Intent IQ LLC v. Viant Technology LLC

Case Background and Overview

This patent infringement appeal involves plaintiff Intent IQ LLC, a prolific patent assertion entity (PAE) in the advertising technology sector, and defendant Viant Technology LLC, a publicly traded ad-tech operating company. Intent IQ, a subsidiary of the AlmondNet Group, controls a large portfolio of over 170 patents related to foundational digital advertising concepts like behavioral targeting and cross-device identification. It has a history of aggressively litigating against major players in the tech and media industries, including Amazon, Microsoft, and Roku, and has secured significant licensing deals and a $122 million jury verdict against Amazon. The defendant, Viant Technology (NASDAQ: DSP), operates the Adelphic demand-side platform (DSP), which enables advertisers to purchase and manage targeted advertising campaigns across multiple channels, including Connected TV (CTV), mobile, and desktop.

The dispute centers on Viant's targeted advertising services, which deliver television ads to specific households based on the online behavior and internet activity of users within that household. Intent IQ alleges these services infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,861,260. The '260 patent, as described in related litigation, generally covers a method for delivering targeted television advertisements by creating an electronic association between a user's online devices (like a computer or smartphone) and their television set-top box. This technology allows advertisers to leverage web browsing data to inform which ads are shown on television, a core function of the modern digital advertising ecosystem.

The case is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the primary appellate court for patent matters, following proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The appeal, filed on April 20, 2026, likely stems from a key ruling in the underlying district court case, AlmondNet, Inc. and Intent IQ, LLC v. Viant Technology LLC, No. 23-174-MN. This litigation is notable as it represents a key battle in Intent IQ's broad enforcement campaign against the ad-tech industry. Numerous major technology companies have been targeted by this campaign and have, in turn, challenged the validity of Intent IQ's patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Indeed, Viant has filed its own petitions for inter partes review (IPR) against other Intent IQ patents, indicating a multi-front legal strategy to combat the infringement allegations. The outcome of this appeal could have significant implications for the CTV and programmatic advertising industries, which rely heavily on the cross-device targeting technologies that Intent IQ claims to have patented.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

The patent infringement litigation between Intent IQ and Viant Technology has been defined by a strategic shift from district court to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), culminating in an appeal of the PTAB's decision to the Federal Circuit. The underlying district court case was effectively halted pending the outcome of Viant's challenges to the validity of the asserted patent at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

District Court Litigation: AlmondNet, Inc. and Intent IQ, LLC v. Viant Technology LLC, No. 23-174-MN (D. Del.)

• 2023-02-16: Complaint Filed

  • Intent IQ, along with parent company AlmondNet, filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Viant Technology in the District of Delaware. The complaint initially accused Viant's ad-tech platform, including its Adelphic Demand Side Platform (DSP), of infringing four patents, including U.S. Patent No. 7,861,260.

• Pleadings and Early Discovery

  • Following the complaint, the case proceeded through initial pleadings. On December 15, 2023, Intent IQ served its identification of accused products. A subsequent discovery dispute arose concerning the sufficiency of Intent IQ's infringement contentions. On July 15, 2024, Magistrate Judge Maryellen Noreika denied Viant's motion to compel, finding Intent IQ's contentions were sufficient to provide reasonable notice of its infringement theories.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings & Resulting Stay

• 2024-11-01: IPR Petitions Filed

  • Viant Technology proactively challenged the validity of the patent-in-suit by filing multiple petitions for inter partes review (IPR) with the PTAB. Notably, Viant filed petitions against U.S. Patent No. 7,861,260, designated as IPR2025-00128 and IPR2025-00129.

• 2025-02-26: District Court Case Stayed

  • In response to Viant's PTAB petitions, Judge Maryellen Noreika granted Viant's motion to stay the district court litigation (D.I. 100) pending the outcome of the IPR proceedings. This order effectively paused all district court activity, including any potential Markman claim construction hearing or trial, pending the PTAB's validity determination.

• 2025-03-25: IPRs Instituted

  • The PTAB instituted trial on Viant's challenges to the '260 patent in both IPR2025-00128 and IPR2025-00129, finding that Viant had established a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail in proving the challenged claims were unpatentable.

• 2025-10-14: Final Written Decision - Patent Claims Found Unpatentable

  • The PTAB issued its Final Written Decision, siding with Viant Technology. The board determined that the challenged claims of Intent IQ's patent related to targeted advertising were unpatentable because they were obvious over prior art. This outcome was a significant victory for Viant, invalidating the patent rights being asserted against it in the district court.

