DCT

1:25-cv-01473

AlmondNet Inc v. Applovin Corp

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01473, D. Del., 12/05/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendants being incorporated in the state of Delaware.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' digital advertising and analytics platforms infringe three U.S. patents related to profile-based ad targeting, cross-device ad delivery, and ad effectiveness measurement.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to the field of programmatic digital advertising, a market where automated systems buy and sell ad inventory and target users based on behavioral data across multiple devices like computers, mobile phones, and connected TVs.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Defendant AppLovin acquired Defendant Adjust, Inc. in April 2021 and Defendant Wurl, LLC in April 2022. The asserted patents include U.S. Patent Nos. 8,677,398 and 11,949,962, both of which are subject to terminal disclaimers.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-06-16 U.S. Patent No. 8,959,146 Priority Date
2007-04-17 U.S. Patent No. 8,677,398 Priority Date
2011-08-03 U.S. Patent No. 11,949,962 Priority Date
2014-03-18 U.S. Patent No. 8,677,398 Issued
2015-02-17 U.S. Patent No. 8,959,146 Issued
2021-04-01 AppLovin acquires Adjust, Inc. (approximate date)
2022-04-01 AppLovin acquires Wurl, LLC (approximate date)
2024-04-02 U.S. Patent No. 11,949,962 Issued
2025-12-05 Complaint Filing Date

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

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 (’146 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the inefficiency in behavioral targeting where a user's profile is collected on one website (a first "media property") but the ad is delivered on another. The patent notes that the value of user profiles and the cost of ad space vary significantly across different media properties, making it difficult to profitably place targeted ads without a systematic approach ('146 Patent, col. 5:43-54).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an automated system that calculates the "anticipated profit" of delivering a profile-based ad on various potential media properties ('146 Patent, Abstract). The system deducts the cost of ad space from the expected revenue generated by the ad for a given user profile. If the calculated profit is positive, the system then "arranges for the visitor to be tagged" so that the user can be identified and served the ad on that profitable media property ('146 Patent, col. 6:11-30). This shifts the ad placement decision from simple audience matching to an explicit, automated profitability analysis.
  • Technical Importance: The invention provides a method for economically optimizing programmatic ad buying by pre-calculating profitability, addressing a core challenge in scaling behavioral advertising across the web.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 1 (Compl. ¶21).
  • Claim 1 of the ’146 Patent includes the following essential elements:
    • Receiving, at a computer system, profile information of an electronic visitor to a first media property.
    • Automatically determining an anticipated profit for an ad correlated with the profile, based on expected revenue and the price of ad space at one or more of a plurality of media properties.
    • Automatically selecting one or more of the media properties based on the determined anticipated profit.
    • Automatically arranging for the visitor to be tagged with a tag readable by the selected media property.
  • 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"

  • Issued: March 18, 2014 (’398 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background addresses the challenge of targeting television advertisements based on a viewer's online (Internet) behavior. It notes that linking a user's computer and their television set-top box often requires using Personally Identifiable Information (PII), which creates privacy concerns and can be unattractive to consumers (’398 Patent, col. 1:15-22, col. 7:38-45).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a method for associating two devices—such as a computer and a set-top box (STB)—without using PII by recognizing when they are connected to the same "common local area network" (’398 Patent, Abstract). This recognition is typically based on the devices sharing a common external IP address assigned to the household's modem or router (’398 Patent, col. 13:6-12). Once this association is established, an action (like delivering a targeted TV ad) can be taken on the second device (the STB) based on online activity observed on the first device (the computer).
  • Technical Importance: The technology provides a framework for privacy-centric cross-device targeting within a household, a foundational capability for modern digital advertising ecosystems that span multiple screens.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 13 (Compl. ¶33).
  • Claim 13 of the ’398 Patent includes the following essential elements:
    • Based on first electronic profile data from a first device, automatically causing an action to be taken with respect to a second device.
    • The second device is indicated by an electronic identifier electronically associated with the first device's identifier.
    • The association is based on the connection of each device, before the action, 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. 11,949,962 - "method and computer system using proxy IP addresses and PII in measuring ad effectiveness across devices"

  • Issued: April 2, 2024 (’962 Patent)

Technology Synopsis

The patent addresses the technical problem of measuring advertising effectiveness across devices, particularly when a television set-top box (STB) is not connected to the same computer network as other household devices ('962 Patent, Abstract). The patented solution involves associating a primary online device (OD1) with an STB, using the location of OD1 as a "proxy location" for the STB, and then associating secondary online devices (OD2s) that are observed near that proxy location with the same STB. This allows TV ad selection to be based on profile information linked to the secondary devices ('962 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims & Accused Features

  • Asserted Claims: Independent method claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶41).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Axon Platform, AMP, and related components such as MAX and CTV AdVision infringe the patent (Compl. ¶40).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint names the "Accused Instrumentalities" as the Axon Platform, Wurl CTV platform, Adjust, and related components including Axon Advertising, MAX, the MAX Platform, and the Adjust measurement and analytics marketing platform ("AMP") (Compl. ¶11, ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The Accused Instrumentalities constitute a suite of digital advertising technology products. Axon Advertising is described as a platform for automating and optimizing user acquisition ad spending (Compl. ¶14). MAX is a tool for optimizing purchases of in-app advertising inventory, including through real-time bidding (Compl. ¶15). Adjust provides measurement and analytics to understand a "users' journey" (Compl. ¶16). Wurl's connected TV ("CTV") platform is used to distribute streaming video and monetize it through advertising (Compl. ¶17). Collectively, these platforms are alleged to provide end-to-end services for advertisers to target users, deliver ads, and measure campaign effectiveness across mobile and television environments.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not include, claim chart exhibits detailing its infringement theories (Compl. ¶21, ¶33, ¶41). Therefore, the following summarizes the narrative infringement theories presented in the body of the complaint.

