Meta v. AlmondNet (25-1662): Federal Circuit Appeal Dismissed in 135 Days
Meta Platforms challenged AlmondNet’s US10715878B2 — a patent covering targeted television advertisements based on online behavioral data — at the Federal Circuit. Appeal No. 25-1662 was dismissed by court order in under five months, with each party bearing its own costs in the companion Appeal No. 25-1638.
A procedural severance ends Meta’s standalone appeal against AlmondNet
Filed on 21 April 2025 at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Case No. 25-1662 placed Meta Platforms, Inc. as appellant against patent holder AlmondNet, Inc. The underlying dispute concerns US10715878B2, which protects a system and method for delivering targeted television advertisements to viewers based on their recorded online behavior — a technology sitting at the intersection of adtech, connected TV, and behavioral data profiling.
The Federal Circuit’s order closed the appeal on 3 September 2025, just 135 days after filing. The court granted Samsung’s motion to be removed from Appeal No. 25-1638, simultaneously dismissing the present Appeal No. 25-1662 as a procedural consequence of that severance. The order issued mandate as to Appeal No. 25-1662 only, while the companion appeal, No. 25-1638, continues before a merits panel with a revised official caption. No substantive patentability ruling was issued in this appeal.
The swift 135-day closure is consistent with a purely procedural disposition rather than a merits adjudication. The dismissal of 25-1662 likely reflects a restructuring of the consolidated appellate proceedings rather than any concession on the underlying invalidity arguments. What remains unresolved from the public record is whether Meta retains an active position in Appeal No. 25-1638, and how AlmondNet’s patent will ultimately be assessed on validity grounds before the merits panel.
Filing to Appeal Dismissed in 135 days
135 days — faster than the median Federal Circuit appeal disposition
Appeal No. 25-1662 dismissed: what the court order means for both parties
Procedural dismissal — no merits ruling on patent validity
The Federal Circuit dismissed Appeal No. 25-1662 as a direct consequence of granting Samsung’s motion to be removed from the companion Appeal No. 25-1638. The dismissal is administrative and procedural in nature: the court issued mandate only as to 25-1662, meaning no appellate panel evaluated the underlying invalidity or patentability arguments. The underlying question of US10715878B2’s validity remains live in Appeal No. 25-1638.
No merits adjudicationAlmondNet’s patent survives this appeal without adverse ruling
For AlmondNet, the dismissal of 25-1662 means no adverse validity finding was entered against US10715878B2 in this proceeding. The patent’s enforceability is not directly impacted by this order. However, the companion Appeal No. 25-1638 remains pending before a merits panel, which suggests the validity question is not fully resolved. AlmondNet cannot claim a substantive win here — only the absence of an adverse appellate outcome in this specific docket.
Patent status unchangedMeta exits 25-1662 without a validity determination in its favour
Meta’s dismissal from Appeal No. 25-1662 means its invalidity arguments were not adjudicated on the merits in this proceeding. The restructuring of the consolidated appeal — following Samsung’s removal from 25-1638 — suggests the docket was administratively reorganised rather than substantively resolved. Meta’s strategic position on the invalidity challenge to US10715878B2 will depend on its continued role, if any, in Appeal No. 25-1638 before the merits panel.
No validity ruling for MetaTargeted TV ad patent remains in play — sector uncertainty continues
US10715878B2 covers a commercially significant intersection: using online behavioral data to target television advertising — a core capability for streaming platforms, connected TV operators, and programmatic ad networks. The dismissal of 25-1662 without a merits ruling means the patent’s validity question remains unresolved. Competitors and licensees operating in behavioral adtech and CTV targeting should monitor Appeal No. 25-1638 closely, as a merits ruling there will directly shape enforcement risk.
CTV adtech risk unresolvedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Meta Platforms, Inc. | Company | Global social media and advertising platform — appellant challenging US10715878B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | ALMONDNET, INC. | Company | AlmondNet, Inc. — patent holder, targeted behavioral advertising technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew Carter Mace | Attorney | Counsel for Meta Platforms, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Heidi Lyn Keefe | Attorney | Counsel for Meta Platforms, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Mark R. Weinstein | Attorney | Counsel for Meta Platforms, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Phillip Edward Morton | Attorney | Counsel for Meta Platforms, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Cooley LLP | Law Firm | Representing Meta Platforms, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Reza Mirzaie | Attorney | Counsel for 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 ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Federal Circuit’s order is explicitly procedural: it grants Samsung’s motion to be severed from Appeal No. 25-1638 and dismisses Appeal No. 25-1662 as a consequence, issuing mandate only as to the latter. No appellate panel assessed the patentability or invalidity of US10715878B2 on the merits. The cost allocation — each party bearing its own costs in 25-1638 — is consistent with a housekeeping order rather than a merits disposition. The merits panel assigned to 25-1638 retains full authority to adjudicate the underlying validity question.
