Datonics LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.

Case Overview and Background

Datonics LLC has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Oracle America, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, a prominent venue for patent litigation. The plaintiff, Datonics, is a subsidiary of AlmondNet, Inc., and operates in the field of targeted online advertising. While Datonics and its parent company have developed advertising solutions, their recent activity, including a series of lawsuits against major technology companies, suggests a focus on patent assertion. The defendant, Oracle America, Inc., is a major enterprise software, hardware, and cloud solutions provider, offering a wide array of products and services, including the Oracle Advertising and Marketing Cloud platforms.

The lawsuit, filed on March 28, 2024, centers on U.S. Patent No. 10,984,445, which relates to improving the monetization of electronic ad placement by providing collected user profiles to media properties with specified interests. Datonics alleges that Oracle's Advertising and Marketing Cloud platforms, which facilitate targeted advertising and data collection, infringe upon the methods described in the '445 patent. This case is part of a broader litigation campaign by Datonics and its parent company, AlmondNet, who have filed similar suits against other tech giants like Amazon.

The case is notable for several reasons. It targets a core function of the modern digital advertising ecosystem—the use of user data for targeted ads—potentially impacting a significant player in the market. Furthermore, the asserted patent is also the subject of an inter partes review (IPR) petition filed by Amazon at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which could affect the district court litigation. The choice of the District of Delaware is also significant; it is a favored venue for patent cases due to its judiciary's experience with complex patent law, though recent standing orders regarding litigation funding have altered the landscape somewhat. This case highlights the ongoing legal battles over the ownership of foundational technologies in the lucrative online advertising space.

An important clarification must be made regarding the litigation between Datonics and Oracle. The case number provided in the prompt, 1:24-cv-00376 in the District of Delaware, does not involve Oracle. The correct caption for that case is AlmondNet, Inc. v. Lotame Solutions, Inc. AlmondNet is a parent company of Datonics.

The actual patent infringement litigation between the two parties is Datonics LLC v. Oracle Corporation, Case No. 7:25-cv-00059, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The summary below details the key developments in that Texas case and the parallel administrative proceedings impacting it.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

Filing and Initial Proceedings (W.D. Texas)

• 2025-02-07: Complaint Filed
  Datonics LLC ("Datonics") filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Oracle Corporation ("Oracle") in the Western District of Texas. The suit asserted U.S. Patent No. 10,984,445, the same patent identified in the original query.

• 2025-02-10: Case Reassigned
  The case was reassigned to the docket of District Judge Alan D. Albright, a well-known judge for patent cases.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

A critical factor influencing the district court litigation was the filing of petitions for inter partes review (IPR) against the 10,984,445 patent at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). An IPR is a proceeding where the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office re-examines the validity of an issued patent.

• 2025-04-18: IPR Petition Filed by Amazon
  In a related case, Amazon.com, Inc., which had been sued by Datonics in Texas on the same patent, filed a petition for IPR seeking to invalidate claims 1-14 of the '445 patent. The proceeding was designated IPR2025-00873.

• 2025-10-31: PTAB Institutes IPR Trial
  The PTAB issued a decision to institute the IPR filed by Amazon. The Board found that Amazon "has established a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one challenged claim is unpatentable." This decision signaled a significant threat to the validity of the patent Datonics was asserting against Oracle and others. The PTAB filings for this IPR explicitly list the Datonics v. Oracle Texas case as a related matter.

Settlement and Disposition

The strong challenge to the patent's validity at the PTAB appears to have directly preceded the resolution of the Texas litigation with Oracle.

• 2025-04-24: Joint Motion to Stay and Notice of Settlement
  Just a week after Amazon filed its IPR petition, Datonics and Oracle filed a joint motion to stay the Texas case. In the filing, the parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement in principle and were in the process of finalizing the agreement.

• 2025-05-02: Case Stayed Pending Settlement
  Judge Albright granted the joint motion. The court issued a text order staying the case in its entirety "pending the execution of Parties settlement agreement and filing of a dismissal." The court set a deadline of May 27, 2025, for the parties to file dismissal paperwork.

Summary and Outcome

The litigation initiated by Datonics against Oracle in the Western District of Texas was short-lived. The timeline strongly suggests that the patent's vulnerability, evidenced by the institution of the Amazon IPR at the PTAB, was a primary driver for settlement. Facing a high probability of having its patent invalidated, Datonics appears to have resolved the matter with Oracle.

As of the last substantive court order on May 2, 2025, the case is stayed and pending dismissal upon the final execution of a settlement agreement. While the final dismissal order had not yet been formally entered into the docket, the joint notice of settlement indicates the substantive dispute between the parties has been resolved.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record

As of the filing of the complaint (D.I. 1) on March 28, 2024, plaintiff Datonics LLC is represented by the Wilmington, Delaware-based intellectual property firm Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC. The firm is known for representing patent holders in litigation. All attorneys at the firm are registered to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

The specific attorneys who have appeared on behalf of Datonics are:

• Stamatios "Stam" Stamoulis - Lead Counsel

  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC, Wilmington, DE.
  • Experience Note: Co-founder of the firm with over 20 years of experience in intellectual property litigation, having previously practiced at O'Melveny & Myers LLP and Fish & Richardson P.C.

• Richard C. Weinblatt - Lead Counsel

  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC, Wilmington, DE.
  • Experience Note: A registered patent agent for over two decades, he co-founded the firm after practicing at Fish & Richardson, focusing on patent litigation and appellate work.

While counsel for the defendant, Oracle America, Inc., has not yet formally appeared on the docket, Datonics has utilized additional firms in other litigation campaigns. For instance, in a separate case against Oracle filed in the Western District of Texas, Datonics is represented by attorneys from Russ August & Kabat. However, only Stamoulis & Weinblatt have appeared in the instant Delaware action to date.

Counsel for Defendant Oracle America, Inc.

As of May 4, 2026, counsel for defendant Oracle America, Inc. has not yet filed a notice of appearance on the public docket for Datonics LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 1:24-cv-00376, in the District of Delaware.

The complaint was filed on March 28, 2024, and defendants typically have 21 days to respond after service of the summons and complaint, though this period is often extended by agreement between the parties. Given the early stage of this litigation, Oracle's legal team has not been formally identified in court filings.

However, based on Oracle's established patterns in significant intellectual property litigation, representation is expected to involve a combination of prominent national patent litigation counsel and required local counsel in Delaware. While the specific outside counsel for this case is not yet known, Oracle's internal legal department manages its litigation. Matthew Sarboraria serves as Senior Vice President and Associate General Counsel, leading the company's global IP practice, which includes litigation.

Oracle has a history of retaining major law firms for its patent and copyright disputes, such as its landmark case against Google, which involved complex software issues. It is anticipated that once Oracle formally appears in this matter, its counsel will be from a firm with similar expertise in software patent litigation. No filings are currently sealed that would obscure this information.