DCT

7:25-cv-00165

AlmondNet Inc v. Amazon.com Inc

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00165, W.D. Tex., 06/11/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Amazon maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, specifically citing an Amazon Tech Hub in Austin, Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s advertising systems and services infringe three U.S. patents related to cross-device ad targeting and user activity tracking.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves linking a user's activity across different devices, such as a television and a computer, to enable advertisers to deliver targeted ads or measure campaign effectiveness across screens.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with pre-suit notice of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,321,198 via letters in July and October 2019. It also alleges Defendant had knowledge of U.S. Patent No. 8,677,398 from a prior, since-dismissed lawsuit filed in 2021 concerning different technology. The willfulness allegation for U.S. Patent No. 12,212,818 is based on the filing of the present complaint.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2007-04-17 Earliest Priority Date for ’398 and '818 Patents
2007-12-31 Earliest Priority Date for ’198 Patent
2014-03-18 ’398 Patent Issued
2019-06-11 ’198 Patent Issued
2019-07-24 Plaintiff sends notice letter to Amazon regarding ’198 Patent
2019-10-25 Plaintiff sends second communication to Amazon
2021-09-08 Plaintiff serves prior complaint on Amazon regarding ’398 Patent
2025-01-28 ’818 Patent Issued
2025-06-11 Complaint Filed

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"*

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background describes the "significant technological impediments to cross-media targeting of ads" created by the prevalent use of dynamic device addresses, which makes it difficult to link a user's activity across different devices like a television and a computer (’198 Patent, col. 9:11-14).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method to link television and online activities without using personally identifiable information (PII) (’198 Patent, col. 9:25-30). A computer system receives a "notification" that a television advertisement was presented on a user's set-top box (STB). This notification includes an "STB identifier." Based on this event, the system takes an action—such as delivering a targeted ad or tracking activity—on an "online user interface device" (e.g., a computer or smartphone) that has been associated with that STB (’198 Patent, Abstract). The association between the STB and the online device can be established through various means, including identifying that both devices share a common IP address (’198 Patent, col. 19:47-20:6; Fig. 2).
  • Technical Importance: This technical approach provides a method for advertisers to measure the effectiveness of television advertising and create cohesive cross-platform campaigns by linking TV ad exposure to subsequent online user behavior (’198 Patent, col. 9:4-9).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint's infringement count for the ’198 Patent focuses on independent method claim 1 (Compl. ¶19).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • Receiving a notification at a computer system that includes or references a "first set-top box identifier" and signifies a TV advertisement was presented using that set-top box.
    • Using the notification to automatically cause a "first action" (e.g., ad delivery or tracking) to be taken with respect to an online user interface device that corresponds to a "first online user interface device identifier."
    • The association between the online user interface device identifier and the set-top box identifier is performed "without using personally identifiable information." (’198 Patent, col. 25:16 - 26:1).
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims in its infringement count, though the pre-suit notice letter referenced claims 1-5 and 8-33 (Compl. ¶18).

U.S. Patent No. 8,677,398 - *"Systems and methods for taking action with respect to one network-connected device based on activity on another device connected to the same network"*

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The technology addresses the general problem of coordinating actions between different network-connected devices, such as those that may exist within a user's home network (’398 Patent, Abstract).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where a central computer system, which is outside a user's local network, can associate two or more devices by "automatically recognizing" that they are connected to the "same common local area network." (’398 Patent, col. 23:55-62). Based on this association and profile data from a first device, the system can send a transmission that causes an action to be taken with respect to the second device (’398 Patent, col. 24:1-3). This enables cross-device functionality, such as triggering an event on a set-top box based on activity from a personal computer on the same home WiFi network.
  • Technical Importance: This claimed method provides a framework for enabling devices within a private local network to interact or be targeted based on their co-location, as determined by a remote system, facilitating applications in advertising and smart home functionality.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint's infringement count for the ’398 Patent focuses on independent method claim 1 (Compl. ¶29).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • Automatically generating and storing an association between a first device and a second device based on "automatically recognizing" that both were connected to a "common local area network."
    • The computer system performing this recognition is "connected to the local area network through the Internet but is not in the local area network."
    • Based on the association, sending a transmission that causes an action to be taken with respect to the second device, where the action is based on profile data from the first device. (’398 Patent, col. 23:50 - 24:3).
  • The complaint does not specify any other asserted claims.

U.S. Patent No. 12,212,818 - *"Causing cross-device action using profile information from internet-accessing devices associated by common IP addresses"*

Technology Synopsis

The patent describes a method for associating multiple Internet-accessing devices by using a database to determine they have accessed the Internet via a common IP address within a certain timeframe. This association, created without PII, is then used to cause an action on one device based on electronic profile information gathered from a second device (’818 Patent, Claim 1).

Asserted Claims

Independent method claim 1 (Compl. ¶39).

