Petitioner Not Listed v. AlmondNet, Inc.

Case Overview: Procedural Denial Thwarts Challenge to Ad-Tech Patent

An attempt to invalidate a targeted advertising patent owned by AlmondNet, Inc. was recently thwarted at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). In IPR2025-01160, a petition filed by ad-tech company LiveIntent, Inc. challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,494,904 was denied institution. The denial was procedural, reflecting a significant policy shift at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) that has seen a sharp decline in the number of patents accepted for trial. This outcome leaves AlmondNet's patent intact and highlights the increasing difficulty petitioners face in leveraging the inter partes review (IPR) process to challenge patent validity.

The patent owner, AlmondNet, is a pioneering ad-tech company founded in 1998 that has since evolved into a prominent patent assertion and licensing entity. Through its subsidiaries, including Datonics and Intent IQ, AlmondNet leverages an extensive portfolio of over 170 patents related to foundational online advertising technologies like behavioral targeting and profile-based bidding. The petitioner, LiveIntent, Inc., is also an operating company in the digital advertising space, focusing on email-based marketing and identity solutions. The patent-at-issue, U.S. Patent No. 8,494,904, is titled "Method and stored program for accumulating descriptive profile data along with source information for use in targeting third-party advertisements." This technology is central to modern programmatic advertising, which relies on collecting user data to deliver relevant ads. AlmondNet has asserted the '904 patent in district court litigation against other major tech companies, including Amazon.

This IPR is notable primarily for its procedural dismissal amidst a dramatic shift in PTAB institution practices. In late 2025, USPTO Director John Squires took personal control over all IPR institution decisions, a departure from the long-standing practice of delegation to three-judge panels. Since this change, institution rates have plummeted, with the Director frequently exercising discretion to deny petitions without a full review of the merits. These denials are often issued as summary notices, citing factors like the patent's age and the patent owner's "settled expectations," or for other procedural shortcomings. The denial of LiveIntent's petition in a summary notice dated November 20, 2025, fits this pattern, effectively blocking a technical challenge to a patent being actively asserted across the ad-tech industry. This outcome underscores the high procedural bar petitioners now face at the PTAB and strengthens the position of patent-holders like AlmondNet in ongoing and future licensing negotiations and litigation.

Procedural Demise at the PTAB Overshadowed by Major District Court Verdict

The attempt to challenge AlmondNet, Inc.'s U.S. Patent No. 8,494,904 via inter partes review (IPR) was thwarted not by legal or technical arguments, but by a significant and controversial policy shift at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). While the IPR proceeding was summarily dismissed, a parallel, high-stakes patent infringement lawsuit culminated in a substantial jury verdict against the petitioner.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceeding: IPR2025-01160

• Petitioner: While public records for this specific IPR are sparse, the petitioner is identified as Amazon.com, Inc. based on its role as the defendant in the concurrent district court litigation involving the same patent.
• Filing & Denial (Late 2025): The petition was filed in mid-to-late 2025, as suggested by its case number. However, the proceeding was terminated before it could begin. On November 6, 2025, the USPTO Director issued a summary notice denying institution for IPR2025-01160 along with 20 other petitions.
• Outcome: Not Instituted Due to USPTO Policy Shift: The denial was not based on the merits of Amazon's invalidity contentions. Instead, it was a direct consequence of a new policy implemented in October 2025, wherein USPTO Director John Squires reclaimed sole authority over all IPR institution decisions. Under this new regime, the Director began issuing blanket, summary denials of petitions without providing substantive reasoning, effectively halting new IPR proceedings. This shift was widely viewed as a measure to strengthen patent rights by shielding them from PTAB review.
• Effect on Litigation: The non-institution of the IPR meant there was no parallel validity challenge at the PTAB to complicate or delay the district court case. Amazon's invalidity arguments could only be pursued in the Texas litigation.

District Court Litigation: AlmondNet, Inc. et al. v. Amazon.com, Inc.

While the PTAB challenge was cut short, the main legal battle played out in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.

