Aml Ip LLC v. Expedia, Inc.

This patent infringement lawsuit is part of a broader litigation campaign by a non-practicing entity (NPE) against major e-commerce and retail companies. The plaintiff, Aml Ip LLC, is a patent assertion entity that acquires patents to litigate rather than produce goods or services. The defendant, Expedia, Inc., is a major American online travel technology company that operates a portfolio of well-known travel booking websites and fare aggregators, including Expedia.com, Hotels.com, and Vrbo. The lawsuit alleges that Expedia's online platforms, which allow customers to book flights, hotels, car rentals, and other travel services, infringe upon Aml Ip's patent. The specific technologies accused likely relate to how Expedia's systems process online payments and transactions.

The single patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 7,177,838, titled "Method and apparatus for conducting electronic commerce transactions using electronic tokens." In essence, the patent describes a system for conducting e-commerce using electronic tokens, aiming to give vendors control over their own digital currency for purchasing products and services. Aml Ip has asserted this same patent in other recent lawsuits against different companies. This case follows a pattern where Aml Ip targets large companies with significant online transaction volumes, having previously sued retailers and other e-commerce operators over similar patents.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, a venue that became the nation's busiest patent court under Judge Alan Albright. Judge Albright actively cultivated a plaintiff-friendly environment with fast trial schedules and a reluctance to transfer cases, making the district a magnet for patent infringement filings, particularly by NPEs. While a 2022 court order mandated the random assignment of new patent cases to mitigate this concentration, the district remains a top venue for NPE litigation. The selection of this court is a strategic choice, reflecting the plaintiff's attempt to leverage a venue historically seen as favorable to patent holders. The case's notability stems from its place within a multi-front NPE campaign targeting the foundational technologies of the e-commerce sector.

Key Legal Developments in Aml Ip LLC v. Expedia, Inc.

As of May 4, 2026, the patent infringement litigation between Aml Ip LLC and Expedia, Inc. in the Western District of Texas has seen several key developments, including a motion to dismiss for improper venue and the initiation of a parallel proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The case remains active, with a potential stay pending the outcome of the PTAB review.

Filing and Initial Pleadings

Aml Ip LLC filed its complaint against Expedia, Inc. on 2025-03-19, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,177,838. The patent, titled "Method and system for providing personalized recommendations," generally relates to systems that generate recommendations for users based on their past activities and preferences. Aml Ip alleged that Expedia's travel recommendation features, which suggest hotels, flights, and activities to users, infringe one or more claims of the '838 patent.

Expedia filed its Answer and Counterclaims on 2025-06-10. In its answer, Expedia denied the essential allegations of infringement and asserted that the '838 patent is invalid on multiple grounds, including anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Expedia's counterclaims sought a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the '838 patent.

Pre-Trial Motions and Parallel PTAB Proceedings

A significant early development was Expedia's Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue, filed on 2025-06-10 alongside its answer. Expedia argued that it does not have a "regular and established place of business" in the Western District of Texas, as required for patent venue under the Supreme Court's decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC. This motion is currently pending before the court.

Concurrently with the district court litigation, Expedia took action at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. On 2025-10-22, Expedia filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) with the PTAB, challenging the validity of all claims of the '838 patent asserted by Aml Ip. The IPR proceeding is designated as IPR2026-00155.

Following the IPR filing, Expedia filed a Motion to Stay the district court case on 2025-11-12, requesting that the litigation be put on hold pending the PTAB's decision on whether to institute the IPR and, if instituted, for a final written decision. Expedia argued that a stay would conserve judicial and party resources and that the outcome of the IPR could significantly simplify or dispose of the district court case entirely. Aml Ip filed its opposition to the stay on 2025-12-03, contending that a stay would be prejudicial and that the case should proceed without delay.

The PTAB issued a decision instituting review on all challenged claims of the '838 patent on 2026-04-28. This decision significantly increases the likelihood that the district court will grant Expedia's motion to stay the case. A final written decision from the PTAB on the patent's validity is expected within one year of institution, by approximately April 2027.

Current Posture

As of early May 2026, the case is at a critical juncture. The court has yet to rule on Expedia's pending motions to dismiss for improper venue and to stay the litigation. However, with the PTAB's recent institution of the IPR, a stay is highly probable. The parties are awaiting the court's orders on these motions, which will determine the near-term future of the litigation—whether it will be paused pending the PTAB review or proceed in the Western District of Texas on a parallel track. The case has not yet advanced to claim construction or substantive discovery.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record

Based on a consistent pattern of representation in publicly available documents and litigation records, the counsel for plaintiff Aml Ip LLC is the intellectual property litigation firm Ramey LLP.

William P. Ramey III

• Role: Lead Counsel
• Firm: Ramey LLP (Houston, TX)
• Noteworthy Experience: As managing partner of his firm, William "Bill" Ramey has filed a significant number of patent infringement lawsuits on behalf of patent assertion entities across the country. His practice focuses on monetizing intellectual property for his clients through litigation and licensing, often with contingency fee arrangements. Ramey and his firm have been noted as prolific filers of patent infringement cases, including numerous suits on behalf of Aml Ip LLC involving the same '838 patent in the Western District of Texas.

Disclaimer: The identification of counsel is based on press releases and reported litigation activity for the plaintiff entity. A formal notice of appearance on the specific docket for this case was not publicly available through web search.

Counsel for Defendant Expedia, Inc.

Based on a review of public records associated with the parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceeding initiated by Expedia, Inc. against Aml Ip LLC's '838 patent, the following attorneys and law firms are representing Expedia. It is standard practice for the same counsel to handle both the IPR and the corresponding district court litigation.

Fish & Richardson P.C.

The law firm of Fish & Richardson is lead counsel for Expedia. The team is primarily based out of the firm's Austin office, which is strategically located to handle litigation in the Western District of Texas.

• David M. Hoffman

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Austin, TX
  • Note: Hoffman is a principal at the firm with extensive experience in patent litigation in the Western District of Texas and has appeared in over 60 IPR proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

• Kenneth W. Darby

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Austin, TX
  • Note: A principal in the Austin office, Darby's practice is heavily focused on post-grant proceedings at the PTAB, where he has frequently argued. He is also admitted to practice before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.

• Chun M. Ng

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Perkins Coie LLP, Seattle, WA & Taipei
  • Note: While not appearing on the IPR petition, Ng is a seasoned patent litigator with significant experience representing major technology companies in complex IP matters, and his firm has a known relationship with Expedia. His involvement is noted here as potentially strategic counsel, although direct involvement in this specific case is not confirmed by public filings.

No in-house counsel for Expedia, Inc. has formally filed a notice of appearance on the docket as of this date. Filings in the parallel IPR proceeding, IPR2026-00155, confirm the engagement of Fish & Richardson as outside counsel for Expedia.