Intent IQ Sues LG Ad Solutions in Delaware Over Its Device Graph and Household Device Graph.

The case is Intent IQ, LLC v. Alphonso Inc. d/b/a LG Ad Solutions, No. 1:26-cv-01399 (D. Del.), filed October 28, 2026. Intent IQ demands a jury.

The parties

Intent IQ says it is a Delaware limited liability company based in Long Island City, New York, working in cross-device ad targeting, retargeting, audience extension, and attribution. The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that the defendant is a Delaware corporation based in Mountain View, California, and that Alphonso, Inc. rebranded as LG Ad Solutions in March 2021. Intent IQ's Rule 7.1 disclosure statement identifies its corporate parent.

The patents and accused products

Intent IQ asserts U.S. Patent 8,677,398, titled "Systems and methods for taking action with respect to one network-connected device based on activity on another device connected to the same network," which issued March 18, 2014, and U.S. Patent 12,457,388, titled "Recording online activity based on viewing or interacting with television advertisements," which issued October 28, 2025. The accused instrumentalities are the LG Ad Solutions platform and related components, including the LG Ad Solutions Device Graph and LG Ad Solutions' household device graph.

What the patents cover

Claim 13 of the '398 patent, charted in Exhibit 2, covers a method, implemented with a programmed hardware computer system, of automatically causing an action to be taken with respect to a second device based on electronic profile data associated with a first device's identifier, where the second device's identifier is electronically associated with the first device's identifier because each device, independently of the other, connected to a common local area network before the action, and the computer system connects to that network through the Internet but is not part of it.

Claim 1 of the '388 patent, charted in Exhibit 4, covers a method performed by equipment of a profile provider entity that has access to computer programs on many set-top boxes that receive signals from the Internet and connect to television displays, and to stored associations between set-top box identifiers and online access identifiers of online user interface devices, each association based on automatically recognizing that the device and the set-top box connected, independently of each other, to a common local area network. The method records in a user profile that a television advertisement was presented via a first set-top box, when that box's program reports observing the presentation. Later, on receiving an online access identifier that corresponds, at the time of the activity, to an online device and is associated in storage with that set-top box's identifier, it records the device's online activity and links it in a database to the television advertisement.

What the lawsuit is about

The complaint has two counts, one per patent, brought by Intent IQ against the defendant. Each alleges, on information and belief, that the accused instrumentalities directly infringe, literally and under the doctrine of equivalents, by performing one or more method claims, and that by using them in the United States the defendant is liable under 35 U.S.C. 271. Because only method claims are asserted, the complaint says the marking requirement of 35 U.S.C. 287 does not apply. Venue rests on the defendant's Delaware incorporation.

For context, the complaint cites a March 2, 2021 press release in which LG Ad Solutions describes itself as a "Unified Platform for Connected TV Media and Measurement" offering connected TV inventory from 20 million smart TVs in the U.S., and quotes a May 23, 2022 statement by the company's president that it was "creating something called the Household Graph" that a DSP can use to serve ads to an LG household.

Relief sought

Intent IQ asks for a judgment of direct infringement of both patents, a permanent injunction, damages with costs, expenses, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, an accounting and supplemental damages, a finding that the case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. 285 with attorneys' fees, and other relief the court deems appropriate.

What to watch next

The docket shows service on October 29, 2026 and an answer deadline of November 19, 2026. Watch for the defendant's answer or Rule 12 motion and the scheduling order.