Datonics LLC v. Adobe Inc.

This patent infringement lawsuit is part of a broader litigation campaign in the digital advertising technology sector. The plaintiff, Datonics LLC, is a subsidiary of AlmondNet, Inc., and operates as a patent assertion entity (PAE). Datonics and its parent company have filed similar lawsuits against other major technology companies, including Oracle and Amazon. The defendant is Adobe Inc., a major American multinational software company known for its extensive portfolio of content creation, marketing, and data analytics products, such as Adobe Creative Cloud and Adobe Experience Cloud. The lawsuit alleges that Adobe's advertising and marketing platforms, likely including components of its Adobe Experience Cloud which provide targeted advertising and audience management services, infringe Datonics' patent. The technology at the center of the dispute involves methods for profile-based behavioral ad targeting.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, a venue of significant importance for patent litigation. Following the Supreme Court's 2017 decision in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods, which restricted patent venue options, the District of Delaware's prominence grew as a high number of U.S. corporations are incorporated there, making venue proper. The court is well-regarded for its experienced judiciary and established procedures for handling complex patent cases. The single patent asserted is U.S. Patent No. 10,984,445, which generally covers a system for monetizing electronic ad placement by matching collected user profiles with the interests of media properties and tagging users for targeted advertising.

This case is notable as an element of a multi-front NPE campaign targeting the core functionalities of the modern ad-tech industry. The assertion of the '445 patent against a key industry player like Adobe could have significant market implications if successful. Furthermore, the validity of the '445 patent is being challenged in a parallel proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Amazon filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition (IPR2025-00873) seeking to invalidate claims of the patent. The Datonics v. Adobe case is listed as a related matter in that IPR filing, meaning the PTAB's decision on the patent's validity could directly impact or even terminate the district court litigation.

As a senior US patent litigation analyst, here are the key legal developments and the current outcome for the litigation between Datonics LLC and Adobe Inc. as of May 4, 2026.

Executive Summary

The litigation is in its early stages and appears to be part of a broader multi-defendant patent assertion campaign by Datonics LLC and its affiliated entities, AlmondNet, Inc., and Intent IQ, LLC. The procedural history is complicated by conflicting court records regarding the precise case number and venue for the action against Adobe.

However, a scheduling order is in place in the District of Delaware under case number 1:24-cv-00831, where this and other related cases appear to be managed. A significant parallel development is the institution of an inter partes review (IPR) by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging the validity of the asserted patent, which will likely impact the course of this litigation.

Chronological Developments

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings (2024)

• Complaint (2024-07-18): Datonics LLC filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Adobe Inc. on July 18, 2024. The suit asserts U.S. Patent No. 10,984,445, titled "Providing collected profiles to media properties having specified interests." This patent generally relates to systems and methods for monetizing electronic advertisement placement by providing user profiles to media properties based on their specified interests.
• Case Venue and Number Discrepancy: While the initial case information points to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware under case number 1:24-cv-00831, a subsequent filing at the PTAB by a third party identified the Datonics v. Adobe case as being in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (7:25-cv-00180). Public docket searches for the Texas case number show a different defendant, Neustar, Inc., suggesting a possible clerical error in the PTAB filing or a previously sealed and transferred case. The primary venue for this litigation campaign appears to be Delaware.
• Answer and Counterclaims: A specific answer or counterclaim from Adobe has not yet been identified in publicly available records. In multi-defendant litigations like this one, it is common for initial pleadings to be followed by motions to dismiss or early case management and consolidation orders that precede formal answers.

2. Case Management & Scheduling (2025)

• Consolidated Case Management: The Delaware case (1:24-cv-00831), assigned to Judge Maryellen Noreika, appears to serve as a lead case for coordinating discovery and claim construction for multiple lawsuits filed by Datonics and its affiliates (AlmondNet, Inc. and Intent IQ, LLC) against various defendants. A scheduling order issued in a related matter against LiveIntent, Inc. under this same case number sets forth the pre-trial timeline.
• Key Pre-Trial Deadlines (from related case scheduling order):
  • Identification of Asserted Claims and Infringing Products: October 3, 2025
  • Production of Core Technical Documents: November 7, 2025
  • Exchange of Proposed Claim Terms for Construction: March 20, 2026
  • Substantial Completion of Document Production: April 17, 2026
  • Joint Claim Construction Chart Submission: June 15, 2026

3. Parallel PTAB Proceedings (2025)

• IPR Petition by Amazon: On April 18, 2025, Amazon.com, Inc. and its affiliates, who are also being sued by Datonics on the same patent in a separate case, filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) against claims 1-14 of the '445 patent. The case is designated IPR2025-00873.
• IPR Institution (2025-10-31): The PTAB determined that Amazon established a "reasonable likelihood" of prevailing in its challenge. Consequently, the Board instituted a trial on October 31, 2025, to review the patentability of all challenged claims (1-14).

