Intent IQ, LLC v. MNTN, Inc.

Case Overview and Background

Parties and Accused Technology

This patent infringement suit pits Intent IQ, LLC, a subsidiary of AlmondNet, Inc. that appears to operate as a patent assertion entity, against MNTN, Inc., an ad-tech company known for its "performance marketing" platform for streaming television (Connected TV). MNTN's platform enables brands to place and manage advertising campaigns on streaming services, providing tools for targeting, optimization, and performance measurement. The complaint, filed on May 23, 2025, alleges that MNTN's advertising platform, particularly its cross-device targeting and attribution features marketed as "Verified Visits," infringes on two of Intent IQ's patents. MNTN, which is publicly traded and creatively led by actor Ryan Reynolds, aims to make TV advertising accessible and measurable for brands beyond the top 200 advertisers.

Asserted Patents and Procedural Posture

The lawsuit asserts infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,949,962, which covers a method for identifying a user across multiple devices to measure ad effectiveness, and U.S. Patent No. 8,677,398, which details a system for taking action on one device based on activity from another device on the same network. The '398 patent previously survived an ex parte reexamination, which could strengthen its presumption of validity. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (WDTX), a venue that became a hotbed for patent litigation under Judge Alan D. Albright, who was known for plaintiff-friendly procedures and a reluctance to transfer cases. However, a 2022 standing order now requires patent cases filed in the Waco division to be randomly assigned among a dozen judges, reducing the certainty of drawing a specific judge. Furthermore, Judge Albright has announced he will be leaving the bench in August 2026, creating further uncertainty for the district's massive patent docket.

Notability and Industry Context

The case is notable as it represents a clash between a patent assertion entity and a high-profile operating company in the booming Connected TV advertising space. Intent IQ and its parent AlmondNet have engaged in a broad litigation campaign, previously suing other major tech companies like Microsoft, Amazon, and Meta Platforms over related advertising technology patents. The legal battle touches upon a core technical challenge in modern advertising: how to track a consumer's journey across various devices (e.g., from a TV to a smartphone) to accurately measure an ad's impact on purchasing behavior. The outcome could have significant implications for the ad-tech industry's methods of cross-device attribution. The choice of the Western District of Texas, despite recent changes to its case-assignment rules and the impending departure of its most prominent patent judge, indicates that patent plaintiffs still see it as a favorable venue.

I have searched for the case docket and initial pleadings for Intent IQ, LLC v. MNTN, Inc., case number 7:25-cv-00246 in the Western District of Texas. The search results confirm the filing date of the complaint as May 23, 2025. I have also found references to this case on various online platforms, including PacerMonitor and Reddit, which link to a CourtListener docket. However, the search results have not yet provided specific details about the content of the answer, any counterclaims, or subsequent motions like motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay. I also have not found any information regarding a Markman hearing, discovery milestones, trial, or settlement. To provide a comprehensive update on the key legal developments, I need to find these specific docket events. My next steps will focus on finding this information.My previous search has confirmed the filing of the complaint on May 23, 2025. I have also found significant information about parallel PTAB proceedings for one of the patents at issue, U.S. Patent No. 8,677,398. Specifically, I found that multiple IPRs have been filed against this patent by various tech companies, with some being denied institution and one involving Meta Platforms settling. This is a crucial development. However, I still lack specific details about the district court litigation's progress, including MNTN's answer and any counterclaims, substantive motions, or a scheduling order. I need to focus my next searches on the specific docket of the district court case to fill in these gaps. I have not found any PTAB proceedings for the other patent, U.S. Patent No. 11,949,962, so I will continue to search for those as well.I have gathered significant information about the case Intent IQ, LLC v. MNTN, Inc., including the filing date of the complaint (2025-05-23) and details about parallel PTAB proceedings for U.S. Patent No. 8,677,398. I've also just discovered a new PTAB proceeding (IPR2026-00330) filed on April 2, 2026, against the other patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 11,949,962, by a group of petitioners including Applovin Corp., Mediaocean LLC, and Viant Technology LLC. This is a very important development. However, I am still missing the specific dates and details of key events in the district court case, such as the defendant's answer, any motions to dismiss or transfer, the scheduling order, and claim construction dates. To provide a complete and chronological list of legal developments, I need to find these specific docket entries.I have successfully gathered crucial information about the parallel PTAB proceedings for both patents-in-suit. I have confirmed the filing of IPR2026-00330 against U.S. Patent No. 11,949,962 on April 2, 2026, and have identified the petitioners. This is a major development. I also have extensive details on prior IPRs against U.S. Patent No. 8,677,398. However, I am still missing the specific filings and dates for key events in the district court litigation (Case No. 7:25-cv-00246), such as MNTN's answer, any substantive motions (to dismiss, transfer, or stay), a scheduling order, and claim construction milestones. Without this information from the court docket, I cannot create a complete chronological summary of the litigation's key legal developments. Therefore, my next step must be to find a source that can provide these specific docket entries.I have successfully gathered information about the parallel PTAB proceedings for both patents-in-suit, including the recent filing of an IPR against U.S. Patent No. 11,949,962. This is a significant development. However, my searches have not yet yielded specific docket entries from the Western District of Texas case (7:25-cv-00246) concerning key events like the filing of an answer by MNTN, any substantive motions (to dismiss, transfer, or stay), or a scheduling order. While the existence of the case is confirmed, the lack of these specific details prevents me from constructing a complete chronological timeline of the litigation's progress. It's possible that due to the recent filing of the case (May 2025) and the even more recent IPR (April 2026), the district court case has not progressed significantly, or the public databases I can access are not fully up-to-date. I will now synthesize the information I have to build the timeline, while clearly noting the absence of specific docket information for the district court proceedings.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

