{"id":586,"date":"2024-06-15T12:19:02","date_gmt":"2024-06-15T12:19:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/?p=586"},"modified":"2024-06-15T12:19:02","modified_gmt":"2024-06-15T12:19:02","slug":"internet-advertising-firm-almondnet-wins-122m-patent-verdict-against-amazon-in-western-district-of-texas","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/staging1\/internet-advertising-firm-almondnet-wins-122m-patent-verdict-against-amazon-in-western-district-of-texas\/","title":{"rendered":"Internet advertising firm AlmondNet wins $122M patent verdict against Amazon in Western District of Texas"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<div class=\"wp-block-group has-global-padding is-layout-constrained wp-block-group-is-layout-constrained\" style=\"border-width:1px\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Context:<\/strong> Small and medium-sized companies have recently obtained various nine-figure patent damages verdicts against large technology companies, particularly in Texas (<a href=\"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/more-than-95-of-netlists-445-million-jury-verdict-against-micron-is-based-on-patent-claim-invalidated-by-ptab\/\">May 24, 2024 <strong>ip fray<\/strong> article<\/a>) but also elsewhere: two months ago, Amazon got hit by a $525 million verdict in the Northern District of Illinois (<a href=\"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/npe-named-kove-obtains-525-million-jury-verdict-against-amazon-web-services-three-patents-found-infringed\/\">April 15, 2024 <strong>ip fray<\/strong> article<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>What&#8217;s new:<\/strong> Yesterday, a jury in Judge Alan d. Albright&#8217;s court (Western District of Texas, Waco Division) rendered a $121.95 million verdict in one of three <em>AlmondNet v. Amazon<\/em> casees that have been brought in that district.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Direct impact:<\/strong> While district judges rarely set aside jury verdicts, Amazon will presumably appeal this decision to the Federal Circuit, barring a settlement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Wider ramifications:<\/strong> AlmondNet has brought other cases not only against Amazon, but also against Microsoft, Meta, Samsung, Roku and Lotame Solutions. Most of those defendants have already settled.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">AlmondNet describes itself as an &#8220;adtech pioneer&#8221; (<a href=\"https:\/\/www.almondnet.com\/\">corporate website<\/a>) and uses its own patents in the provision of various data services (<a href=\"https:\/\/www.almondnet.com\/vmark\">disclosure<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Here&#8217;s yesterday&#8217;s $121.95 million verdict:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-embed is-type-rich is-provider-documentcloud wp-block-embed-documentcloud\"><div class=\"wp-block-embed__wrapper\">\n<span class=\"QiFvThRpcwXrHX5g060BBkOMsqm29GAefYekU877EO4bNDMFYNyVCoLsbEP8pnAT1JW2IaxCWvhKtI6ZSdKun5j3\"><iframe loading=\"lazy\" title=\"24-06-14 AlmondNet v. Amazon jury verdict (Hosted by DocumentCloud)\" src=\"https:\/\/embed.documentcloud.org\/documents\/24762615-24-06-14-almondnet-v-amazon-jury-verdict\/?embed=1&amp;title=1\" width=\"500\" height=\"750\" style=\"border: 1px solid #aaa;\" sandbox=\"allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-popups allow-forms allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox\"><\/iframe><\/span>\n<\/div><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Two patents were put before the jury, which held them both infringed and did not invalidate them through an Alice step 2 determination that there was nothing technologically innovative about the claimed inventions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li class=\"\"><a href=\"https:\/\/patents.google.com\/patent\/US8671139B2\/en?oq=8%2c671%2c139\">U.S. Patent No. 8,671,139<\/a> (&#8220;media properties selection method and system based on expected profit from profile-based ad delivery&#8221;)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li class=\"\"><a href=\"https:\/\/patents.google.com\/patent\/US7822639B2\/en?oq=7822639\">U.S. Patent No. 7,822,639<\/a> (&#8220;added-revenue off-site targeted advertising&#8221;)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Originally, the complaint in this case (6:21-cv-00898-ADA), which was filed in August 2021, involved ten patents, but Amazon obviously mounted a fierce defense that resulted in an unusual delay as well as a major narrowing of the case. Here&#8217;s the original complaint, filed by <a href=\"https:\/\/www.raklaw.com\/attorney\/reza-mirzaie\/\">Reza Mirzaie<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.raklaw.com\/attorney\/marc-fenster\/\">Marc Fenster<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.raklaw.com\/attorney\/james-a-milkey\/\">James Milkey<\/a> of L.A.