DCT

1:25-cv-00406

AlmondNet Inc v. Mediaocean LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00406, D. Del., 04/01/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because all Defendant entities are incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ advertising technology platforms infringe three patents related to cross-device ad targeting, measurement, and attribution based on television advertisement viewership.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves linking user activity on internet-connected devices (like computers and smartphones) with advertising presented on television set-top boxes to enable more precise ad targeting and performance measurement across different screens.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff AlmondNet sent notice letters to Defendant Mediaocean on July 24, 2019, and October 25, 2019, identifying the ’069 patent and a related patent that claims priority to the ’164 patent, and accusing Mediaocean's Demand-Side Platform (DSP) of infringement. This alleged pre-suit notice forms the basis for the willfulness allegations concerning the ’164 and ’069 patents.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2007-04-17 Earliest Priority Date for ’164 and ’069 Patents
2011-08-03 Earliest Priority Date for ’962 Patent
2013-10-22 U.S. Patent No. 8,566,164 Issued
2013-11-26 U.S. Patent No. 8,595,069 Issued
2019-07-24 Plaintiff sends first notice letter to Defendant Mediaocean
2019-10-25 Plaintiff sends second communication to Defendant Mediaocean
2021-01-01 Mediaocean LLC acquires Flashtalking Inc. (approx. date)
2024-01-01 Mediaocean acquires Innovid Corp. (approx. date)
2024-04-02 U.S. Patent No. 11,949,962 Issued
2025-04-01 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,949,962 - "method and computer system using proxy IP addresses and PII in measuring ad effectiveness across devices"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,949,962, titled "method and computer system using proxy IP addresses and PII in measuring ad effectiveness across devices," issued on April 2, 2024 (the “’962 Patent”).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the technical challenges in correlating activities between online devices (ODs) and television set-top boxes (STBs), particularly when trying to maintain user privacy and dealing with dynamic device addresses that change over time (Compl. ¶17; ’962 Patent, col. 1:32-38, col. 2:33-39).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that first associates a "primary" online device (OD1) with a specific STB. It then uses the location of OD1 as a "proxy location" for the STB. Other "secondary" online devices (OD2s) observed near this proxy location are then also associated with the STB. This allows the system to select a television advertisement for the STB based on profile information gathered from one of the associated secondary devices (OD2s), effectively enabling ad targeting on a TV based on the browsing habits of other devices presumed to be in the same household (Compl. ¶17; ’962 Patent, Abstract; col. 10:1-12).
  • Technical Importance: This method provides a way to perform cross-device ad targeting even when the television STB is not connected to the same local network as the online devices, or is not connected to the internet at all (Compl. ¶17; ’962 Patent, Abstract).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts one or more method claims, incorporating by reference a claim chart for independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶21).
  • Independent Claim 1 of the ’962 Patent includes the following essential elements:
    • Automatically storing an association between a first online device (OD1) and a set-top box (STB) by matching first personally identifiable information (PII) about the OD1 user (received from a third party) with second PII about the STB user.
    • Measuring the effectiveness of an advertisement displayed on the STB by tracking user behavior on a second online device (OD2).
    • This measurement is based on an association between the OD2 and the STB, which is determined by using the stored OD1-STB association and a "common proxy IP address" shared by both OD1 and OD2 (’962 Patent, col. 27:6-28:33).
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 8,566,164 - "targeted online advertisements based on viewing or interacting with television advertisements"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,566,164, titled "targeted online advertisements based on viewing or interacting with television advertisements," issued on October 22, 2013 (the “’164 Patent”).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background describes the difficulty of targeting online advertisements based on a user's television viewing behavior, citing the prevalent use of dynamic device addresses as a significant technological impediment to making a reliable connection between the two media (Compl. ¶27; ’164 Patent, col. 2:5-12).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where an online advertisement is directed to a user's device based on a profile associated with that user's set-top box. This profile information is derived from the user's behavior with respect to a television advertisement previously delivered to that set-top box. A core aspect of the solution is associating the user's online access identifier (e.g., an IP address) with their set-top box identifier without using personally identifiable information (PII) (’164 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: The technology creates a direct link between television ad exposure and subsequent online ad targeting, forming a basis for cross-media retargeting and attribution measurement (Compl. ¶27; ’164 Patent, col. 1:7-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts one or more method claims, incorporating by reference a claim chart for independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶31).
  • Independent Claim 1 of the ’164 Patent includes the following essential elements:
    • Automatically causing a selected online advertisement to be directed to a first online user interface device corresponding to a first online access identifier.
    • The advertisement is selected based on information in a user profile that includes a first set-top box identifier.
    • The profile information is derived from automatically collected data related to user behavior with respect to a television ad delivered to a set-top box corresponding to that identifier.
    • The online access identifier and the set-top box identifier are associated without using PII, based on recognizing that the devices are connected to a "common local area network" (’164 Patent, col. 23:45-24:19).
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,595,069

