DCT

6:24-cv-00058

Brodti Inc v. Google LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:24-cv-00058, W.D. Tex., 01/29/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant maintaining regular and established places of business within the Western District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s online advertising platforms, Google Ads and Google AdSense, infringe a patent related to a method for financing projects using an advertiser-funded model.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns online advertising systems that connect advertisers with content publishers, enabling publishers to monetize their web content through ad placements.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or administrative proceedings related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-11-12 ’898 Patent Priority Date
2022-08-16 U.S. Patent No. 11,416,898 Issues
2024-01-29 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,416,898 - "Method, Systems, and Apparatus for Financing Projects"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,416,898, "Method, Systems, and Apparatus for Financing Projects," issued August 16, 2022 (’898 Patent).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes traditional methods for funding projects (e.g., films, non-profit initiatives) as difficult and risky, often relying on speculative investments, limited grant money, or direct charitable contributions from the public (’898 Patent, col. 1:36-48). Newer methods like crowdfunding are also described as limited, as they depend on the public's willingness to donate directly to a project (’898 Patent, col. 2:20-26).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a system where a project is financed not by direct investment but through the sale of advertising. An advertiser pays for a "media buy" (e.g., a set number of ad impressions) on a "media property" (e.g., a website) whose content is related to the project being funded. The revenue from this media buy is then placed into a fund to finance the project (’898 Patent, Abstract; col. 6:25-34). This model aims to de-risk the financing process, as the advertiser receives tangible advertising value in exchange for their payment, rather than making a speculative investment in the project's success (’898 Patent, col. 6:60-66).
  • Technical Importance: The invention describes a method to leverage the established online advertising economy (based on impressions) as a novel mechanism for project finance, creating an alternative to traditional venture capital, loans, or donations (’898 Patent, col. 2:37-43).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent system claim 19 (Compl. ¶18, ¶30).
  • Essential elements of claim 19 include:
    • A system with memory and processors executing instructions to perform a method.
    • Receiving advertising material from a client to populate on websites.
    • Identifying the client.
    • Generating a webpage with a plurality of advertising buy options.
    • Obtaining the client's selection of a buy option, which comprises a website and a predetermined number of impressions.
    • Generating a repository for advertising revenue based on the selection.
    • Populating the advertising material on the website.
    • Monitoring the number of impressions and determining their validity.
    • Ceasing to populate the ads once a predetermined number of valid impressions is met.
    • Electronically collecting a share of the advertising revenue to be transmitted to the web property content owner.
  • The complaint focuses its infringement counts on claim 19, while also alleging infringement of "one or more of the claims" of the patent (Compl. ¶34).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are Google Ads and Google AdSense, which are alleged to operate together as the "Accused Systems" (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint describes Google Ads as an online platform that allows advertisers ("Clients") to create advertising campaigns, including selecting ad material, setting budgets, and choosing where ads appear (Compl. ¶14, ¶19-20). Google AdSense is described as a system that allows website publishers ("Web Property Content Owner(s)") to monetize their content by displaying these targeted ads and earning a share of the resulting revenue (Compl. ¶15, ¶23).
  • The Accused Systems allegedly operate by allowing a Client to upload advertising, select from various "buy options" such as a daily budget that corresponds to an estimated number of impressions or clicks, and have the ads placed on third-party websites (Compl. ¶19, ¶21). The complaint alleges that Google transmits a share of the advertising revenue to the publisher once the campaign runs (Compl. ¶19, ¶52). A screenshot from a Google Ads webpage illustrates a user interface for selecting budget options, such as a "$15 daily average" estimated to generate "500-850 ad clicks each month" (Compl. p. 6).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’898 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 19) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
receiving, by the one or more processors, from a given client... a message comprising data, the data comprising advertising material to populate on one or more websites The Accused Systems receive advertising material uploaded by a Client through the Google Ads website, which is intended to populate on websites like YouTube or Google Search (Compl. ¶19). A screenshot shows a user interface for selecting a video from YouTube to use as an ad (Compl. p. 5). ¶42 col. 10:30-34
generating, by the one or more processors, a webpage, wherein the generating comprises providing, via a graphical user interface of the webpage, a plurality of advertising buy options for selection by a given client The Accused Systems generate a webpage providing the Client with multiple advertising buy options, including different budgets (e.g., daily average, monthly max) and corresponding estimated impressions (Compl. ¶21, ¶44). A screenshot displays several selectable budget options (Compl. p. 6). ¶44 col. 10:40-45
obtaining, by the one or more processors, via an input in the graphical user interface, a selection of one or more of the advertising buy options, wherein the selected one...buy options comprise...a predetermined number of impressions The Accused Systems obtain a Client's selection of a buy option, such as a budget, which corresponds to a predetermined number of impressions or clicks for displaying the advertisement (Compl. ¶21, ¶45). ¶45 col. 10:46-52
generating, by the one or more processors, on a database accessible to the one or more processors, a repository for advertising revenue based on the selection The Accused Systems are alleged to generate a repository for advertising revenue by accepting payment for an ad campaign based on the Client's selected buy option (Compl. ¶46). ¶46 col. 10:53-56
upon determining a number of valid impressions are met, ceasing, by the one or more processors, the populating of the advertising material on the at least one website The Accused Systems cease populating a Client's advertisement when the predetermined budget is spent, which corresponds to the number of impressions being met. Google's website states, "Your account will stop serving ads if your budget is spent..." (Compl. ¶22, ¶51). ¶51 col. 11:4-6
based on determining a number of valid impressions are met, electronically collecting, by the one or more processors, a share of the advertising revenue to be transmitted to the web property content owner The Accused Systems electronically collect and transmit shares of the advertising revenue to Web Property Content Owners who use Google AdSense to monetize their content (Compl. ¶19, ¶52). ¶52 col. 11:8-12
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The patent's specification repeatedly describes a process for financing a discrete "project," such as a film or non-profit cause (’898 Patent, col. 4:40-49; col. 7:1-8). A primary point of contention may be whether the claims, when read in light of the specification, are limited to systems for funding such discrete projects. This raises the question of whether Google's general-purpose advertising platform, which provides an ongoing revenue stream for content creators rather than funding a pre-defined project, falls within the scope of the claims.
    • Technical Questions: The complaint alleges that Google's system creates a "repository for advertising revenue" (’898 Patent, col. 10:53-56) based on accepting payment for a campaign (Compl. ¶46). The court may need to determine whether Google's general accounting and payment-processing system functions as the claimed "repository," which the patent specification associates with a "project fund" (’898 Patent, col. 9:31-33).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "a repository for advertising revenue" (claim 19)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the patented method of accumulating funds. The infringement allegation hinges on whether Google’s system for collecting payments from advertisers and disbursing funds to publishers qualifies as the claimed "repository." Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could determine whether the patent covers general ad-revenue-sharing models or is limited to systems that create a distinct, segregated fund for a specific project.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Claim 19 itself requires only "generating... a repository for advertising revenue based on the selection," without specifying that the repository must be for a single project or segregated from other funds (’898 Patent, col. 14:1-3). Dependent claim 3 further describes the repository as comprising a "fund," which could be interpreted broadly (’898 Patent, col. 11:17-18).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently links the revenue to a "project fund" used to finance a specific endeavor, such as a film (’898 Patent, col. 9:31-38). The detailed description states, "the company takes the revenue generated and places it into the media production fund" (’898 Patent, col. 5:44-46), suggesting a more structured and purpose-specific financial vehicle than a general accounts-payable system.