-based law firm Russ August &amp; Kabat:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-embed is-type-rich is-provider-documentcloud wp-block-embed-documentcloud\"><div class=\"wp-block-embed__wrapper\">\n<span class=\"y41ms0SuCQx31JQKN2XZaHRqcIvY8gPj0UloWwxw78YEichddmntEegL9G66FZBekrp9lhMFsD5fzViHS7JuD\"><iframe loading=\"lazy\" title=\"21-08-27 AlmondNet v. Amazon patent infringement complaint (Hosted by DocumentCloud)\" src=\"https:\/\/embed.documentcloud.org\/documents\/24762614-21-08-27-almondnet-v-amazon-patent-infringement-complaint\/?embed=1&amp;title=1\" width=\"500\" height=\"750\" style=\"border: 1px solid #aaa;\" sandbox=\"allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-popups allow-forms allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox\"><\/iframe><\/span>\n<\/div><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Another case, filed in 2022, was dismissed about a year ago as Judge Albright granted a stipulation by the parties (<a href=\"https:\/\/casetext.com\/case\/almondnet-inc-v-amazoncom-2\">Casetext<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Last month, AlmondNet filed its third complaint against Amazon, represented by the three lawyers mentioned above as well as additional attorneys from the same firm (<a href=\"https:\/\/www.raklaw.com\/attorney\/amy-e-hayden\/\">Amy Hayden<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.raklaw.com\/attorney\/james-s-tsuei\/\">James Tsuei<\/a>, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.raklaw.com\/attorney\/daniel-b-kolko\/\">Daniel Kolko<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.raklaw.com\/attorney\/jason-wietholter\/\">Jason Wietholter<\/a>):<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-embed is-type-rich is-provider-documentcloud wp-block-embed-documentcloud\"><div class=\"wp-block-embed__wrapper\">\n<span class=\"jTHZygI2DKaA1Vdo5nsF8tmlci6O7XqEkpwYrWNGCub9LQe0RxhPUv3\"><iframe loading=\"lazy\" title=\"24-05-03 AlmondNet v. Amazon patent infringement complaint (Hosted by DocumentCloud)\" src=\"https:\/\/embed.documentcloud.org\/documents\/24762613-24-05-03-almondnet-v-amazon-patent-infringement-complaint\/?embed=1\" width=\"500\" height=\"750\" style=\"border: 1px solid #aaa;\" sandbox=\"allow-scripts allow-same-origin allow-popups allow-forms allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox\"><\/iframe><\/span>\n<\/div><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">AlmondNet filed a near-simultaneous notice of related cases, pointing to the fact that the case tried this week was pending against the same defendant and the same &#8220;accused instrumentalities,&#8221; and that the same two patents were asserted against Lotame Solutions in the District of Delaware. But the notice didn&#8217;t really help. The case remained with <a href=\"https:\/\/www.txwd.uscourts.gov\/court-staff\/robert-pitman\/\">Judge Robert Pitman<\/a>, who is known to liberally grant stays once a petition for inter partes review is filed with the Patent Trial &amp; Appeal Board (PTAB) of the United States Patent &amp; Trademark Office (USPTO). The Chief Judge of the Western District of Texas recently made it harder to get related cases assigned to Judge Albright, but it still works if there&#8217;s a clear judicial-efficiency benefit because of prior work involving some of the same patents (<a href=\"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/assignment-rules-in-western-district-of-texas-now-cover-related-cases-but-judge-albright-just-got-another-proxense-lawsuit\/\">June 5, 2024 <strong>ip fray<\/strong> article<\/a>).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Internet advertising firm AlmondNet has won a $122M verdict against Amazon in the Western District of Texas over two of its originally ten asserted patents.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"nf_dc_page":"","_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[84,12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-586","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-amazon","category-patent-litigation"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/staging1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/586","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/staging1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/staging1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/staging1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/staging1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=586"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/staging1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/586\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":587,"href":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/staging1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/586\/revisions\/587"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/staging1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=586"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/staging1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=586"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ipfray.com\/staging1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=586"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}