AlmondNet Inc v. Meta Platforms Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: AlmondNet, Inc. and Intent IQ, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Meta Platforms, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Russ August & Kabat
• Case Identification: 6:21-cv-00896, W.D. Tex., 11/18/2022
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant being registered to do business in Texas and maintaining regular and established places of business within the Western District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s advertising platform infringes six patents related to internet and network-based targeted advertising systems and methods.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue relates to methods for identifying, profiling, and targeting users with advertisements across different websites, applications, and devices.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent a notice letter to Defendant on July 24, 2019, identifying the asserted patents and asserting infringement, but that Defendant did not respond to discuss a license.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1999-12-13	Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,244,582
2000-11-28	Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 7,822,639 & 8,244,586
2006-06-16	Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 8,671,139 & 9,830,615
2007-04-17	Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,677,398
2010-10-26	U.S. Patent No. 7,822,639 Issued
2012-08-14	U.S. Patent No. 8,244,582 Issued
2012-08-14	U.S. Patent No. 8,244,586 Issued
2014-03-11	U.S. Patent No. 8,671,139 Issued
2014-03-18	U.S. Patent No. 8,677,398 Issued
2017-11-28	U.S. Patent No. 9,830,615 Issued
2019-07-24	Plaintiff sends notice letter to Defendant
2022-11-18	First Amended 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 Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a "saturation" problem where a popular media outlet, such as a website, has sold all its available advertising space but still has a waiting list of advertisers willing to pay to reach its audience (Compl. ¶11; ’586 Patent, col. 5:22-26). This situation represents a loss of potential revenue because the media outlet has no more inventory to sell.
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "super-saturation" method that allows a "first media body" (the saturated website) to generate revenue by showing ads to its audience on a "second media body" (a different website). This is achieved by having the first website place a "tag" (such as a cookie) on its visitors' computers, which can then be recognized by the second website, triggering the display of an "off-site" advertisement paid for by the first website's advertiser (’586 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:35-54). A facilitator entity coordinates the arrangement and revenue sharing between the two media properties.
• Technical Importance: This approach allows a media property to monetize its valuable audience's activity even when that audience is not currently on its own site, effectively creating an expandable advertising inventory beyond its own digital borders (’586 Patent, col. 6:8-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶17).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1, a computer system for implementing a method, are:
  • Automatically creating records of visitor computers that visit a first Internet site using a tag.
  • Automatically facilitating the direction of an off-site advertisement to those visitor computers when they visit a second Internet site, based on determining from the tags and records that the computers had visited the first site.
  • The off-site advertisement is from a third-party advertiser who paid to target visitors of the first site and is based on visitor profile information connected to the tag.
  • 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 Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need in the art for a commercial marketplace for individual "attributes" of information (e.g., a single interest or demographic data point), rather than just entire databases or records (’582 Patent, col. 6:51-62). Existing systems did not provide a mechanism to track the source of individual data attributes, which is necessary to assign value and compensate the contributors of that data.
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes an automated method where a computer system collects a "partial profile" of a user from third-party websites. This collection is achieved through an "automatic electronic URL redirection" from a portion of the webpage the user is visiting (’582 Patent, Claim 1). Crucially, the system generates and stores an electronic record identifying which third party contributed which specific profile attributes, thereby creating a data chain of custody.
• Technical Importance: By tracking the source of each piece of profile data, the invention facilitates a system where data contributors (e.g., individual websites) can be compensated when the data they provide is used in targeted third-party advertisements, creating an economic incentive for data sharing (’582 Patent, Claim 1(d)-(e)).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶27).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1, a method of collecting profiles, are:
  • Electronically receiving a partial profile of an entity from a server of an unaffiliated third party.
  • Receiving this partial profile via an automatic electronic URL redirection from a portion of the third party's webpage.
  • Electronically adding the received partial profile to a maintained profile for that entity.
  • Generating and storing an electronic record of which third party contributed the particular profile attributes.
  • Using the maintained profile to target third-party advertisements.

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"

Technology Synopsis

The patent describes a method for delivering targeted television advertisements based on a user's online behavior. The system electronically associates the IP address of an online device (e.g., a computer) with the IP address of a television set-top box on the same network, allowing online activity to trigger targeted ads on the television without using personally identifiable information (’398 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

Independent claim 13 (Compl. ¶37).

Accused Features

The complaint accuses Meta's advertising platform, which may relate to Meta's ability to target advertising to a single user across different devices, such as a web browser and a mobile application connected to the same network (Compl. ¶32).

U.S. Patent No. 8,671,139 - "media properties selection method and system based on expected profit from profile-based ad delivery"

Technology Synopsis

The patent discloses a system for selecting where to place a targeted advertisement based on a calculation of expected profit. The system receives a user's profile information from a first website, calculates the anticipated profit of placing a corresponding ad on various potential second websites, and selects the website(s) expected to yield a positive profit for the ad placement (’139 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts independent claims (Compl. ¶48).

Accused Features

The complaint targets Meta's advertising platform, suggesting the infringement theory relates to Meta's ad auction and delivery system, which calculates bids and selects ad placements based on predicted returns (Compl. ¶43).

U.S. Patent No. 7,822,639 - "added-revenue off-site targeted internet advertising"

Technology Synopsis

This patent, related to the ’586 Patent, also describes a "super-saturation" method for monetizing a website's audience on other media properties. It enables a saturated "first broadcaster" to display targeted ads to its tagged users when those users visit a "second broadcaster," creating a new stream of revenue from off-site ad inventory (’639 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts independent claims (Compl. ¶59).

