DCT
1:24-cv-00173
Brodti Inc v. Google LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: BrodTi Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: Google LLC (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Ashby & Geddes; Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig, PLLC
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00173, D. Del., 09/13/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware limited liability company and is therefore a resident of the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s online advertising platforms, including Google Ads and Google AdSense, infringe a patent related to a system for financing projects by placing advertising within web content and sharing revenue with content owners.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue resides in the field of online advertising, specifically concerning systems that create, manage, and monetize ad campaigns by integrating them with third-party content and allocating revenue.
- Key Procedural History: The filing is an Amended Complaint, submitted in response to a motion to dismiss filed by the Defendant. The complaint details a complex chain of title for the patent-in-suit, involving multiple assignments between the inventor and various entities. It also references the prosecution history, highlighting the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office examiner's findings that certain claim combinations were not taught by the prior art, an argument likely intended to preemptively address patent eligibility challenges.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-11-12 | '898 Patent Priority Date (filing of '933 Provisional Application) |
| 2005-11-14 | Filing of '706 non-provisional application |
| 2011-06-29 | Inventor assigns '706 Application to HowUDoWin, Inc. |
| 2013-08-30 | Filing of '604 continuation-in-part application |
| 2014-11-12 | HowUDoWin, Inc. assigns '604 Application back to inventor |
| 2019-05-24 | Filing of '106 continuation application (leading to '898 Patent) |
| 2019-07-30 | Inventor assigns '106 Application to Plaintiff BrodTi Inc. |
| 2022-08-16 | U.S. Patent No. 11,416,898 issues |
| 2024-01-31 | Plaintiff mails notice letter to Defendant |
| 2024-09-13 | Amended Complaint filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,416,898 - Methods, Systems, and Apparatus for Financing Projects
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,416,898, "Methods, Systems, and Apparatus for Financing Projects," issued August 16, 2022 (the “'898 Patent”).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background describes the historical difficulties and risks associated with raising funds for projects, noting the limitations of traditional methods like personal funds, loans, grants, and early forms of crowdfunding that relied on direct financial contributions from the public. (’898 Patent, col. 5:32-51). The complaint further characterizes prior art online advertising as being confined to separate "real estate" on a webpage (e.g., banners) and notes that revenue was conventionally paid only to the website owner or "publisher," not to the owner of specific content hosted on the site. (Compl. ¶¶23-24, 27).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an advertiser-funded model to finance projects. The system facilitates a media buy where an advertiser's materials are placed "within web property content," and revenue from the campaign is shared with the "web property content owner." (’898 Patent, Abstract, col. 10:55-61). The process involves creating a campaign with a set number of impressions, monitoring those impressions, ceasing the campaign when the target is met, and collecting a share of the revenue for the content owner, thereby eliminating the need for direct donations. (’898 Patent, col. 8:1-col. 9:24).
- Technical Importance: The claimed invention purports to provide a new paradigm for both project funding and advertising by creating a technical framework to directly link advertising revenue to the creators of specific pieces of online content, as opposed to only the publishers hosting it. (Compl. ¶22).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 19. (Compl. ¶61).
- The essential elements of independent system claim 19 include:
- A system with a memory and one or more processors.
- Receiving advertising material from a client.
- Identifying the client via an identifier in the message.
- Generating a webpage with a graphical user interface (GUI) that provides a plurality of advertising "buy options."
- Obtaining a client's selection of a buy option, which includes a target website and a predetermined number of impressions.
- Generating a repository for advertising revenue based on the selection.
- Populating the advertising material on the website by "placing the advertising material within web property content" of that site.
- Monitoring the number of impressions.
- Determining the validity of impressions.
- Ceasing the ad populating when the predetermined number of valid impressions is met.
- Electronically collecting a "share of the advertising revenue to be transmitted to the web property content owner."
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but the allegation of infringing "one or more of the claims" leaves this possibility open. (Compl. ¶66).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Accused Systems" are identified as Google Ads and Google AdSense, operating collectively across Google's websites, including google.com, ads.google.com, and youtube.com. (Compl. ¶¶43, 45-47).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Google Ads is an online platform allowing users ("Clients") to create and manage ad campaigns, including video ads that "appear on YouTube." (Compl. ¶¶45, 50). This platform allegedly provides a graphical interface for clients to select buy options, such as setting a daily budget and a monthly maximum spend, which corresponds to an estimated number of impressions or clicks. (Compl. ¶52). A screenshot from the Google Ads website shows a user interface for creating video ads for YouTube. (Compl. p. 13).
