DCT

2:25-cv-00932

Rich Media Club LLC v. Guardian Media Group

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-00932, E.D. Tex., 10/29/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because the Defendant is a foreign entity not resident in the United States, which may be sued in any judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s news website, "theguardian.com", infringes five U.S. patents related to the technology of online advertising, specifically methods for determining ad viewability and for refreshing ad content based on its position within a user’s browser.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses the core digital advertising problem of verifying that an ad is actually visible to a user—within the browser's "viewport"—before triggering actions like loading the ad or replacing it.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that patents from this family have previously overcome patent eligibility challenges under 35 U.S.C. § 101, both during prosecution at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and in a prior district court case involving a related patent. Additionally, an Inter Partes Review petition filed against one of the patents-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 11,741,482, was denied institution by the PTAB. Plaintiff also alleges it provided Defendant with pre-suit notice of infringement, including detailed claim charts, more than two years before filing the complaint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2005-12-24 Earliest Patent Priority Date ('074, '090, '453, '482, '051 Patents)
2017-11-21 U.S. Patent No. 9,824,074 Issues
2018-12-18 PTAB reverses § 101 rejection in related application (Ex Parte Krassner)
2021-05-11 U.S. Patent No. 11,004,090 Issues
2022-10-11 U.S. Patent No. 11,468,453 Issues
2023-04-18 Plaintiff sends pre-suit notice of infringement to Defendant
2023-08-29 U.S. Patent No. 11,741,482 Issues
2024-05-17 IPR Petition filed against the '482 Patent (IPR2024-00937)
2024-10-17 PTAB denies institution of IPR petition against the '482 Patent
2024-10-22 U.S. Patent No. 12,125,051 Issues
2025-10-29 Complaint Filed

