Aon Re, Inc. v. Zesty.AI, Inc.

Aon Re, Inc. v. Zesty.AI, Inc. is an active patent infringement lawsuit unfolding in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, case number 1:25-cv-00201-JFM, with Judge John F. Murphy presiding. The plaintiff, Aon Re, Inc., is a division of Aon plc, a large British-American professional services firm specializing in risk management, insurance, and reinsurance solutions, making it an operating company in the financial services sector. The defendant, Zesty.AI, Inc., is a privately held, venture capital-backed insurtech company that provides AI-powered risk assessment solutions for the property insurance industry. Zesty.AI leverages artificial intelligence and computer vision to analyze aerial imagery and geospatial data, offering insights into property and climate-related risks such as wildfires, hail, and wind to insurers.

The core of the dispute centers on Zesty.AI's AI-driven platform and products, including "Z-Property" and related risk analysis tools, which Aon Re alleges infringe its proprietary technology. Aon Re has asserted four patents, specifically U.S. Patent Nos. 10,529,029; 10,650,285; 11,030,491; and 11,195,058. These patents generally cover methods and systems for analyzing aerial photographs of buildings using machine-learning classifiers to identify property characteristics, determine their condition, and assess a property's susceptibility to damage for insurance risk evaluation and pricing. The District of Delaware is a prominent venue for patent litigation, largely due to its high concentration of incorporated businesses and its experienced judiciary well-versed in patent law.

This case is particularly notable for its intersection of patent law with emerging artificial intelligence technologies within the insurance industry. Zesty.AI filed a motion to dismiss, challenging the patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, arguing the patents covered an abstract idea by merely automating human property risk assessment with generic machine learning. However, Judge Murphy denied this motion on July 15, 2025, finding the patent claims were not directed to an ineligible abstract idea and specifically highlighting the "distinctive structure of the process involving two separate machine-learning classifiers." This ruling provides important guidance on the patentability of AI-driven risk models. Additionally, Zesty.AI initiated a parallel challenge, filing an inter partes review (IPR2025-01360) against Aon Re's patents with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) on July 29, 2025, indicating a multi-front battle over the validity of these AI-related patents.

The patent infringement litigation Aon Re, Inc. v. Zesty.AI, Inc. (1:25-cv-00201-JFM) in the District of Delaware is active and proceeding through pre-trial phases, including discovery and claim construction. The case involves U.S. Patent No. 11,195,058, among others, relating to machine-learning classifiers for property risk assessment.

Here are the key legal developments and outcomes:

• February 19, 2025: Aon Re, Inc. filed its complaint against Zesty.AI, Inc., initiating the patent infringement lawsuit. While the specific dates for Zesty.AI's answer and any counterclaims are not explicitly available in the provided search results, these initial pleadings would have occurred in the early stages of the litigation, following the complaint.

• July 15, 2025: A Delaware federal judge denied Zesty.AI, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the patent infringement suit. The motion argued that the patent claims were directed to an ineligible abstract idea. However, the judge found the claims were not abstract, specifically noting the distinctive structure of the process involving two separate machine-learning classifiers.

• July 30, 2025: Zesty.AI, Inc. filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition, IPR2025-01359, challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,195,058 before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

• August 6, 2025 (on or before): The parties made their initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1).

• August 11, 2025 (by): Plaintiff Aon Re, Inc. was required to specifically identify the accused product(s) and produce the file history for each asserted patent.

• September 18, 2025: A scheduling order was issued, outlining various deadlines for the case.

• September 25, 2025 (by): Defendant Zesty.AI, Inc. was required to produce core technical documents related to the accused product(s).

• October 25, 2025 (by): Plaintiff Aon Re, Inc. was required to produce its initial infringement contentions.

• November 26, 2025 (by): Defendant Zesty.AI, Inc. was required to produce its initial invalidity contentions.

• December 23, 2025: The PTAB issued a decision denying institution of IPR2025-01359 on discretionary grounds. This means the PTAB did not reach the merits of the patentability challenge, and thus, all claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,195,058 remained untested at the PTAB. The patent had been in force for approximately 3.5 years when the IPR was filed, which may have been a factor in the discretionary denial.

