Fullthrottle Tech LLC v. Rocket Media LLC

I. Case Overview

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Rocket Media, LLC (d/b/a "Launch Labs") (North Carolina)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Flaster Greenberg P.C.; Williams Mullen, P.C.
• Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00314, M.D.N.C., 08/07/2024
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a North Carolina limited liability company with its principal place of business and corporate offices located within the Middle District of North Carolina.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "Ignite" digital marketing platform infringes patents related to methods for identifying, locating, and creating profiles for anonymous website visitors in a digital environment where third-party cookies are being phased out.
• Technical Context: The technology operates in the online advertising sector, offering a way for website owners to gather data on and market to visitors without relying on traditional third-party cookie tracking, which major web browsers are eliminating due to privacy concerns.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the parties had prior intellectual property disputes in February 2022 concerning trademark rights, which may be relevant to the issue of Defendant’s alleged knowledge of Plaintiff’s business and intellectual property.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2021-06-08	Priority Date for ’947, ’219, and ’083 Patents
2022-02-01	Prior intellectual property dispute between parties noted in complaint (approx. date)
2023-01-17	U.S. Patent No. 11,556,947 Issues
2023-11-21	U.S. Patent No. 11,823,219 Issues
2024-03-05	Date of capture for Defendant’s "atmain2.js" source code exhibit
2024-07-30	U.S. Patent No. 12,051,083 Issues
2024-08-07	First Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,556,947 - "Location Determination using Anonymous Browser Data"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,556,947, "Location Determination using Anonymous Browser Data," issued January 17, 2023 (’947 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes the interest of businesses, such as car dealerships, in understanding more about potential customers visiting their websites, including visit frequency and other user information (’947 Patent, col. 1:15-26). The complaint frames this within the broader technical problem created by the industry-wide restriction of third-party cookies, which has removed the conventional method for tracking and identifying website visitors (Compl. ¶¶19-21).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides a system that receives "anonymous data" (e.g., IP address, browser type, URL visited) from a user's browsing session and uses it to determine the user's physical location (’947 Patent, Abstract). If the user has not been previously identified, the system assigns a unique identifier and associates it with the determined physical address, creating a user profile that can be used to recognize subsequent visits, even without traditional cookies, by storing the identifier in the browser's local cache (’947 Patent, col. 8:5-12; Compl. ¶¶26, 29). Figure 5 of the patent illustrates a logic flow where, depending on whether a user opts into location tracking, an identifier is stored either as a cookie or in the local cache (’947 Patent, Fig. 5).
• Technical Importance: This approach is presented as a technical solution that enables user tracking and targeted marketing to continue in a "cookieless world," a functionality previously accomplished using third-party cookies (Compl. ¶27).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent method claim 1 and independent non-transitory machine-readable storage device claim 11 (Compl. ¶2).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • Receiving first anonymous data (e.g., time, URL, IP address) from a browser session.
  • Determining the user has not been assigned a unique identifier based on a lack of stored location data.
  • Assigning a unique identifier to the user.
  • Determining the user's opt-in/opt-out status for location tracking.
  • Sending the unique identifier for storage in a local browser cache if the user opted-out.
  • Determining latitude and longitude coordinates based on anonymous data (if opted-out) or geo-location data (if opted-in).
  • Identifying a physical address from the coordinates using a map API.
  • Associating the unique identifier with the physical address.
  • Generating and subsequently updating a user profile.
  • Identifying a second visit using the identifier stored in the local 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.

