DCT

8:22-cv-00487

Integrated Advertising Labs LLC v. Revcontent LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 8:22-cv-00487, M.D. Fla., 03/01/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Middle District of Florida because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in Sarasota and has committed acts of patent infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s native advertising platform infringes three patents related to the automated distribution, placement, and tracking of sponsored content designed to match the appearance of non-sponsored content on publisher websites.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue is in the digital advertising field of "native advertising," where advertisements are programmatically integrated into a website's content feed to improve user engagement compared to traditional banner ads.
  • Key Procedural History: The Asserted Patents are all related, share a common specification, and claim priority to a 2006 provisional application. Plaintiff IAL is a licensing entity for the patents, which were invented by the CEO of its parent company, Nativo, Inc. The complaint notes that the claims of the '622 patent were allowed after an initial rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, following an argument that the claims represented a technical improvement to the functioning of the internet itself, not merely an abstract idea.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-06-29 Priority Date for all Asserted Patents ('622, '781, '121)
2015-03-12 Applicant Response to Office Action for '622 Patent
2016-03-15 U.S. Patent 9,286,622 Issues
2017-05-16 U.S. Patent 9,652,781 Issues
2018-12-04 U.S. Patent 10,147,121 Issues
2022-03-01 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,286,622 - "Press Release Distribution System," issued March 15, 2016.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses difficulties advertisers faced in reaching niche markets across numerous websites, describing the prior art process as "very difficult and time consuming" for selecting sites, measuring ad effectiveness, and customizing ad formats for different websites (Compl. ¶17; ’622 Patent, col. 1:46-49, 1:65-2:6).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a centralized distribution system that automates the placement of sponsored content (termed "press releases") onto a network of third-party websites (termed "forum sites") (Compl. ¶18). The system includes a distributor module that sends content to sites based on "relatedness," an input module for advertisers to submit content, and a "poster module" that runs on the publisher websites to receive and post the content as a message, thereby integrating it with the site's native content flow (’622 Patent, col. 3:3-15).
  • Technical Importance: This technology sought to automate the burgeoning field of native advertising, providing a scalable solution for placing and tracking contextually integrated ads across many disparate websites, an improvement over manual ad placement (Compl. ¶¶9-10).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 13 (Compl. ¶28).
  • The essential elements of method claim 13 include:
    • Electronically receiving, distributing, and posting "sponsored news content" among non-sponsored content on a plurality of web sites.
    • Electronically tracking user interactions (impressions, clicks) and monitoring user data at the web sites.
    • Delivering specific sponsored content to a particular user based on monitored user data, with revenue sharing between the system and the web sites.
    • A set of negative and positive limitations defining the display format: the content is not a banner ad; it is displayed contiguously with and scrolls together with non-sponsored content; it is in a "fixed, position relative to" the non-sponsored content; and its appearance is substantially the same as the non-sponsored content but with at least one distinguishing feature (Compl. ¶19; ’622 Patent, col. 15:55-16:36).
  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" but does not identify specific dependent claims (Compl. ¶27).

U.S. Patent No. 9,652,781 - "Press Release Distribution System," issued May 16, 2017.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As the '781 Patent shares a common specification with the '622 Patent, it addresses the same challenges of effectively placing, managing, and tracking advertisements across a large and fragmented landscape of online publishers (Compl. ¶17, p.6, fn.1).
  • The Patented Solution: The patented solution is a method for delivering sponsored advertisements by monitoring user activity on websites and then using that data to request and distribute relevant sponsored content to be embedded among the websites' non-sponsored content (’781 Patent, Abstract, col. 3:20-33).
  • Technical Importance: The invention provides a method for data-driven, automated native advertising, aiming to improve ad relevance and performance by using user behavior to trigger the delivery of sponsored content (Compl. ¶¶9-10).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 8 (Compl. ¶38).
  • The essential elements of method claim 8 include:
    • Electronically monitoring user data or activity on one or more web sites.
    • Electronically requesting sponsored news content by a server computer based on the monitored user data or activity.
    • Electronically distributing and embedding the sponsored news content among non-sponsored content on related web sites.
    • The method also includes several "wherein" clauses defining the display format and functionality, similar to those in the '622 patent, including that the content is not a banner ad and scrolls with the native content in a fixed relative position (’781 Patent, col. 15:50-16:32).
  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" but does not identify specific dependent claims (Compl. ¶37).

U.S. Patent No. 10,147,121 - "Press Release Distribution System," issued December 4, 2018.

