DCT

1:25-cv-01266

AlmondNet Inc v. Criteo Corp

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Case Name: AlmondNet, Inc. v. Criteo Corp.
  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01266, D. Del., 10/17/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s Criteo Commerce Media Platform infringes four patents related to network-based advertising, including methods for cross-device ad targeting and profit-based selection of ad placements.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue falls within the domain of online behavioral advertising, which involves tracking user activities across different websites and devices to deliver more relevant advertisements.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the Asserted Patents.

Case Timeline

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

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the technical challenge of delivering targeted television advertisements based on a user's observed online (i.e., Internet) behavior without employing personally identifiable information (PII) (’398 Patent, col. 1:15-22). The core problem is creating a link between a user's online activity on one device (e.g., a computer) and their television viewing on another.
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where IP addresses for online access devices are electronically associated with IP addresses for television set-top boxes belonging to the same user or household (’398 Patent, col. 8:47-67). User profile information derived from online activity at the first IP address is then used to select and direct a targeted television advertisement to the set-top box at the associated second IP address (’398 Patent, Abstract). This association is intended to function without relying on PII (’398 Patent, col. 8:57-62).
  • Technical Importance: This approach sought to enable cross-media advertising from the internet to television while addressing privacy concerns by avoiding the use of names, addresses, or other PII (’398 Patent, col. 1:19-22).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 13 (Compl. ¶12).
  • Essential elements of Claim 13 include:
    • Based on first electronic profile data associated with a first device identifier, automatically causing an action to be taken with respect to a second device.
    • The second device is indicated by a second device identifier that is electronically associated with the first device identifier.
    • The electronic association is based on the connection of each device, independently, to a common local area network.
    • The computer system performing the method is connected to the local area network through the Internet but is not part of the local area network.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

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 background describes the inefficiency of targeting ads, noting that the cost of ad space on a "second media property" (e.g., a second website) might not be covered by the revenues generated from an ad delivered based on a user profile collected from a "first media property" (e.g., the first website a user visited) (’822 Patent, col. 6:3-11).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides an automated system that calculates the "expected profit" for delivering an advertisement to a visitor with a specific profile on a particular media property (’822 Patent, Abstract). This profit calculation involves deducting the price of the ad space from the expected revenues generated by the ad (’822 Patent, col. 7:22-29). If the calculated profit is positive, the system arranges for the visitor to be "tagged" with an identifier, enabling that visitor to be targeted on that profitable media property in the future (’822 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: The technology introduced an automated, profit-based decision engine for selecting which users to target on which media properties, aiming to improve the economic efficiency of behavioral advertising campaigns (’822 Patent, col. 5:1-6).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 1 (Compl. ¶20).
  • Essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • Receiving information about a visitor's profile attributes.
    • Automatically authorizing a third-party second media property to display an advertisement to the visitor when they visit the second media property.
    • The advertisement is correlated with the profile-attribute information.
    • The authorization is subject to a condition that a 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

  • This patent describes a method for targeting ads within streaming video content. A user's visit to a first website is used to create a behavioral profile. The system then electronically transfers a "condition" specific to that profile to a second computer system that controls ad space in a video stream. An advertisement based on the profile is served in the video stream only after the second computer system determines that the condition has been met (’423 Patent, Claim 1).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Asserted Claims: Independent method claim 1 (Compl. ¶28).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Criteo Commerce Media Platform, including components such as Commerce Max DSP, Offsite Display & Video, Dynamic Retargeting, Criteo OneTag pixel, Video Advertising, and Predictive Bidding (Compl. ¶27).

U.S. Patent No. 8,959,146 - "Media properties selection method and system based on expected profit from profile-based ad delivery"

The Invention Explained

  • This patent is technologically similar to the ’822 Patent. It discloses an automatic system for selecting media properties for ad display based on a visitor's profile. The system calculates an expected profit by deducting the ad space cost from expected revenues. If a positive profit is anticipated, the system arranges for the visitor to be tagged for future targeting on that specific media property (’146 Patent, Abstract).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • Asserted Claims: Independent method claim 1 (Compl. ¶36).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses the Criteo Commerce Media Platform, including components such as Commerce Max DSP, Offsite Display & Video, Dynamic Retargeting, Criteo OneTag pixel, Video Advertising, and Predictive Bidding (Compl. ¶35).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentality is the "Criteo Commerce Media Platform" (Compl. ¶11). The complaint identifies several specific components, including the Criteo Shopper Graph, Commerce Max DSP, Offsite Display & Video, Dynamic Retargeting, Criteo OneTag pixel, Video Advertising, and Predictive Bidding (Compl. ¶¶11, 19, 27, 35).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the Criteo platform provides "cross-device-based ad targeting, retargeting, audience extension, and attribution" (Compl. ¶4). It allegedly operates by using a "Dynamic Device Map" to identify a single user across multiple devices such as laptops, smartphones, and televisions. This capability is used to aggregate profile data from user activity on any device and deliver targeted ads across all of a user's screens (Compl. ¶4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not include, claim chart exhibits detailing its infringement theories (Compl. ¶¶12, 20, 28, 36). The narrative allegations suggest the following infringement theories.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • '398 Patent Infringement Allegations

