AlmondNet Inc v. Viant Technology Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: AlmondNet, Inc. and Intent IQ, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Viant Technology LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Farnan LLP; Russ August & Kabat
• Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00174, D. Del., 08/07/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware limited liability company.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s internet advertising platform infringes five patents related to profile-based ad targeting, cross-media advertising, and profit-based media selection.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves methods for collecting user data online and using it to deliver targeted advertisements, including linking online behavior to advertisements delivered on other platforms like television.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff put Defendant on notice of its patent portfolio and alleged infringement through communications beginning on March 28, 2016, and continuing through 2019, but that licensing negotiations were unsuccessful.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

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”

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: Prior art systems for commerce in information focused on the sale of entire databases or records, which precluded commerce in individual "attributes" of information (e.g., a single data point about a user) and made it difficult to value those attributes for purposes like targeted advertising (’307 Patent, col. 1:16-2:2).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a "descriptive-profile mercantile method" where a system, acting as a broker, receives a partial profile from a user (e.g., a website owner), searches its databank for complementary profile information, and facilitates a transaction where either the user or the databank acquires rights to new information attributes, creating a viable economic commerce in granular data points (’307 Patent, col. 3:18-35). This allows for the accumulation of profile data tied to its source for use in advertising.
• Technical Importance: The technology provided a framework for valuing and trading individual user data attributes, a foundational concept for sophisticated, profile-based digital advertising markets.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of the ’249 Patent and incorporates by reference a claim chart in Exhibit 2, which is not provided (Compl. ¶18). The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted.

U.S. Patent No. 7,861,260 - “targeted television advertisements based on online behavior”

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the technical challenge of targeting television advertisements based on a viewer's online activity without using Personally Identifiable Information (PII) to link the different devices (e.g., a computer and a television set-top box) used to access each medium (’015 Patent, col. 7:27-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where the IP addresses of online access devices (like a modem) and television set-top boxes are electronically associated for a multitude of users, often by a common service provider. When a user engages in online activity, profile information is derived from the online access IP address. This profile is used to select a TV advertisement, which is then automatically directed to the television set-top box associated with that online IP address, thereby achieving cross-media targeting without relying on PII (’015 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This approach enabled advertisers to bridge the gap between online user behavior and television viewing, a key goal in cross-media advertising, while addressing the significant privacy concerns associated with using PII.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint alleges infringement of the ’260 Patent and incorporates by reference a claim chart in Exhibit 4, which is not provided (Compl. ¶29). The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted.

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”

Technology Synopsis

This patent, from the same family as the ’249 Patent, discloses a method for creating a marketplace for individual data attributes. It describes a system that receives partial user profiles, searches a databank, and contracts between the data source and the databank to exchange rights to information attributes, thereby building richer profiles for ad targeting.

Asserted Claims

The complaint alleges infringement of an independent claim of the ’307 patent, detailed in an unprovided claim chart (Exhibit 6) (Compl. ¶40).

Accused Features

The complaint accuses Viant's advertising platform of infringement (Compl. ¶35).

U.S. Patent No. 11,564,015 - “targeted television advertisements based on online behavior”

Technology Synopsis

This patent, from the same family as the ’260 Patent, describes a method for delivering targeted TV ads by electronically associating the IP addresses of online devices with those of television set-top boxes. User profile data derived from online activity at a specific IP address is used to select and direct a TV ad to the associated set-top box, preferably without using personally identifiable information.

Asserted Claims

The complaint alleges infringement of an independent claim of the ’015 patent, detailed in an unprovided claim chart (Exhibit 8) (Compl. ¶51).

Accused Features

The complaint accuses Viant's advertising platform of infringement (Compl. ¶46).

U.S. Patent No. 8,959,146 - “media properties selection method and system based on expected profit from profile-based ad delivery”

Technology Synopsis

This patent discloses a system for optimizing ad placement by selecting media properties based on the expected profit. The system collects a user profile on a first property, calculates the expected profit from delivering a targeted ad based on that profile, and if the profit is positive, arranges for the user to be tagged for ad delivery on other selected media properties.

Asserted Claims

The complaint alleges infringement of an independent claim of the ’146 patent, detailed in an unprovided claim chart (Exhibit 10) (Compl. ¶62).

