Google LLC v. BrodTi Inc.

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2025-00472
• Patent #: 11,416,898
• Filed: January 17, 2025
• Petitioner(s): Google LLC
• Patent Owner(s): Brodti Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-20

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Methods, Systems, and Apparatus for Financing Projects
• Brief Description: The ’898 patent describes a process allowing advertisers to finance media productions through targeted online advertising buys. The system facilitates receiving advertising material, managing campaigns based on a predetermined number of impressions, monitoring those impressions, and collecting revenue to be shared with the web property content owner.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Nicholas, Laidlaw, Mayadas, and Error - Claims 1-6, 9-15, and 18-19 are obvious over Nicholas in view of Laidlaw, Mayadas, and Error.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Nicholas (Application # 2004/0054589), Laidlaw (Application # 2004/0128547), Mayadas (Application # 2001/0039515), and Error (Patent 8,156,216).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that the primary reference, Nicholas, discloses the foundational framework of a self-service online advertising system. Nicholas teaches receiving advertising material from a client via a web browser, generating a webpage with a graphical user interface (GUI) offering advertising buy options (like number of impressions and target websites), populating the ads, and monitoring impression counts. To supply missing claim elements, Petitioner asserted that Laidlaw teaches the common use of cookies to identify a client, satisfying the "identifier" limitation. Mayadas was cited to disclose the financial backend, teaching the use of escrow accounts and funds as a "repository for advertising revenue" based on advertiser selections. Finally, Error was introduced to teach a well-known method for validating ad impressions using single-pixel image beacons, meeting the limitation of a "predetermined impression tracking system."
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would combine these references to create an improved, yet predictable, advertising system. A POSITA would have integrated the standard cookie-based identification of Laidlaw into Nicholas's system for basic session management. To handle the commercial transactions inherent in Nicholas's system, a POSITA would look to known financial models like the escrow system in Mayadas. To ensure advertisers only pay for successfully delivered ads—a key business need—a POSITA would incorporate the common impression validation technique taught by Error.
  • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have had a high expectation of success, as the combination involves integrating known, conventional components of web-based advertising systems, each performing its expected function.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Ground 1 Prior Art and Yasnovsky - Claims 7-8, 16-17, and 20 are obvious over the Ground 1 prior art in further view of Yasnovsky.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Nicholas (Application # 2004/0054589), Laidlaw (Application # 2004/0128547), Mayadas (Application # 2001/0039515), Error (Patent 8,156,216), and Yasnovsky (Application # 2005/0027594).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds upon the combination in Ground 1, adding Yasnovsky to address dependent claims related to campaign budget management. Petitioner argued Yasnovsky, which describes a self-service advertising platform, explicitly teaches an advertiser specifying a campaign budget, which corresponds to the "target fund amount for the content" recited in claim 7. Yasnovsky also discloses the ability for an advertiser to edit an existing campaign to increase its budget, which directly maps to claim 8's limitation of obtaining a request to increase the predetermined number of impressions.
  • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner asserted that a POSITA would combine Yasnovsky's teachings with the Ground 1 system to provide advertisers with greater control over campaign spending. Adding budget-setting and modification capabilities is a logical and desirable enhancement, offering a safeguard against overspending and allowing advertisers to extend successful campaigns.
  • Expectation of Success: Success would be expected, as implementing budget management features into an online advertising platform was a known and routine practice for a POSITA at the time.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges (Grounds 3 and 4) that mirror the combinations of Grounds 1 and 2, respectively, but further add Manowitz (WO 01/59653). Manowitz was cited preemptively to address a potential, narrow claim construction from the Patent Owner that the "web property content owner" must be a different entity than the website publisher, arguing the claims would be obvious even under that interpretation.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under Fintiv is inappropriate because the co-pending district court litigation is in a very early stage, with no trial date set or claim construction rulings issued. Petitioner also contended that denial under §325(d) is unwarranted because the petition relies on prior art references that were not considered during the original prosecution of the ’898 patent.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1-20 of the ’898 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103.