AlmondNet v. Amazon: Federal Circuit Appeal Voluntarily Dismissed After 84 Days
AlmondNet, Inc. appealed against Amazon.com, Inc. at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, asserting infringement of two patents covering targeted internet advertising and media property selection. The appeal was jointly dismissed under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) in just 84 days, with each side bearing its own costs.
AlmondNet's Federal Circuit ad-tech appeal ends by joint dismissal
AlmondNet, Inc. brought an infringement action asserting two patents — US8671139B2, directed to added-revenue off-site targeted internet advertising, and US7822639B2, covering a media properties selection method and system based on expected profit from profile-based ad delivery — against Amazon.com, Inc. The appeal was filed at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 12 January 2026, in a case docketed as No. 26-1326.
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The docket order states that the proceedings were dismissed under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) by agreement of the parties, with each side directed to bear its own costs. No merits ruling was issued by the Federal Circuit.
The appeal resolved in 84 days — a notably short window that suggests the parties reached some form of resolution before substantive appellate briefing was complete. What drove that resolution, and whether any terms accompanied the dismissal, is not disclosed in the available public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 84 days
84-day appeal — resolved well before a typical Federal Circuit merits briefing cycle
US8671139B2 & US7822639B2 — targeted internet advertising systems
Product and engineering teams building or scaling off-site targeted advertising systems, demand-side platforms, or profile-based media selection engines should treat both patents as live risk assets. Neither was invalidated or narrowed by this proceeding. AlmondNet has demonstrated multi-patent, appellate-level enforcement capability against a major platform — a pattern that signals ongoing enforcement intent across the industry.
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal order records that the proceedings were terminated under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) by party agreement, with costs allocated symmetrically. No substantive ruling on infringement, validity, or claim scope was issued. The order's cost neutrality and its grounding in a joint party agreement distinguish this from a unilateral withdrawal, though the specific terms — if any — underlying that agreement are not disclosed in the available public record.
Voluntarily dismissed: what the agreed resolution means for both parties
Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) voluntary dismissal at the Federal Circuit
Under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), an appellant may dismiss an appeal by filing a signed agreement of the parties. Here, the court's order confirms both sides agreed to the dismissal. No merits ruling was issued — the Federal Circuit did not decide validity, infringement, or any substantive legal question raised on appeal. The cost allocation (each side bears its own) was expressly ordered.
No merits adjudicationAlmondNet exits the appeal without a Federal Circuit ruling
A voluntary dismissal under Rule 42(b) does not constitute a judgment on the merits. AlmondNet neither wins nor loses on the substance of its patent claims at the appellate level. The patents-in-suit — US8671139B2 and US7822639B2 — remain part of AlmondNet's portfolio, but the public record does not disclose whether any licensing, settlement, or other arrangement accompanied the dismissal.
Patents remain in portfolioAmazon avoids a Federal Circuit merits decision on the asserted patents
Amazon.com, Inc. obtains dismissal without any appellate ruling affirming or overturning the lower court's disposition. No cost award is made against Amazon. The specific terms — if any — under which Amazon agreed to the dismissal are not disclosed in the available public record. Amazon bears its own appellate costs.
No adverse merits rulingTargeted advertising IP: no Federal Circuit precedent set from this appeal
Because the Federal Circuit issued no merits decision, the appeal creates no binding precedent on the validity or scope of profile-based ad targeting patents. Companies operating in the targeted internet advertising and media property selection space should note that the underlying claim landscape remains unresolved by this proceeding. Freedom-to-operate assessments against US8671139B2 and US7822639B2 are unaffected by this appellate outcome.
No new ad-tech precedentFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | AlmondNet, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Amazon.com, Inc. | Company | /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 | J. David Hadden | 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 | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the targeted internet advertising IP space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence from the AlmondNet v. Amazon appeal, surfacing filing trends, portfolio signals, and white space in ad-tech IP.
