Intent IQ, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.

Case Overview and Background

This active patent infringement suit pits Intent IQ, LLC, a technology company and frequent litigator, against retail and technology giant Amazon.com, Inc. Intent IQ, a subsidiary of AlmondNet, describes itself as a "privacy-first next generation identity resolution leader" but is also characterized as a non-practicing entity (NPE) that derives significant income from patent licensing and litigation. Amazon is a major operating company in e-commerce and cloud computing, with a rapidly growing digital advertising business that is central to this dispute. The case was filed on December 14, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, a popular venue for patent litigation due to its experienced judiciary and well-developed case law. The presiding judge has not yet been publicly assigned.

The lawsuit accuses Amazon's advertising technology, including its demand-side platform (Amazon DSP) and other services like Sponsored Display, of infringing U.S. Patent No. 8,671,139. The '139 patent, titled "Media properties selection method and system based on expected profit from profile-based ad delivery," generally covers a system for selecting where to display an ad based on a user's profile collected on another web property. The technology at the heart of the dispute involves profile-based, behavioral, and targeted advertising, a core component of modern digital ad systems that track users across the web to serve relevant ads. The complaint alleges that Amazon's systems for delivering targeted ads to consumers based on their browsing and shopping history utilize the methods protected by Intent IQ's patent.

The case is notable for several reasons. It is part of a broader, aggressive litigation campaign by Intent IQ and its parent AlmondNet, which have sued numerous major technology companies over a portfolio of patents they deem "foundational" to the online advertising industry. This specific patent, the '139 patent, was successfully asserted in a parallel case against Amazon in the Western District of Texas, which resulted in a $122 million jury verdict in June 2024. Although that verdict is subject to appeal, the prior win, and a subsequent settlement and license agreement between the parties announced in April 2026, could significantly influence this Delaware case. The litigation also unfolds under the scrutiny of Delaware's Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly, who has implemented stringent standing orders requiring disclosure of litigation funding and the ultimate owners of LLC plaintiffs, a move aimed at increasing transparency in NPE lawsuits.

Here are the key legal developments in the patent infringement litigation between Intent IQ, LLC and Amazon.com, Inc.

Filing & Initial Pleadings

2023-12-14: Complaint Filed
Intent IQ, LLC ("Intent IQ") filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Amazon.com, Inc. ("Amazon") in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges that Amazon's advertising technology, including its Demand Side Platform (DSP), infringes on U.S. Patent No. 8,671,139, titled "Media properties selection method and system based on expected profit from profile-based ad delivery." The case is assigned to Judge Gregory B. Williams. (Case No. 1:23-cv-01373, D.I. 1).

At present, publicly available information does not indicate that Amazon has filed an answer or any counterclaims. The deadline for Amazon to respond to the complaint would typically be in early 2024, but this can be subject to extensions by agreement or court order.

Pre-trial Motions and Current Status

As of May 2026, there are no substantive pre-trial motions, such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay, reflected in the publicly available records for this case. The litigation is still in its early stages. Given the existence of parallel administrative proceedings challenging the patent's validity (detailed below), a motion by Amazon to stay the case pending the outcome of those reviews is a likely future development.

The case is currently designated as "Active."

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

The patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 8,671,139, has been the subject of multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) by other technology companies. While Amazon is not listed as a petitioner in these specific IPRs, their outcomes are highly relevant to the litigation against Amazon.

• IPR2022-01262 (Petitioner: Meta Platforms, Inc.): Filed on July 15, 2022, against the '139 patent. The PTAB has issued a Final Written Decision in this proceeding.
• IPR2022-01319 (Petitioner: Microsoft Corporation): Filed on July 26, 2022, against the '139 patent. This proceeding has also concluded with a Final Written Decision.

The specific outcomes of these Final Written Decisions—that is, whether the PTAB found the challenged patent claims to be valid or invalid—are not yet available in the public search results. However, these decisions would have a significant impact on the ongoing litigation. If the PTAB invalidated the claims asserted against Amazon, it could lead to a swift resolution of the district court case. Conversely, if the claims were upheld, it would strengthen Intent IQ's position.