  • ’146 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that AppLovin's Accused Instrumentalities, including the Axon Platform, infringe by performing a method of selecting media properties for ad delivery (Compl. ¶20-21). The infringement theory centers on the facilitation of profile-based targeting in a programmatic advertising context. It is alleged that the platforms facilitate the delivery of a demand-side platform's (DSP) user ID in a bid request, which enables the DSP to use profile information associated with that ID for targeting ads, and that this process constitutes the claimed method of selecting media properties based on profile-based ad delivery (Compl. ¶23-24).
  • ’398 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that AppLovin and Adjust, through the Accused Instrumentalities (including the Axon Platform and AMP), jointly or individually perform the claimed method of taking an action on one device based on activity on another device connected to the same network (Compl. ¶32-33). The underlying theory appears to be that Defendants' systems can associate a user's different devices (e.g., a mobile phone and a connected TV) when they are on the same local network, and then use data from one device to target ads on another.
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: For the ’146 Patent, a key dispute may arise over whether the accused systems' functionality constitutes "selecting... media properties based on the determined anticipated profit." The analysis may question if optimizing a real-time bid price is equivalent to calculating "profit" as defined by the patent. For the ’398 Patent, a central question will be whether the patent's concept of recognizing a "common local area network," which the specification links to a shared IP address, can be construed to cover the specific cross-device association techniques used by the accused platforms.
    • Technical Questions: For the ’398 Patent, the complaint's allegation of joint infringement raises the evidentiary question of whether a single defendant performs all steps of the asserted method claim, or, if not, whether one defendant directs or controls the other's performance in a manner that satisfies the legal standard for joint infringement (Compl. ¶33).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term from ’146 Patent, Claim 1: "determining an anticipated profit"

    • Context and Importance: This term is the central limitation of the claim, defining the economic calculation that drives the patented method. The outcome of the infringement analysis may depend on whether the accused systems' algorithms for ad selection perform a calculation that meets this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendants could argue their systems optimize for different metrics, such as eCPM (effective cost per mille) or bid value, which may be technically distinct from "profit."
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim itself does not recite a specific formula. The specification provides a general definition: "Profit can be defined as: (1) revenues expected to be generated, from an ad delivered based on the collected profile, minus the ad space cost at a specific media property" (’146 Patent, col. 9:61-65).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also provides more detailed formulas, including one that accounts for other costs and a desired profit margin: "Pr=Rev(profile)-P(mp)-C-Mar" (’146 Patent, col. 7:6-9). A party could argue the term should be limited to embodiments that align with these more specific calculations.

  • Term from ’398 Patent, Claim 13: "recognizing that each of the first and second devices was connected... to a common local area network"

    • Context and Importance: This term defines the core mechanism for associating devices without using PII. The infringement case hinges on whether the method used by the accused platforms to link devices falls within this term's scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because modern ad-tech uses various device-linking methods, and Defendants may argue their method (e.g., probabilistic device graphing) is outside the scope of what the patent teaches and claims.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is functional, describing the outcome ("recognizing") rather than the specific means.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes this recognition as being based on a "common IP address" or a "common IP address, or portion thereof" shared by devices on the network (’398 Patent, col. 13:6-12; col. 13:16-19). This repeated emphasis could support an interpretation that limits the claim's scope to IP-address-based association methods.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that AppLovin and Wurl, LLC induce infringement of the ’146 Patent (Compl. ¶23). The factual basis is the allegation that they provide the Accused Instrumentalities to direct infringers (such as DSPs) and facilitate the delivery of user identifiers in bid requests, knowing these will be used for profile-based ad targeting. Knowledge is alleged to exist from "at least the filing and service of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶23).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement or facts suggesting pre-suit knowledge of the patents-in-suit. The basis for knowledge in the inducement claim is post-suit notice via the complaint itself (Compl. ¶23).

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

  1. A key evidentiary question will be one of operational functionality: Do the accused advertising platforms perform a specific "profit" calculation that deducts media cost from expected revenue as required by the ’146 Patent, or do they employ a fundamentally different economic logic, such as optimizing a real-time bid price, that falls outside the claim scope?
  2. A core issue for the ’398 Patent will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "recognizing... a common local area network," which the patent specification repeatedly grounds in the context of a shared external IP address, be construed to cover the potentially more complex probabilistic or signal-based cross-device identification methods allegedly used in modern ad-tech platforms?
  3. A central legal question will be that of divided infringement: Given the allegation that multiple defendants "jointly and/or individually" perform the steps of the asserted method claims, the case may turn on whether Plaintiffs can prove that all steps are attributable to a single entity under the "direction or control" standard, a frequent and complex issue in patent litigation involving multi-component systems.