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,595,069, titled "systems and methods for dealing with online activity based on delivery of a television advertisement," issued on November 26, 2013 (the “’069 Patent”).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a method for linking online activity to television ad viewing. A computer system receives a "notification" that a TV ad was shown via a set-top box (STB). In response, the system performs a "first action" concerning an online device associated with that STB, such as delivering a targeted online ad or attributing an online user action to the TV ad. The association between the STB and the online device is performed without using personally identifiable information (Compl. ¶37; ’069 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts one or more method claims, incorporating a claim chart for independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶43).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Mediaocean Platform, including specific components such as "Flashtalking's FTrack ID and Household ID," which are allegedly used by Defendants' customers and partners to perform the patented method (Compl. ¶41).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are "Mediaocean's advertising platform products and services," which include a demand-side platform ("DSP") service marketed under brands such as Lumina, Prisma, and/or Spectra (Compl. ¶12, ¶18, ¶40).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The platform is described as an "omnichannel ad tech platform" that provides offerings including ad delivery, creative personalization, measurement, and optimization across digital, social, Connected TV (CTV), and linear TV channels (Compl. ¶15).
  • The complaint alleges the platform uses "probabilistic device maps" to associate a user's online devices with their television set-top box (STB) to enable cross-device advertising and attribution (Compl. ¶12, ¶40). Specific accused components include Flashtalking's "FTrack ID" and "Household ID" (Compl. ¶41).
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim chart exhibits for each of the three asserted patents (Exhibits 6, 8, and 10), but these exhibits are not attached to the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶21, ¶31, ¶43). Therefore, the infringement theory is summarized below in prose based on the complaint’s narrative allegations.

  • ’962 Patent Infringement Allegations
    The complaint asserts that Defendants' advertising platforms perform all limitations of one or more method claims, including independent claim 1, but does not provide specific factual allegations detailing how each claim element is met (Compl. ¶21).

  • ’164 Patent Infringement Allegations
    The complaint alleges that Defendants' platforms perform all limitations of one or more method claims, including independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶31). The basis for this allegation is linked to pre-suit notice provided to Mediaocean in 2019 concerning a related patent, U.S. Patent No. 10,321,198, which allegedly "claims priority to the '164 Patent and consequently is infringed for many of the same reasons" (Compl. ¶30).

  • Identified Points of Contention:

    • Scope Questions: Both the ’164 and ’069 Patents claim methods of associating devices connected to a "common LAN." The complaint alleges infringement via Defendants' use of a "probabilistic device map" (Compl. ¶12, ¶40). A central dispute may be whether the scope of "common LAN," as defined and used in the patents, can be construed to read on the technology of a "probabilistic device map," which may rely on statistical data and signal analysis rather than a direct, shared physical network connection.
    • Technical Questions: Claim 1 of the ’962 Patent requires an initial association between a primary online device and a set-top box to be made by "matching" personally identifiable information (PII) from a third party with PII of the set-top box user. The complaint does not provide facts explaining how Defendants' platform allegedly performs this specific PII-matching step. A key question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused platform performs this claimed PII-based matching as a predicate for its cross-device measurement functions.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "common LAN" (from claim 1 of the ’164 Patent)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the method of associating a user's online device with their television set-top box in the ’164 Patent. The complaint alleges infringement by a "probabilistic device map," and the viability of that theory may depend on whether such a map is equivalent to a "common LAN" (Compl. ¶12, ¶40). Practitioners may focus on this term because the technical distinction between a physically connected Local Area Network and a statistically derived device graph could be a primary non-infringement defense.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term could be interpreted more broadly to mean any collection of devices that present the same external-facing IP address to the internet, as this is a common data point for creating probabilistic device maps. The specification of the related ’069 Patent, for instance, refers to a modem providing an IP address that is shared by devices connected to it (’069 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 12:56-62).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term could be construed more narrowly to require a direct physical or logical connection to the same router or local network equipment. The figures in the related ’069 Patent depict a modem physically connecting a computer and a set-top box inside a user's premises, which may support a narrower construction limited to this type of architecture (’069 Patent, Fig. 2).

  • The Term: "notification" (from claim 1 of the ’069 Patent)

  • Context and Importance: The claimed method is initiated by the receipt of a "notification" signifying the presentation of a TV ad. The complaint alleges this element is met by a "'tracking event' as a result of ad rendering via the STB," such as an "OTT video impression or a presentation progress measurement (reported using... the VAST standard)" (Compl. ¶12, ¶40). The dispute will likely turn on whether these standard ad-serving signals from Defendants' system constitute a "notification" as contemplated by the patent.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification may define "notification" broadly to encompass any data signal that indicates a TV ad has been presented. The language quoted in the complaint describing VAST-compatible tracking events suggests a functional definition is intended (Compl. ¶12).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue that "notification" implies a purpose-built message sent from the STB with the specific intent of triggering the subsequent online "first action," as opposed to a general-purpose ad impression log that is merely re-analyzed by the accused system after the fact.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement of the ’069 Patent. It states that Defendants provide customers and partners with components like "Flashtalking's FTrack ID and Household ID" and "actively instruct and encourage" them on how to use these components to practice the claimed method (Compl. ¶41). Contributory infringement of the ’069 Patent is also alleged on the basis that these components are a material part of the invention and have no substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶42).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all three patents.
    • For the ’164 and ’069 Patents, the allegation is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge stemming from notice letters and communications sent to Mediaocean in July and October 2019 (Compl. ¶30, ¶40).
    • For the more recently issued ’962 Patent, the allegation is based on knowledge obtained from the filing and service of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶20).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "common LAN," which suggests a direct physical or logical network link in the context of the ’164 and ’069 patents, be construed to cover the more abstract, data-driven associations of the "probabilistic device map" allegedly used by Defendants?
  • A second key issue will be one of evidentiary proof for willfulness and inducement: did the 2019 notice letters provide Defendant Mediaocean with knowledge of infringement that was specific and clear enough to support a finding of willful infringement and the intent required for induced infringement, or will they be characterized as general notices concerning a broad patent portfolio?
  • A central technical question for the ’962 Patent will be one of operational mechanics: what evidence will show that Defendants' advertising platform performs the specific, multi-step method of Claim 1, which requires an initial device association based on matching PII from separate sources before proceeding to cross-device measurement using a proxy IP address?