Case 1:18-cv-00943-RGA Document 12-1 Filed 08/31/18 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 133
`Case 1:18-cv-00943-RGA Document 12-1 Filed 08/31/18 Page 1 of 11 PagelD #: 133
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00943-RGA Document 12-1 Filed 08/31/18 Page 2 of 11 PageID #: 134
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LOUIS J. HOFFMAN
`
`
`
`
`Louis J. Hoffman, P. C.
`7689 East Paradise Lane, Suite 2
`Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
`(480) 948-3295
`Louis@valuablepatents.com
`
`October 19, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Registered Patent Attorney
`
`
`
`
`VIA E-MAIL (.pdf attachment) –
`patrickcurran@quinnemanuel.com
`Patrick Curran, Esq.
`QUINN EMANUEL
`51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
`New York, New York 10010-1601
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Re: AlmondNet, Inc. et al. v. Yahoo! Inc. – Case No. 1:16-cv-01557-ILG-SMG
`
`Dear Patrick:
`
`Thank you for your letter of October 7, 2016, and we apologize for our delay in
`replying, caused mostly by the High Holidays.
`
`Ignoring certain side-comments, your letter is directed to understanding better
`what “specific Yahoo or Brightroll products” are the “currently accused products.” Our
`answers below are organized by patent family:
`
`OTA family: AlmondNet’s Complaint refers to “Yahoo Ad Exchange” (YAX,
`announced January 2014) and “Yahoo Audience Ads” (¶16), facilitated by “Yahoo Real
`Time Bidding” (¶21); the complaint also refers to Brightroll (¶21). The Complaint
`specifies infringement by “Audience Sharing” (¶16) and “Audience Extension” (¶21)
`techniques. The Complaint also references a September 2015 announcement that Yahoo
`had “consolidated all of its programmatic ad technology under a single umbrella – the
`BrightRoll brand” (¶17).
`
`There is one thing that is currently accused as infringing the OTA patents,
`therefore: The technique of reaching Yahoo audience on non-Yahoo websites, which
`technique Yahoo materials appear to call audience sharing or audience extension. This
`is not a “vague” reference to techniques but rather a specific, identifiable technique,
`which Yahoo and its technologists can understand quite clearly.
`
`AlmondNet does not know for sure what product names Yahoo uses or has used
`for these techniques, and indeed Yahoo’s nomenclature appears to have changed over
`time. We believe that Yahoo product names for this technique are or have been “Yahoo
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00943-RGA Document 12-1 Filed 08/31/18 Page 3 of 11 PageID #: 135
`
`Patrick Curran, Esq.
`QUINN EMANUEL
`October 19, 2016
`Page 2
`
`Audience Ads” or “Yahoo Audience Data,” which appear to refer to the same thing.
`Yahoo’s U.S. website, for example, seems to have dropped use of the “Yahoo Audience
`Ads” terminology since the date of the Complaint – it appears there has been
`rebranding, possibly because of more complete implementation of the “consolidation”
`mentioned at ¶17 of the Complaint. Yahoo materials concerning the Brightroll DSP
`platform now refer to “Yahoo Audience Data” as the audience-extension technique, so
`that may be a new product name for what was previously called Yahoo Audience Ads.
`Or the technique may not have a specific, separate product name.
`
`Please note that we understand that the product (Yahoo Audience Ads, Yahoo
`Audience Data, or whatever else, if anything, Yahoo calls the technique) can be reached
`via various Yahoo advertising “platforms.” We understand that Yahoo offers or has
`offered advertisers facilities or “platforms” for bidding or placing ads under various
`names, including Yahoo Ad Exchange (2014), Yahoo’s general platform (2015-16),
`Yahoo Gemini (2014-16), and Brightroll DSP (2015-16). It doesn’t matter, though, which
`platform is used. Also, in some instances, we understand that Yahoo may itself place
`ads for its customers (advertisers) to meet their needs rather than having the advertisers
`do so. The allegations do not appear to depend on that issue either.
`
`MPS family: AlmondNet’s Complaint (¶23) refers to Brightroll DSP, as indicated
`in your letter. Yes, that is the only currently accused product.
`
`DPC and PP families: The currently accused activities can be treated together
`because both families accuse certain activity following receipt by Yahoo of data from
`third-party data providers, one of which is called BlueKai. See Complaint (¶¶25, 27).
