DCT

7:25-cv-00246

Intent Iq LLC v. MNTN Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00246, W.D. Tex., 05/23/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant maintaining a regular and established place of business within the Western District of Texas and committing alleged acts of infringement in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s MNTN digital advertising platform infringes two patents related to cross-device user identification and ad-effectiveness measurement.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns identifying a single user across multiple devices (e.g., computers, smartphones, televisions) to enable advertisers to deliver targeted ads and measure their subsequent impact.
  • Key Procedural History: The front page of U.S. Patent No. 8,677,398 indicates it was the subject of an ex parte reexamination (Control No. 90/015,284). A Reexamination Certificate issued on July 15, 2024, confirmed the patentability of claims 1 and 2, which may strengthen the patent’s presumption of validity in this litigation.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2007-04-17 U.S. Patent No. 8,677,398 Priority Date
2011-08-03 U.S. Patent No. 11,949,962 Priority Date
2014-03-18 U.S. Patent No. 8,677,398 Issue Date
2024-04-02 U.S. Patent No. 11,949,962 Issue Date
2024-07-15 U.S. Patent No. 8,677,398 Reexamination Certificate Issue Date
2025-05-23 Complaint Filing Date

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

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"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,677,398, titled "systems and methods for taking action with respect to one network-connected device based on activity on another device connected to the same network," issued on March 18, 2014 (the "'398 Patent").

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the technical challenge of targeting television advertisements based on a user's observed online behavior, particularly when different devices are used for each medium and there is a desire to avoid using personally identifiable information (PII) ( Compl. ¶8; ’398 Patent, col. 7:14-23).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method to electronically associate the IP address of an online device (e.g., a computer) with the IP address of a television set-top box (STB) by recognizing they are on the same network. This association allows a system to use a consumer's online activity profile to select and automatically deliver a targeted advertisement to their television, bridging the data gap between the two media (’398 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:1-11). Figure 1 illustrates the system architecture, including a Central Ad Server (CAS) that communicates with a user's home network environment.
  • Technical Importance: This method created a pathway to apply the granular data available from internet browsing to the high-impact medium of television advertising, a significant objective for the digital advertising industry at the time (’398 Patent, col. 7:42-55).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 1 (Compl. ¶12).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • Receiving an electronic identifier of a first device.
    • Generating and storing an electronic association between the first device and a second device based on automatically recognizing that both devices were connected to a "common local area network."
    • The system performing the method is connected to the local area network via the Internet but is not part of the local network itself.
    • Sending a transmission that causes an action (e.g., delivering an ad) to be taken with respect to the second device based on a profile associated with the first device.

U.S. Patent No. 11,949,962 - "method and computer system using proxy IP addresses and PII in measuring ad effectiveness across devices"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,949,962, titled "method and computer system using proxy IP addresses and PII in measuring ad effectiveness across devices," issued on April 2, 2024 (the "'962 Patent").

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent identifies the difficulty of cross-media ad targeting and measurement created by the use of dynamic IP addresses and privacy policies that restrict the use of PII (’962 Patent, col. 9:30-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention claims a multi-step process for linking devices and measuring ad effectiveness. First, it explicitly associates a "primary online device" (OD1) with a set-top box (STB) by matching PII from two different sources. The location of OD1 is then used as a "proxy location" for the STB. Next, secondary online devices (OD2s) observed near this proxy location are also associated with the STB. Finally, the system measures the effectiveness of a TV ad by tracking subsequent user behavior on an associated OD2 (’962 Patent, Abstract; col. 10:25-44).
  • Technical Importance: The claimed method offers a sophisticated technique for building a "device graph" for a household, enabling advertisers not only to target ads to a television but also to measure the ad's influence on subsequent online actions on other devices, such as a phone or laptop (’962 Patent, col. 15:45-56).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 1 (Compl. ¶22).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • Automatically storing an association between a first online device (OD1) and a set-top box (STB) by "matching" first PII about the OD1 user with second PII about the STB user.
    • Automatically measuring the effectiveness of an ad displayed on the STB by tracking user behavior on a second online device (OD2).
    • The measurement is based on an association between the OD2 and the STB, which itself is derived from the initial OD1-STB link and a subsequent link between OD1 and OD2 based on a "common proxy IP address."
    • The computer system performing the method is located outside the local area network (LAN) defined by the common proxy IP address.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint names the "MNTN platform" and its constituent components, including "MNTN Performance TV, Audience Targeting, Attribution, Verified Visits, MNTN's Integrations and Flexible APIs" as the Accused Instrumentalities (Compl. ¶9, ¶19).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the MNTN platform is used for "cross-device-based ad targeting, retargeting, audience extension, and attribution" (Compl. ¶2). It is described as a system that "identifies a given user across multiple device types, including laptops, desktops, smartphones, tablets, and televisions, so as to assist advertisers in delivering targeted ads to consumers on all of their screens" and to "measure the impact of previously delivered ads" (Compl. ¶2).
  • The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the Accused Instrumentality's market positioning beyond characterizing the Plaintiff as a "leading company" in the field (Compl. ¶2).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that claim charts demonstrating infringement are attached as Exhibits 2 and 4; however, those exhibits were not filed with the public complaint. Therefore, the infringement allegations are summarized below in prose based on the complaint's narrative.

