4:22-cv-08911
AlmondNet Inc v. Meta Platforms Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: AlmondNet, Inc. and Intent IQ, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Facebook, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Russ August & Kabat
- Case Identification: 6:21-cv-00896, W.D. Tex., 08/27/2021
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant is registered to do business in Texas and maintains regular and established places of business in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s advertising platform infringes ten patents related to foundational methods of targeted internet advertising, including creating user profiles from third-party data, retargeting users on off-site properties, and linking user activity across multiple devices.
- Technical Context: The patents address core technologies for the modern digital advertising ecosystem, describing systems for tracking user behavior across websites to build profiles and deliver relevant advertising.
- Key Procedural History: Plaintiff alleges it provided Defendant with pre-suit notice of infringement via a letter dated July 24, 2019, which identified many of the asserted patents. Several related patents in the asserted families have been subject to post-issuance proceedings; for example, an inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 9,830,615 resulted in the cancellation of claims 9-12, and the patentee has filed terminal disclaimers in numerous related patents, potentially affecting the enforceability and term of the patents-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1999-12-13 | Earliest Priority Date for ’307, ’582, and ’249 Patents |
| 2000-11-28 | Earliest Priority Date for ’639 and ’586 Patents |
| 2006-06-16 | Earliest Priority Date for ’139, ’146, ’089, and ’615 Patents |
| 2009-08-24 | Earliest Priority Date for ’398 Patent |
| 2010-10-26 | U.S. Patent No. 7,822,639 Issues |
| 2011-07-12 | U.S. Patent No. 7,979,307 Issues |
| 2012-08-14 | U.S. Patent No. 8,244,582 Issues |
| 2012-08-14 | U.S. Patent No. 8,244,586 Issues |
| 2014-03-11 | U.S. Patent No. 8,671,139 Issues |
| 2014-03-18 | U.S. Patent No. 8,677,398 Issues |
| 2014-07-08 | U.S. Patent No. 8,775,249 Issues |
| 2015-02-17 | U.S. Patent No. 8,959,146 Issues |
| 2016-11-29 | U.S. Patent No. 9,508,089 Issues |
| 2017-11-28 | U.S. Patent No. 9,830,615 Issues |
| 2019-07-24 | Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendant |
| 2021-08-27 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,244,586 - “computerized systems for added-revenue off-site targeted internet advertising”
The ’586 Patent issued on August 14, 2012.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the problem of "saturation" in media, where a website or other media property has sold all of its available advertising space and cannot generate further revenue, even if more advertisers wish to reach its audience (U.S. Patent 7,822,639, col. 2:21-26).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a "first broadcaster" (a popular, saturated website) can generate additional revenue by showing ads to its audience on a "second broadcaster's" property (a different, less-saturated website). This is achieved by "tagging" visitors to the first site and then recognizing those tags when the visitors later appear on the second site, which triggers the display of an "off-site" advertisement paid for by the first site's advertiser. A facilitator entity coordinates the transaction between the two broadcasters (U.S. Patent 7,822,639, Abstract; col. 6:35-54).
- Technical Importance: The technology provided a method for premium content publishers to monetize their valuable audience beyond the physical ad slot limitations of their own websites, forming a conceptual basis for modern ad retargeting and ad networks (U.S. Patent 7,822,639, col. 3:12-24).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint alleges infringement of the ’586 Patent and refers to a claim chart for independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶17).
- Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- A tangible computer system programmed to implement a method.
- Automatically creating records of a multitude of visitor computers that visit a first Internet site, using a tag on each computer.
- Automatically facilitating direction of at least one off-site advertisement to visitor computers when they visit a second Internet site, as a consequence of the system determining, using the tags, that the computers have visited the first site.
- The advertisement concerns an offering from a third-party advertiser and is targeted based on visitor profile information connected to the tag.
- As a result of these acts, automatically causing the first Internet site to receive revenue from the off-site advertisement.
U.S. Patent No. 8,244,582 - “methods and stored program for accumulating descriptive profile data along with source information for use in targeting third-party advertisements”
The ’582 Patent issued on August 14, 2012.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the difficulty in establishing a commercial market for individual "attributes of information" (e.g., a user's interests, demographics) because their value is hard to assign, which hinders the creation of precise user profiles for targeted advertising and actuarial analysis (’582 Patent, col. 2:1-4).
