Datonics LLC v. Adobe Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Datonics LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Adobe Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Russ August & Kabat
• Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00180, W.D. Tex., 04/18/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business within the Western District of Texas and has committed the alleged acts of infringement in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s advertising and audience management platforms infringe two patents related to systems for collecting and providing user profiles to media properties for targeted advertising.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns the field of online behavioral advertising, specifically methods for a central system to broker user profile data between websites that collect user information ("profile suppliers") and entities that display ads ("media properties").
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that at least one other unnamed advertising platform has taken a license to both the '210 and '445 patents, which may be raised to suggest industry recognition of the technology's value and to support damages models.

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
2025-04-18	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,589,210, providing collected profiles to media properties having specified interests, issued November 19, 2013

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of monetizing "low-value ad space" (e.g., on general news sites) where the content itself is not a strong indicator of a user's immediate commercial interests. It also notes the technical and business difficulties for different online entities (e.g., a publisher and an ad network) to effectively share and track the usage of user profile data for targeted advertising (’210 Patent, col. 5:29-48, col. 6:1-34).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method implemented by a centralized hardware system, operated by a "profile owner company," that acts as an intermediary. This system receives requests for certain types of user profiles from "media properties" (advertisers), receives profile data about a visitor from a "profile supplier" (e.g., a website the user visited), matches the visitor to a media property's request, and then arranges for the visitor to be "tagged" so the media property can deliver a targeted ad. The system then tracks this usage and calculates payments between the parties (’210 Patent, col. 7:5-39, Fig. 1).
• Technical Importance: This approach aimed to create a more efficient marketplace for behavioral data, allowing publishers with non-specialized content to increase ad revenue while enabling advertisers to reach relevant audiences across a wider range of websites (’210 Patent, col. 5:6-16).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts an independent method claim (Compl. ¶12). Claim 1 is the first such claim.
• Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
  • Automatically selecting an "electronic-advertising-space-controlling entity" based on a comparison of a visitor's received profile information with a stored request from that entity.
  • Automatically arranging for electronic storage of a "tag" associated with the visitor that is readable by the selected entity.
  • Electronically receiving a report from the selected entity about its usage of the profile data.
  • Recording an amount owed by the selected entity based on the report.
  • Calculating fees owed to multiple "profile suppliers" based on their respective contributions to the used profile data.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

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: As a continuation in the same patent family, the '445 patent addresses the same problem as the '210 patent: improving the monetization of electronic advertisement placement by more efficiently connecting user profile data with media properties that have an interest in those profiles (’445 Patent, col. 1:17-22).
• The Patented Solution: The '445 Patent describes a system controlled by a "profile owner computer" that stores visitor profile information in a central database. The system automatically selects a media property by comparing visitor profile information against stored requests from various media properties. It then arranges for a profile to be linked to a tag associated with the visitor, enabling the selected media property to use that profile to deliver a targeted electronic advertisement to the visitor's device (’445 Patent, Abstract; col. 7:19-33).
• Technical Importance: This invention provides a specific, automated framework for a central data broker to manage and monetize user profiles at scale, connecting data collection with ad delivery across different platforms and devices (’445 Patent, col. 6:62-66).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts an independent method claim (Compl. ¶22). Claim 1 is the first such claim.
• Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
  • A "profile owner computer" automatically storing profile information associated with a visitor in a central database.
  • The computer automatically selecting a "media property entity" based on a comparison of the visitor's profile information with stored requests from media entities.
  • The computer automatically arranging for storage of a requested profile linked to a "tag" that is associated with the visitor device.
  • Later, using the tag to access the stored profile information and using that information to cause the delivery of a targeted electronic advertisement to the visitor device.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as Adobe Audience Manager, Adobe Experience Platform, and Adobe Advertising. It also names specific components including Real-Time CDP, Adobe Analytics, Audience Marketplace, Tags, Identity Graphs, Traits, and Target (Compl. ¶10, ¶20).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these products form a comprehensive suite for managing and activating audience data. They are accused of collecting user data from various sources, creating "data segments" or profiles based on user behavior and attributes, and using these profiles to facilitate the delivery of targeted advertisements to consumers across the internet (Compl. ¶2, ¶10, ¶16). The complaint posits that these services directly compete with Plaintiff's own data segment services (Compl. ¶16, ¶26). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 2 and 4) to detail its infringement allegations but does not attach them to the provided filing. Therefore, the specific mapping of product features to claim limitations cannot be presented in a chart format.

