AlmondNet Inc v. Ozone Project Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: AlmondNet, Inc. (Delaware) and Intent IQ, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Ozone Project Ltd. (United Kingdom)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Russ August & Kabat
• Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00411, W.D. Tex., 09/05/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged on the basis that the defendant is a foreign company not resident in the United States that has committed acts of infringement within the Western District of Texas.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s digital advertising platform infringes two patents related to methods for cross-device ad targeting and profile-based ad delivery.
• Technical Context: The technologies at issue address core challenges in the digital advertising ecosystem: identifying a single user across multiple devices and making economically efficient decisions about where to place targeted ads.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history concerning the asserted patents.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2006-06-16	’146 Patent Earliest Priority Date
2007-04-17	’398 Patent Earliest Priority Date
2014-03-18	U.S. Patent No. 8,677,398 Issues
2015-02-17	U.S. Patent No. 8,959,146 Issues
2025-09-05	Complaint Filed

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, "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. (Compl. ¶11).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background describes the difficulty of targeting advertisements on one platform (e.g., television) based on user behavior observed on another (e.g., the internet) without resorting to the use of personally identifiable information (PII), which raises consumer privacy concerns. (’398 Patent, col. 7:13-30).
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to electronically associate different devices, such as a computer and a television set-top box, by recognizing that they are connected to a "common local area network." (’398 Patent, col. 24:58-61). This network-level association allows a system to use non-PII profile data from an online device (e.g., browsing history from a laptop) to select and deliver a targeted advertisement to another device on that same network (e.g., a smart TV), thereby enabling cross-device targeting while preserving user privacy. (’398 Patent, Abstract; col. 8:1-12).
• Technical Importance: This approach provided a technical framework for cross-media advertising that could function without collecting sensitive personal data, addressing a significant market and privacy challenge. (’398 Patent, col. 7:54-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts one or more method claims, including independent claim 13. (Compl. ¶¶12, 15).
• Key elements of independent claim 13 include:
  • Based on first electronic profile data associated with a first device, automatically causing an action to be taken with respect to a second device.
  • The second device is indicated by an electronic identifier that is electronically associated with the first device's identifier.
  • The electronic association is based on the independent connection of both devices to a "common local area network."
  • The computer system performing the method is connected to the local area network via the Internet but is not part of the local network itself. (’398 Patent, col. 24:51-64).
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 8,959,146 - "media properties selection method and system based on expected profit from profile-based ad delivery"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,959,146, "media properties selection method and system based on expected profit from profile-based ad delivery," issued on February 17, 2015. (Compl. ¶21).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the economic inefficiency of behavioral advertising, where a company might purchase ad space on a third-party website to target a specific user but find that the revenue generated from the ad does not cover the cost of the ad space. (’146 Patent, col. 5:1-9).
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes an automated system that calculates the expected profit of delivering an ad based on a user's profile. (’146 Patent, Abstract). The system weighs the expected revenue from an advertiser against the price of ad space on various media properties. Only if the calculation results in a positive expected profit does the system select a media property and arrange for the user to be "tagged," enabling the profitable delivery of the targeted ad. (’146 Patent, col. 6:11-25).
• Technical Importance: This method introduced a profit-driven, automated decision-making framework into programmatic advertising, allowing for more efficient real-time allocation of advertising inventory. (’146 Patent, col. 6:1-9).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts one or more method claims, including independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶¶22, 24).
• Key elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • Automatically directing, to a third-party server controlling ad space on a second media property, "indicia of a condition."
  • The condition relates to an electronic visitor for the purpose of displaying an advertisement to that visitor on the second media property.
  • The direction is based on information indicating that one or more profile attributes apply to the visitor.
  • The advertisement is correlated with the profile attribute(s). (’146 Patent, col. 13:1-18).
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, though dependent claim 2 adds a key limitation that the "condition" is that the price charged by the media property is less than a price an advertiser is willing to pay. (’146 Patent, col. 13:19-24).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentality is Defendant's "Ozone platform," which includes components such as "Ozone Identify." (Compl. ¶12).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint describes the Ozone platform as a service for delivering targeted advertising. (Compl. ¶3). For the '146 Patent, it is alleged to function by providing a demand-side platform's (DSP's) user ID within a bid request, which allows DSPs to access profile information associated with that ID for ad targeting purposes. (Compl. ¶22). The complaint asserts the platform connects advertisers to "nearly 25m Americans," suggesting a significant U.S. market presence. (Compl. ¶8). The complaint provides a screenshot of what is described as the Defendant's publisher webpage as viewed by a user in Texas, offered as evidence of business activity in the district (Compl. ¶8, Ex. 1).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim-chart exhibits that were not provided with the filed complaint document; therefore, the narrative infringement theories are summarized below in prose.

