DCT
2:25-cv-00817
Rich Media Club LLC v. Comcast Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Rich Media Club LLC (Florida/Utah)
- Defendant: Comcast Corporation (Pennsylvania)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Global IP Law Group, LLC
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00817, E.D. Tex., 08/20/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Defendant has committed acts of infringement in the district and maintains regular and established places of business in Plano, Waskom, and Longview, Texas.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s websites, including nbcnews.com and today.com, infringe five patents related to online advertising technologies, specifically methods for determining ad viewability to trigger "lazy loading" and "ad refreshing."
- Technical Context: The technology addresses inefficiencies in digital advertising by loading and replacing advertisements based on whether they are, or are about to be, visible within a user's browser window, a key factor in the multi-billion dollar online advertising market.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint asserts a history of successful patent prosecution and validity challenges for the patent family, noting that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office withdrew subject matter eligibility rejections for all five patents-in-suit. It also cites a prior Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding where the Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of a petition filed against the ’482 Patent and a District of Arizona decision finding a related patent to be subject-matter eligible. Plaintiff also alleges it provided Defendant with notice of infringement approximately two years before filing the complaint.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2005-12-24 | Earliest Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit |
| 2009-11-01 | Industry executive David Cohen's blog post describing Plaintiff's technology |
| 2017-11-21 | U.S. Patent No. 9,824,074 Issues |
| 2021-05-11 | U.S. Patent No. 11,004,090 Issues |
| 2022-10-11 | U.S. Patent No. 11,468,453 Issues |
| 2023-08-22 | Plaintiff sends notice of infringement letter to Defendant |
| 2023-08-29 | U.S. Patent No. 11,741,482 Issues |
| 2024-05-17 | IPR Petition filed against the ’482 Patent |
| 2024-10-17 | PTAB denies institution of IPR against the ’482 Patent |
| 2024-10-22 | U.S. Patent No. 12,125,051 Issues |
| 2025-08-20 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 9,824,074 - "Content Rendering and Control System for a Pre-Defined Area of a Content Page"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The complaint describes the technical challenge of online advertising where ads placed on a webpage may never actually become viewable to a user who does not scroll to that portion of the page (Compl. ¶¶17-18). This creates inefficiency, as advertisers do not want to pay for ads that are "effectively invisible" (Compl. ¶18).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method for controlling when content, such as an advertisement, is rendered (i.e., loaded and displayed) on a content page (Compl. ¶8). It does this by determining the position of a "pre-defined area" (e.g., an ad placeholder) relative to the "visible area of an application window" (i.e., the user's browser viewport) (Compl. ¶93, [16(a)]-[16(b)]). Based on whether this area is at least partially within the viewport, or completely outside but within a certain proximity, the system provides instructions to retrieve and render the content (Compl. ¶93, [16(d)]-[16(e)]). This technique is commonly known as "lazy loading" (Compl. ¶84). Figure 51 of the patent family, referenced in the complaint, illustrates the core spatial relationship between the content page (21), the browser window (41), and the overall computer display area (31) (Compl. ¶24).
- Technical Importance: This approach improves the efficiency of web page loading and ensures advertisers only pay for ads that have an opportunity to be seen by the user (Compl. ¶18).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent method claim 16 (’074 Patent, col. 56:16-64; Compl. ¶93).
- The essential elements of claim 16 include:
- Determining, by code, whether a pre-defined area (comprising a placeholder) on a content page is at least partially within a visible area of an application window by comparing coordinates.
- Determining, by code, whether the pre-defined area is completely outside the visible area but also within a certain distance of it by comparing coordinates.
- Transmitting an indication of the pre-defined area's determined position.
- In response to the determination, providing instructions to retrieve and render content files in the pre-defined area.
- The complaint notes it is only asserting infringement of the method claims of the patent (Compl. ¶94).
U.S. Patent No. 11,004,090 - "System and Method for Creation, Distribution and Tracking of Advertising via Electronic Networks"
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: In addition to the problem of non-viewable ads, this technology addresses ads that remain on a user's screen for extended periods, becoming stale and less effective (Compl. ¶19, element 4). This represents a missed opportunity to display new, potentially more relevant advertising to an engaged user.
- The Patented Solution: The invention combines the "lazy loading" concept with a feature known as "ad refresh" (Compl. ¶¶67, 86). The claimed method first provides for an initial ad to be served when a predefined area is determined to be near the visible area of the browser (lazy loading) (’090 Patent, col. 70:2-6). It then adds steps where the system periodically determines if that area has been in view for a "predefined time" and, in response, sends a communication to server systems, which can then select and serve a replacement advertisement ('090 Patent, col. 70:7-31).
- Technical Importance: This combination allows publishers to increase revenue from a single ad placement by serving multiple, timely advertisements to a user who remains on a particular part of a webpage (Compl. ¶¶68-69).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent method claim 23 ('090 Patent, col. 70:1-31; Compl. ¶97).
- The essential elements of claim 23 include:
- Designating a predetermined area on an ad content page.