- The Patented Solution: The invention discloses an automated method where a central computer system receives "partial profiles" of users from various unaffiliated third-party websites. The system adds this new information to a "maintained profile" for the user and, critically, generates an electronic record of which third-party site contributed which specific attribute. This allows the system to use the aggregated profile for targeting advertisements while creating a mechanism to compensate the sources of the data (’582 Patent, Abstract; col. 15:6-23).
- Technical Importance: This technology describes a framework for a centralized data marketplace, allowing for the aggregation of user data from disparate online sources to build richer profiles for advertising, a foundational concept for modern Data Management Platforms (DMPs) (’582 Patent, col. 1:35-43).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint alleges infringement of the ’582 Patent and refers to a claim chart for independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶27).
- Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
- An automated method of collecting profiles.
- Electronically receiving at a programmed computer system, from at least one server controlled by an unaffiliated third party, a partial profile of an entity.
- Receiving the partial profile as a result of an automatic electronic URL redirection from a portion of a page of the third party's website.
- Automatically adding the received partial profile to a maintained profile believed to be related to the same entity.
- Automatically generating and storing an electronic record of which of the third parties contributed to the maintained profile.
- Using the data in the maintained profile for targeting third-party advertisements.
Multi-Patent Capsule Analysis
Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,677,398, “system and methods for taking action with respect to one network-connected device based on activity on another device connected to the same network,” issued March 18, 2014 (’398 Patent).
Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for linking a user's activity across multiple devices connected to the same network (e.g., a home IP address). For instance, a user's web browsing activity on a computer could be used to select and deliver a targeted advertisement to that user's television set-top box, without using personally identifiable information to make the connection (Compl. ¶32; ’398 Patent, Abstract).
Asserted Claims: Independent claim 13 is asserted (Compl. ¶38).
Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Facebook's advertising platform infringes the ’398 Patent (Compl. ¶33).
Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,775,249, “method, computer system, and stored program for accumulating descriptive profile data along with source information for use in targeting third-party advertisements,” issued July 8, 2014 (’249 Patent).
Technology Synopsis: This patent is in the same family as the ’582 Patent. It describes a system for aggregating user profile attributes from multiple third-party websites, storing the data in a central profile, and maintaining records of the source of each attribute to enable targeted advertising and data monetization (Compl. ¶43).
Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶49).
Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Facebook's advertising platform infringes the ’249 Patent (Compl. ¶44).
Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,979,307, “method and stored program for accumulating descriptive profile data along with source information for use in targeting third-party advertisements,” issued July 12, 2011 (’307 Patent).
Technology Synopsis: As a parent to the ’582 Patent, this patent describes a similar automated method for collecting user profile data from various third-party sources. The system receives partial profiles via URL redirection, adds them to a maintained profile, and records the source of the contributed data for use in ad targeting (Compl. ¶54).
Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claims (Compl. ¶60).
Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Facebook's advertising platform infringes the ’307 Patent (Compl. ¶55).
Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,959,146, “media properties selection method and system based on expected profit from profile-based ad delivery,” issued February 17, 2015 (’146 Patent).
Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system that automatically calculates the expected profit of delivering a specific ad to a user with a known profile on a particular third-party website. If a positive profit is calculated (i.e., expected revenue exceeds the cost of the ad space), the system arranges for the user to be "tagged" for future ad delivery on that profitable third-party site (Compl. ¶65).
Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claims (Compl. ¶71).
Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Facebook's advertising platform infringes the ’146 Patent (Compl. ¶66).
Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,671,139, “media properties selection method and system based on expected profit from profile-based ad delivery,” issued March 11, 2014 (’139 Patent).
Technology Synopsis: As a parent to the ’146 Patent, this patent describes a similar system for selecting which media properties (websites) to target based on a calculation of expected profit. The system analyzes a user's profile to determine the potential revenue from an ad and compares it to the cost of ad space on various sites before deciding where to target the user (Compl. ¶76).
Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claims (Compl. ¶82).
Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Facebook's advertising platform infringes the ’139 Patent (Compl. ¶77).
Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,822,639, “added-revenue off-site targeted internet advertising,” issued October 26, 2010 (’639 Patent).
Technology Synopsis: As a parent to the ’586 Patent, this patent discloses a method for a media site to generate additional revenue by having its advertisers' content shown to its audience on other, third-party websites. This "off-site" targeting is accomplished by tagging users on the first site and recognizing them on the second (Compl. ¶87).
Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claims (Compl. ¶93).
Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Facebook's advertising platform infringes the ’639 Patent (Compl. ¶88).
Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,508,089, “method and systems for directing profile-based electronic advertisements via an intermediary ad network to visitors who later visit media properties,” issued November 29, 2016 (’089 Patent).
Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method of retargeting that uses an intermediary ad network. A user's visit to a first media property results in their profile being used to direct ads to them when they later visit other media properties served by the intermediary network (Compl. ¶98).
Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claims (Compl. ¶104).
Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Facebook's advertising platform infringes the ’089 Patent (Compl. ¶99).
Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,830,615, “electronic ad direction through a computer system controlling ad space on multiple media properties based on a viewer’s previous website visit,” issued November 28, 2017 (’615 Patent).
Technology Synopsis: This patent covers a system for directing ads to a user on multiple different websites based on that user's previous visit to a specific website. It describes a computer system controlling ad space across these different properties to implement the retargeting campaign (Compl. ¶109).
Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claims (Compl. ¶115).
Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Facebook's advertising platform infringes the ’615 Patent (Compl. ¶110).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies "Facebook's advertising platform" as the Accused Product (Compl. ¶12).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that Defendant's advertising platform is used for targeted advertising but does not provide specific technical details about its architecture or operation (Compl. ¶12, ¶22). Based on the infringement allegations, the accused functionality includes systems for collecting user browsing data from third-party websites (e.g., via the Facebook Pixel), aggregating this data into user profiles, and using these profiles to target advertisements to users both on Facebook's own properties and on third-party websites and applications that are part of its advertising network. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references, but does not attach, claim charts that allegedly detail the infringement theories (Compl. ¶17, ¶27). The following tables reconstruct the likely core of these allegations for the lead patents based on the asserted claims and the general accusation against Facebook's advertising platform.
’586 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a tangible computer system programmed to implement a method of securing revenue from offsite targeted Internet advertising, the method comprising: | Defendant's servers and software comprising its advertising platform. | ¶12 | col. 29:36-39 |
| (a) with a computer, automatically creating records of a multitude of visitor computers that visit a first Internet site using a tag on each of such visitor computers; | Defendant's platform uses tracking technologies (e.g., the Facebook Pixel) to tag and create records of users who visit third-party partner websites ("first Internet site"). | ¶17 | col. 29:40-43 |
| (b) automatically facilitating direction of at least one off-site advertisement to visitor computers visiting a second Internet site as a consequence of computer-determining, using the tags and the records, that the visitor computers have visited the first Internet site... | Defendant's platform (e.g., the Facebook Audience Network) serves targeted ads to those same tagged users when they visit other websites or apps ("second Internet site"). | ¶17 | col. 29:44-51 |
| ...which off-site advertisement concerns at least one offering of a third-party advertiser... and has displayable subject matter that is targeted to visitors of the first Internet site based on visitor profile information connected to the tag; and | The ads served are from third-party advertisers and are selected based on the user's profile, which includes data from their visit to the first site (e.g., interest in a product). | ¶17 | col. 29:51-57 |
| (c) as a result of the acts in parts (a) and (b), automatically computer-causing the first Internet site to receive revenue from the off-site advertisement... | Defendant's platform operates a revenue-sharing model where the third-party partner website ("first Internet site") is compensated for the off-site ad placement. | ¶17 | col. 29:58-62 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on whether Facebook's revenue sharing with publisher partners constitutes "causing the first Internet site to receive revenue" in the manner contemplated by the patent. The construction of "first Internet site" and "second Internet site" will be critical, particularly whether they must be unaffiliated with the entity operating the advertising system itself.
- Technical Questions: A key factual question may be whether the "tag" used by Facebook's system, such as its pixel technology, functions in the specific way required by the claims and described in the specification.
