AlmondNet Inc v. Pinterest Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: AlmondNet, Inc. (Delaware) and Intent IQ, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Pinterest, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Farnan LLP; Russ August & Kabat
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00082, D. Del., 01/23/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant, Pinterest, Inc., is incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s digital advertising platform infringes two patents related to cross-device ad targeting and profile-based ad selection methodologies.
• Technical Context: The patents address technologies for linking user behavior across different devices and for making economically optimized decisions about when and where to deliver targeted digital advertisements.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any significant procedural history, such as prior litigation involving the Asserted Patents or related proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Case Timeline

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 Mar. 18, 2014)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the technical challenge of targeting advertisements on one medium, such as television, based on a user's behavior observed on a different medium, like the internet, without relying on personally identifiable information (PII) to link the user's activities. (Compl. ¶1; ’398 Patent, col. 7:13-22).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to electronically associate the IP address of a user's online access device (e.g., a modem) with the IP address of their television set-top box (STB). (’398 Patent, Abstract). By linking these non-PII identifiers, a user's online activity (e.g., web browsing) can be used to select a relevant advertisement that is then delivered to their television via the associated STB. (’398 Patent, col. 8:1-11).
• Technical Importance: This approach provided a framework for cross-media advertising that could enhance targeting relevance while seeking to avoid the privacy-related objections associated with correlating PII across different platforms. (’398 Patent, col. 7:35-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent method claim 13. (Compl. ¶17).
• The essential elements of independent claim 13 include:
  • Based on first electronic profile data associated with a first device's electronic identifier, automatically causing an action to be taken with respect to a second device.
  • The second device is indicated by a second electronic identifier that is electronically associated with the first device identifier.
  • The electronic association is based on the connection of each of the first and second devices 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 itself part of that local area network.
• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more method claims." (Compl. ¶17).

U.S. Patent No. 8,959,146 - "`media properties selection method and system based on expected profit from profile-based ad delivery`" (Issued Feb. 17, 2015)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the economic inefficiencies in behavioral advertising, where a user profiled on a first website (a "media property") is targeted for ads on a second website. The problem is that the value of the user's profile and the cost of ad space on the second site vary, making it difficult to know if placing an ad will be profitable. (’146 Patent, col. 5:46-54).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses an automated system that calculates the expected profit from delivering a targeted advertisement. (’146 Patent, Abstract). This calculation deducts costs, such as the price of ad space on a target media property, from the expected revenue generated by the ad. If the calculated profit is positive, the system then arranges for the user to be "tagged" (e.g., via a cookie) so that the profitable ad can be delivered to them on the selected media property. (’146 Patent, col. 6:11-24).
• Technical Importance: This technology introduced an explicit, real-time profit calculation into the ad selection process, allowing for more economically optimized media buying decisions beyond simple audience matching. (’146 Patent, col. 6:11-18).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent method claim 1. (Compl. ¶25).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • For different 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."
  • The condition relates to the display of an advertisement to the visitor on the second media property.
  • This direction is based on information indicating a profile attribute is applicable to the visitor, where that information was received as a result of the visit to the first media property.
  • The advertisement is correlated with the profile attribute.
• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more method claims." (Compl. ¶25).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are identified as the "Pinterest visual search and discovery platform" and its related advertising components. (Compl. ¶9). These components include, among others, Pinterest Ads, Pin Promotion, Pinterest Tag, Pinterest Conversion API, Ads Manager, and various bidding and targeting systems. (Compl. ¶9).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the accused platform as a service at the "intersection of search, social and commerce" that generates "substantially all of our revenue from advertising." (Compl. ¶¶10-11). A screenshot provided in the complaint from a Pinterest business webpage describes its advertising solutions in three categories: "Targeting," "Budgeting," and "Measurement." (Compl. ¶13, p. 4). The "Targeting" solution is described as a suite to "find new customers or upload customer lists for retargeting campaigns." (Compl. ¶13, p. 4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that claim charts for the ’398 Patent and ’146 Patent are attached as Exhibits 2 and 4, respectively. (Compl. ¶¶17, 25, 27). As these exhibits were not provided, the following analysis is based on the narrative infringement theories presented in the body of the complaint.

• ’398 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint's narrative theory for the ’398 Patent is minimal. It alleges that Pinterest, through the Accused Instrumentalities, "performs all claim limitations of one or more method claims of the ’398 patent." (Compl. ¶17). The complaint does not provide specific factual allegations in its main body detailing how the Pinterest platform is alleged to meet the claim elements, instead incorporating the unattached claim chart by reference. (Compl. ¶17). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a more granular analysis of the infringement theory for this patent.

