Datonics LLC v. Neustar, Inc.

This patent infringement lawsuit is part of a broader litigation campaign by a targeted advertising technology company against major players in the marketing and data analytics industry. The plaintiff, Datonics LLC, is a subsidiary of AlmondNet, Inc., a company that has developed and patented technology in the digital advertising space since 1998. While Datonics operates in the ad-tech market, it and its parent company are also frequent plaintiffs in patent litigation, asserting their portfolio against large technology companies like Oracle, Adobe, and Amazon. The defendant, Neustar, Inc., now a part of TransUnion, is a major information services and technology company. Neustar is an operating company that provides data and analytics for marketing, risk, and security, specializing in "identity resolution" to help businesses connect with customers.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, accuses Neustar's marketing and analytics platforms of infringement. The specific accused services likely include Neustar's Marketing and Analytics Clean Room and its PlatformOne marketing solution, which help clients manage consumer data to target advertising and measure campaign effectiveness. The case centers on a single patent, U.S. Patent No. 10,984,445, titled "Providing collected profiles to media properties having specified interests." The patent describes a method for a data-holding company to automatically match collected user profiles with media properties (like websites or apps) that have an interest in those types of profiles, thereby improving ad monetization.

The case is notable for several reasons. The choice of venue, the Western District of Texas, has been the most popular district for patent litigation in the United States for several years, known for procedures often seen as favorable to patent holders, including a fast pace to trial. This lawsuit is part of a larger assertion pattern by Datonics and AlmondNet, which recently secured a $122 million jury verdict against Amazon for infringing related patents. Crucially, the asserted '445 patent is facing significant validity challenges at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has already instituted an inter partes review (IPR) against the patent (IPR2025-00873) after a petition filed by Amazon showed a "reasonable likelihood" that the challenged claims are unpatentable. The outcome of this parallel PTAB proceeding could dramatically impact the district court litigation against Neustar.

As a senior US patent litigation analyst, here is a summary of the key legal developments in the Datonics LLC v. Neustar, Inc. case.

Important Note on Case Caption: Public records, including a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) filing associated with the patent-in-suit, indicate that the defendant in case number 7:25-cv-00180 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas is Adobe Inc., not Neustar, Inc. This analysis proceeds based on the publicly available information for the case involving Adobe Inc. under the specified case number. No record of a case captioned Datonics LLC v. Neustar, Inc. with this case number was found in available legal databases.

Chronological Case Developments: Datonics LLC v. Adobe Inc.

Based on the filing date of November 20, 2025, the litigation is in its early stages. Key developments would typically follow this sequence:

• 2025-11-20: Complaint Filed
  Datonics LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against Adobe Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,984,445 ('445 patent). The '445 patent, titled "Providing collected profiles to media properties having specified interests," relates to methods for targeted online advertising.

• Early 2026 (Anticipated): Initial Pleadings and Motions
  Following the complaint, Adobe's response would be due. This typically includes an Answer to the complaint, potentially with affirmative defenses and counterclaims. Common counterclaims in patent litigation include declarations of non-infringement and invalidity of the asserted patent. Adobe might also file early motions, such as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) or a motion to transfer venue. As of May 4, 2026, specific filings for these actions are not yet available in public search results.

• Present Posture (as of 2026-05-04):
  The case is active and in the initial stages of litigation. The parties are likely preparing for or have just begun the discovery process and preparing for claim construction (Markman) proceedings, where the court will determine the meaning of disputed patent claim terms.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings: A Key Factor

The litigation in the Western District of Texas does not exist in a vacuum. Datonics has been actively asserting the '445 patent against other technology companies, leading to challenges against the patent's validity at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

• IPR Petition by Amazon: On April 18, 2025, Amazon.com, Inc. and its affiliates filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) against claims 1-14 of the '445 patent (IPR2025-00873). An IPR is a trial proceeding at the PTAB where a panel of administrative patent judges reviews the patentability of claims based on prior art consisting of patents and printed publications.

• PTAB Institution Decision (2025-10-31): The PTAB issued a decision to institute the IPR filed by Amazon, finding a "reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one claim challenged." This is a significant development, as a high percentage of IPRs that are instituted result in at least some of the challenged claims being found unpatentable.

• Potential Impact on the Adobe Litigation:

  • Motion to Stay: The institution of the Amazon IPR provides a strong basis for Adobe to file a motion to stay the district court case pending the outcome of the PTAB proceeding. District courts often grant such stays to conserve judicial resources and benefit from the PTAB's expertise on patent validity issues. A final written decision from the PTAB in IPR2025-00873 is expected within one year of institution, around October 2026.
  • Additional IPRs: The PTAB decision also notes that another IPR was filed against the '445 patent by LiveIntent, Inc. (IPR2025-01318), a defendant in a separate litigation brought by Datonics in Delaware. This broad-based challenge to the patent's validity at the PTAB could further influence the district court to stay the case.

