AlmondNet Inc v. Taboola Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: AlmondNet, Inc. (Delaware) and Intent IQ, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Taboola, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Farnan LLP
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01425, D. Del., 11/21/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s content discovery and targeted advertising platform infringes patents related to cross-device user tracking and profile-based ad selection.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses methods for delivering targeted advertisements by identifying a single user across multiple devices and selecting ad placements based on user profiles.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the asserted patents.

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
2025-11-21	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,677,398

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,677,398, titled “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 on March 18, 2014 (Compl. ¶17).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty of targeting advertisements on one platform, such as television, based on a user's behavior on another platform, like the internet, without resorting to personally identifiable information (PII), which raises privacy concerns (ʼ398 Patent, col. 7:13-22).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for electronically associating multiple devices (e.g., a computer and a TV set-top box) that are connected to the same local network, often identified by a common public IP address, without using PII. This association allows online activity observed on one device to trigger a targeted action, such as displaying a relevant advertisement, on the other device (’398 Patent, Abstract; col. 9:16-30). Figure 1 illustrates a user environment (30) where a computer (34) and a set-top box (36) are connected to the internet through a common provider (20), enabling this association.
• Technical Importance: This technology provided a method to create a more holistic view of a user's interests across different screens, a key goal in digital advertising, while aiming to avoid the privacy-related drawbacks of using PII (’398 Patent, col. 7:54-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent method claim 13 (Compl. ¶19).
• The essential elements of claim 13 include:
  • 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.
  • The second device is indicated by an identifier that is electronically associated with the first device's identifier.
  • The electronic association is based on the independent connection of both devices to a "common local area network" before the action.
  • 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 does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 8,959,146

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,959,146, titled “media properties selection method and system based on expected profit from profile-based ad delivery,” issued on February 17, 2015 (Compl. ¶25).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the economic inefficiency in programmatic advertising where the value of a user profile may not justify the cost of ad space on certain websites. Simply matching a user profile to an ad opportunity does not guarantee a profitable outcome for the advertiser or ad network (’146 Patent, col. 5:46-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes an automated system that calculates the anticipated profit of placing a targeted advertisement. It achieves this by deducting the cost of ad space at a given media property from the expected revenue generated by an ad delivered based on a collected user profile. The system then selects only media properties where the transaction is expected to be profitable and arranges for the user to be "tagged" for identification by those selected properties (’146 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: The technology integrates an economic decision-making layer into the ad selection process, shifting the basis for ad placement from simple audience targeting to calculated profitability (’146 Patent, col. 6:12-26).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent method claim 1 (Compl. ¶27).
• The essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • Automatically directing, to a third-party server controlling ad space on a second media property, "indicia of a condition" for displaying an advertisement to an electronic visitor.
  • The act of directing is based on information indicating that one or more "profile attributes" are applicable to the visitor, with the information being received as a result of the visitor's activity on a first media property.
  • The advertisement itself is correlated with the indicated profile attributes.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are "Taboola's Content Discovery Platform" and its related components, including but not limited to Realize, Optimize for Engagement, Predictive Audience Targeting, Taboola Pixel, and SmartBid (Compl. ¶9).
• Functionality and Market Context:
  • The complaint alleges that Taboola's platform operates as a "content discovery platform" that provides personalized recommendations on third-party publisher websites (Compl. ¶10). To do this, it collects a wide range of "User Information," including device and operating system, IP address, web pages accessed, and interactions with advertisements (Compl. ¶12).
  • A specifically accused function is "Tailoring content across multiple devices," which allegedly involves identifying "unique Users across multiple browsers and devices" to provide "better targeted ad campaigns to that User" (Compl. ¶12). This functionality is accused of implementing "cross-device attribution" (Compl. ¶18).
  • The platform is also accused of facilitating profile-based targeting through its "Header Bidding Integration," which allegedly delivers a demand-side platform's (DSP's) user ID in a bid request, enabling the DSP to use associated profile information for ad targeting (Compl. ¶¶28-29).
  • The complaint characterizes Taboola as the "world's largest content discovery platform," highlighting its significant market position (Compl. ¶10).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint. The complaint references claim chart exhibits that were not included in the provided filing; therefore, the infringement theories are summarized below based on the complaint's narrative allegations.

