DCT

1:25-cv-00865

Intent Iq LLC v. Growthcode LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00865, D. Del., 07/11/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is incorporated under the laws of Delaware.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s digital advertising platform infringes a patent related to methods for associating different network-connected devices and using that association to deliver targeted content.
  • Technical Context: The technology operates in the digital advertising field of cross-device targeting, which seeks to link a single user's activity across multiple devices to create a unified profile for advertising purposes.
  • Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 8,677,398, is subject to a terminal disclaimer. On July 15, 2024, prior to the filing of the complaint, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued an Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate that confirmed the patentability of independent claim 1, which is asserted in this case. The complaint also notes that at least one other entity has taken a license to the patent.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2007-04-17 ’398 Patent Priority Date
2014-03-18 ’398 Patent Issue Date
2024-07-15 ’398 Patent Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate Issue Date
2025-07-11 Complaint Filing Date

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, issued March 18, 2014.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the technical challenge of targeting advertisements on one medium, such as television, based on user behavior observed on a different medium, like the internet, without relying on Personally Identifiable Information (PII) (’398 Patent, col. 7:14-23). The background notes that consumers often object to the merging of their online behavior with their personal identity data, creating a barrier to effective cross-media advertising (’398 Patent, col. 7:36-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention claims to solve this problem by electronically associating the IP addresses of different devices (e.g., a computer and a television set-top box) that are connected to a common local network (’398 Patent, col. 8:1-11). This association is created and used by a remote server, such as a Central Ad Server (CAS), without requiring PII. A user profile built from activity on one device (e.g., web browsing on a computer) can then be used to select and deliver a targeted advertisement to the other device (e.g., a set-top box connected to a TV) (’398 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: The patented method provides a framework for performing cross-device ad targeting, a commercially significant capability, while aiming to maintain user privacy by avoiding the direct use of PII to link the devices.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 1 and reserves the right to assert other method claims (Compl. ¶¶10, 13).
  • Independent Claim 1 of the ’398 Patent recites a method comprising the following essential elements:
    • Receiving an electronic identifier of a first device at a computer system.
    • Automatically generating and storing an electronic association between the first device and a second device, where this association is based on "automatically recognizing" that both devices were connected to a "common local area network."
    • The computer system performing the association must be connected to the local area network via the Internet, but not be part of the local area network itself.
    • Based on this association, sending a transmission that causes an action to be taken with respect to the second device, with the action being based on profile data associated with the first device.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint names the "GrowthCode Addressability Management Platform" and its components, including "GrowthCode GRAPH, GrowthCode ENRICH, GrowthCode RTD module, and Sync Engine" as the Accused Instrumentalities (Compl. ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused platform is alleged to be a "leading company in the field of cross-device-based ad targeting, retargeting, audience extension, and attribution" (Compl. ¶3).
  • Functionally, it is alleged to provide "identity resolution products" that can "associate devices on a household level, personal level, and device level" (Compl. ¶17).
  • The complaint alleges the platform operates by passing "an identifier for a particular visitor to a GrowthCode header bidding partner or SSP so that ad exchanges and/or DSPs can more confidently bid on targeted advertisements using profile data collected about a website visitor from that visitor's visit to a different site" (Compl. ¶17).
  • Plaintiff alleges that the accused products "directly compete" with its own bid enhancement and device graph products (Compl. ¶17).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart attached as Exhibit 2, but the exhibit itself was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶13). The narrative infringement theory presented in the complaint is summarized below.

The complaint alleges that Defendant's Accused Instrumentalities perform the method of at least claim 1 of the ’398 Patent (Compl. ¶13). The core of the infringement theory is that the GrowthCode platform performs cross-device targeting by first creating "household level device identifier associations" (Compl. ¶17). This alleged association of devices is presented as satisfying the "common local area network" association element of the claim. The complaint further alleges that the platform then uses these associations to enable targeted advertising, where profile data from one device is used to inform ad delivery on another device by passing user identifiers to advertising partners (Compl. ¶17). This functionality is alleged to meet the claim element of causing an action (ad delivery) on a second device based on profile data from a first device.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A principal question for the court will be whether the "household level device identifier associations" allegedly created by the accused platform (Compl. ¶17) fall within the scope of recognizing that two devices were connected to a "common local area network" as required by the claim. The analysis may explore whether Defendant's association method is based on shared IP addresses, as contemplated by the patent, or on other deterministic or probabilistic signals that do not require a shared network.
  • Technical Questions: Claim 1(b) requires the associating computer system to be external to the local area network it is observing. The court will need to examine evidence regarding the architecture of the "GrowthCode Addressability Management Platform" to determine if it operates as a remote server that "recognizes" devices on a common LAN, as claimed, or if its functionality differs in a material way.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"common local area network"

  • Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the patent's method of associating devices without PII. The outcome of the infringement analysis will depend heavily on whether the accused platform's alleged method of creating "household level" associations is equivalent to identifying devices on a "common local area network." Practitioners may focus on this term because modern device graphing can rely on numerous signals beyond a shared network connection.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a router that enables multiple devices on a Local Area Network (LAN) to share a single connection to the Internet, which could support an interpretation that any group of devices sharing a public-facing IP address constitutes a "common local area network" (’398 Patent, col. 2:61-68).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s figures and embodiments consistently depict a user's devices (e.g., computer, set-top box) physically connected to a single modem or router within a single location (’398 Patent, Figs. 1, 7). This may support a narrower construction requiring a contemporaneous connection to a specific, physically co-located network infrastructure.

"automatically recognizing"

  • Context and Importance: This active step defines how the association is formed. The dispute may turn on whether the accused system performs this specific act of "recognizing" a shared network connection as the basis for its device association, or if it instead infers an association from a wider set of data points.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes a remote Central Ad Server (CAS) that receives IP addresses from different devices and then associates them, suggesting the "recognizing" can be an inferential step performed remotely based on IP data reported to it (’398 Patent, col. 10:25-40).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language requires the association to be "based on automatically recognizing" the shared network. An argument could be made that if an accused system creates a device graph using a multifactorial probabilistic model (e.g., usage patterns, location data, logins), it is not primarily "recognizing" a shared LAN connection as required by the claim.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant "directs and controls use of the Accused Instrumentalities" and "condition[s] benefits on participation in the infringement," which suggests a theory of induced infringement (Compl. ¶11).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is pled on the basis of Defendant having knowledge of the ’398 patent "at least as a result of the filing and service of this Complaint," establishing a claim for post-suit willfulness (Compl. ¶12).

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim construction and proof: Can the term "common local area network" be construed to encompass the "household level device identifier associations" that the GrowthCode platform allegedly creates? The case will likely require detailed evidence on whether the accused system's method for linking devices is technically equivalent to the patent's claimed method of "recognizing" a shared local network connection.
  • A central evidentiary question will be the architecture of infringement: Does the accused "GrowthCode Addressability Management Platform" operate as a remote system that observes and associates devices on a local network from the outside, as strictly required by claim 1(b)? The plaintiff will need to substantiate its allegations with technical evidence of how the defendant's system is actually designed and functions.
  • A key legal factor will be the impact of the patent's reexamination: The complaint was filed after the asserted patent survived an ex parte reexamination that confirmed the validity of the asserted independent claim. This procedural history strengthens the patent's statutory presumption of validity and may significantly influence case strategy, particularly with respect to any invalidity defenses the defendant might raise.