Intent Iq LLC v. Adform Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Intent IQ, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Adform, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Farnan LLP; Russ August & Kabat
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00822, D. Del., 07/02/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cross-device advertising and identity management systems infringe a patent related to linking activity on one network-connected device to an action on another device sharing the same network.
• Technical Context: The technology operates in the digital advertising field of cross-device targeting, which aims to identify a single user across their various devices (e.g., computer, smartphone, television) to enable consistent and targeted advertising campaigns.
• Key Procedural History: The asserted patent is subject to a terminal disclaimer. The patent also underwent an ex parte reexamination, resulting in a certificate issued on July 15, 2024, which confirmed the patentability of the asserted independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2. This confirmation may strengthen the patent's presumption of validity regarding arguments considered during the proceeding.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2007-04-17	’398 Patent Priority Date
2014-03-18	’398 Patent Issue Date
2024-07-15	’398 Patent Reexamination Certificate Issue Date
2025-07-02	Complaint Filing Date

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

• 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 (’398 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of delivering targeted advertising across different media platforms—specifically, targeting television ads based on a user's internet activity—without resorting to the collection and correlation of Personally Identifiable Information (PII), a practice noted to be unattractive to consumers ('398 Patent, col. 7:13-43).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system that electronically associates different devices (e.g., a computer and a television set-top box) by recognizing that they are connected to a common local area network, often through a shared external IP address ('398 Patent, col. 13:1-21). Once this non-PII-based association is made, profile information gathered from a user's activity on the first device (e.g., a computer) is used to select and deliver a targeted advertisement to the second device (e.g., the set-top box) ('398 Patent, Abstract).
• Technical Importance: The described method provides a framework for cross-device behavioral advertising that seeks to preserve user privacy by avoiding the direct use of PII to link devices and activities ('398 Patent, col. 7:56-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent method claim 1 ('398 Patent, Compl. ¶13).
• 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 automatically recognizing that both devices were connected, independently, to a common local area network. The claim specifies that the computer system performing this recognition is external to the local area network (i.e., connected via the Internet).
  • Based on this association, sending a transmission that causes an action (e.g., delivering an ad) with respect to the second device, where the action is based on profile data associated with the first device.
• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more method claims," reserving the right to assert other claims ('398 Patent, Compl. ¶10).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are Adform's computer systems for identity management, specifically including components named "ID Fusion, Cross Device Graph, Odin, and User ID Sync and Cookie Matching" (Compl. ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these systems provide "cross-device-based ad targeting, retargeting, audience extension, and attribution" (Compl. ¶3). The core accused functionality is the creation of a "Dynamic Device Map" that allegedly identifies a single user across multiple device types, including laptops, smartphones, and televisions, for the purpose of aggregating user profile data and delivering targeted advertisements across all of a user's screens (Compl. ¶3).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in an exhibit that was not provided with the filing (Compl. ¶13). The narrative infringement theory presented is summarized below.

The complaint alleges that the Accused Instrumentalities perform all limitations of claim 1 of the ’398 Patent (Compl. ¶13). The theory appears to be that Adform's "Dynamic Device Map" and associated systems constitute the claimed method. The complaint alleges these systems identify a user across multiple devices (e.g., a first device like a laptop and a second device like a television) (Compl. ¶3). This mapping functionality is implicitly alleged to meet the claim step of creating an "association" between devices. The complaint further alleges that this mapping facilitates targeted ad delivery based on aggregated profile data from activity on any device (Compl. ¶3). This is alleged to meet the claim step of taking an action with respect to the second device based on profile data from the first device. The complaint does not, however, provide specific factual allegations detailing how the accused systems technically recognize that two devices are connected to a "common local area network." No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

• Technical Questions: A central question will be what technical mechanism Adform's "Cross Device Graph" uses to associate devices. Does it, as the patent claims, rely on "automatically recognizing that each of the first and second devices was connected... to a common local area network," for example by detecting a shared public IP address? Or does it rely on other methods such as user login data, device fingerprinting, or probabilistic modeling, which may not meet the specific limitations of the claim?
• Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on the construction of key claim phrases. For instance, what is the scope of a "common local area network," and what level of proof is required to show that the accused system "automatically recogniz[es]" the connection in the manner claimed, as opposed to merely inferring a relationship from disparate data points?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "common local area network"

• Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the patent's method of associating devices without using PII. The outcome of the infringement analysis will depend heavily on whether Adform's method of creating its "Cross Device Graph" is found to operate by identifying devices on such a network. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition could either limit the patent to specific home/office router setups or allow it to cover a broader range of network-based device correlation techniques.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a router acting as a junction to connect a local area network (LAN) to the Internet, enabling multiple devices to share the connection ('398 Patent, col. 2:61-66). This could support an interpretation covering any standard configuration where multiple devices share a single public-facing IP address.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The embodiments repeatedly focus on a specific architecture where a common IP address assigned to a modem or router is the basis for the association ('398 Patent, col. 13:8-21). This could be used to argue that the term is limited to this IP-based recognition method and does not cover other device-graphing technologies.

• The Term: "automatically recognizing"

• Context and Importance: This active step defines how the association is established. The infringement case requires not just that an association exists, but that it is based on this specific act of recognition. The dispute will likely involve whether Adform's systems perform this precise function.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes a central ad server (CAS) receiving IP address information from various devices over time and comparing the lists to find matches, suggesting an asynchronous, database-driven recognition process ('398 Patent, col. 16:1-20).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Other descriptions imply a more direct process, where a set-top box periodically communicates its IP address to a server, which then associates it with the IP address of another device ('398 Patent, col. 13:22-35). This might support a narrower construction requiring a more structured and direct reporting and recognition mechanism.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint does not plead inducement or contributory infringement. It does, however, allege that Defendant "directs and controls" the use of the accused systems, which is a theory of direct infringement for method claims where multiple actors may be involved in performing the steps (Compl. ¶11).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant's knowledge of the ’398 Patent and the alleged infringement occurring from the date of filing and service of the complaint forward (Compl. ¶12).

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

• A core issue will be one of technical mechanism: Does Adform's "Cross Device Graph" technology function by "automatically recognizing that... devices was connected... to a common local area network," as required by the patent's claims, or does it build its device map using alternative methods (e.g., deterministic matching via user logins, probabilistic data modeling) that fall outside the patent's specific teachings?
• A second central question will be one of claim scope and proof: How broadly will the court construe the key limitation "common local area network," and what level of technical evidence will be required to prove that Adform's systems perform the claimed "recognition" step, as opposed to simply achieving a similar commercial outcome (cross-device targeting) through a different technical pathway?
• Finally, a key procedural question is the impact of reexamination: How will the prior ex parte reexamination, which confirmed the patentability of the asserted independent claim, affect the dynamics of the case, particularly the strength of the patent's presumption of validity against invalidity challenges and the parties' respective litigation and settlement postures?