By Peasch Lattin

Intent IQ, the patent-holding ad tech company that has already won $122 million from Amazon and secured licensing deals with Meta, Microsoft, Roku, and Samsung, has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against tvScientific that targets essentially everything the CTV advertising platform does. And according to an Intent IQ insider, tvScientific knew the lawsuit was coming before Pinterest agreed to buy the company.

The lawsuit, filed January 27, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 1:26-cv-00089), asserts that U.S. Patent No. 8,677,398, covering "systems and methods for taking action with respect to one network-connected device based on activity on another device connected to the same network," is infringed by tvScientific's platform.

What makes this case extraordinary is its scope. Unlike Intent IQ's previous patent suits, which targeted specific features or components within larger companies, this lawsuit goes after every single part of tvScientific's business. The complaint doesn't carve out a product line or a peripheral capability. It names:

That is not a slice of tvScientific's business. That is tvScientific's business. There is virtually nothing in the company's product offering or business model that falls outside the reach of Intent IQ's claims. When Intent IQ sued Amazon, it targeted cross-device campaigns as one piece of Amazon's sprawling ad tech operation. When it went after Roku, it focused on targeted TV advertising capabilities. But with tvScientific, every product, every feature, every revenue stream is accused of infringement.

The fundamental premise of tvScientific, targeting users across devices, retargeting web visitors on their connected TVs, and measuring and attributing outcomes across screens, is precisely what Intent IQ's patent covers: taking action on one networked device based on what happened on another.

Intent IQ is not just seeking damages. The company is asking for a permanent injunction that would bar tvScientific from continuing to use the accused technology, which would effectively shut down the platform.

It has also asked the court to declare this an "exceptional case" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, opening the door to attorneys' fees, a signal that Intent IQ views the infringement as particularly clear-cut. The company is asserting only method claims, which under 35 U.S.C. § 287 means patent marking requirements don't apply, potentially allowing damages to stretch further back than in a typical patent case.

The timing of this lawsuit is critical. On December 11, 2025, Pinterest announced a definitive agreement to acquire tvScientific, with the deal expected to close in the first half of 2026. Sources cited by Digiday estimated the deal's value at $300 to $350 million, with tvScientific generating approximately $100 million in annual revenue. Pinterest told investors the acquisition would not have a material impact on its financial results.

That characterization now looks deeply problematic.

Intent IQ won $122 million from Amazon on a similar patent claim, and Amazon was just one company using cross-device targeting as part of a much larger business.

tvScientific's entire operation is built on the allegedly infringing technology. If damages are calculated as a reasonable royalty on substantially all of tvScientific's revenue, combined with the potential for enhanced damages in an "exceptional case" finding, plus attorneys' fees, plus the possibility of an injunction that could shut the platform down entirely, the potential liability could exceed the purchase price of the company itself.

According to one industry insider familiar with the case, the total cost of the lawsuit, including potential damages, licensing fees, legal costs, and operational disruption, could effectively triple the cost of the acquisition, adding as much as $600 million in additional exposure on top of the purchase price. That would put Pinterest's total cost for tvScientific in the range of $900 million to $1 billion for a company generating $100 million in annual revenue, and one whose right to continue operating its core technology is now in question.

Put simply: Pinterest may be paying $300 million or more for a company whose core technology is now the subject of a patent infringement suit that could cost even more to resolve, or that could result in a court order preventing the acquired business from operating at all.

According to a source with knowledge of Intent IQ's operations, tvScientific had been given notice of the patent claims before Pinterest announced the acquisition in December 2025. If confirmed, this raises serious questions about what tvScientific disclosed to Pinterest during due diligence.

Separately, Pinterest staff who spoke off the record said they had no prior knowledge that this lawsuit was coming. One Pinterest employee said: "This is a huge issue if Jason Fairchild knew of the potential lawsuit and didn't tell Pinterest."

M&A transactions of this size routinely require the target company to disclose pending or threatened litigation as part of due diligence. Representations and warranties in acquisition agreements almost always cover known legal risks. If tvScientific's leadership was aware that Intent IQ, a company that has been aggressively suing CTV and cross-device ad tech companies for years, had put them on notice, the failure to disclose that to Pinterest could have significant legal consequences for the deal itself.

Even setting aside specific notice, it would be difficult for any company operating in CTV ad tech to claim ignorance of Intent IQ's litigation campaign. Intent IQ currently has 28 patent litigation cases, 17 of which are still active. Its targets have included Amazon, AWS, Microsoft's LinkedIn and Xandr units, Lotame, Roku, Comcast's FreeWheel, Viant, and LiveIntent. Its legal counsel has openly stated that in some years, Intent IQ earns more from patent litigation than from its actual ad tech and data business.

Intent IQ has been remarkably effective in enforcing its patent portfolio. A jury awarded the company $122 million in its case against Amazon, which targeted cross-device campaign capabilities based on consumer profiles. Many of the industry's biggest names, including Meta, Microsoft, Roku, Samsung, and FreeWheel, chose to settle and take licenses rather than litigate.

Intent IQ's leadership has repeatedly described its patent portfolio as "foundational" to the online advertising industry, asserting IP ownership over what the company views as ad tech's basic building blocks. A former dataxu product executive who was at Roku when Intent IQ sued that company said Intent IQ "claimed a broad patent on targeted TV advertising based on any online data."

There is an active legal challenge that could change the landscape. Meta is leading a case, joined by Roku, arguing that Intent IQ's patents shouldn't be patentable because they cover processes obvious to anyone working in the field. A judge allowed that case to proceed in August 2024. If that challenge succeeds, it could undermine the tvScientific suit, but that outcome is far from certain, and the litigation could take years to resolve.

Pinterest is scheduled to report its Q4 and full year 2025 earnings on February 12, 2026, just days away. The company's most recent 10-K already notes that Pinterest "is presently involved in intellectual property litigation and expect to continue to face allegations from third parties, including our competitors and non-practicing entities." But that is generic boilerplate.

The Intent IQ lawsuit against tvScientific is not generic. It threatens the entire value of an acquisition Pinterest has agreed to make. Investors will reasonably expect Pinterest to address this in its upcoming filing or on its earnings call, including whether the company was aware of the litigation risk before signing the deal, whether tvScientific made representations about IP exposure, and whether the "not material" characterization of the acquisition still holds.

If Pinterest was not informed of the Intent IQ risk before agreeing to the deal, it could have grounds to renegotiate terms, seek indemnification, or potentially walk away from the transaction, depending on how the acquisition agreement is structured. If Pinterest was informed and chose not to disclose the risk to investors, that presents a different set of problems entirely.

For the CTV advertising industry, this lawsuit is another reminder that Intent IQ holds patents it considers foundational to how cross-device targeting and attribution work, and it has demonstrated both the willingness and the ability to enforce them at scale. Every company in the space that relies on connecting activity across devices to serve or measure ads is potentially in Intent IQ's crosshairs.

For Pinterest, the most immediate concern is whether the deal it struck in December is still the deal it wants to close. And for tvScientific's leadership, the question is what they knew, when they knew it, and who they told.

Two Pinterest board members, contacted independently, both confirmed they had not yet been informed of the Intent IQ lawsuit against tvScientific and said they would be addressing the matter soon. C-Level staff at tvScientific, when reached said they were also not aware of the lawsuit.

Pinterest's investor relations and public relations teams were not available for comment. tvScientific and Intent IQ did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

This is a breaking story, and will be updated.

The case is Intent IQ, LLC v. tvScientific, Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-00089, U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.