Rocket Media, LLC d/b/a Launch Labs v. Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC

This Inter Partes Review (IPR) involves two companies engaged in the digital advertising technology (AdTech) sector. The Petitioner, Rocket Media, LLC d/b/a Launch Labs, is a digital marketing agency specializing in home services, offering a suite of services including SEO, paid media, web development, and lead attribution. Launch Labs also provides identity resolution solutions through its Ignite platform, designed to convert anonymous website traffic into actionable leads using AI-powered tools and compliant data practices. The Patent Owner, Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC, is an operating company that develops an end-to-end, first-party data platform, fullthrottle.ai®, focusing on cookieless data solutions, identity resolution, marketing measurement, and AI-driven campaign optimization.

This IPR proceeding is a direct response to a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC against Rocket Media, LLC d/b/a Launch Labs in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina (Case No. 1:24-cv-00314), where Fullthrottle alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,556,947 and 11,823,219. In that district court action, Fullthrottle specifically identifies Launch Labs' JavaScript code and backend platform as the allegedly infringing technology, suggesting that Launch Labs' identity resolution and marketing attribution services are the accused products. The patent at issue in this IPR is U.S. Patent No. 11,556,947, titled "Location Determination Using Anonymous Browser Data." This patent generally relates to systems and methods for determining a user's geographical location using anonymous browser session data for targeted product marketing on websites. Claims 1-20 of this patent are being challenged by Rocket Media in the IPR as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103 for obviousness.

The case is currently before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, under case number IPR2025-00148. The petition was filed on November 12, 2024, and the PTAB formally instituted review of all challenged claims (1-20) of the '947 patent on June 11, 2025. The PTAB provides an administrative forum to challenge the validity of patents, often serving as a strategic defense mechanism against ongoing district court litigation, as it does in this instance. The outcome of this IPR could significantly impact the concurrent district court infringement case, as a finding of unpatentability by the PTAB would likely invalidate the asserted claims, thereby weakening or eliminating Fullthrottle's infringement claims. This case highlights the increasing strategic interplay between district court litigation and PTAB proceedings, especially within the rapidly evolving AdTech industry, where companies are seeking to protect and challenge intellectual property related to privacy-compliant, cookieless data solutions and advanced marketing attribution.

The case in question, IPR2025-00148, is an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the USPTO, not a patent infringement litigation in a district court. However, a parallel patent infringement case, Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC v. Rocket Media, LLC (d/b/a Launch Labs), Case No. 1:24-cv-00314, is active in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.

Here are the key legal developments for both the IPR and the parallel district court litigation:

IPR2025-00148 (PTAB)

• Filing of Petition (2024-11-12): Rocket Media, LLC d/b/a Launch Labs ("Petitioner") filed a petition challenging claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,556,947 (the "'947 patent") owned by Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC ("Patent Owner"). The petition alleged obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Doughty in view of Van Boucq.
• Related District Court Litigation Disclosure: In its petition, Rocket Media disclosed the existence of a parallel district court case, Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC v. Rocket Media, LLC (d/b/a Launch Labs), Case No. 1:24-cv-00314 (M.D.N.C.).
• Stipulation Regarding Parallel Litigation: Rocket Media stipulated that if the IPR were instituted, it would not pursue the same invalidity grounds raised in the IPR in the district court action. The Petitioner also stated agreement with four claim constructions advocated by the Patent Owner in the parallel district court litigation, which were central to the Petitioner's obviousness arguments in the IPR.
• Institution Decision (2025-06-11): The PTAB instituted trial on all challenged claims (1-20) of the '947 patent based on the obviousness grounds asserted in the petition. The institution decision was issued by Administrative Patent Judges Kevin W. Cherry, Arthur M. Peslak, and Sean P. O'Hanlon.
• Expected Final Written Decision: The statutory deadline for the Final Written Decision in the IPR was expected by May 2026. As of today's date, June 16, 2026, the Final Written Decision should have issued, but specific details of its outcome are not readily available in the provided search results beyond the institution decision.