- Serving the page with code to a remote computing device.
- Providing that the remote device determines whether the area is within a predefined distance outside a visible area, and in response, serving a first ad content.
- Providing instructions for the device to periodically determine whether the area is in view.
- In response to determining the area has been in view for a predefined time, sending a communication to a server.
- The server then receives the communication and serves a replacement advertisement.
- The complaint notes it is only asserting infringement of the method claims of the patent (Compl. ¶98).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,468,453
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11468453, "System and Method for Creation, Distribution and Tracking of Advertising via Electronic Networks," issued October 11, 2022.
- Technology Synopsis: The technology is directed to a system for online advertising that includes both determining whether an ad space is nearing the viewport to trigger initial ad insertion ("lazy loading") and subsequently determining if the ad has been in view for a period of time to trigger a replacement ("ad refresh") (Compl. ¶¶84, 86).
- Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 5 is asserted (Compl. ¶101).
- Accused Features: The "lazy loading" and "ad refresh" features of Comcast's "Accused Lazy Loading and Ad Refresh Websites" are accused of infringing this patent (Compl. ¶101).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,741,482
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11741482, "System and Method for Creation, Distribution and Tracking of Advertising via Electronic Networks," issued August 29, 2023.
- Technology Synopsis: This patent is directed to methods for "ad refresh," where a website determines whether a sufficient percentage of an ad space is within the user's viewport and, in response, initiates a process to replace the existing ad with a new one (Compl. ¶85).
- Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶110).
- Accused Features: The "ad refresh" features of Comcast's "Accused Ad Refresh Websites" are accused of infringing this patent (Compl. ¶110).
Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 12,125,051
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12125051, "System and Method for Creation, Distribution and Tracking of Advertising via Electronic Networks," issued October 22, 2024.
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a computer program product for implementing "ad refresh" functionality (Compl. ¶119). The claimed program determines whether a portion of a predefined ad area is within the visible browser window and, in response, causes a communication to be sent to dispatcher servers to serve advertisement content (Compl. ¶119, Claim 1 chart).
- Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶119).
- Accused Features: The "Accused Ad Refresh Websites" are alleged to incorporate the claimed computer program for rendering ads (Compl. ¶119).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are certain websites owned and operated by Comcast, including at least nbcnews.com and today.com (Compl. ¶¶82, 84-86). The complaint groups them into three categories based on functionality: "Accused Lazy Loading Websites," "Accused Ad Refresh Websites," and "Accused Lazy Loading and Ad Refresh Websites" (Compl. ¶¶84-86).
- Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that the accused websites incorporate technologies to manage how and when advertisements are displayed to users (Compl. ¶83). Specifically, the "Accused Lazy Loading Websites" allegedly determine whether an ad space is nearing a user's viewport before inserting an ad (Compl. ¶84). The "Accused Ad Refresh Websites" allegedly determine if an ad space is in the viewport for a sufficient time to initiate an ad refresh (Compl. ¶85). Comcast is described as a "global media and technology company" that distributes content through a large number of these websites (Compl. ¶¶79, 82).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 9,824,074 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 16) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| determining, by code executed by a computing system, whether a pre-defined area on a content page in which content is to be rendered is at least partially within a visible area of an application window...by comparing coordinates of the pre-defined area with coordinates of the application window... | The Accused Lazy Loading Websites determine whether at least a portion of a pre-defined area (e.g., an ad placeholder) is within the viewport by comparing its coordinates with the coordinates of the web browser window. | ¶93 | col. 56:17-27 |
| determining, by the code executed by the computing system, whether the pre-defined area on the content page...is completely outside of the visible area of the application window and is also within a distance outside of the visible area of the application window by comparing the coordinates... | The Accused Lazy Loading Websites also determine whether the pre-defined ad area is completely outside the viewport but also sufficiently close to it by comparing coordinates. | ¶93 | col. 56:28-38 |
| transmitting, by the code executed by the computing system, one or more indications selected from the group consisting of...an indication that the pre-defined area is at least partially within the visible area...an indication that the pre-defined area is outside the visible area...and an indication that the pre-defined area is within the distance outside of the visible area... | After making the position determination, the websites transmit code identifying the predefined area(s). | ¶93 | col. 56:39-50 |
| in response to determining that the pre-defined area...is at least partially within the visible area of the browser window, provide instructions to: retrieve one or more content files; and render the one or more content files in the pre-defined area... | The servers running the websites, based on determining the pre-defined area is at least partially within the viewport, provide instructions to retrieve and render content, such as an ad. | ¶93 | col. 56:51-57 |
| in response to determining that the pre-defined area...is completely outside of the visible area...and is also within the pre-defined distance outside...provide instructions to: retrieve one or more content files; and render the one or more content files in the pre-defined area... | The servers running the websites, based on determining the pre-defined area is completely outside the viewport but also close to it, provide instructions to retrieve and render content, such as an ad. | ¶93 | col. 56:58-64 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A potential issue may be the construction of "application window." The complaint alleges this reads on a "web browser window" (Compl. ¶93). While this is a common understanding, the precise scope may be subject to argument.
- Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that the accused websites perform coordinate comparisons to determine proximity ("within a distance outside"). A central technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused code actually performs this specific comparison, as opposed to using other methods (e.g., simple scroll-event triggers) to approximate the same result.
U.S. Patent No. 11,004,090 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 23) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| providing that the remote computing device determines whether the predefined area is within a predefined distance outside a visible area of the browser window and that in at least partial response to such determination a first ad content is served...and rendered... | Code on the user's computer determines that the predefined ad area is outside the viewport but close to it. In response, an ad is served to the user's computer and rendered in the placeholder area ("lazy loading"). | ¶97 | col. 70:2-6 |
| wherein the instructions are configured...to direct the computing device to: periodically determine whether the first predetermined area is in view within the visible area of the browser window... | The websites monitor how long the ad placeholder has been within the viewport. | ¶97 | col. 70:10-14 |
| and in response to determining that the first predetermined area has been in view within the visible area of the browser window for a predefined time, send a communication to one or more server computing systems; | Once a threshold period of time has passed, the websites send a request to a server for a "second print" ad. | ¶97 | col. 70:15-19 |
| providing that the one or more server computing systems are configured to: receive the communication...and in response...select a replacement advertisement...serve the replacement advertisement... | The servers receive the communication that an ad area is ready for a refresh, after which a replacement ad is served to the user's computer and rendered in the placeholder area. | ¶97 | col. 70:20-31 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The term "periodically determine" raises the question of how frequently the system must check for the ad to be "in view." Similarly, the scope of "a predefined time" will be critical for determining the trigger for an ad refresh.
- Technical Questions: The infringement allegation hinges on the accused system performing a two-stage process: a proximity-based load followed by a time-in-view-based refresh. A key question will be whether the accused websites' code architecture separates these functions in the manner required by the claim, or if they are part of a single, undifferentiated process that may not map to the claim's distinct steps.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
For the ’074 Patent
- The Term: "within a distance outside of the visible area of the application window" (Claim 16).
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the "lazy loading" infringement theory. Its construction will define the spatial trigger for loading an ad that is not yet visible but is approaching the viewport. Practitioners may focus on this term because the definition of this "near-but-not-visible" zone is a core technical aspect of the invention.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim uses the general term "a distance" without specifying a numeric value or calculation method, which may support a construction covering any programmed proximity threshold ('074 Patent, col. 56:32-33).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes embodiments where activation occurs "only when such pre-defined ad content display page triggering area is within, or within a pre-defined distance outside of, the viewer's browser window dimensions and scrolling position" ('074 Patent, col. 8:1-6). A defendant might argue that this context, repeated throughout the specification, limits the term to specific implementations disclosed.
For the ’090 Patent
- The Term: "for a predefined time" (Claim 23).
- Context and Importance: This term is critical to the "ad refresh" infringement theory, as it sets the temporal condition for replacing an existing ad. The case may turn on whether the accused websites' refresh logic operates based on a "predefined time" as understood in the patent, or on other metrics like user interaction or a simple timer that is not "predefined" in the claimed sense.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is facially broad, suggesting any time duration set in advance could qualify. The specification refers generally to determining if an area "was in view for a pre-determined period of time" without necessarily limiting how that time is defined ('090 Patent, col. 13:13-15).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: While the claim is general, a defendant might argue that the term implies a specific, fixed duration set by the system administrator, as opposed to a dynamic or variable time. The context of replacing ads to counteract staleness may suggest a duration measured in seconds or minutes, not milliseconds.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly plead counts for indirect infringement. The allegations focus on Comcast's direct infringement by "practicing the method" on its websites (Compl. ¶¶93, 97).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement of the ’453, ’482, and ’051 Patents (Compl. ¶¶107, 116). The basis for this allegation is Defendant’s alleged pre-suit knowledge of infringement stemming from a detailed notice letter sent by Plaintiff on August 22, 2023, which Comcast acknowledged receiving, followed by an alleged refusal to engage in licensing negotiations (Compl. ¶¶87, 88, 90, 106).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof: can Plaintiff demonstrate, likely through source code analysis, that the accused Comcast websites technically implement the specific, multi-step methods of the asserted claims? The dispute may focus on whether the accused systems perform the claimed "comparing coordinates" for proximity detection and "periodically determine" view duration for ad refresh, as opposed to functionally similar but technically distinct methods.
- The case will also present a central question of claim scope: how will the court construe key spatial and temporal limitations such as "within a distance outside" the viewport and "for a predefined time"? The breadth of these definitions will be critical in determining the line between infringement and non-infringement for dynamic advertising systems.
- A likely defense will involve a challenge to validity, despite the complaint's pre-emptive arguments. This will raise the question of whether the claimed methods were obvious advancements over prior art in online advertising at the time of the invention. The outcome may depend on the weight given to the objective indicia of non-obviousness cited by the Plaintiff, such as the failure of others and industry praise.