AlmondNet & Intent IQ v. Microsoft & Xandr: 10-Patent Ad Tech Dispute Ends in Dismissal With Prejudice
AlmondNet, Inc. and Intent IQ, LLC asserted 10 patents covering digital advertising targeting technology against Microsoft’s advertising platform and its Xandr subsidiary before Judge Alan Albright in the Western District of Texas. After 1,013 days of litigation, the parties jointly moved to dismiss all claims with prejudice — each side bearing its own legal costs — strongly suggesting a confidential settlement.
Ten-patent ad-tech showdown before Judge Albright ends quietly
AlmondNet, Inc. and its affiliate Intent IQ, LLC filed suit on 27 August 2021 in the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:21-cv-00897) against Microsoft Corp. and its programmatic advertising subsidiary Xandr, Inc. The complaint asserted ten US patents — including US9830615B2, US8677398B2, US8959146B2, US7979307B2, US8775249B2, US8671139B2, US8244582B2, US8244586B2, US7822639B2, and US9508089B2 — all directed at digital advertising targeting, audience segmentation, and cross-device identity resolution. The accused product was Microsoft’s advertising platform, which absorbed Xandr’s programmatic infrastructure following Microsoft’s 2021 acquisition.
On 5 June 2024, the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), requesting the court dismiss all claims between them with prejudice. The order expressly states that each party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses. A dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) is a final adjudication on the merits — AlmondNet and Intent IQ are permanently barred from re-asserting the same claims against Microsoft and Xandr in any future action. The mutual cost-bearing clause further prevents either side from seeking fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
The 1,013-day duration suggests the parties litigated through substantial claim construction and discovery before reaching resolution. The combination of a with-prejudice dismissal, mutual cost-bearing, and a joint stipulation — rather than a court-imposed ruling — is the classic footprint of a confidential licensing agreement or structured settlement. The public record does not disclose any financial terms, licence scope, or whether ongoing royalties were agreed. What remains unknown is whether AlmondNet and Intent IQ received compensation commensurate with the breadth of a ten-patent portfolio targeting one of the world’s largest digital advertising ecosystems.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 1013 days
1,013 days litigated — above the median for multi-patent WDTX infringement actions
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal with prejudice explained
A stipulated dismissal with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires agreement from all parties and constitutes a final judgment on the merits. AlmondNet and Intent IQ permanently relinquish the right to re-litigate these ten patents against Microsoft and Xandr. The court retains no further jurisdiction over the merits absent a specific reservation of jurisdiction to enforce settlement terms.
Permanent bar on re-filingAlmondNet and Intent IQ: claims extinguished, terms undisclosed
By dismissing with prejudice, the plaintiffs have accepted a final end to this litigation thread against Microsoft and Xandr. The patents themselves remain in force and could still be asserted against other defendants in the advertising technology sector. The mutual cost-bearing clause prevents any fee-shifting claim. The public record is silent on whether a licensing payment, lump-sum settlement, or ongoing royalty arrangement underlies the resolution.
Patents survive; these claims do notMicrosoft and Xandr: permanent protection from these specific claims
Microsoft and Xandr secure a permanent bar against re-assertion of all ten patents in this action. However, dismissal with prejudice does not nullify the patents — it only forecloses these plaintiffs from pursuing these defendants on these specific claims again. Microsoft retains exposure to the same portfolio from other licensees or co-owners, and the patents could still be asserted in IPR proceedings by third parties.
Claim-specific, not patent-wide, protectionConfidential resolution signals portfolio leverage in programmatic ad tech
A ten-patent assertion against one of the industry’s largest advertising platforms that runs for nearly three years before a cost-neutral, with-prejudice dismissal typically signals that the patent holder extracted value. Other programmatic ad tech operators — DSPs, SSPs, and identity-resolution vendors — face the same portfolio. The resolution here may set an implicit licensing benchmark that AlmondNet and Intent IQ can reference in future enforcement actions.
Implicit licensing benchmark createdFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | AlmondNet, Inc. | Company | Digital advertising IP licensor — holder of US9830615B2 and 9 related ad-targeting patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Intent IQ, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Microsoft, Co. | Company | Microsoft Corp. and subsidiary Xandr, Inc. — operators of a major programmatic advertising platformSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Xandr, Inc. | 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 | David T. Shackelford | 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 | Arthur Gollwitzer | Attorney | Counsel for Microsoft, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Blake T. Dietrich | Attorney | Counsel for Microsoft, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David N. Deaconson | Attorney | Counsel for Microsoft, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Leisa Talbert Peschel | Attorney | Counsel for Microsoft, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Lora A. Brzezynski | Attorney | Counsel for Microsoft, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Melissa Samano Ruiz | Attorney | Counsel for Microsoft, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Paige Vonne Welch | Attorney | Counsel for Microsoft, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Victoria C. Emery | Attorney | Counsel for Microsoft, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Wasif Qureshi | Attorney | Counsel for Microsoft, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | William Thomas Nilsson | Attorney | Counsel for Microsoft, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP | Law Firm | Representing Microsoft, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Jackson Walker LLP | Law Firm | Representing Microsoft, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Pakis, Giotes, Page & Burleson | Law Firm | Representing Microsoft, Co.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Alan D Albright | Judge | Texas Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation’s language — ‘have resolved Plaintiffs’ claims for relief’ before requesting dismissal with prejudice — is legally significant: it confirms the parties reached a private agreement prior to filing, making the court order a ministerial act rather than a merits adjudication. The mutual cost-bearing clause forecloses § 285 exceptional case arguments from either side. Because no terms are disclosed, the public record cannot confirm whether Microsoft received a licence, paid a lump sum, or agreed to a covenant not to sue extending beyond the named patents.