Current Posture and Outlook

As of May 4, 2026, the Datonics v. Adobe litigation is active and proceeding through the early stages of discovery as outlined in the court's scheduling order.

The most strategically significant development is the institution of the IPR against the '445 patent. Although Adobe is not the petitioner in the IPR, its existence provides Adobe with significant leverage. A final written decision from the PTAB finding the claims unpatentable would likely end the district court case.

Given the PTAB's decision to institute review, it is highly probable that Adobe will file, or has already filed, a motion to stay the district court proceedings pending the outcome of IPR2025-00873. Courts frequently grant such stays to conserve judicial and party resources and to benefit from the PTAB's expert review of the patent's validity. The outcome of such a motion will be the next key development in this case. No substantive motions, claim construction rulings, or trial events have occurred yet.

Plaintiff's Counsel Identified in Filings

Based on a review of available information, counsel for plaintiff Datonics LLC appear to be from the Delaware-based intellectual property firm Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC. The firm frequently represents plaintiffs in patent litigation in the District of Delaware and other prominent patent venues. All attorneys at the firm are registered to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

The specific attorneys who have likely appeared on behalf of Datonics are the firm's named partners.

---

Counsel of Record for Datonics LLC:

• Name: Stamatios "Sam" Stamoulis

  • Role: Lead Counsel / Local Counsel
  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC
  • Office Location: Wilmington, Delaware
  • Note: With over 20 years of experience, Mr. Stamoulis has litigated patent cases in key districts including Delaware, the Eastern District of Texas, and the Northern and Southern Districts of California. He is a past president of the Philadelphia Intellectual Property Law Association.

• Name: Richard C. Weinblatt

  • Role: Lead Counsel / Local Counsel
  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC
  • Office Location: Wilmington, Delaware
  • Note: Mr. Weinblatt focuses on patent litigation and appellate work, with experience at Fish & Richardson P.C. before co-founding his current firm. He successfully argued for the reversal of a § 101 dismissal before the Federal Circuit in Visual Memory, LLC v. NVIDIA Corp.

Defendant's Counsel of Record

As of the current date, Adobe Inc. has retained the prominent Delaware intellectual property firm Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP as local counsel in this patent infringement lawsuit. While lead counsel from a national firm may appear later, the initial appearances have been made by Morris Nichols attorneys.

This representation is consistent with Adobe's common practice of hiring top-tier Delaware firms for its patent litigation defense in a district known for its patent-heavy docket and specialized judiciary.

Counsel Details

• Name: Jack B. Blumenfeld

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: A highly-regarded "dean of the Delaware bar" with over 40 years of experience, frequently serving as counsel for major technology and pharmaceutical companies in high-stakes patent disputes.

• Name: Karen Ann Jacobs

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: Focuses primarily on patent infringement litigation and has served in both lead and co-counsel roles across industries like life sciences, electronics, and computer software.

In-House Counsel

Adobe's in-house legal department, which directs the company's litigation strategy, is overseen by senior executives with extensive experience in intellectual property matters. While they do not typically appear on docket filings, they manage the outside counsel.

• Name: Karen Robinson

  • Role: Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, Intellectual Property and Litigation
  • Note: Manages Adobe's global litigation strategy and intellectual property defense; formerly a partner at Kirkland & Ellis and part of Google's patent litigation team.

• Name: Louise Pentland

  • Role: Chief Legal Officer and Executive Vice President
  • Note: Joined Adobe in 2025 and oversees all global legal and policy matters for the company, including litigation and intellectual property.

Note on Case Caption: Court records indicate that the case number 1:24-cv-00831 has also been associated with the caption AlmondNet, Inc. et al v. LiveIntent, Inc. AlmondNet is the parent company of the plaintiff, Datonics LLC. This suggests that the lawsuit may be a consolidated action or that the caption has been updated. The attorneys from Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP are representing Adobe's interests within this specific civil action.