Expected Future Developments

1. Motion to Stay: It is highly probable that Adobe will file, or has already filed, a motion to stay the case pending the resolution of the IPR proceedings against the '445 patent. The court's ruling on this motion will be the next critical event in the litigation.
2. Claim Construction: If the case is not stayed, the parties will proceed with claim construction briefing and a Markman hearing. The court's interpretation of the claims will be crucial for determining the scope of the patent and the strength of Datonics's infringement arguments.
3. PTAB Final Written Decision: The outcome of the IPRs (IPR2025-00873 and IPR2025-01318) will have a substantial impact. If the PTAB invalidates the asserted claims, it could lead to a swift resolution of the district court case against Adobe. Conversely, if the claims survive the IPR challenge, Datonics's position in the litigation will be strengthened.

The case is currently in a very early phase, but the parallel PTAB proceedings have already created a significant strategic dynamic that will likely shape its trajectory in the coming months.

Based on counsel appearances in parallel patent litigation involving Datonics LLC and the same patent-in-suit, the following attorneys from Russ August & Kabat are representing the plaintiff. While the formal notices of appearance for this specific case are not publicly available through web searches at this time, the consistent representation across multiple, concurrent cases strongly indicates this legal team is handling the matter.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record

Firm: Russ August & Kabat
Office: Los Angeles, CA

• Reza Mirzaie

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat (Partner), Los Angeles, CA
  • Note: Co-Chair of the firm's plaintiff's patent infringement litigation department, he has obtained more than $600 million for clients and has led trial teams in numerous high-stakes patent cases, including a $122 million verdict against Amazon in the Western District of Texas for Datonics's parent company, AlmondNet.

• James A. Milkey

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat (Partner), Los Angeles, CA
  • Note: Specializes in intellectual property litigation in federal courts and the ITC and is also a registered patent attorney with experience in post-grant proceedings before the PTAB.

• Jason M. Wietholter

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat (Partner), Los Angeles, CA
  • Note: A patent and intellectual property litigator who has participated in multiple jury trials for the firm, including a $175 million verdict for Headwater Research against Verizon.

• Jonathan Ma

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat (Associate), Los Angeles, CA
  • Note: Focuses on intellectual property litigation and was on the trial team that won a $122 million jury verdict for AlmondNet against Amazon in the Western District of Texas.

• Daniel B. Kolko

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat (Associate), Los Angeles, CA
  • Note: A litigation associate who has been listed as counsel on multiple related patent cases and appeals for Datonics's parent company, AlmondNet, Inc.

• James S. Tsuei

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat (Associate), Los Angeles, CA
  • Note: Listed as counsel for Datonics LLC in the parallel case Datonics LLC v. Oracle Corporation (7:25-cv-00059) in the Western District of Texas.

Note: This list is based on appearances in highly similar and concurrent litigation filed by Datonics LLC in the same district, such as Datonics LLC v. Oracle Corp., 7:25-cv-00059 (W.D. Tex.). Final confirmation awaits public access to the specific appearance filings in this case.

Defendant Neustar's Counsel Not Yet Identified in Public Records

As of May 4, 2026, counsel for defendant Neustar, Inc. has not been publicly identified in the docket for Datonics LLC v. Neustar, Inc., 7:25-cv-00180, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. No notice of appearance or responsive pleading naming Neustar's legal representation is available through public web sources. Given the case was filed on November 20, 2025, it is highly probable that counsel has been retained and has filed an appearance under seal or in a manner not yet indexed by publicly accessible search engines.

Neustar was acquired by TransUnion in a deal that closed in December 2021. The law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP represented Neustar in that transaction, while Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP represented TransUnion. However, firms handling corporate transactions are often distinct from those engaged for patent litigation.

Likely Representation Based on Parallel Litigation

While Neustar's specific counsel is not confirmed, law firms representing other major technology companies in the same litigation campaign initiated by Datonics and its parent company, AlmondNet, may indicate likely candidates. Companies facing coordinated patent assertions often hire firms with experience against the specific patents-in-suit or the plaintiff's counsel.

For context, in a prominent related case, AlmondNet, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., also in the Western District of Texas, Amazon was represented by:

• Brian M. Hoffman (Lead Counsel) of Fenwick & West LLP (Seattle/New York). Hoffman has extensive experience defending major tech companies in high-stakes patent litigation.
• Deron Dacus (Local Counsel) of The Dacus Firm, P.C. (Tyler, Texas). Dacus frequently serves as local counsel in East and West Texas patent cases.

Given the significant overlap in the subject matter and the plaintiff, it is plausible that Neustar could retain counsel from a firm with a national patent litigation reputation, such as Fenwick & West, or another major firm like Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP or Morrison & Foerster, which frequently represent large technology corporations in patent disputes. They would also be required to retain local counsel admitted to practice in the Western District of Texas.

Until a notice of appearance is filed and made public in case 7:25-cv-00180, the identity of Neustar's counsel remains unconfirmed.