U.S. Patent No. 11,823,219 - "Location Determination using Anonymous Browser Data"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,823,219, "Location Determination using Anonymous Browser Data," issued November 21, 2023 (’219 Patent).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The ’219 Patent, which shares a specification with the ’947 Patent, focuses on the specific problem of tracking the effectiveness of marketing campaigns in an environment where third-party cookies are unavailable for tracking user engagement (’219 Patent, col. 2:26-29; Compl. ¶36).
• The Patented Solution: The invention receives both campaign-level data and anonymous browser data from a user session (’219 Patent, Claim 1). It determines the user's physical address and verifies if that address falls within a ZIP code targeted by the campaign. The system then determines a probability that the user's website visit was initiated "in response to watching or listening to media associated with the campaign," thereby linking anonymous online activity to specific marketing efforts (’219 Patent, Claim 1; Compl. ¶37). Figure 10 of the patent illustrates the process of receiving campaign data, identifying a session within a target ZIP code, and determining this probability (’219 Patent, Fig. 10).
• Technical Importance: This technology is positioned as a solution that allows brands and website owners to track the success of marketing campaigns for anonymous users, a function that was conventionally accomplished using third-party cookies (Compl. ¶36).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent method claim 1, independent non-transitory storage device claim 19, and dependent claims 2, 3, 20, and 21 (Compl. ¶2).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • Receiving campaign level data.
  • Receiving anonymous data from a browser session.
  • Determining the user accessed a URL.
  • Determining latitude and longitude coordinates.
  • Identifying a physical address using a map API.
  • Determining 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 browser session was initiated in response to media associated with the campaign.

U.S. Patent No. 12,051,083 - "Location Determination using Anonymous Browser Data"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,051,083, "Location Determination using Anonymous Browser Data," issued July 30, 2024 (’083 Patent).

Technology Synopsis

• Sharing a common specification with the other asserted patents, the ’083 Patent claims technical improvements related to connecting a user's physical address to a household that is covered by a marketing campaign (Compl. ¶38). This approach aims to provide insight into engagement from multiple individuals within a single household, which was information not previously available without third-party cookies used to track individuals (Compl. ¶38).

Asserted Claims

• Independent claims 1 and 11 (Compl. ¶¶2, 71).

Accused Features

• The complaint alleges that Defendant’s Ignite product infringes by tracking users at a household level, associating physical addresses with specific marketing campaigns, and evaluating customer interest and transactions across the household (Compl. ¶¶122, 128, 133).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is Defendant’s "Ignite by Launch Labs" product and associated services ("Ignite") (Compl. ¶2).

Functionality and Market Context

• The Ignite platform is described as using JavaScript computer source code, identified as "atmain2.js," installed on its customers' websites (Compl. ¶¶73-74). When a user visits a customer's website, this script executes in the user's browser, gathers data, and communicates it to Launch Labs' back-end servers (Compl. ¶¶73, 75). The back-end platform then processes this information to generate "visitor profiles," which include location data (latitude and longitude), inferred physical addresses, and behavioral information such as pages visited (Compl. ¶¶75, 84, 87). The complaint alleges that Launch Labs markets Ignite as a solution that transforms "website visitors into sales" in the "Post-Third-Party Cookie Era" by collecting visitor information "without intrusive forms or tracking" (Compl. ¶¶78, 80-81).

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...wherein the first anonymous data comprises one or more of a time, a date, one or more...URLs, a referring URL, a browser type, a language, an internet protocol (IP) address, or location data	Launch Labs’ back-end platform allegedly receives HTTP headers from its JavaScript code containing the user's IP address, date, time, referring URL, language, and browser type.	¶92	col. 6:40-47
determining that the user has not been assigned a unique identifier based on a lack of stored location data	The complaint alleges that the getGuid function in the "atmain2.js" script calls the back-end server, which determines that an identifier has not been assigned to a user and returns a new one.	¶96	col. 5:18-20
assigning the unique identifier to the user	The back-end server allegedly assigns and returns a unique identifier ("guid") in response to the getGuid function call.	¶96	col. 7:55-58
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 "atmain2.js" script allegedly stores the received unique identifier ("guid") as a cookie on the user's device. The complaint shows this with a screenshot of the at.setcookie function call (Compl. p. 69, Ex. M).	¶98	col. 13:10-16
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)	Marketing materials allegedly state Ignite performs "Location Mapping" using proprietary algorithms, and API documentation shows a physical street address is included in the visitor profile.	¶101	col. 7:20-24
associating the unique identifier to the physical address	The complaint provides an annotated screenshot of API documentation showing a unique "id" field directly associated with fields for a physical address ("street", "city", "state") (Compl. p. 72, Ex. L).	¶101	col. 7:60-63
determining, using the updated profile information, a confidence rating for the user	The complaint alleges that Launch Labs determines a "Traffic Score," described in marketing materials as measuring visitor engagement, and that this score corresponds to the claimed "confidence rating."	¶104	col. 16:6-10

