Zesty.AI, Inc. v. Aon Re, Inc.

Zesty.AI, Inc., an operating company specializing in AI-powered risk assessment solutions for the property insurance sector, filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition challenging U.S. Patent 11,030,491, owned by Aon Re, Inc.. Aon Re, Inc. is a globally renowned professional services firm that provides a wide range of risk, reinsurance, retirement, and health solutions, leveraging data and analytics to offer insights and advisory services to its clients.

The challenged patent, U.S. Patent 11,030,491, generally describes computer systems that employ machine-learning classifiers to analyze aerial photographs of buildings to identify property features and their conditions, subsequently using this data to evaluate property risk. This IPR proceeding (IPR2025-01360) is linked to a broader patent infringement lawsuit where Aon Re, Inc. has accused Zesty.AI, Inc. of infringing several patents, including the '491 patent, with products like Z-Property, which assess roof quality and structural vulnerabilities.

The IPR petition was filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) on July 30, 2025. The case status indicates that the petition was "Not Instituted - Procedural." This non-institution was due to Zesty.AI's failure to meet its burden in establishing a reasonable likelihood of success that at least one challenged claim is unpatentable. Specifically, the petitioner's reliance on a construction of the term "feature" was inconsistent with its construction of the same term in a related IPR challenging a family member patent (U.S. Patent No. 10,529,029), and no explanation was provided for this inconsistency, which violated procedural rules. This IPR is notable as it arises within the context of patent infringement litigation between two players in the AI-driven property risk assessment space, highlighting the growing intellectual property disputes in the application of machine learning to the insurance industry.

Aon Re, Inc. initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Zesty.AI, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, while Zesty.AI, Inc. simultaneously challenged one of the asserted patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Here is a chronological overview of the key legal developments and outcomes:

District Court Litigation: Aon Re, Inc. v. Zesty.AI, Inc. (D. Del., Case No. 1:25-cv-00201-JFM)

• Complaint Filing: Aon Re, Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Zesty.AI, Inc. on February 19, 2025. The lawsuit alleges infringement of four patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 10,529,029, 10,650,285, 11,030,491, and 11,195,058. The case focuses on Aon's technology for assessing property risks using aerial imagery and machine learning, with Aon alleging that Zesty.AI's products, such as Z-Property, unlawfully use these patented methods.
• Motion to Dismiss (101 Challenge): Zesty.AI, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the patent infringement suit around June 13, 2025, arguing that Aon's patents were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they covered an abstract idea. Zesty.AI contended that the patents merely applied generic machine learning to automate tasks traditionally performed by human inspectors, such as looking at aerial imagery to estimate risk.
• Denial of Motion to Dismiss: On July 15, 2025, Judge John F. Murphy of the District of Delaware denied Zesty.AI's motion to dismiss. The court found that Aon's patents were not directed to a mere abstract idea, but instead recited a patent-eligible arrangement of two independently trained classifiers to analyze property characteristics and conditions. The court reasoned that the claims presented a targeted, technical solution with a distinctive structure, which went beyond merely automating existing practices with generic technology.
• Discovery and Pretrial Conference: An initial pretrial conference was scheduled for September 18, 2025, with discovery set to begin on August 13, 2025. The litigation remains active in the District of Delaware.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceeding: Zesty.AI, Inc. v. Aon Re, Inc. (IPR2025-01360)

• IPR Petition Filing: Zesty.AI, Inc. filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2025-01360, against Aon Re, Inc. on July 29, 2025, challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,030,491.
• Discretionary Denial of Institution: On November 19, 2025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a Director Discretionary Decision to deny institution of IPR2025-01360 on procedural grounds. The PTAB's decision was influenced by the District of Delaware's earlier finding in the parallel litigation that the patent recited a patent-eligible arrangement of two independently trained classifiers, indicating a connection between the district court's Section 101 ruling and the PTAB's discretionary denial.
• Termination: The IPR proceeding was terminated on November 19, 2025, due to the discretionary denial of institution.