`
`In the case of the DPC family, the subsequent activity is consolidating the
`received profile information with existing profile information, which Yahoo calls its
`“massive set of audience data,” for the purpose of eventually serving ads on or off
`Yahoo’s network of owned and operated sites, with records being kept of which profile
`supplier supplied with profile attribute. In the case of the PP patent, the subsequent
`activity is tagging user computers identified by the profile providers as matching the
`audience desired by Yahoo (typically for its customer) and later checking for the tag on
`computers visiting Yahoo-owned and -operated sites or non-Yahoo properties (where
`Yahoo has a contractual right to serve ads), and when Yahoo finds the tag, causing the
`computer browser to display a targeted electronic advertisement.
`
`For each family (DPC and PP), therefore, there is one thing that is currently
`accused as infringing: The techniques outlined above. Again, in each case, what is
`accused is a specific, identifiable technique, which Yahoo and its technologists can
`understand quite clearly.
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00943-RGA Document 12-1 Filed 08/31/18 Page 4 of 11 PageID #: 136
`
`Patrick Curran, Esq.
`QUINN EMANUEL
`October 19, 2016
`Page 3
`
`We view the techniques referenced in those paragraphs of the Complaint as
`options that facilitate ad targeting, and we don’t know that Yahoo markets them under
`any specific product name. They might be viewed as more akin to features than products.
`
`Again, we believe that the accused options are available via any Yahoo platform
`serving ads or filling ad space, but we are sure that they are available via the Brightroll
`DSP platform (again perhaps on account of the consolidation announced in 2015).
`Again, the options in some instances are selected by a Yahoo client (advertiser) and in
`other instances are selected by Yahoo itself for the benefit of its client.
`
`CDA family: Yet again, there is one thing that is currently accused as infringing
`the CDA patent: The technique of delivering ads cross-device based on profile
`information when the two devices are associated by probabilistic mapping data. See
`Complaint (¶29). The Complaint indicated (id.) that probabilistic mapping data could
`come from Yahoo’s own device-association algorithms or by obtaining device-
`association data from vendors such as Tapad or Drawbridge. Again, this is a specific,
`identifiable technique, which Yahoo and its technologists can understand quite clearly.
`
`We are not aware of any separate product name for this activity. Yahoo does not
`appear to use a different product name when an ad is delivered cross-device compared
`to when an ad is delivered on the same device. Likewise, Yahoo does not appear to use
`a different product name when an ad is delivered cross-device using probabilistic
`mapping data compared to when an ad is delivered cross-device using other kinds of
`mapping data.
`
`We have seen references to Yahoo calling such activity as being within the
`category of “Brightroll cross-device targeting” (and in other materials, just “cross-device
`targeting”). However, we assume that not all “cross-device targeting” would infringe
`the CDA patent; in other words, that product name (if it is indeed properly called a
`product name) does not have a one-to-one correlation with the patent.
`
`We are also aware that, in the case where mapping data comes from Yahoo’s
`own device-association algorithms, Yahoo appears to refer to the mapping data using
`the product name “Yahoo Device Graph,” but we have alternatively seen reference to
`“identity graphs” or “device graphs” without a specific product name. Again, though,
`we do not know that this product name (if it is indeed properly called a product name)
`has a one-to-one correlation with the patent; for one thing, the name may be used for
`“device graphs” that do not use probabilistic data.
`
`* * *
`
`As you can see from the family-by-family discussion above, it is our
`understanding that, in many cases, Yahoo does not use specific product names closely
`correlated with the activity that AlmondNet currently accuses of infringement. To the
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00943-RGA Document 12-1 Filed 08/31/18 Page 5 of 11 PageID #: 137
`
`Patrick Curran, Esq.
`QUINN EMANUEL
`October 19, 2016
`Page 4
`
`extent that the Complaint contains “a vague reference to ‘techniques’ allegedly used by
`the company,” therefore, the problem stems from two reasons: (1) the nature of the
`accused activity – i.e., the activity is in a sense part of the infrastructure enabling or
`facilitating Yahoo’s ad placement, and (2) Yahoo’s marketing practices – i.e., (a) Yahoo
`does not always market the accused technique as a separately named product, (b)
`Yahoo’s materials often contain equally “vague references to techniques” rather than
`using neatly defined product names for activities of this sort, and (c) “rebranding” has
`been inordinately common at Yahoo.
`
`To try to address your question with more precision, AlmondNet would require
`discovery of Yahoo to inquire about Yahoo’s product terminology and nomenclature, as
`well as information concerning how Yahoo prices and markets its products to
`customers.
