AlmondNet Inc v. LiveIntent Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: AlmondNet, Inc., Intent IQ, LLC, and Datonics LLC (Delaware / New York)
  • Defendant: LiveIntent, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Farnan LLP
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00831, D. Del., 07/18/2024
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s People-Based Marketing Platform infringes four patents related to network-based targeted advertising systems and methods.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue operates in the digital advertising sector, focusing on methods for identifying, profiling, and delivering targeted advertisements to users across different devices and platforms.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or specific prosecution history events relevant to the asserted patents.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1999-12-13	’904 Patent Priority Date
2006-06-16	’146 Patent Priority Date
2006-06-19	’445 Patent Priority Date
2007-04-17	’398 Patent Priority Date
2013-07-23	’904 Patent Issue Date
2014-03-18	’398 Patent Issue Date
2015-02-17	’146 Patent Issue Date
2021-04-20	’445 Patent Issue Date
2024-07-18	Complaint Filing Date

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"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the challenge of targeting television advertisements based on a viewer's observed online behavior without employing personally identifiable information (PII) (’398 Patent, col. 1:15-23).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to electronically associate the IP addresses of different network-connected devices used by the same household, such as a computer and a television set-top box (’398 Patent, col. 8:1-12). User profile data derived from online activity on the first device (e.g., a computer) is then used to select and direct a targeted advertisement to the second device (e.g., the television), leveraging the association to bridge the two media environments (’398 Patent, Abstract).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to enable cross-media ad targeting between the internet and television ecosystems, a key objective for advertisers, while seeking to maintain user privacy by avoiding the use of PII (’398 Patent, col. 1:18-23).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint references independent method claim 1 for its infringement analysis (Compl. ¶16).
• Claim 1 of the ’398 Patent includes the following essential elements:
  • Receiving an electronic identifier of a first device.
  • Automatically generating and storing electronic indicia of an association between the first device's identifier and a second device's identifier, based on recognizing that both devices were connected to a common local area network.
  • Based on that association, automatically sending a transmission that causes an action to be taken with respect to the second device, where the action is based on profile data from the first device.
• The complaint asserts "one or more method claims," which may suggest an intent to assert additional claims, including dependent claims (Compl. ¶12).

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

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background discusses the economic inefficiencies in behavioral targeting, where a significant portion of online ad space is considered "low-value." It notes the challenge for advertising systems to monetize user profiles effectively, as the cost of ad space on a given media property may exceed the potential revenue from a targeted ad (’146 Patent, col. 5:1-6:10).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses an automated system that calculates the expected profit from delivering a profile-based advertisement on a given media property (’146 Patent, Abstract). This calculation involves deducting the price of the ad space from the expected revenue. The system then selects only those media properties where the calculated profit is positive and arranges for the user to be tagged for ad delivery on those properties, thereby optimizing for profitability rather than just relevance (’146 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The patented method introduced a profit-driven decision engine for ad placement, aiming to improve the economic efficiency of behavioral targeting by making real-time, financially-based selections of where to deliver advertisements (’146 Patent, col. 6:3-10).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint references independent method claim 1 for its infringement analysis (Compl. ¶25).
• Claim 1 of the ’146 Patent includes the following essential elements:
  • Automatically directing, to a third-party server controlling ad space on a second media property, indicia of a condition for displaying an advertisement to a visitor.
  • This direction is based on profile attribute information applicable to the visitor, which was received as a result of the visitor visiting a first media property.
  • The display of the advertisement is subject to determining that the specified condition has been met, and the advertisement is correlated with the profile attribute.
• The complaint asserts "one or more method claims," which may suggest an intent to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶23).

U.S. Patent No. 10,984,445 - "providing collected profiles to media properties having specified interests"

Technology Synopsis

This patent describes a system to improve the monetization of ad placement by matching collected visitor profiles to media properties that have previously expressed interest in receiving profiles of a specific category or kind (’445 Patent, Abstract). Upon recognizing a visitor's profile matches a media property's request, the system arranges for the visitor to be tagged with a tag readable by that media property, which can then use it to display customized advertising (’445 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

The complaint references independent method claim 1 (Compl. ¶33).

Accused Features

The complaint accuses LiveIntent's Audience Manager and DSP, which allegedly deliver email advertisements using a hashed email address and associated profile information collected from a user's computer (Compl. ¶37).

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"

Technology Synopsis

This patent discloses a method for a central databank to accumulate descriptive profile attributes about online visitors from multiple third-party profile providers (’904 Patent, Abstract). A key aspect of the invention is that the system tracks which provider contributed each specific profile element ("source information"), enabling the system to automatically compensate the correct provider when their data is used to target an advertisement (’904 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

The complaint references independent method claim 1 (Compl. ¶42).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges infringement by the "Accused Instrumentalities (including LiveIntent's People-Based Marketing Platform product and services)" without identifying more specific features for this patent (Compl. ¶40).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products and services are collectively identified as "LiveIntent's People-Based Marketing Platform" (Compl. ¶12). Specific components named include the "LiveIntent Identity Graph and Identity Module" and "LiveIntent's Audience Manager and LiveIntent DSP" (Compl. ¶20, ¶37).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the accused platform identifies a given user across multiple device types to assist advertisers in delivering targeted ads (Compl. ¶4). It allegedly associates device identifiers at a household, personal, and device level and sends an identifier to bidding partners, allowing them to bid on targeted ads using profile data collected from a different website than where the ad is shown (Compl. ¶20). The platform is also alleged to deliver email advertisements using hashed email addresses linked to profile information (Compl. ¶37). The complaint asserts that these products and services directly compete with Plaintiffs' offerings (Compl. ¶20, ¶37).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim charts as Exhibits 2 and 4 but does not attach them to the filed document (Compl. ¶16, ¶25). Accordingly, the infringement theory is summarized below based on the complaint's narrative allegations.

