DCT
1:24-cv-00314
Fullthrottle Tech LLC v. Rocket Media LLC
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: FullThrottle Technologies, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Rocket Media, LLC (d/b/a “LAUNCH LABS”) (North Carolina)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Williams Mullen, P.C.; Flaster Greenberg P.C.
- Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00314, M.D.N.C., 04/11/2024
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant is a North Carolina limited liability company that resides in the district, maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, and has allegedly committed acts of infringement in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Ignite" marketing platform infringes patents related to methods for identifying and analyzing anonymous website visitors in a "cookieless" environment.
- Technical Context: The technology operates in the digital advertising sector, offering a solution to user identification and marketing attribution challenges arising from the industry-wide phase-out of third-party tracking cookies by major web browsers.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the parties are direct competitors and had prior communications regarding intellectual property issues concerning trademark rights in February 2022. Plaintiff also alleges that it provided notice of the Asserted Patents via press releases and patent marking on its corporate website, which Defendant's employees or counsel allegedly visited.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2021-06-08 | Priority Date for ’947 and ’219 Patents |
| 2023-01-17 | U.S. Patent No. 11,556,947 Issues |
| 2023-01-23 | Plaintiff issues press release announcing ’947 Patent |
| 2023-11-21 | U.S. Patent No. 11,823,219 Issues |
| 2024-02-20 | Plaintiff issues press release announcing ’219 Patent |
| 2024-04-11 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 11,556,947 - "Location Determination Using Anonymous Browser Data"
- Issued: January 17, 2023
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the technical problem faced by businesses that can no longer rely on third-party cookies to identify, track, and learn about potential customers visiting their websites due to modern browser privacy restrictions (Compl. ¶16-18). This shift can render website visitors "essentially invisible to the retailer" (Compl. ¶17).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system that receives "anonymous data" from a user's browser session (e.g., IP address, browser type) to determine a user's physical location without traditional cookies (Compl. ¶23; ’947 Patent, Abstract). It then assigns a unique identifier to the user, which is stored in the browser's local cache rather than as a cookie, and uses this identifier to build a user profile based on browsing activity and location, enabling targeted marketing (Compl. ¶24-25; ’947 Patent, col. 7:56-67). The complaint includes a diagram illustrating this architecture, which shows JavaScript on a customer's website communicating with a back-end server to identify an internet user (Compl. p. 11).
- Technical Importance: This approach provides a method for first-party data collection and user identification that can function in a "cookieless" digital environment, allowing businesses to continue personalized marketing efforts (Compl. ¶19-20).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent method claim 1 and independent system claim 11.
- Independent Claim 1 recites a method with the following essential elements:
- Receiving first anonymous data from a user's browser session.
- Determining the user accessed a URL.
- Determining the user has not been assigned a unique identifier.
- Assigning the unique identifier to the user.
- Determining whether the user opted-in to or out of location tracking based on whether a location tracker is installed.
- Sending the unique identifier to the user's device for storage in a local browser cache upon determining an opt-out.
- Determining latitude and longitude coordinates based on anonymous data (for opt-out) or geo-location data (for opt-in).
- Identifying a physical address from the coordinates using a map API.
- Associating the unique identifier to the physical address.
- Generating a user profile using the unique identifier and physical address.
- Updating the profile based on subsequent browser sessions.
- Identifying a second visit using the unique identifier from the browser cache.
- Determining a "confidence rating" for the user's interest in a product.
- Generating and sending notifications based on the profile or confidence rating.
- Independent Claim 11 is directed to a "non-transitory, machine-readable storage device" with instructions that cause a computing device to perform the method steps of claim 1 (Compl. ¶48).
U.S. Patent No. 11,823,219 - "Location Determination Using Anonymous Browser Data"
- Issued: November 21, 2023
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent, which shares a specification with the ’947 Patent, addresses the related problem of attributing a user's website visit to a specific media advertising campaign when third-party cookies are unavailable for tracking (Compl. ¶30).
- The Patented Solution: The invention solves this by receiving campaign-level data (e.g., target ZIP codes, ad impression data) and anonymous user data from a browser session (’219 Patent, Abstract). It determines the user's physical address and determines if that address falls within a ZIP code covered by the campaign (Compl. ¶31; ’219 Patent, col. 2:25-34). The system then determines a "probability" that the user's visit was initiated in response to media from the campaign, enabling advertisers to measure campaign effectiveness (Compl. ¶31; ’219 Patent, col. 2:25-47).
