DCT
1:23-cv-01581
Nielsen Co US LLC v. Tvsquared Ltd
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: The Nielsen Company (US), LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: TVSquared Ltd. (United Kingdom)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Steckler Wayne Cherry & Love, PLLC; Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
- Case Identification: 6:22-cv-00244, W.D. Tex., 03/04/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because Defendant is not a U.S. resident. The complaint further alleges Defendant purposefully directs activities to the district by collecting data from Texas households, providing services to Texas-based advertisers, and conducting business with major U.S. companies that have a presence in Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s audience measurement services infringe a patent related to methods for collecting distributed user information for media impressions while protecting user privacy.
- Technical Context: The technology operates within the digital media analytics field, addressing the challenge of measuring audience exposure across disparate platforms without compromising personally identifiable information (PII).
- Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the patent-in-suit is based on provisional applications filed in 2012. No other procedural events, such as prior litigation or administrative proceedings, are mentioned.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2012-08-30 | '378 Patent Earliest Priority Date |
| 2018-08-28 | '378 Patent Issue Date |
| 2021-03-05 | Public webinar ("AdWeek Webinar") discussing accused functionality |
| 2021-09-20 | Public presentation ("VAB Attribution & Outcomes Week") discussing accused functionality |
| 2022-03-04 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,063,378 - "Methods and Apparatus to Collect Distributed User Information for Media Impressions and Search Terms"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the prior art's difficulty in aggregating audience exposure data across multiple platforms (e.g., computers, televisions, mobile apps) without requiring the use of personally-identifiable information (PII), which created security and privacy risks (Compl. ¶17; ’378 Patent, col. 4:9-23).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a system where an audience measurement entity (AME) acts as a privacy-protecting intermediary. A user's device sends an encrypted identifier to the AME. The AME, which cannot decrypt the identifier, forwards it to a "database proprietor" (e.g., a wireless provider or social network) that holds the corresponding decryption key. The proprietor decrypts the identifier, retrieves associated non-PII demographic data for that user, and sends this anonymized data back to the AME. The AME can then link this demographic data to a specific media impression without ever handling the user's PII (’378 Patent, col. 4:24-54, Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: This method enables large-scale, cross-platform audience analytics by leveraging third-party databases while architecturally preventing the central measurement entity from accessing sensitive PII, addressing a key privacy challenge in an era of "Big Data" (Compl. ¶¶14, 23-24).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 9, 11, 12, 20, 22, 23, 31, and 33 (Compl. ¶38).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
- Sending an encrypted identifier identifying a device or user from a server of an audience measurement entity to a corresponding database proprietor.
- Receiving user information corresponding to the encrypted identifier from the database proprietor.
- Associating the received user information with a media impression or a search term.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- TVSquared's audience measurement products, methods, and services, particularly its use of the "Blockgraph solution" for cross-platform measurement (Compl. ¶¶27, 30).
Functionality and Market Context
- TVSquared is an audience measurement company that ingests and analyzes advertisement viewership data from millions of households to measure the effectiveness of advertising campaigns (Compl. ¶¶27-28).
- The complaint alleges that TVSquared's service operates by having its clients, such as TVSquared, set up a "private node" running Blockgraph’s Identity Operating System ("IDoS") (Compl. ¶31).
- This node encrypts an identifier associated with a media impression (e.g., an IP address or device identifier) and sends the encrypted identifier to Blockgraph's "identity resolution partner," which the complaint identifies as TransUnion (Compl. ¶¶31-32).