’398 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant’s Accused Instrumentalities perform all limitations of one or more method claims, including claim 13 (Compl. ¶19). The core of the infringement theory appears to be that Taboola's platform identifies a user across multiple devices (e.g., a laptop and a smartphone) by associating those devices, and then uses activity on one device to target content on another (Compl. ¶¶12, 18). This alleged "cross-device" functionality is presented as meeting the claim requirement of taking an action on a second device based on activity from a first device, where both devices are associated via a common network connection.

’146 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant’s Accused Instrumentalities perform all limitations of one or more method claims, including claim 1 (Compl. ¶27). The infringement theory centers on Taboola's alleged role in real-time bidding ad auctions. The complaint posits that when Taboola provides a user identifier to a DSP in a bid request, it is "directing... indicia of a condition" to a third-party server (the DSP) (Compl. ¶¶28-29). The "profile attributes" are the data associated with the user identifier, and the "condition" appears to be the price and other terms included in the subsequent bid response from the DSP, which dictates whether an ad is ultimately displayed (Compl. ¶29).

Identified Points of Contention:

• For the ’398 Patent: A central technical question will be what mechanism Taboola uses to associate devices and whether that mechanism relies on identifying a "common local area network" as required by the claim. The complaint alleges "cross-device" linking but does not specify the technical method, raising the question of whether Taboola's system operates in the manner claimed or uses alternative methods (e.g., probabilistic matching, login IDs) that may fall outside the claim scope.
• For the ’146 Patent: A primary legal and factual question will be whether providing a user ID in a bid request, which prompts a bid response containing a price, constitutes "directing... indicia of a condition" as the claim is construed. The analysis may turn on whether this standard industry practice maps onto the patent's more specific description of a system that pre-calculates and directs a profitability-based condition.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’398 Patent, Claim 13

• The Term: "common local area network"
• Context and Importance: The claim requires that the association between the two devices be based on their prior connection to a "common local area network." The definition of this term is critical because Defendant's cross-device linking technology may operate by associating devices that share a public IP address, which may or may not be deemed equivalent to being on a "common local area network." Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether the accused system's method of association meets this structural requirement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a router connecting a "local area network (LAN) to the Internet" (’398 Patent, col. 2:61-64). This could support an interpretation where any set of devices appearing to the Internet from behind a single router (i.e., sharing a public IP address) are considered to be on a "common local area network."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures consistently depict a conventional home or office setup with an ISP/TVP (20) connecting distinct devices like a computer (34) and a set-top box (36) within a user's premises (30) (’398 Patent, Fig. 1, Fig. 3). This may support a narrower construction limited to a physically co-located and privately addressed network.

’146 Patent, Claim 1

• The Term: "directing... indicia of a condition"
• Context and Importance: The infringement allegation hinges on this phrase covering the act of sending a user ID in a bid request. The dispute will likely center on whether "condition" refers to any prerequisite for ad display (like a winning bid price) or a more specific, pre-calculated parameter as described in the patent's specification.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that when an "expected profit is positive... the BT company arranges for the visitor to be tagged" (’146 Patent, col. 6:23-26). This could be argued to support any system where a financial condition must be met before an ad is served.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Dependent claim 2 clarifies the "condition" as being "that a price charged by the second media property is less than a profile-attribute-dependent price that an advertiser is willing to pay" (’146 Patent, col. 13:15-19). This suggests the "condition" is not merely a price, but the outcome of a specific profitability calculation comparing cost and expected revenue, potentially narrowing the term's scope.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’146 patent. It claims Defendant has knowledge of the patent from at least the filing of the complaint and intentionally encourages infringement by providing DSPs with user identifiers for the purpose of profile-based ad targeting, an act which allegedly results in higher bid prices and benefits Taboola (Compl. ¶¶28-29).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a count for willful infringement. However, the prayer for relief requests a finding that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which could entitle Plaintiffs to attorneys' fees (Compl., p. 9, ¶f). The allegations do not specify pre-suit knowledge of the patents.

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

• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical implementation: does Taboola’s accused cross-device platform rely on identifying devices connected to a "common local area network" as required by the ’398 patent, or does it use other probabilistic or deterministic methods that fall outside the patent’s claimed architecture?
• A central issue of claim construction will be one of definitional scope: can the standard industry practice of providing a user ID in a real-time bidding request be construed as "directing... indicia of a condition" under the ’146 patent, or does the claim require a more specific, pre-calculated profitability threshold that is absent from the accused process?