DCT

7:25-cv-00487

AlmondNet Inc v. Adobe Inc

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00487, W.D. Tex., 01/07/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains a regular and established place of business in the district and has committed acts of infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s digital advertising platforms, including its Audience Manager and Experience Platform, infringe three patents related to profile-based ad selection and cross-device user identification for targeted advertising.
  • Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the technological underpinnings of modern digital advertising, specifically methods for identifying users across different devices (e.g., laptops, smartphones, TVs) to deliver more relevant advertisements.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the Asserted Patents.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-06-19 Earliest Priority Date for ’146 Patent
2007-04-17 Earliest Priority Date for ’398 and ’878 Patents
2014-03-18 ’398 Patent Issued
2015-02-17 ’146 Patent Issued
2020-07-14 ’878 Patent Issued
2026-01-07 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,959,146 - *"media properties selection method and system based on expected profit from profile-based ad delivery," issued February 17, 2015*

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint and patent title suggest a central problem in digital advertising: how an advertiser or ad-tech platform can automatically and profitably select where to place a targeted advertisement (Compl. ¶1; ’146 Patent, Title). The challenge is to move beyond simple audience targeting to making economically optimized decisions about media placement.
  • The Patented Solution: The invention appears to be a method and system that selects media properties for ad delivery by calculating the "expected profit" from that delivery ('146 Patent, Title). This involves using a visitor's profile information to estimate potential revenue from an ad and comparing it against the cost of placing that ad on a specific media property, such as a website or ad network (Compl. ¶16; '146 Patent, Abstract). The complaint alleges this allows for automated, profit-driven ad placement decisions (Compl. ¶¶17-18).
  • Technical Importance: This technology represents a shift from merely identifying a target user to making a quantitative, business-driven decision about whether and where to engage that user, a core function of modern programmatic ad-bidding systems (Compl. ¶3).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 1 ('146 Patent, Compl. ¶18).
  • The complaint incorporates by reference a claim chart (Exhibit 2) that purportedly breaks down the elements of claim 1, but this exhibit was not provided with the complaint for public review (Compl. ¶18). A detailed breakdown of the asserted claim elements is therefore not possible based on the available document.
  • Plaintiffs note that they have only asserted method claims (Compl. ¶21).

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 March 18, 2014*

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the technical challenge of tracking and targeting a single user who operates multiple devices (e.g., a work laptop, a personal smartphone, a home television) ('398 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶4). Advertisers need a way to recognize that the user browsing for a product on their phone is the same person watching TV later, without relying on personally identifiable information (PII) that raises privacy concerns ('878 Patent, col. 7:5-10).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method for electronically associating different devices, such as an "online access device" and a "television set-top box," that are connected to the same network ('398 Patent, Abstract). This association, often based on a shared IP address, allows an "action," such as delivering a targeted advertisement to the television, to be taken based on activity observed on the online device ('398 Patent, Title, Abstract). The system is designed to function without using PII ('878 Patent, col. 8:23-26).
  • Technical Importance: This technology is foundational to "cross-device" advertising, which allows for a unified view of a consumer and enables campaign sequencing and attribution across the consumer's entire digital ecosystem (Compl. ¶4).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 13 (’398 Patent, Compl. ¶26).
  • The complaint references a claim chart (Exhibit 4) comparing claim 13 to the accused instrumentalities, but this exhibit was not provided (Compl. ¶26). Analysis of the specific claim elements is therefore not possible from the complaint.
  • Plaintiffs state they have only asserted method claims (Compl. ¶29).

U.S. Patent No. 10,715,878 - *"targeted advertisements based on online behavior," issued July 14, 2020*

Technology Synopsis

  • Belonging to the same family as the ’398 Patent, the ’878 Patent further details a method for delivering targeted television advertisements based on a user's online behavior ('878 Patent, Title). The core technology involves electronically associating the IP address of an online access device (e.g., a computer) with the IP address of a television set-top box to create a link between a user's web browsing and their television viewing ('878 Patent, Abstract). This association enables the selection and delivery of a relevant TV ad based on user profile information derived from online activity, such as behavioral targeting or demographic data ('878 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

  • The complaint asserts independent method claim 1 (Compl. ¶34).

