DCT

1:25-cv-00991

AlmondNet Inc v. Stackadapt Inc

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00991, D. Del., 11/12/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged as 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 within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s digital advertising platform infringes four patents related to internet-based targeted advertising systems and methods.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue resides in the digital advertising domain, specifically concerning methods for identifying, targeting, and delivering advertisements to users across different devices and platforms based on their online behavior.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the Asserted Patents.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-06-16 Priority Date for ’822, ’423, and ’146 Patents
2007-04-17 Priority Date for ’398 Patent
2012-06-12 U.S. Patent No. 8,200,822 Issues
2014-03-18 U.S. Patent No. 8,677,398 Issues
2015-02-17 U.S. Patent No. 8,959,146 Issues
2020-11-17 U.S. Patent No. 10,839,423 Issues
2025-11-12 Complaint Filed

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" (issued June 12, 2012)

  • The Invention Explained:

    • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the inefficiency of targeting advertisements to a user who was profiled on a first website (a "media property") when that user later appears on a second website (Compl. ¶ 14; ’822 Patent, col. 5:65-6:23). This inefficiency arises because the value of a user's profile to an advertiser and the cost of ad space on different media properties both vary, making it difficult to know when it is profitable to track and target a user (ʼ822 Patent, col. 6:1-23).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an automated system to make this process more efficient by calculating the expected profit of a potential ad placement ('822 Patent, Abstract). The system deducts the cost of ad space on a second media property from the expected revenue an advertiser would pay to reach a user with a specific profile (ʼ822 Patent, col. 6:37-51). If the calculation results in a positive profit, the system then "authorizes" or arranges for the user to be "tagged" with an electronic identifier readable by that second media property, enabling the profitable ad delivery to occur when the user is next seen there ('822 Patent, col. 7:38-44; Fig. 1).
    • Technical Importance: This approach introduced an economic rationale into the technical decision of when and where to apply behavioral targeting, allowing ad tech companies to more efficiently allocate resources by focusing on user-property combinations anticipated to be profitable ('822 Patent, col. 6:37-51).

  • Key Claims at a Glance:

    • The complaint asserts independent method claim 1 (Compl. ¶ 17).
    • The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
      • For a visitor to a first media property, receiving information about a profile attribute.
      • Automatically authorizing a "third-party second media property" to allow the display of an advertisement to that visitor when they visit the second property.
      • The authorization is subject to a visitor-specific condition: the price charged by the second media property must be 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" (issued November 17, 2020)

  • The Invention Explained:

    • Problem Addressed: The patent background discusses the general challenge of behavioral targeting, where user activity on one website is used to deliver ads on another website, particularly across different internet domains (Compl. ¶ 23; ’423 Patent, col. 1:41-2:11). Extending this capability to streaming video environments presents technical complexities in connecting web-based user profiles to video ad-serving opportunities.
    • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where a "first computer system" records a user's behavioral profile from a visit to a website ('423 Patent, Abstract). This first system does not transfer the sensitive behavioral data itself to the "second computer system" that controls ad space in video streams. Instead, it provides the second system with (1) "tag information" linking the profile to a video-accessing device and (2) a "condition" for ad delivery ('423 Patent, col. 13:40-56). The second system later checks if the condition is met (e.g., when the tagged device is detected) and, if so, serves a targeted advertisement into the video stream based on the original profile ('423 Patent, col. 14:1-12).
    • Technical Importance: This method enables targeted advertising in streaming video by decoupling the storage of detailed user behavior from the ad-serving decision, which may offer privacy advantages and simplify the architecture by passing a simple "condition" rather than complex profile data between systems ('423 Patent, col. 13:44-48).

  • Key Claims at a Glance:

    • The complaint asserts independent method claim 1 (Compl. ¶ 26).
    • The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
      • A first computer system recording behavioral profile information from a user's visit to a first website.
      • At a first time, causing a second computer system (controlling video ad space) to have access to "tag information."
      • This access is granted "without transferring to the second computer system any of the behavioral profile information."
      • Electronically transferring a "condition specific to the first profile" to the second computer system for allowing ad delivery.
      • At a later second time, after the second system checks and meets the condition, causing a selected advertisement based on the original profile information to be served in a video stream.
    • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,677,398

  • 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 (Compl. ¶ 32).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a technical solution for targeting advertisements on one device (e.g., a television set-top box) based on a user's activity on another device (e.g., a computer) without using personally identifiable information (PII) (Compl. ¶ 33). The method is based on creating an "electronic association" between the two devices by recognizing that they both independently connected to a common local area network ('398 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶ 33).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent method claim 13 (Compl. ¶ 36).
  • Accused Features: The accused functionalities include the StackAdapt platform's components for "CTV Attribution, and Cross-Device Targeting" (Compl. ¶ 34).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 8,959,146

