Case 1:24-cv-00831-MN Document 13 Filed 11/12/24 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 245
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`ALMONDNET, INC., INTENT IQ, LLC, and
`DATONICS LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 24-cv-831-MN
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`LIVEINTENT, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT AGAINST
`LIVEINTENT, INC.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement arising under the Patent Laws of the United States
`
`of America, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., in which Plaintiffs AlmondNet, Inc. (“AlmondNet”), Intent IQ,
`
`LLC (“Intent IQ”), and Datonics, LLC (“Datonics”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) make the following
`
`allegations against Defendant LiveIntent, Inc. (“Defendant” or “LiveIntent”):
`
`INTRODUCTION AND PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`This complaint arises from Defendant’s unlawful infringement of the following
`
`United States patents owned by Plaintiffs, which generally relate to novel internet / network based
`
`advertising systems and methods: United States Patent Nos. 8,677,398, 8,959,146, 10,984,445,
`
`and 8,494,904 (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). Plaintiffs own all right, title, and interest in
`
`the Asserted Patents to file this case.
`
`2.
`
`AlmondNet, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state
`
`of Delaware, having its place of business at 37-18 Northern Blvd. Suite 404, Long Island City,
`
`NY, 11101. Intent IQ, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company, having its place of business
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00831-MN Document 13 Filed 11/12/24 Page 2 of 13 PageID #: 246
`
`
`
`at 37-18 Northern Blvd. Suite 404, Long Island City, NY, 11101. Datonics is a limited liability
`
`company organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, having its principal place
`
`of business at 37-18 Northern Boulevard, Suite 404, Long Island City, New York 11101.
`
`AlmondNet, Inc., Intent IQ, LLC, and Datonics LLC are collectively referred herein as the
`
`“Plaintiffs.”
`
`3.
`
`Founded in 1998, AlmondNet has developed an extensive suite of industry-leading
`
`targeted advertising solutions and products, is focused on R&D and the licensing of its extensive
`
`portfolio of enabling technology and intellectual property covering numerous areas of the targeting
`
`landscape and ecosystem, including profile-based bidding, behavioral targeting, online and offline
`
`data monetization, addressable advertising, and multi-platform advertising.
`
`4.
`
`Intent IQ is a leading company in the field of cross-device-based ad targeting,
`
`retargeting, audience extension, and attribution. IIQ’s “Dynamic Device Map” identifies a given
`
`user across multiple device types, including laptops, desktops, smartphones, tablets, and
`
`televisions, so as to assist advertisers in delivering targeted ads to consumers on all of their screens.
`
`Intent IQ can facilitate ad targeting based on profile data aggregated from activity on any of a
`
`user’s screens, as well as measure the impact of previously delivered ads on the same or different
`
`screen.
`
`5.
`
`Datonics is a leading aggregator and distributor of highly granular search, purchase-
`
`intent, and life-stage data. Datonics offers data users (including ad networks, ad exchanges,
`
`demand side platforms, and publishers) pre-packaged or customized keyword-based “data
`
`segments” that can facilitate the delivery of advertisements to consumers wherever they go online,
`
`with the ads being focused on subjects relevant to the individual consumer yet delivered in a
`
`privacy-sensitive way.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00831-MN Document 13 Filed 11/12/24 Page 3 of 13 PageID #: 247
`
`
`
`6.
`
`On information and belief, LiveIntent is a Delaware corporation with a principal
`
`place of business at 1 World Trade Center, 45th Floor, New York, NY 10006. LiveIntent may be
`
`served with process through its registered agent, the Corporation Service Company, at 251 Little
`
`Falls Drive Wilmington, Delaware 19808.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`7.
`
`This action arises under the patent laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United
`
`States Code. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
`
`1338(a).
`
`8.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant in this action because
`
`Defendant is incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware, has committed acts within this
`
`District giving rise to this action, and has established minimum contacts with this forum such that
`
`the exercise of jurisdiction over Defendant would not offend traditional notions of fair play and
`
`substantial justice. Defendant, directly and through subsidiaries or intermediaries, has committed
`
`and continues to commit acts of infringement in this District by, among other things, importing,
`
`offering to sell, and selling products and services that infringe the Asserted Patents.
