DCT

1:25-cv-01354

AlmondNet Inc v. Medianet Support Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01354, D. Del., 11/06/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant Media.net Support, Inc. is a Delaware corporation and Defendant Media.net Advertising FZ-LLC is a foreign company alleged to have committed acts of infringement in the District.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s online advertising platform and related services infringe two patents related to cross-device ad targeting and profile-based ad delivery optimization.
  • Technical Context: The lawsuit operates in the domain of programmatic online advertising, where identifying users across multiple devices and making economically efficient ad placement decisions are central to market competition.
  • Key Procedural History: U.S. Patent No. 8,677,398 underwent an ex parte reexamination, concluding with a certificate issued on July 15, 2024. The reexamination confirmed the patentability of claims 1 and 2, but the asserted independent claim 13 was not part of the proceeding. Both patents-in-suit were issued with terminal disclaimers.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-06-16 ’146 Patent Priority Date
2007-04-17 ’398 Patent Priority Date
2014-03-18 ’398 Patent Issue Date
2015-02-17 ’146 Patent Issue Date
2024-07-15 ’398 Patent Reexamination Certificate Issued
2025-11-06 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," Issued March 18, 2014

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the difficulty of targeting advertisements on one platform (e.g., television) based on user activity on another (e.g., internet browsing) without relying on personally identifiable information (PII), which raises consumer privacy objections (US 8,677,398 B2, col. 7:14-34).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes electronically associating the IP addresses of different devices—such as a computer used for web browsing and a television set-top box—that are connected to the same local network (e.g., through a common router) (US 8,677,398 B2, col. 9:21-30). A central ad server can then use a profile derived from the user's online activity, linked to the online IP address, to select and deliver a targeted advertisement to the associated set-top box IP address, thereby achieving cross-device targeting without using PII (US 8,677,398 B2, col. 8:1-12; Fig. 2).
  • Technical Importance: The claimed method provided a technical framework for cross-device marketing that sought to bypass the privacy concerns and data-sharing hurdles associated with linking user accounts via PII.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 13 (Compl. ¶13).
  • The essential elements of claim 13 are:
    • Based on first electronic profile data associated with an identifier of a first device, automatically causing an action to be taken with respect to a second device, which is indicated by an identifier electronically associated with the first device's identifier.
    • Wherein the electronic association between the device identifiers is based on their prior, independent connection to a common local area network.
    • The computer system performing the method is connected to the local area network via the Internet but is not part of the local network itself.
  • The complaint states that only method claims are asserted (Compl. ¶16).

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

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In behavioral advertising, it can be unprofitable to deliver a targeted ad on a secondary website ("media property") if the cost of the ad space on that site exceeds the potential revenue generated by the ad (US 8,959,146 B2, col. 5:41-61). Simply targeting any user who visited a prior site can lead to inefficient spending and financial loss.
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes an automated system that calculates the expected profit of an ad placement before committing to it. The system determines the expected revenue based on a user's profile and subtracts the known cost of ad space on a potential second media property (US 8,959,146 B2, col. 6:13-24). Only if the calculation yields a positive profit does the system proceed to "tag" the user for ad delivery on that specific, economically viable media property (US 8,959,146 B2, col. 6:24-30; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This invention introduced an automated economic optimization layer to behavioral targeting, aiming to improve the return on investment for programmatic ad campaigns by avoiding unprofitable ad impressions.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 1 (Compl. ¶21).
  • The essential elements of claim 1 are:
    • Automatically directing, to a third-party server controlling ad space on a second media property, indicia of a condition related to an electronic visitor.
    • This action is for the display of an advertisement to the visitor when they later visit the second media property, subject to the condition being met.
    • The direction of the indicia is based on profile attributes applicable to the visitor, gathered as a result of the visitor visiting a first media property.
    • The advertisement is correlated with the profile attributes.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies the Accused Instrumentalities as Media.net's "Sell-Side aka Supply-Side Platform (SSP) and related components," including the "Media.net Curated Marketplace, Optimization, Deals Desk, Media.net's identity graph, Frequency Capping, and ELEVATE" (Compl. ¶12).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges these instrumentalities constitute an online advertising platform (Compl. ¶1, ¶12). In the context of the ’146 Patent, the complaint alleges a specific function: facilitating the delivery of a Demand Side Platform's ("DSP's") ID in a bid request (Compl. ¶20). This ID allegedly allows DSPs to use profile information for targeted advertising, which is a key function within the programmatic advertising ecosystem where ad inventory is bought and sold in real-time auctions (Compl. ¶20, ¶22).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim chart exhibits that were not filed with the public document. Accordingly, the following is a prose summary of the infringement theories articulated in the complaint.

