DCT

1:25-cv-00566

AlmondNet Inc v. Viant Technology Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00566, D. Del., 08/15/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because both Defendant entities are incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ online advertising platform and related services infringe six U.S. patents concerning cross-device ad targeting, attribution, and effectiveness measurement.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses the challenge of linking a consumer's media consumption across different devices, such as televisions and computers, to enable more effective digital advertising and measure campaign performance.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs sent a notice letter to Defendant Viant on July 24, 2019, identifying U.S. Patent Nos. 8,595,069, 10,321,198, and 8,677,398 and providing infringement scenarios, which may form the basis for pre-suit willful infringement allegations for those three patents. The complaint also notes that Defendant Viant acquired Lockr, Corp. in 2025 and continues to use its technology.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-06-16 Earliest Priority Date for ’822 and ’423 Patents
2010-08-20 Earliest Priority Date for ’398 Patent
2010-12-30 Earliest Priority Date for ’069 and ’198 Patents
2011-08-03 Earliest Priority Date for ’962 Patent
2012-06-12 U.S. Patent No. 8,200,822 Issues
2013-11-26 U.S. Patent No. 8,595,069 Issues
2014-03-18 U.S. Patent No. 8,677,398 Issues
2019-06-11 U.S. Patent No. 10,321,198 Issues
2019-07-24 Plaintiffs send notice letter to Defendant Viant
2020-11-17 U.S. Patent No. 10,839,423 Issues
2024-04-02 U.S. Patent No. 11,949,962 Issues
2025-01-01 Defendant Viant acquires Lockr, Corp. (approximated)
2025-08-15 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,595,069 - “systems and methods for dealing with online activity based on delivery of a television advertisement,” issued November 26, 2013.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the technical challenge of correlating a user's exposure to a television advertisement with that same user's subsequent online activities, a task complicated by the use of different devices and networks for television and internet access (’069 Patent, col. 1:15-28).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where a computer system receives a "notification" that a TV ad was presented on a first device (e.g., a set-top box). The system then associates this first device with a second, online device (e.g., a computer or smartphone) based on their connection to a common local area network (LAN), without using personally identifiable information (PII). Based on this association, the system can perform a "first action," such as delivering a targeted ad to the online device or attributing online actions to the TV ad (’069 Patent, Abstract; col. 9:22-44).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a method to measure cross-media advertising effectiveness and enable retargeting in a way that sought to avoid the privacy concerns associated with using PII to link user identities across platforms (’069 Patent, col. 7:51-67).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts method claims, with a focus on independent method claim 1 (Compl. ¶20).
  • Essential Elements of Independent Claim 1:
    • Receiving, at a computer, a notification signifying presentation of a television advertisement via a first device (e.g., a set-top box), the notification comprising a first device identifier.
    • Associating a second, online user interface device with the first device, where the association is based on a common local area network (LAN) connection of the two devices.
    • Performing a first action with respect to the second device.

U.S. Patent No. 10,321,198 - “systems and methods for dealing with online activity based on delivery of a television advertisement,” issued June 11, 2019.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Like its related ’069 Patent, the ’198 Patent addresses the problem of linking television ad exposure to subsequent online activity on a different device for purposes of targeting and attribution (’198 Patent, col. 1:24-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The ’198 Patent discloses a similar method of receiving a notification of a TV ad viewing on a first device and performing a "first action" on an associated second, online device. The complaint alleges a key distinction is that the method claimed in the ’198 patent does not require the association between the two devices to be based on a "common LAN," allowing for other association methods while still avoiding the use of PII (Compl. ¶12, ¶29; ’198 Patent, col. 7:4-25).
  • Technical Importance: By removing the common LAN requirement, the invention purports to cover a broader range of technical scenarios for associating devices, potentially increasing the applicability of cross-device tracking in environments where devices are not on the same local network (’198 Patent, col. 10:2-10).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts method claims, with a focus on independent method claim 1 (Compl. ¶30).
  • Essential Elements of Independent Claim 1:
    • Receiving, at a computer, a notification signifying presentation of a television advertisement via a first device, the notification comprising a first device identifier.
    • Associating a second, online user interface device with the first device without using PII.
    • Performing a first action with respect to the second device.

