Datonics LLC et al. v. Amazon.com, Inc.

This patent infringement lawsuit continues a multi-front intellectual property battle between AlmondNet, a long-operating advertising technology company, and Amazon, the e-commerce and cloud computing giant. The plaintiffs are AlmondNet, Inc., an ad-tech firm founded in 1998, and its subsidiary Datonics LLC, which aggregates and distributes consumer data for targeted advertising. Both are operating companies that also engage in significant patent licensing and enforcement, sometimes described as a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE) in litigation contexts. The defendant is Amazon.com, Inc., a major technology company whose advertising business is a key area of growth. The accused technology is Amazon's advertising platform, particularly the Amazon Demand-Side Platform (DSP), which allows advertisers to programmatically buy ad placements to target consumers on and off Amazon's own websites using extensive first-party data.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, asserts U.S. Patent No. 10,984,445. The '445 patent, titled "Providing collected profiles to media properties having specified interests," generally covers a system where a "profile owner" automatically identifies media properties (like websites or apps) interested in specific user profiles and then arranges for visitors with those profiles to be "tagged" for receiving targeted ads. The case was initially filed in the Waco division, a venue made popular for patent cases by Judge Alan D. Albright due to his plaintiff-friendly procedures and reluctance to transfer cases. However, following a 2022 order to randomly assign patent cases throughout the district, this case has been assigned to Judge Robert Pitman in the Austin division. Judge Albright recently announced he is stepping down from the bench in August 2026.

The case is notable as part of a broader assertion campaign by AlmondNet and its affiliates against major tech companies. In a separate but related case, AlmondNet and Datonics secured a $121.95 million jury verdict against Amazon in June 2024, also before Judge Albright in the Western District of Texas, for infringement of two other targeted advertising patents. This history suggests a high-stakes conflict over foundational ad-tech concepts. Adding another layer, Amazon successfully petitioned the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to institute an inter partes review (IPR) of the '445 patent on October 31, 2025 (IPR2025-00873), arguing the claims are likely obvious over prior art. This parallel PTAB proceeding will run concurrently with the district court case and could result in the patent claims being invalidated before the district court case reaches trial.

Legal Developments Conclude with Settlement After IPR and Stay

Today's Date: 2026-05-04

The patent infringement litigation between Datonics LLC, a subsidiary of AlmondNet, Inc., and Amazon.com, Inc. in the Western District of Texas has been resolved through a settlement and license agreement. The case, which centered on targeted advertising technology, was stayed for nearly a year pending the outcome of a parallel validity challenge at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) before the parties reached a resolution.

Filing and Initial Proceedings (2024)

• 2024-04-02: Plaintiffs Datonics LLC and AlmondNet, Inc. filed a complaint for patent infringement against Amazon.com, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:24-cv-00234). The suit accused Amazon's advertising systems, which collect and use user data for targeted advertising, of infringing U.S. Patent No. 10,984,445. The '445 patent, titled "Providing collected profiles to media properties having specified interests," generally covers methods for identifying user profiles of interest to a "media property" (like a website) and using that information to deliver targeted ads.
• While docket records indicate Amazon was to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint, specific filings for an answer or counterclaims prior to motion practice are not publicly available at this time.

Parallel PTAB Challenge and Motion to Stay (2025)

• 2025-04-18: In a move that would prove decisive for the litigation's trajectory, Amazon filed a petition with the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for an inter partes review (IPR) of all claims (1-14) of the '445 patent. The IPR was docketed as IPR2025-00873. Amazon argued that the patent's claims were obvious in light of prior art.
• Following the IPR filing, Amazon moved to stay the district court litigation pending the PTAB's review (Doc. 48). Amazon likely argued that a stay would conserve judicial and party resources and that the outcome of the IPR could simplify or dispose of the issues in the district court case.
• 2025-05-16: Datonics filed its opposition to the motion to stay (Doc. 50), likely arguing that a stay would unduly prejudice the plaintiffs and that the case should proceed in district court regardless of the PTAB proceeding.
• 2025-10-31: The PTAB issued a decision instituting trial on all challenged claims of the '445 patent. In its decision, the Board found that Amazon had "established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim." This development significantly strengthened Amazon's position for a stay.
• 2025-05-28: Citing the PTAB's decision to institute the IPR, Judge Robert Pitman granted Amazon's motion to stay the case (Doc. 52). The order required the parties to file quarterly joint status reports on the progress of the IPR.
• 2025-08-28 & 2025-11-26: The parties filed joint status reports with the court as ordered (Docs. 53, 54), confirming the litigation remained stayed while the IPR proceeded.