• ’146 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint provides a more detailed narrative for its infringement theory of the ’146 Patent. It alleges that Pinterest "facilitating the delivery of data (e.g., an IP address and a cookie ID) to DSPs and advertising partners (e.g., Amazon)" so that these partners can "use profile information associated with that data to determine, e.g., the bid or price willing to be paid for an ad space." (Compl. ¶26). This action of providing profile data to partners who then make price-based decisions to serve an ad is alleged to infringe the ’146 patent. (Compl. ¶¶26-27).

• Identified Points of Contention:

  • Scope Questions: A central question for the ’398 Patent may be whether its claims, which are described in the context of linking online behavior with the delivery of television advertisements via a set-top box, can be construed to read on the accused Pinterest platform, which is a web- and mobile-based digital advertising ecosystem. The complaint does not allege that the accused system involves televisions or set-top boxes.
  • Technical Questions: For the ’146 Patent, a key technical question may be whether Pinterest's ad bidding and delivery system performs the specific "expected profit" calculation as claimed. The dispute may focus on whether the alleged functionality—enabling partners to determine a "bid or price"—is equivalent to the claimed method of first calculating an expected profit (revenue minus cost) and then, based on a positive result, enabling the ad delivery process.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• Term from ’398 Patent, Claim 13: "second device...indicated at the time of the action by an electronic identifier electronically associated with the first device identifier"

  • Context and Importance: This term is central because the infringement case for the ’398 Patent appears to depend on mapping Pinterest's purely digital ecosystem to the patent's cross-media (online-to-television) framework. Practitioners may focus on this term because the definition of the "second device" and its "identifier" will determine whether the claim can cover a system without a television or a physical set-top box.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification provides a broad definition for "Set-top box (STB)," stating it can be "software that is physically integrated with another 'box,' such as the television." (’398 Patent, col. 2:56-60). This could support an argument that a software component within Pinterest's platform or on a user's device qualifies as the "second device."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s abstract, background, and summary consistently frame the invention as solving the problem of targeting "television advertisements based on observed online...behavior." (’398 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:15-17). The figures exclusively depict a television (38) and STB (36) as the second device. (’398 Patent, Fig. 1). This context may support a narrower construction limited to television-centric systems.

• Term from ’146 Patent, Claim 1: "directing...indicia of a condition"

  • Context and Importance: The infringement analysis for the ’146 Patent will likely hinge on the meaning of this phrase. The central dispute may be whether Pinterest's participation in a standard ad auction process constitutes "directing...indicia of a condition" as claimed.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent states the "condition for display of the advertisement is 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, cl. 2). This could be interpreted broadly to cover any price-based trigger for displaying an ad, which is fundamental to most ad auctions.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific sequence where an "expected profit" is calculated first, and this calculation determines the selection of media properties. (’146 Patent, col. 6:11-18). This suggests the "condition" is not just any price threshold in an auction, but rather the outcome of a preceding, explicit profit-maximization analysis performed by the system, which may be a more specific operation than what is alleged.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the ’146 Patent. (Compl. ¶26). The specific facts alleged are that Pinterest provides user data to third-party DSPs and advertising partners, with the alleged purpose and intent that those partners will use the data to submit bids for targeted ads, an activity that allegedly constitutes direct infringement. (Compl. ¶¶26-27). No indirect infringement is alleged for the ’398 Patent.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. For the ’146 Patent, it alleges that Defendant has had knowledge of the patent "[t]hrough at least the filing and service of this Complaint," establishing a basis for potential post-suit enhancement of damages but not alleging pre-suit knowledge. (Compl. ¶26).

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

1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the claims of the ’398 Patent, rooted in the specification's context of linking online activity to television advertising via a set-top box, be construed to cover the purely digital, web-and-app-based advertising ecosystem operated by Pinterest?
2. A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: Does Pinterest's ad platform perform the specific, two-step, profit-driven calculation method required by the ’146 Patent—first calculating expected profit and then enabling ad delivery if profitable—or does its system function as a more conventional ad auction where the highest bid wins, which may present a mismatch with the claimed technical steps?
3. A central issue for the inducement claim will be one of intent: Does the complaint's allegation that Pinterest provides data to partners for bidding purposes sufficiently plead the specific intent required to encourage infringement of the particular method claimed by the ’146 Patent, especially if the partners' bidding systems do not perform the claimed profit calculation?