I'll research counsel on both sides of the related proceedings to pin down who represents the plaintiff side.

Now let me drill into who represents Zesty.AI (the plaintiff/petitioner side) in both the IPR and district court.

Framing note (read first — the caption cuts two ways)

This is a case where "plaintiff" depends on which proceeding you mean, and the two point in opposite directions:

The prior section of this summary ("Defendant representatives") used the IPR frame — it listed Aon Re's counsel under the heading "Defendant." To stay consistent, this section leads with the petitioner/plaintiff side (Zesty.AI) and then separately gives Aon Re's counsel as the D. Del. plaintiff, since that is what the literal question ("plaintiff in this patent infringement case") asks for. Both are set out below so there is no ambiguity.

---

A. Zesty.AI's counsel — petitioner side in IPR2025-01360 (PTAB)

Dan Block — Petitioner's counsel of record (role: likely lead or backup counsel; not confirmed as "lead")

• Firm / office: Not confirmed. PTAB aggregator listings for the Zesty.ai v. Aon Re IPR family record only "Petitioner Attorney: Block, Dan et al" without a firm name, and I was unable to retrieve the petition's mandatory notices / power of attorney or a PAIR/P-TACTS document confirming his firm, registration number, or office. (UniCourt PTAB listing; ExParte AI Lab, IPR2025-01360)
• Experience: Not documented in any source I could reach. I am flagging this rather than guessing at a firm affiliation.

⚠️ This is the weakest point in the record. The PTAB-side petitioner roster for IPR2025-01360 (and its siblings IPR2025-01357/01358/01359, all filed 7/30/2025 against the same patent family) is not fully exposed on the free docket aggregators. To firm this up you'd need the "Petitioner's Power of Attorney" / mandatory notice in each IPR from USPTO Patent Center, or the petition caption pages.

One metadata conflict worth noting: the three sibling IPRs are each shown with an institution date of 11/20/2025 and status "Discretionary Denial", and IPR2025-01360 is listed as a discretionary denial. The existing case overview instead attributes non-institution to Zesty.AI's inconsistent construction of "feature" across the '491 and '029 IPRs (a 37 C.F.R. § 42.104/§ 42.6 burden issue), while the "Key legal developments" section describes a Director discretionary decision tied to the district court's § 101 ruling. Those two rationales cannot both be the ground of the same decision, and I could not retrieve the actual Board order to resolve it. The institution date on the aggregator (11/20/2025) also differs by a day from the 11/19/2025 date in the existing summary.

B. Zesty.AI's counsel in the parallel D. Del. action (the "plaintiff side" of the IPR)

Brian E. Farnan — Delaware counsel (local)

• Firm / office: Farnan LLP, 919 N. Market Street, 12th Floor, Wilmington, DE 19801.
• Experience: Named by VitalLaw as Zesty.AI's attorney on the July 15, 2025 § 101 opinion in this very case. Farnan LLP is a Delaware patent boutique; Chambers USA describes Brian Farnan as "noted for his vast experience acting for plaintiffs in patent litigation," and he appears routinely as Delaware counsel in patent actions (e.g., AlmondNet, Viasat/Intellectual Ventures, LKQ v. Hyundai). (VitalLaw; Chambers profile)

Michael J. Farnan — Delaware counsel (local), same firm

• Firm / office: Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE (Bar No. 5165). He is the standard co-signer on Farnan LLP filings and is almost certainly on this matter as second Delaware counsel, though I did not retrieve a signature block from this specific docket confirming his appearance. Treat as probable, not confirmed.

⚠️ Out-of-state (PHV) lead counsel for Zesty.AI is not identified in the open sources I reached. The Justia docket extract stops at July 15, 2025 and shows no PHV motion for Zesty.AI's non-Delaware counsel; the July 15 opinion's attorney line names only Farnan LLP for Zesty.AI and Young Conaway for Aon. Zesty.AI's motion to dismiss (DI 19) and its briefing (DI 26) were not retrieved in full text, so I cannot name the attorney who signed them as lead. Do not populate this slot without pulling DI 19 or the PHV motion from PACER/CM-ECF.

