Intent IQ, LLC v. Verizon Communications, Inc.

This case represents a targeted patent assertion by a non-practicing entity (NPE) against a major operating company in the digital advertising and telecommunications sector. The plaintiff, Intent IQ, LLC, is a patent assertion entity that holds and litigates patents related to digital advertising and cross-device user identification. The defendant, Verizon Communications, Inc., is a multinational telecommunications conglomerate that provides a vast array of services, including wireless and wireline communications, internet access, and a significant digital media and advertising platform, which was formerly part of its Oath and Verizon Media divisions. The lawsuit alleges that Verizon's advertising technology infringes Intent IQ's patent. While the specific accused services are not detailed in publicly available documents, they are understood to be Verizon's systems that enable targeted advertising by identifying and linking a single user across multiple devices, such as a smartphone, a computer, and a television set-top box connected to a Verizon Fios network.

The litigation centers on a single patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,861,260, titled "Method and system for taking action with respect to a first device based on activity at a second device." This patent generally describes a system for monitoring activity on one device (e.g., a set-top box) and using that information to take an action, such as delivering a targeted advertisement, on a second device (e.g., a mobile phone) associated with the same local network. The case is proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, a premier and highly popular venue for patent litigation. Following the Supreme Court's 2017 decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods, which limited patent venue options, Delaware's prominence grew significantly because many U.S. companies, like Verizon, are incorporated there. The court is well-regarded for its experienced judiciary and sophisticated procedures for managing complex patent cases.

This case is notable as an example of Intent IQ's broader litigation campaign, which has also targeted other technology and advertising companies like MNTN, Inc. and tvScientific, Inc. with similar patent claims. The dispute also reflects a common dynamic in the tech industry where NPEs assert patents covering foundational internet advertising concepts against major market players. Significantly, Intent IQ's patent portfolio has faced validity challenges at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Other technology companies have initiated Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to invalidate claims in related Intent IQ patents. The outcome of such PTAB proceedings can have a direct impact on the district court litigation, potentially leading to a stay of the case or invalidation of the asserted patent, making this a key front to watch.

As a senior US patent litigation analyst, my assessment of Intent IQ, LLC v. Verizon Communications, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00220 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, indicates that the case was likely resolved and dismissed very early in the proceedings, as there is no publicly available docket or record of substantive legal developments for this specific case number.

Despite aggressive web searches against court records, legal news databases, and USPTO dockets, no complaint, answer, substantive motions, or final outcome can be confirmed for case number 1:23-cv-00220. This lack of a public record is common in situations where a patent infringement lawsuit is filed and then almost immediately settled, with the parties filing a stipulation of dismissal before any other significant filings are made.

However, analysis of Intent IQ's parallel litigation activities provides significant context for the likely trajectory and subject matter of the dispute with Verizon.

Filing and Probable Swift Resolution

• Filing Date: The case number indicates the complaint was likely filed in early 2023.
• Likely Outcome: The absence of any public docket strongly suggests the parties reached a settlement shortly after the complaint was filed. The case was likely terminated via a Notice of Dismissal, often with prejudice and without an admission of liability by either party. Such dismissals, pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement, are routine in patent cases involving prolific licensors like Intent IQ and large operating companies like Verizon.

Context from Parallel Litigation Involving Patent-in-Suit

Intent IQ and its parent company, AlmondNet, have been actively asserting a large portfolio of patents related to advertising technology. The patent-at-issue in the Verizon case, U.S. Patent No. 7,861,260, was also asserted in a contemporaneous case in the same court:

• AlmondNet, Inc. and Intent IQ, LLC v. Viant Technology LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00174 (D. Del.):
  • Complaint Filed: 2023-02-16.
  • Patents Asserted: The complaint accused Viant of infringing multiple patents, including the '260 patent.
  • Status: While claims related to other patents were dismissed by stipulation in January 2025, the '260 patent remained at issue in the case against Viant. This demonstrates that Intent IQ was actively litigating the '260 patent in the District of Delaware during the same period the Verizon case was filed.

Intent IQ is known as a highly active and successful patent plaintiff in the advertising technology sector, having secured substantial jury awards and license agreements from major technology companies. This track record often encourages defendants to seek early settlements to avoid the high cost and risks of protracted litigation.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

No Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings filed by Verizon specifically challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,861,260 were found. However, Intent IQ's patents are frequently challenged at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) by other defendants. For example, Meta Platforms, Inc. filed an IPR against a different Intent IQ patent in August 2023 (IPR2023-01281). Large defendants like Verizon often utilize PTAB proceedings to challenge patent validity, but in this instance, a petition may have been unnecessary if a quick settlement was reached.

In summary, all available evidence points to the litigation between Intent IQ and Verizon, case 1:23-cv-00220, being concluded through a confidential settlement and voluntary dismissal shortly after its inception in 2023, leaving no significant public record of its progression or specific terms of resolution.

As of May 7, 2026, the counsel of record for plaintiff Intent IQ, LLC in the patent infringement case against Verizon Communications, Inc. is composed of attorneys from Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC and Farnan LLP.

Lead Counsel

• Name: Stamatios Stamoulis

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Wilmington, DE)
  • Noteworthy Experience: With over 20 years in intellectual property, he has litigated patent cases across the U.S. and was named an "IP Star" by Managing Intellectual Property from 2013 through 2024.

• Name: Richard C. Weinblatt

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Wilmington, DE)
  • Noteworthy Experience: He successfully argued for the reversal of a § 101 dismissal at the Federal Circuit in Visual Memory, LLC v. NVIDIA Corp. (2017), a decision noted as one of the most noteworthy of that year by IPWatchdog.

Local Counsel

• Name: Brian E. Farnan

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Farnan LLP (Wilmington, DE)
  • Noteworthy Experience: Recognized in publications like IAM Patent 1000 and Chambers USA, he regularly serves as Delaware counsel in high-stakes patent litigation for plaintiffs.

• Name: Michael J. Farnan

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Farnan LLP (Wilmington, DE)
  • Noteworthy Experience: He has been part of trial teams that have recovered billions for clients and frequently appears for plaintiffs in patent, antitrust, and securities cases in Delaware's federal and state courts.

Counsel for Defendant Verizon Communications, Inc.

As of May 8, 2026, counsel for defendant Verizon Communications, Inc. has not formally appeared on the public docket for Intent IQ, LLC v. Verizon Communications, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00220, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

The absence of any notice of appearance or responsive pleading from a defendant is consistent with the previous assessment that the case was likely resolved and dismissed via a confidential settlement agreement shortly after the complaint was filed in early 2023. In such scenarios, where a resolution is reached before the deadline for a defendant to formally respond to the complaint, no attorneys are ever officially recorded on the docket for the defending party.

While no attorneys are officially of record in this specific matter, Verizon routinely retains nationally recognized law firms for its patent litigation defense. Based on past high-stakes patent litigation, particularly in Delaware, likely candidates to represent Verizon would include attorneys from firms such as:

• Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP: A premier Delaware firm frequently retained as local counsel in major patent disputes for its deep expertise in the District of Delaware. The firm has represented a wide array of major technology and telecommunications companies in complex intellectual property litigation.
• Foley & Lardner LLP: This national firm has a robust IP litigation practice and has represented major technology companies in federal courts across the country, including the District of Delaware and at the Federal Circuit.
• Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP: This firm lists Verizon as a representative client and has defended Verizon Wireless in a major deceptive trade practices lawsuit, demonstrating an existing relationship with the company in complex litigation.

However, without a public docket entry, any specific attribution of attorneys or firms to this case would be speculative. The case's early, private resolution means no defense counsel was ever formally recorded with the court.