Amazon v. AlmondNet (Fed. Cir. 25-1967) — Appeal Voluntarily Dismissed
Amazon.com, Inc. appealed against AlmondNet, Inc. at the Federal Circuit over US7822639B2, a patent covering added-revenue off-site targeted internet advertising. The parties jointly agreed to dismiss the appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), with each side bearing its own costs, ending the Federal Circuit proceedings after 255 days.
Amazon and AlmondNet agree to end Federal Circuit appeal
Amazon.com, Inc. filed appeal No. 25-1967 at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 25 July 2025, challenging a decision involving AlmondNet, Inc.'s US7822639B2. That patent, applied for under application number US10/996491, covers added-revenue off-site targeted internet advertising — a technology domain central to programmatic and behavioural advertising ecosystems. Amazon was represented by Fenwick & West, LLP; AlmondNet by Russ August & Kabat LLP and BC Law Group PC.
The recorded basis of termination is Voluntary dismissal. The docket order states that, the parties having agreed, the proceedings are dismissed under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) and that each side shall bear its own costs. No merits ruling was issued by the Federal Circuit; the court made no finding on the underlying infringement action.
The appeal closed on 6 April 2026 after 255 days of Federal Circuit proceedings. The decision to dismiss by agreement before any substantive appellate ruling leaves the underlying legal questions unresolved on the public record. The specific terms driving the mutual agreement to dismiss are not disclosed in the available record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 255 days
255 days from filing to closure at the Federal Circuit
US7822639B2 — added-revenue off-site targeted internet advertising
Any company operating off-site advertising, behavioural retargeting, or programmatic display networks should assess its exposure to US7822639B2. The patent was actively litigated to the Federal Circuit level and was not invalidated in this proceeding. Product teams building or acquiring ad-targeting technology — including recommendation engines that serve ads beyond the originating publisher — should treat this patent as a live FTO consideration.
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal order records mutual agreement under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) and specifies that each side bears its own costs. Because no merits ruling was issued, the order does not establish precedent on infringement or validity of US7822639B2. The cost neutrality provision is the only substantive term visible in the public record; all other terms, if any, are undisclosed.
Voluntarily dismissed: what the agreed appeal withdrawal means for both parties
What a Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) voluntary dismissal means
Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) allows parties to dismiss an appeal by filing a signed agreement. Here, the court order confirms the parties agreed and the proceedings were dismissed on that basis. No merits ruling was issued — the Federal Circuit made no finding on infringement, validity, or any substantive question raised in the appeal. Each side bears its own costs.
No merits adjudicationPublic record is silent on prejudice terms
The recorded basis of termination is 'Voluntary dismissal' without specifying whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice. The docket order does not state either qualification. Whether AlmondNet retains the right to reassert claims or whether Amazon is protected from re-litigation on these grounds is not disclosed in the available record. Practitioners should not assume either outcome.
Prejudice terms undisclosedAmazon exits the Federal Circuit without a ruling in its favour
As appellant, Amazon had sought Federal Circuit review of the decision below. By agreeing to dismiss, Amazon ends that appellate challenge without obtaining a reversal or vacatur. Whether any underlying district court findings remain in effect depends on proceedings not visible in this Federal Circuit record. The commercial rationale for withdrawal is not stated in the public record.
Appeal withdrawn by AmazonOff-site ad targeting patent survives Federal Circuit scrutiny at this stage
US7822639B2, covering added-revenue off-site targeted internet advertising, was not invalidated or limited by the Federal Circuit in this appeal. The patent's enforceability status following the dismissal is not determined by this order alone. Companies operating in programmatic, behavioural, or off-site ad targeting should monitor AlmondNet's portfolio and any subsequent enforcement activity.
Patent not adjudicatedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Amazon.com, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | AlmondNet, Inc. | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | J. David Hadden | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Johnathan Chai | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Johnson Kuncheria | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Saina S. Shamilov | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Todd Richard Gregorian | Attorney | Counsel for Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Fenwick & West, LLP | Law Firm | Representing Amazon.com, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Adam Hoffman | Attorney | Counsel for AlmondNet, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Amy Hayden | Attorney | Counsel for AlmondNet, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brian David Ledahl | Attorney | Counsel for AlmondNet, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Daniel B. Kolko | Attorney | Counsel for AlmondNet, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | James Milkey | Attorney | Counsel for AlmondNet, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | James S. Tsuei | Attorney | Counsel for AlmondNet, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jonathan Ma | Attorney | Counsel for AlmondNet, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Marc A. Fenster | Attorney | Counsel for AlmondNet, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Philip Wang | Attorney | Counsel for AlmondNet, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | BC Law Group PC | Law Firm | Representing AlmondNet, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Russ August & Kabat LLP | Law Firm | Representing AlmondNet, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the off-site targeted advertising IP space
Patent intelligence derived from Amazon v. AlmondNet — what filing trends and portfolio moves mean for ad-tech innovators and IP strategists.
