DCT
4:21-cv-00892
Moasis Global Corp v. Simplifi Holdings Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Moasis Global Corporation (Delaware)
- Defendant: Simplifi Holdings, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Connor Lee Shumaker PLLC; Charhon Callahan Robson & Garza, PLLC
- Case Identification: 4:21-cv-00892, N.D. Tex., 10/01/2021
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant having a regular and established place of business in the district and having committed alleged acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s programmatic advertising platform infringes patents related to location-based advertising systems that use virtual geographic grids and bidding mechanisms.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for delivering targeted digital advertising to mobile devices by dividing geographic areas into virtual "cells" and allocating ad content to those cells, in some cases via an auction.
- Key Procedural History: This First Amended Complaint follows an original complaint. The complaint notes that during prosecution of the asserted patents, the USPTO considered prior art but found the claimed combinations to be novel and non-obvious, a point Plaintiff emphasizes to support patent validity.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2009-03-04 | Earliest Priority Date for ’460, ’267, and ’935 Patents |
| 2010-01-01 | Defendant Simpli.Fi founded (approximate date) |
| 2011-01-01 | Defendant published content on keyword targeting (approximate date) |
| 2013-01-01 | Defendant published content on zip code targeting (approximate date) |
| 2014-11-18 | U.S. Patent No. 8,892,460 Issues |
| 2016-01-05 | U.S. Patent No. 9,230,267 Issues |
| 2016-10-18 | U.S. Patent No. 9,471,935 Issues |
| 2021-10-01 | First Amended Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,892,460 - “Cell-Allocation in Location-Selective Information Provision Systems,” Issued November 18, 2014
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem for content providers in efficiently organizing and transmitting targeted information to the most relevant demographic (Compl. ¶17; ’460 Patent, col. 3:26-34). Prior art methods like point-radius, IP address, or zip code targeting were identified as laborious, inefficient, and prone to creating overlapping or "cluttered" zones that could lead to confusing data or incorrect content delivery (’460 Patent, col. 4:50-54; Compl. ¶19-21).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a server-based system that divides a geographical area into a "virtual grid" of discrete "cells" (’460 Patent, Abstract). The server receives periodic location data from an application on a user's device, determines which cell the device is in, and then identifies and transmits a specific "content set" (e.g., an advertisement) to the device based on stored selection criteria associated with that cell and application (’460 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:5-39). This allows for highly specific, location- and application-aware content delivery.
- Technical Importance: This grid-based approach aimed to provide a more scalable, precise, and efficient system for location-based advertising than the conventional techniques available at the time of the invention (Compl. ¶18, ¶30).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶134).
- Essential elements of claim 1 include:
- A system comprising a server that divides a geographical area into a virtual grid of cells.
- The server assigns and stores at least one content set and selection criteria (an application and a format) for each cell.
- The server periodically receives location and application identification data from an application on a playback device.
- The server determines the device's cell using its location.
- The server identifies a content set using the determined cell and the received application data.
- The server transmits the identified content set to the application according to the stored format.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.
U.S. Patent No. 9,230,267 - “Cell-Allocation in Location-Selective Information Provision Systems,” Issued January 5, 2016
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Similar to the '460 Patent, this patent addresses the problem of efficiently organizing and transmitting targeted information (Compl. ¶54). It also highlights the problem of inefficiency in the market for such targeted advertising and proposes a bidding process to solve it (Compl. ¶58).
- The Patented Solution: The ’267 Patent claims a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing software that executes a method for allocating this virtual ad space. While it includes the concept of dividing a geographical area into a virtual grid of cells, its key distinction is the introduction of a competitive bidding process (’267 Patent, Abstract). The system is designed to accept bids for a cell from at least two content providers, determine the winning bid, obtain the content from the winning bidder, and transmit it to a device located in that cell (’267 Patent, col. 4:55-68).
- Technical Importance: The invention introduced a market-based mechanism for allocating granular, location-based advertising inventory, allowing for efficient price discovery and resource allocation among competing advertisers (Compl. ¶55, ¶58).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶171).
- Essential elements of claim 1 include a non-transitory computer-readable medium with software causing a processor to perform the steps of:
- Dividing a geographical area into a virtual grid comprising a plurality of cells.
- Accepting bids for a cell from at least a first and a second content provider.
- Determining which content provider has submitted the winning bid for the cell.
- Obtaining content submitted from the content provider with the winning bid.
- Transmitting at least a portion of the obtained content to an information playback device in the cell.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.
Multi-Patent Capsule
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9471935, “Cell-Allocation in Location-Selective Information Provision Systems,” Issued October 18, 2016.
- Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method that largely mirrors the system described in the ’267 Patent, addressing the same problem of inefficient and imprecise targeted advertising (Compl. ¶72, ¶76). The claimed method involves a server dividing a geographical area into a virtual grid, accepting bids from multiple content providers for a cell, determining the winner, obtaining the winner's content, and transmitting it to a device in the cell (Compl. ¶77).
- Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶201).
- Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Simpli.Fi Platform, by allowing advertisers to bid on geographically defined target zones and serving the winning bidder's ads to devices in those zones, performs the steps of the claimed method (Compl. ¶205-209).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The "Simpli.Fi Platform," including its "Addressable Geo-Fencing" solution, and the computer systems and servers on which it operates (Compl. ¶83, ¶101, ¶134).
- Functionality and Market Context:
- The Simpli.Fi Platform is described as a highly automated Demand Side Platform (DSP) that allows advertisers to programmatically buy digital advertising space (Compl. ¶85, ¶177). Its core accused functionality is "Addressable Geo-Fencing," which uses precise location data, such as GPS and "plat line data" derived from property tax and land surveys, to draw virtual boundaries (geo-fences) around specific households or businesses (Compl. ¶104).
- The complaint alleges the platform converts street addresses into these geo-fences, creating a grid of targetable "cells" (Compl. ¶107, ¶138). Advertisers can then bid for the opportunity to serve ads to mobile devices, video players, and OTT/CTV devices that are detected within these defined cells (Compl. ¶100, ¶108, ¶112). A visual provided in the complaint from Simpli.fi's marketing materials depicts this evolution from broad DMA targeting to precise "Addressable" targeting using geo-fences (Compl. ¶34).
- The platform is positioned in the market as a "leader in programmatic advertising" that provides "the most granular location-based targeting available" (Compl. ¶82, ¶142).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
8,892,460 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A system comprising: a server that divides a geographical area into a virtual grid comprising a plurality of cells | The Accused Products include Simpli.Fi's Geo-Fencing and Demand Side Platform, which divide a geographical area (e.g., a neighborhood or city) into a virtual grid of cells by converting street addresses to a geo-fence conforming to plat line data (Compl. ¶138). | ¶137-138 | col. 6:15-20 |
| by the server, assigns for each cell...at least one content set, and stores, for the assignment, content set selection criteria comprising: an application and a format... | The Accused Products assign at least one content set (e.g., digital ads) to each cell and store selection criteria, such as the applications and formats for mobile, video, or OTT/CTV ads that correspond to the content (Compl. ¶143, ¶146). | ¶143, ¶146 | col. 20:2-5 |
| receives in periodic intervals, by the server, from an application on an information playback device: a location of the...device, and identification data for the application... | The Accused Products regularly receive location information (e.g., GPS coordinates) and application information from playback devices such as mobile phones (Compl. ¶148-149). | ¶148-149 | col. 20:6-10 |
| determines, by the server, a cell of the plurality of cells using the received location of the information playback device | The Accused Products use the received location information to determine the cell in which the playback device is currently located (Compl. ¶150-151). | ¶150-151 | col. 20:11-13 |
| identifies by the server a content set...using the determined cell and the received identification data, content set selection criteria for the application | The Accused Products use the determined cell and application information from the playback device to identify a content set (e.g., one or more digital ads) for users who enter or are within the cell (Compl. ¶152-153). | ¶152-153 | col. 20:14-18 |
| transmits the identified content set to the application according to the format of the identified content set selection criteria for the cell | The Accused Products deliver the identified digital ads to the application on the user's device in the determined cell, with the ads having a particular format (Compl. ¶154-156). The complaint includes a visual illustrating this process (Compl. ¶156). | ¶154-156 | col. 20:19-22 |
9,230,267 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising software that when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform the steps of: dividing a geographical area into a virtual grid comprising a plurality of cells | The Accused Products are systems with software that cause a processor to divide a geographical area into a virtual grid of cells, using the Geo-Fencing technology as described in Section III (Compl. ¶174-175, ¶138). | ¶174-175, ¶138 | col. 4:65-68 |
| accepting bids for a cell within the plurality of cells from at least a first content provider and a second content provider | The Accused Products include a Demand Side Platform that accepts bids from its clients (content providers) for advertising in a particular geographic location or cell. The complaint describes this as part of an automated process of buying digital advertising space (Compl. ¶176-179). | ¶176-179 | col. 15:10-13 |
| determining which content provider has submitted the winning bid for the cell | The DSP of the Accused Products determines the winning bid for an advertisement among the received bids, allegedly by conducting an "internal" auction between its advertisers before participating in a larger exchange auction (Compl. ¶181-183). | ¶181-183 | col. 15:14-16 |
| obtaining content submitted from the content provider submitting a winning bid for the cell | Upon information and belief, the DSP receives the advertising content (the "content submitted") from the client or advertiser that submitted the winning bid (Compl. ¶184-185). | ¶184-185 | col. 15:17-19 |
| and transmitting at least a portion of the obtained content to an information playback device located in the cell | The DSP serves the winning advertisement to the display device located in the geographic location of the cell, providing clients access to OTT/CTV, mobile, and other inventory (Compl. ¶186-188). A visual in the complaint illustrates this process of serving ads (Compl. ¶156). | ¶186-188, ¶156 | col. 15:20-23 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the Defendant's system of creating bespoke, non-uniform geo-fences around specific properties using "plat line data" constitutes "divid[ing] a geographical area into a virtual grid comprising a plurality of cells" as required by the claims. The defense may argue that "grid" implies a more regular, tessellated structure not present in the accused system, whereas the plaintiff may point to specification language allowing for irregular and non-polygonal cells (’460 Patent, col. 6:21-22, 6:35-36).
