Intent Iq LLC v. Tvscientific Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Intent IQ, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: tvScientific, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Farnan LLP (with Russ August & Kabat as Of Counsel)
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00089, D. Del., 01/27/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant is a Delaware corporation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s cross-device advertising technology platform infringes a patent related to methods for linking a user's online activity on one device to targeted advertising delivered to another device on the same network.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue facilitates cross-device advertising, a critical function in the digital advertising market that allows advertisers to reach consumers consistently across their various devices, such as computers, smartphones, and smart TVs.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative patent challenges. However, the asserted patent's front page indicates that an Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate was issued on July 15, 2024, which confirmed the patentability of claims 1 and 2. The complaint highlights infringement of independent claim 13, which was not part of the reexamination.

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"

• Patent Identification: 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 "’398 Patent").

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the challenge of targeting television advertisements based on a user’s online (i.e., Internet) behavior without collecting or using personally identifiable information (PII), which raises significant consumer privacy concerns and technical hurdles ’398 Patent, col. 1:16-22, col. 7:29-43
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method where a remote computer system (a "Central Ad Server") electronically associates a user's online access device (e.g., a computer) with their television device (e.g., a set-top box) by recognizing that both devices connect to the Internet through a "common local area network," often identified by a shared public IP address. This association allows an advertiser to use non-PII profile data from the user's web browsing to select and deliver a targeted advertisement to the user's television, bridging the gap between online activity and TV viewing. (’398 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:1-12; Fig. 7).
• Technical Importance: This approach provided a potential framework for enabling valuable cross-media advertising campaigns while seeking to mitigate privacy risks by avoiding the direct correlation of a user's name or other PII with their online behavior ’398 Patent, col. 7:51-62

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint specifically references independent method claim 13 and alleges infringement of "one or more method claims" of the ’398 Patent Compl. ¶12-13
• The essential elements of independent claim 13 include:
  • Based on first electronic profile data from a first device, a computer system automatically causes an action to be taken on a second device.
  • The second device is indicated by an electronic identifier that is electronically associated with the first device's identifier.
  • The electronic association is based on the fact that both devices connected, before the action, to a "common local area network."
  • The computer system performing the method is "not in the local area network" but is connected to it through the Internet.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but its broad allegation of infringing "one or more method claims" leaves that possibility open Compl. ¶12

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The "Accused Instrumentalities" are identified as "tvScientific's advertising technology platform and related components," including but not limited to "Advanced Targeting, CTV Targeting Segments, Web-to-TV Retargeting, the tvScientific pixel, CTV Retargeting, IP Targeting, CTV measurement, and CTV attribution" Compl. ¶8, 12

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges that the accused platform helps advertisers "manage digital advertising campaigns across smart TVs and other streaming apps" Compl. ¶9 The names of the accused components suggest functionalities that directly map to the patent's subject matter, such as identifying a user across web and television environments ("Web-to-TV Retargeting"), using network identifiers to link devices ("IP Targeting"), and measuring the effectiveness of the cross-device ads ("CTV attribution") Compl. ¶8

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant's platform directly infringes the ’398 Patent by performing all limitations of one or more method claims Compl. ¶13 It incorporates by reference a claim chart for independent method claim 13 as Exhibit 2; however, this exhibit was not provided with the complaint document Compl. ¶13 The narrative theory suggests that the Accused Instrumentalities create an "electronic association" between a user's web-browsing device and their connected television (CTV) device, using information like a shared IP address. Based on the user's web activity (the "profile data"), the platform then causes a targeted advertisement to be delivered to the user's television. The names of the accused platform components, such as "Web-to-TV Retargeting" and "IP Targeting," are presented as evidence of this functionality Compl. ¶8

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central dispute may arise over the proper construction of "common local area network." The question will be whether this term is limited to a traditional home Wi-Fi network, as depicted in the patent's figures, or if it can be read more broadly to encompass modern techniques for associating devices that appear to originate from the same public IP address or household, which the accused "IP Targeting" feature may employ.
  • Technical Questions: A key factual question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused platform establishes the required "electronic association" between two devices before the "action" (i.e., the delivery of the targeted ad) is taken, as mandated by the claim language. Another question is how the complaint will substantiate the negative limitation that the accused "computer system" is "not in the local area network," a requirement that points to a specific remote-server architecture.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "common local area network"

  • Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the patent's method of associating devices without PII. The definition will be critical in determining whether Defendant’s cross-device identification technology, which may rely on a variety of signals, falls within the claim's scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because modern ad-tech platforms often use probabilistic or deterministic signals beyond a simple shared LAN.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the key mechanism is the use of a "common IP address" to link devices, which could support an interpretation that extends beyond a literal, physically-wired or Wi-Fi LAN to any environment where multiple devices share a single public-facing IP address ’398 Patent, col. 13:8-22
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s figures and detailed description repeatedly illustrate the concept using diagrams of a household or office where a single modem or router connects multiple devices, which could support a narrower construction limited to a conventional LAN architecture ’398 Patent, Fig. 7; col. 13:1-4

• The Term: "computer system ... not in the local area network"

  • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the required architecture of the infringing system, placing the core processing and decision-making functions on a remote server external to the user's home or office network. This distinguishes the invention from on-device or on-premises ad-serving solutions.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification's description of a "Central Ad Server (CAS)" that manages ad delivery for multiple users suggests "computer system" refers to this remote, centralized entity, and "not in" simply means it is external to the end-user's network ’398 Patent, col. 3:51-54, Fig. 1
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that if any material part of the ad-decisioning or association logic is distributed to or performed by software on the user's own devices (within the LAN), the "computer system" as a whole is not entirely "not in the local area network."

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "common local area network," which is rooted in patent figures showing conventional home networks, be construed to cover the more complex IP-based and probabilistic device-linking methodologies allegedly used by modern advertising platforms?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of operational proof: what technical evidence will be required to demonstrate that the accused platform creates the claimed "electronic association" based on a shared network connection before it takes the subsequent action of delivering a targeted ad, as the claim's sequence requires?
• A central architectural question will be one of system location: does the accused platform's decision-making "computer system" operate entirely remotely from the user's devices, thereby satisfying the claim requirement that it be "not in the local area network," or is its functionality distributed in a way that might challenge this limitation?