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"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,824,074, "Content Rendering and Control System for a Pre-Defined Area of a Content Page," issued November 21, 2017.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent family addresses the technical challenge of verifying whether an online advertisement is actually viewable to a user within their browser's visible area, often called the "viewport" (Compl. ¶¶ 20, 22). Because web page content is often larger than the viewport, ads placed "below the fold" may never be seen by a user who does not scroll down, yet advertisers could still be charged for these "invisible" impressions (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 21).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method for controlling when content, such as an advertisement, is rendered on a web page based on its position relative to the user's browser window (Compl. ¶23). The system uses code to compare the coordinates of a "pre-defined area" (e.g., an ad placeholder) with the coordinates of the "application window" (the viewport) to determine if the area is fully outside, partially inside, or nearing the visible area (Compl. p. 22). Based on this determination, it provides instructions to retrieve and render the ad content, a process commonly known as "lazy loading" (Compl. ¶85). The specification of a related patent explains that a "correlator code" can detect the correspondence between the browser window's dimensions and the triggering area's coordinates to activate the content rendering ('090 Patent, col. 54:B, step 1100).
  • Technical Importance: This technology was intended to provide a reliable method for ensuring ad viewability, a solution the complaint alleges was considered a "giant step forward for the industry" by enabling accountability in digital advertising (Compl. ¶45).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent method claim 16 (Compl. ¶95).
  • The essential elements of Claim 16 include:
    • Determining, by code, whether a pre-defined area on a content page is at least partially within a visible area of an application window by comparing coordinates.
    • Determining whether the pre-defined area is completely outside the visible area but within a certain distance of it.
    • Transmitting an indication of the pre-defined area's position relative to the visible area.
    • Providing instructions to retrieve and render content in response to either the area being partially within the visible area or being outside but within the specified distance.
  • The complaint does not specify assertion of any dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 11,004,090 - "System and Method for Creation, Distribution and Tracking of Advertising via Electronic Networks"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,004,090, "System and Method for Creation, Distribution and Tracking of Advertising via Electronic Networks," issued May 11, 2021.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: This patent addresses the dual problems of inefficiently loading ads that a user may never see, and the missed revenue opportunity from displaying a single, static ad to a user who remains on a page for an extended period (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 71).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention combines two techniques: "lazy loading" and "ad refresh" (Compl. ¶87). First, it provides that a remote computing device (the user's browser) determines when a predefined ad area is "within a predefined distance outside a visible area" and, in response, serves a "first ad content" ('090 Patent, Claim 23). This defers loading until the ad is about to become visible. Second, the system's instructions direct the device to "periodically determine whether the first predetermined area is in view... for a predefined time" and, if so, send a communication to a server to select and serve a "replacement advertisement" ('090 Patent, Claim 23). The complaint uses Figure 51 from a related patent to illustrate the relationship between the full content page (21) and the visible browser window, or viewport (41) (Compl. ¶¶ 28-29).
  • Technical Importance: This combination allows publishers to improve website performance by not loading all ads at once, while also increasing revenue potential by serving multiple, fresh advertisements into the same ad slot during a single user session (Compl. ¶¶ 71-72).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent method claim 23 (Compl. ¶99).
  • The essential elements of Claim 23 include:
    • Designating a predetermined area on an ad content page.
    • Providing code to a remote device that determines when the area is within a predefined distance outside the visible browser window to trigger a first ad to be served.
    • The code further directs the remote device to periodically determine if the area has been in view for a predefined time.
    • In response to that time-in-view determination, the device sends a communication to a server system.
    • The server system receives the communication, selects a replacement ad, and serves it to the remote device for rendering.
  • The complaint does not specify assertion of any dependent claims.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,468,453 - "System and Method for Creation, Distribution and Tracking of Advertising via Electronic Networks"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,468,453, "System and Method for Creation, Distribution and Tracking of Advertising via Electronic Networks," issued October 11, 2022.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the technical challenges of online advertising by claiming methods that combine "lazy loading" (loading an ad only when it is near the user's viewport) and "ad refresh" (replacing an ad after a certain period of viewability) (Compl. ¶¶ 85, 87). The invention provides a technical process for making ad delivery more efficient and increasing monetization opportunities.
  • Asserted Claims: At least method claim 5 (Compl. ¶103).
  • Accused Features: The "Accused Lazy Loading and Ad Refresh Websites," including "theguardian.com" (Compl. ¶103).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,741,482 - "System and Method for Creation, Distribution and Tracking of Advertising via Electronic Networks"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,741,482, "System and Method for Creation, Distribution and Tracking of Advertising via Electronic Networks," issued August 29, 2023.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is directed to "ad refresh" technology (Compl. ¶86). It describes a system that determines whether a sufficient percentage of an ad space is within a user's viewport and, based on that determination, initiates a process to replace the existing ad with a new one, thereby solving the problem of ad staleness on pages with long view times (Compl. ¶¶ 71, 86).
  • Asserted Claims: At least method claim 1 (Compl. ¶112).
  • Accused Features: The "Accused Ad Refresh Websites," including "theguardian.com" (Compl. ¶112).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 12,125,051 - "System and Method for Creation, Distribution and Tracking of Advertising via Electronic Networks"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,125,051, "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 rendering advertisement content (Compl. ¶121). The claimed program determines whether a predefined portion of an ad area is within the visible area of a browser window and, in response, causes a communication to be sent to a server, which in turn causes new advertisement content to be served to the user's device (Compl. pp. 28-29).
  • Asserted Claims: At least claim 1 (Compl. ¶121).
  • Accused Features: The "Accused Ad Refresh Websites," including "theguardian.com" (Compl. ¶121).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused instrumentality is the Defendant's news website, "www.theguardian.com", and its associated advertising systems (Compl. ¶8). The complaint groups the accused functionalities into "Accused Lazy Loading Websites," "Accused Ad Refresh Websites," and websites that incorporate both features (Compl. ¶¶ 85-87).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that "theguardian.com" implements technologies for both lazy loading and ad refreshing (Compl. ¶¶ 85-87). The lazy loading feature allegedly determines when an ad space is nearing a user's viewport and inserts an ad at that time (Compl. ¶85). The ad refresh feature allegedly determines when a sufficient portion of an ad space is in the viewport and initiates a process to replace the ad (Compl. ¶86). The complaint alleges The Guardian is a major news publisher, ranking eighteenth among English-language news sites in the U.S. as of September 2023, with a significant portion of its revenue derived from the U.S. market (Compl. ¶¶ 9-10). A screenshot provided in the complaint shows The Guardian's website soliciting recurring financial support from U.S.-based readers, which is presented as evidence of its business directed at this market (Compl. ¶11, p. 4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

9,824,074 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 16) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
[16(a)] 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... The Accused Lazy Loading Websites determine whether at least a portion of a pre-defined area (for example, a placeholder for an ad display area) of a content page is within the viewport by comparing the coordinates of the pre-defined area with coordinates of the web browser window. ¶95, p. 22 col. 8:32-44
[16(b)] determining, by the code executed by the computing system, whether the pre-defined area...is completely outside of the visible area...and is also within a distance outside of the visible area...by comparing the coordinates... The Accused Lazy Loading Websites also determine whether the pre-defined area (for example, a placeholder for an ad display area) of a content page is completely outside the viewport but also sufficiently close to the viewport by comparing the coordinates of the pre-defined area with coordinates of the web browser window. ¶95, p. 22 col. 7:9-12
[16(c)] transmitting, by the code executed by the computing system, one or more indications... The Accused Lazy Loading Websites, after determining that the pre-defined area(s) are at least partially within the viewport or outside but close to the viewport, transmit code identifying those predefined area(s). ¶95, p. 22 col. 49:1-20
[16(d)] in response to determining that the pre-defined area...is at least partially within the visible area..., provide instructions to: retrieve one or more content files; and render the one or more content files... The servers running the Accused Lazy Loading Websites, based on determining that the pre-defined area is at least partially within the viewport but is also close to it, provide instructions to retrieve and render content (an ad, for example). ¶95, p. 23 col. 7:42-53
[16(e)] 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... The servers running the Accused Lazy Loading Websites, based on determining that the pre-defined area is completely outside the viewport but is also close to it, provide instructions to retrieve and render content (an ad, for example). ¶95, p. 23 col. 7:9-20

