DCT

1:25-cv-00991

AlmondNet Inc v. Stackadapt Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00991, D. Del., 08/07/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant StackAdapt U.S., Inc. is a Delaware corporation, and Defendant StackAdapt, Inc. is a foreign company alleged to have committed acts of infringement in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s digital advertising platform infringes three patents related to programmatic ad-targeting, including methods for profit-based media selection, condition-based ad delivery in streaming video, and cross-device targeting.
  • Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the field of programmatic online advertising, where automated systems make real-time decisions about which ads to show to which users across websites and devices.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history relevant to the asserted patents.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1998-XX-XX AlmondNet, Inc. founded
2006-06-16 Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 8,200,822 and 10,839,423
2007-04-17 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,677,398
2012-06-12 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,200,822
2014-03-18 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,677,398
2020-11-17 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 10,839,423
2025-08-07 Complaint Filing Date

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

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

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the inefficiency of ad placement, where the cost of buying ad space on a second media property (e.g., a news website) for a user profiled on a first property may not be covered by the potential advertising revenue, leading to financial loss (U.S. Patent No. 8,200,822, col. 5:64-6:32).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an automated system that calculates the expected profit from delivering a targeted ad. It does this by estimating the revenue an ad will generate based on a user's profile and subtracting the cost of the ad space on a given media property. If the calculated profit is positive, the system arranges for the user to be electronically "tagged" so that the profitable ad can be delivered on that selected property (U.S. Patent No. 8,200,822, Abstract; col. 7:7-17).
  • Technical Importance: This approach advanced programmatic advertising by shifting the basis for media buying from simple behavioral or demographic matching to a direct, automated calculation of expected profitability (U.S. Patent No. 8,200,822, col. 6:33-51).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 1 (Compl. ¶18).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • For a multitude of electronic visitors to a first media property, responsive to receiving profile-attribute information.
    • Automatically electronically authorizing a third-party second media property to allow display of an advertisement.
    • The authorization is subject to a visitor-specific condition that the price charged by the second media property is less than a profile-attribute-dependent price an advertiser is willing to pay.
  • 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”

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the technical challenge of using a user's website browsing history to target ads within a separate media environment, such as streaming video, without sharing the potentially sensitive behavioral profile data between the different computer systems that control the two environments (U.S. Patent No. 10,839,423, claim 1(b)).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a two-system method. A first computer system records a user's behavioral profile from a website visit. It then causes a second, separate computer system (which controls ad space in a video stream) to gain access to "tag information" that associates the user's devices. Crucially, the underlying behavioral profile itself is not transferred. Instead, the first system sends a "condition" (e.g., a rule or a price cap) to the second system, which must be met before a targeted ad is served in the video stream (U.S. Patent No. 10,839,423, Abstract; claim 1).
  • Technical Importance: The technology enables privacy-centric, cross-environment ad targeting by decoupling the storage of behavioral data from the ad-serving decision, which is instead governed by a transferable, abstract "condition."

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 1 (Compl. ¶28).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A first computer system records behavioral profile information from a user's visit to a first website.
    • The first system causes a second computer system (controlling video ad space) to electronically have access to "tag information" without transferring the behavioral profile information.
    • The tag information denotes a connection between the first profile and a second device used to access video streams.
    • The first system electronically transfers a "condition" to the second system for allowing ad delivery.
    • At a later time, the second system checks if the condition is met and, if so, causes a selected advertisement to be served in the video stream.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

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”

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method for cross-device advertising that avoids using personally identifiable information (PII). It works by electronically associating two different devices (e.g., a computer and a TV set-top box) when they are detected on the same local network, often identified by a common external IP address. This association allows online activity on the computer to be used to select and deliver a targeted advertisement to the television (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,398, Abstract; col. 8:1-11).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent method claim 13 (Compl. ¶37).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that StackAdapt’s "CTV Attribution, and Cross-Device Targeting" features infringe the ’398 patent (Compl. ¶35).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentality is the "StackAdapt platform" and its constituent computer systems and components. These include, but are not limited to, StackAdapt DSP, Ivy AI, Data Hub, StackAdapt ID, CTV Retargeting, Cross-Device Targeting, StackAdapt Pixel, Bid Optimization, and Pixel Tracking (Compl. ¶15, ¶25, ¶35).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that the StackAdapt platform is a system for cross-device ad targeting, retargeting, and attribution (Compl. ¶4). It is alleged to create a "Dynamic Device Map" that identifies a single user across multiple devices (e.g., laptops, smartphones, televisions) to enable advertisers to deliver targeted ads across all of a consumer's screens. This functionality is alleged to be based on profile data aggregated from user activity on any of the associated devices (Compl. ¶4). The complaint does not provide further detail on the technical operation of the specific accused components.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Instrumentalities perform all limitations of the asserted claims but does so in a conclusory manner, incorporating by reference claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 2, 4, and 6) that were not attached to the publicly filed document (Compl. ¶18, ¶28, ¶37). The complaint's narrative does not provide specific details mapping accused product features to individual claim limitations. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention (U.S. Patent No. 8,200,822):