Settlement and Final Disposition (2026)

• 2026-04-07: The parties preempted a final written decision from the PTAB by reaching a global resolution. In a press release, AlmondNet announced that it and its subsidiaries had "resolved their patent infringement dispute with Amazon and have entered into a license agreement." The release stated the agreement "resolves all outstanding matters between the parties related to the asserted patents."
• The terms of the settlement and license agreement were not publicly disclosed. Following this announcement, the parties are expected to file a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice in the district court, officially terminating the case. The IPR proceeding will also likely be terminated by the parties based on the settlement.

Present Posture: The litigation is effectively concluded. The case remains stayed on the docket pending the formal filing of a dismissal, which is anticipated shortly in light of the announced settlement and license agreement.

Counsel for Plaintiffs Datonics and AlmondNet Identified

Plaintiffs Datonics LLC and AlmondNet, Inc. have retained a combination of nationally recognized patent trial lawyers and experienced Texas-based counsel. This legal team has a demonstrated history of success for the plaintiffs, including securing a significant jury verdict against Amazon in a prior case.

Based on court filings and reporting on related litigation, the following attorneys represent the plaintiffs in this matter:

Lead Counsel

• Marc A. Fenster (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat (Los Angeles, CA)
  • Note: Fenster is a prominent patent litigator known for representing plaintiffs against major technology companies and was lead counsel in the previous AlmondNet case that resulted in a $121.95 million verdict against Amazon.

• Reza Mirzaie (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat (Los Angeles, CA)
  • Note: Mirzaie works closely with Marc Fenster and was part of the lead trial team that secured the nine-figure jury verdict against Amazon in June 2024.

• James Milkey

  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat (Los Angeles, CA)
  • Note: Milkey was an integral part of the original complaint filing team in the prior successful litigation against Amazon involving similar ad-tech patents.

• Additional Russ August & Kabat Attorneys

  • Other attorneys from the firm, including Amy Hayden, James Tsuei, Daniel Kolko, and Jason Wietholter, have been listed on complaints in related litigation and may appear on the docket in this case.

Local Counsel

• Andrea L. "Andi" Fair (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry, PLLC (Longview, TX)
  • Note: Fair served as Texas counsel in the previous $121.95 million verdict against Amazon and has extensive experience in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas. Her firm's website also highlights a $43 million verdict for Intellectual Ventures and a $62.7 million verdict for Solas OLED.

• T. John Ward (Of Counsel)

  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry, PLLC (Longview, TX)
  • Note: Ward, a former U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas, is highly regarded for his patent litigation expertise and is listed as a practicing attorney on cases with his firm.

• Claire Abernathy Henry (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry, PLLC (Longview, TX)
  • Note: Henry has partnered with Ward and Fair on significant patent cases, including the successful verdicts for Intellectual Ventures and Solas OLED.

As of the current date, specific notices of appearance for all attorneys in this particular case (6:24-cv-00234) may not be fully reflected in all public databases, but the legal teams from the closely related and recent prior litigation are consistently named in legal reporting and are expected to be the primary counsel of record.

Amazon's Defense Team

Based on a review of the case docket and other public records, Amazon.com, Inc. has retained a team of experienced patent litigators from the national law firm Fenwick & West LLP, along with local counsel in Texas.

Lead Counsel

• J. David Hadden (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Fenwick & West LLP, Mountain View, CA.
  • Note: A top-ranked trial lawyer, Hadden frequently represents major technology companies in high-stakes patent disputes and has previously defended Amazon in other patent cases, including securing a significant attorney's fee award.

• Saina S. Shamilov (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Fenwick & West LLP, Mountain View, CA.
  • Note: Co-chair of Fenwick's patent litigation group, Shamilov has over 20 years of experience representing leading technology companies in complex intellectual property litigation.

Of Counsel

• Todd E. Landis

  • Firm: Fenwick & West LLP, New York, NY.
  • Note: Landis has a long track record in patent litigation across a broad range of technology sectors, including consumer electronics and entertainment.

• Christine Liang

  • Firm: Fenwick & West LLP, Mountain View, CA.
  • Note: While public information on specific cases is limited, Liang is an associate in Fenwick's litigation group focused on intellectual property.

Local Counsel

• Darryl J. Adams
  • Firm: Slayden Grubert Beard PLLC, Austin, TX.
  • Note: Adams is a seasoned Texas-based IP litigator with extensive experience in the Western District of Texas, having served as lead and local counsel in numerous patent cases, including jury trials before Judge Albright.