AlmondNet's targeted advertising patent family
AlmondNet has maintained an active assertion posture around off-site targeted advertising. US7822639B2 is one asset in what may be a broader family covering related methods. IP teams should map continuations, divisionals, and related applications to understand the full enforcement perimeter before building or expanding off-site ad-targeting products.
Assertion-entity portfolioFiling trends in off-site and behavioural ad targeting
Programmatic and behavioural advertising has attracted sustained patent filing activity from platforms, adtech intermediaries, and NPEs. Tracking filing trends around off-site retargeting, cross-site audience segmentation, and cookieless targeting methods can reveal where the next wave of enforcement or partnership opportunity is likely to emerge.
Adtech filing trendsAmazon's own IP position in advertising technology
Amazon operates one of the largest programmatic advertising platforms globally and holds a substantial IP portfolio in ad delivery, audience targeting, and measurement. Analysing Amazon's own filing activity in the off-site and cross-site advertising domain can reveal defensive patent strategies and technology priorities that competitors and licensees should track.
Amazon ad-tech IPAdjacent innovation opportunities near US7822639B2
As third-party cookie deprecation reshapes digital advertising, methods for privacy-preserving off-site targeting, contextual signals, and first-party data-driven audience extension represent areas where patent coverage may be sparse. R&D teams exploring cookieless or consent-based cross-site ad delivery may find filing opportunities adjacent to the claim space of US7822639B2.
Cookieless ad targetingSimilar Federal Circuit appeals in internet advertising patent litigation
Explore related Federal Circuit and district court cases involving off-site targeted advertising patents and programmatic ad-tech IP disputes.
What this case signals for the online advertising IP landscape
A voluntarily dismissed Federal Circuit appeal leaves the patent field unsettled — here is what that means for ad-tech operators and IP teams.
US7822639B2 remains unadjudicated at the Federal Circuit
Because the appeal was dismissed by agreement with no merits ruling, the Federal Circuit issued no finding on the validity or infringement of US7822639B2. Companies in the off-site and programmatic advertising space cannot rely on this proceeding as precedent weakening the patent's enforceability. An independent FTO assessment remains advisable.
Cost neutrality signals a negotiated resolution, not a concession
The order that each side bears its own costs is consistent with a mutually agreed resolution rather than a capitulation by either party. Neither party obtained a cost award. The specific terms driving the agreement are not in the public record, so neither a licensing deal nor a covenant should be assumed.
Amazon.com v AlmondNet — key questions answered
The Federal Circuit appeal was voluntarily dismissed under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) by agreement of the parties. The court ordered that each side bear its own costs. No merits ruling was issued on the underlying infringement action involving US7822639B2. The case closed on 6 April 2026 after 255 days.
The patent at issue is US7822639B2, filed under application number US10/996491. It covers technology relating to added-revenue off-site targeted internet advertising. The patent is held by AlmondNet, Inc., and Amazon was the appellant challenging an earlier decision involving that patent.
No. A voluntary dismissal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) does not constitute a ruling on validity or infringement. The Federal Circuit issued no merits determination in this appeal. US7822639B2 was not invalidated by this proceeding, and its enforceability remains unaddressed by this order.
The cost neutrality provision means neither Amazon nor AlmondNet was awarded attorney fees or costs by the Federal Circuit in connection with this appeal. This is a standard term when parties agree to dismiss an appeal and is the only financial term visible in the public record. No further terms are disclosed.
Potentially yes. Because the Federal Circuit dismissed the appeal without a merits ruling, the patent was not adjudicated invalid or limited at appellate level. Companies operating off-site ad targeting, behavioural retargeting, or programmatic display networks should consider running a freedom-to-operate analysis against US7822639B2 and monitoring AlmondNet's broader patent family for enforcement activity.
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.