• ’398 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that LiveIntent’s platform infringes by enabling cross-device ad targeting. The narrative theory suggests that products like the LiveIntent Identity Graph and Identity Module perform the claimed method by creating "household level device identifier associations" (Compl. ¶20). This allows an ad exchange or DSP to "confidently bid on targeted advertisements using profile data collected about a website visitor from that visitor's visit to a different site" (Compl. ¶20). This description appears to map to the claim’s concept of associating devices on a common network (the household) and using profile data from one context to take an action (enabling a targeted ad) in another.
• ’146 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint does not provide a narrative theory of infringement for the ’146 Patent beyond the conclusory allegation that the Accused Instrumentalities infringe one or more method claims and the incorporation by reference of the unattached Exhibit 4 (Compl. ¶23, ¶25).
• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions (’398 Patent): A central dispute may concern the claim term "common local area network." The infringement analysis may turn on whether the device associations made by Defendant's "Identity Graph" fall within the scope of this term, which is described in the patent in the context of a home network connecting devices like a computer and a set-top box (’398 Patent, Fig. 1). The question for the court will be whether associations made via broader internet-based signals are equivalent to the claimed connection to a "common local area network."
  • Technical Questions (’146 Patent): The infringement analysis will likely focus on whether the accused platform's ad selection logic performs the specific economic calculation required by the claims. The patent claims a method where media properties are selected based on an "expected profit" calculation (’146 Patent, Abstract). A key evidentiary question will be whether the Defendant's bidding and ad placement system performs this specific profit-based selection or operates on a different technical and economic basis.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• For the ’398 Patent:
  • The Term: "common local area network"
  • Context and Importance: This term is foundational to claim 1, as the required "association" between devices is based on their connection to this network. The viability of the infringement claim depends on whether Defendant's method for linking devices, which operates in a commercial internet environment, can be shown to rely on recognizing a "common local area network."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines a router as "any device that acts as a junction between networks," which could be argued to support a broad interpretation where any devices sharing a single point of egress to the internet (e.g., a household router providing a single public IP address) are on a "common local area network" for the claim's purposes (’398 Patent, col. 2:60-61).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s figures and detailed descriptions frequently depict a home environment with a computer and a television set-top box connected via a common ISP/TVP provider (’398 Patent, Fig. 1, Fig. 7). This context could support a narrower construction limited to a privately managed, physically co-located network.
• For the ’146 Patent:
  • The Term: "condition for display of the advertisement"
  • Context and Importance: This term defines the decision-making trigger for ad placement. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement case depends on showing that the accused system's logic for placing an ad is based on meeting the specific "condition" contemplated by the patent, which dependent claims clarify is economic in nature.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 1 itself is broad, referring only to a "condition." One might argue this could encompass any programmatic rule in a real-time bidding system that determines whether to place an ad.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The Abstract and Summary of the Invention frame the core concept as calculating an "expected profit" by deducting ad space costs from expected revenues (’146 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:1-10). Dependent claim 2 specifies the condition is "that a price charged by the second media property is less than a profile-attribute-dependent price." This evidence suggests the "condition" is not a generic rule but a specific, positive outcome of a profit calculation.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: For each asserted patent, the complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. It alleges inducement on the basis that Defendant "actively encourage[s] and instruct[s] customers" to use the accused platform in infringing ways (Compl. ¶14). It alleges contributory infringement on the grounds that the platform components are especially made for infringing use and are not staple articles of commerce (Compl. ¶15). The complaint also alleges infringement is "attributable to Defendant" because it "directs and controls" its users' performance of the infringing acts (Compl. ¶13).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had knowledge of the asserted patents and their infringement "Through at least the filing and service of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶14). This allegation appears to lay the groundwork for a claim of post-suit willful infringement but does not assert facts supporting pre-suit knowledge.

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

The resolution of this case may depend on the court’s determination of the following central questions:

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "common local area network," which is rooted in the patent's description of a home network environment, be construed to cover the large-scale, internet-based device associations allegedly made by the accused identity graph platform?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: does the accused marketing platform's automated ad-bidding logic perform the specific, multi-step economic and data-handling functions required by the asserted claims—such as calculating "expected profit" to select media properties ('146 patent) or tracking data provenance for compensation ('904 patent)—or is there a fundamental mismatch in its technical architecture and operation? The complaint asserts these functions are met but does so by incorporating by reference, rather than providing, the claim charts that would detail this functional mapping.