- Google AdSense is described as a system that permits publishers or "Web Property Content Owner(s)" to monetize their content by displaying targeted Google ads "within their content" and earning revenue based on user engagement. (Compl. ¶¶46, 54). The complaint alleges that this system allows Google to transmit a share of advertising revenue to these content owners. (Compl. ¶50). The complaint alleges that Google's advertising business model, which supports its products and partners, is central to its revenue. (Compl. ¶44).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'898 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 19) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving, by the one or more processors, from a given client... a message comprising data, the data comprising advertising material to populate on one or more websites | Google Ads allows a client to upload advertising material, such as a video, to be populated on websites like YouTube. The complaint includes a screenshot of the Google Ads interface for selecting a video to use in an ad. | ¶74; p. 13 | col. 9:18-24 |
| generating, by the one or more processors, a webpage, wherein the generating comprises providing, via a graphical user interface of the webpage, a plurality of advertising buy options | The Google Ads platform generates a webpage with a GUI that provides clients with multiple buy options, including different daily budgets and monthly maximums. A screenshot shows budget options like "$10 daily average" and "$15 daily average." | ¶76; p. 14 | col. 9:26-32 |
| obtaining, by the one or more processors... a selection of one or more of the advertising buy options, wherein the selected... buy options comprise at least one website... and a predetermined number of impressions | The Accused Systems obtain the client's selection of a buy option, which dictates on which websites the ad will appear (e.g., YouTube) and is associated with a number of impressions corresponding to the selected budget. | ¶77 | col. 9:33-39 |
| based on obtaining the selection, populating, by the one or more processors, the advertising material on the at least one website, wherein the populating comprises placing the advertising material within web property content of the at least one website | The Accused Systems allegedly place the client's advertising material (e.g., a video ad) within the web property content of a site like YouTube. | ¶79 | col. 9:55-61 |
| upon determining a number of valid impressions are met, ceasing, by the one or more processors, the populating of the advertising material on the at least one website | Google's system is alleged to stop serving ads once a client's budget is spent or an end date is reached, which corresponds to the number of impressions being met. | ¶83, 53 | col. 10:4-7 |
| based on determining a number of valid impressions are met, electronically collecting... a share of the advertising revenue to be transmitted to the web property content owner | The Accused Systems, via Google AdSense, allegedly collect and transmit a share of ad revenue to "Web Property Content Owners" (e.g., YouTube creators) who can register to monetize their content. | ¶84 | col. 10:8-12 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A primary question will be the proper construction of "placing the advertising material within web property content." The dispute may center on whether a pre-roll, mid-roll, or overlay video ad on YouTube constitutes placement "within" the content, as the patent contrasts this with placement in separate, reserved "real estate" like traditional banner ads (Compl. ¶24).
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that Google's system transmits a share of revenue to the "web property content owner." A factual question for the court will be whether the relationship between Google and a YouTube creator, governed by the AdSense program, maps onto the specific technical steps and relationships required by the claim, or if it represents a different architecture (e.g., a platform-publisher relationship rather than a direct transmission to a distinct "content owner" as contemplated by the patent).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "placing the advertising material within web property content"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical for distinguishing the claimed invention from prior art advertising systems that placed ads in discrete, reserved locations on a webpage. (Compl. ¶¶23-24, 28). The infringement analysis will depend on whether Google's ad formats, such as pre-roll or mid-roll video ads, fall under the scope of this "within" limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not appear to narrowly define "within," which may support an interpretation that includes any ad placement that is integrated with the content experience, such as an ad that interrupts a video stream, as opposed to being segregated in a static banner.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly contrasts its method with traditional ad placement. A defendant could argue that "within" requires a more integral or simultaneous embedding of the ad into the content itself, rather than a temporal insertion before or during the content, which it might characterize as a more conventional technique.
The Term: "web property content owner"
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed revenue-sharing model, which is distinguished from prior systems where only the "website-owner / 'publisher'" received ad revenue. (Compl. ¶27). The case hinges on whether a YouTube creator, for example, qualifies as a "web property content owner" distinct from the publisher (Google/YouTube) in the manner required by the claim.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The complaint's framing suggests that any party that creates the content (e.g., a YouTuber uploading a video) and receives a share of the revenue is a "web property content owner," regardless of the platform's role.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that in its ecosystem, it is the publisher and has a separate, contractual revenue-sharing agreement with creators. This could support an argument that the claim requires a specific transactional flow to a third-party "content owner" that is structurally different from Google's two-sided platform model.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint alleges inducement of infringement by asserting that Google actively encourages and provides instructions to both advertisers ("Clients") and content creators ("Web Property Content Owners") to use the Accused Systems in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶¶56, 62). Evidence cited includes offering promotional credits and "free personalized support" from a "Google Ads Expert" to advertisers and providing "step-by-step instructions" and expert help for content owners to monetize their content via AdSense. (Compl. ¶¶57-58). Screenshots from Google's websites offering expert consultations for both Ads and AdSense are provided as support. (Compl. pp. 15-16).
Willful Infringement
- Willfulness is alleged based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges Google had knowledge of the ’898 Patent since its issuance in August 2022 and received specific notice via a letter and draft complaint on January 31, 2024. (Compl. ¶¶64-65, 68).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the phrase "placing the advertising material within web property content," which the patent contrasts with placement in separate "real estate," be construed to cover modern ad formats like pre-roll and mid-roll video ads on a platform like YouTube? The outcome of this construction will be pivotal for the infringement analysis.
- A key technical and factual question will be one of architectural congruence: does Google's two-sided platform—where it acts as an intermediary controlling both the ad-buying process (Google Ads) and the revenue distribution to creators (Google AdSense)—perform the specific, ordered steps of the claimed system, particularly the step of transmitting a revenue share to a "web property content owner," or is there a fundamental mismatch in the operational and financial architecture?
- Finally, an underlying question, foreshadowed by the complaint's emphasis on the invention's novelty and the USPTO's findings, will be one of patent eligibility: do the claims recite a specific, unconventional technological improvement over prior art advertising systems, or do they merely claim the abstract economic practice of an advertiser-funded revenue model using generic computer components, a question that will likely be central to dispositive motions.