DCT

1:25-cv-00809

Intent Iq LLC v. Invidi Tech Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00809, D. Del., 07/01/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s addressable advertising solution infringes a patent related to systems for cross-device ad targeting based on shared network connections.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves linking a user's television and internet-browsing devices without using personally identifiable information to enable targeted advertising, a key capability in the digital advertising market.
  • Key Procedural History: The asserted patent survived an ex parte reexamination proceeding where the patentability of the asserted independent claim was confirmed, a fact that may be raised by the plaintiff to suggest the patent's validity.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2007-04-17 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,677,398
2014-03-18 U.S. Patent No. 8,677,398 Issued
2024-07-15 Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate for '398 Patent Issued
2025-07-01 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"

  • Patent Identification: 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 addresses the technical challenge of delivering targeted television advertisements based on a user's online internet activity (e.g., web browsing) without relying on Personally Identifiable Information (PII) to link the user's different devices (’398 Patent, col. 8:56-62). The background notes that many consumers object to the merging of PII with their online behavior, creating a barrier for cross-media advertising (’398 Patent, col. 7:37-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where a remote computer system electronically associates a user's devices—such as a personal computer and a television set-top box—by recognizing they are connected to the same local network. This is often achieved by identifying a common public IP address shared by the devices (’398 Patent, Abstract; col. 9:21-41). Once this non-PII-based association is made, online activity observed from one device (e.g., a computer) can be used to trigger a targeted action, such as displaying a relevant advertisement, on the other device (e.g., the television) (’398 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a technical framework for advertisers to perform high-value, cross-media behavioral targeting while aiming to respect user privacy by avoiding the direct use of PII.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 1 of the ’398 Patent (Compl. ¶12).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
    • Receiving an electronic identifier of a first device.
    • Automatically generating and storing an association between the first device's identifier and a second device's identifier based on recognizing both were connected to a "common local area network."
    • This recognition is performed by a computer system that is itself not part of the local area network.
    • Based on this association, sending a transmission that causes an action to be taken on the second device based on profile data from the first device.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies the Accused Instrumentalities as "Invidi's computer systems that implement and provide Invidi's addressable advertising solution, including but not limited to components such as Conexus, Edge, and Pulse" (Compl. ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that these components collectively provide an "addressable advertising solution" (Compl. ¶10). However, the complaint does not provide specific technical details on how the accused Conexus, Edge, and Pulse components operate or interact to enable this functionality.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Instrumentalities perform all limitations of claim 1 of the ’398 patent (Compl. ¶12). It incorporates by reference an external claim chart (Exhibit 2) that was not included with the filed complaint. Without this exhibit, a detailed element-by-element analysis is not possible based on the complaint's text alone. The general theory of infringement appears to be that Defendant's system, which provides addressable advertising, necessarily performs the claimed method of associating devices on a network to target ads.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Questions: A primary question will be how the Accused Instrumentalities "recognize" that two devices are connected to a "common local area network" as required by claim 1, and what evidence will be presented to show this functionality. The infringement analysis will depend on whether Defendant's method of device association aligns with the method described in the patent, such as by detecting a shared IP address.
    • Scope Questions: The case may turn on whether the architecture of the Accused Instrumentalities matches the claimed architecture, where the "computer system" performing the association is "connected to the local area network through the Internet but is not in the local area network" (’398 Patent, col. 23:59-62). The physical and logical location of Defendant's "Conexus, Edge, and Pulse" components relative to the end-user's network will be a critical factual question.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "common local area network"

    • Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the invention, as it defines the environment in which the two devices are associated. The scope of this term will determine what types of device-linking technologies are covered by the claim. Practitioners may focus on this term because the method of "recognizing" this network relationship is the core of the infringement allegation.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes various user setups, including connections via cable, DSL, and wireless, and refers to the end-point as a "household, office, business, or other site" (’398 Patent, col. 8:39-42). This language may support a broad construction that covers any typical shared internet connection environment.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures and detailed embodiments consistently depict an architecture where multiple devices connect to the internet through a single modem or router which has a public-facing IP address (’398 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 13:1-21). A party could argue this context limits the term to a specific network topology behind a single gateway.

  • The Term: "computer system ... not in the local area network"

    • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the location of the infringing system relative to the end-user. Whether Defendant's servers meet this "outside the network" requirement is a crucial question for infringement.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes a "Central Ad Server (CAS)" as a remote server that manages ad delivery and receives information from user devices over the internet, which fits this description (’398 Patent, col. 4:51-54; col. 9:58-61). This could support construing the term to mean any remote or cloud-based server infrastructure.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims require a clean separation between the local network and the remote system. A defendant whose system involves logic or components operating on-premises (e.g., on a set-top box or other user equipment) might argue that its system is not entirely "not in the local area network."

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 under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) (Compl. ¶11).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint seeks a finding of post-suit willful infringement, alleging that Defendant's infringement will continue after being notified of the patent by the filing of this lawsuit (Compl. p. 4, ¶ b).

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

  • A central issue will be one of architectural correspondence: does the Defendant's advertising system, comprised of "Conexus, Edge, and Pulse," operate in a manner that maps onto the specific three-party architecture claimed in the patent—involving a user's "first device," "second device," and a remote "computer system" that is explicitly "not in the local area network"?
  • The case will also likely turn on a question of evidentiary proof: given the complaint's lack of specific technical allegations, what evidence will Plaintiff produce to demonstrate that Defendant's system actually performs the claimed step of "automatically recognizing" that two distinct devices were connected to a "common local area network" to create an association for ad targeting?