AlmondNet Inc v. Adobe Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: AlmondNet, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Adobe Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Russ August & Kabat
• Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00487, W.D. Tex., 10/23/2025
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Demand-Side Platform for programmatic advertising infringes a patent related to methods for selecting advertising placements based on a calculation of expected profit.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue operates in the field of online behavioral and programmatic advertising, a market centered on automated, data-driven purchasing of digital ad space.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history concerning the asserted patent. The patent claims priority back to a 2006 provisional application, establishing an early date relative to the development of the modern programmatic advertising industry.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2006-06-16	’146 Patent - Earliest Priority Date
2015-02-17	’146 Patent - Issue Date
2025-10-23	Complaint Filing Date

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

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,959,146, titled “media properties selection method and system based on expected profit from profile-based ad delivery,” issued on February 17, 2015 (the “’146 Patent”).

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the economic inefficiency in early behavioral advertising systems (’146 Patent, col. 5:42-44). It notes that while systems could track user profiles (e.g., a user searched for "mortgage") and find that user on other websites, merely placing an ad was not enough. The cost of ad space varies dramatically between websites, and the revenue an advertiser is willing to pay also varies by profile, meaning an ad placement could easily result in a financial loss for the advertising-technology company (’146 Patent, col. 5:45-67).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses an automated method to make ad placement decisions based on a calculation of anticipated profit (’146 Patent, Abstract). The system calculates expected revenue from delivering an ad based on a user's collected profile, and then subtracts the known cost of ad space at a potential target website ("second media property"). If the calculated profit is positive, the system then "arranges for the visitor to be tagged with a tag readable by the selected media property" to enable the future ad delivery (’146 Patent, col. 6:11-27). This links the technical act of tagging a user for retargeting directly to a specific, pre-calculated economic outcome for a specific destination website.
• Technical Importance: This approach introduces an economic optimization layer into the process of behavioral ad targeting, aiming to move beyond simple audience matching to dynamic, profit-driven media buying decisions.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint’s allegations focus on independent method claim 1 (Compl. ¶11).
• The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
  • For each of a multitude of different electronic visitors to a first media property:
  • (a) automatically with the computer system directing, to a third-party server computer controlling advertising space on a second media property, indicia of a condition, which condition relates specifically to an electronic visitor, for display of an advertisement to the electronic visitor when the electronic visitor visits the second media property...
  • (b) wherein directing the indicia is based on information indicating... that at least one of a plurality of profile attributes is possibly applicable to the electronic visitor...
  • (c) wherein the advertisement is correlated with the indicated profile attribute or attributes.
• The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more method claims," suggesting the right to assert additional claims is reserved (Compl. ¶10).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "Adobe's Demand-Side Platform (DSP) and related components" (Compl. ¶10). A non-limiting list of components is provided, including "Bidder Service, Ads Data, User Key-Value storage, Pacing System, ML models, [and] Bidder pods," among others (Compl. ¶10).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges these instrumentalities are used to perform the limitations of the asserted claims but does not provide a detailed technical description of how the Adobe DSP operates (Compl. ¶11). Based on the named components, the accused instrumentality is a complex software platform used by advertisers to participate in automated auctions for digital advertising space and to target specific users based on data profiles.
• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the product's specific commercial importance or market positioning.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference a claim chart (Exhibit 2) that was not included in the provided filing (Compl. ¶11). The following summarizes the narrative infringement theory presented in the complaint.

The complaint alleges that Adobe’s DSP directly infringes at least claim 1 of the ’146 Patent (Compl. ¶¶10-11). The core of the infringement theory is that Adobe’s platform performs the patented method when it facilitates the delivery of targeted advertisements. The complaint asserts that Adobe, through its DSP, "performs all claim limitations" of the claimed method (Compl. ¶11). This suggests the plaintiff's position is that when the Adobe DSP selects a targeted ad for a user based on that user's profile data and arranges for that ad to be displayed on a third-party website, it is practicing the patented method of directing "indicia of a condition" for ad display based on "profile attributes."

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A central question may be how the claim term "directing... indicia of a condition" maps onto the functionality of a modern DSP operating within a real-time bidding (RTB) ecosystem. The defense may argue that the claim, with priority from 2006, describes a simpler, more direct interaction than the multi-party, auction-based process of modern programmatic advertising. The definition of the "third-party server computer" and what constitutes "directing" indicia to it will be a focal point.
  • Technical Questions: As claim 1 is a method claim, infringement requires a single party to perform, or direct and control the performance of, all claimed steps. A key question is whether Adobe's DSP itself performs every step of the method. The analysis may explore whether certain steps are performed by other entities in the advertising chain (e.g., advertisers using the platform, publishers, or ad exchanges), which could raise questions of divided infringement.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "directing... indicia of a condition" (from claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This phrase describes the core action of the claimed method. Its construction is critical because it will define the boundary between infringing and non-infringing activity in the complex data flows of modern ad-tech systems. Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation will determine whether the claim covers the indirect, multi-step communications common in RTB auctions or is limited to a more direct instruction from one system to another.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification does not narrowly define "directing," which could support an interpretation that it encompasses any action that causes the "indicia" to be sent to the third-party server, whether directly or indirectly.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes embodiments where a user's browser is redirected to a server, which then places a tag (e.g., ’146 Patent, col. 10:40-54). This more direct mechanism could be cited to argue that "directing" requires a specific type of control or communication path not present in all programmatic ad transactions.

• The Term: "condition" (from claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The nature of the "condition" is central to the invention, which is based on a profit calculation. Dependent claim 2 clarifies this condition as "a price charged by the second media property is less than a profile-attribute-dependent price that an advertiser is willing to pay." The construction of "condition" in the independent claim will determine what evidence is required to prove infringement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue that any signal sent to initiate a bid or ad placement, which is implicitly based on economic viability, constitutes the "indicia of a condition."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent specification heavily details a specific profit calculation: "Pr=Rev(profile)-P(mp)" (’146 Patent, col. 9:66-67). This explicit formula could support a narrower construction requiring proof that the accused system's decision-making process embodies this specific type of economic comparison, rather than just a generalized bidding strategy.

VI. Other Allegations

• The complaint does not contain allegations of indirect or willful infringement.

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

• A core issue will be one of technological translation: can the claim language of the ’146 Patent, which originates from 2006, be construed to read on the complex, decentralized, and auction-based architecture of a modern demand-side platform? The case may turn on whether the method step of "directing... indicia of a condition" to a "third-party server" can be mapped onto the multi-party bid request and response protocols of the current real-time bidding ecosystem.

• A second key issue will be one of attribution of action: as the asserted claim is a method claim, does Adobe, as the provider of the DSP, perform or exercise direction and control over every required step? This raises a fundamental question of divided infringement, as the defense may argue that essential steps of the advertising process are performed by independent third parties, such as advertisers, publishers, or ad exchanges, not by Adobe alone.