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,959,146, "media properties selection method and system based on expected profit from profile-based ad delivery," issued February 17, 2015 (Compl. ¶ 42).
  • Technology Synopsis: Similar to the '822 Patent, this invention concerns a system for selecting media properties (e.g., websites) for ad delivery based on an economic calculation ('146 Patent, Abstract). The system determines the expected profit from showing an ad to a user with a known profile on a given media property; if a profit is anticipated, it arranges for that user to be tagged for future targeting on that property ('146 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent method claim 1 (Compl. ¶ 45).
  • Accused Features: The accused functionalities include the "StackAdapt DSP and related components," such as "Ivy AI, Data Hub, StackAdapt ID, CTV Retargeting, Cross-Device Targeting, StackAdapt Pixel, Bid Optimization, Pixel Tracking" (Compl. ¶ 43).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused instrumentality is the "StackAdapt DSP" (Demand-Side Platform) and its related components (Compl. ¶ 15).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint describes the accused instrumentality as a suite of "industry-leading targeted advertising solutions" (Compl. ¶ 3). Specific accused components include Ivy AI, Data Hub, StackAdapt ID, CTV Retargeting, Cross-Device Targeting, StackAdapt Pixel, Bid Optimization, and Pixel Tracking (Compl. ¶ 15). These functionalities collectively appear to form a digital advertising platform that enables advertisers to target users with ads across various devices, including computers and Connected TVs (CTV), based on user data profiles and online behaviors (Compl. ¶¶ 4, 15). The platform is alleged to perform functions like profile-based bidding, behavioral targeting, and cross-device identification to facilitate targeted ad campaigns (Compl. ¶¶ 3-4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim-chart exhibits that were not provided with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 26). As such, a tabular analysis is not possible. The infringement theories are summarized below in prose.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • '822 Patent Infringement Allegations Summary: The complaint alleges that the StackAdapt DSP and its related components, such as "Bid Optimization" and "Pixel Tracking," perform the method of selecting media properties for ad delivery based on expected profit, as claimed in claim 1 of the '822 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 17). The narrative theory suggests that StackAdapt's platform calculates the value of showing an ad to a specific user on a specific publisher's site and makes a decision to bid for that ad space based on a profitability determination, thereby meeting the elements of the patented method.

  • '423 Patent Infringement Allegations Summary: The complaint alleges that the StackAdapt DSP, particularly its "CTV Retargeting" and "Cross-Device Targeting" components, infringes claim 1 of the '423 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 26). The infringement theory is that StackAdapt's system collects user behavior information from website visits and uses it to target ads within streaming video on platforms like Connected TV. The complaint alleges this is done by performing the claimed method of recording a profile, then causing a video ad-serving system to receive a "condition" for ad delivery without transferring the underlying behavioral data itself.

  • Identified Points of Contention:

    • Scope Questions: For the '822 Patent, a potential issue is whether StackAdapt's participation in a real-time bidding auction constitutes "authorizing a third-party second media property" as that phrase is used in the claim. For the '398 Patent, a question is whether StackAdapt's method for linking devices relies on detecting a "common local area network" or on other data signals outside the claim's scope.
    • Technical Questions: For the '423 Patent, a central technical question will be what data is actually transferred between StackAdapt's profiling systems and its video ad-serving systems. The dispute may center on whether the transferred data is merely a "condition" and "tag information," or if it includes information that would be considered "behavioral profile information," which is expressly forbidden by the claim's negative limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "authorizing a third-party second media property" ('822 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This term is critical because the infringement analysis will depend on whether the automated, high-speed interactions of the accused DSP within an ad exchange ecosystem can be characterized as an act of "authorizing" another party, as opposed to simply winning a bid. Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether the accused system's function corresponds to the claimed step.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the behavioral targeting company "arrang[ing] for the visitor to be tagged with a tag readable by said media property," which could be argued to encompass any technical process, including winning a bid, that results in the tag being placed and the ad being shown ('822 Patent, col. 7:41-44).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: An embodiment describes the first system "redirect[ing] a visitor to the selected media property... with a request to have the selected media property... tag the visitor," suggesting a more direct, command-like interaction may be required for "authorization" ('822 Patent, col. 9:3-8).

  • The Term: "without transferring to the second computer system any of the behavioral profile information" ('423 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This negative limitation is a core inventive concept of the '423 patent. The viability of the infringement claim will likely hinge on whether the data passed by StackAdapt to its video ad-serving components falls within the scope of "behavioral profile information."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (of what is allowed to be transferred): The claim separately recites transferring "tag information" and a "condition," while prohibiting the transfer of "behavioral profile information" ('423 Patent, col. 13:40-56). This could support an interpretation where abstract signals or segment IDs (which could be part of the "condition") are permissible to transfer, as long as the raw data of the user's web visit is not.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (of what is allowed to be transferred): The patent's goal is to separate the profile data from the ad-serving system. An argument could be made that any data derived from the user's specific behavior, including a segment identifier like "auto-intender," constitutes a form of "behavioral profile information" and is therefore prohibited from transfer.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For each asserted patent, the complaint alleges that Defendants direct and control the use of the accused platform to perform the infringing acts, condition benefits on participation, and establish the timing and manner of the infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 16, 25, 35, 44). These allegations track the legal standards for induced infringement, but the complaint does not plead specific underlying facts, such as referencing instructional materials or user manuals.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not include an explicit allegation of willful infringement or plead facts suggesting pre-suit knowledge of the patents. The prayer for relief includes a request for a finding that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 for the purpose of awarding attorneys' fees (Compl. ¶ e, p. 11).

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

This case will likely involve a deep inquiry into the specific data flows and decision-making logic within the accused StackAdapt advertising platform. The central questions for the court appear to be:

  1. A primary issue will be one of technical implementation and evidence: For the '423 patent, does StackAdapt's platform architecturally separate user profile data from its video ad-serving function by transferring only a non-profile "condition," or does the data it transfers to enable CTV targeting constitute the "behavioral profile information" that the claim expressly prohibits transferring?
  2. A second core issue will be one of functional correspondence: For the '822 and '146 patents, does the logic of StackAdapt's "Bid Optimization" feature perform the specific profit-based calculation and subsequent "authorization" of a third party as recited in the claims, or does the real-time bidding process in which it participates operate on a fundamentally different technical and economic model?
  3. A third key question will focus on definitional scope in a cross-device context: For the '398 patent, can the plaintiff demonstrate that StackAdapt's "Cross-Device Targeting" technology relies on identifying devices connected to a "common local area network" as required by the claims, or does the accused system primarily use other data signals (e.g., login data, IP address clustering, probabilistic methods) that may fall outside the patent's scope?