’582 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| An automated method of collecting profiles of Internet-using entities, the method comprising: | Defendant's advertising platform, which automatically collects user data to create profiles. | ¶22 | col. 15:6-7 |
| (a) electronically receiving at a programmed computer system, from at least one server controlled by one of a plurality of unaffiliated third parties, a partial profile of an entity... | Defendant's servers receive user activity data (a partial profile) from third-party websites that have installed Facebook's tracking technology. | ¶27 | col. 15:8-14 |
| (b) wherein receiving the partial profile is achieved by automatic electronic URL redirection from a portion of a page of the website accessed by the user computer; | The mechanism by which the Facebook Pixel transmits data from a third-party site to Facebook's servers, which the complaint alleges meets the "URL redirection" limitation. | ¶27 | col. 15:15-18 |
| (c) automatically with the computer system electronically adding the received partial profile to a maintained profile believed to be related to the same entity; | Defendant's system automatically associates the received third-party website data with an existing Facebook user's profile. | ¶27 | col. 15:19-22 |
| (d) automatically with the computer system generating and storing an electronic record of which of the plurality of unaffiliated third parties contributed to the maintained profile particular profile attributes; | Defendant's system logs the source of the incoming data (i.e., which third-party website) for purposes such as analytics, attribution, and billing. | ¶27 | col. 15:23-27 |
| (e) wherein the maintained profile, including the added partial profile, comprises data used in targeting third-party advertisements to the user computer... | The aggregated user profile, containing data from both Facebook and third-party sites, is used to select and target advertisements to that user. | ¶27 | col. 15:28-32 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central dispute will likely be the construction of "URL redirection." The question for the court will be whether the technical process by which Facebook's tracking pixel sends data—which may involve asynchronous JavaScript calls or server-to-server communication—can be properly construed as the "URL redirection" claimed in the patent.
- Technical Questions: Evidence will be required to show that Facebook's platform generates and stores a source-specific "electronic record" of contributed attributes for the purpose claimed, rather than simply logging data for general analytics.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
"causing the first Internet site to receive revenue" (’586 Patent, claim 1)
Context and Importance
This term is critical for infringement of the '586 patent family. The core of the patented business method is not just off-site targeting, but creating a new revenue stream for the initial publisher. Practitioners may focus on whether Facebook's payment structure to its publisher partners, which may be based on various metrics (impressions, clicks, conversions), matches the specific revenue-causation mechanism required by the claims.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses a "facilitated contract" that "divides a new revenue stream" between the parties, suggesting the specific payment mechanism could be flexible (U.S. Patent 7,822,639, Abstract).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description focuses on a three-contract structure involving an agency, a first broadcaster, and a second broadcaster, where the agency pays the first broadcaster for each "facilitated placement" (U.S. Patent 7,822,639, col. 7:8-17). This could support an interpretation requiring a direct, per-placement payment structure.
"automatic electronic URL redirection" (’582 Patent, claim 1)
Context and Importance
This term specifies the technical mechanism for transferring data from the third-party site to the central profiling system. Its construction is likely dispositive for infringement of the '582 patent family. The question is whether modern tracking pixels and server-to-server data transfers, which may not involve a literal browser redirect, fall within the claim's scope.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a scenario where a website "forwards particulars from the visitor's credentials...as well as (optionally) a redirect to a portion of the visitor's page to a server," which could suggest that a "redirect" is just one example of forwarding data (U.S. Patent 7,979,307, col. 3:58-63).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself is quite specific: "URL redirection from a portion of a page." This language may suggest a specific implementation, common at the time of invention, where an invisible frame (iframe) or image tag on the publisher's page had a source URL pointing to the data-collecting server, causing the user's browser to make a direct request to that server.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges induced and contributory infringement for all asserted patents. Inducement is based on allegations that Defendant encourages and instructs customers and end-users, through user manuals and online materials, to use its advertising platform in ways that directly infringe (e.g., Compl. ¶15, ¶25). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that the Accused Products are a material part of the invention and not a staple article of commerce (e.g., Compl. ¶16, ¶26).
Willful Infringement
Willfulness is alleged for all asserted patents. The basis for this allegation is Defendant's alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents and their infringement, stemming from a notice letter Plaintiff sent on July 24, 2019 (Compl. ¶8, ¶14, ¶24).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of technical implementation: Does the functionality of Facebook's modern, complex advertising platform, particularly its use of the Facebook Pixel and Audience Network, align with the specific technical steps claimed in patents with priority dates from the early 2000s? The analysis will focus on whether there is a fundamental mismatch in operation or if the accused system performs the same functions as claimed.
- A second key issue will be one of claim scope and prior art: Given the foundational nature of the technology and the early priority dates, the validity of the asserted claims will be a central battleground. The court will need to determine the scope of the claims in light of the state of internet technology circa 1999-2006 and consider the impact of prior art that may not have been before the patent office.
- A third dispositive question will concern prosecution history and related proceedings: The existence of terminal disclaimers, reexaminations, and an IPR cancellation for patents within the asserted families will be highly influential. A key legal question is how these events will be used to argue for a narrower construction or estoppel that limits the scope of the remaining asserted claims against Facebook's platform.