• February 6, 2026 (on or before): The deadline for motions to join other parties and to amend or supplement the pleadings.

• May 24, 2026 (by): Document production was scheduled to be substantially complete.

• June 4, 2026: The deadline for Aon to file answering briefs in opposition to Zesty's motion for an adverse inference or in the alternative a stay, and Zesty's motion to amend pleadings to allege inequitable conduct.

• June 26, 2026: A Claim Construction Hearing (Markman hearing) is rescheduled to take place.

• July 10, 2026 (by): Plaintiff Aon Re, Inc. is scheduled to produce its final claim charts.

• July 31, 2026 (by): The deadline for all discovery to be initiated and completed. Defendant Zesty.AI, Inc. is also scheduled to produce its final invalidity contentions by this date.

• September 4, 2026 (on or before): The initial Federal Rule 26(a)(2) disclosure of expert testimony is due for the party with the initial burden of proof.

• October 2, 2026 (on or before): Supplemental expert disclosure to contradict or rebut evidence is due.

• October 16, 2026 (on or before): Reply expert reports from the party with the initial burden of proof are due.

• December 23, 2026 (on or before): All case dispositive motions, such as motions for summary judgment, must be served and filed.

• January 18, 2027: Answering briefs for case dispositive motions are due.

• February 8, 2027: Reply briefs for case dispositive motions are due.

• Mid-2027 (likely): A five-day jury trial is likely to be scheduled.

The case remains active in the District of Delaware, with claim construction and discovery ongoing. The denial of institution for the related IPR proceeding means the validity of the patent claims has not been adjudicated by the PTAB on the merits.

Aon Re, Inc., the plaintiff in the patent infringement case Aon Re, Inc. v. Zesty.AI, Inc. (1:25-cv-00201-JFM), is represented by attorneys from Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC and Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP.

Here is the identified counsel of record for the plaintiff:

• Stamatios Stamoulis

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC, Wilmington, Delaware.
  • Note on experience: Mr. Stamoulis has over 20 years of experience in intellectual property and complex commercial law matters, including litigating patent infringement cases in the District of Delaware and other districts. He is also registered to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC is regularly recognized for its representation of patent litigation plaintiffs.

• Richard C. Weinblatt

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC, Wilmington, Delaware.
  • Note on experience: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC represents clients in patent litigations before district courts throughout the United States, including the District of Delaware, and appeals before the Federal Circuit. All attorneys at the firm are registered to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and have extensive experience litigating patent cases.

• Brian E. Farnan

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Farnan LLP.
  • Note on experience: While the specific details of his patent litigation experience for this case are not detailed in the provided snippets, Farnan LLP is a Delaware-based firm often acting as local counsel in patent cases.

• Michael J. Farnan

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Farnan LLP.
  • Note on experience: Similar to Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan is associated with Farnan LLP, a firm that frequently serves as local counsel in the District of Delaware for patent litigation matters.

• Pilar Gabrielle Kraman

  • Role: Local Counsel (Associated with Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor LLP in some listings, which commonly serves as local counsel in Delaware).
  • Firm: Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Wilmington, Delaware.
  • Note on experience: While specific patent litigation experience for Ms. Kraman is not detailed in the provided snippets, Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor LLP is a prominent Delaware firm.

• Colin Aaron Keith

  • Role: Local Counsel (Associated with Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP).
  • Firm: Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware.
  • Note on experience: As with Ms. Kraman, while specific patent litigation experience is not detailed, Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP is a well-known Delaware firm providing local counsel services.

It is important to note that Aon Re, Inc. does have internal legal consulting and compliance teams, primarily focused on retirement, tax, and ERISA issues, and reinsurance claims and contracts, rather than directly handling patent litigation.## Counsel Identified for Plaintiff Aon Re, Inc. in Patent Infringement Suit

In the ongoing patent infringement case of Aon Re, Inc. v. Zesty.AI, Inc. in the District of Delaware (1:25-cv-00201-JFM), Aon Re, Inc. is represented by a combination of lead and local counsel. The plaintiff's legal team primarily draws from Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC and includes local representation from Farnan LLP and Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor LLP.