As of May 6, 2026, the patent infringement litigation between Intent IQ, LLC and MNTN, Inc. is in its early stages, with significant developments occurring in parallel at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that will likely influence the course of the district court case.

District Court Proceedings (W.D. Tex. Case No. 7:25-cv-00246)

• 2025-05-23: Complaint Filed
  Intent IQ, LLC filed a patent infringement lawsuit against MNTN, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The complaint alleges that MNTN's digital advertising platform, particularly its cross-device targeting and attribution features, infringes on U.S. Patent Nos. 11,949,962 and 8,677,398.

• Subsequent Pleadings and Motions (2025 - Present)
  As of early May 2026, information regarding MNTN's answer to the complaint, any counterclaims, or the filing of any substantive pre-trial motions (such as motions to dismiss, transfer venue, or stay proceedings) is not yet available in the public record. Similarly, a scheduling order from the court, which would set deadlines for claim construction, discovery, and trial, has not been publicly reported. The case remains active on the court's docket.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

The validity of both patents-in-suit is being challenged at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

• U.S. Patent No. 8,677,398: This patent has been the subject of numerous inter partes review (IPR) petitions filed by a variety of major technology companies over the years. While not all were instituted, this history of challenges indicates a concerted effort by industry players to invalidate the patent. Prior IPRs were filed by entities such as Yahoo!, Meta Platforms, Roku, Microsoft, Samsung, and Amazon. The IPR filed by Meta Platforms resulted in a settlement. This history could be a significant factor in the current litigation with MNTN.

• U.S. Patent No. 11,949,962:

  • 2026-04-02: IPR Petition Filed (IPR2026-00330)
    A significant development occurred when a group of advertising technology companies, including Applovin Corp., Mediaocean LLC, and Viant Technology LLC, jointly filed a petition for inter partes review against the '962 patent. This proceeding is in its initial phase.

Current Posture and Outlook

The litigation is currently proceeding on two parallel tracks: the district court case in the Western District of Texas and the newly initiated IPR proceeding against the '962 patent at the PTAB.

The filing of the IPR against the '962 patent is a critical event. MNTN will likely file a motion to stay the district court litigation pending the PTAB's review of this patent. Courts often grant such stays to conserve judicial resources and because an invalidation of the patent at the PTAB could render the district court case moot. Given the history of IPR challenges against the related '398 patent, the institution of this new IPR could heavily influence the trajectory and potential settlement of the MNTN litigation. The case is active, with the next steps in the district court likely to be MNTN's answer to the complaint and a potential motion to stay the case pending the outcome of the IPR. There have been no reported claim construction hearings, trial dates, or settlement discussions to date.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record

Based on docket entries and firm biographies, the following attorneys from the law firm Russ August & Kabat are counsel for Plaintiff Intent IQ, LLC. The roles of lead and local counsel are not formally designated in the initial filings, but the senior partners are typically understood to be leading the litigation. All counsel are based in the firm's Los Angeles, California office.

LEAD COUNSEL

• Marc A. Fenster | Partner, Chair of Patent Litigation

  • Firm & Office: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Noteworthy Experience: A first-chair trial lawyer who has secured major patent verdicts, including recent wins against Google, Western Digital, and a significant settlement with Apple over mobile camera patents.

