Datonics LLC v. The Trade Desk, Inc.

This patent infringement lawsuit involves key players in the digital advertising technology ("adtech") sector. The plaintiff, Datonics LLC, is a subsidiary of AlmondNet and operates as a data aggregator, providing consumer data for targeted advertising. Datonics collects and segments user data—such as search history, purchase intent, and demographic information—which it then provides to programmatic advertising platforms. While it is an operating company, its parent, AlmondNet, and affiliated entities have engaged in a pattern of patent assertion against major tech companies. The defendant, The Trade Desk, Inc., is a major, publicly-traded technology company that operates the largest independent demand-side platform (DSP). A DSP is a software platform that allows buyers of digital advertising inventory to manage multiple ad exchange and data exchange accounts through one interface. The Trade Desk's platform empowers advertisers to programmatically purchase and manage data-driven digital advertising campaigns across various channels, including display, video, and connected TV.

The lawsuit alleges that The Trade Desk's programmatic advertising platform infringes U.S. Patent No. 10,984,445. The '445 patent, titled "Providing collected profiles to media properties having specified interests," generally covers a system for identifying media properties (like websites or apps) that are interested in specific user profiles and then making those profiles available to the media properties for targeted advertising. Datonics claims that The Trade Desk's platform, which uses vast amounts of user data to execute targeted, real-time-bidding for ad space on behalf of advertisers, utilizes this patented technology. The core of the dispute centers on how The Trade Desk's platform allegedly uses collected user profile data to facilitate the purchase of ad inventory for delivering targeted ads.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (W.D. Tex.), a venue that has been a hotbed for patent litigation. For years, a high percentage of all U.S. patent cases were filed there, largely because filings in the Waco division were automatically assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright, who was perceived as being favorable to patent plaintiffs due to his fast trial schedules and reluctance to transfer cases. However, in July 2022, the court began randomly assigning patent cases filed in Waco among a dozen judges in the district, making the assignment to a specific judge less certain. Judge Albright himself is slated to leave the bench in August 2026. This case is notable as it represents another front in a broader litigation campaign by the AlmondNet family of companies, which has also sued other major adtech players like Amazon and Oracle over the same patent family. Furthermore, the '445 patent is the subject of an inter partes review (IPR) petition filed by Amazon at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which could impact the validity of the patent claims asserted in this district court case.

An important clarification regarding this case: Public court records for case number 7:25-cv-00059 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas identify the defendant as Oracle Corporation, not The Trade Desk, Inc. No public records of a patent infringement case captioned Datonics LLC v. The Trade Desk, Inc. with this case number were found.

Proceeding with the analysis based on the provided case number, this report details the key legal developments in Datonics LLC v. Oracle Corporation and parallel validity challenges to the asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 10,984,445 ('445 patent).

Key Legal Developments & Outcome

The litigation landscape for the '445 patent has been defined by a district court case that was quickly stayed pending settlement and a significant parallel validity challenge at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Filing and Initial Proceedings

• 2025-02-07: Complaint Filed
  Datonics LLC filed a complaint for patent infringement against Oracle Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, initiating case number 7:25-cv-00059. The complaint asserted infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,984,445.

• 2025-02-10: Case Reassigned
  The case was reassigned from Judge David Counts to Judge Alan D. Albright, a prominent judge for patent litigation in the Western District of Texas.

Pre-Trial Motions and Case Posture

• 2025-04-24: Notice of Settlement and Joint Motion to Stay
  The parties, Datonics and Oracle, jointly filed a notice of settlement with the court. Concurrent with this notice, they filed a joint motion to stay the case in its entirety to allow time to finalize the settlement agreement and file a dismissal.

• 2025-05-02: Court Grants Stay
  Judge Alan D. Albright entered a text order granting the joint motion. The court stayed the case until May 27, 2025, pending the execution of the settlement agreement and the filing of a dismissal. The order stipulated that if a dismissal was not filed by that date, the parties were required to submit a joint status report.

Parallel PTAB/IPR Proceedings

A significant development impacting the enforceability of the '445 patent occurred in a parallel proceeding at the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

• 2025-04-18: IPR Petition Filed by Amazon
  In a separate matter, Amazon.com Services LLC filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) against the '445 patent, challenging the validity of claims 1-14. The petition was assigned case number IPR2025-00873. The PTAB filing identified the Datonics LLC v. Oracle Corp. case (7:25-cv-00059) as a related litigation matter.