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.

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes methods for linking two devices on the same network to enable an action on one device (e.g., delivering a targeted TV ad) based on activity observed on the other device (e.g., web browsing on a computer) (’398 Patent, Abstract). The association is based on the devices being connected to a common local area network, detected without relying on PII (’398 Patent, col. 13:1-15).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint references infringement of at least claim 13 (’398 Patent, col. 14:1-16; Compl. ¶40).
  • Accused Features: The accused instrumentalities for this patent include Defendants' Lockr AIM, Household ID, and Identity Graph components (Compl. ¶37).

U.S. Patent No. 11,949,962 - “method and computer system using proxy IP addresses and PII in measuring ad effectiveness across devices,” issued April 2, 2024.

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a method for measuring advertising effectiveness by associating a first online device (OD1) with a set-top box (STB) and then using the location of OD1 as a "proxy location" for the STB (’962 Patent, Abstract). Other secondary online devices (OD2s) observed near this proxy location are then associated with the STB, allowing TV ads shown on the STB to be targeted based on profile information from the OD2s (’962 Patent, col. 10:1-13). The method claims to use PII to associate the first online device with the STB (’962 Patent, Claim 1).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent method claim 1 (Compl. ¶51).
  • Accused Features: Accused features include Viant's Demand Side Platform, Household ID, Lockr, and OmniChannel Marketing Platform (Compl. ¶48).

U.S. Patent No. 8,200,822 - “media properties selection method and system based on expected profit from profile-based ad delivery,” issued June 12, 2012.

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a system for selecting where to place an online advertisement based on a calculation of expected profit (’822 Patent, Abstract). When a user with a certain profile visits a first website, a behavioral-targeting company calculates the expected profit from showing that user an ad on a second website, and if profitable, arranges for the user to be "tagged" so the ad can be delivered on the second site (’822 Patent, col. 5:35-50).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent method claim 1 (Compl. ¶61).
  • Accused Features: Accused features include Viant's advertising platform, particularly its Omnichannel Marketing Platform, Mobile Advertising, and DSP functionality (Compl. ¶58).

U.S. Patent No. 10,839,423 - “condition-based method of directing electronic advertisements for display in ad space within streaming video based on website visits,” issued November 17, 2020.

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method where a user's visit to a first website triggers a process for targeting an ad to that user within a streaming video on a second device (’423 Patent, Abstract). The system electronically transfers a "condition" based on the user's website visit profile to a second computer system that controls the video ad space; when the condition is met, a targeted ad is served (’423 Patent, col. 14:35-64).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent method claim 1 (Compl. ¶71).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Viant's advertising platform, including its Omnichannel Marketing Platform, CTV Advertising, and DSP functionality (Compl. ¶68).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The Accused Instrumentalities are computer systems that implement and provide Viant's advertising platform, including components such as the Omnichannel Marketing Platform, CTV Advertising, Viant Identity Graph, Householding, Automatic Content Recognition, Viant DSP, and Lockr (Compl. ¶17, ¶27).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Viant's platform is a demand-side platform (“DSP”) service that enables targeted advertising across multiple devices (Compl. ¶4, ¶11). The core accused functionality involves identifying a user across different devices (e.g., televisions, laptops, smartphones) and using data from one device to inform actions on another. This includes causing targeted ads to be delivered to an online device following an ad presentation on a TV, and attributing user actions on an online device to a previously viewed TV ad (Compl. ¶12). This cross-device capability is described as central to the future of advertising (Compl. ¶14).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates claim charts by reference as exhibits, but these exhibits are not provided. The following is a summary of the narrative infringement theories presented in the complaint.

U.S. Patent No. 8,595,069 Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Viant's DSP computer system performs the patented method by receiving a "notification," described as a "tracking event," which signifies the presentation of an advertisement on a set-top box (STB) (Compl. ¶19). This notification allegedly includes an "STB identifier." The system is then accused of performing a "first action," which includes either causing a targeted ad to be delivered to an online device or attributing user action on that device to the TV ad. A central allegation is that the association between the STB and the online device is performed "without use of PII and based on common LAN, using probabilistic device maps" (Compl. ¶19).