- Technical Questions: For the '267 and '935 patents, a potential point of dispute is whether the real-world operation of a programmatic DSP auction maps directly onto the claim language. The defense could argue that bids are for user impressions that occur within a target zone, not for the "cell" itself as a piece of virtual property, potentially creating a mismatch with the claim step of "accepting bids for a cell." The complaint alleges the platform allows providers to bid for a cell (Compl. ¶112), setting up a factual dispute.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "virtual grid comprising a plurality of cells" (from claim 1 of all asserted patents)
- Context and Importance: This term defines the fundamental structure of the patented invention. Its construction will be critical to determining infringement, as the outcome may depend on whether the Defendant's system of creating customized geo-fences around individual properties is legally equivalent to the claimed "virtual grid."
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specifications state that cells can be "a regular or irregular polygon" and may also be "non-polygonal, of different sizes and/or shapes" (’460 Patent, col. 6:21-22, 6:35-36). This language may support an interpretation that covers any system that partitions a geographic area, regardless of the uniformity or shape of the partitions.
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The repeated use of the term "grid" itself, which connotes a regular, intersecting structure, could support a narrower construction. A defendant may argue that the invention, viewed as a whole and in light of the drawings, contemplates a system of tessellated, adjacent cells covering an area, rather than a collection of discrete, potentially non-contiguous custom shapes as allegedly used by Simpli.fi.
The Term: "accepting bids for a cell" (from claim 1 of the ’267 and ’935 patents)
- Context and Importance: This term is the gateway to the bidding-related limitations. Practitioners may focus on this term because the nature of bidding in modern programmatic advertising is complex. The dispute may center on whether bidding for an impression delivered to a user currently within a defined zone is the same as bidding "for a cell."
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes using various auction models to "place content," suggesting a focus on the commercial transaction for advertising rights in a location, which could encompass modern real-time bidding for impressions. The patent mentions bidding on "placement," which may be argued to be a broad term covering the accused functionality (’267 Patent, col. 10:30-32).
- Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly discusses allocating "rights to the same cell" and treating cells as inventory to be bid upon, akin to virtual real estate (’267 Patent, col. 9:24-25). This may support an interpretation requiring a bid for rights to the geographic area itself, not just for a transient opportunity to serve an ad to a user within it.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all three patents. The allegations are based on Simpli.Fi knowingly encouraging and directing its customers to use the Simpli.Fi Platform in an infringing manner, citing as evidence Simpli.Fi's website, marketing materials, and instructions on how to use its geo-fencing and bidding features to target specific geographic locations (Compl. ¶161, ¶165-166, ¶193, ¶214).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all three patents. The complaint asserts that Simpli.Fi had knowledge of the patents and its infringement at least as early as the service date of the original complaint in this matter, forming a basis for post-suit willfulness (Compl. ¶160, ¶192, ¶213). The prayer for relief requests a finding of willful infringement and enhanced damages (Compl. p. 53, ¶C-D).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "virtual grid," which is used throughout the patents to describe the partitioning of a geographic area, be construed to read on the accused system's generation of discrete, custom-shaped "geo-fences" around individual properties using plat line data? The resolution of this claim construction dispute will likely be dispositive for infringement.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional mapping: Does the accused platform's programmatic, real-time bidding for individual ad impressions that occur within a targeted zone constitute the patented method of "accepting bids for a cell," "determining... the winning bid for the cell," and "obtaining content... submitting a winning bid for the cell"? The case may turn on whether there is a fundamental mismatch between the claimed cell-based property auction and the alleged user-based impression auction.