’210 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Instrumentalities perform the patented method by creating and using audience profiles for targeted advertising (Compl. ¶10). The narrative suggests Adobe's system functions as the claimed intermediary: it receives profile data (e.g., through Adobe Analytics), uses it to select an audience segment that corresponds to an advertiser's (a "media property's") pre-specified targeting request, associates an identifier ("tag") with the user, and uses this system to deliver targeted ads and report on their performance, which forms the basis for billing (Compl. ¶10-12). The core of the allegation is that Adobe's integrated advertising platform performs each step of the claimed method, from profile matching to usage tracking and payment calculation.

’445 Patent Infringement Allegations

The infringement theory for the ’445 Patent is similar, focusing on the automated nature of Adobe's platform (Compl. ¶20-22). The complaint alleges that the Accused Instrumentalities, particularly the Real-Time CDP and Audience Manager, function as the claimed "profile owner computer" that stores user profiles in a central manner. It alleges this system automatically selects a "media property" (an advertiser or publisher using Adobe's services) by matching a visitor's profile to the advertiser's campaign criteria ("stored requests"). It then allegedly arranges for the user's profile to be linked with an identifier ("tag" or "Identity Graph"), which is later used to access the profile and trigger the delivery of a targeted advertisement (Compl. ¶20, ¶22).

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether Adobe's distributed, cloud-based architecture constitutes the "central database" and "profile owner computer" recited in the ’445 Patent claims. Further, the definition of an "electronic-advertising-space-controlling entity" in the ’210 Patent will be contested, specifically whether Adobe's customers or Adobe itself meets the definition as construed from the patent.
  • Technical Questions: A key factual dispute may arise over whether Adobe's systems perform the specific fee calculation step as required by claim 1(e) of the ’210 Patent, which requires calculating fees owed to a "plurality of profile suppliers" based on their "respective contributions." Evidence will be needed to show that Adobe's billing system performs this specific function rather than a more general one.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the '210 Patent:

• The Term: "electronic-advertising-space-controlling entity"
• Context and Importance: This term defines the recipient of the brokered profile data. The infringement analysis depends on whether Adobe itself, its advertising customers, or its publishing partners are found to be this "entity." Practitioners may focus on this term because its scope will determine which of Adobe's complex commercial relationships are relevant to infringement.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification uses the more general term "media property," which is defined broadly to include "any equipment that controls an ad space viewed by a visitor, including a web site, an ad network's site... a TV program," suggesting the entity need only control the ad space, not the entire website or platform (’210 Patent, col. 4:40-45).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed examples often refer to specific websites like "weather.com" as the entity that receives the profile and serves the ad, which could suggest the entity must be a content publisher that owns the ad space directly (’210 Patent, col. 11:1-15).

For the '445 Patent:

• The Term: "profile owner computer"
• Context and Importance: This term appears to define the central brain of the patented system. The case may turn on whether Adobe's decentralized, cloud-based services like the "Adobe Experience Platform" can be considered a single, programmed "profile owner computer" as required by the claims, or if the functions are too distributed to meet this limitation.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the functions of the PO Company system in terms of logical operations (recording, recognizing, identifying) that could be performed by a distributed system working in concert (’445 Patent, Fig. 1, steps 1000-7000).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures depict the "PO COMPANY SERVER" as a single, centralized component (item 10 in Fig. 2), and the claims refer to "the profile owner computer" in the singular, which could support an argument that the claims require a non-distributed or logically singular system (’445 Patent, Fig. 2; col. 15:5-7).

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant "directs and controls" its customers' use of the Accused Instrumentalities and "condition[s] benefits on participation in the infringement," which are factual allegations that may support a claim for induced infringement (Compl. ¶11, ¶21).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly use the word "willful." However, in its prayer for relief, it requests a finding that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and an award of attorneys' fees, which is a remedy often granted in cases of willful infringement or other litigation misconduct (Compl., Prayer for Relief ¶e).

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

1. A question of architectural mapping: Does the architecture of Adobe's modern, distributed cloud advertising platforms map onto the more centralized "profile owner computer" and "central database" system architecture described and claimed in the 2006-priority patents? The outcome will depend heavily on claim construction.
2. A question of specific functionality: Can the plaintiff provide evidence that Adobe's systems perform the highly specific financial accounting step recited in claim 1(e) of the '210 patent—namely, calculating fees owed to multiple, distinct "profile suppliers" based on their specific "contributions" to a user's profile?
3. A question of prior art and obviousness: Given the 2006 priority date and the high level of activity in the behavioral advertising space at that time, a central issue, though not raised in the complaint, will be the validity of the patents against prior art systems that also sought to broker user data for targeted advertising. The plaintiff’s allegation of pre-existing licenses may be used to counter such arguments.