DCT

1:24-cv-00376

AlmondNet Inc v. Lotame Solutions Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00376, D. Del., 07/11/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s Spherical Platform, a data platform for the digital advertising industry, infringes five patents related to internet and network-based advertising systems and methods, including technologies for cross-device targeting and monetizing user profile data.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue operates in the ad-tech sector, focusing on methods to identify users across multiple devices and to create and trade user profiles for the purpose of delivering targeted advertisements.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that at least one other advertising platform has taken a license to the ’398, ’210, and ’445 patents. This information suggests the existence of a licensing program, which may become relevant to potential damages calculations.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-12-13 Earliest Priority Date for ’249 and ’904 Patents
2006-06-19 Earliest Priority Date for ’210 and ’445 Patents
2007-04-17 Earliest Priority Date for ’398 Patent
2013-07-23 ’904 Patent Issued
2013-11-19 ’210 Patent Issued
2014-03-18 ’398 Patent Issued
2014-07-08 ’249 Patent Issued
2021-04-20 ’445 Patent Issued
2024-07-11 First Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,677,398 - "systems 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

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty of delivering targeted advertisements across different media, such as from the internet to television, because users often employ different, unlinked devices for each. Specifically, it seeks a method to accomplish this cross-media targeting without relying on personally identifiable information (PII) ('398 Patent, col. 1:17-24, col. 7:15-21).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes associating multiple devices (e.g., a computer and a television set-top box) by recognizing that they are connected to the same "common local area network," which often results in them sharing the same public-facing IP address ('398 Patent, col. 9:44-51). This network-based association serves as a proxy for identifying a single user or household, allowing an action (like delivering a targeted TV ad) to be taken on a second device based on user activity (like web browsing) observed on a first device, all without using PII ('398 Patent, col. 10:4-9).
  • Technical Importance: The technology provided a privacy-centric method for cross-device ad targeting by leveraging network topology rather than personal data to link user devices, a significant approach as online privacy concerns became more prominent ('398 Patent, col. 8:1-11).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 1 (Compl. ¶23).
  • Key elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • Receiving an electronic identifier of a first device.
    • Automatically generating and storing an association between the first device identifier and a second device identifier based on recognizing their connection to a "common local area network."
    • Sending a transmission that causes an action with respect to the second device based on profile data associated with the first device.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 8,589,210 - "providing collected profiles to media properties having specified interests," issued November 19, 2013

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background explains the inefficiency in the digital advertising market where media properties (e.g., websites) struggle to monetize "low-value" ad space and have difficulty sorting through large databanks to find user profiles that are actually useful to their specific advertisers ('210 Patent, col. 6:1-17).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where a central "profile owner company" acts as a data broker. Media properties pre-emptively inform the central company of the types of user profiles they are interested in (e.g., users interested in "travel"). When the central company acquires a matching user profile from its network of "profile suppliers," it arranges for the user's device to be "tagged" in a way that is readable by that specific media property. When the user later visits the interested media property, the property can identify the user's interest and serve a relevant, higher-value ad ('210 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This method aimed to create a more efficient marketplace for user data by shifting from a "data push" model to a "data pull" model, where publishers specify their needs in advance, thereby reducing wasted resources and improving the monetization of ad inventory ('210 Patent, col. 7:1-9).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 1 (Compl. ¶34).
  • Key elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • Selecting an "electronic-advertising-space-controlling entity" (e.g., a publisher) based on a comparison of a visitor's profile information with a previously received request from that entity for specific profiles.
    • Arranging for the storage of a tag associated with the visitor that is readable by the selected entity.
    • Receiving a report from the selected entity about its usage of the profile data.
    • Recording an amount owed by the entity for the usage.
    • Calculating fees owed to the original profile suppliers.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,984,445 - "providing collected profiles to media properties having specified interests," issued April 20, 2021

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’210 patent, discloses a system for improving the monetization of online ad space by creating an efficient marketplace for user profiles ('445 Patent, Abstract). A central company matches user profiles from various suppliers to the pre-specified interests of media properties and then facilitates the tagging of the user's device, enabling the interested media property to later recognize the user and deliver a targeted advertisement ('445 Patent, col. 7:10-44).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent method claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶45).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant's Spherical Platform, which aggregates user data and provides it to customers for targeted advertising, infringes this patent (Compl. ¶¶16, 41).