• Reza Mirzaie | Partner, Co-Chair of Plaintiff's Patent Infringement Litigation

  • Firm & Office: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Noteworthy Experience: Has obtained over $600 million for clients in the last five years and was co-lead counsel in a $122 million jury verdict against Amazon for infringing advertising technology patents.

• Brian D. Ledahl | Partner

  • Firm & Office: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Noteworthy Experience: A veteran IP litigator who has helped clients recover over $1.5 billion in judgments and settlements and has argued before the Federal Circuit.

• Adam S. Hoffman | Partner

  • Firm & Office: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Noteworthy Experience: Focuses on patent damages and has secured tens of millions in awards against companies like Apple, Google, and Samsung.

OF COUNSEL / PARTNERS

• Philip X. Wang | Partner

  • Firm & Office: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Noteworthy Experience: Specializes in high-tech patent litigation and PTAB proceedings, having represented NVIDIA in a jury trial win against Samsung involving semiconductor technology.

• James A. Milkey | Partner

  • Firm & Office: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Noteworthy Experience: A registered patent attorney with experience in federal courts and the ITC across technologies like machine learning, semiconductors, and telecommunications.

• James S. Tsuei | Partner

  • Firm & Office: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Noteworthy Experience: Represents clients in patent and trade secret litigation involving smartphones, OLED displays, and data compression technologies.

• Susan Y. Tull | Partner

  • Firm & Office: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Noteworthy Experience: A seasoned IP trial lawyer who has tried cases across the country, including in the Western District of Texas, and previously helped secure a $199 million settlement for J&J Surgical Vision.

ASSOCIATES

• Daniel B. Kolko | Associate

  • Firm & Office: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Noteworthy Experience: A litigation associate who participated in UCI's Consumer Law Clinic and previously worked at Latham & Watkins.

• Jonathan Ma | Associate

  • Firm & Office: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Noteworthy Experience: Was on the team that won a $122 million verdict against Amazon for patent infringement related to targeted online advertising.

• Joshua M. Scheufler | Associate

  • Firm & Office: Russ August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA.
  • Noteworthy Experience: Previously clerked for Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne in the Eastern District of Texas and has experience in cases involving speech recognition and cloud networking.

As of early 2026, court filings in the Western District of Texas identify a team from Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP and a local counsel from Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP as representing defendant MNTN, Inc.

An early docket report from PacerMonitor lists several attorneys from Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP and one from Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP who have appeared on behalf of MNTN. A subsequent filing in September 2025 indicates a motion for withdrawal was filed by the attorney from Morgan Lewis, suggesting a potential change in the local counsel role.

Based on available docket information, the counsel for MNTN, Inc. are:

Lead Counsel

• Douglas Ethan Lumish

  • Firm: Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP (Silicon Valley office)
  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Note: Co-head of Weil's patent litigation practice, Lumish has extensive experience leading high-stakes patent trials for major technology companies in venues across the country, including the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas.

• Joseph H. Lee

  • Firm: Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP (Houston office)
  • Role: Counsel
  • Note: Lee is a Houston-based partner in Weil’s patent litigation group, frequently representing clients in the technology and energy sectors in cases filed in Texas courts.

Of Counsel

• Anne M. Cappella

  • Firm: Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP (Silicon Valley office)
  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Note: Cappella has deep experience in patent litigation and other intellectual property disputes, often focusing on software and electronics-related cases for Silicon Valley technology clients.

• Jeffrey G. Homrig

  • Firm: Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP (Silicon Valley office)
  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Note: Homrig is an experienced trial lawyer focusing on patent and technology litigation, representing both plaintiffs and defendants in complex cases involving software, hardware, and internet technologies.

• Rashi Punia

  • Firm: Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP (Houston office)
  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Note: Punia is a patent litigator based in Houston whose practice focuses on complex patent infringement cases in federal courts, including significant experience in the Western District of Texas.

• Dmytro Igorovych Panchenko

  • Firm: Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP (Houston office)
  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Note: Panchenko's practice concentrates on patent litigation matters, particularly within the technology sector, with experience in Texas federal district courts.

Local Counsel

• Thomas R. Davis
  • Firm: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (Houston office)
  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Note: Davis is a partner with broad patent litigation experience in Texas. A docket entry from September 2, 2025, shows an unopposed motion for his withdrawal as counsel, which may indicate a transition in the local counsel role for MNTN.