AlmondNet & Intent IQ v. Amazon: 7 Ad-Targeting Patents, Dismissed With Prejudice in 195 Days
AlmondNet, Inc. and Intent IQ, LLC brought a seven-patent infringement action against Amazon.com, Amazon Web Services, and Amazon.com Services LLC in the Western District of Texas, asserting patents covering profile-based ad targeting, cross-platform ad delivery, and targeted television advertising. The case was dismissed with prejudice on June 1, 2023, just 195 days after filing, on the parties' own stipulation.
Seven Ad-Tech Patents, One Stipulated Exit: How the Amazon Case Ended
On November 18, 2022, AlmondNet, Inc. and Intent IQ, LLC filed a patent infringement action in the Western District of Texas against Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Web Services, Inc., and Amazon.com Services LLC. The complaint asserted seven U.S. patents — US8959146B2, US7979307B2, US10715878B2, US7861260B2, US8775249B2, US8204783B2, and US7747745B2 — covering technologies including media property selection based on expected ad profit, accumulation of descriptive profile data for third-party ad targeting, and targeted television advertising based on online behavioral data.
The recorded Basis of Termination is 'Dismissed with Prejudice.' The docket order, adopted from a Magistrate Judge Gilliland report and recommendation filed May 11, 2023, states that the Court adopted the parties' Stipulation of Dismissal (ECF No. 34) and ordered the action dismissed with prejudice, with each side bearing its own attorney's fees and costs. The specific terms underlying the stipulation are not disclosed in the available record.
The case closed just 195 days after filing — before substantive claim construction or merits briefing would typically conclude in a seven-patent W.D. Tex. case. The speed of resolution is consistent with early-stage negotiations between the parties, though what drove the decision to stipulate dismissal at this stage is not disclosed in the public record. The with-prejudice designation bars AlmondNet and Intent IQ from re-asserting these seven patents against these Amazon entities in a new action on the same claims.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 195 days
195 days — well below the median time-to-termination for multi-patent ad-tech cases in W.D. Tex.
US8959146B2 and 6 further patents — profile-based ad targeting and cross-platform delivery
Any company operating a demand-side platform, data management platform, audience targeting system, or connected TV advertising stack should assess exposure against this seven-patent portfolio. The asserted claims cover methods for accumulating user profile data with source attribution and selecting ad placements based on expected profit from profile matching — techniques that are foundational to programmatic advertising infrastructure. The with-prejudice dismissal against Amazon does not extinguish enforcement risk for other operators.
Official order — verbatim text
The court adopted Magistrate Judge Gilliland's report and recommendation without objection and ordered the action dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the parties' Stipulation of Dismissal. The clear-error review standard applied — no objections having been filed — means the district court conducted a limited facial review of the record rather than a de novo merits analysis. The order also directs each party to bear its own attorney's fees and costs, which is the only substantive term disclosed in the public record.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated exit means for both parties
Stipulated dismissal with prejudice — court-ordered finality
A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes. Here, it arose from the parties' own Stipulation of Dismissal (ECF No. 34), adopted by the district court after no objections were filed to Magistrate Judge Gilliland's report and recommendation. The dismissal prevents AlmondNet and Intent IQ from re-filing the same claims against the same Amazon entities.
Final — no re-filing permittedPlaintiffs lose right to re-assert these patents against Amazon
AlmondNet and Intent IQ cannot reassert the seven asserted patents against the named Amazon entities on the same claims in a new action. The patents themselves remain in force and may still be asserted against different defendants. The specific terms that led the plaintiffs to agree to a with-prejudice dismissal are not disclosed in the available record.
Patent rights preserved vs. third partiesAmazon secures finality — no ongoing exposure on these claims
Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Web Services, Inc., and Amazon.com Services LLC are released from the infringement claims on all seven asserted patents. The with-prejudice designation, combined with each party bearing its own costs, removes any ongoing litigation burden from these entities on these specific claims. The underlying commercial terms, if any, are not disclosed in the public record.
All three Amazon entities releasedSeven ad-tech patents remain live enforcement assets against others
While these patents cannot be reasserted against the named Amazon entities, the portfolio covering profile-based ad targeting, cross-platform behavioral data accumulation, and targeted TV advertising remains potentially actionable against other platforms, DSPs, and connected TV operators. Companies active in programmatic advertising or behavioral targeting should note these patents as active enforcement IP.
Enforcement risk remains for industryFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | AlmondNet, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Intent IQ, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Amazon.com, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Amazon Web Services, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Amazon.com Services LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Adam Hoffman | Attorney | Counsel for AlmondNet, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Amy Hayden | Attorney | Counsel for AlmondNet, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Benjamin T. Wang | Attorney | Counsel for AlmondNet, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Daniel B. Kolko | Attorney | Counsel for AlmondNet, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James Milkey | Attorney | Counsel for AlmondNet, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | James S. Tsuei | Attorney | Counsel for AlmondNet, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jason M. Wietholter | Attorney | Counsel for AlmondNet, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathan Ma | Attorney | Counsel for AlmondNet, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Marc A. Fenster | Attorney | Counsel for AlmondNet, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Reza Mirzaie | Attorney | Counsel for AlmondNet, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Russ August & Kabat LLP | Law Firm | Representing AlmondNet, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christopher L. Larson | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Eric Arthur Menist | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | J. David Hadden | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jeffrey Ware | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jessica Weili Lin | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Johnson Kuncheria | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Ravi Ranganath | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Saina S. Shamilov | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Fenwick & West, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the behavioural ad targeting and CTV patent space
Forward-looking patent intelligence derived from AlmondNet, Intent IQ, and Amazon's activity in profile-based ad targeting, cross-device data, and connected TV advertising.
