DCT

1:26-cv-00014

AlmondNet Inc v. Epsilon Data Management LLC

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00014, D. Del., 01/06/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the District of Delaware based on the Defendants being incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ digital advertising and retail media platforms infringe three patents related to profile-based, cross-device, and profit-optimized ad delivery systems.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue operates in the programmatic online advertising sector, where automated systems make real-time decisions about which ads to show to which users across various devices like computers, mobile phones, and connected TVs.
  • 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 - Earliest Priority Date
2007-04-17 ’398 Patent - Earliest Priority Date
2007-12-31 ’198 Patent - Earliest Priority Date
2014-03-18 ’398 Patent - Issue Date
2015-02-17 ’146 Patent - Issue Date
2019-06-11 ’198 Patent - Issue Date
2026-01-06 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"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the economic inefficiency in behavioral advertising where delivering a targeted ad on a high-cost media property (e.g., a premium website) could result in a financial loss for the advertiser, even if the user profile is a perfect match (U.S. Patent No. 8,959,146, col. 2:1-11).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is an automated system that selects media properties for ad placement based on expected profit. It calculates anticipated revenue from an ad based on a user's profile and deducts the cost of ad space on a potential media property. The system only proceeds with ad placement if the resulting calculation is profitable, thereby optimizing for economic return rather than just audience targeting (’146 Patent, Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This technology introduced a layer of profit-based optimization to programmatic ad selection, moving beyond simple behavioral targeting to automated, real-time financial decision-making (’146 Patent, col. 6:11-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 1 (Compl. ¶22).
  • The essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • A method performed by a computer system for each of multiple electronic visitors to a first media property.
    • Automatically directing, to a third-party server controlling ad space on a second media property, "indicia of a condition" for displaying an advertisement to the visitor.
    • The directing step is based on information indicating that at least one "profile attribute" is applicable to the visitor.
    • The advertisement to be displayed is correlated with the indicated profile attribute.
  • 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"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the technical challenge of linking a user's activity across different devices, such as a computer and a television set-top box, to enable cross-device ad targeting without relying on personally identifiable information (PII) (U.S. Patent No. 8,677,398, col. 7:13-23).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where two devices are electronically associated based on their connection to a common local area network (LAN). This association allows profile data from activity on a first device (e.g., web browsing on a computer) to trigger an action (e.g., displaying a targeted ad) on the second device (e.g., a television). The "common local area network" connection, often identified by a shared modem or router IP address, serves as the PII-free link between the devices (’398 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 3).
  • Technical Importance: The technology provides a framework for cross-device targeting, a critical function in the modern advertising ecosystem where consumers interact with brands across a wide array of screens (’398 Patent, col. 8:36-47).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 13 (Compl. ¶32).
  • The essential elements of claim 13 include:
    • A method performed by a programmed hardware computer system.
    • Based on profile data from a first device, causing an action to be taken on a second device.
    • An "electronic association" exists between the first and second device identifiers.
    • This association is based on the connection of both devices to a "common local area network," where the computer system performing the method is external to that local network.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 10,321,198 - "systems and methods for dealing with online activity based on delivery of a television advertisement"

Technology Synopsis

This patent addresses attribution and retargeting by linking online activity to a previously delivered television advertisement. The system receives a notification that a TV ad was presented via a set-top box (identified by a "set-top box identifier") and then takes an action, such as tracking subsequent web browsing, with respect to an online device associated with that set-top box (identified by an "online user interface device identifier") (U.S. Patent No. 10,321,198, Abstract). This allows advertisers to measure the impact of TV campaigns on online behavior.

Asserted Claims

Independent method claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶40).

Accused Features

The complaint accuses Defendants' Epsilon PeopleCloud platform, specifically components like COREid and Epsilon CTV, of infringement. The allegation is that these systems can track a user's online activity after that user has been exposed to an advertisement on a connected TV, thereby linking the TV ad exposure to subsequent online behavior as claimed (Compl. ¶39).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The "Accused Instrumentalities" are identified as the Epsilon PeopleCloud platform, CitrusAd off-site, and related components, including Epsilon's Demand-Side Platform (DSP), COREid, header bidding, and Epsilon CTV (Compl. ¶11).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these instrumentalities form a connected platform for "interest-based advertising" (Compl. ¶14). The platform is alleged to use "cookies and identifiers" to target and measure ad campaigns and to create "identity" graphs, to help locate users across various channels, such as connecting identities based on common personal, device-based, or network-based identifiers (e.g., cookies ID, IP address, or hashed email address)" (Compl. ¶15). The system is marketed as a platform that "unites CitrusAd’s on-site and Epsilon’s off-site capabilities in a single user interface" for retail media (Compl. ¶17).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not include, claim chart exhibits for each asserted patent (Compl. ¶¶22, 32, 40). The infringement theories are summarized below based on the complaint's narrative allegations.