US9830615B2 — Digital advertising targeting and audience segmentation portfolio
The ten asserted patents span a cohesive portfolio covering digital advertising targeting technology, including audience segmentation, behavioural profiling, cross-device identity resolution, and ad delivery routing. Application dates range across filings from the mid-2000s through the mid-2010s, reflecting foundational priority claims in the programmatic advertising era. The portfolio is held jointly by AlmondNet, Inc. and Intent IQ, LLC, entities associated with inventors who pioneered early internet-based targeted advertising infrastructure. The technical claims collectively address how user data is collected, segmented, and acted upon to deliver targeted advertisements across devices and platforms.
The strategic significance of this portfolio lies in its breadth across the programmatic advertising stack. As Microsoft integrated Xandr’s demand-side platform and data marketplace post-acquisition, it inherited exposure to patents touching core ad-tech workflows. The portfolio’s coverage of cross-device identity resolution is particularly relevant in the current advertising ecosystem, where signal loss from cookie deprecation is driving investment in deterministic and probabilistic identity solutions. Any DSP, SSP, or identity-resolution vendor whose architecture relies on behavioural audience profiling and cross-device ad delivery should treat this portfolio as an active enforcement risk.
Should you run an FTO against US9830615B2 and the AlmondNet/Intent IQ portfolio?
Any organisation building or operating programmatic advertising infrastructure — particularly systems involving behavioural audience segmentation, cross-device identity resolution, or targeted ad delivery — should conduct a freedom-to-operate analysis against this ten-patent portfolio. The resolution against Microsoft and Xandr confirms the portfolio’s enforcement credibility. DSPs, SSPs, data management platforms, retail media networks, and identity graph providers are all plausible future targets. The risk is highest for platforms processing user behavioural data to serve personalised advertisements across multiple devices or channels.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product architecture against all ten patent families simultaneously, identifying claim elements that overlap with your technical implementation. Eureka’s claim-level analysis surfaces the specific independent and dependent claims most likely to be asserted, enabling your legal team to focus invalidity searches and design-around efforts efficiently. For portfolios of this size and breadth, an automated landscape report from Eureka provides a cost-effective first-pass before engaging outside counsel for a formal FTO opinion.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9830615B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar ad tech patent infringement cases in WDTX and Federal Circuit
Explore related programmatic advertising and digital ad-targeting patent disputes filed in the Western District of Texas before Judge Albright involving comparable portfolio assertions.
What this case signals for the programmatic advertising IP landscape
A 10-patent portfolio asserting ad-targeting technology against a major platform signals sustained licensing leverage in the ad tech sector.
Ten-patent portfolios create outsized settlement pressure in ad tech
Asserting ten patents simultaneously increases claim construction complexity, discovery burden, and IPR petition costs for defendants. Microsoft and Xandr faced a portfolio covering audience segmentation, cross-device identity, and ad delivery — a combination designed to make design-arounds expensive. Ad tech operators building on programmatic infrastructure should audit exposure across all ten patent families, not just the lead patent.
Judge Albright’s WDTX docket adds settlement pressure on defendants
Judge Alan Albright’s Western District of Texas courtroom has historically maintained plaintiff-friendly scheduling, tight claim construction timelines, and a low transfer rate. Defendants in Albright’s court face a structural incentive to resolve before trial. The 1,013-day duration here suggests the parties engaged in substantive litigation before concluding that resolution was preferable to a jury verdict.
AlmondNet v Microsoft — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice by joint stipulation on 5 June 2024 under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). All claims between AlmondNet, Intent IQ, Microsoft, and Xandr were terminated, with each party bearing its own attorneys’ fees and costs. No financial terms were disclosed publicly.
Ten US patents were asserted: US9830615B2, US8677398B2, US8959146B2, US7979307B2, US8775249B2, US8671139B2, US8244582B2, US8244586B2, US7822639B2, and US9508089B2. The portfolio covers digital advertising targeting, audience segmentation, behavioural profiling, and cross-device identity resolution technology.
No. A dismissal with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) is a claim-specific resolution between the named parties only. The ten asserted patents remain in force and can be asserted against other defendants. The dismissal only prevents AlmondNet and Intent IQ from re-suing Microsoft and Xandr on these specific claims.
The Western District of Texas, particularly before Judge Alan Albright, became a preferred venue for patent assertion entities due to its historically plaintiff-friendly scheduling, streamlined claim construction, and lower transfer rates compared to other districts. The case was filed during a period when Waco Division filings by NPEs were at a peak.
The stipulation expressly states each party bears its own attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses. This forecloses any post-dismissal motion for exceptional case fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 by either side. It is a common feature of negotiated settlements designed to achieve a clean break without further litigation risk.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.