DCT

7:25-cv-00165

AlmondNet Inc v. Amazon.com Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00165, W.D. Tex., 04/15/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant Amazon having a "regular and established place of business" within the district, specifically an Amazon Tech Hub in Austin, Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ digital advertising systems, particularly the Amazon Demand-Side Platform (DSP), infringe a patent directed to systems and methods for linking the delivery of a television advertisement to subsequent online activity on a separate device.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue operates in the field of cross-device advertising, which seeks to connect a user's behavior across different platforms (e.g., television and personal computers) to enable more effective ad targeting and campaign attribution.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs provided Defendants with notice of the asserted patent and the alleged infringement in communications dated July 24, 2019, and October 25, 2019. The asserted patent is subject to a terminal disclaimer. An ex parte reexamination certificate was issued on April 17, 2024, confirming the patentability of the asserted independent claim.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2007-12-31 '198 Patent Earliest Priority Date
2019-06-11 '198 Patent Issue Date
2019-07-24 First Pre-Suit Notice Letter Sent to Amazon
2019-10-25 Second Pre-Suit Notice Letter Sent to Amazon
2024-04-17 '198 Patent Reexamination Certificate Issued
2025-04-15 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,321,198: systems and methods for dealing with online activity based on delivery of a television advertisement (issued June 11, 2019)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the technical challenge of implementing cross-media advertising—for example, targeting an online ad based on a user's television viewing history. This is described as being particularly difficult due to the "prevalent use of dynamic device addresses," which complicates linking a television device (like a set-top box) to an online device (like a computer) without resorting to personally identifiable information (PII). (’198 Patent, col. 9:10-14, 21-29).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a computer-implemented method to solve this problem. At its core, the system receives a "notification" signifying that a television advertisement has been presented to a user via a set-top box (STB). This notification contains or references an identifier for the STB. A central computer system then uses this notification to trigger an "action"—such as delivering a targeted online ad or tracking online behavior—on a separate online device that has been associated with the STB identifier, crucially, "without using personally identifiable information." (’198 Patent, Abstract; col. 26:15-39). The specification details how a central ad server can receive profile information, select a targeted TV ad for an STB, and later receive a notification from that STB, enabling subsequent action on an associated online device. (’198 Patent, col. 13:30 - 14:65).
  • Technical Importance: This method provides a framework for advertisers to bridge the data gap between television and internet advertising, allowing for user retargeting and attribution analysis across different media ecosystems. (’198 Patent, col. 9:16-29).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint’s infringement analysis focuses on independent claim 1, though the pre-suit notice letters referenced a wider range of claims including 1-5 and 8-33 (Compl. ¶¶12, 20).
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • (a) receiving at a computer system a "notification" that (i) includes or references a "first set-top box identifier" and (ii) signifies a television advertisement was presented using that set-top box.
    • (b) using the notification to automatically cause a "first action" (e.g., ad delivery or tracking) on a "first online user interface device" that corresponds to a "first online user interface device identifier."
    • (c) wherein the set-top box identifier and the online device identifier are "associated without using personally identifiable information."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint names "Amazon's computer systems that implement and provide Amazon Ads," with a focus on the "Amazon DSP" (Demand-Side Platform). Other listed components include Performance+, Brand+, Amazon Attribution, Attribution Tags, AWS Neptune, Ad Relevance, Amazon Marketing Cloud, and Amazon Prime Video with ads. (Compl. ¶17).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the Amazon DSP service is a system for purchasing and managing digital advertising. The relevant functionality involves linking ad exposures on Over-the-Top (OTT) television services with user activity on other online devices. (Compl. ¶¶12, 19). The complaint alleges the system receives a "tracking event" when a TV ad is shown via a set-top box, and in response, it can deliver a targeted ad to an associated online device or attribute a user's online actions to the TV ad. This association is allegedly accomplished using "probabilistic device maps" based on a common local area network (LAN) and without using PII. (Compl. ¶19). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not include the referenced claim chart exhibit (Exhibit 5); however, it provides a narrative infringement theory that supports the construction of the following summary table. (Compl. ¶¶19-20).

