Litigation summary

Litigation History of U.S. Patent 8,677,398

U.S. Patent No. 8,677,398, assigned to Intent IQ LLC, has been the subject of extensive litigation, with the patent owner, often alongside parent company AlmondNet, Inc. and subsidiary Datonics, LLC, actively asserting it against numerous major technology and media companies. The litigation spans multiple jurisdictions, primarily the District of Delaware and the Western District of Texas.

Key Litigants and Case Details:

Below is a summary of known litigation involving the '398 patent:

• Intent IQ, LLC v. tvScientific, Inc.

  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
  • Case Number: 1:26-cv-00089
  • Filing Date: January 27, 2026
  • Status/Outcome: This case is currently active. The complaint alleges that tvScientific's cross-device advertising platform infringes on the '398 patent. The timing of this lawsuit is notable as it was filed after Pinterest announced its intention to acquire tvScientific.

• AlmondNet, Inc., et al. v. LiveIntent, Inc.

  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
  • Case Number: 1:24-cv-00831
  • Filing Date: Original complaint filed, with an amended complaint on November 12, 2024.
  • Status/Outcome: This case is ongoing. The plaintiffs allege that LiveIntent's advertising systems infringe upon the '398 patent, among others.

• Intent IQ, LLC v. MNTN, Inc.

  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
  • Case Number: 7:25-cv-00246
  • Filing Date: May 23, 2025
  • Status/Outcome: This case is currently active. The suit claims that MNTN's digital advertising platform infringes on the '398 patent and another related patent.

• AlmondNet, Inc., et al. v. TikTok, Inc.

  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
  • Case Number: 1:25-cv-00611
  • Filing Date: May 16, 2025
  • Status/Outcome: This case is ongoing. The complaint asserts that TikTok's advertising methods infringe on the '398 patent and several others.

• AlmondNet, Inc., et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
  • Case Number: 6:21-cv-00896
  • Filing Date: Service of the complaint occurred on September 2, 2021.
  • Status/Outcome: While this case was filed, public records indicate that Meta and the patent holders entered into a streamlining agreement, which included a covenant not to sue regarding the '398 patent and a mutual release of claims for past infringement damages. This suggests a settlement or licensing agreement was reached.

• AlmondNet, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation

  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
  • Case Number: 6:21-cv-00897
  • Status/Outcome: This case was subject to a licensing deal, indicating a resolution between the parties.

• AlmondNet, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.

  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
  • Case Number: 6-21-cv-00898
  • Status/Outcome: This dispute has been resolved through a settlement and license agreement, as announced in April 2026. This followed a significant trial win for AlmondNet and its subsidiaries.

• AlmondNet, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.

  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
  • Case Number: 6-21-cv-00891
  • Status/Outcome: This case was resolved through a licensing agreement.

• AlmondNet, Inc. v. Roku, Inc.

  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
  • Case Number: 6-21-cv-00731
  • Status/Outcome: This litigation was also settled with a licensing deal.

• Roku, Inc. v. AlmondNet, Inc.

  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
  • Case Number: 1-21-cv-01035
  • Status/Outcome: This was likely a declaratory judgment action filed by Roku, which was resolved as part of the broader settlement and licensing agreement between the parties.

• AlmondNet, Inc. v. Oath Holdings Inc.

  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
  • Case Number: 1-19-cv-00247
  • Status/Outcome: This case was terminated in March 2019.

Administrative Challenges at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB):

In addition to district court litigation, the '398 patent has been challenged at the PTAB through inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, which allow third parties to contest the validity of a patent's claims.

• IPR2017-01299: Filed by Yahoo! Inc. The petition to institute a review was denied.
• IPR2022-00773: This case, mentioned in the patent summary, involved Meta Platforms, Inc.
• IPR2022-00883: This IPR was filed by Meta Platforms, Inc. and was instituted by the PTAB on October 21, 2022.
• In a significant decision, the PTAB held that challenged claims of the '398 patent were not unpatentable as obvious over prior art in an IPR brought by Meta Platforms Inc., Roku Inc., and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.

Additionally, the '398 patent was the subject of an ex parte reexamination, with a certificate issued on July 15, 2024, confirming the patentability of claims 1 and 2. This can strengthen the patent's presumption of validity in subsequent litigation.