PTAB

IPR2022-01064

Meta Platforms Inc v. AlmondNet Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Electronic Ad Direction Through A Computer System Controlling Ad Space On Multiple Media Properties Based On A Viewer's Previous Website Visit
  • Brief Description: The ’615 patent discloses methods for profile-based behavioral targeting in online advertising. The system involves a behavioral targeting (BT) company that arranges for a third-party ad network to tag a user's computer, collects profile information on the user, and later serves targeted ads to that user on other websites based on the collected profile.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 9-12 are obvious over Meyer, Zeff, Edlund, and Fisher.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Meyer (Patent 6,915,271), Zeff (a 1999 publication, Advertising on the Internet), Edlund (Patent 7,251,628), and Fisher (Patent 5,835,896).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the prior art combination taught every element of the challenged claims. Meyer was presented as the primary reference, disclosing a system for directing electronic advertisements (which it calls "incentives") to users. Petitioner mapped Meyer’s "account provider computer" to the claimed "BT computer system" and Meyer’s "service provider computer" to the "third party computer system."
      • Tagging a Visitor (Claim 9a): Meyer disclosed placing a cookie (a "tag") on a user's computer when they sign up for a service on a third-party website. Petitioner argued that combining Meyer with Zeff, which described the common use of third-party ad networks (analogous to Meyer's service provider), rendered it obvious to have the service provider place the tag without transferring user profile information to it, a key limitation.
      • Recording Profile Information (Claim 9b): Meyer was alleged to teach recording both demographic and behavioral information (e.g., incentives "clipped" or redeemed) in a user profile maintained by the account provider (the "BT computer system").
      • Transferring a Price Cap (Claim 9c): Petitioner contended that adding Zeff’s disclosure of auction-based ad inventory systems (e.g., Adauction.com) to Meyer's system was obvious. In this combination, the BT company would electronically transfer a bid, which represents a "price cap," to the third-party system to purchase ad space. The addition of Edlund, which taught automating bids in online auctions, rendered it obvious for this transfer to occur automatically.
      • Serving a Targeted Ad for Less than Price Cap (Claim 9d): Meyer taught serving targeted ads based on the collected profile information. The final element—serving the ad for a price "less than the price cap"—was argued to be obvious in view of Fisher. Fisher disclosed common auction techniques like proxy bidding and Dutch auctions, both of which result in a winning bidder paying a price that can be less than their maximum submitted bid (the price cap).
    • Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine Meyer and Zeff to leverage the well-known, specialized business model of using a separate ad network for ad placement, allowing each entity to focus on its core competency. A POSITA would incorporate Edlund to automate the burdensome manual process of bidding in online auctions. Finally, a POSITA would add Fisher’s auction enhancements to improve fairness and cost-effectiveness, allowing advertisers to win auctions without overpaying.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner asserted that combining these well-known and commercially prevalent internet advertising and auction techniques would have been straightforward and yielded predictable results.

Ground 2: Claims 9-12 are obvious over Meyer, Zeff, Edlund, and Fisher, in further view of Tittel.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Meyer (Patent 6,915,271), Zeff (a 1999 publication), Edlund (Patent 7,251,628), Fisher (Patent 5,835,896), and Tittel (a 1999 publication, HTML 4 for Dummies).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground provided an alternative or supplemental rationale for the obviousness of claim 9(d), specifically focusing on the "redirection" of the user's computer to serve the ad. The arguments for all other limitations mirrored those in Ground 1. Tittel taught the basic HTML technique of embedding an image on a webpage using a URL that points to a different, remote server (e.g., <img src="http://remote-server.com/image.gif">). Petitioner argued this well-known technique was a form of "redirection" that causes the user's browser to contact the remote server.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to implement Meyer’s ad-serving system using Tittel’s remote image-loading technique. Meyer disclosed serving dynamic ad icons based on user profile data stored only on the BT computer system. Tittel confirmed that using a remote URL was particularly useful for images that change over time (i.e., dynamic content). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a third-party media property to include a URL pointing to the BT computer system, which would then receive the redirection and serve the appropriate targeted ad icon based on the user's profile. This combination reinforces the argument that the BT system, which holds the targeting data, would perform the ad selection upon receiving the redirection, a key aspect of claim 9(d). Privacy concerns, as discussed in the art, would further motivate keeping the ad selection logic on the BT computer to avoid sharing user data with the third-party ad network.
    • Expectation of Success: Implementing this was described as trivially simple, as it involved using fundamental and well-understood HTML functionality to combine the systems.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

  • Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under 35 U.S.C. §314(a) based on Fintiv factors would be inappropriate. The petition asserted that the co-pending district court litigation was in a very early stage, with no claim construction rulings issued and no significant discovery having occurred. The petition was filed several months before the one-year statutory deadline. Petitioner also noted that this was the only inter partes review (IPR) filed against the ’615 patent, making other discretionary denial factors irrelevant.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 9-12 of the ’615 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.