- Technical Importance: This technology offers a method for advertising attribution that does not rely on cross-site tracking, which is critical for measuring return on investment for advertising campaigns in privacy-focused browser environments (Compl. ¶31-32).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent method claim 1, dependent claims 2 and 3, and system claims 19, 20, and 21.
- Independent Claim 1 recites a method with the following essential elements:
- Receiving campaign level data.
- Receiving anonymous data from a browser session.
- Determining the user accessed a URL.
- Determining latitude and longitude coordinates based on anonymous data (for opt-out) or geo-location data (for opt-in).
- Identifying a physical address from the coordinates using a map API.
- Determining that the physical address is within a ZIP code covered by the campaign.
- Determining the browser session was initiated with an intent to visit the URL.
- Determining a probability that the session was initiated in response to media associated with the campaign.
- Dependent Claims 2 and 3 add limitations related to the composition of the anonymous data and the steps of assigning a unique identifier (Compl. ¶101-104).
- Independent Claim 19 is directed to a "non-transitory, machine-readable storage device" with instructions to perform the method steps of claim 1 (Compl. ¶55).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Ignite by Launch Labs" ("Ignite") product and service (Compl. ¶2, ¶57).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Ignite is a technology platform that Defendant markets as a solution to the "post-third-party cookie era" (Compl. ¶62-63). The complaint presents a screenshot from Defendant's marketing materials offering to "Grow Your First-Party Data With Ignite" (Compl. p. 25). It allegedly uses JavaScript code, titled "atmain2.js," installed on its customers' websites to gather data from visitors (Compl. ¶58-60). This data, including location information, is allegedly sent to Defendant's back-end platform to generate "visitor profiles" that include a visitor's physical address, pages visited, and a "traffic_score" (Compl. ¶60, ¶72). An example "Visitor Profile" provided in the complaint shows fields for latitude, longitude, street address, and visit history (Compl. p. 28). The platform is marketed to businesses, including automobile dealerships, to "transform 'website visitors into sales'" by collecting their information and tracking their actions (Compl. ¶66, ¶107).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’947 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving first anonymous data associated with a first browser session initialized by a user... | Defendant's back-end platform allegedly receives anonymous data, such as IP address, date, time, referring URL, and browser type, via HTTP headers from the Ignite JavaScript code running on a user's browser. | ¶77 | col. 6:36-47 |
| determining that the user has not been assigned a unique identifier... | The Ignite back-end platform allegedly determines that a unique identifier has not been assigned to a new website visitor. | ¶81 | col. 5:26-29 |
| assigning the unique identifier to the user; | The "atmain2.js" JavaScript code allegedly calls Defendant's back-end server, which assigns and returns a unique identifier ("guid"). | ¶81 | col. 11:27-33 |
| sending, upon determining that the user opted-out of location tracking, the unique identifier to the user computing device for storage in a local browser cache; | The Ignite platform allegedly assigns a unique identifier when a user has not consented to location tracking and sends it for storage in the local browser cache as a cookie named "atguid". | ¶83 | col. 13:10-14 |
| identifying a physical address for the user based on the determined latitude coordinate and the determined longitude coordinate using a map application programming interface (API); | The Ignite platform allegedly uses latitude and longitude coordinates to perform "Location Mapping" and "Resident Identification" to determine a physical address. | ¶86 | col. 7:31-41 |
| generating a user profile for the user using the unique identifier and physical address... | The Ignite platform allegedly generates "Visitor Profiles" containing URLs visited, visit frequency ("session_count"), and physical address information. The complaint provides an example of such a profile (Compl. p. 29). | ¶87 | col. 7:56-67 |
| determining, using the updated profile information, a confidence rating for the user... | The Ignite platform allegedly determines a "Traffic Score," which corresponds to the claimed "confidence rating" and "measures how engaged those captured visitors become." | ¶89 | col. 16:6-10 |
| generating one or more notifications based on...the confidence rating; | The Ignite platform allegedly "sends dynamic offers tailored to each shopper's specific interests" based on user engagement. | ¶90 | col. 16:46-51 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question may be the interpretation of "determining that the user opted-out of location tracking." The complaint alleges infringement by describing a system that prompts users for location data via popups (Compl. ¶82). A point of contention may be whether a user's failure to opt in via such a popup legally and technically constitutes a "determin[ation] that the user opted-out" as required by the claim, or if an affirmative act of opting out is required.
- Technical Questions: The claim requires sending the unique identifier for storage upon determining an opt-out. The complaint alleges these functions occur (Compl. ¶83), but the evidence presented does not explicitly show the causal link. The case may require evidence demonstrating that the assignment and storage of the "atguid" is conditional upon the system first determining a user has opted out of location tracking.