AlmondNet and Intent IQ's ad-tech filing activity beyond this case
AlmondNet and Intent IQ have constructed a multi-generational portfolio covering user profile accumulation, source attribution, and profit-optimised ad placement. Monitoring their continuation and divisional filings in these application families can reveal where the portfolio is being extended — including into mobile identity, cookieless targeting, and privacy-preserving ad delivery technologies.
Active enforcement portfolioPatent filing trends in audience data accumulation and cookieless targeting
With third-party cookies being deprecated across major browsers, the patent landscape around privacy-preserving user profile accumulation and contextual ad targeting is accelerating. The methods covered by the asserted patents — source-attributed profile data and expected-profit selection — are increasingly relevant as the industry rebuilds targeting infrastructure without persistent identifiers.
Cookieless era patent surgeAmazon's defensive patent strategy in programmatic and CTV advertising
Amazon's advertising division — spanning Amazon DSP, Amazon Publisher Services, and Fire TV — has developed a substantial internal patent portfolio in audience targeting, real-time bidding, and connected TV ad delivery. Analysing Amazon's own filings in these domains can reveal how the company is building defensive IP moats around the very methods being asserted against it by external portfolios.
Amazon DSP and CTV IPAdjacent R&D opportunity: identity resolution without persistent profile data
The asserted patents focus on accumulating and attributing descriptive profile data. Adjacent white space exists in identity resolution approaches that do not rely on persistent profile accumulation — including on-device processing, federated learning for ad targeting, and differential privacy mechanisms. These approaches may be patentable around the edges of the existing AlmondNet/Intent IQ claims while addressing post-cookie industry requirements.
Federated and on-device ad techSimilar patent cases: behavioural ad targeting and cross-platform delivery in W.D. Tex.
Explore patent infringement cases involving profile-based advertising, audience data targeting, and cross-platform ad delivery litigated in the Western District of Texas.
What this case signals for the ad-tech and programmatic advertising IP landscape
Seven behavioral ad-targeting patents in a single filing signals an aggressive portfolio strategy — and a fast exit raises questions about what was agreed.
With-prejudice exits in seven-patent cases rarely mean the patents are dead
A stipulated dismissal with prejudice against one defendant — even a major platform like Amazon — leaves the full portfolio available against others. Ad-tech teams at DSPs, connected TV platforms, and data brokers should treat these seven patents as live enforcement assets and prioritise FTO analysis against their own targeting stacks.
AlmondNet and Intent IQ's W.D. Tex. filing pattern warrants monitoring
Filing seven patents simultaneously against Amazon in W.D. Tex. is consistent with a coordinated portfolio enforcement campaign. IP teams at companies operating programmatic advertising, profile-based targeting, or audience data platforms should monitor AlmondNet and Intent IQ for parallel or follow-on actions across additional defendants.
AlmondNet v Amazon.com — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on June 1, 2023. The dismissal followed the parties' own Stipulation of Dismissal (ECF No. 34), which was adopted by the district court after Magistrate Judge Gilliland recommended it and no objections were filed. Each party was ordered to bear its own attorney's fees and costs. The underlying commercial terms, if any, are not disclosed in the public record.
Seven U.S. patents were asserted: US8959146B2, US7979307B2, US10715878B2, US7861260B2, US8775249B2, US8204783B2, and US7747745B2. The patents cover methods including media property selection based on expected ad profit, accumulation of descriptive user profile data for third-party ad targeting, and targeted television advertising based on online behavioral data.
No. A dismissal with prejudice bars AlmondNet and Intent IQ from re-asserting these seven patents against the named Amazon entities — Amazon.com, Amazon Web Services, and Amazon.com Services LLC — on the same claims. The patents remain in force and may still be asserted against different defendants. Companies operating programmatic advertising or behavioral targeting platforms should treat this portfolio as an active enforcement risk.
The public record does not disclose the reasons the parties agreed to a stipulated dismissal at this early stage. The 195-day timeline is consistent with pre-claim-construction resolution, which could suggest early commercial resolution, strategic withdrawal, or other factors not reflected in the docket. The specific terms underlying the stipulation are not disclosed in the available record.
US10715878B2 is titled 'Targeted television advertisements based on online behavior' and covers methods for delivering television advertising targeted using behavioral data accumulated from online activity. Companies operating connected TV platforms, streaming services, smart TV advertising systems, or cross-device ad delivery infrastructure should assess their exposure against this patent's claims, as the CTV advertising sector is an active area of assertion for this portfolio.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.