  • ’398 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that the MNTN platform directly infringes at least independent method claim 1 of the ’398 Patent (Compl. ¶9, ¶12). The underlying infringement theory suggests that the MNTN platform performs the patented method of identifying that different user devices (e.g., a laptop and a television) are on a common network, and then uses online activity from one device to trigger the delivery of targeted advertising to the other.
  • ’962 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that the MNTN platform infringes at least independent method claim 1 of the ’962 Patent (Compl. ¶19, ¶22). The infringement theory appears to be that the MNTN platform uses personally identifiable information to link a user's primary device to their TV, uses that link as a proxy to identify other devices in the household, and then leverages those links to measure the effectiveness of a TV ad by tracking subsequent user behavior on a secondary device, a process MNTN allegedly markets as "Attribution" and "Verified Visits" (Compl. ¶19).
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Factual Questions: The complaint relies heavily on "information and belief" and does not plead specific facts detailing how the MNTN platform technically operates. A central dispute will likely be evidentiary—what proof can be marshaled to show that the MNTN platform actually performs the specific steps of "recognizing" a "common local area network" as required by the ’398 Patent, or the explicit "matching" of PII as required by the ’962 Patent.
    • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis for the ’398 Patent will raise the question of what technical operations constitute "recognizing" devices on a "common local area network." For the ’962 Patent, a key question will be whether MNTN's "Attribution" functionality performs the specific two-part process of PII matching and subsequent behavioral tracking as recited in the claims, or if there is a technical mismatch.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term: "common local area network" (’398 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This term is the foundation of the device-linking mechanism in the ’398 Patent. The definition will be critical for determining whether the methods allegedly used by the MNTN platform to associate devices fall within the patent's scope.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the concept broadly, stating that a "router can be employed to connect a local area network (LAN) to the Internet, thereby enabling online user interface devices connected to the LAN to share a connection to the Internet through the router" (’398 Patent, col. 2:62-66). This could support a functional definition based on sharing an internet connection point.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification also lists specific examples of network adapters, such as "Ethernet adapter" or "wireless network adapter (e.g., IEEE 802.11...)" (’398 Patent, col. 2:50-54), which could be used to argue for a more constrained definition tied to specific networking protocols or hardware configurations.

  • Term: "matching (i) first personally identifiable information (PII) ... with (ii) second personally identifiable information" (’962 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This "matching" step is the explicit basis for the initial, crucial association between a user's primary online device and their set-top box. The viability of the infringement claim depends on whether the accused platform performs this specific PII-based operation. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent family also extensively discusses privacy-centric methods that avoid PII, making the explicit requirement of PII "matching" in this claim a potentially significant limitation.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes various ways to associate devices, such as when a combined service provider (TVP/ISP) provides service to a single location or when a user logs into a TVP's website (’962 Patent, col. 10:30-65). This might support an argument that "matching" can occur implicitly through such events.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language recites a two-part process of matching "first PII" with "second PII," which may suggest an explicit database cross-referencing operation rather than an implicit association. The patent also provides a specific definition of PII, including "name, Social Security number (SSN), date of birth, street address, email address," which could be used to argue that the "matching" must involve this type of sensitive data (’962 Patent, col. 7:31-41).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant "directs and controls use of the Accused Instrumentalities to perform acts that result in infringement," which suggests a theory of induced infringement based on Defendant instructing its customers on how to use the MNTN platform in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶10, ¶20).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's knowledge of the Asserted Patents acquired "at least as a result of the filing and service of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶11, ¶21). This is a claim for post-suit willfulness, as no allegations of pre-suit knowledge are made.

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

  1. Evidentiary Substantiation: The complaint's infringement allegations are framed broadly on "information and belief." A primary question for the case will be what factual evidence emerges in discovery to substantiate the claims that the MNTN platform's internal operations precisely mirror the multi-step methods recited in the asserted patents, particularly the specific PII-matching process of the ’962 Patent.
  2. Definitional Scope: The dispute will likely focus on claim construction. A core issue for the ’398 Patent will be one of definitional scope: what technical criteria satisfy the requirement of a "common local area network"? For the ’962 Patent, the central question will be what specific process constitutes "matching" two distinct sets of "personally identifiable information."
  3. Impact of Reexamination: The ’398 Patent’s survival of an ex parte reexamination, with its asserted independent claim confirmed, strengthens its posture against invalidity challenges. A key strategic question will be how this history shapes the defendant’s litigation strategy and any potential settlement negotiations regarding that patent.