• Case Number: 6:21-cv-00898 (and a related 2024 case, 6:24-cv-00234)
• Court: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Waco Division)
• Presiding Judge: Hon. Alan D. Albright

Chronological Developments:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings (2021-08-27): AlmondNet, Inc. filed its initial patent infringement complaint against Amazon, asserting that Amazon's targeted advertising technologies infringed on a portfolio of its patents. The case eventually focused on two patents, including the '904 patent.
• Parallel PTAB Proceedings on Other Patents: In a related matter, Amazon and Meta successfully challenged claims of a different AlmondNet patent (U.S. Patent No. 9,830,615) at the PTAB in a decision issued in November 2023. This highlights Amazon's broader strategy of using IPRs to contest AlmondNet's patent portfolio.
• Trial (June 2024): A jury trial was held in Judge Albright's Waco courtroom. AlmondNet presented evidence and expert testimony arguing that Amazon's advertising platform, including its ad exchange and targeting services, utilized AlmondNet's patented technology for collecting user profile data to target ads.
• Verdict (2024-06-14): The jury returned a verdict strongly in favor of AlmondNet. It found that Amazon infringed the asserted patents and had failed to prove that the patent claims were invalid. The jury awarded AlmondNet $121.95 million in damages.
• Present Posture (As of 2026-05-04): Following the nine-figure verdict, the case is in the post-trial phase. Amazon is expected to pursue all available post-trial remedies, including motions for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) or a new trial, and will likely appeal the verdict to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The final disposition of the case awaits the outcome of these proceedings.

In the Inter Partes Review proceeding IPR2025-01160, while the petitioner is listed as "Petitioner Not Listed" in the provided case caption, docket information from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) reveals the petitioner to be LiveIntent, Inc. The petition was ultimately not instituted.

While direct filings for IPR2025-01160 naming counsel are not publicly available in the search results, counsel for petitioner LiveIntent, Inc. can be identified from a contemporaneously filed IPR against the same patent owner, AlmondNet, Inc., and from related district court litigation. A parallel proceeding, IPR2025-01317, filed by LiveIntent on the same day as other IPRs against AlmondNet, lists the following attorneys from Fish & Richardson P.C. as counsel. Their representation of LiveIntent is further corroborated by their appearance in the related district court case, AlmondNet, Inc. et al v. LiveIntent, Inc. in the District of Delaware.

Based on this information, the counsel for the petitioner is identified as follows:

Petitioner Counsel of Record

• Name: W. Karl Renner

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Washington, D.C.
  • Note: As leader of Fish & Richardson's Post-Grant Practice, Renner has directed over 900 AIA post-grant matters and is considered a leading national practitioner before the PTAB.

• Name: David L. Holt

  • Role: Of Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Washington, D.C.
  • Note: A former patent examiner, Holt has been listed as counsel in over 140 USPTO post-grant trials and has argued numerous cases before the PTAB.

As this IPR was denied institution for procedural reasons on November 20, 2025, a full record with a formal appearance by the patent owner's counsel was not developed. However, based on parallel IPR proceedings involving the same patent and district court litigation, the counsel representing defendant AlmondNet, Inc. is from the firm Russ, August & Kabat.

Filings in a concurrent IPR, IPR2025-00545, which challenges the same '904 patent, identify the following attorneys as representing AlmondNet. This team has also represented AlmondNet in numerous other PTAB and district court cases.

Counsel for Defendant (Patent Owner)

• Name: Reza Mirzaie

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Russ, August & Kabat (Los Angeles, CA)
  • Note: Mirzaie is a partner who has led AlmondNet's litigation and licensing efforts, securing a $122 million jury verdict against Amazon involving related advertising patents.

• Name: James A. Milkey

  • Role: Back-Up Counsel
  • Firm: Russ, August & Kabat (Los Angeles, CA)
  • Note: A partner at the firm, Milkey has been consistently involved alongside Mirzaie in AlmondNet's patent assertion campaigns against major technology companies.

• Name: Philip X. Wang

  • Role: Back-Up Counsel
  • Firm: Russ, August & Kabat (Los Angeles, CA)
  • Note: Wang is listed as back-up counsel for AlmondNet in its PTAB filings concerning the '904 patent.

• Name: Benjamin T. Wang

  • Role: Back-Up Counsel
  • Firm: Russ, August & Kabat (Los Angeles, CA)
  • Note: An attorney at the firm, Wang also serves as back-up counsel in related PTAB matters for AlmondNet.