DCT
7:25-cv-00059
Datonics LLC v. Oracle Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Datonics LLC
- Defendant: Oracle Corporation (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Russ August & Kabat
- Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00059, W.D. Tex., 02/07/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Texas because the Defendant resides in the District, maintains a regular and established place of business in the District, and has allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Oracle Advertising and Oracle Marketing Cloud platforms infringe two patents related to systems and methods for targeted online advertising based on user profile data.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves creating and monetizing digital user profiles for behavioral advertising, a central component of the modern digital ad ecosystem where advertisers seek to target consumers based on their online activities and interests.
- Key Procedural History: The two asserted patents share a common specification and priority claim. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff has licensed the Asserted Patents to at least one other advertising platform, a fact that may be relevant to questions of commercial success and reasonable royalty damages.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006-06-19 | Priority Date for ’210 and ’445 Patents |
| 2013-11-19 | U.S. Patent No. 8,589,210 Issued |
| 2021-04-20 | U.S. Patent No. 10,984,445 Issued |
| 2025-02-07 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,589,210
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8589210, "providing collected profiles to media properties having specified interests," issued November 19, 2013.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the difficulty of monetizing "low-value" advertising space (e.g., on a general news website) compared to dedicated, high-value space (e.g., on a travel website) ('445 Patent, col. 5:7-16). It also describes challenges for media properties seeking to use third-party data to target ads, including the inefficiency of sifting through irrelevant user profiles and the difficulty of tracking profile usage for compensating the data provider ('445 Patent, col. 6:1-60).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a centralized system, operated by a "profile owner company" (PO company), that acts as a clearinghouse for user data. The system records the types of user profiles that "media properties" (e.g., websites with ad space) are interested in ('445 Patent, col. 8:20-29). When the system receives a visitor's profile from a "profile supplier," it identifies a media property that has requested that type of profile and then "arranges for the visitor to be tagged with a tag readable by the identified media property" ('445 Patent, col. 7:26-29). This tag allows the media property to later recognize the visitor and display a targeted advertisement. The system architecture is illustrated in the patent's Figure 2.
- Technical Importance: This approach provides a structured, automated marketplace to connect owners of user profile data with owners of ad inventory, aiming to make the process of buying and selling targeted ad impressions more efficient.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts one or more method claims, including an independent method claim detailed in an exhibit (Compl. ¶10, ¶12). Claim 1 is the first independent method claim.
- Independent Claim 1 of the ’210 Patent requires:
- Automatically selecting an "electronic-advertising-space-controlling entity" by comparing received visitor profile information with a stored request from that entity.
- Automatically arranging for the electronic storage of a "tag" associated with the visitor.
- Electronically receiving a report from the selected entity about its usage of the profile data.
- Recording an amount owed by the selected entity for the usage.
- Calculating fees owed to the original "profile suppliers" based on their contribution to the profile data used.
- The complaint does not specify which, if any, dependent claims are asserted.
U.S. Patent No. 10,984,445
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10984445, "providing collected profiles to media properties having specified interests," issued April 20, 2021.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The ’445 Patent is a continuation of the application that led to the ’210 Patent and shares an identical specification. It therefore addresses the same technical problems related to monetizing ad space and efficiently exchanging user profile data (Compl. ¶1, ¶18).
- The Patented Solution: The patented solution is functionally the same as that described in the ’210 Patent, involving a central computer system that matches visitor profiles to requests from media properties and facilitates targeted advertising. The core concepts are illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 of the patent ('445 Patent, col. 7:10-31).
- Technical Importance: As with the ’210 Patent, the technical contribution is a method for creating a more efficient market for user profile data in online advertising.
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts one or more method claims, including an independent method claim detailed in an exhibit (Compl. ¶20, ¶22). Claim 1 is the first independent method claim.
- Independent Claim 1 of the ’445 Patent requires:
- A computer system automatically storing profile information associated with a visitor in a central database.
- A "profile owner computer" programmed to: (i) automatically select a "media property entity" by comparing visitor profile information with stored requests, and (ii) arrange for electronic storage of a requested profile linked to a tag.
- Later, using the tag to access the stored profile information and automatically cause the delivery of an electronic advertisement to the visitor's device, where the ad is dependent on that profile information.
- The complaint does not specify which, if any, dependent claims are asserted.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint names the "Oracle Advertising and Oracle Marketing Cloud" as the "Accused Instrumentalities." It specifically lists numerous components, including but not limited to: Infinity IQ, Infinity event data, Data Cloud, Bluekai Data Management Platform, ID Graph, CX Tag, Responsys, Eloqua, and CrowdTwist (Compl. ¶10, ¶20).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that these products and services, in combination, form a system that facilitates the delivery of targeted advertisements to consumers (Compl. ¶16, ¶26). This is allegedly accomplished by using "linked profile information, which Oracle has collected from a profile owner computer" (Compl. ¶16, ¶26). The complaint further alleges that the Plaintiff's own data services "directly competes with components of Oracle Marketing Cloud," establishing a context of commercial competition (Compl. ¶16, ¶26).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint incorporates claim chart exhibits by reference but does not attach them (Compl. ¶12, ¶22). The following summary is based on the narrative allegations in the complaint.
