DCT
1:25-cv-00737
Yieldmo Inc v. Teads Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Yieldmo, Inc. (Delaware / New Hampshire)
- Defendant: Teads, Inc., Teads SA, and Teads SARL (Delaware / New York / Luxembourg)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Global IP Law Group, LLC
- Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00737, S.D.N.Y., 04/11/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as to Teads, Inc. because it has a regular and established place of business and headquarters in the district. Venue is alleged against the foreign defendants, Teads SA, and Teads SARL, on the basis that a defendant not resident in the United States may be sued in any judicial district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s digital advertising formats infringe four patents related to methods for serving interactive content that responds to a user's scrolling activity on a webpage.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns digital advertising, specifically for mobile devices, where advertisement content within a nested frame dynamically changes based on the user's scrolling speed and position, creating a more interactive experience.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,832,729, 10,832,730, and 11,604,918 since at least mid-October 2024, when it allegedly received a notification letter. Knowledge of U.S. Patent No. 12,271,683 is alleged to have begun upon service of the amended complaint. This alleged knowledge forms the basis for claims of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014-10-25 | Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit ('729, '730, '918, '683 Patents) |
| 2020-11-10 | U.S. Patent No. 10,832,729 Issues |
| 2020-11-10 | U.S. Patent No. 10,832,730 Issues |
| 2023-03-14 | U.S. Patent No. 11,604,918 Issues |
| 2024-10-15 | Approximate Date of Pre-Suit Notice for '729, '730, '918 Patents |
| 2025-04-08 | U.S. Patent No. 12,271,683 Issues |
| 2025-04-11 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 10,832,729, “Methods for Serving Interactive Content to a User,” issued November 10, 2020
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: At the time of the invention, nested visual elements like iframes used for digital advertising could not easily respond to a viewer's activity on the surrounding webpage (Compl. ¶32). These conventional ads were independent of user scrolling and required a direct click or interaction to become active, limiting their engagement potential, particularly on mobile devices (Compl. ¶¶27, 32; ’729 Patent, col. 1:25-29).
- The Patented Solution: The invention links the content displayed within an advertisement to its vertical position within the browser window, which changes during user scroll events (’729 Patent, col. 3:23-31). This allows the ad to cycle through a series of frames based on the user's scrolling, creating an interactive experience that mimics video functions like play, pause, seek forward, and seek backward, all driven by the natural act of scrolling (’729 Patent, col. 4:7-12).
- Technical Importance: This approach provided a technological solution to make embedded advertisements more visually and physically engaging to viewers on mobile devices without requiring explicit interaction with the ad unit itself (Compl. ¶34; ’729 Patent, col. 4:13-20).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶61).
- Claim 1 of the ’729 Patent includes the following essential elements:
- Loading an image file comprising a set of frames into an image player within an electronic document.
- In response to a first scroll event that moves the image player to a first vertical position, rendering a first frame.
- In response to a second scroll event that moves the image player a "first distance greater than a threshold distance" to a second vertical position, animating a transition from the first frame to a second frame.
- In response to a third scroll event that moves the image player a "second distance greater than the threshold distance" to a third vertical position, animating a transition from the second frame back to the first frame.
- Calculating an engagement metric for the user based on characteristics of the scroll events.
- The complaint also asserts dependent claims 6 and 9 (Compl. ¶61).
U.S. Patent No. 10,832,730, “Methods for Serving Interactive Content to a User,” issued November 10, 2020
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the same general problem as the ’729 Patent: the lack of interactivity between advertisements in nested visual elements and the user's scrolling on a host webpage (Compl. ¶69).
- The Patented Solution: This invention's solution associates each frame of digital advertising content with a specific "range of vertical positions" within the viewable window (’730 Patent, col. 27:51-54). As a user scrolls the ad into a first range, a first frame is displayed. If the user stops scrolling and the ad remains in that range, the first frame is maintained (a "pause" function) (Compl. ¶71). If the user continues scrolling into a second, different range, a second frame is displayed (a "seek forward" function) (Compl. ¶72).
- Technical Importance: This method provides a distinct mechanism for creating scroll-responsive ads by linking ad content to discrete locations within the viewport, rather than solely to the distance of a scroll event.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 10 (Compl. ¶76).
