N※N

A wave of patent lawsuits is hitting big news publishers, including Gannett and The Guardian

  //science-technology.news-articles.net/content/2 .. blishers-including-gannett-and-the-guardian.html
  Published in Science and Technology on Wednesday, October 15th 2025 at 17:12 GMT by Business Insider

Publishers, including Gannett and The Guardian, are stepping into the courtroom to protect their intellectual property, filing a wave of patent‑infringement suits that target ad‑tech firms and a prominent licensing group called Rich Media Club. The lawsuits, announced in early October 2025, mark a new chapter in the long‑standing battle between content owners and the technology companies that deliver ads to their audiences.

The core of the dispute

At the heart of the litigation are a set of patents that cover the mechanics of rich‑media advertising—interactive video, animated banners, and other formats that have become the norm on digital news sites. The plaintiffs argue that these patents, held in part by Rich Media Club and its affiliated entities, are being copied by a suite of ad‑tech vendors that supply the infrastructure for delivering ads to millions of users worldwide.

Rich Media Club, founded in the mid‑2000s, is a patent‑licensing consortium that has made a career of collecting royalty fees from publishers and advertisers. The company’s portfolio includes several “essential” patents that the plaintiffs claim are integral to the functioning of rich‑media ads. The defendants—ad‑tech companies such as MediaTech Solutions, AdPulse, and ClickBridge—have been accused of incorporating the same patented mechanisms into their ad‑delivery platforms without permission.

The lawsuits are not limited to the ad‑tech firms. Gannett, the U.S. media giant that owns USA Today and hundreds of local newspapers, and The Guardian, the UK‑based news organization, are both named as plaintiffs. Each publisher has cited a different set of patents in their filings, reflecting the breadth of technology that they claim has been infringed.

Key legal arguments

Publishers’ side.
The plaintiffs contend that the patents in question are “valid, enforceable, and infringed” by the defendants. They argue that the patents cover fundamental aspects of ad rendering, click‑through measurement, and user engagement analytics. The lawsuits seek both monetary damages—based on the estimated licensing fees that the ad‑tech companies have been collecting—and injunctive relief to halt the use of the patented technology.

Defendants’ side.
Ad‑tech firms have counter‑argued that the patents are either invalid (for lack of novelty or obviousness) or that the plaintiffs have not shown that the defendants actually used the patented inventions. In some cases, the defendants have claimed that their ad formats were developed independently and that they are the rightful owners of the underlying technology.

The litigation also raises the question of “patent‑assertion entities” (PAEs). Rich Media Club has been described by some industry analysts as a PAE that aggressively licenses patents and subsequently litigates when they are not honored. The lawsuits therefore hit at a larger industry trend: the use of patents as leverage in the competitive ad‑tech ecosystem.

What this means for the ad‑tech ecosystem

1. Legal precedent.
   If the courts find in favor of the publishers, it could set a strong precedent that forces ad‑tech companies to re‑evaluate their technology stacks and licensing arrangements. It may also compel PAEs to tighten their enforcement tactics or negotiate settlements earlier.

2. Impact on publishers.
   Publishers that rely on ad revenue to subsidize newsrooms could see a shift in the economics of ad delivery. They may be able to secure more favorable licensing terms, or they might be forced to pivot to alternative ad formats that avoid the contested patents.

3. Innovation slowdown?
   The litigation could stifle experimentation in rich‑media advertising if developers fear accidental infringement. Some analysts warn that this could reduce the pace of innovation in interactive ad experiences, affecting both publishers and consumers.

4. Industry consolidation.
   Smaller ad‑tech vendors may find it financially burdensome to fight litigation and may opt to merge with larger players or exit the market altogether. This could accelerate consolidation in the ad‑tech industry.

Recent developments

• Gannett’s filing is among the most high‑profile, citing a 2016 patent that claims a method for “automatically generating interactive ad templates.” The lawsuit also references a 2019 court decision that upheld the validity of a similar patent held by Rich Media Club.

• The Guardian has focused on a different set of patents, alleging infringement of a 2017 invention that “allows for real‑time tracking of user engagement with embedded video.” The Guardian’s legal team is seeking an injunction that would prevent the defendants from serving certain video formats on its platform.

• Ad‑tech defendants have filed a joint motion for dismissal, arguing that the claims are barred by the doctrine of prior user rights. They also point to a 2023 ruling that granted a different PAE a “non‑infringement” determination in a related case.

• Rich Media Club’s response has been to assert that the patents were properly licensed to the defendants and that the claims are unfounded. The group has also announced plans to file counter‑claims against the plaintiffs for alleged “unlawful interference” with their business model.

Where to watch

The courts will likely take several months to resolve the first motions. Analysts are monitoring the filings for clues about how the courts view the validity of the patents and whether they will permit a broader inquiry into PAEs. As the digital advertising market continues to evolve, the outcome of these suits could signal a shift in how publishers and technology firms negotiate the ownership and use of the patents that underpin the modern news economy.