Multi-Patent Capsule: 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

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for brokering "attributes" of information to build more precise user profiles. The invention centers on a databank that collects partial profiles from multiple providers and, critically, tracks the source of each individual data element ('249 Patent, Abstract). This source-tracking enables a compensation model where the original provider of a data attribute is paid when that specific attribute is used for targeting third-party ads ('249 Patent, col. 3:9-24).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent method claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶54).
  • Accused Features: Defendant's Data Monetization Services and Data Exchange, which aggregate third-party data from various partners for use in advertising, are accused of infringing this patent (Compl. ¶¶16, 52).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,494,904 - "method and stored program for accumulating descriptive profile data along with source information for use in targeting third-party advertisements," issued July 23, 2013

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, related to the ’249 patent, details a method for a databank to accumulate user profile data while maintaining source information. The system is designed to track which "profile provider" contributed which specific data elements about a user ('904 Patent, Abstract). This allows for a transaction system where the original data source is compensated whenever its contributed data is used to target advertisements ('904 Patent, col. 3:9-24).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent method claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶62).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendant's Spherical Platform, particularly its Data Exchange marketplace that aggregates data from different partners for monetization, of infringement (Compl. ¶¶16, 60).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "Lotame's Spherical Platform product and services" (Compl. ¶10).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The Spherical Platform is described as a data collaboration platform providing "audience management, identity, and data monetization services" to digital marketers and media owners (Compl. ¶10). The complaint alleges the platform performs several key functions:
    • Audience Management: It facilitates the delivery of personalized advertisements by enabling customers to organize visitor data (Compl. ¶11). Marketing materials included in the complaint describe this as creating "Data Informed Audiences" (Compl. p. 7).
    • Identity Services: It allegedly connects an individual's preferences and activities "across the various browsers and Devices," allowing customers to display targeted ads "no matter what Device you use" (Compl. ¶11, ¶15). The complaint includes a screenshot from Defendant's website highlighting "Identity Powered Activation" (Compl. p. 7).
    • Data Monetization: The platform includes the "Lotame Data Exchange," which is described as a marketplace for third-party data, giving customers access to profiles across thousands of behavioral categories for "Tailored Advertising" (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).
    • The complaint presents a screenshot of Defendant’s marketing materials for its Spherical Platform, which promises to help customers "onboard, unify, model, enrich, and activate both known and unknown first-party data" (Compl. p. 6).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim chart exhibits that were not included in the provided filing. The following summaries are based on the narrative allegations.

’398 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
(a) receiving... an electronic identifier of a first device; The Spherical Platform receives data from users' devices, such as browsers, to build profiles of their preferences and activities. ¶15 col. 9:15-20
(b) automatically generating... an association between the first... and a second device based on... a common local area network...; The platform's "Identity Services" allegedly "connect an individual's preferences across the various browsers and Devices," which the complaint contends directly competes with Plaintiff's own device graph product that associates devices on a household level. ¶11, ¶15, ¶27 col. 9:44-51
(c) ...sending an electronic transmission that causes... an action... with respect to the second device... based on first electronic profile data...; The platform enables the delivery of "targeted advertisements and other personalized content of interest... no matter what Device you use" based on the aggregated profile data. ¶11, ¶13, ¶15 col. 10:4-9
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: A central question may be whether the Spherical Platform’s cross-device identification technology actually operates by "recognizing that each of the first and second devices was connected... to a common local area network," as the claim requires. The complaint alleges cross-device functionality but does not specify the underlying technical method used by the accused product, which could rely on other techniques such as probabilistic or deterministic matching based on login credentials.
    • Scope Questions: The dispute may raise the question of what constitutes an "action" with respect to the second device.

