Infringement action filed 25 Jul 2025 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and closed 6 Apr 2026, with US7822639B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: voluntary dismissal.
A super-saturation method for information-media substantially relates to a three-body cooperation to direct information to an electronic media consumer (reader, surfer, viewer, listener, etc.). Embodiments of the present invention facilitate a first media body substantially offering out of context information placement using a second cooperating media body. A facilitator body preferably guarantees that a consumer of the second media is a known consumer of the first media. Accordingly, the second media body presents an out of context information placement. For example, an exclusive members-only Internet site “AAA” is oversubscribed with potential paying advertising content at $100 CPM. This exclusive site then offers unfulfilled advertisers an option to present their advertisements to certified “AAA” viewers, albeit on a non-AAA Internet site, for $50 CPM. The facilitator locates a certified AAA viewer at an Internet site “BBB” that normally charges $30 CPM. A facilitated contract(s) between AAA, BBB, and the facilitator divides a new revenue stream of $20 CPM between them—and each of the three bodies benefit.
3 on recordIPR2022-01453 · Other · filed by Amazon.com, Inc.CBM2017-00046 · Other · filed by Yahoo! Inc.IPR2022-00928 · Patentability · filed by Meta Platforms, Inc.
Source: case record + Patsnap company data. Attorney names appear as recorded in the docket.Compare both portfolios
Outcome
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim
"The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that: (1) The proceedings are DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. P. 42 (b).(2) Each side shall bear their own costs."
Case 25-1967 · Fed. Cir. · closed 6 April 2026
Source: case record, verbatim. The quoted paragraph is the basis-of-termination text as filed.
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
25-1967 is a patent infringement action brought by Amazon.com, Inc. against AlmondNet, Inc., filed on 25 Jul 2025 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case closed on 6 April 2026.
Which patent was asserted in 25-1967?
US7822639B2 (“Added-revenue off-site targeted internet advertising”), assigned to ALMONDNET INC., currently inactive. The record also lists Added-revenue off-site targeted internet advertising.
How was case 25-1967 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is voluntary dismissal. The termination text reads: "The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that: (1) The proceedings are DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. P. 42 (b).(2) Each side shall bear their own costs."
What does voluntary dismissal mean?
A voluntary dismissal is one the plaintiff asks for rather than one the court imposes. Where both sides stipulate to it, it commonly signals a settlement that is not filed on the public docket.
How long did case 25-1967 take?
255 calendar days, from filing on 25 Jul 2025 to closure on 6 April 2026.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 25-1967?
J. David Hadden, Johnathan Chai, Johnson Kuncheria, Saina S. Shamilov and Todd Richard Gregorian are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Amazon.com. Adam Hoffman, Amy Hayden, Brian David Ledahl, Daniel B. Kolko, James Milkey, James S. Tsuei, Jonathan Ma, Marc A. Fenster and Philip Wang appear for defendant AlmondNet.
Answers reproduce fields from the case record for 25-1967 and do not constitute legal advice.Ask your own question
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 25-1967 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.