`
`9.
`
`Venue is proper in this District because Defendant is incorporated under the laws
`
`of the State of Delaware.
`
`COUNT I
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,677,398
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if fully
`
`set forth herein.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiffs own all rights, title, and interest in U.S. Patent No. 8,677,398, titled
`
`“systems and methods for taking action with respect to one network-connected device based on
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00831-MN Document 13 Filed 11/12/24 Page 4 of 13 PageID #: 248
`
`
`
`activity on another device connected to the same network,” issued on March 18, 2014 (“the ’398
`
`patent”). A true and correct copy of the ’398 patent is attached as Exhibit 1.
`
`12.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant makes, uses, offers for sale, sells, and/or
`
`imports the Accused Instrumentalities (including LiveIntent’s People-Based Marketing Platform
`
`product and services) that directly infringe, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, one
`
`or more method claims of the ’398 patent.
`
`13.
`
`The infringement of the ’398 patent is also attributable to Defendant. Defendant
`
`and/or users of the Accused Instrumentalities directs and controls use of the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities to perform acts that result in infringement of the ’398 patent, conditioning
`
`benefits on participation in the infringement and establishing the timing and manner of the
`
`infringement.
`
`14.
`
`Defendant also knowingly and intentionally induces infringement of at least
`
`method claim 13 of the ’398 patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by providing LiveIntent’s
`
`People-Based Marketing Platform including but not limited to components such as the LiveIntent
`
`Identity Graph, Identity Module, HIRO, UID2.0, nonID, and Authenticated Bridge services
`
`(collectively, “the Accused Instrumentalities”), which are sold and specifically configured to
`
`infringe the asserted claims, to LiveIntent customers and partners in the United States, such as,
`
`e.g., LiveIntent header bidding partner, DSP partner, or SSP partner. Through at least the filing
`
`and service of the original Complaint (D.I. 1), Defendant has had knowledge of the ’398 patent
`
`and the infringing nature of the Accused Instrumentalities. Despite this knowledge of the ’398
`
`patent, Defendant continues to make, use, offer for sale, sell, and/or import the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities, and to actively encourage and instruct customers and partners to make, use, offer
`
`for sale, sell, and/or import the Accused Instrumentalities in ways that directly infringe the ’398
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00831-MN Document 13 Filed 11/12/24 Page 5 of 13 PageID #: 249
`
`
`
`patent. Defendant does so intending that its customers and partners will commit these infringing
`
`acts or subjectively believes that the actions of its customers and partners will result in
`
`infringement of the asserted claims, but took deliberate actions to avoid learning of the facts.
`
`15.
`
`Defendant has also infringed, and continues to infringe, at least method claim 13 of
`
`the ’398 patent by offering to commercially distribute, commercially distributing, making, and/or
`
`importing the Accused Instrumentalities, which are used in practicing the process of the patent,
`
`and constitute a material part of the invention. Defendant has knowledge of or is willfully blind to
`
`the components in the Accused Instrumentalities being especially made or especially adapted for
`
`use in infringement of the patent, not a staple article, and there is no substantial non-infringing use
`
`to LiveIntent’s provision of linkages of identifiers based on recognizing that the devices using
`
`those identifiers connected to the Internet via a common local area network. Accordingly,
`
`Defendant is, contributorily infringing the ’398 patent, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).
`
`16.
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities perform all claim limitations of one or more method
`
`claims of the ’398 patent. A claim chart comparing independent method claims 1 and 13 of the ’398
`
`patent to a representative Accused Instrumentalities is attached as Exhibit 2, which is hereby
`
`incorporated by reference in its entirety.
`
`17.
