DCT

6:22-cv-01204

AlmondNet Inc v. Amazon.com Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:22-cv-01204, W.D. Tex., 11/18/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant Amazon having a regular and established place of business in the district, specifically the Amazon Tech Hub in Austin, Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s advertising platform infringes seven patents related to internet and network-based advertising systems and methods.
  • Technical Context: The patents address foundational technologies in the digital advertising sector, including profile-based ad selection, cross-platform ad targeting (linking online behavior to television ads), and the accumulation of user data for targeting.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sent communications to Amazon identifying the asserted patents and infringement on July 24, 2019, and October 25, 2019. It also notes that several of the asserted patents were the subject of a prior lawsuit filed against Amazon on August 27, 2021, which may be significant for the allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-06-14 Earliest Priority Date Asserted (’307 and ’249 Patents)
2006-06-16 Priority Date Asserted (’745, ’783, and ’146 Patents)
2007-04-17 Priority Date Asserted (’260 and ’878 Patents)
2010-06-29 U.S. Patent No. 7,747,745 Issues
2010-12-28 U.S. Patent No. 7,861,260 Issues
2011-07-12 U.S. Patent No. 7,979,307 Issues
2012-06-19 U.S. Patent No. 8,204,783 Issues
2014-07-08 U.S. Patent No. 8,775,249 Issues
2015-02-17 U.S. Patent No. 8,959,146 Issues
2019-07-24 Plaintiff allegedly sends communication to Defendant regarding patents
2019-10-25 Plaintiff allegedly sends second communication to Defendant
2020-07-14 U.S. Patent No. 10,715,878 Issues
2021-08-27 Prior lawsuit filed by Plaintiff against Defendant
2022-11-18 Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 7,747,745 - "media properties selection method and system based on expected profit from profile-based ad delivery"

  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the inefficiency in behavioral targeting where the cost of ad space on a second media property (where a targeted ad is shown) might not be covered by the revenues generated from that ad, which is based on a user profile collected on a first media property (’745 Patent, col. 5:64-6:7).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an automated system that calculates the expected profit from delivering a profile-based ad before selecting the media property for placement (’745 Patent, Abstract). The system calculates profit by deducting the price of ad space from the expected revenues, and if the profit is positive, it arranges for the user to be tagged for targeted advertising on the selected media property (’745 Patent, Abstract; Fig. 1).
    • Technical Importance: This method introduced a quantitative, profit-driven logic to the selection of ad placements in behavioral targeting, moving beyond simple audience matching to economic optimization.
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts at least one independent claim (Compl. ¶19). Assuming assertion of Claim 1, its essential elements include:
      • Determining automatically a profile-attribute-dependent revenue available for display of an advertisement.
      • For each electronic visitor, responsive to receiving information about a profile attribute, automatically authorizing a third-party second media property to display an advertisement correlated with that attribute.
      • The authorization is for a price that does not exceed a price cap, which is a selected amount less than the available revenue.

U.S. Patent No. 7,861,260 - "targeted television advertisements based on online behavior"

  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of targeting television advertisements based on a viewer's online (i.e., Internet) behavior without using personally identifiable information (PII) to link the two activities, a significant consumer privacy concern (’260 Patent, col. 7:44-8:11).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where IP addresses for online access devices (e.g., modems) and television set-top boxes are electronically associated for a multitude of users (’260 Patent, Abstract). User profile information derived from online activity at a specific online IP address is used to select a TV advertisement, which is then automatically directed to the associated set-top box IP address, preferably without using PII (’260 Patent, col. 9:10-24). This association can be made when a user has a common service provider for both internet and television, or through a shared common IP address on a local network (’260 Patent, Fig. 7).
    • Technical Importance: The technology provides a framework for cross-media advertising that bridges the valuable, data-rich internet environment with the high-impact television medium while aiming to respect user privacy.
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts at least one independent claim (Compl. ¶30). Assuming assertion of Claim 61, its essential elements include:
      • Electronically associating an online user interface device identifier and a set-top box identifier for a user, based on a common IP address where network traffic is routed to both devices.
      • Using user profile information derived from online activity on the user interface device (via a first online access IP address).
      • Automatically causing a first television advertisement to be directed to the set-top box, which is indicated by the set-top box identifier associated with the user interface device identifier.