’210 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) ... automatically selecting an electronic-advertising-space-controlling entity ... based on a comparison of the profile information ... with a previously received request... | The Oracle Marketing Cloud allegedly compares collected user profile data with advertiser criteria to select and deliver targeted advertisements. | ¶10, ¶16 | col. 8:45-54 |
| (b) ... automatically arranging for electronic storage of a tag that is associated with the visitor... | Defendant's system allegedly uses identifiers, such as those associated with its "CX Tag" and "ID Graph" components, to tag and track users. | ¶10 | col. 9:21-24 |
| (c) ... electronically receiving a report from the selected entity containing information about usage of profile data... | The complaint alleges that the Accused Products as a whole perform the claimed method, which would require backend reporting on ad delivery and performance. | ¶12 | col. 11:15-25 |
| (d) ... recording an amount owed by the selected entity for usage of the profile data... | Performance of the overall method as alleged implies a backend accounting function for billing advertisers for the use of the targeted profiles. | ¶12, ¶14 | col. 12:46-50 |
| (e) ... calculating fees owed to a plurality of profile suppliers based on respective contributions... | Performance of the overall method as alleged implies a backend function for calculating payments or credits to the original sources of the user data. | ¶12 | col. 13:1-13 |
’445 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| (a) ... with a computer system automatically storing, in a central database ... profile information associated with a visitor... | Defendant's "Data Cloud" and "Bluekai Data Management Platform" are alleged to be central databases that store collected user profile information. | ¶20 | col. 14:60-65 |
| (b) wherein the profile owner computer is programmed: (i) to automatically select a media property entity ... based on a comparison of ... profile information ... with ... stored requests... | The Oracle Marketing Cloud is alleged to be a "profile owner computer" that automatically matches user profiles to advertiser requests. | ¶20, ¶26 | col. 15:3-14 |
| (b) ... and (ii) ... to automatically arrange for electronic storage of a requested profile linked to the tag that is associated with the visitor device... | The Oracle system allegedly stores profile data and links it to a user via an identifier, such as its "ID Graph" or "CX Tag." | ¶20 | col. 15:15-20 |
| (c) ... (i) using the tag ... to access the profile information ... and (ii) using the profile information ... to automatically cause delivery of an electronic advertisement... | The accused Oracle platforms allegedly use the stored, linked profile information to cause the delivery of targeted ads to specific consumers. | ¶26 | col. 15:21-28 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: The complaint's infringement allegations are stated at a high level. A central question will be whether the Plaintiff can produce evidence that Oracle's complex, multi-component cloud services perform the specific, ordered steps of the asserted method claims. The allegations for the backend accounting and crediting steps of ’210 Claim 1 (elements c-e) are particularly conclusory and will likely require significant discovery to substantiate.
- Scope Questions: The case may present disputes over the scope of key terms. For example, does the architecture of the Oracle Marketing Cloud, a distributed cloud service, meet the definition of a "profile owner computer" that performs the claimed "selection" and "arranging" steps? The answer will depend on how these terms are construed.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "profile owner computer" (’445 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This term appears to define the central processing hub of the claimed invention. Its construction is critical because the infringement case depends on mapping this term onto Oracle's distributed cloud infrastructure. Practitioners may focus on whether this term requires a single, monolithic server or can be read more broadly to cover a collection of coordinated services like the Oracle Marketing Cloud.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification refers to the system's operator as a "PO company" and its server functionally, for example as a "central server" that can "tag the visitor" ('445 Patent, col. 2:60-62). This could support a construction that is not limited by a specific hardware architecture.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent depicts a "PO COMPANY SERVER" (10) as a distinct entity in Figure 2 that receives redirects from "Profile Supplier" (PS1) and communicates with "Media Property" (MP1). This could support an argument that the term requires the specific client-server architecture shown in the embodiments.
The Term: "tag" (’210 Patent, Claim 1; ’445 Patent, Claim 1)
Context and Importance: The "tag" is the core mechanism for identifying and tracking a user across different web properties. The infringement analysis will depend on whether the identifiers used by Oracle's "ID Graph" and "CX Tag" fall within the scope of this term.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification explicitly states that a "tag" is not limited to a browser cookie: "A tag generally is a unique identifier used to mark a person electronically... such as a web site, TV channel, radio show, or the like, using a computer, a mobile device, a TV set..." ('445 Patent, col. 3:24-29). This language supports a very broad, technology-agnostic definition.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides detailed examples of "cookie matching," where a server operating under one domain places a cookie that is later read by equipment from another entity ('445 Patent, col. 10:57-68). A party could argue that these specific embodiments should inform and potentially limit the scope of the term.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by "direct[ing] and control[ling] use of the Accused Instrumentalities to perform acts that result in infringement" and "conditioning benefits on participation in the infringement" (Compl. ¶11, ¶21). This suggests a theory that Oracle provides its customers with a tool and instructs them on how to use it in an infringing manner.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint's prayer for relief seeks a finding of willful infringement (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶b). However, the body of the complaint does not allege specific facts to support a claim of pre-suit knowledge, such as prior correspondence or knowledge of the patents.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case will likely focus on the interplay between broad patent claims and the complex realities of a modern cloud-based advertising platform. The central questions for the court appear to be:
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: Can the Plaintiff, through discovery, produce evidence showing that Oracle’s accused cloud services perform the specific, ordered, and often backend-focused method steps recited in the asserted claims, moving beyond the high-level functional allegations of the complaint?
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can architectural terms from the patents, such as "profile owner computer" and the act of "selecting an ... entity," be construed broadly enough to read on the distributed, multi-service nature of the Oracle Marketing Cloud, or will they be limited to the more discrete system architectures described in the patent's embodiments?