Accused Features

The complaint accuses Viant's advertising platform of infringement (Compl. ¶57).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as Defendant Viant’s advertising platform and related products and services (Compl. ¶¶1, 13).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint broadly describes the accused platform as providing "industry-leading targeted advertising solutions and products" covering "profile based bidding, behavioral targeting, online and offline data monetization, addressable advertising, and multi-platform advertising" (Compl. ¶2). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the architecture or operation of Viant’s platform.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’249 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Viant's advertising platform infringes the ’249 Patent but incorporates by reference a claim chart (Exhibit 2) that is not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶18). Without the exhibit, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible. The narrative theory is that Viant's platform makes, uses, and sells a service that directly infringes by accumulating and using descriptive profile data for ad targeting in a manner covered by the patent (Compl. ¶13).

’260 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Viant's advertising platform infringes the ’260 Patent but incorporates by reference a claim chart (Exhibit 4) that is not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶29). The narrative theory is that Viant's platform directly infringes by targeting advertisements across different media based on a user's online behavior, allegedly practicing the patented method (Compl. ¶24).

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Questions: A central evidentiary issue will be establishing how Viant’s advertising platform technically operates. For the ’260 and ’015 patents, this raises the question of what mechanism Viant uses to link a user’s online activity with ad delivery on other platforms and whether this mechanism involves the “electronic association” of IP addresses as claimed. For the ’249, ’307, and ’146 patents, questions may arise as to whether Viant’s data handling and ad selection methods practice the specific "mercantile method" or "expected profit" calculations required by the claims.
• Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the scope of key claim terms. For instance, for the ’260 patent family, a question is whether the term “television,” as used in a patent with a 2007 priority date, can be construed to cover modern streaming services on various connected devices, as may be targeted by Viant’s platform.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of specific claim terms, as it does not quote any claim language. However, based on the patent descriptions, certain terms are likely to be central to the dispute.

Term: "electronically associated" (from the ’260/’015 patent family)

Context and Importance

This term is the core of the asserted method for linking online activity to television advertising. The definition will be critical to determining whether Viant's cross-device targeting methods fall within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will define the specific technical requirement for linking an online access IP address to a set-top box IP address.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the association can be performed for users where a common service provider acts as both ISP and TV provider, but it also describes scenarios with separate providers where devices share a "common IP address" via a home LAN, which may support a broader reading beyond a single-provider system (’015 Patent, col. 9:35-40, col. 13:17-24).
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The primary embodiments described in the specification center on a common ISP/TVP that allocates and is aware of both the online access IP address and the set-top box IP address (’015 Patent, col. 9:35-40, Fig. 1). This focus on a unified provider architecture could be cited to argue for a narrower construction limited to such environments.

Term: "source information" (from the ’249/’307 patent family)

Context and Importance

The claims relate to accumulating profile data "along with source information." The scope of this term will be critical, as it qualifies the type of data accumulation that is patented. The dispute may center on whether Viant's data collection practices include the specific type of "source information" contemplated by the patent.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

• Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term could be interpreted broadly to mean any data indicating the origin of a profile attribute, such as the website URL where it was collected. The patent title refers generally to "targeting third-party advertisements," which could support a general-purpose interpretation (’307 Patent, Title).
• Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the invention as a "descriptive-profile mercantile method" operating on a "brokerage representation model" where entities contract to exchange rights to data attributes (’307 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:45-50). This context suggests "source information" might be construed more narrowly to mean information about the provider or owner of the data attribute within this brokerage framework, not merely its web address.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement for all asserted patents. The basis for inducement is the allegation that Defendant provides "user manuals and online instruction materials on its website" that encourage and instruct customers and end users to operate the accused platform in a manner that directly infringes the patents (e.g., Compl. ¶16, ¶27).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged for all asserted patents based on pre-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges that Defendant knew of the patents or was willfully blind to them as early as March 28, 2016, and no later than July 24, 2019, as a result of communications from Plaintiff regarding its patent portfolio and infringement. The complaint also asserts that Defendant was notified of patents in the same family as the asserted patents (Compl. ¶¶15, 26, 37, 48, 59).

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

• A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof and technical operation: Given the complaint’s lack of specific technical detail, a central question will be whether discovery reveals that Viant's advertising platform practices the specific methods claimed. For the '260 patent family, does the platform actually perform a non-PII, IP-to-IP address association to link online behavior with TV ads, or does it rely on other prevalent cross-device identification technologies?
• A key legal question will be one of definitional scope: Can terms like "electronically associated" and "source information," rooted in the patent specifications' descriptions of particular network architectures and data brokerage models from the 2000s, be construed to cover the operational realities of a modern, multi-faceted advertising platform?
• A final question will concern damages and willfulness: The complaint establishes a long history of pre-suit notice. Should infringement be found, a key factual dispute will likely be whether Defendant's conduct following these detailed notices was objectively reckless, which would be central to the determination of willful infringement.