’146 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendants' platform infringes by facilitating programmatic ad bidding (Compl. ¶¶23-24). The theory suggests that when Defendants provide a user identifier (such as a CORE ID) in a bid request to a DSP, they are "directing...indicia of a condition" to display an ad. This is alleged to be based on "profile attributes" associated with that user ID. The "condition" is met when a DSP submits a bid at an acceptable price, which Defendants' system then monetizes by accepting the bid and allowing the ad to be served (Compl. ¶24).

’398 Patent Infringement Allegations

The infringement theory for the ’398 Patent centers on the cross-device functionality of the accused platforms, particularly the COREid component (Compl. ¶31). The complaint alleges that Defendants create "identity graphs" that link a user's different devices, such as a laptop and a connected TV (Compl. ¶15). This identity graph allegedly constitutes the claimed "electronic association." When a user engages in an online activity on a first device, Defendants allegedly use this association to take an action, such as delivering a targeted ad, on a second, associated device, thereby performing the claimed method (Compl. ¶¶31-32).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question for the '398 patent may be whether a database-driven "identity graph," which can be built from various signals over time, meets the claim limitation of an "electronic association...based on connection...to a common local area network." The claim language may suggest a more direct, real-time network topology-based link. For the '146 patent, a question is whether providing a user ID in a bid request and subsequently accepting a bid constitutes "directing...indicia of a condition" as claimed.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the accused identity graph is specifically based on a "common local area network" connection, as required by claim 13 of the '398 patent, rather than other methods like common login credentials or probabilistic device matching? The complaint alleges the use of device-based and network-based identifiers but does not detail the specific mechanism (Compl. ¶15).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "electronic association...based on connection...to a common local area network" (from claim 13 of the ’398 Patent)

Context and Importance

This term is central to the cross-device infringement theory of the ’398 patent. The definition will determine whether a persistent, database-driven "identity graph" can infringe a claim that appears to require a link derived from a shared, contemporaneous network connection.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states that the system enables targeting "without employing personally identifiable information," which could support an interpretation that any PII-free method of linking devices on a home network, including one inferred and stored in a database, falls within the claim scope (’398 Patent, col. 1:20-23).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly describes an embodiment where the association is made via a "common IP address" assigned to a modem or router shared by the devices, stating this "comprises the electronic association" (’398 Patent, col. 19:50-55). This language may support a narrower construction limited to a direct, network-level association.

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

Context and Importance

The infringement theory for the '146 patent depends on construing the provision of a user ID within a programmatic bid request as the "indicia of a condition." The scope of this term will be critical to determining whether the mechanics of real-time bidding map onto the claimed method steps.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is broad, not specifying the nature of the "condition." The specification describes the "condition" in relation to a "specified time period" or as part of a URL, suggesting it can be a flexible data element that triggers an ad display (’146 Patent, col. 14:1-5).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's focus is on profit calculation. An argument could be made that the "condition" must be directly tied to the economic test central to the invention, potentially narrowing its scope to something more explicit than the mere presence of a user ID in a bid request that initiates a price auction (’146 Patent, Abstract).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’146 patent. It asserts that by providing user IDs to DSPs in bid requests, Defendants knowingly and intentionally encourage the DSPs to use those IDs to access profile information and submit bids for targeted ads, as this practice "results in more bid responses at higher prices" for the Defendants (Compl. ¶¶23-24).

Willful Infringement

The complaint does not use the term "willful." However, it alleges knowledge of the ’146 patent "Through at least the filing and service of this Complaint" and that Defendants "continue to make, use, offer for sale, and/or sell the Accused Instrumentalities" despite this knowledge (Compl. ¶¶23-24). These allegations may form the basis for a claim of post-filing willfulness. The complaint does not allege pre-suit knowledge.

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the ’398 patent’s claim term “electronic association...based on connection...to a common local area network,” which the specification links to a shared router IP, be construed to cover a persistent, database-driven “identity graph” that may be constructed from a variety of signals over time?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional mapping: Does the operational sequence of modern programmatic advertising—where providing a user ID initiates a price auction—perform the specific steps of “directing...indicia of a condition” for ad display as claimed by the ’146 patent, or is there a fundamental mismatch in the claimed versus accused technical operations?
  • The case may also raise a question of divided infringement: Given that the accused methods involve interactions between Defendants' platforms, advertisers' DSPs, and publishers' websites, can Plaintiffs demonstrate that Defendants control or direct all steps of the asserted method claims, or that they are liable for inducing the actions of the other parties in the ecosystem?