AlmondNet v. Samsung: 9-Patent Ad-Targeting Dispute Ends in Dismissal With Prejudice
AlmondNet, Inc. and Intent IQ, LLC filed suit against Samsung Electronics and AdGear Technologies in the Northern District of California, asserting nine patents covering digital advertising and audience-targeting technology against Samsung’s advertising platform. After 938 days of litigation, the parties stipulated to dismiss all claims with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), with each side bearing its own fees and costs.
A nine-patent ad-tech campaign settled quietly after nearly three years
On 30 November 2022, AlmondNet, Inc. and its affiliate Intent IQ, LLC filed a patent infringement complaint in the Northern District of California (Judge Jon S. Tigar) against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and AdGear Technologies Inc. The complaint asserted nine US patents — including US8677398B2, US8959146B2, US7979307B2, and six further titles — directed at digital advertising targeting, audience profiling, and cross-device ad delivery, all allegedly embodied in Samsung’s advertising platform.
On 25 June 2025, the parties jointly filed a stipulation of dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), requesting the court to dismiss all of plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice and all of defendants’ defenses without prejudice. The parties further agreed that each side would bear its own attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses. The stipulation suggests the dispute was resolved through a negotiated settlement, the specific financial terms of which are not reflected in the public record.
At 938 days, the case exceeded typical N.D. Cal. timelines for patent matters that settle before trial, suggesting substantive claim-construction and discovery activity occurred before resolution. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement is consistent with a negotiated outcome in which neither side conceded liability. What remains unknown from the public record is whether any licensing arrangement, cross-license, or business agreement accompanied the dismissal, or whether AlmondNet’s broader campaign against Samsung-ecosystem defendants is continuing.
Filing to Case Dismissed in 938 days
938 days — above the N.D. Cal. median for patent cases resolved without trial
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated exit means for both sides
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal with prejudice explained
A stipulated dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires both parties’ signatures and is self-executing — no court order is needed. When entered ‘with prejudice’ on the plaintiffs’ claims, it functions as a final adjudication on the merits: AlmondNet and Intent IQ are permanently barred from re-asserting the same nine patents against the same defendants on the same accused products. The dismissal of defendants’ defenses ‘without prejudice’ is standard and has no practical impact given the claims are extinguished.
Permanent bar on re-filingWith-prejudice exit strongly signals a negotiated resolution
Parties do not typically dismiss valuable infringement claims with prejudice unless they have received something in return — most commonly a lump-sum payment, a running royalty licence, or a cross-licensing arrangement. The absence of fee-shifting (each party bears its own costs) further supports a negotiated rather than contested outcome. The financial terms, if any, are confidential and not disclosed in the public court record, so the precise value to AlmondNet remains unknown.
Likely settled — terms undisclosedAlmondNet exits litigation but permanently surrenders these claims
For AlmondNet and Intent IQ, a with-prejudice dismissal forecloses any future infringement action on these nine patents against Samsung, Samsung Electronics America, and AdGear on the accused advertising platform. If a licensing deal was struck, it likely provides commercial value but removes litigation leverage permanently. AlmondNet’s ability to assert the same portfolio against other advertising-platform operators in the ecosystem is unaffected by this dismissal.
Claims permanently extinguishedSamsung achieves certainty on nine ad-targeting patents
Samsung, Samsung Electronics America, and AdGear obtain permanent resolution against these specific patent assertions. The with-prejudice dismissal eliminates litigation risk from AlmondNet’s nine-patent portfolio with respect to the accused advertising platform. Samsung’s broader IP exposure in the programmatic and targeted-advertising space — including potential actions by other patent holders — is unaffected. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement avoids any finding of exceptionality under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
Clean exit, no fee awardFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | AlmondNet, Inc. | Company | Ad-targeting IP licensor — holder of US8677398B2 and 8 related digital advertising patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. | Company | Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. — global consumer electronics and digital advertising platform operatorSearch 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 | 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 | Durie Tangri LLP | Law Firm | Representing AlmondNet, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Folio Law Group PLLC | Law Firm | Representing AlmondNet, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Russ August & Kabat LLP | Law Firm | Representing AlmondNet, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Allan M. Soobert | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Bruce S. Yen | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Daniel J. Blake | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Elizabeth L. Brann | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | James Razick | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Melissa Richards Smith | Attorney | Counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Gillam & Smith LLP | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Paul Hastings LLP | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | White & Case LLP | Law Firm | Representing Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jon S. Tigar | Judge | California Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation’s precise language — dismissing plaintiffs’ claims ‘with prejudice’ while dismissing defendants’ defenses ‘without prejudice’ — is a standard and deliberate asymmetry. The with-prejudice language on claims is the operative term: it extinguishes AlmondNet’s cause of action permanently as to these defendants and these accused products, carrying the same preclusive effect as a final judgment. The without-prejudice treatment of Samsung’s defenses is procedurally inconsequential once the underlying claims are gone. The mutual cost-bearing clause, which explicitly waives any claim to attorneys’ fees and costs, is consistent with a negotiated commercial resolution and forecloses any post-dismissal fee motion under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
US8677398B2 and eight further patents — digital advertising targeting portfolio
The nine asserted patents — anchored by US8677398B2 (application 13/167605) and spanning application families filed between 2008 and 2018 — collectively cover methods and systems for building user audience profiles, matching those profiles to advertising inventory, and delivering targeted advertisements across devices and channels. The portfolio addresses multiple layers of the programmatic advertising stack: data collection, identity resolution, audience segmentation, and ad delivery. Several patents (including US7979307B2 and US8244582B2) carry earlier priority dates, potentially extending effective protection into foundational digital advertising architectures.