• 2025-10-31: PTAB Institutes Inter Partes Review
  The PTAB issued a decision granting institution of the IPR. The board found that Amazon had established a "reasonable likelihood that it would prevail" in showing that at least one of the challenged claims of the '445 patent is unpatentable. This decision allows the validity challenge to proceed to a full trial before the PTAB, with a final written decision on the patent's validity expected within one year. Datonics LLC did not file a preliminary response to Amazon's petition.

Another IPR against the '445 patent, IPR2025-01318, was also noted as having been filed by LiveIntent, Inc., another party sued by Datonics and its parent company.

Current Status and Disposition

As of the current date (2026-05-04), the status of the litigation involving the '445 patent is as follows:

• Datonics LLC v. Oracle Corporation, 7:25-cv-00059 (W.D. Tex.): The case is stayed pending the finalization of a settlement between the parties. The original deadline for filing a dismissal or status report was May 27, 2025. Without access to non-public docket entries beyond that date, its final disposition (e.g., dismissal with prejudice) is not confirmed but is the expected outcome of the stay.

• IPR2025-00873 (P.T.A.B.): The IPR trial is active and ongoing. The PTAB has instituted review of all challenged claims of the '445 patent. A final written decision on the patentability of these claims is anticipated on or before October 31, 2026. The outcome of this proceeding will have a significant impact on any current or future litigation involving the '445 patent, including Datonics's broader licensing and enforcement campaign.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record

Based on court filings and reporting on related litigation, the plaintiff Datonics LLC is represented by attorneys from the intellectual property boutique Russ August & Kabat. This firm has represented Datonics's parent company, AlmondNet, in a broader litigation campaign involving related ad-tech patents, including a recent $122 million jury verdict against Amazon.

The following attorneys from Russ August & Kabat have appeared on behalf of Datonics LLC in this case or closely related matters:

• Marc A. Fenster

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat (Los Angeles, CA)
  • Note: Fenster is the Chair of the Patent Litigation group at his firm and served as lead counsel for AlmondNet in its successful jury trial against Amazon in the Western District of Texas.

• Reza Mirzaie

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat (Los Angeles, CA)
  • Note: Mirzaie is a partner who works closely with Marc Fenster and was listed on the initial complaint in this case and also represented AlmondNet in the Amazon litigation.

• James Milkey

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat (Los Angeles, CA)
  • Note: Milkey is a partner at the firm and was listed on the initial complaint against Oracle.

• Jason M. Wietholter

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat (Los Angeles, CA)
  • Note: Wietholter is a partner at the firm who was also listed on the initial complaint against Oracle.

• James S. Tsuei

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat (Los Angeles, CA)
  • Note: Tsuei, a partner at the firm, was listed as counsel on the Oracle complaint.

• Daniel B. Kolko

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat (Los Angeles, CA)
  • Note: Kolko is a partner at the firm who was also listed as counsel on the initial complaint in this matter.

Defendant's Counsel of Record

As established in prior research, the defendant in case number 7:25-cv-00059 is Oracle Corporation. Court records identify attorneys from Latham & Watkins LLP and Scott, Douglass & McConnico, LLP as counsel for Oracle.

Latham & Watkins LLP

• Jeffrey G. Homrig (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm & Office: Latham & Watkins LLP; Austin, TX & Silicon Valley, CA.
  • Note: Mr. Homrig is a seasoned first-chair trial lawyer who serves as Global Vice Chair of Latham's Intellectual Property Litigation Practice and has represented numerous major technology companies in high-stakes patent cases.

• Heather Nicole Haynes (Of Counsel)

  • Firm & Office: Latham & Watkins LLP. Her office location is not specified in the available docket information, and public profiles for an IP litigation attorney of this exact name at the firm are not readily available. There are multiple attorneys named Haynes at other firms or in different practice areas. The available information is insufficient to provide further detail.

Scott, Douglass & McConnico, LLP

• Paige Arnette Amstutz (Local Counsel)
  • Firm & Office: Scott, Douglass & McConnico, LLP; Austin, TX.
  • Note: A partner at a well-regarded Austin litigation boutique, Ms. Amstutz has extensive experience in Texas courts and was ranked among the 50 most active patent litigators of 2023 by Patexia.