`
`* * *
`
`The last paragraph of your letter requests “confirmation” that AlmondNet’s
`infringement contentions are due 45 days from September 29th and “will contain, on a
`per-product basis, an element-by element description of how specific Yahoo or
`BrightRoll products allegedly infringe specific AlmondNet patent claims.” The local
`patent rules do not support either of these statements. Nevertheless, AlmondNet is
`willing to discuss with you the wisdom of consenting to those statements in the phone
`conference that we requested be held Friday morning Pacific time. As you know, Judge
`Gold ordered us to make “efforts” to “propos[e] next steps to be taken in the litigation.”
`We asked for the call this Friday to confer on such “next steps,” including those that
`you mention as well as others that we have in mind. Please confirm a time and propose
`mechanics for such a call. We look forward to speaking with you.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Very truly yours,
`
`
`
`
`
`Louis J. Hoffman
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00943-RGA Document 12-1 Filed 08/31/18 Page 6 of 11 PageID #: 138
`Case 1:18-cv-00943-RGA Document 12-1 Filed 08/31/18 Page 6 of 11 PagelD #: 138
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT B
`EXHIBIT B
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00943-RGA Document 12-1 Filed 08/31/18 Page 7 of 11 PageID #: 139
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`ALMONDNET, INC., DATONICS, LLC,
`and INTENT IQ, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No.1:16-cv-01557-ILG-SMG
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`YAHOO! INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`ALMONDNET’S PATENT RULE 6 “DISCLOSURE OF ASSERTED CLAIMS
`
`AND INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS”
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Local Patent Rule 6, plaintiffs AlmondNet, Inc. (“AlmondNet”), Datonics,
`
`LLC (“Datonics”), and Intent IQ, LLC (“IIQ”), collectively, “Plaintiffs,” make the following
`
`Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions. Plaintiffs make these disclosures
`
`based on the information reasonably available to them at this time and reserve the right to
`
`supplement these disclosures. Plaintiffs reserve all objections regarding discovery, admissibility,
`
`or use of any information in this action.
`
`1) Rule 6 requirement: “[E]ach claim of each patent-in-suit that is allegedly
`
`infringed”
`
`• OTA patents: U.S. Patent 8,244,586, independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-4,
`
`and independent claim 11 and its dependent claims 12, 13, 16, 17, and 20-22. U.S. Patent
`
`7,822,639, independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-8, 10, and 13-16, and
`
`independent claim 24 and its dependent claims 27-29, 31, 32, 36, 37, 39, and 41-47.
`
`• MPS patents: U.S. Patent 8,959,146, independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2, 4,
`
`9, 15, and 16, independent claim 17 and its dependent claim 18, and independent claim
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00943-RGA Document 12-1 Filed 08/31/18 Page 8 of 11 PageID #: 140
`
`21 and its dependent claim 22. U.S. Patent 8,671,139, independent claim 1 and its
`
`dependent claims 2, 4, 7, 9, 12, and 13.
`
`• DPC patents: U.S. Patent 8,775,249, independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-6, 9,
`
`and 10, independent claim 11 and its dependent claims 12-16, 19, and 20, and
`
`independent claim 21 and its dependent claims 22-25. U.S. Patent 8,494,904, independent
`
`claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-6, 9, and 10, independent claim 11 and its dependent
`
`claims 12-16, 19, and 20, and independent claim 21 and its dependent claims 22-26, 29,
`
`and 30. U.S. Patent 8,244,582, independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-6, 9, and
`
`10. U.S. Patent 7,979,307, independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2, 3, and 6-8.
`
`• PP patent: U.S. Patent 8,244,574, independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2, 3, 6,
`
`and 8, independent claim 11 and its dependent claims 12, 13, 15, and 16, and independent
`
`claim 18 and its dependent claims 19, 20, 22, and 23.
`
`• CDA patent: U.S. Patent 8,677,398, independent claim 13 and its dependent claims 14-17
`
`and 19-26.
`
`2) Rule 6 requirement: “[E]ach product or process of [Yahoo] of which
`
`[AlmondNet] is aware that allegedly infringes each identified claim.”
`
`• For each of the above-identified claims of the OTA patents: The technique or process of
`
`reaching Yahoo audience on non-Yahoo websites, which technique Yahoo appears to call
`
`“audience sharing” or “audience extension,” as accessed through any Yahoo or Brightroll
`
`“platform” including via “Yahoo’s Real Time Bidding”; AlmondNet believes that
`
`Yahoo’s product names for this technique are or have been “Yahoo Audience Ads” or
`
`“Yahoo Audience Data.”