U.S. Patent No. 10,321,198 Infringement Allegations

The infringement theory for the ’198 Patent is alleged to be "parallel" to that of the ’069 Patent (Compl. ¶29). It involves the same sequence of receiving a notification from an STB ad presentation and performing a "first action" on an associated online device. The key distinction alleged by Plaintiffs is that claim 1 of the ’198 patent does not require the association between the STB and the online device to be based on a "common LAN," while retaining the "no-PII" limitation (Compl. ¶29).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question for the ’069 Patent will be whether the term "common local area network connection," as used in the patent, can be construed to cover the alleged use of "probabilistic device maps" for associating devices. For the ’198 Patent, the dispute may focus on whether the association techniques used by Viant, whatever they may be, meet the claim requirement of being performed "without using personally identifiable information."
  • Technical Questions: The analysis will raise evidentiary questions regarding the actual operation of Viant's platform. For both patents, a key question is what technical evidence shows that Viant's system receives a "notification" that "signifies presentation of a television advertisement" on a specific STB, as required by the claims. A further question is whether the subsequent actions performed by Viant's platform constitute the claimed "first action."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "association ... based on a common local area network connection" (’069 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is the technological core of the infringement allegation against the ’069 Patent. The complaint explicitly alleges infringement is based on association via "probabilistic device maps" on a "common LAN" (Compl. ¶19). The viability of the infringement claim will depend on whether this probabilistic method falls within the scope of a "common local area network connection."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification's discussion of various ways to determine a common LAN, potentially including indirect or inferred connections, could support a broader reading that does not require direct physical linkage (’069 Patent, col. 9:40-47).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific example of detecting a common LAN connection by observing that Internet traffic from two devices is routed "via a common IP address or portion thereof" or through the "same router" (’069 Patent, col. 9:40-47). This could support a narrower construction limited to devices sharing a single external IP address or router.

The Term: "first action" (’198 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the consequential step taken by the system after receiving a notification of a TV ad view. The complaint alleges Viant's system performs this step by either delivering a targeted ad or attributing user actions (Compl. ¶29). The construction of this term will determine whether Viant's activities constitute the infringing performance of the claimed method.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language "performing a first action with respect to the second device" is general. Language in the specification describing a variety of possible subsequent actions could support a broad interpretation covering any system response linked to the initial notification (’198 Patent, col. 7:51-64).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of a "first action," including "causing a selected online advertisement to be directed to the second device" or "causing recording that a select online activity occurred subsequent to presentation of the television advertisement" (’198 Patent, col. 7:51-64). These examples could be used to argue for a narrower construction limited to these specific types of actions.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges inducement of infringement of the ’398 patent. It claims Defendants induce infringement by sending a "Viant Household ID" to Supply-Side Platforms (SSPs) or publishers, which then incorporate this ID into bid requests sent to DSPs, thereby causing the DSPs to perform the patented method (Compl. ¶40). The complaint also alleges Defendants "actively encourage and instruct customers" to use the Accused Instrumentalities in infringing ways (Compl. ¶40).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willful infringement for all six asserted patents. For the ’069, ’198, and ’398 patents, willfulness is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge stemming from a detailed notice letter and infringement analysis sent to Viant on July 24, 2019 (Compl. ¶19, ¶29, ¶39). For the ’962, ’822, and ’423 patents, willfulness is based on knowledge acquired from the filing and service of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶50, ¶60, ¶70).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "common local area network connection" in the ’069 Patent, which suggests a direct technical link, be construed to cover the alleged use of "probabilistic device maps," which imply an inferential link? The outcome of this construction will be pivotal for the infringement analysis of that patent.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: what evidence can Plaintiffs produce to demonstrate that Viant's advertising platform actually performs the claimed methods? This includes showing that a specific "tracking event" from a TV ad view serves as the claimed "notification" and that this notification directly causes the platform to perform the specific "first action" on an associated online device.
  • A third central question will concern willfulness: given the 2019 notice letter that allegedly detailed the infringement theories for three of the asserted patents, a significant focus will be on whether Defendants' continued operation of their platform was objectively reckless. This will depend on the strength of the infringement case and any non-infringement or invalidity positions Defendants may develop.