US10715878B2 — Targeted television advertising from online behavioral data
US10715878B2 (application number US16/228479) protects a system and method for using a viewer’s recorded online behavioral data to target and deliver television advertisements to that viewer. The patent sits at the convergence of digital audience profiling and linear or connected television delivery — a technically and commercially significant space as programmatic advertising extends from desktop and mobile into CTV and streaming environments. The corrected application number US16/228479 places its prosecution in a period of rapid adtech patent activity.
Strategically, US10715878B2 represents a foundational claim in the behavioral data-to-TV-ad pipeline. Any platform or intermediary that ingests online behavioral signals — browsing, search, social engagement — and uses them to inform television ad delivery, whether via set-top box, smart TV SDK, or programmatic CTV, may fall within the potential claim scope. The involvement of both Meta and Samsung as challengers in the associated proceedings suggests the patent holder views this as broadly applicable across the adtech ecosystem, elevating its licensing and enforcement relevance considerably.
Should your CTV or adtech product be cleared against US10715878B2?
Product teams building or acquiring capabilities in connected television targeting, identity-based ad delivery, or cross-device audience profiling should treat US10715878B2 as a priority FTO reference. The patent’s claim set — linking online behavioral records to television ad selection and delivery — is broad enough to implicate demand-side platforms, clean room data partnerships, smart TV operating systems, and streaming ad servers. With the Federal Circuit merits proceeding in Appeal No. 25-1638 still active, the enforceability risk window is open.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map US10715878B2’s independent claims against your product architecture, surface the closest prior art used in the IPR proceedings, and identify design-around pathways before the merits panel issues its ruling. Eureka also tracks the full AlmondNet patent family, so you can assess whether related applications extend the risk surface beyond the single asserted patent — essential intelligence for any M&A, product launch, or licensing negotiation in the CTV adtech space.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10715878B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit appeals involving behavioral adtech and CTV patents
Federal Circuit appeals involving behavioral advertising and connected TV patent validity disputes, drawn from IPR and PTAB proceedings similar to AlmondNet v. Meta.
What this case signals for the behavioral adtech IP landscape
The procedural restructuring of this Federal Circuit appeal leaves a commercially significant patent unresolved and enforcement risk live across the CTV and programmatic ad sector.
Companion appeal 25-1638 is the docket to watch for a validity ruling
The dismissal of 25-1662 is a procedural severance, not a resolution. The merits panel assigned to Appeal No. 25-1638 retains jurisdiction over the core patentability question for US10715878B2. Any company operating in targeted TV advertising based on online behavioral data should track that docket for a substantive ruling on validity.
Samsung’s exit from 25-1638 reshapes the appellant coalition
The court’s order removing Samsung from Appeal No. 25-1638 and dismissing 25-1662 suggests the original consolidated appeal involved multiple challengers — a common structure in IPR-derived Federal Circuit proceedings. The revised caption for 25-1638 signals a narrowed appellant group. Patent holders facing multi-party invalidity challenges should note how coalition restructuring can reshape appellate risk profiles.
Meta v ALMONDNET — key questions answered
Appeal No. 25-1662 was dismissed by Federal Circuit order on 3 September 2025. The dismissal was procedural: the court granted Samsung’s motion to be removed from companion Appeal No. 25-1638, which caused 25-1662 to be dismissed and mandate to issue as to that appeal only. No merits ruling on the validity of US10715878B2 was issued in this proceeding.
The dismissal does not invalidate or affirm US10715878B2. Because the dismissal was procedural rather than on the merits, the patent’s validity status is unchanged by this order. The patentability question remains live before the merits panel in the companion Appeal No. 25-1638, meaning enforceability of the patent is still subject to further appellate review.
The Federal Circuit dismissed Appeal No. 25-1662 as a consequence of granting Samsung’s motion to be removed from the consolidated Appeal No. 25-1638. The order restructured the appellate proceedings — revising the official caption for 25-1638 — and issued mandate only as to 25-1662. This suggests the two appeals had been joined or consolidated, and Samsung’s exit necessitated a separate docket resolution.
US10715878B2 covers a system and method for targeting television advertisements to viewers based on their online behavioral data. It is commercially significant because its claim scope potentially encompasses connected TV ad delivery, programmatic CTV, and identity-based audience targeting — capabilities central to major advertising platforms, streaming services, and smart TV ecosystems. The involvement of Meta and Samsung as challengers reflects its perceived breadth.
Based on the Federal Circuit order in Case No. 25-1662, Appeal No. 25-1638 remains pending before a merits panel with a revised official caption following Samsung’s removal. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs as to that appeal. The substantive patentability question concerning US10715878B2 has not yet been resolved and awaits adjudication by the assigned merits panel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.