11,004,090 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 23) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
[23(c)] 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... a first ad content is served... The code running on the Accused Lazy Loading and Ad Refresh Websites on the user's computer determines that the predefined area is outside the viewport but is also close to it. In response to that determination, the Accused Websites serve an ad... (i.e., “lazy loading”). ¶99, p. 24 col. 7:1-12
[23(d)] wherein the instructions are configured... to direct the computing device to: periodically determine whether the first predetermined area is in view... and in response to determining that the first predetermined area has been in view... for a predefined time, send a communication to one or more server computing systems; The Accused Lazy Loading and Ad Refresh Websites also monitor how long the ad placeholder has been within the viewport and once a threshold period of time has passed, the Accused Websites send a request to a server... (i.e., a request for a “second print” ad). ¶99, p. 24 col. 9:15-24
[23(e)] providing that the one or more server computing systems are configured to: receive the communication... select a replacement advertisement... serve the replacement advertisement... and... cause that the replacement advertisement is rendered... The servers running the Accused Lazy Loading and Ad Refresh Websites receive the communication that an ad area is ready for an ad refresh, after which a replacement ad is served to the user's computer, where it is rendered in the ad placeholder area. ¶99, p. 25 col. 66:1-32
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The claims for both the '074 and '090 patents use the term "pre-defined area," which the complaint maps to an "ad placeholder." A potential point of contention may be whether the accused website's ad slots meet the specific definition of "pre-defined area" as understood in the context of the patent specification.
    • Technical Questions: For the '090 Patent, Claim 23 requires a specific causal chain: a determination that an ad has been "in view...for a predefined time" must trigger the "communication to...server computing systems" for a replacement. A key technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that The Guardian's ad refresh system is triggered specifically by the duration of viewability, as required by the claim, rather than other factors such as user scrolling activity, a simple countdown timer independent of viewability, or other website events.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "within a [pre-defined] distance outside of the visible area" ('074 Patent, Cl. 16; '090 Patent, Cl. 23)

    • Context and Importance: This term is central to the "lazy loading" infringement theory. Its construction will determine the spatial threshold for triggering an ad load before the ad space enters the user's viewport. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition—whether it requires a specific pixel count, a percentage of screen height, or a more functional definition—will be critical to proving or disproving infringement of the lazy loading steps.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not quantify the "distance," which may support a broader, functional interpretation where any proximity sufficient to enable timely ad loading before the element becomes visible meets the limitation.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explains that the activation of ad modules can be controlled to occur when a triggering area is "within a pre-defined distance outside of, the viewer's browser window dimensions and scrolling position" ('090 Patent, col. 51:35-41). The use of the term "pre-defined" suggests the distance may need to be a specific, set value rather than a dynamically determined one, potentially narrowing the claim's scope.

  • The Term: "in response to determining that the first predetermined area has been in view... for a predefined time" ('090 Patent, Cl. 23)

    • Context and Importance: This claim language defines the trigger for the "ad refresh" functionality. The dispute will likely center on the causal link between the durational viewing of an ad and the subsequent request for a replacement. The construction of "in response to" will be pivotal.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses systems that report on "for how long" content was rendered, which could support an interpretation where any system that measures view duration and then initiates a refresh meets the claim ('090 Patent, col. 9:15-24).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The phrase "in response to" implies a direct causal relationship. A defendant may argue this requires the time-in-view determination to be the sole or primary trigger for the refresh communication. The specification's discussion of triggering a "real time auction" after a module "was in view for a pre-determined period of time" could be used to argue for a specific, event-driven sequence rather than a passive correlation ('090 Patent, col. 12:65-13:2).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint's formal counts focus on allegations of direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 for each asserted patent (Compl. ¶¶ 95, 99, 103, 112, 121).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for the '453 and '482 patents (Compl. ¶¶ 108-109, 117-118). The basis for willfulness is alleged pre-suit knowledge stemming from a notice of infringement letter sent to The Guardian on April 18, 2023, which allegedly included detailed claim charts, and The Guardian's subsequent "deliberate and willful refusal to participate in voluntary licensing negotiations" (Compl. ¶¶ 88, 108, 117).

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

  • A central issue will be one of patent eligibility: given the heavy focus in the complaint on prior successes against § 101 challenges, the case may turn on whether the court views the patents as claiming a specific, technical improvement to computer and network functionality (i.e., a new way to monitor and control content rendering based on coordinate data) or as an abstract business practice (i.e., triggering ad delivery based on viewability) merely implemented on generic computer components.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of causal linkage: do the accused systems on "theguardian.com" operate according to the specific, ordered steps of the asserted claims? For example, for the ad refresh claims, the case may depend on evidence showing that the request for a new ad is made "in response to" a determination of viewability for a "predefined time," as opposed to being triggered by other website logic or user behavior that is independent of the claimed durational viewing requirement.