U.S. Patent No. 7,979,307 - "method and stored program for accumulating descriptive profile data along with source information for use in targeting third-party advertisements"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a method for a centralized system to collect partial user profiles from various third-party websites (’307 Patent, Abstract). The system electronically records which website contributed which piece of profile data, enabling the system to use the aggregated profile for targeting advertisements and to facilitate compensation to the contributing websites (’307 Patent, Claim 1).
  • Asserted Claims: At least one independent claim is asserted (Compl. ¶41).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Amazon's advertising platform of infringing the ’307 patent (Compl. ¶36).

U.S. Patent No. 8,204,783 - "media properties selection method and system based on expected profit from profile-based ad delivery"

  • Technology Synopsis: As a continuation of the ’745 patent, this patent further refines the concept of selecting ad media properties based on calculated expected profit (’783 Patent, Abstract). It covers an automated system that calculates profit for an ad correlated with a user profile and then arranges for the user to be tagged for delivery on a media property where the placement is expected to be profitable.
  • Asserted Claims: At least one independent claim is asserted (Compl. ¶51).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Amazon's advertising platform of infringing the ’783 patent (Compl. ¶46).

U.S. Patent No. 8,775,249 - "method, computer system, and stored program for accumulating descriptive profile data along with source information for use in targeting third-party advertisements"

  • Technology Synopsis: As a continuation of the ’307 patent, this patent describes a system for collecting user profiles from unaffiliated third-party websites via URL redirection (’249 Patent, Claim 11). The system stores the received partial profiles, adds them to a maintained profile for the same user, and generates a record of which third party contributed which attributes, which is then used for targeting ads.
  • Asserted Claims: At least one independent claim is asserted (Compl. ¶62).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Amazon's advertising platform of infringing the ’249 patent (Compl. ¶57).

U.S. Patent No. 8,959,146 - "media properties selection method and system based on expected profit from profile-based ad delivery"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is also in the family of the ’745 and ’783 patents and claims a method for selecting media properties for ad delivery based on profit (’146 Patent, Abstract). It specifies directing indicia of a condition to a third-party server, where the condition relates to displaying an ad to a visitor at a price less than a profile-attribute-dependent price an advertiser is willing to pay (’146 Patent, Claim 1).
  • Asserted Claims: At least one independent claim is asserted (Compl. ¶72).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Amazon's advertising platform of infringing the ’146 patent (Compl. ¶67).

U.S. Patent No. 10,715,878 - "targeted television advertisements based on online behavior"

  • Technology Synopsis: As a continuation of the ’260 patent, this patent further describes methods for targeting television ads based on online behavior without using PII (’878 Patent, Abstract). It claims a method of determining an association between device identifiers of two or more devices on a common LAN by determining they separately accessed the internet through a router via a common IP address during a predetermined time (’878 Patent, Claim 1).
  • Asserted Claims: At least one independent claim is asserted (Compl. ¶83).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Amazon's advertising platform of infringing the ’878 patent (Compl. ¶78).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies the accused instrumentality generally as "Amazon's advertising platform" (Compl. ¶14, ¶25).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the accused platform provides targeted advertising solutions covering profile-based bidding, behavioral targeting, and multi-platform advertising (Compl. ¶2). The complaint does not, however, provide specific technical details about the operation of Amazon's platform. The infringement allegations for each patent incorporate by reference claim charts attached as exhibits, but these exhibits were not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶19, ¶30, ¶41, ¶51, ¶62, ¶72, ¶83). Consequently, the complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a technical analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific functionality as it relates to the asserted claims. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Amazon’s advertising platform infringes the asserted patents but does not include the referenced claim chart exhibits that would detail its infringement theories (Compl. ¶19, ¶30). The complaint’s narrative allegations are general and repeated for each patent, stating that the Accused Instrumentalities satisfy all claim limitations (Compl. ¶19). Without the claim charts, a detailed element-by-element analysis based on the complaint is not possible.

