AlmondNet Inc v. Zeta Global Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: AlmondNet, Inc., and Datonics LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Zeta Global Corp. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Farnan LLP; Russ August & Kabat
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00579, D. Del., 09/15/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant’s incorporation in the state of Delaware.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s targeted advertising platform infringes three patents related to profile-based ad delivery, media property selection, and condition-based ad placement.
• Technical Context: The patents address methods for monetizing user data in the digital advertising ecosystem by matching user profiles with advertising opportunities on third-party websites.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint is a First Amended Complaint, indicating a prior version was filed, but no other significant procedural events such as prior litigation or administrative patent challenges are mentioned.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2006-06-16	Earliest Priority Date for ’822 and ’423 Patents
2006-06-19	Earliest Priority Date for ’445 Patent
2012-06-12	’822 Patent Issued
2020-11-17	’423 Patent Issued
2021-04-20	’445 Patent Issued
2025-09-15	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,984,445 - “providing collected profiles to media properties having specified interests,” issued April 20, 2021 (’445 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the challenge of monetizing "low-value" advertising space (e.g., on general news sites) where the content itself is not highly targeted. It also notes the inefficiency for a media property (a publisher) in determining which user profiles from a third-party databank would be valuable to them, creating a risk of wasting resources accessing useless data (’445 Patent, col. 5:6-16, col. 6:1-17).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system operated by a "profile owner company" that acts as a clearinghouse. This company first records the specific types of user profiles that various media properties are interested in. When the system encounters a user whose profile matches a media property's stated interest, it "arranges for the visitor to be tagged with a tag readable by the media property." This allows the media property to identify and serve targeted ads to this valuable user later, without having to sift through irrelevant profiles (’445 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This approach aims to create a more efficient marketplace for user data by allowing publishers to proactively define audiences they wish to target, rather than reactively analyzing large datasets provided by a data broker (’445 Patent, col. 7:10-20).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint focuses on independent method claim 1 (Compl. ¶14).
• Claim 1 of the ’445 Patent requires, among other elements:
  • A computer system storing profile information associated with a visitor.
  • The profile information matching a "profile or kind of profiles requested by an entity controlling the computer system."
  • A tag associated with the visitor device serving as a link to the profile information.
  • The system automatically selecting a media property based on a comparison of the visitor's profile with stored requests from media properties.
  • The system automatically arranging for electronic storage of a requested profile linked to the tag, where the tag is readable by the selected media property's equipment.
  • Later, using the tag to access the profile information and cause delivery of an electronic advertisement to the visitor device.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

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 (’822 Patent)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the inefficiency of targeting ads across different websites. Specifically, it notes that the cost of buying ad space on a second website may not be covered by the revenue generated from an ad shown to a user profiled on a first website, creating financial risk for the advertising company (’822 Patent, col. 6:1-11).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where a behavioral targeting company calculates the "expected profit" before deciding to target a user on a specific media property. The system calculates profit by "deducting, from the revenues that are expected to be generated from an ad delivered based on the collected profile, at least the price of ad space at a media property." If the calculated profit is positive, the system then arranges for the user to be tagged in a way that the selected, profitable media property can recognize them later (’822 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:35-50).
• Technical Importance: This method introduces a specific economic decision-making framework directly into the technical ad-targeting workflow, aiming to ensure that each ad placement is profitable on an individual or campaign basis before committing resources (’822 Patent, col. 7:40-51).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint focuses on independent method claim 1 (Compl. ¶24).
• Claim 1 of the ’822 Patent requires, among other elements:
  • For a multitude of visitors to a first media property, receiving profile attribute information.
  • Automatically authorizing a third-party second media property to display an advertisement correlated with the profile information.
  • This authorization is subject to a condition that "a price charged by the second media property is less than a profile-attribute-dependent price that an advertiser is willing to pay for display of the advertisement."
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

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 (’423 Patent)

• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for targeted advertising where two separate computer systems cooperate. A first computer system collects a user's behavioral profile (e.g., from a website visit) and provides "tag information" to a second computer system, which controls ad space in streaming video. Crucially, the first system does not transfer the full behavioral profile; instead, it transfers a "condition" for ad delivery. The second system later checks if this condition is met while the user is viewing a video and, if so, causes a targeted ad based on the original profile to be served (’423 Patent, Abstract; col. 13:26-57).
• Asserted Claims: Independent method claim 1 (Compl. ¶34).
• Accused Features: The complaint accuses "Zeta's computer systems that implement and provide Zeta's Marketing Platform or One Platform, including but not limited to components such as Zeta's DSP and Zeta Activation" (Compl. ¶31).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are the "Zeta Marketing Platform" or "One Platform" and their constituent services, including "Zeta Data Management, Zeta Messaging, Zeta Activation, LIVE ID Graph, and Zeta Data," as well as "Zeta's DSP [Demand-Side Platform]" (Compl. ¶¶11, 18, 21, 31).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these products form a targeted advertising platform that facilitates "the delivery of advertisements to visitor devices" based on user data "collected from a profile owner computer" (Compl. ¶18). The complaint asserts that Plaintiff Datonics' data segment services, which also enable targeted advertising, "directly competes with components of the Zeta Marketing Platform" (Compl. ¶18).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not include, claim chart exhibits that compare the asserted claims to the accused products (Compl. ¶¶14, 24, 34). The narrative infringement theory is summarized below.