    • Technical Question: Does the accused "Bid Optimization" feature operate by calculating an "expected profit" as required by claim 1, which involves a comparison between a price an advertiser is willing to pay and a price charged by a media property? The complaint does not specify the algorithm or logic used by this feature.
    • Scope Question: A key step in the patented method is authorizing a third-party second media property. The infringement analysis may raise the question of whether the architecture of the StackAdapt platform involves distinct first-party and third-party entities in the manner contemplated by the patent.

  • Identified Points of Contention (U.S. Patent No. 10,839,423):

    • Scope Question: Claim 1 requires transferring "tag information" and a "condition" without transferring the underlying "behavioral profile information." A central dispute will likely be the definition of "behavioral profile information." The question for the court will be whether identifiers passed within the StackAdapt system (e.g., the StackAdapt ID) constitute merely a "tag" or if they contain or represent substantive behavioral data that falls within the prohibited category.
    • Technical Question: The claim recites a specific two-system interaction for ad delivery in "streaming video." What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused "CTV Retargeting" feature functions through a first system (e.g., a web tracker) causing a distinct second system (a video ad server) to act based on a received "condition," as opposed to operating within a single, integrated system?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term (from ’822 Patent): "a price charged by the second media property is less than a profile-attribute-dependent price that an advertiser is willing to pay"

    • Context and Importance: This phrase constitutes the core "profitability" condition of the asserted claim. Infringement will depend on whether the accused platform performs this specific economic comparison. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to require a specific financial calculation, rather than a more general optimization routine.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The detailed description discusses profit in several ways, including a simple formula and a more complex one that includes costs and margins, suggesting the core concept is a positive financial outcome, not a single rigid formula (U.S. Patent No. 8,200,822, col. 7:23-34).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself is quite specific, defining the condition as a direct comparison between what a media property charges and what an advertiser will pay. This suggests the calculation must be performed explicitly as recited, not merely achieved as a byproduct of a different optimization goal (U.S. Patent No. 8,200,822, claim 1).

  • Term (from ’423 Patent): "without transferring to the second computer system any of the behavioral profile information"

    • Context and Importance: This negative limitation is critical to the patent's claimed privacy-preserving benefit. The infringement analysis for the ’423 patent will likely turn on whether any data transferred within the StackAdapt system falls within this excluded category.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (of what is allowed to be transferred): The claim explicitly distinguishes between "tag information" and "behavioral profile information," allowing the former to be transferred while prohibiting the latter. This distinction may support an argument that as long as the raw behavioral data (e.g., a list of visited URLs) is not sent, the limitation is met, even if the "tag information" (e.g., a segment ID like "auto-intender") is derived from that data (U.S. Patent No. 10,839,423, claim 1(b)).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (of what is allowed to be transferred): The specification's emphasis is on preventing the second system from learning the user's behavioral details. An argument could be made that if the transferred "tag information" is sufficiently granular to effectively communicate the user's behavior or interests, it constitutes a form of "behavioral profile information," thereby violating the negative limitation.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants are liable for infringement because they "direct and control use of the Accused Instrumentalities," establish the "timing and manner of the infringement," and condition "benefits on participation in the infringement" (Compl. ¶16, ¶26, ¶36). These allegations suggest a theory of induced or contributory infringement, although the complaint does not cite specific evidence such as user manuals or marketing materials that instruct on infringing use.
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' knowledge of the patents and the alleged infringement "at least as a result of the filing and service of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶17, ¶27). The prayer for relief requests a finding of post-suit willful infringement (Compl. p. 9, ¶b).

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

  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: The complaint makes broad allegations against the "StackAdapt platform." The case will depend on discovery revealing the precise operational logic of its "Bid Optimization," "CTV Retargeting," and "Dynamic Device Map" features to determine if they practice the specific profit calculations, conditional ad-serving architecture, and non-PII device-linking methods recited in the asserted patents.
  • A central issue will be one of definitional scope for the ’423 patent: Can the phrase "behavioral profile information" be construed to exclude data derived from behavior, such as a user segment ID? The outcome of this claim construction will determine whether the accused system, by passing such identifiers between its components, avoids transferring the prohibited information as claimed.
  • A third core question relates to cross-device association for the ’398 patent: Does the accused "Dynamic Device Map" function by electronically associating devices that share a common network identifier, such as an IP address, as the patent requires? Or does it rely on alternative methods, such as deterministic user logins or probabilistic data analysis, which may fall outside the scope of the claims?