Nouryon USA LLC v. Aloft Media, LLC

Parties and Accused Technology

This declaratory judgment action represents a preemptive strike by Nouryon USA LLC, a global specialty chemicals company, against Aloft Media, LLC, a patent assertion entity (PAE). Nouryon is an operating company that produces chemicals used in a wide array of everyday products, including personal care items, paints, and agricultural goods. In contrast, Aloft Media is described in other similar lawsuits as a non-practicing entity (NPE), or "patent troll," that acquires patents to generate revenue through licensing demands and litigation rather than producing goods or services. This case is part of a broader pattern of Aloft Media sending demand letters to numerous companies, alleging their websites infringe its patents.

The dispute centers on U.S. Patent No. 10,372,793, which Aloft Media has asserted against Nouryon. The '793 patent, titled "Hyperlink with graphical cue," generally describes a method for displaying a secondary set of hyperlinks (e.g., graphical representations) in response to a user selecting a hyperlink from an initial set (e.g., by clicking or hovering). Nouryon filed this action seeking a court declaration that its website, which likely uses common web features like drop-down menus, does not infringe the '793 patent and/or that the patent is invalid. Other companies targeted by Aloft Media over the '793 patent have described the accused technology as standard "drop-down menus on a web page." This suggests the accused functionality is the routine interactive menu system on Nouryon's corporate and commercial websites.

Procedural Posture and Notability

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, a premier venue for patent litigation due to its experienced judiciary, well-developed case law, and procedural rules tailored for complex patent disputes. The high concentration of U.S. corporations incorporated in Delaware makes it a proper venue for many patent cases following the Supreme Court's 2017 TC Heartland decision, which restricted venue to a defendant's state of incorporation or where it has a regular and established place of business. Delaware judges are known for their expertise in handling patent law, which provides a degree of predictability for litigants. As of this writing, a specific judge has not been publicly assigned to the case. The case is notable as it exemplifies a common strategy where an operating company, upon receiving a demand letter, files a declaratory judgment action to choose a more favorable forum and seize the initiative from the patent-holding entity.

The litigation is also significant due to Aloft Media's history as a frequent plaintiff in patent disputes, having filed numerous lawsuits in other districts, particularly in Texas. This pattern of enforcement has drawn the attention of organizations like Unified Patents, which has sponsored a contest seeking prior art to challenge the validity of the '793 patent. Several other companies, including Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Co. and Krueger International, have also recently filed similar declaratory judgment actions against Aloft Media concerning the same patent, indicating a coordinated response by targeted businesses to challenge the patent's validity and enforceability. These parallel actions suggest a widespread belief that the patent covers common, non-novel web functionalities and is being asserted broadly against a multitude of unrelated companies.

As a senior patent litigation analyst, here is a summary of the key legal developments and the current posture of the Nouryon USA LLC v. Aloft Media, LLC litigation as of May 14, 2026.

Key Legal Developments & Current Posture

This case is in its early stages, with procedural maneuvering by both parties. The key developments have centered on extending the deadline for the defendant, Aloft Media, to respond to the initial complaint, likely as the parties explore a potential early resolution.

Chronological Developments:

• 2026-02-23: Plaintiff Nouryon USA LLC files a complaint for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 10,372,793. (D.I. 1)
• 2026-04-10: Counsel for defendant Aloft Media, LLC, Brian E. Farnan of Farnan LLP, enters a notice of appearance. (D.I. 9)
• 2026-04-10: Pursuant to local rules, Aloft Media files a corporate disclosure statement. (D.I. 10)
• 2026-04-13: The parties file a joint stipulation to extend the time for Aloft Media to answer or otherwise respond to Nouryon's complaint until May 13, 2026. (D.I. 11) The court grants this request.
• 2026-05-12: The parties file a second joint stipulation to further extend the time for Aloft Media to respond to the complaint, moving the deadline to June 12, 2026. (D.I. 13) The stated reason for the extension is to "allow the parties to continue their settlement discussions."
• 2026-05-13: The court grants the second extension request. (D.I. 14)

Analysis and Current Posture

As of today, May 14, 2026, the case remains in the pleading stage. No answer, counterclaims, or substantive motions (e.g., to dismiss, transfer, or stay) have been filed. The repeated, mutually agreed-upon extensions for Aloft Media to respond strongly indicate that the parties are actively engaged in settlement negotiations.

This pattern is common in litigation involving frequent patent asserters like Aloft Media. The defendant may be using the extension period to evaluate the strength of Nouryon's non-infringement and invalidity positions and to weigh the costs of litigation against a potential nuisance-value settlement. Nouryon, having filed the declaratory judgment action, has already shown a willingness to litigate, which provides leverage in these early discussions.

The case has not yet progressed to claim construction, substantive discovery, or dispositive motion practice.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

A significant related development is the existence of a parallel proceeding at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

• IPR2025-01147: On July 15, 2025, Unified Patents, LLC, an organization that challenges patents asserted by non-practicing entities, filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition against U.S. Patent No. 10,372,793.
• Institution Decision: On January 21, 2026, the PTAB issued a decision instituting the IPR, finding a "reasonable likelihood" that Unified Patents would prevail in proving that at least claims 1 and 9 of the '793 patent are unpatentable as obvious over prior art.

The institution of this IPR is a major development that significantly impacts the district court case against Nouryon. With the PTAB actively reviewing the patent's validity, there is a strong possibility that this litigation could be stayed pending the outcome of the IPR. A final written decision from the PTAB is typically issued within one year of institution, meaning a decision on the '793 patent's validity is expected by January 2027. This parallel proceeding likely adds pressure on Aloft Media to settle with Nouryon and other defendants for a favorable amount before the PTAB potentially invalidates the asserted claims.

As a senior patent litigation analyst, here is the breakdown of the counsel of record representing plaintiff Nouryon USA LLC in its case against Aloft Media, LLC.

Based on docket information, Nouryon is represented by attorneys from Saul Ewing LLP.

---

Counsel for Plaintiff Nouryon USA LLC

Jennifer Becnel-Guzzo

• Role: Lead Counsel (assumed based on partner status and broad Delaware litigation experience).
• Firm: Saul Ewing LLP, Wilmington, DE office.
• Experience: A partner with 20 years of experience, including representing Delaware entities in commercial disputes; she rejoined Saul Ewing in July 2024 after serving as associate vice president and deputy general counsel for a major research university.

Veronica McCarty

• Role: Of Counsel (assumed based on associate status and specific IP litigation focus).
• Firm: Saul Ewing LLP, likely practicing out of the Philadelphia, PA office but admitted to the District of Delaware court.
• Experience: An associate litigator focused on intellectual property disputes, particularly patent litigation involving computing technologies, biopharmaceuticals, and medical devices. Her experience includes handling infringement and invalidity contentions, claim construction, and discovery.

As of May 13, 2026, counsel for defendant Aloft Media, LLC has appeared on the docket. Further notices of appearance may be filed as the case progresses.

Counsel for Defendant Aloft Media, LLC

• Name: Brian E. Farnan
  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Farnan LLP (Wilmington, DE)
  • Note on Experience: Brian Farnan's practice focuses on complex litigation, and he regularly serves as Delaware counsel for companies involved in patent litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. His firm was founded by Joseph J. Farnan, Jr., a former Chief Judge of the same court.

Mr. Farnan is the attorney of record on filings for the defendants, including a disclosure statement and stipulations to extend time to respond to the complaint, as seen in docket entries 10, 11, and 13. No other attorneys for the defendant have formally appeared on the docket at this time.