- Claim 10 of the ’730 Patent includes the following essential elements:
- In response to a first scroll event moving an image player to a first vertical position within a "first range of vertical positions," inserting a first frame.
- In response to the image player remaining within that first range during the scroll event, maintaining the first frame.
- In response to a second scroll event moving the image player to a second vertical position within a "second range of vertical positions outside the first range," inserting a second frame.
- Calculating an engagement score based on the scroll events.
- The complaint also asserts dependent claims 12, 14, and 15 (Compl. ¶76).
U.S. Patent No. 11,604,918, “Methods for Serving Interactive Content to a User,” issued March 14, 2023
- Technology Synopsis: This patent describes methods for serving interactive advertisements where frames are rendered in a defined forward or reverse order based on the direction of a user's scroll event (Compl. ¶85). Crucially, the rate at which the frames are rendered is proportional to the rate of the user's scroll, directly linking the animation speed of the advertisement to the user's scrolling speed (Compl. ¶¶87-88).
- Asserted Claims: At least claims 1, 2, and 9 (Compl. ¶91).
- Accused Features: The Teads Cinemagraph, Teads Flow, Teads inRead Video, and Teads Scrolling 3D Cube advertisement formats are accused of infringing this patent (Compl. ¶90).
U.S. Patent No. 12,271,683, “Methods for Serving Interactive Content to a User,” issued April 8, 2025
- Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a client-server method where a set of servers selects an interactive advertisement based on information that includes the height of the window on the user's computing device (Compl. ¶99). The selected ad is then transmitted to an electronic document on the user's device, which is configured with a player that displays specific frames of the ad based on the player's detected vertical position within that window (Compl. ¶¶100-101).
- Asserted Claims: At least claims 1, 4, 6, and 8 (Compl. ¶106).
- Accused Features: The Teads Cinemagraph, Teads Flow, Teads inRead Video, and Teads Scrolling 3D Cube advertisement formats are accused of infringing this patent (Compl. ¶105).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are the Teads Cinemagraph, Teads Flow, Teads inRead Video, and Teads Scrolling 3D Cube advertisement formats ("Accused Products/Services") (Compl. ¶14).
- Functionality and Market Context: The Accused Products are described as interactive digital advertisements served via the "Teads Format Framework Technology" (Compl. ¶36). This technology is contained within a visual element referred to as the "Teads iFrame," which is inserted and integrated into the web pages or applications of third-party "Teads Publishers" (Compl. ¶¶38, 41). The complaint alleges that these ad formats are responsive to a user's scrolling activity on the webpage where they are displayed (Compl. ¶54). Teads allegedly markets these products as offering "highly interactive and innovative ad experiences" that allow publishers to "monetize their ad spaces" (Compl. ¶¶41, 49).
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'729 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| in response to a first scroll event ... rendering a first frame, in the set of frames, within the image player | A viewer "plays" a digital advertisement by swiping down a distance that brings the image player into view, causing a first frame to be rendered. | ¶55 | col. 27:12-17 |
| in response to a second scroll event ... that moves the image player ... a first distance greater than a threshold distance ... animating a transition from the first frame to a second frame | A viewer can "seek forward" through the advertisement by down-swiping a distance that is greater than a threshold value, which renders a second frame. | ¶56 | col. 27:18-28 |
| in response to a third scroll event ... that moves the image player ... a second distance greater than the threshold distance ... animating a transition from the second frame to the first frame | A viewer can "seek backward" through the advertisement by up-swiping a distance greater than a threshold value, which renders the first frame again. | ¶57 | col. 27:29-38 |
| calculating an engagement metric for the user interacting with the image player based on characteristics of scroll events | The system collects characteristics associated with these scroll events, which are then used to calculate advertisement engagement metrics. | ¶58 | col. 27:39-44 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A potential dispute may arise over the meaning of "animating a transition." The question for the court will be whether the accused product's method of changing frames constitutes the claimed "animation," or if it performs a function, such as a simple frame swap, that falls outside the scope of that term.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that frame changes are triggered by scrolling a distance "greater than a threshold distance." A key technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused products implement a specific, non-zero distance threshold for both forward and backward scrolling, as required by the claim, rather than changing frames upon any detected scroll movement.