Accused Features

The complaint accuses Meta's advertising platform, which could relate to its Audience Network feature that allows advertisers to place ads on third-party websites and applications, targeting users based on their on-platform profiles (Compl. ¶54).

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"

Technology Synopsis

The patent claims a computer system that directs advertisements based on a user's prior visit to a first website. The system, on behalf of the first site, provides a second media property with a price cap it is willing to pay to display an ad to that specific user. The ad is subsequently delivered on the second media property for a price not exceeding the cap (’615 Patent, Claim 1).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts independent claims (Compl. ¶70).

Accused Features

The complaint targets Meta's advertising platform, likely focusing on its retargeting capabilities (e.g., the Meta Pixel), which enable advertisers to show ads on Meta's properties to users who have previously visited the advertiser's own website (Compl. ¶65).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentality as "Meta's advertising platform" (Compl. ¶12, 22, 32, 43, 54, 65).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Meta's advertising platform is a system that Defendant makes, uses, offers for sale, and sells to allow advertisers to target users with advertisements (Compl. ¶12, 15). The platform is alleged to function across Meta's own digital properties as well as on third-party websites and applications, and to track user behavior to build profiles for ad targeting. The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the platform's architecture or operation, instead referring to claim chart exhibits that were not included with the complaint itself (Compl. ¶17, 27, 37, 48, 59, 70).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits for each asserted patent but does not include them with the filing. Therefore, the narrative infringement theories are summarized below.

’586 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Meta's advertising platform infringes at least claim 1 of the ’586 Patent (Compl. ¶17). The narrative theory suggests that Meta operates as the "first Internet site" (e.g., Facebook or Instagram) and uses "tags" (such as cookies or device identifiers) to create records of its users. It is alleged that Meta then "facilitates direction" of off-site ads to these users when they visit a "second Internet site" (e.g., a third-party application in Meta's Audience Network). This ad direction is allegedly based on determining, from the tag, that the user had previously visited Meta's site, and the ad is targeted using the user's "profile information" (e.g., interests and demographics collected by Meta). Finally, Meta (the first site) allegedly receives revenue from this off-site ad placement.

’582 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Meta's platform infringes at least claim 1 of the ’582 Patent (Compl. ¶27). The infringement theory appears to focus on Meta's use of tracking technologies, such as the Meta Pixel, on third-party websites. The complaint's theory suggests that when a user visits a third-party website, the Meta Pixel constitutes a mechanism that performs an "automatic electronic URL redirection" to send a "partial profile" of the user's activity to Meta's servers. Meta allegedly adds this data to a maintained profile for the user and stores a record that the third-party website was the source of that specific data, which is then used to target ads.

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Questions: A central technical question for the ’582 Patent will be whether the operation of Meta's tracking technologies, such as the Meta Pixel, constitutes an "automatic electronic URL redirection from a portion of a page" as claimed. The actual mechanism involves script-based asynchronous calls to a server, which raises the question of whether this technical process meets the specific claim limitation.
• Scope Questions: For the ’586 Patent, a likely point of contention will be the scope of "visitor profile information connected to the tag." The analysis may focus on what degree of logical or physical association is required between the identifier ("tag") and the profile data used for targeting, and whether Meta’s architecture meets that requirement.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "automatic electronic URL redirection from a portion of a page" (’582 Patent, Claim 1).
• Context and Importance: This term appears central to the infringement analysis for the ’582 Patent, as it describes the specific technical mechanism for data collection. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could determine whether the operation of modern tracking pixels, which typically use JavaScript to make asynchronous server requests rather than performing a classic browser redirect, falls within the scope of the claim.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not appear to define the term or provide specific technical embodiments of the redirection, instead describing the invention at a higher functional level. A party might argue that in the absence of a specific, limiting definition, the term should be understood by its plain and ordinary meaning to one of skill in the art at the time, which could encompass any automated, web-based process that causes a user's browser to transmit data from a third-party page to a data collection server.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that "URL redirection" has a well-understood technical meaning involving a specific set of HTTP response codes (e.g., 3xx) that instruct a browser to navigate to a different URL. The patent's use of this specific phrase, as opposed to a more general term like "data transmission," may suggest an intent to claim this narrower mechanism.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement for all asserted patents. Inducement is primarily based on allegations that Meta encourages and instructs its customers (advertisers) and end users to use the accused platform in ways that directly infringe, for example, through user manuals and online instructional materials (Compl. ¶15, 25, 35, 46, 57, 68). Contributory infringement is based on allegations that Meta provides components that are especially made or adapted for use in infringement and are not staple articles of commerce (Compl. ¶16, 26, 36, 47, 58, 69).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all asserted patents. The basis for this allegation is Defendant's alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents, stemming from a notice letter Plaintiff claims to have sent on July 24, 2019, which allegedly identified the asserted patents (Compl. ¶8, 14, 24, 34, 45, 56, 67).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A core issue will be one of technical mechanism: for the ’582 patent, can the claim term "automatic electronic URL redirection" be construed to cover the script-based data transmission performed by modern tracking technologies like the Meta Pixel, or is there a fundamental mismatch between the claimed mechanism and the accused functionality?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of system operation: for the ’586 and ’639 patents, what evidence will be presented to show that Meta's advertising platform performs the discrete, sequential steps of tagging a user on a "first" site and then, as a consequence of that tag, facilitating an ad on a "second" site, as opposed to operating as a continuous, holistic profiling and targeting system?
• A central legal and factual question will be one of knowledge and intent: for the willfulness and indirect infringement claims, the dispute will likely focus on the content and receipt of the alleged July 2019 notice letter and whether it provided Meta with the requisite knowledge of infringement to support a finding of willful or induced infringement.