Accused Features

The complaint accuses Amazon's ad systems, including Amazon Publisher Services, Transparent Ad Marketplace, Unified Ad Marketplace, and Amazon Publisher Direct, of infringing the ’818 patent (Compl. ¶36).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the "Accused Instrumentalities" as "Amazon's computer systems that implement and provide Amazon Ads" (Compl. ¶16). This includes, but is not limited to, components such as Amazon DSP (Demand-Side Platform), Amazon Attribution, AWS Neptune, Ad Relevance, Amazon Marketing Cloud, and Amazon Prime Video with ads (Compl. ¶16).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these systems provide internet and network-based advertising services (Compl. ¶1). The functionality is described as identifying a user across multiple devices to deliver targeted ads (Compl. p. 2:1-4). The complaint alleges that Amazon's DSP service, in particular, links an Over-the-Top (OTT) ad presentation on a set-top box (STB) with an "online device" (such as a laptop or smartphone) using a "probabilistic device map." (Compl. ¶12). This alleged association allows Amazon to perform cross-device actions, such as delivering a targeted ad to the online device in response to a TV ad or attributing a user's online action to a previously viewed TV ad (Compl. ¶12). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits that are not provided; therefore, the infringement allegations are summarized below in prose.

’198 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Amazon's DSP computer system performs the method of claim 1 (Compl. ¶19). It alleges the system receives a "notification," described as a "tracking event" from an ad rendering on an STB (e.g., an Amazon Fire device), which signifies the presentation of a TV ad (Compl. ¶12). This notification allegedly includes an "STB identifier," such as an advertising ID or an IP address (Compl. ¶12). In response, the DSP system is alleged to perform a "first action," which is either causing a targeted ad to be delivered to an associated online device or attributing user action on that online device to the TV ad (Compl. ¶12). The complaint states this association between the STB and the online device is accomplished "without use of PII and based on... probabilistic device maps" (Compl. ¶12).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Technical Question: What evidence supports the allegation that a "tracking event" from an STB functions as the claimed "notification" containing a "set-top box identifier," and that Amazon's "probabilistic device maps" create the required "association" between devices?
  • Scope Question: Does the use of a "probabilistic device map," which may rely on various data points including network identifiers, align with the claim limitation that the association is made "without using personally identifiable information"? The definition of PII will be critical.

’398 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint asserts that the Accused Instrumentalities perform the limitations of claim 1 but provides less narrative detail than for the ’198 patent, incorporating its theory by reference to an exhibit (Compl. ¶29). Language from a pre-suit notice letter, discussed in the context of a related patent, suggests the infringement theory may rely on identifying devices connected to a "common LAN." (Compl. ¶12). The complaint distinguishes the ’198 patent by noting that a "‘common LAN’ association is not required," which may imply such an association is central to its theory for the ’398 patent (Compl. ¶12).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Technical Question: What technical evidence will be presented to show that Amazon's advertising systems can "automatically recogniz[e]" that two distinct devices are connected to the same "common local area network," a key step in the asserted claim?
  • Scope Question: Does the architecture of Amazon's distributed, cloud-based advertising platform meet the claim limitation of a "computer system... connected to the local area network through the Internet but is not in the local area network"?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"set-top box identifier" (’198 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The infringement theory depends on the accused system receiving a notification containing this identifier from a TV-connected device. The construction of this term will determine whether data such as a device's IP address, a temporary advertising ID, or a manufacturer's serial number meets the claim requirement, which may be central to the dispute.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the identifier can include an "STB IP address" and that it can be "dynamic and can change from time to time," suggesting it need not be a permanent, unique hardware ID (’198 Patent, col. 2:10-18).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also describes the identifier as being "assigned... by the corresponding TVP [television provider]," which could support an argument that the term is limited to identifiers specifically created and managed by a television service provider, not generic network or device IDs (’198 Patent, col. 1:64-66).

"associated without using personally identifiable information" (’198 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This negative limitation is fundamental to the patent's stated purpose. Practitioners may focus on this term because the parties will likely dispute whether the data points used in Amazon's alleged "probabilistic device maps" constitute PII under the patent's definition.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides examples of PII, such as name, Social Security number, and street address, while listing non-PII as including city of residence, age, gender, and "dynamically assigned IP addresses." This suggests a relatively conventional and narrow definition of PII (’198 Patent, col. 7:62 - 8:12).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification notes that a "static IP address (if any)" can be considered PII (’198 Patent, col. 7:66). A defendant might argue that other persistent digital identifiers used to track users across sessions, even if pseudonymous, function as PII and fall outside the scope of the claim.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges that Amazon and/or its users "direct and control use of the Accused Instrumentalities to perform acts that result in infringement" and condition benefits on participation, which is language that could support a claim for indirect infringement (Compl. ¶¶17, 27, 37). However, the complaint does not plead indirect infringement as a separate count or allege specific facts regarding inducement, such as instructions in user manuals.

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willful infringement for all three patents. For the ’198 and ’398 patents, the claim is based on alleged pre-suit knowledge from 2019 notice letters and a 2021 prior lawsuit, respectively (Compl. ¶¶18, 28). For the ’818 patent, the claim is based on knowledge arising from the filing and service of the current complaint (Compl. ¶38).

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

  1. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: can Plaintiff produce evidence demonstrating that Amazon’s advertising systems actually perform the claimed methods, specifically by showing how a "tracking event" from a TV device is used to generate an "association" with an online device and how that association triggers a subsequent "action" on the online device?
  2. A central issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "associated without using personally identifiable information" be construed to read on Amazon's alleged use of "probabilistic device maps," a question that will turn on the technical nature of those maps and the legal definition of PII?
  3. The case will also present a question of willfulness and damages: given the allegations of specific pre-suit notice dating back to 2019, to what extent will Plaintiff be able to establish that any infringement of the ’198 and ’398 patents was willful, and how will this alleged knowledge impact the potential damages period and amount?