’398 Patent Infringement Allegations

  • The complaint alleges that Defendant directly infringes one or more method claims, including independent claim 13, by making, using, or selling the Accused Instrumentalities (Compl. ¶12-13). The narrative theory suggests that Defendant's platform, particularly its "identity graph," performs the claimed method of associating different user devices that share a common network to enable cross-device ad targeting. The complaint does not, however, provide specific factual allegations detailing how the Accused Instrumentalities establish this association based on a "common local area network."

’146 Patent Infringement Allegations

  • The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement of method claim 1 (Compl. ¶20). The theory is that Defendant's SSP facilitates the inclusion of a DSP's user ID in bid requests sent to that DSP. This action allegedly induces the DSP (the direct infringer) to use its own profile information associated with that ID to submit a targeted bid response (Compl. ¶20, ¶22). The complaint alleges Defendant has knowledge of the patent and intends for this infringement to occur because such targeted bidding results in higher-priced bids, which is financially beneficial to Defendant (Compl. ¶22).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions (’146 Patent): A central question may be whether providing a DSP's user ID in a bid request constitutes "directing... indicia of a condition" as required by claim 1. The definition of "condition," particularly whether it requires the economic profit calculation detailed in the patent's specification, will be critical.
  • Technical Questions (’398 Patent): The infringement analysis will likely require evidence of how Defendant's "identity graph" technically operates. A key question will be whether Plaintiffs can show that the system's method for associating devices relies on the claimed "connection... to a common local area network," as opposed to other deterministic or probabilistic methods used in the industry.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "common local area network" (’398 Patent, claim 13)

Context and Importance

  • This term defines the technical basis for associating the "first device" and "second device." Its construction will determine whether the methods allegedly used by Defendant's "identity graph" to link user devices fall within the scope of the claims.

Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation

  • The specification describes a router connecting a local area network (LAN) to the Internet, which enables multiple devices to share a connection and IP address, suggesting the term could encompass any shared Internet gateway like a common home Wi-Fi network (US 8,677,398 B2, col. 2:61-64, col. 13:1-13).

Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation

  • The patent’s figures consistently depict a hardware setup within a single location (e.g., a home) where a modem or ISP connection physically links devices such as a computer and a set-top box, which could support a more constrained definition tied to a traditional, wired or single-access-point LAN (US 8,677,398 B2, Figs. 1, 3, 7).

The Term: "indicia of a condition" (’146 Patent, claim 1)

Context and Importance

  • The plaintiff's inducement theory for the ’146 Patent hinges on interpreting the act of providing a user ID as directing an "indicia of a condition." The definition of "condition" is therefore central to the infringement dispute.

Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation

  • A party might argue that the user ID is an "indicia" that the "condition" for targeted bidding has been met (i.e., the user has a known profile).

Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation

  • The specification repeatedly ties the inventive method to an economic calculation where profit is determined by subtracting ad space cost from expected revenue. This suggests the "condition" is that the expected profit is positive (US 8,959,146 B2, col. 6:20-24, col. 7:40-45). The complaint does not allege that Defendant performs such a calculation.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint explicitly alleges induced infringement of the ’146 Patent (Compl. ¶20). It alleges knowledge and intent based on Defendant providing DSPs with user IDs in bid requests for the purpose of enabling profile-based targeting, which allegedly benefits Defendant financially through higher-priced ad sales (Compl. ¶22).

Willful Infringement

  • The complaint does not include an explicit count for willful infringement. However, it alleges that Defendant "knowingly and intentionally induces infringement" and acts "Despite this knowledge of the '146 patent," which could form the basis for a future willfulness argument (Compl. ¶20, ¶22).

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim scope: can the term "indicia of a condition" from the ’146 Patent, which is described in the specification in the context of an economic profit calculation, be construed to cover the act of providing a user ID in a standard ad auction bid request?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: what evidence will emerge to show that Defendant's "identity graph" technology associates devices based on the specific "common local area network" connection required by the ’398 Patent, as opposed to other user-linking methodologies prevalent in the ad-tech industry?