The counsel of record for Aon Re, Inc. includes:

• Stamatios Stamoulis

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC, Wilmington, Delaware.
  • Note on experience: Mr. Stamoulis brings over two decades of experience in intellectual property and complex commercial law. He has litigated numerous patent infringement cases in the District of Delaware and other federal districts, and is registered to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC is noted for representing patent litigation plaintiffs.

• Richard C. Weinblatt

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC, Wilmington, Delaware.
  • Note on experience: As a partner at Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC, Mr. Weinblatt is part of a firm that regularly handles patent litigations before U.S. district courts, including the District of Delaware, and appeals to the Federal Circuit. All attorneys at the firm are registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and possess extensive experience in patent litigation.

• Brian E. Farnan

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Farnan LLP, Wilmington, Delaware.
  • Note on experience: Farnan LLP is a Delaware-based firm frequently engaged as local counsel in patent infringement cases within the District of Delaware.

• Michael J. Farnan

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Farnan LLP, Wilmington, Delaware.
  • Note on experience: Also with Farnan LLP, Michael J. Farnan contributes to the firm's established practice of providing local counsel services in complex patent litigation matters in Delaware.

• Pilar Gabrielle Kraman

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Wilmington, Delaware.
  • Note on experience: Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor LLP is a prominent Delaware firm known for its robust litigation practice, including serving as local counsel in intellectual property disputes.

• Colin Aaron Keith

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware.
  • Note on experience: Mr. Keith is associated with Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, a firm that commonly provides local representation in significant legal actions in the District of Delaware.

Here is the counsel of record representing Zesty.AI, Inc. in Aon Re, Inc. v. Zesty.AI, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-00201-JFM (D. Del.):

Lead Counsel (appearing pro hac vice):

• John M. Desmarais (Partner)

  • Firm: Desmarais LLP, New York, NY
  • Experience Note: Founding partner of Desmarais LLP, he has secured significant jury verdicts in patent infringement cases for both plaintiffs and defendants, including a $1.5 billion win for Alcatel-Lucent against Microsoft and an $82.5 million verdict for IBM against Groupon.

• Karim Z. Oussayef (Partner)

  • Firm: Desmarais LLP, New York, NY
  • Experience Note: Seasoned first-chair trial counsel with over 15 years of experience in high-stakes patent infringement and technology cases, including securing an $82.5 million jury verdict for IBM against Groupon and successfully overturning PTAB decisions.

• Frederick J. Ding (Attorney)

  • Firm: Desmarais LLP, New York, NY (implied from pro hac vice alongside other Desmarais LLP attorneys)
  • Experience Note: Represents both plaintiffs and defendants in intellectual property disputes across various technologies, including medical devices and diagnostic medicine, and contributed to a $100 million enhanced damages ruling for Ravgen.

• Caitrianne Feddeler (Associate)

  • Firm: Desmarais LLP, New York, NY (implied from pro hac vice alongside other Desmarais LLP attorneys)
  • Experience Note: Focuses on intellectual property and technology-related litigation, including patent litigation and PTAB proceedings, with experience in cases involving cloud storage, computer software, and medical devices.

• Kevin Goon (Associate)

  • Firm: Desmarais LLP, New York, NY (implied from pro hac vice alongside other Desmarais LLP attorneys)
  • Experience Note: His practice focuses on intellectual property and technology-related litigation.

Local Counsel:

• Brian E. Farnan (Partner)

  • Firm: Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE
  • Experience Note: Has tried numerous jury and bench trials in Delaware's federal and state courts, regularly assisting out-of-state counsel as Delaware Counsel in complex patent litigation and other high-stakes cases.

• Michael J. Farnan (Partner)

  • Firm: Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE
  • Experience Note: Regularly appears in Delaware's federal and state courts, often for plaintiffs in patent, antitrust, and other complex commercial cases, and has been part of teams recovering billions of dollars for clients.

No specific in-house counsel for Zesty.AI, Inc. has been identified as counsel of record in the publicly available docket information for this case.