'730 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 10) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| in response to a first scroll event that moves the image player to a first vertical position ... the first vertical position falling within a first range of vertical positions, inserting a first frame | A viewer "plays" the ad by swiping down to a vertical position that falls within a pre-defined range associated with the first frame. | ¶70 | col. 27:48-54 |
| in response to the image player remaining within the first range of vertical positions ... maintaining the first frame rendered within the image player | A viewer "pauses" the ad by keeping the ad player within the vertical position range associated with the first frame. | ¶71 | col. 27:55-59 |
| in response to a second scroll event that moves the image player to a second vertical position ... the second vertical position falling within a second range of vertical positions outside the first range ... inserting a second region | A viewer can "seek forward" by swiping down to a new vertical position that falls within a second, different range associated with a second frame. | ¶72 | col. 27:60-67 |
| calculating an engagement score of the user interacting with the image player | The system collects characteristics of the scroll events to calculate advertisement engagement metrics. | ¶73 | col. 28:5-9 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The definition of a "range of vertical positions" will be critical. The case may turn on whether the accused products associate frames with discrete, pre-defined positional zones as the claim language suggests, or if they use a continuous mapping of pixel location to frame state, which might not meet the claim's structural requirements.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges a "pause" functionality based on the ad "remaining within [the] first range." The technical evidence showing how the accused products detect and execute this specific "maintaining" step, as distinct from merely being stationary at a single point, will be central to proving infringement of this element.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’729 Patent:
- The Term: "threshold distance"
- Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to distinguishing the claimed invention from technology that changes frames upon any scroll movement, however small. Infringement requires proof of a non-zero distance condition. Practitioners may focus on this term because if the accused products change frames based on any detected scroll delta, they may not infringe.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language recites "a threshold distance," which suggests any defined, non-zero distance could satisfy the limitation (’729 Patent, col. 27:20-21). The specification does not appear to impose a specific numerical value, allowing for flexibility in implementation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent links technical features to user attentiveness, describing "a speed less than a threshold speed indicating attentiveness of a user" (’729 Patent, col. 4:39-41). This context may support an argument that the "threshold distance" must be significant enough to distinguish an intentional "seek" gesture from incidental scrolling.
For the ’730 Patent:
- The Term: "range of vertical positions"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the core mapping mechanism of the invention. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the accused system's logic for displaying frames aligns with the claimed structure of discrete "ranges." Practitioners may focus on this term because a system using a continuous function to map every pixel of movement to a frame change might not meet the limitation of distinct "ranges."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a method to programmatically create these ranges by segmenting the vertical distance of a window into "a number of discrete, adjacent, and non-overlapping position ranges" (’730 Patent, col. 11:7-11). This could support a construction that covers any systematic division of the viewport into distinct zones.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires a "second range... outside the first range," implying clear, non-overlapping boundaries (’730 Patent, col. 27:64-65). The patent figures depict distinct states (S150, S152) triggered at different positions, which may support an interpretation requiring physically separate and discrete zones for each frame or set of frames (’730 Patent, FIG. 3).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes counts for induced infringement of the ’729 and ’730 Patents. It alleges Teads induces its publishers by contractually obligating them to use the infringing technologies and by providing instructions, support, and account managers to facilitate the use of the Accused Products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶¶41, 43, 45, 117, 129).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for the ’729, ’730, and ’918 Patents based on pre-suit knowledge from a notification letter allegedly sent in mid-October 2024 (Compl. ¶¶66, 81, 96). For the ’683 Patent, willfulness is alleged based on knowledge obtained from the service of the amended complaint (Compl. ¶108).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can terms like "threshold distance" (’729 Patent) and "range of vertical positions" (’730 Patent) be construed to cover the specific logic implemented in the Teads advertising platform? The case will likely examine whether the accused system's method for triggering frame changes meets the structured requirements of the patent claims, which appear to require more than a simple, continuous mapping of scroll movement to frame animation.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical operation: does discovery show that the accused Teads ad formats operate in the specific manner required by the claims? For instance, what evidence will be presented to prove that the accused system performs an "animated transition" upon crossing a "threshold distance" ('729 Patent), or that it "maintains" a frame when a user pauses scrolling within a discrete positional "range" (’730 Patent)?