• ’398 Patent Infringement Allegations
  The complaint alleges that Defendant’s Ozone platform, including its "Ozone Identify" component, directly infringes one or more method claims of the ’398 Patent. (Compl. ¶12). The stated theory is that Defendant's computer systems implement the patented method, and that Defendant "directs and controls" the use of these systems to perform the infringing acts. (Compl. ¶13). This suggests the infringement theory centers on the allegation that the Ozone platform identifies a user across multiple devices by detecting their presence on a common network and then uses behavioral data from one device to serve an ad on another.

• ’146 Patent Infringement Allegations
  The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement of the ’146 Patent. (Compl. ¶22). The theory is that Defendant, by providing user IDs to DSPs in bid requests, knowingly and intentionally encourages the DSPs to directly infringe. (Compl. ¶22). The complaint alleges that Defendant knows these IDs are used by DSPs to access user profiles to submit targeted bids and that Defendant facilitates this process because it "results in more bid responses at higher prices," satisfying its own economic motive. (Compl. ¶25).

• Identified Points of Contention:

  • Scope Questions: For the '398 patent, a central question may be whether the term "common local area network" can be read to cover the variety of network environments in which the accused platform operates. For the '146 patent, a dispute may arise over whether providing a user ID in a bid request constitutes the claimed step of "directing... indicia of a condition" that relates to the profitability of the ad placement.
  • Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question for the '398 patent is what proof exists that the accused platform specifically uses a shared local network as the basis for device association, as opposed to other common industry techniques like probabilistic matching or deterministic login data. For the '146 patent, a factual question is whether the Ozone platform or the DSPs it enables perform the expected-profit calculation central to the patent's teachings.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "common local area network" (’398 Patent, Claim 13)

• Context and Importance: This term is the technical linchpin of the '398 patent's invention. The scope of this term will be critical, as infringement depends on showing that Defendant's platform associates devices based on this specific type of network relationship. Practitioners may focus on this term because alternative cross-device tracking methods (e.g., login-based, fingerprinting) are prevalent.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes a router as a device that can connect a local area network (LAN) to the Internet, enabling multiple devices to share the connection. (’398 Patent, col. 2:61-68). This could support a construction covering any standard home or small office network configuration.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent figures primarily depict a simplified household environment where a single provider (ISP/TVP) supplies connectivity to a modem and set-top box. (’398 Patent, Fig. 1, 7). This could support an argument that the term is limited to such integrated, single-residence network architectures.

• The Term: "indicia of a condition" (’146 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines what is communicated from the targeting system to the ad server to trigger the ad display. The inducement case for the '146 patent hinges on whether sending a user ID in a bid request meets this definition.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification as a whole, including the abstract and dependent claim 2, frames the invention around a profitability calculation. (’146 Patent, Abstract; col. 13:19-24). A plaintiff may argue that in the context of programmatic advertising, sending a user ID is an implicit "indicia" of a profitable "condition," as it invites bids that must necessarily be economically viable for the bidder.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue that the term requires a more explicit signal related to the economic analysis described in the patent, such as a price cap or a flag indicating a profitable match has been found. Merely passing a user identifier, a standard practice in the industry, may be argued as not conveying the specific "condition" taught by the patent.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges direct infringement of the '398 patent but also includes language suggesting a theory of divided infringement or control. (Compl. ¶13). For the '146 patent, the complaint explicitly pleads induced infringement, alleging Defendant knowingly and intentionally facilitates infringement by DSPs for its own economic benefit, citing industry knowledge as evidence of intent. (Compl. ¶¶22, 25).
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for both patents. The basis for the allegation is post-suit knowledge, asserting that Defendant's continued infringement after being served with the complaint is willful. (Compl. ¶¶14, 23).

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

• A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mechanism: what evidence will be presented to demonstrate that the accused platform associates devices based on the specific "common local area network" architecture required by the '398 patent’s claims, as opposed to other cross-device identification methods?
• A central issue for the '146 patent will be one of intent for inducement: does providing a user ID in a programmatic bid request, coupled with an economic motive, rise to the level of specific intent to encourage infringement of a patented method that requires a profitability determination, or is it a standard, non-infringing action in the ad-tech industry?
• The case may also turn on a question of claim scope: can the phrase "indicia of a condition" from the '146 patent be construed to cover the transmission of a standard user ID, or does the patent’s specification require a more explicit communication related to the calculated profitability of an ad placement?