’219 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| receiving campaign level data associated with a campaign; | Defendant's platform allegedly uses "first-party data to craft laser-focused re-marketing campaigns," which the complaint equates to receiving campaign-level data. | ¶93 | col. 24:1-5 |
| receiving anonymous data associated with a browser session... | The Ignite platform allegedly receives anonymous browser data, as described in the infringement analysis of the ’947 Patent. | ¶94 | col. 6:36-47 |
| determining a latitude coordinate and a longitude coordinate of the user computing device... | The Ignite platform allegedly performs "High-Accuracy GPS Measurement" and uses latitude/longitude to track visitors. | ¶96 | col. 7:7-14 |
| determining that the physical address is within a ZIP code covered by the campaign; | The Ignite platform allegedly tracks the physical address and ZIP code in its "visitor profiles," which is then used to track the performance of campaigns. | ¶98 | col. 25:6-13 |
| determining that the browser session was initiated by the user with an intent to visit the URL; and | The Ignite platform allegedly tracks user engagement and preferences to understand "your audience's preferences, behaviors, and purchasing habits," which the complaint alleges corresponds to determining user intent. | ¶99 | col. 26:42-49 |
| determining a probability that the browser session was initiated in response to watching or listening to media associated with the campaign... | The Ignite platform allegedly sends and tracks the performance of targeted marketing emails and offers, which the complaint alleges corresponds to determining the claimed probability of influence. | ¶100 | col. 2:25-29 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The term "determining a probability" may become a central point of construction. Does this require a specific quantitative calculation, as suggested by the patent's detailed description (which discusses daypart factors and impression data), or can it be satisfied by more general marketing analytics that track campaign performance and user engagement?
- Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that the Ignite platform performs the specific steps of calculating a "probability" of media influence? The complaint alleges that Ignite tracks campaign performance (e.g., email click-through rates) (Compl. ¶100), but a key question will be whether this functionality meets the more specific limitation of determining a probability that a prior media exposure initiated a subsequent browsing session.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "determining that the user opted-out of location tracking" (’947 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because the claim requires different methods for determining a user's coordinates based on the opt-in/opt-out status. The infringement theory appears to rely on the system's response to a user not opting in. The case may turn on whether "determining... opted-out" can be satisfied by an inference from inaction, or if it requires an explicit user choice to deny location access.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a binary choice: a user either opts in or opts out. For example, the patent states "If the user opted-out of location tracking, the computing device may determine a latitude coordinate and a longitude coordinate..." (’947 Patent, col. 2:44-47). This language may support an argument that any session where the user has not opted-in is, by definition, an "opt-out" session.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 5 of the patent shows a decision diamond "Did User Opt-In to Location Tracking?" with "Yes" and "No" paths (’947 Patent, Fig. 5). A defendant may argue that this "No" path does not inherently equate to an affirmative "determination of opt-out" but simply a lack of data, and that a separate determination step is required.
The Term: "determining a probability that the browser session was initiated in response to watching or listening to media" (’219 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This limitation defines a core analytical step of the invention. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement will depend on whether Ignite's general campaign performance tracking (e.g., measuring click-through rates) is technically equivalent to the specific probabilistic determination described in the patent.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The summary of the invention describes the concept broadly as "determining a probability that a browsing session was initiated in response to watching and/or listening to media associated with a campaign" (’219 Patent, col. 2:25-29) without mandating a specific formula in that section, which might support a more flexible interpretation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides a specific method for calculating this probability, involving "a first impression proportion," "a second impression proportion," and a "daypart factor" (e.g., ’219 Patent, col. 2:40-54, col. 29:26-47, and Equation 1). This detailed embodiment may be used to argue for a narrower construction that requires a specific, multi-factor calculation that the accused product may not perform.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged knowledge of the Asserted Patents. This knowledge is purportedly based on Plaintiff's public patent marking on its website, press releases announcing the patents' issuance, the parties' status as direct competitors, and prior intellectual property disputes between them regarding trademarks (Compl. ¶109-113).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: does a user's failure to consent to a location-tracking popup constitute a "determin[ation] that the user opted-out" as required by the ’947 Patent, or is an affirmative denial required? The resolution of this question may significantly impact the infringement analysis for a substantial portion of user interactions.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional performance: what technical evidence will show that the accused "Ignite" platform performs the specific act of "determining a probability" that a browsing session was caused by media exposure, as claimed in the ’219 Patent? The case will likely require discovery into the specific algorithms and data processing steps used by the accused system to distinguish its functionality from general campaign performance analytics.