Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC v. Rocket Media, LLC

Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC, an AdTech operating company based in Malvern, Pennsylvania, initiated this patent infringement lawsuit against Rocket Media, LLC. Fullthrottle specializes in developing and licensing its fullthrottle.ai® platform, which focuses on first-party data generation, cookieless audience identification, marketing measurement, and AI-driven campaign optimization for small and mid-sized businesses. Defendant Rocket Media, LLC, which also operates under the name Launch Labs, is a web design and internet marketing agency located in Gilbert, Arizona, with a focus on marketing for home services and automotive clients, offering services like SEO, paid media, and custom website development. The accused instrumentality involves Rocket Media's marketing and advertising technologies and services, particularly those offered through its "Launch Labs" brand, which appear to relate to audience generation, targeting, and measurement using browser data, especially in the context of the shift away from third-party cookies.

The sole patent asserted in the ongoing litigation is U.S. Patent No. 11,556,947, titled "Location Determination Using Anonymous Browser Data." This patent generally covers systems and methods for determining a user's location by leveraging anonymous data gathered from their browser session on a computing device, primarily for the purpose of product marketing via websites. The case is being heard in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, with Judge William L. Osteen, Jr. as the assigned judge and Judge Joi Elizabeth Peake as the referred judge. The Middle District of North Carolina is notable for patent litigation due to its established local patent rules and reputation for expertise and efficiency in handling such cases, offering comparable time to verdict and similar case outcomes to other popular patent jurisdictions.

This case is particularly notable due to its direct linkage to a concurrent Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding. Rocket Media, LLC d/b/a Launch Labs filed IPR2025-00148 with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging claims 1-20 of the '947 patent, which the PTAB instituted on June 11, 2025, indicating a reasonable likelihood that Rocket Media would prevail on at least one challenged claim. The litigation also reflects the broader market context of the AdTech industry's pivot towards "cookieless" first-party data solutions, as major browsers phase out third-party cookies. This places the dispute within a critical and evolving area of digital advertising technology, highlighting the competitive landscape for proprietary solutions in this space.

Case Status

Active.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings (2024)

• Complaint: Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Rocket Media, LLC on April 11, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. The case was assigned case number 1:24-cv-00314 and involved U.S. Patent No. 11,556,947.
• Amended Complaint: Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC filed a First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement on August 7, 2024.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance (2024-2025)

• Motion to Dismiss: Rocket Media, LLC filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on September 6, 2024. Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC filed an opposition to this motion.
• Motion to Dismiss Denied as Moot: On September 13, 2024, the court denied Rocket Media's motion to dismiss as moot. This likely occurred because the motion was directed at the original complaint, which was superseded by the amended complaint.

3. Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings (2024-2025)

• IPR Petition Filed: On November 11, 2024, Rocket Media, LLC d/b/a Launch Labs filed a Petition for inter partes review (IPR) against U.S. Patent No. 11,556,947 (IPR2025-00148) with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The petition challenged claims 1-20 of the '947 patent.
• Institution of IPR: On June 11, 2025, the PTAB instituted an inter partes review for all challenged claims (1-20) of the '947 patent, finding a reasonable likelihood that Rocket Media, LLC d/b/a Launch Labs would prevail in establishing the unpatentability of at least one of the challenged claims. The PTAB applied the same claim construction standard as used in civil actions under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b).
• Related Matters: Both parties in the IPR proceeding identified the district court case (1:24-cv-00314) as a related matter.

Here is the identified counsel of record representing Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC in Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC v. Rocket Media, LLC:

Flaster Greenberg P.C.

• Aakash Patel

  • Role: Lead Counsel (implied, as this firm appears to be the primary patent litigation firm for the plaintiff).
  • Firm: Flaster Greenberg P.C., offices including Cherry Hill, NJ, and Philadelphia, PA.
  • Experience Note: Aakash Patel is a Shareholder at Flaster Greenberg, co-chair of the firm's Intellectual Property Department, and focuses his practice on patent and trademark prosecution and litigation, particularly in the electrical, mechanical, and software arts.

• Michael Bonella

  • Role: Lead Counsel (implied).
  • Firm: Flaster Greenberg P.C., offices including Cherry Hill, NJ, and Philadelphia, PA.
  • Experience Note: Michael Bonella is a Shareholder and Co-Chair of the Intellectual Property Department at Flaster Greenberg. His practice includes all aspects of intellectual property law, including patent litigation, prosecution, and counseling.

• Coraleine Kitt

  • Role: Counsel (implied).
  • Firm: Flaster Greenberg P.C., offices including Cherry Hill, NJ, and Philadelphia, PA.
  • Experience Note: Coraleine Kitt is an associate at Flaster Greenberg in the Intellectual Property Department, focusing on patent and trademark prosecution and litigation.

Williams Mullen

• Andrew R. Shores

  • Role: Local Counsel (implied, given Williams Mullen's regional presence).
  • Firm: Williams Mullen, offices including Raleigh, NC, and Greensboro, NC.
  • Experience Note: Andrew Shores is a Partner at Williams Mullen and practices in intellectual property litigation and general business litigation. He has experience in patent infringement disputes.

• Carmelle F. Alipio

  • Role: Local Counsel (implied).
  • Firm: Williams Mullen, offices including Raleigh, NC, and Greensboro, NC.
  • Experience Note: Carmelle Alipio is an associate at Williams Mullen, focusing on commercial litigation and intellectual property disputes.

This information is derived from court docket entries (as reported by PacerMonitor) and general knowledge of legal practice where national firms often associate with local counsel for district court litigation. Specific roles like "lead counsel" or "local counsel" are inferred based on the firms' typical litigation profiles and geographic locations relative to the court. Further verification of specific experience would typically involve reviewing firm bios or past case filings.

As of June 16, 2026, a search of publicly available docket information for Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC v. Rocket Media, LLC (Case number 1:24-cv-00314, North Carolina Middle District Court) primarily reveals counsel for the plaintiff, Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC. While the case was filed on April 11, 2024, and a summons was issued to Rocket Media, LLC on April 12, 2024, specific appearances for the defendant, Rocket Media, LLC, are not readily available in the provided search snippets.

The PacerMonitor search result listed attorneys Aakash Patel, Michael Bonella, and Coraleine Kitt from Flaster Greenberg P.C., and Andrew R. Shores and Carmelle F. Alipio from Williams Mullen, but these attorneys are explicitly noted as appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff FullThrottle Technologies, LLC. Another search result from RPX Empower states that counsel representation for the defendant is "Subscription Required," indicating that this information is not freely accessible without a subscription.

Without access to the full PACER docket or a paid subscription service, the counsel of record representing the defendant(s) in this specific district court patent infringement case cannot be definitively identified from the available information. It is possible that filings related to their appearance are sealed or that the information is not publicly indexed in the provided snippets.