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Question: A potential point of contention may be whether storing the unique identifier in a browser cookie, as alleged in the complaint (Compl. ¶98), meets the claim limitation of "storage in a local browser cache." While the patent specification mentions both as alternative mechanisms for recognizing subsequent visits (’947 Patent, col. 8:8-10), the distinct technical meanings of these terms may form the basis of a claim construction dispute.
  • Technical Question: The complaint alleges the system determines a user has not been assigned an identifier "based on a lack of stored location data" (Compl. ¶96). It may become a factual question whether the evidence provided, such as the getGuid function call, demonstrates that this specific condition—a lack of location data—is the trigger for assigning an identifier, as required by the claim.

’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	Launch Labs’ marketing materials allegedly state that customers can use Ignite’s first-party data to create "laser-focused re-marketing campaigns."	¶108	col. 24:1-5
determining that the physical address is within a ZIP code covered by the campaign	The complaint alleges that the "visitor profiles" generated by Ignite include a ZIP code and that these profiles are used to track the performance of campaigns.	¶113	col. 26:32-34
determining that the browser session was initiated by the user with an intent to visit the URL	Launch Labs’ marketing materials allegedly claim to provide insights into an "audience's preferences, behaviors, and interests," which the complaint asserts corresponds to determining user intent.	¶114	col. 26:47-51
determining a probability that the browser session was initiated in response to watching or listening to media associated with the campaign using the campaign level data	The complaint alleges that Ignite "sends dynamic offers tailored to each shopper's specific interests" and tracks the click-through rate (CTR), which corresponds to determining this probability.	¶115	col. 2:26-29

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Question: A key factual question may be whether the functionality described in Defendant's marketing materials—such as tracking CTR or understanding user preferences—is technically equivalent to "determining a probability" that a browser session was initiated in response to campaign media, as specifically required by the claim. The complaint does not provide direct evidence, such as API documentation or source code, showing the calculation of such a probability.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "local browser cache"
• Context and Importance: This term is critical because the ’947 Patent claims sending the unique identifier for storage in the "local browser cache" when a user opts out of location tracking. The complaint alleges infringement based on evidence that the accused Ignite product uses a JavaScript function to set a cookie (Compl. ¶98). The dispute may turn on whether a "cookie" is encompassed by the term "local browser cache."
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification suggests the terms may be used to achieve the same function, stating that a computing device may "store a unique identifier in the browser application (e.g., using a cookie or using the local browser cache) to recognize that another browser session accessing the URL is from the user computing device" (’947 Patent, col. 8:7-11).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also appears to treat them as distinct alternatives, noting that storing the unique ID in the local browser cache can be done "even if the user computing device does not allow cookies" (’947 Patent, col. 13:13-16). This language could support an argument that the claim term "local browser cache" was intended to mean something other than a cookie.

VI. Other Allegations

• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement has been willful (Compl. ¶138). The basis for this allegation includes the assertion that the parties are direct competitors, had prior communications regarding intellectual property disputes over trademarks in 2022, and that Plaintiff provides notice of the Asserted Patents on its website and through press releases (Compl. ¶¶139-141).

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "local browser cache" be construed to read on the accused system's alleged use of browser cookies for storing identifiers? The patent's specification provides language that may support both broader and narrower interpretations of this term.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional specificity: does the evidence presented, which consists largely of marketing materials and high-level API documentation, demonstrate that the accused Ignite system performs the specific, multi-step logical operations required by the claims, such as determining a "probability" of a visit's origin (’219 Patent) or calculating a "confidence rating" based on profile information (’947 Patent)?
• A central question for willfulness and damages will be one of knowledge: can Plaintiff establish that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the Asserted Patents based on the parties' status as competitors, prior unrelated IP disputes, and Plaintiff's public patent notices, sufficient to meet the standard for willful infringement?