  • Narrative Infringement Theory Summary (’745 Patent): The complaint alleges that Amazon's advertising platform infringes the ’745 Patent by making, using, or selling a service that performs media property selection based on expected profit from profile-based ad delivery (Compl. ¶13-14).
  • Narrative Infringement Theory Summary (’260 Patent): The complaint alleges that Amazon's advertising platform infringes the ’260 Patent by making, using, or selling a service that provides targeted television advertisements based on users' online behavior (Compl. ¶24-25).
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Evidentiary Questions: A primary point of contention will be factual and evidentiary. What technical evidence will Plaintiff provide to show that Amazon’s platform performs the specific profit-calculation steps of the ’745 patent family claims, or the specific IP-address-association steps of the ’260 patent family claims? The complaint itself does not provide this evidence.
    • Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on questions of claim scope. For the ’260 Patent, a central question may be whether Amazon's account-based tracking across devices (e.g., a user logged into Amazon.com on a laptop and into a Fire TV) constitutes "electronically associating" an "IP address indicating an online access device" with an "IP address indicating a television set-top box" as contemplated by the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "expected profit" (’745 Patent, Claim 24)

  • Context and Importance: The calculation and use of "expected profit" is the central inventive concept of the ’745 patent family. The definition of this term will be critical to determining whether Amazon's ad-bidding and selection algorithms, which are based on complex factors, perform the specific calculation required by the claims.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification notes that profit can be defined in multiple ways, including simply as expected revenue minus ad space cost, which could support a more general interpretation (’745 Patent, col. 8:1-34).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims themselves often require a specific calculation, such as deducting revenues from costs and desired profit margin, which may support a narrower construction limited to that explicit formula (’745 Patent, col. 11:25-30).

  • The Term: "electronically associated" (’260 Patent, Abstract; ’878 Patent, Abstract)

  • Context and Importance: This term is the core of how the ’260 patent family links online activity to television viewing. Whether Amazon's methods fall within the scope of this term will be a key issue. Practitioners may focus on whether this requires a direct, explicit mapping of IP addresses in a database, or if it can cover more indirect, probabilistic, or account-based linkages common in modern ad platforms.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes multiple ways this association can occur, including through a common service provider or a shared local network, suggesting the mechanism is not limited to a single embodiment (’260 Patent, col. 10:35-11:2).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's figures and detailed descriptions heavily emphasize the association and reporting of specific IP addresses for the online modem and the set-top box, which could support an interpretation requiring an explicit IP-to-IP link (’260 Patent, Figs. 2-3; col. 10:40-57).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant encourages and instructs customers and end users, through user manuals and online materials, to use the Accused Instrumentalities in infringing ways (Compl. ¶17, ¶28). Contributory infringement is also alleged on the basis that the accused platform is not a staple article of commerce and is especially adapted for infringement (Compl. ¶18, ¶29).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s purported knowledge of the patents long before the suit was filed (Compl. ¶16, ¶27). This knowledge is allegedly based on communications sent to Amazon on July 24, 2019, and October 25, 2019, as well as a prior lawsuit filed against Amazon on August 27, 2021, that asserted several of the same patents (Compl. ¶10, ¶38, ¶59).

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

  • A primary issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Given the complaint’s lack of specific technical allegations and its reliance on unfiled claim charts, what concrete evidence will Plaintiff offer to demonstrate that Amazon's complex, account-based advertising ecosystem practices the precise, step-by-step methods claimed in the patents, particularly the specific profit calculations and IP-address associations?
  • A central question will be one of technological scope: Can the claims of the ’260 and ’878 patents, which focus on "electronically associating" the distinct IP addresses of online devices and television set-top boxes, be construed to cover modern integrated platforms where user identity is tracked via a common login (e.g., an Amazon account) across web browsers, mobile apps, and streaming devices like Fire TV?
  • The allegations of pre-suit notice dating to 2019 and a prior lawsuit raise a key question regarding willfulness: What was the substance of the alleged communications, and could Amazon's continued operation of its advertising platform, in light of that history, be considered objectively reckless by a fact-finder?