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00943-RGA Document 12-1 Filed 08/31/18 Page 9 of 11 PageID #: 141
`
`• For each of the above-identified claims of the MPS patents: Brightroll Demand Side
`
`Platform.
`
`• For each of the above-identified claims of the DPC patents: The technique or process of
`
`consolidating profile information received by Yahoo from third-party data providers, one
`
`of which is called BlueKai, with existing profile information, which Yahoo calls its
`
`“massive set of audience data,” for the purpose of eventually serving ads on or off
`
`Yahoo’s network of owned and operated sites, with records being kept of which profile
`
`supplier supplied with profile attribute. We believe that this technique is offered as an
`
`option available via the Brightroll DSP or other Yahoo platforms serving ads or filling ad
`
`space, which option can be selected by a Yahoo client (advertiser) or by Yahoo itself on
`
`behalf of its client. We are not aware of any separate product name for this activity.
`
`• For each of the above-identified claims of the PP patent: The technique or process of
`
`tagging user computers identified by third-party data providers, one of which is called
`
`BlueKai, as matching the audience desired by Yahoo (typically for its customer) and later
`
`checking for the tag on computers visiting Yahoo-owned and operated sites or non-
`
`Yahoo properties (where Yahoo has a contractual right to serve ads), and when Yahoo
`
`finds the tag, causing the computer browser to display a targeted electronic
`
`advertisement. We believe that this technique is offered as an option available via the
`
`Brightroll DSP or other Yahoo platforms serving ads or filling ad space, which option is
`
`selected by a Yahoo client (advertiser) or by Yahoo itself on behalf of its client. We are
`
`not aware of any separate product name for this activity.
`
`• For each of the above-identified claims of the CDA patent: The technique or process of
`
`delivering ads cross-device based on profile information when the two devices are
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00943-RGA Document 12-1 Filed 08/31/18 Page 10 of 11 PageID #: 142
`
`associated by probabilistic mapping data, which could come from Yahoo’s own device-
`
`association algorithms or by obtaining device-association data from vendors such as
`
`Tapad or Drawbridge. We are not aware of any product name specifically correlating
`
`with this activity; Yahoo does not appear to use a different product name when an ad is
`
`delivered cross-device (compared to when an ad is delivered on the same device), and
`
`Yahoo does not appear to use a different product name when an ad is delivered cross-
`
`device using probabilistic mapping data (compared to when an ad is delivered cross-
`
`device using other kinds of mapping data). The activity is within the category of
`
`“Brightroll cross-device targeting” or “cross-device targeting” and Yahoo appears to refer
`
`to the mapping data using the names “Yahoo Device Graph,” “identity graphs,” or
`
`“device graphs.”
`
`The above allegations are the products or processes that plaintiffs currently accuse of
`
`infringing. Additional details concerning the above allegations are found in AlmondNet’s
`
`Complaint and the letter from AlmondNet counsel to Yahoo counsel dated October 19, 2016.
`
`
`Dated: October 28, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Louis J. Hoffman
`
`Louis J. Hoffman (admitted pro hac vice)
`HOFFMAN PATENT FIRM
`7689 East Paradise Lane
`Suite 2
`Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
`(480) 948-3295
`Louis@valuablepatents.com
`
`William Christopher Carmody
`1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Fl.
`New York, New York 10019-6023
`(212) 336-8330
`bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-00943-RGA Document 12-1 Filed 08/31/18 Page 11 of 11 PageID #: 143
`
`Ian B. Crosby (admitted pro hac vice)
`1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3800
`Seattle, Washington 98101-3000
`(206) 516-3880
`icrosby@susmangodfrey.com
`
`Attorney for Plaintiffs AlmondNet, Inc.,
`Datonics, LLC, and Intent IQ, LLC
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that on October 28, 2016, I caused a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing AlmondNet’s Patent Rule 6 “Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement
`
`Contentions” to be served via e-mail pursuant to stipulation among counsel and via U.S. Mail on
`
`the following counsel of record for Yahoo! Inc.:
`
`Charles Verhoeven
`Jennifer A. Kash
`Brian E. Mack
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN LLP
`50 California Street, 22nd Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`
`Patrick D. Curran
`John T. McKee
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN LLP
`51 Madison Ave., 22nd Floor
`New York, New York 10010
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Louis J. Hoffman
`Louis J. Hoffman
`
`5
`
`