DCT

6:24-cv-00234

AlmondNet v. Amazon.com Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:24-cv-00234, W.D. Tex., 05/03/2024
  • 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: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s advertising platform and Amazon DSP infringe patents related to systems for targeted online advertising based on user profile data.
  • Technical Context: The patents address methods for monetizing online advertising space by collecting user profile data, matching it to advertisers with specific interests, and tracking data sources for compensation.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff AlmondNet attempted to license the ’904 patent to Amazon, sending communications in July and October 2019 that identified the patent and its alleged infringement. No resolution was reached from these communications.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-12-13 ’904 Patent Priority Date
2006-06-19 ’445 Patent Priority Date
2013-07-23 ’904 Patent Issue Date
2019-07-24 Plaintiff allegedly notifies Amazon of ’904 patent infringement
2019-10-25 Plaintiff allegedly sends second notification to Amazon regarding ’904 patent
2021-04-20 ’445 Patent Issue Date
2024-05-03 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,984,445 - “providing collected profiles to media properties having specified interests,” issued April 20, 2021

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the difficulty of monetizing "low-value" online ad space (e.g., on general news sites) and the challenges media properties face when trying to use external user profile databases. These challenges include receiving irrelevant profiles and the complexity of tracking profile usage for royalty payments (’445 Patent, col. 5:6-6:66).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a centralized system, operated by a "profile owner company" (PO company), that acts as an intermediary. Media properties inform the PO company of the specific types of user profiles they are interested in. When the PO company encounters a visitor with a matching profile (supplied by a "profile supplier"), it arranges for that visitor to be "tagged" in a way that the interested media property can recognize. The media property can then display a targeted ad to that visitor, and the PO company records the usage of the profile, streamlining the monetization process (’445 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:20-34). Figure 2 illustrates the data flow between profile suppliers (PS1-PSn), a central PO Company Server (10), and media properties (MP1-MPn) (’445 Patent, Fig. 2).
  • Technical Importance: The technology aims to create a more efficient marketplace for user profile data by allowing media properties (ad buyers) to selectively target only relevant user profiles, thereby increasing the value of their ad inventory without needing to manage complex data partnerships directly (’445 Patent, col. 7:5-9).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of unspecified claims and incorporates by reference an external claim chart for the independent claims, which was not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶17, ¶21). Claim 1 is the first independent claim.
  • Claim 1 recites a method of causing delivery of electronic advertisements, with key elements including:
    • A profile owner computer automatically storing profile information about a visitor in a central database, linked to a tag.
    • The profile owner computer automatically selecting a media property from a plurality of such entities based on a comparison of the visitor's profile with stored requests from the media properties.
    • Automatically arranging for electronic storage of a requested profile linked to the tag, where the tag is readable by the selected media property.
    • Later, when the visitor is available to receive an ad, the media property's computer system uses the tag to access the profile information and cause delivery of a targeted electronic advertisement.
  • The complaint does not specify whether dependent claims are asserted but reserves the right to do so.

U.S. Patent No. 8,494,904 - “method and stored program for accumulating descriptive profile data along with source information for use in targeting third-party advertisements,” issued July 23, 2013

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need for a viable commercial market for individual "attributes of information" about users. Prior systems focused on selling entire databases, but commerce in discrete data attributes (e.g., a single user interest or demographic fact) was "substantially precluded," limiting the granularity of data-driven advertising and profiling (’904 Patent, col. 1:38-2:10).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a "mercantile method" where a central system or "databank" can receive partial profiles from numerous different third-party sources ("users"). Crucially, the system creates and stores an "electronic record of which of the plurality of unaffiliated third parties contributed" which specific profile attributes. This source-tracking enables a brokerage model where the original data contributor can be compensated when their specific data is used to target an advertisement (’904 Patent, Abstract; col. 11:10-12:54).
  • Technical Importance: This technology creates a framework for a granular, compensated data economy, allowing various entities to contribute to and draw from a collective user profile database while ensuring the original sources of data are tracked and can be paid royalties (’904 Patent, Abstract).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of unspecified claims and incorporates by reference an external claim chart for the independent claims, which was not provided with the complaint (Compl. ¶26, ¶31). Claim 1 is the first independent claim.
  • Claim 1 recites an automated method of collecting profiles, with key elements including:
    • Electronically receiving a URL-redirected partial profile of an entity from a server controlled by an unaffiliated third party.
    • Automatically adding the received partial profile to a maintained profile believed to be related to the same entity.
    • Automatically generating and storing an electronic record of which of the unaffiliated third parties contributed particular profile attributes to the maintained profile.
    • Using the maintained profile, which includes the added partial profile, to target third-party advertisements to the user.
  • The complaint does not specify whether dependent claims are asserted but reserves the right to do so.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are identified as "Amazon's advertising platform and Amazon DSP" (Compl. ¶17, ¶26).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that these are products and services that Amazon "makes, uses, offers for sale, sells, and/or imports" (Compl. ¶17, ¶26). It further alleges that Amazon and/or users of these instrumentalities direct and control their use to perform infringing acts (Compl. ¶18, ¶27). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the operation of the accused platforms, aside from the conclusory allegation that they perform the functions recited in the patents. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references, but does not include, claim chart exhibits detailing its infringement theories (Compl. ¶21, ¶31). The following is a summary of the infringement allegations based on the complaint's narrative.