Expected Future Developments

Given the current posture of the case, the next steps are likely to include:

• Amazon's Answer: Amazon will file an answer to the complaint, likely denying infringement and asserting invalidity of the '139 patent.
• Motion to Stay: Amazon may file a motion to stay the district court case pending the final resolution (including any appeals to the Federal Circuit) of the IPRs filed by Meta and Microsoft. Courts often grant such stays to promote efficiency and avoid inconsistent rulings.
• Scheduling Order: The court will issue a scheduling order that will set deadlines for key litigation events, including fact and expert discovery, claim construction briefings (Markman hearing), and dispositive motions.

As of today's date, the litigation remains in its nascent stages, with the parallel PTAB proceedings representing the most significant legal developments thus far. The outcomes of those proceedings will heavily influence the future trajectory of this case.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record Identified in Amazon Patent Case

Wilmington, DE – May 4, 2026 – Analysis of the patent infringement lawsuit filed by Intent IQ, LLC and its parent company, AlmondNet, Inc., against Amazon.com, Inc. in the District of Delaware reveals a lineup of seasoned patent litigators. The case, Intent IQ, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-01373, involves attorneys from the Silicon Valley office of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP serving as lead counsel, with local representation from Wilmington-based intellectual property boutique Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC.

While the specific notices of appearance on the docket are not available through public web search, information from related parallel proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and news coverage of the parties' other litigation confirms the roles of the following attorneys.

---

Lead Counsel

• Name: Paul J. Andre

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP (Silicon Valley, CA)
  • Note: Andre is a nationally recognized trial lawyer known for securing significant plaintiff-side patent verdicts, including a recent $30.5 million win for Acceleration Bay against Amazon Web Services in Delaware.

• Name: James R. Hannah

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP (Silicon Valley, CA)
  • Note: An electrical engineer and patent litigator, Hannah frequently litigates high-stakes technology cases alongside Paul Andre, including major wins for clients Centripetal Networks and Acceleration Bay.

Local Counsel

• Name: Stamatios Stamoulis

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: A veteran Delaware patent litigator, Stamoulis has handled over 2,000 cases, often representing patent holders as local counsel in the busy district court.

• Name: Richard C. Weinblatt

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: Weinblatt focuses on patent litigation and appellate work and has represented clients in numerous matters before the District of Delaware and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

The case involves U.S. Patent No. 8,671,139. Filings in related administrative proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office confirm that both AlmondNet, Inc. and Intent IQ, LLC are patent owners in the district court litigation.

A recent press release in early April 2026 announced that AlmondNet and its subsidiaries, including Intent IQ, had resolved their broader patent dispute with Amazon and entered into a license agreement. This settlement likely encompasses the present case, though as of today's date, the case status in the District of Delaware is still listed as active.

Counsel for Defendant Amazon.com, Inc.

As of May 4, 2026, counsel for the defendant, Amazon.com, Inc., has not yet filed a notice of appearance on the public docket for Intent IQ, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 1:23-cv-01373, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The case was filed on December 14, 2023, and procedural steps such as service of process and initial filings are likely underway.

However, based on Amazon's litigation history in the District of Delaware and other patent-heavy venues, counsel can be anticipated from firms with which the company has established relationships.

Firms that have recently represented Amazon in significant patent litigation include:

• Fenwick & West LLP: This firm frequently represents Amazon in patent cases. For instance, Fenwick partners David Hadden and Saina Shamilov defended Amazon in a Delaware case involving digital assistant patents. They also represented Amazon in a countersuit against Nokia in Delaware concerning cloud computing patents.
• Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP: This Delaware-based firm often serves as local counsel for Amazon in patent litigation within the district, working alongside national counsel. Their website explicitly lists Amazon.com as a representative client for patent litigation matters.
• Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP: Known for high-stakes patent litigation, Quinn Emanuel has represented Amazon Web Services and Amazon.com in past patent infringement suits in Delaware.

It is highly probable that Amazon's legal team in this case will comprise attorneys from one or more of these firms, with a Delaware-based firm like Potter Anderson serving as local counsel. An official notice of appearance is expected to be filed in the coming weeks, at which point the specific attorneys and their roles will be publicly documented.