AlmondNet's enforcement portfolio in ad-targeting IP
AlmondNet has asserted patents covering both off-site ad delivery (US8671139B2) and profit-optimised media selection (US7822639B2) — suggesting a portfolio built around complementary layers of the programmatic advertising stack. Mapping the full family tree of both patents, including continuations and related applications, reveals the breadth of potential enforcement exposure for ad-tech platforms.
AlmondNet portfolio depthFiling trends in profile-based and off-site ad targeting technology
The technologies covered by US8671139B2 and US7822639B2 — behavioural profiling, audience segmentation, and profit-optimised media selection — remain active filing areas as privacy regulations shift ad-tech toward contextual and first-party data approaches. Tracking recent filings in these sub-domains reveals where competitors are staking new IP positions as cookie deprecation reshapes the landscape.
Ad-tech filing trendsAmazon's patent position in targeted advertising and ad delivery
Amazon.com operates one of the largest programmatic advertising platforms globally. Its own patent portfolio in audience targeting, ad selection, and media placement is extensive. Understanding where Amazon's filings overlap with — or design around — the claim space of US8671139B2 and US7822639B2 provides insight into how the world's largest ad buyer is positioning its IP defensively.
Amazon ad-tech IP mapAdjacent innovation gaps near profit-optimised media selection
The profit-expectation-based media selection method of US7822639B2 was filed in the pre-programmatic era. Adjacent white space likely exists in real-time bidding optimisation, privacy-preserving audience modelling, and contextual profit prediction — areas where new claim strategies could differentiate from the asserted patents and address the post-cookie ad-tech environment.
Ad-tech IP white spaceSimilar Federal Circuit targeted advertising patent appeals
Explore Federal Circuit appeals involving targeted internet advertising and profile-based ad delivery patents, including related AlmondNet and programmatic advertising litigation.
What this case signals for the targeted advertising IP landscape
A swift voluntary dismissal at the Federal Circuit in an ad-tech infringement appeal warrants attention from anyone operating in profile-based online advertising.
Short Federal Circuit appeals may signal out-of-court resolution activity
An 84-day lifecycle from filing to dismissal at the Federal Circuit — before merits briefing would typically conclude — is consistent with parties resolving their dispute through channels outside the appellate record. IP teams tracking AlmondNet's enforcement posture should monitor for new district court filings or licensing announcements.
US8671139B2 and US7822639B2 remain live enforcement assets
Neither patent was invalidated or adjudicated by this proceeding. For companies developing or monetising off-site targeted advertising systems or profile-based media selection methods, both patents warrant an updated freedom-to-operate review — particularly given AlmondNet's demonstrated willingness to litigate through the appellate level.
AlmondNet v Amazon.com — key questions answered
The appeal was voluntarily dismissed under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) by agreement of the parties on 6 April 2026, 84 days after filing. Each side was ordered to bear its own costs. No merits ruling on infringement or patent validity was issued by the Federal Circuit.
AlmondNet asserted two patents: US8671139B2 (application no. US13/491454), covering added-revenue off-site targeted internet advertising, and US7822639B2 (application no. US10/996491), covering a media properties selection method and system based on expected profit from profile-based ad delivery.
A Rule 42(b) dismissal terminates the appellate proceeding without any ruling on the merits. The patents-in-suit — US8671139B2 and US7822639B2 — are neither invalidated nor adjudicated infringed or not infringed by this order. They remain enforceable assets in AlmondNet's portfolio. Whether any separate terms accompanied the dismissal is not disclosed in the available public record.
The public record does not disclose the reason for the early joint dismissal. An 84-day resolution — before merits briefing would typically conclude at the Federal Circuit — is consistent with the parties reaching some form of out-of-court arrangement, but the specific terms, if any, are not available in the public record.
No. Because the Federal Circuit issued no merits decision, the dismissal creates no binding precedent on the validity, scope, or enforceability of profile-based or off-site targeted advertising patents. Companies in the ad-tech sector cannot rely on this proceeding as authority for or against the validity of US8671139B2 or US7822639B2.
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.