Accused Features

  • Plaintiffs allege that components of the Adobe Experience Platform, including its "identity graph," "Identity Services," "Device Graphs," "Adobe Sensei," and "Co-op Graph," infringe the ’878 Patent (Compl. ¶33).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are "Adobe's Audience Manager, Experience Platform, and Adobe Demand Side Platform," along with numerous specified components such as "Bidder Service," "ML models," "Tracking Pixels," "Adobe Experience Platform identity graph," "Identity Services," "Device Graphs," "Adobe Sensei," and "Co-op Graph" (Compl. ¶9).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges these products form an integrated suite for digital advertising and marketing (Compl. ¶13). The Adobe Experience Platform is described as a system to "ingest all your customer data... and stitch it together... to create a real-time customer profile" for delivering personalized experiences (Compl. ¶10). Audience Manager is alleged to collect user data, create "marketable segments," and serve targeted advertising (Compl. ¶11). The Demand-Side Platform (DSP) is described as a tool to centralize the purchasing and optimization of digital advertising inventory across various channels (Compl. ¶12).
  • A diagram included in the complaint illustrates how Adobe Audience Manager allegedly provides "More Audience Scale, More Value" by integrating with other platforms like the Adobe Advertising Cloud and other DSPs to reach a larger number of "addressable audiences" (Compl. p. 5). This visual evidence is presented to support the claim that Adobe's platforms are designed for large-scale, integrated, data-driven ad targeting (Compl. p. 5).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references infringement claim charts in Exhibits 2, 4, and 6, which are incorporated by reference but not attached to the public filing. As such, a detailed tabular analysis of the infringement allegations is not possible. The narrative infringement theories are summarized below.

  • ’146 Patent Infringement Allegations: Plaintiffs allege that Adobe's Demand-Side Platform (DSP) and its related components perform all the limitations of at least method claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶17-18). The listed components, such as "Bidder Service," "ML models," "Bidding Optimization," and "Bid Shading," suggest that Plaintiffs' theory is that Adobe's automated ad-bidding technology inherently performs the claimed method of selecting media properties based on a calculation of expected profit (Compl. ¶17).
  • ’398 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that Adobe's Experience Platform, Audience Manager, and related components like the "identity graph," "Device Graphs," and "Co-op Graph" perform all limitations of at least method claim 13 (Compl. ¶¶25-26). This indicates Plaintiffs' theory is that Adobe's technology for creating unified customer profiles across devices directly practices the patented method of taking an action on one device (e.g., serving an ad) based on activity from another associated device (Compl. ¶25).
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question for the cross-device patents ('398 and '878) may be the scope of terms like "connected to the same network" or "common local area network" ('398 Patent, Title; '878 Patent, col. 24:26-29). The dispute may turn on whether Adobe's "identity graph" or "Co-op Graph," which may use probabilistic data modeling to associate devices that are not physically on the same local network, fall within the patent's definition of such a connection.
    • Technical Questions: For the '146 Patent, a key factual question may be what evidence Plaintiffs can produce to demonstrate that Adobe's DSP performs the specific steps of calculating "expected profit" as required by the claim. The defense may argue that its optimization algorithms function differently and do not map onto the claimed method. For the '398 and '878 patents, a technical question will be how Adobe's device association technology actually works and whether its method of "stitching" data together performs the specific steps of association required by the claims (Compl. ¶10).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Analysis is based on independent claim 1 of the ’878 Patent, as its specification is provided and its technology is representative of the cross-device dispute also involving the ’398 Patent.

  • The Term: "a group of devices connected through a common local area network (LAN)" ('878 Patent, col. 24:26-29).
  • Context and Importance: This term appears central to the infringement analysis for the cross-device patents. The Plaintiffs' case may depend on whether different devices, which Adobe's platforms allegedly link together, can be considered part of a "common LAN" under the patent's definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because modern device graphs often link devices that are not, and may never have been, physically connected to the same router or local network.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims focus on the use of a "common IP address" during a "predetermined period of time" to establish the association ('878 Patent, col. 24:30-46). This could support an argument that the "common LAN" is defined functionally by the shared use of a public IP address over time, rather than by a strict physical network topology. The purpose is cross-device action, suggesting any reliable method of association could be covered.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's detailed description provides a technical definition for "Router" as a device that "connect[s] a local area network (LAN) to the Internet" ('878 Patent, col. 3:1-10). This language, tying the LAN directly to a physical router, could support a narrower construction requiring a more traditional, hardware-defined local network, potentially excluding devices associated purely through software, data analysis, or probabilistic methods.

VI. Other Allegations

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

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

Based on the complaint and the patents-in-suit, the litigation will likely revolve around the following central questions:

  1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "common local area network," rooted in the context of devices sharing a router and IP address, be construed to cover modern "identity graphs" that may associate devices probabilistically based on signals like login data, location, and browsing patterns, even if those devices never physically shared a network?
  2. A key evidentiary question will be one of technical proof: For the '146 patent, what evidence can Plaintiffs present to show that the complex, multi-faceted algorithms within Adobe's Demand-Side Platform perform the specific method of calculating "expected profit" as claimed, or is there a fundamental mismatch in technical operation?
  3. A central legal and factual question will be one of association: For the cross-device patents ('398 and '878), does the "electronic association" of devices performed by Adobe's platforms meet the specific requirements laid out in the claims, particularly concerning the use of timestamps and dynamically assigned IP addresses, or does Adobe's technology achieve a similar result through a non-infringing method?