Federal Circuit Appeal: Intent IQ LLC v. Viant Technology LLC, No. 26-1702

• 2026-04-20: Appeal Filed
  • Following its loss at the PTAB, Intent IQ appealed the board's Final Written Decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This appeal, docketed as case number 26-1702, directly challenges the PTAB's finding that the '260 patent's claims are unpatentable.

Present Posture (as of 2026-05-03): The district court case remains stayed. The central legal battle is now at the Federal Circuit, where the court will review the PTAB's decision. The outcome of this appeal will determine whether the '260 patent claims remain invalid. If the Federal Circuit affirms the PTAB's decision, Intent IQ's infringement case against Viant regarding this patent will be effectively terminated. If the court reverses, the stay in the district court would likely be lifted, and the infringement litigation would resume.

As the appeal in Intent IQ LLC v. Viant Technology LLC, No. 26-1702, was recently filed on April 20, 2026, counsel for plaintiff-appellant Intent IQ has not yet formally entered an appearance before the Federal Circuit. However, the legal team that represented Intent IQ and its parent AlmondNet in the underlying district court litigation, AlmondNet, Inc. and Intent IQ, LLC v. Viant Technology LLC, No. 23-174-MN (D. Del.), is expected to continue its representation.

Based on the district court docket and the established roles of the firms in Intent IQ's broader litigation campaign, the plaintiff's counsel consists of a lead trial and appellate team from Russ August & Kabat, supported by local counsel in Delaware from Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC.

Lead Counsel

• Marc A. Fenster, Lead Counsel

  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat (Los Angeles, CA)
  • Note: As chair of the firm's patent litigation group, Fenster co-led the team that secured a $122 million jury verdict for AlmondNet (Intent IQ's parent) against Amazon in a similar ad-tech case.

• Reza Mirzaie, Lead Counsel

  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat (Los Angeles, CA)
  • Note: Co-chair of the plaintiff's patent litigation department, Mirzaie has co-led numerous successful trials for Intent IQ's parent company, including the major $122 million verdict against Amazon.

• Philip X. Wang, Of Counsel

  • Firm: Russ August & Kabat (Los Angeles, CA)
  • Note: A partner specializing in high-tech patent litigation and PTAB proceedings, Wang has been recognized as a "Rising Star" and "Super Lawyer" in intellectual property litigation.

Local Counsel

• Stamatios "Sam" Stamoulis, Local Counsel

  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: A founding partner of his firm, Stamoulis has over 20 years of experience and regularly serves as Delaware counsel in patent infringement cases for various patent assertion entities.

• Richard C. Weinblatt, Local Counsel

  • Firm: Stamoulis & Weinblatt LLC (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: Weinblatt's practice focuses on patent litigation and appellate work, and he has successfully argued numerous appeals before the Federal Circuit.

• Brian E. Farnan, Local Counsel

  • Firm: Farnan LLP (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: Farnan frequently serves as Delaware counsel in complex patent litigation and has represented Intent IQ's parent company, AlmondNet, in other district court matters.

As the appeal in Intent IQ LLC v. Viant Technology LLC, No. 26-1702, was only recently filed at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, counsel for appellee Viant Technology LLC has not yet formally appeared on the appellate docket. However, the legal team that successfully represented Viant in the underlying inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and in the related district court litigation is expected to continue its representation.

Viant's defense team is led by attorneys from Feinberg Day, a firm known for its expertise in PTAB litigation, with support from Delaware-based local counsel from Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP.

Lead Counsel

• David L. Feinberg, Lead Counsel

  • Firm: Feinberg Day Kramer Alpert & Mulroy LLP (Palo Alto, CA)
  • Note: Feinberg is a founding partner of his firm and a prominent PTAB trial lawyer who has represented numerous major tech companies, including Google and Netflix, in high-stakes patent validity challenges.

• David H. Day, Lead Counsel

  • Firm: Feinberg Day Kramer Alpert & Mulroy LLP (Palo Alto, CA)
  • Note: Day, a founding partner of the firm, has extensive experience in patent litigation and PTAB proceedings, and he co-led the successful defense for Netflix against AlmondNet (Intent IQ's parent) in a related case.

• Michael J. Stirn, Of Counsel

  • Firm: Feinberg Day Kramer Alpert & Mulroy LLP (Palo Alto, CA)
  • Note: Stirn specializes in patent litigation and PTAB trials, and he was part of the Feinberg Day team that secured the invalidity decision for Viant against the '260 patent at the PTAB.

Local Counsel

• Bindu A. Palapura, Local Counsel

  • Firm: Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: Palapura is a partner at one of Delaware's oldest firms and focuses her practice on intellectual property and complex commercial litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

• J. Clayton Athey, Local Counsel

  • Firm: Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note: Athey's practice centers on intellectual property litigation, and he has significant experience serving as Delaware counsel for national and international clients in patent disputes.