  • The Term: "populating... the advertising material on the at least one website" (claim 19)

  • Context and Importance: This limitation describes the core function of placing an ad. Its scope is critical because the patent's context suggests the "website" is a "media property" specifically tied to the project being financed. The dispute may turn on whether any website on Google's vast network qualifies, or if the website must have a thematic link to a "project" as envisioned by the patent.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of claim 19 requires only populating the material on "at least one website," without imposing any relationship between the website's content and a funded project (’898 Patent, col. 14:4-8).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explains that the "media property" is created by a company to attract a "target audience" for a specific project, and the ads are placed on that property (’898 Patent, col. 4:51-64). Figure 2 shows a direct flow from "Screenplay/Project" (52) to "Media Property" (62), which may support an interpretation that the "website" must be the designated media outlet for the project being funded.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Google knowingly encourages and instructs both advertisers ("Clients") and publishers ("Web Property Content Owners") to use the Accused Systems in an infringing manner. This is allegedly done through advertising, step-by-step instructions, and offering "expert" support for setting up Google Ads and AdSense accounts (Compl. ¶25-27, ¶31).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Google's purported knowledge of the ’898 Patent "since at least as early as August 2022, when the ’898 Patent issued" (Compl. ¶33). The complaint alleges that infringement was and continues to be "deliberate, willful, and with full knowledge, or willful blindness to knowledge" of the patent (Compl. ¶36).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claims, which the patent specification frames in the context of financing a discrete "project" (like a film), be construed to cover a general-purpose advertising platform that provides a continuous monetization stream for any content creator, where there is no single, defined "project" being funded?
  • A key claim construction question will be one of functional identity: does Google's system of collecting revenue from advertisers and distributing it to publishers constitute the "generating... a repository for advertising revenue" as required by claim 19, or does the patent’s disclosure limit that term to a dedicated, project-specific "fund" that is functionally distinct from a general revenue-sharing mechanism?