    • Narrative Summary: The complaint alleges that Criteo's platform, particularly its "Criteo Shopper Graph," performs the method of claim 13 by identifying users across different network-connected devices and using activity on one device to trigger an action (serving an ad) on another (Compl. ¶¶4, 11-12). This functionality is alleged to map to the claim's requirements of acting on a second device based on profile data from a first device, where the devices are linked by an "electronic association."
    • Identified Points of Contention:
      • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether Criteo's "Shopper Graph," which identifies a user across devices, constitutes the "electronic association between the first and second device identifiers" as required by the claim. The defense may argue that the claim requires a specific type of network-level association (e.g., common local area network) that is not met by a user-centric device graph.
      • Technical Questions: The complaint does not specify the technical mechanism of the alleged "electronic association" within Criteo's system. Evidence will be needed to determine if the accused system's method of linking devices (e.g., via login data, probabilistic matching) falls within the scope of the claim, which recites an association based on connection to a "common local area network."

  • '822 Patent Infringement Allegations

    • Narrative Summary: The complaint alleges that Criteo's platform, including its "Predictive Bidding" component, performs the method of claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶19-20). The theory is that Criteo's system analyzes user profiles and automatically makes decisions about where to place ads, which allegedly meets the claim limitation of authorizing an ad display on a second media property subject to a condition related to price and advertiser willingness to pay.
    • Identified Points of Contention:
      • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis may turn on whether Criteo's bidding logic meets the specific "condition" recited in claim 1: "that a price charged by the second media property is less than a profile-attribute-dependent price that an advertiser is willing to pay." The defense may argue its bidding algorithm uses a different, non-infringing metric, such as maximizing return on ad spend (ROAS), which may not be equivalent to the claimed price comparison.
      • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that Criteo's "Predictive Bidding" performs the specific profit-based calculation described in the patent? The court will need to examine whether the accused system's functionality of selecting ad placements is based on the claimed comparison of ad space cost versus advertiser willingness-to-pay.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"an electronic association" (’398 Patent, Claim 13)

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical for the '398 Patent, as it defines the required link between the two devices. Its construction will determine whether modern cross-device tracking technologies, like device graphs based on user logins or probabilistic data, fall within the claim's scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because the claim further requires the association to be "based on automatically recognizing that each of the first and second devices was connected... to a common local area network," which could significantly limit its scope.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "electronic association" itself is broad and is not explicitly defined in the patent, which may support a construction that covers any form of logical or data-driven link between device identifiers stored in a system.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 13 explicitly states the association is "based on... connection... to a common local area network." The specification also describes associating the IP address of a modem with the IP address of a set-top box (’398 Patent, col. 9:43-52). This language may support a narrower construction limited to associations derived directly from network topology information, rather than user-level data.

"authorizing... subject to a... condition that a price charged... is less than a... price that an advertiser is willing to pay" (’822 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This phrase defines the decision-making logic at the heart of the '822 Patent's claimed method. The infringement case will depend on whether Criteo's bidding and ad placement system performs this specific comparison. Practitioners may focus on this term because modern ad-tech bidding systems often use complex algorithms that may not perform a simple "price A < price B" comparison.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "condition" could be interpreted broadly to encompass any rule or algorithm that implicitly or explicitly considers advertiser bids and media costs, even if not through a direct, literal comparison.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the invention as an "automatic system... to facilitate selection of media properties... where a BT company calculates expected profit" (’822 Patent, col. 6:11-16). Profit is further explained as revenues minus costs, such as "the price of ad space" (’822 Patent, col. 7:22-26). This may support a narrower construction requiring a direct calculation or comparison of expected revenue (advertiser price) versus cost (media property price).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges direct infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271 but does not plead separate counts for, or allege specific facts supporting, induced or contributory infringement (Compl. ¶¶13, 21, 29, 37).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of willful infringement.

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

This case will likely center on the tension between the specific technical implementations described in the patents, which date to 2006, and the functionality of a modern advertising platform. The key open questions for the court appear to be:

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: For the ’398 patent, can the claim language requiring an "electronic association" based on a "common local area network" be construed to cover modern device graph technologies that link devices through user identity rather than network topology?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of operational equivalence: For the ’822 and ’146 patents, does the accused "Predictive Bidding" system perform the specific profit calculation recited in the claims (comparing media cost to advertiser willingness-to-pay), or does it operate on a different, non-infringing algorithmic basis for optimizing ad spend?
  • A third question relates to the specificity of patented methods: For the ’423 patent, does Criteo's platform for serving ads in video streams operate by transferring a discrete "condition" for ad delivery as claimed, or does it use a more general real-time bidding protocol that does not map onto the claimed steps?