the press/database record and the previously generated sections deserve flagging. First, the case metadata lists this IPR as "Pending", which conflicts with the reported April 2026 settlement and the May 6, 2026 termination date recorded in PTAB-tracking databases; the metadata appears stale relative to today's date of 2026‑10‑18 (the earlier sections were also written "as of May 4, 2026," before the termination the databases record). Second, the earlier section titles the '904 patent "Targeted advertising using temporal analysis of user specific data"; AlmondNet's own complaint as reproduced on RPX Insight titles it "Method and stored program for accumulating descriptive profile data along with source information for use in targeting third-party advertisements," and I could not confirm the earlier title anywhere. Third, the earlier section attributes the stay of the 2024 W.D. Tex. case to Judge Robert Pitman, whereas Law360 and Miller Fair Henry place that litigation and its judgment before Judge Alan Albright in Waco. Fourth, accounts differ on emphasis rather than fact in one notable respect: Amazon's public posture. Reuters and IAM both note Amazon declined comment on the verdict, while Amazon's litigation position (denial of infringement, invalidity) is reported consistently — but no outlet has reported Amazon's own characterization of either the verdict or the settlement, and the settlement terms (royalty, lump sum, scope beyond a portfolio license) have not been disclosed in any report I found. Finally, secondary database summaries should be treated cautiously: the Arctic Invent case page for IPR2025-00545 usefully describes the grounds (obviousness and anticipation combinations of Merriman061, Jaye, Rosenberg, Merriman154, and Coleman, with a §§314(a)/325(d) discretionary argument) but still states that "no institution decision has been made" — directly contradicted by the October 7, 2025 institution recorded in the Board's own scheduling order referenced in the joint stipulation extending Due Dates 1–3 (Due Date 1 to January 20, 2026, Due Date 2 to April 14, 2026, Due Date 3 to May 19, 2026).

Sources

• AlmondNet宣布与亚马逊达成专利侵权纠纷和解
• AlmondNet宣布与亚马逊达成专利侵权纠纷和解
• • 한편, 넷리스트는 마이크론(Micron)을 상대로 별개의 특허 침해 소송을 진행 중이며, 위 삼성 사건에서 쟁점이 된 특허가 이 마이크론과의 사건에서도 쟁점이 되고 있는 상황임
• AlmondNet与亚马逊专利侵权纷争落幕，双方达成和解协议
• Intellectual Property and Patent Litigation - Miller Fair Henry
• UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
• E. Level of Skill in the Art
• Almondnet competitive analysis - IP Verse
• Plaintiffs AlmondNet, Inc
• AlmondNet, Inc. et al v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al
• AlmondNet, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 7:25-cv-00165 - CourtListener.com - AlmondNet, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. (7:25-cv-00165)

Counsel for Petitioner Amazon.com, Inc.

Amazon.com, Inc. and its related entities are represented in this Inter Partes Review by attorneys from the law firm of Fenwick & West LLP. The counsel of record was formally appointed in a Power of Attorney filing submitted to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Based on this filing and public professional profiles, the legal team for the petitioner is identified as follows:

This team from Fenwick & West is handling the IPR proceeding, which is running parallel to related district court litigation between AlmondNet and Amazon. The IPR was filed on March 10, 2025, and the PTAB instituted a trial on October 7, 2025. According to a press release, the broader patent dispute between the parties, which included a significant jury verdict in a separate district court case, was resolved through a settlement and license agreement announced in April 2026. However, as of May 4, 2026, the IPR proceeding officially remains pending until a joint motion to terminate is formally filed and granted by the Board.

Based on a review of filings in this inter partes review, counsel for the patent owner, AlmondNet, Inc., has been identified. All attorneys are from the same law firm.

Russ, August & Kabat

The law firm representing AlmondNet, Inc. is Russ, August & Kabat, a Los Angeles-based firm known for its plaintiff-side patent litigation practice.

Counsel of Record:

• Name: Reza Mirzaie

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Russ, August & Kabat
  • Office: Los Angeles, CA
  • Note: Mr. Mirzaie co-led the trial team that recently secured a $122 million jury verdict for AlmondNet against Amazon for infringement of related patents. His firm biography notes he has obtained more than $600 million for clients in the past five years and has significant experience in post-grant proceedings before the USPTO.

• Name: James A. Milkey

  • Role: Back-Up Counsel
  • Firm: Russ, August & Kabat
  • Office: Los Angeles, CA
  • Note: Mr. Milkey was part of the core team, along with Reza Mirzaie and Marc Fenster, that represented AlmondNet in its successful district court litigation against Amazon.

• Name: Philip X. Wang

  • Role: Back-Up Counsel
  • Firm: Russ, August & Kabat
  • Office: Los Angeles, CA
  • Note: He is listed on the Patent Owner's Mandatory Notices filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

• Name: Benjamin T. Wang

  • Role: Back-Up Counsel
  • Firm: Russ, August & Kabat
  • Office: Los Angeles, CA
  • Note: Mr. Wang was on the trial team with Marc Fenster and Reza Mirzaie that won a $315 million jury verdict for SPEX Technologies against Western Digital.

Additional Key Attorney:

While not formally listed as lead or back-up counsel on the initial PTAB filing, the head of the firm's patent group is highly relevant due to his role in the parallel district court litigation.

• Name: Marc A. Fenster
  • Role: Of Counsel (presumed, as chair of patent litigation)
  • Firm: Russ, August & Kabat
  • Office: Los Angeles, CA
  • Note: As chair of the firm's patent litigation department, Mr. Fenster co-led the successful $122 million jury trial for AlmondNet against Amazon alongside Mr. Mirzaie.