For companies operating advertising platforms, DSPs, SSPs, or connected-TV ad stacks, this portfolio represents material exposure. The breadth of the family — nine granted patents across distinct functional layers — means a product teardown is unlikely to eliminate risk by designing around a single claim. Samsung’s advertising platform, including technology inherited through AdGear, was squarely in scope. Competitors operating similar programmatic or audience-targeting infrastructure, including CTV operators, mobile DSPs, and retail media networks, should assess whether their implementations fall within the claim scope of any surviving patents in this AlmondNet/Intent IQ portfolio.
Should your ad platform run an FTO against the AlmondNet/Intent IQ portfolio?
Any company operating an audience-targeting platform, demand-side platform, connected-TV ad server, retail media network, or cross-device identity solution should treat the AlmondNet/Intent IQ portfolio as a live exposure. This nine-patent family covers foundational mechanisms in programmatic advertising — profile building, cross-device matching, and audience-based ad delivery — areas central to virtually every modern ad-tech product. The with-prejudice dismissal here resolves only Samsung’s exposure; the patents remain in force against all other potential defendants.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows R&D and IP teams to map their ad-targeting architecture against the claim language of all nine asserted patents simultaneously. Eureka surfaces relevant prior art, identifies claim elements most likely to read on specific product features, and flags related continuation applications that may generate further assertion risk. Running a targeted FTO now — before a demand letter arrives — is significantly less costly than reactive litigation analysis after a complaint is filed.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8677398B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar ad-tech patent infringement cases in N.D. California
Cases involving audience-targeting and programmatic advertising patents litigated in the Northern District of California against major platform and device operators.
What this case signals for the digital advertising IP landscape
Nine patents, a global platform operator, and a quiet exit — the outcome carries implications for ad-tech IP strategy across the industry.
Broad patent portfolios amplify licensing leverage against platform operators
AlmondNet filed with nine patents spanning audience targeting, cross-device delivery, and ad profiling — a coverage strategy that makes claim-construction victories on any one patent insufficient to end litigation. Companies operating advertising platforms should audit exposure across entire assertion portfolios, not just the lead patent, to calibrate settlement economics accurately.
N.D. Cal. remains a live venue for complex ad-tech patent campaigns
Despite its reputation for rigorous claim construction, the Northern District of California hosted this multi-patent ad-tech dispute through 938 days without reaching trial. The combination of a sophisticated bench, proximity to major tech defendants, and established patent local rules continues to attract complex IP assertions targeting Silicon Valley-headquartered or -adjacent platform operators.
AlmondNet v Samsung — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice by stipulation on 25 June 2025, after 938 days of litigation in the Northern District of California. AlmondNet and Intent IQ had asserted nine US patents covering digital advertising targeting against Samsung’s advertising platform. The parties agreed each side would bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs, consistent with a negotiated resolution.
AlmondNet and Intent IQ asserted nine granted US patents: US8677398B2, US8959146B2, US7979307B2, US8566164B2, US10715878B2, US8200822B1, US10321198B2, US8671139B2, and US8244582B2. The patents cover audience profiling, cross-device ad targeting, behavioral data-driven advertising, and related digital advertising delivery methods.
A dismissal with prejudice functions as a final adjudication on the merits. AlmondNet and Intent IQ are permanently barred from re-asserting the same nine patents against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and AdGear Technologies Inc. in connection with the accused advertising platform. The preclusion is defendant-specific; AlmondNet retains the right to assert these patents against unrelated third parties.
AdGear Technologies Inc. is a demand-side platform and ad-server technology company that Samsung acquired. Its inclusion as a co-defendant suggests AlmondNet alleged that AdGear’s technology — integrated into Samsung’s advertising platform — directly practiced one or more of the asserted patent claims. This reflects how M&A in the ad-tech sector can transfer patent litigation exposure to acquiring companies.
No. The with-prejudice dismissal resolves claims only as between AlmondNet/Intent IQ and the three named Samsung entities. All nine patents remain in force and can be asserted against any other company whose advertising platform technology falls within the claim scope. Operators of programmatic ad platforms, DSPs, CTV ad servers, and retail media networks should independently assess their exposure to this portfolio.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.