’445 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Zeta Marketing Platform infringes by performing a method of providing collected user profiles to media properties that have specified interests in those profiles (Compl. ¶¶11, 18). This suggests an allegation that Zeta's platform identifies users with specific behavioral or demographic attributes and facilitates the delivery of targeted ads to those users on third-party publisher websites that seek to reach such audiences.

’822 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Zeta platform infringes by selecting media properties for ad delivery based on an expected profit calculation (Compl. ¶¶21, 24). This theory suggests that Zeta’s platform, particularly its DSP component, makes automated media buying decisions by weighing the expected revenue from an ad impression against the cost of that impression (i.e., the price of the ad space) and proceeds with the purchase only when a positive return is anticipated.

Identified Points of Contention

• Functional Questions: A central question for the ’822 Patent will be evidentiary: does the Zeta platform’s bidding algorithm perform the specific "expected profit" calculation required by the claims, which entails subtracting the "price of ad space" from "expected revenues"? The case may turn on whether Zeta’s optimization logic meets this claimed functionality or uses a different model (e.g., maximizing conversions for a fixed budget) that is technically distinct.
• Scope Questions: For the ’445 Patent, a key issue may be definitional scope. Does Zeta's platform operate as the claimed "profile owner company," which the patent describes as a central coordinator that records media properties' interests and arranges for tagging? The analysis may focus on whether Zeta’s role and technical architecture for delivering targeted ads align with the specific steps of selecting media properties based on pre-stated interests and arranging for a tag "readable by the media property."

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’445 Patent

• The Term: "arranges for... electronic storage of a requested profile linked to the tag that is associated with the visitor device, the tag being readable by equipment that is part of the computer system of [the media property]" (from Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term defines the core technical mechanism for connecting a user profile with a media property. The infringement analysis will depend on whether Zeta's method of enabling targeted advertising on third-party sites constitutes "arranging for" the storage of a profile linked to a tag in this specific manner.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The phrase "arranges for" may suggest an indirect action. Plaintiffs could argue that any system that facilitates the ultimate result—a media property being able to recognize and target a user based on a profile—satisfies this limitation, even if the system does not directly place the tag itself (’445 Patent, col. 12:5-14).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides examples such as redirecting a user's browser to the media property to allow for cookie placement (’445 Patent, col. 12:35-42). A defendant might argue this implies a specific, browser-level coordination that is distinct from modern server-to-server ad bidding integrations.

’822 Patent

• The Term: a condition that "a price charged by the second media property is less than a profile-attribute-dependent price that an advertiser is willing to pay" (from Claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This term recites the central economic logic of the invention. Infringement hinges on whether Zeta’s platform makes its ad-buying decisions based on this specific profitability condition.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Plaintiffs may argue that any real-time bidding logic that considers the cost of an ad slot versus its potential value (e.g., likelihood to lead to a conversion) inherently performs an analysis where the effective price is compared against the advertiser's willingness to pay.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly frames this as a profit calculation: "Pr=Rev (profile)-P (mp)," where Pr is profit, Rev is revenue, and P is the price charged by the media property (’822 Patent, col. 7:23-28). A defendant may argue that this requires a direct, arithmetic comparison, and that a more complex bidding algorithm that optimizes for other variables does not meet this limitation.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant "directs and controls use of the Accused Instrumentalities to perform acts that result in infringement," which suggests a theory of induced infringement against the platform's users or customers (Compl. ¶¶12, 22, 32).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all three patents based on Defendant’s knowledge of the patents "Through at least the filing and service of this Complaint (and the original complaint)," establishing a basis for potential post-suit willfulness (Compl. ¶¶13, 23, 33).

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

1. A core issue will be one of functional equivalence: Does Zeta's real-time ad bidding algorithm perform the specific "expected profit" calculation recited in the ’822 Patent—subtracting ad space cost from expected revenue—or does it employ a fundamentally different optimization logic that falls outside the claim’s scope?
2. A second key question will be one of architectural mapping: Can the patent's model of a "profile owner company" that coordinates between publishers with pre-stated interests and tagged users (’445 Patent) or a separate "first computer system" providing a "condition" to a "second computer system" (’423 Patent) be mapped onto the technical reality of Zeta's integrated marketing platform?
3. An underlying evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: What evidence can be adduced to show the internal decision-making processes of the accused platform, particularly the precise logical conditions and calculations used to select and purchase ad space for a given user profile?