’210 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
(a) ...selecting an electronic-advertising-space-controlling entity... based on a comparison of the profile information... with a previously received request for specific profiles...; The Lotame Data Exchange is described as a marketplace where customers can access profiles from thousands of "Behavior categories," suggesting customers request specific data types and Lotame's system provides matching profiles. ¶11, ¶16, ¶38 col. 8:10-29
(b) ...arranging for electronic storage of a tag... readable by... the selected entity...; The platform’s identity and audience management services are used to "recognize and organize" customers and visitors, which suggests a tagging or identification mechanism is used to track users across sessions. ¶11, ¶14 col. 8:40-44
(c) ...receiving a report from the selected entity containing information about usage of profile data...; The platform provides "analytics and measurement of advertising campaign performance," which implies a system for receiving reports on how delivered data was used (e.g., ad views and clicks). ¶11, ¶14 col. 7:29-34
(d) ...recording an amount owed by the selected entity for usage of the profile data...; The Data Exchange is described as a "marketplace" with "flexible and fair pricing," which implies a system for tracking data usage and amounts owed by customers. ¶11, ¶16 col. 7:29-34
(e) ...calculating fees owed to a plurality of profile suppliers...; The Data Exchange aggregates data from numerous "Data Partners," which implies a system for compensating these partners for their data contributions. ¶11, ¶16 col. 8:16-19
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: The infringement analysis may turn on the specific operational workflow of the Spherical Platform. It raises the question of whether the platform performs the precise sequence of steps in claim 1: a customer requests a profile type, Lotame's system "selects" that customer for a matching user, a tag is arranged, and a usage report is later received from that customer. An alternative functionality, where customers simply query a large data pool, may not map directly to the claim language.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’398 Patent:

  • The Term: "common local area network"
  • Context and Importance: This term defines the core mechanism for associating devices in a privacy-preserving manner. The case may depend on whether this term is limited to a specific network topology (e.g., a home Wi-Fi network) or can be construed more broadly. Practitioners may focus on this term because Lotame’s cross-device graph could be based on a variety of signals beyond just a shared LAN.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses the association being based on "multiple computers or other devices sharing the modem connection for online access," which could support a construction covering any shared internet gateway ('398 Patent, col. 10:23-26).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description often frames the invention in the context of a user's home, with devices like a computer and a set-top box, which could support a narrower construction limited to residential or similar private networks ('398 Patent, col. 9:20-31).

For the ’210 Patent:

  • The Term: "selecting an electronic-advertising-space-controlling entity"
  • Context and Importance: This term is critical to the claimed method's sequence of operations. The dispute may turn on whether the accused platform's act of making data available to a customer who has expressed interest in a category constitutes "selecting" that customer, or if a more affirmative, system-directed action is required.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the system recording the "kind of profiles, a media property... is looking for" and later identifying that property when a matching user profile is found, which may support that fulfilling a standing request is "selecting" ('210 Patent, col. 8:10-29).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: An exemplary embodiment describes a visitor searching for an airline ticket, and the system then redirecting that specific visitor to a media property interested in "travel" profiles, suggesting a discrete, real-time selection and redirection event may be required ('210 Patent, col. 11:15-32).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For all five asserted patents, the complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). It asserts that Defendant has knowledge of the patents (at least from the date of the complaint's filing) and encourages and instructs its customers to use the Spherical Platform in ways that allegedly infringe (e.g., Compl. ¶21, ¶32).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a separate count for willful infringement. However, the allegations supporting inducement state that Defendant has knowledge of the asserted patents and continues to engage in the accused activities, which may form the basis for a claim of post-suit willfulness (e.g., Compl. ¶21, ¶32).

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

  • A core evidentiary issue for the ’398 patent will be one of technical implementation: does Lotame’s cross-device identity service rely on recognizing a "common local area network" as the primary basis for associating devices, as claimed, or does it operate using other data signals (e.g., deterministic logins, probabilistic modeling) that may not align with the patent's specific teachings?
  • For the patents concerning data brokerage (’210, ’445, ’249, and ’904), a central question will be one of operational equivalence: does the Spherical Platform's data marketplace function according to the specific, sequential workflows recited in the claims (e.g., request → select -> tag -> report -> compensate), or is there a fundamental mismatch between the claimed methods and the actual operation of the accused platform?
  • The case will also likely involve a key question of definitional scope: can terms like "selecting an... entity" (’210 patent) be construed to cover a system where customers proactively query a data marketplace for user profiles, or do the claims require a more system-directed matching and delivery process?