Parallel District Court Litigation (M.D.N.C. Case No. 1:24-cv-00314)

• Filing: Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Rocket Media, LLC d/b/a Launch Labs in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, Case No. 1:24-cv-00314.
• Impact of IPR on Litigation: The existence of the IPR and the Petitioner's stipulation not to pursue the same invalidity grounds in district court following institution means that the district court case would likely proceed on infringement and any other remaining validity arguments not covered by the IPR, or could be stayed depending on the court's discretion and the progress of the IPR. The district court trial was projected for November 2026, which was well after the IPR's expected Final Written Decision. Details regarding motions to stay or specific claim construction outcomes in the district court case are not available in the provided search results.
• Current Posture: The district court case is presumably active, pending the outcome of the IPR and considering the stipulation made by Rocket Media.

Further details regarding the Final Written Decision of IPR2025-00148 and the specific docket events and current status of the district court litigation would require direct access to the PTAB-E2E system and PACER.

Counsel of Record for Rocket Media, LLC d/b/a Launch Labs

The petitioner, Rocket Media, LLC d/b/a Launch Labs, in IPR2025-00148 is represented by attorneys from Klarquist Sparkman, LLP and Goodwin Procter LLP.

Here is a breakdown of the identified counsel:

• Ryan Iwahashi

  • Role: Lead Counsel (Petitioner Counsel)
  • Firm: Klarquist Sparkman, LLP
  • Office Location: Portland, OR (Based on firm's primary office and attorney profiles generally linked to the main office)
  • Relevant Experience: Iwahashi's practice focuses on patent litigation, post-grant proceedings before the USPTO (including IPRs), and patent prosecution across various technologies. Klarquist Sparkman has a strong post-grant practice, ranked among the top firms for representing petitioners and patent owners in IPR disputes, and boasts extensive experience in technically complex patent prosecution and high-stakes patent litigation.

• Frank Morton-Park

  • Role: Counsel (Likely associate or part of the petitioner's team)
  • Firm: Klarquist Sparkman, LLP
  • Office Location: Portland, OR (Based on firm's primary office and attorney profiles generally linked to the main office)
  • Relevant Experience: Frank Morton-Park's practice emphasizes USPTO post-grant proceedings, patent litigation, and appellate work. He has argued before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and has experience prosecuting patent applications across diverse technologies, including artificial intelligence software and medical imaging hardware.

• Samuel Thacker

  • Role: Counsel (Likely associate or part of the petitioner's team)
  • Firm: Klarquist Sparkman, LLP
  • Office Location: Portland, OR (Based on firm's primary office and attorney profiles generally linked to the main office)
  • Relevant Experience: Samuel Thacker is a patent litigator whose practice includes post-grant proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, such as inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. He also has significant experience in patent application preparation and prosecution across a range of technologies, including automotive, aircraft, medical devices, and cybersecurity.

While "et al." is indicated for petitioner counsel, and Goodwin Procter is a prominent IP litigation firm with extensive PTAB experience, specific individual attorneys from Goodwin Procter directly listed as representing Rocket Media in IPR2025-00148 were not explicitly found in the provided search results alongside the Klarquist attorneys. However, it is common for firms to collaborate or for some attorneys to contribute without being listed as "counsel of record" on initial, abbreviated docket entries. Klarquist Sparkman is consistently identified with the petitioner.

Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC is represented by attorneys from Flaster Greenberg P.C. and Williams Mullen in a related district court case, which often indicates the same counsel will appear in IPR proceedings.

Here is the identified counsel for Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC:

• Michael Bonella (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Flaster Greenberg P.C.
  • Note: Michael Bonella is listed as counsel for Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC in the related district court case, and his firm often handles patent litigation.
• Aakash Patel (Counsel)
  • Firm: Flaster Greenberg P.C.
  • Note: Aakash Patel is also listed as counsel for Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC in the parallel district court litigation.
• Coraleine Kitt (Counsel)
  • Firm: Flaster Greenberg P.C.
  • Note: Coraleine Kitt filed a Notice of Special Appearance on behalf of Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC in the related district court case.
• Andrew R. Shores (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Williams Mullen
  • Note: Andrew R. Shores filed the initial complaint for patent infringement on behalf of Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC in the related district court case.
• Carmelle F. Alipio (Counsel)
  • Firm: Williams Mullen
  • Note: Carmelle F. Alipio entered an appearance on behalf of Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC in the parallel district court litigation.

It is important to note that while these attorneys are representing Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC in the related district court case (Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC v. Rocket Media, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-00314 (M.D.N.C.)), they are highly likely to be the counsel of record for the IPR as well. The PTAB docket for IPR2025-00148 lists "Counsels Involved" providing details of the attorneys.