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, from the same family as the '622 and '781 patents, describes a system for distributing sponsored posts for display among non-sponsored posts on web pages (Compl. p.6, fn.1). The system is configured to monitor user data, use that data to deliver targeted advertisements, and track user actions, while displaying the sponsored content in a format that is visually integrated with the native content on the page (’121 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶48).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant's "Revcontent Platform" for content marketing and native advertising performs the method of claim 1 (Compl. ¶48).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The "Revcontent Platform" (the "Platform"), identified as a "content marketing, native advertising, and discovery platform" (Compl. ¶28).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the Revcontent Platform is a system used by advertisers to place, and by publishers to display, sponsored content on websites (Compl. ¶28). The Platform is alleged to perform the patented methods by receiving advertisements, distributing them to a network of third-party publisher websites, and causing them to be displayed in a native format that integrates with the publishers' existing content (Compl. ¶¶28, 38, 48). Plaintiff characterizes Defendant as a competitor that replicated the patented technology after its commercial success became evident (Compl. ¶11).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Revcontent Platform infringes the Asserted Patents both directly and through a theory of divided infringement, where Revcontent allegedly performs some method steps while directing or controlling third parties (e.g., advertisers and publishers) to perform the remaining steps (Compl. ¶¶28, 38, 48). The complaint states that participation in the Revcontent Platform is conditioned upon these third parties performing the necessary steps, which Plaintiff asserts establishes the requisite direction or control (Compl. ¶¶28, 38, 48). The complaint references illustrative claim charts in Exhibits B, C, and D, but these exhibits were not provided with the complaint text, precluding a detailed, element-by-element comparison based on the provided documents (Compl. ¶¶29, 39, 49).

  • Identified Points of Contention ('622 Patent):

    • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the ads served by the Revcontent Platform meet the definition of "sponsored news content." Further, the claim requires the content to be in a "fixed, position relative to at least some of the contiguously displayed non-sponsored content," which raises a factual question about the specific code and rendering behavior of the accused advertisements on publisher pages.
    • Technical Questions: The viability of the divided infringement theory will be a primary point of contention. The key question is whether Plaintiff can prove that Revcontent's terms of service and platform architecture exert sufficient "direction or control" over its users to attribute their actions to Revcontent under current legal standards.

  • Identified Points of Contention ('781 Patent):

    • Scope Questions: Claim 8 requires "requesting sponsored news content... based on the monitored user data or activity." This raises the question of how direct the causal link must be between a user's specific action and the subsequent ad request in the accused Platform.
    • Technical Questions: As with the '622 patent, the divided infringement theory will be critical. The court will need to determine if Revcontent's provision of "code and advertisements" and its conditioning of benefits like revenue are sufficient to establish liability for steps performed by third-party publishers and advertisers (Compl. ¶38).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • For the '622 Patent (from Claim 13):

    • The Term: "sponsored news content"

    • Context and Importance: The construction of this term is fundamental to the scope of the patent. The dispute will likely center on whether the term is limited to content that is substantively journalistic, like a "press release," or if it broadly covers any commercial advertisement formatted to appear like editorial content.

    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses distributing "press releases, other news, advertisements, messages and/or non-'press' events," suggesting "sponsored news content" could encompass more than just press releases (’622 Patent, col. 4:55-57).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent is titled "Press Release Distribution System" and repeatedly uses the term "press release" in its exemplary embodiments, which a party could argue cabins the meaning of "sponsored news content" to more formal, article-like announcements (’622 Patent, col. 3:3-15).

    • The Term: "in a fixed, position relative to... non-sponsored content"

    • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the technical display characteristics of the advertisement. Infringement will depend on whether the accused ads, as rendered in a web browser, maintain the specific positional relationship required by the claim as a user scrolls the page.

    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue this simply means the ad is embedded within the content stream and scrolls with it, as opposed to a "sticky" banner ad that remains fixed to the viewport.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The phrase itself, combined with the requirement that the ad "scroll together with" the content, suggests a specific technical implementation where the ad is part of the same document flow as the text around it. A party could argue that ads loaded in a separate frame or via complex scripts that alter the document object model might not meet this limitation (’622 Patent, col. 16:1-5).

  • For the '781 Patent (from Claim 8):

    • The Term: "requesting sponsored news content... based on the monitored user data or activity"
    • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because it defines the data-driven nature of the claimed invention. The dispute will turn on the required level of causality between the "monitored data" and the "request" for an ad.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes using monitored data to generate "user profiles" for targeting, which could support an interpretation where a request based on a general user profile, rather than a single specific action, meets the limitation (’781 Patent, Abstract).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that "based on" requires a more direct, real-time link, where a specific monitored event (e.g., a search, a click) triggers the ad request, rather than a generalized match against a pre-compiled profile. The patent describes monitoring forum activity such as "posts downloaded/read" and "posts written/uploaded" (’781 Patent, col. 11:33-35).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: While the complaint does not contain a separate count for indirect infringement, its divided infringement theory is predicated on inducement. The complaint alleges that Defendant "directs or controls the acts" of its users by providing the "code and advertisements" and conditioning participation on the performance of the claimed method steps, which are factual allegations that could support a claim for induced infringement (Compl. ¶¶28, 38).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly allege willful infringement or plead facts showing Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patents. However, the prayer for relief requests that the court find the case "exceptional" and award "enhanced damages," which is relief typically predicated on a finding of willful or egregious infringement (Compl. ¶19(e)).

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

  • A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "sponsored news content," which originates from the patent's disclosure of a "press release distribution system," be construed broadly enough to read on the range of commercial advertisements delivered by the accused Revcontent Platform?
  • A key legal question will be one of divided infringement: does Plaintiff's evidence of how Revcontent manages its platform and interacts with third-party publishers and advertisers meet the high legal bar for "direction or control," which is necessary to hold Revcontent liable for method steps it does not perform itself?
  • A central evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does the accused Platform's ad-serving technology actually function in the manner required by the claims, particularly the specific limitations regarding the "fixed" positional relationship of the ad and the data-driven "requesting" of content?