- The TVSquared node then receives back a "Blockgraph ID," described as a "pseudonymous household identifier," which it associates with the impression data for aggregation and analysis (Compl. ¶33). The complaint includes a screenshot from Blockgraph's website describing how its software assigns a "unique encryption value" to create a "persistent pseudonymous household identifier" locally on a participant's node (Compl. ¶31, Ex. Q).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’378 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| sending, by executing an instruction with a processor, an encrypted identifier to a corresponding database proprietor via a network communication from a server of an audience measurement entity... | TVSquared, operating as the audience measurement entity, allegedly sends an encrypted identifier from its server node to its identity resolution partner, TransUnion, which is alleged to be the database proprietor. | ¶32 | col. 9:54-62 |
| receiving, by executing an instruction with the processor, user information corresponding to the encrypted identifier from the corresponding database proprietor | The TVSquared node allegedly receives a "Blockgraph ID," a pseudonymous household identifier, from TransUnion. The complaint alleges this identifier constitutes the claimed "user information." | ¶33 | col. 10:63-11:12 |
| associating, by executing an instruction with the processor, the user information with... a media impression logged for media accessed via the device | TVSquared allegedly associates the received Blockgraph ID with the corresponding media impression data to enable cross-platform activity correlation. | ¶33 | col. 6:2-6 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The complaint's theory raises the question of whether TransUnion, described as an "identity resolution partner," qualifies as a "database proprietor" as contemplated by the patent, which provides examples such as wireless carriers and social networks. It also raises the question of whether the "Blockgraph ID," a "pseudonymous household identifier," meets the claim limitation of "user information", which the patent specification links to demographic or behavioral data.
- Technical Questions: A central technical question is whether the accused Blockgraph process—which allegedly uses a "unique encryption value" to assign a pseudonymous identifier—operates in the same way as the patented method. The court may need to determine if this process involves the decryption of an identifier by a third party to retrieve corresponding data, as described in the patent, or if it is a different cryptographic process such as hashing, tokenization, or ID-swapping.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "database proprietor"
- Context and Importance: The infringement analysis hinges on whether TransUnion fits this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent's examples (e.g., wireless carriers, social networks) imply an entity with a direct, first-party service relationship with a user, which may differ from the role of a third-party data aggregator.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that "Any entity having a database identifying demographics of a set of individuals may cooperate with the audience measurement entity" and are referred to as "database proprietors" (’378 Patent, col. 5:62-66). This language could support a broad, functional definition not limited to the specific examples.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification lists explicit examples: "wireless service carriers, mobile software/service providers, social medium sites... and/or any other Internet sites such as Yahoo!, MSN, Apple iTunes, Experian, etc." (’378 Patent, col. 6:1-4). A party could argue these examples limit the term to entities that collect data directly from users in exchange for a service.
The Term: "user information"
- Context and Importance: The case requires determining whether the "Blockgraph ID" (a pseudonymous identifier) that is allegedly received from TransUnion constitutes "user information". This will be a critical point of dispute.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines "user data" (a related term) to include "data indicative of user activities, behaviors, and/or preferences" (’378 Patent, col. 7:1-4). Plaintiff may argue that a persistent pseudonymous identifier that allows for the correlation of a user's activities falls within this broad definition.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly frames the invention as providing "demographic information" or "demographics" back to the AME (’378 Patent, col. 3:30-35, col. 5:40-42). This could support an interpretation that "user information" requires substantive data about the user (e.g., age, location, income), not merely a different, anonymized identifier.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not include a separate count for indirect infringement. However, it alleges that TVSquared provides its advertiser clients with "JavaScript and image tags" to place on their websites to collect data, which could form the basis for a future allegation of induced infringement (Compl. ¶7).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's awareness of the ’378 Patent as of the filing date of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶40). No allegations of pre-suit knowledge are made.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "database proprietor", rooted in patent examples of first-party service providers, be construed to cover a third-party "identity resolution partner" like TransUnion? Furthermore, does the "user information" limitation read on the "pseudonymous household identifier" allegedly returned by that partner, or does it require more substantive demographic data?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mechanism: does the accused Blockgraph system, which allegedly uses a "unique encryption value" to assign a pseudonymous identifier, perform the specific steps of the claimed method? The dispute may turn on whether this is functionally the same as the patent's described process of a third party decrypting an identifier to retrieve corresponding data, or if it represents a fundamentally different technical approach that falls outside the claims.