C. For completeness: Aon Re's counsel as plaintiff in D. Del. (cross-reference, plus one correction)

The prior section listed Aon Re's representatives as IPR "defendant/patent-owner" counsel and left key details as "unspecified." The signature block of the Feb. 19, 2025 complaint and the Feb. 19, 2025 PHV motion (DI 7) fill those gaps — these same attorneys are Aon Re's plaintiff-side counsel in the infringement suit:

• W. Cook Alciati and Greg H. Gardella — Gardella Alciati, 80 M Street SE, Washington, D.C. (PHV; Gardella is also the named respondent counsel in the Zesty.ai IPRs). Correction to the prior section, which marked the firm as "Unspecified."
• Amanda J. Hollis — Kirkland & Ellis LLP, 333 West Wolf Point Plaza, Chicago, IL (PHV).
• Ellisen Shelton Turner — Kirkland & Ellis LLP, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3700, Los Angeles, CA (PHV).
• Pilar G. Kraman, Alexis N. Stombaugh, Colin A. Keith — Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Rodney Square, 1000 North King Street, Wilmington, DE (Delaware local counsel; Delaware bar nos. 5199, 6702, 7074). Stombaugh's withdrawal was filed 3/31/2026 per the prior section.

Sources: Justia docket, 1:25-cv-00201; complaint signature block; D. Del. opinion, 25-201 (7/15/2025).

The case remained active into 2026 — a March 3, 2026 order on Zesty.AI's motion to compel (DI 89) granted production and deposition of inventor Takeshi Okazaki by April 30, 2026, and expressly allowed Zesty.AI to raise new claim-construction arguments based on that testimony, which shows claim construction had not yet been finalized.

---

Bottom line and confidence levels

• Confirmed: Brian E. Farnan (Farnan LLP) for Zesty.AI; Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor + Gardella Alciati + Kirkland & Ellis for Aon Re, all per docket entries and the complaint/PHV filings.
• Reported but unverified by primary document: "Dan Block" as petitioner's counsel in the Zesty.ai v. Aon Re IPR family (aggregator-only source; firm unknown).
• Not established: Zesty.AI's PHV/out-of-state lead counsel in the D. Del. action; the full petitioner counsel roster (lead + backup) in IPR2025-01360; and the actual rationale and date of the Board's non-institution decision.
• No filings appear to be sealed based on what is retrievable; the gap is docket coverage on free services, not sealing.

In the IPR2025-01360 proceeding, the counsel of record for Patent Owner Aon Re, Inc. includes:

• W. Cook Alciati - Lead Counsel (pro hac vice)
  • Firm: Unspecified in the provided PTAB document, but he is counsel for Aon Re, Inc. in related district court litigation.
  • Office Location: Unspecified in the provided PTAB document.
  • Experience: Mr. Alciati is an experienced litigating attorney who has practiced patent cases for approximately fourteen years and has been involved in several inter partes reviews and reexamination proceedings. He has been admitted pro hac vice in numerous other IPRs. He is also counsel for Aon Re, Inc. in the related district court litigation, Aon Re, Inc. v. Zesty.AI, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-00201-JFM (D. Del.).
• Greg Gardella - Respondent Counsel
  • Firm: Unspecified in the provided IP Verse data, but he is listed as respondent counsel.
  • Office Location: Unspecified in the provided IP Verse data.
  • Experience: No specific experience is provided in the search results for this individual beyond their role as respondent counsel.

It is worth noting that a "Notice of Withdrawal of Attorney Alexis N. Stombaugh by Aon Re, Inc." was filed on March 31, 2026, in the related district court case, Aon Re, Inc. v. Zesty.AI, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-00201-JFM (D. Del.). This indicates a change in counsel in the parallel litigation.