Litigation

Roku, Inc. v. AlmondNet, Inc. et al.

dismissed

1:21-cv-01035

Auto-generating section 1 of 5: Case overview & background…

Each section takes ~30-60s with web-search grounding. Keep this tab open — sections will fill in below as they complete.

Court: D. Del.
Terminated: 2025-06-20

Patents at issue (1)

Plaintiffs (1)

π Roku, Inc.

Defendants (2)

Summary

Declaratory-judgment action. Stayed pending settlement (Apr. 2025), then dismissed 2025-06-20 (D.I. 252). Whether '307 was specifically at issue is not confirmed in the sources reviewed.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

In the news

What the press has reported about this case, summarized with links to the source articles.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Record id: 7979307-1-21-cv-01035 · edit in Admin

Further reading

Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) lawsuit defense: a defendant's playbook
Defending an NPE suit is different from defending a competitor's suit. The asymmetries cut both ways — and the right plays exploit the ones that favor the defendant.
Examples of NPE shell companies: how patent trolls structure their entities
The shell company is the patent troll's signature legal artifact. Knowing the structures lets you read the litigation strategy off the corporate filing.
Prior-art research, old way vs new way — a side-by-side comparison
Defense is expensive because reading thousands of pages of patents takes time. AI doesn't change that for the lawyer's strategic work — but the time-on-pages part collapses by orders of magnitude.
District court vs. PTAB: where to fight a patent challenge
Every defendant who actually fights a patent ends up choosing — sometimes implicitly — between district court invalidity, PTAB IPR, or both in parallel. The trade-offs are not symmetric; the choice often determines the case.
Bilski v. Kappos (2010)
Machine-or-transformation isn't the only § 101 test, business-method patents survived as a category, and the specific Bilski hedging method was unpatentable. The trio of Bilski, Mayo, and Alice gave defendants the modern § 101 motion.

All resources →