The central allegation is that Amazon's advertising services, including its Demand-Side Platform (DSP), operate in a manner that infringes the asserted patents. For the ’445 Patent, the infringement theory suggests that Amazon's platform functions as the claimed "profile owner computer." It allegedly collects user profiles, identifies advertisers ("media properties") on its network with specified interests in those profiles, and facilitates the delivery of targeted ads to those users on behalf of the advertisers, thereby practicing the patented method (Compl. ¶17-18).

For the ’904 Patent, the infringement theory suggests that Amazon's platform accumulates user profile data from a variety of "unaffiliated third parties" (e.g., sellers on its marketplace, third-party data providers) and adds this data to its own user profiles. The complaint implies that Amazon's system must necessarily track the source of this data to manage its advertising ecosystem, and in doing so, it creates the claimed "electronic record" and uses the combined profiles for ad targeting (Compl. ¶26-27).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’445 Patent: "profile owner computer" (Claim 1)

Context and Importance

This term appears to define the central actor in the claimed method. The definition of this term will be critical to determining whether Amazon’s distributed, cloud-based advertising architecture can be mapped onto the claimed system. Practitioners may focus on this term to dispute whether Amazon operates a single, cognizable "computer" that performs all the recited functions or a disjointed set of services that do not meet the claim's requirements.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines a "BT company" (which can act as a PO company) functionally, including entities that place cookies, use software to monitor user visits, or act as agents for publishers, suggesting the term is not limited to a specific hardware configuration (’445 Patent, col. 2:14-34, 2:40-50).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 2 explicitly depicts a singular "PO COMPANY SERVER" (item 10) as the central hub, which could support an argument that the invention contemplates a more centralized or architecturally distinct entity than a diffuse cloud platform might represent (’445 Patent, Fig. 2).

’904 Patent: "electronic record of which of the plurality of unaffiliated third parties contributed to the maintained profile particular profile attributes" (Claim 1)

Context and Importance

This limitation requires not just the aggregation of data, but the specific tracking of which third party contributed which data attributes. Infringement hinges on whether Amazon's platform creates and stores a record with this specific level of granularity.

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent’s abstract states that a key aspect is "keeping track of which profile provider contributed which elements, so that use of particular elements... can result in compensation." This suggests the "record" is any implementation that achieves this functional goal of source-attribution for payment (’904 Patent, Abstract).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language is highly specific, requiring a record linking "particular profile attributes" to their source. A defense may argue that while Amazon's system may track data sources at a high level (e.g., that a user profile contains data from a certain partner), it does not create a granular "record" that maps every individual attribute to its specific third-party origin, as required by the plain language of the claim.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement for both patents. For the ’445 Patent, it is alleged that Amazon "actively encourages and instructs customers" to use the accused platforms in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶19). For the ’904 Patent, the allegation is more specific, citing "user manuals and online instruction materials on its website" as the means of inducement (Compl. ¶29).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is explicitly alleged for the ’904 Patent, based on pre-suit knowledge stemming from alleged licensing communications sent to Amazon on July 24, 2019, and October 25, 2019 (Compl. ¶28). The prayer for relief specifically requests a finding of willful infringement for the ’904 Patent (Compl. p. 9, ¶b). For the ’445 Patent, the complaint alleges knowledge "at least through the filing and service of this Complaint" but does not contain a separate count for willfulness or a specific request for a willfulness finding in the prayer for relief (Compl. ¶19).

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

  1. An Evidentiary Question of Technical Operation: The complaint makes high-level allegations without providing claim charts or detailed technical descriptions of how the accused Amazon platforms operate. A key question will be whether discovery produces evidence that Amazon's complex, proprietary advertising systems actually perform the specific, multi-step methods recited in the claims, particularly the granular data-tagging and source-tracking elements.
  2. A Definitional Question of Architectural Scope: The case may turn on claim construction, specifically whether the term "profile owner computer" (’445 patent) can be construed to read on Amazon's distributed cloud infrastructure, and whether Amazon's data management practices create the specific "electronic record" of data contribution required by the ’904 patent. This raises a core question of whether a large, modern advertising platform can be mapped onto the more discrete system architecture described in the patents.
  3. A Factual Question of Pre-Suit Knowledge: For the ’904 patent, the allegation of willfulness rests on pre-suit notice letters from 2019. A central question for the fact-finder will be what these letters contained and whether they provided Amazon with sufficient knowledge of its alleged infringement to support a finding of willfulness for its conduct after receiving the notice.