'198 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
(a) receiving at a computer system a notification, wherein the notification: (i) includes or references a first set-top box identifier, and (ii) results from and signifies a first television advertisement presented using the first set-top box... "The DSP computer receives a ‘notification,’ namely a ‘tracking event’ as a result of ad rendering via the STB. The ‘tracking event’ (notification) signifies presentation of a TV ad via STB... The notification includes an ‘STB identifier,’ such as Roku’s ‘RIDA’ or AppleTV’s ‘advertisingIdentifier,’ or an IP address". ¶19 col. 26:15-24
(b) using the notification, automatically with the computer system causing a first action to be taken with respect to online activity through the first online user interface device... "[T]he DSP computer performs either of two types of ‘first action’: (a) Causing a targeted ad to be delivered to the online device based on a particular type of tracking event . . . ; or (b) attributing user action on the online device to the presentation of the TV ad via the associated STB...". ¶19 col. 26:25-31
(c) wherein the first online user interface device identifier and the first set top box identifier are associated without using personally identifiable information... "[T]he association of STB and online device is done without use of PII and based on common LAN, using probabilistic device maps...". The complaint also notes that the "‘no-PII’ limitation remains." ¶19 col. 26:32-39
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The complaint's theory hinges on a "probabilistic device map" satisfying the patent's requirement for an "association." A court may need to determine whether this probabilistic method, as alleged, falls within the scope of the "association" described in the patent, which provides examples such as shared IP addresses or ISP/TVP-managed databases. (’198 Patent, col. 10:15-25; col. 19:21-52).
    • Technical Questions: A key factual dispute may arise over the nature of the alleged "notification." The complaint provides little detail on the specific data content and transmission protocol of the "tracking event," which will be critical to proving it "signifies" the presentation of a specific TV ad as the claim requires. (Compl. ¶19).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "notification"

    • Context and Importance: This term is the trigger for the entire claimed method. The dispute will likely center on whether the term is limited to a specific type of data packet or can broadly cover any signal that accomplishes the claimed function. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction determines the range of accused activities that can initiate an infringing act.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language states the notification "results from and signifies" an ad presentation, suggesting a functional definition that is not tied to a particular structure. (’198 Patent, col. 26:22-23).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses embodiments where the notification is transmitted from the user's STB to a Central Ad Server and can include a profile identifier, which may suggest a more structured communication than a generic "tracking event." (’198 Patent, col. 14:55-65).

  • The Term: "associated without using personally identifiable information"

    • Context and Importance: This negative limitation is central to the patent's asserted novelty over prior art. The viability of the infringement case depends on whether the alleged use of "probabilistic device maps" meets this requirement.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines Non-PII as information that "typically cannot be used to specifically identify that person" and gives examples like city, state, and dynamically assigned IP addresses. (’198 Patent, col. 8:5-13). This could support an argument that probabilistic methods based on such data fall within the claim's scope.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The primary embodiments for creating the association rely on more deterministic links, such as a common IP address shared by devices on a LAN or a database maintained by a common ISP/TVP. (’198 Patent, col. 18:45-65; col. 19:21-45). A party could argue the term "associated" should be construed in light of these more concrete examples, potentially excluding less certain "probabilistic" techniques.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that "Amazon and/or users of the Accused Instrumentalities direct and control use" of the systems to perform the infringing method, which suggests a theory of induced infringement. (Compl. ¶18). The factual basis for this appears to be Amazon's control over the accused platform and its functions.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants had pre-suit knowledge of the ’198 patent and their infringement as of July 24, 2019, based on specific notice letters. (Compl. ¶19). The willfulness allegation is further supported by the claim that Defendants "continued and still continue to infringe" after receiving notice and after the complaint was filed. (Compl. ¶19).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "associated," as used in the patent, be construed to cover the "probabilistic device maps" that the complaint alleges Amazon uses? The interpretation of this term, particularly in the context of the "without using personally identifiable information" limitation, will be critical.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional proof: can Plaintiffs demonstrate that the "tracking event" from Amazon's system is a "notification" that performs the specific function required by Claim 1—namely, "signifying" a particular TV ad presentation and directly triggering the accused "first action" in the DSP.
  • A third central question will concern willfulness: given the explicit pre-suit notice alleged in the complaint and the subsequent confirmation of the asserted claim's patentability in reexamination, the court will have to evaluate whether Amazon’s continued alleged infringement constitutes the objective recklessness required for an enhancement of damages.