`
`By making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing into the United States
`
`the Accused Instrumentalities, Defendant has injured Plaintiffs and is liable for infringement of
`
`the ’398 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`18.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s infringement of the ’398 patent, Plaintiffs are entitled to
`
`monetary damages in an amount adequate to compensate for Defendant’s infringement, but in no
`
`event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by Defendant, together with
`
`interest and costs as fixed by the Court.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00831-MN Document 13 Filed 11/12/24 Page 6 of 13 PageID #: 250
`
`
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiffs are entitled to past damages for Defendant’s infringement of the ’398
`
`patent. 35 U.S.C. § 287 does not apply to this case because Plaintiffs have only asserted method
`
`claims of the ’398 patent.
`
`20.
`
`Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer irreparable harm, through its loss of
`
`market share and goodwill, for which there is no adequate remedy at law. For example, Intent IQ
`
`has and will continue to suffer this harm by virtue of Defendant’s infringement of one or more
`
`method claims of the ’398 patent. Intent IQ’s bid enhancement product allows for targeted
`
`advertising on a different site than where the profile data was collected, i.e., by providing third-
`
`party IDs in bid requests. Intent IQ’s graph product associates devices on a household level,
`
`personal level, and device level. LiveIntent’s People-Based Marketing Platform products and
`
`services, such as, e.g., the LiveIntent Identity Graph and Identity Module, directly compete with
`
`Intent IQ’s bid enhancement and graph products. For example, based on household level device
`
`identifier associations LiveIntent sends an identifier (e.g., the LiveIntent nonID, SSP cookie ID,
`
`and/or DSP cookie ID) for a particular visitor to a LiveIntent header bidding partner so that ad
`
`exchanges and/or DSPs can more confidently bid on targeted advertisements using profile data
`
`collected about a website visitor from that visitor’s visit to a different site. See Ex. 2. Intent IQ’s
`
`offering of bid enhancement and device graph services is prejudiced by Defendant’s actions. For
`
`example, Defendant’s actions have interfered with and will interfere with Plaintiffs’ ability to
`
`license technology. The balance of hardships favors Intent IQ’s ability to commercialize its own
`
`ideas and technology. The public interest in allowing Intent IQ to enforce its right to exclude
`
`outweighs other public interests. A permanent injunction would not result in depriving the public
`
`of the patented invention because consumer need for the patented invention can be met by at least
`
`Intent IQ’s product offerings.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00831-MN Document 13 Filed 11/12/24 Page 7 of 13 PageID #: 251
`
`
`
`COUNT II
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,959,146
`
`21.
`
`Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if fully
`
`set forth herein.
`
`22.
`
`Plaintiffs own all rights, title, and interest in 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”). A true and correct copy of the ’146
`
`patent is attached as Exhibit 3.
`
`23.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant makes, uses, offers for sale, sells, and/or
`
`imports the Accused Instrumentalities (including LiveIntent’s People-Based Marketing Platform
`
`product and services) that directly infringe, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, one
`
`or more method claims of the ’146 patent.
`
`24.
`
`The direct infringement of the ’146 patent is also attributable to Defendant.
`
`Defendant directs and controls the use of the Accused Instrumentalities to perform acts that result
`
`in the direct infringement of the ’146 patent, conditioning benefits on participation in the
`
`infringement and establishing the timing and manner of the infringement.
`
`25.
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities perform all claim limitations of one or more method
`
`claims of the ’146 patent. A claim chart comparing independent method claim 1 of the ’146 patent
`
`to a representative Accused Instrumentalities is attached as Exhibit 4, which is hereby incorporated
`
`by reference in its entirety.
`
`26.
`
`By making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing into the United States
`
`the Accused Instrumentalities, Defendant has injured Plaintiffs and is liable for direct infringement
`
`of the ’146 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00831-MN Document 13 Filed 11/12/24 Page 8 of 13 PageID #: 252
`
`
`
`27.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s direct infringement of the ’146 patent, Plaintiffs are
`
`entitled to monetary damages in an amount adequate to compensate for Defendant’s infringement,
`
`but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by Defendant,
`
`together with interest and costs as fixed by the Court.
`
`28.
`
`Plaintiffs are entitled to past damages for Defendant’s direct infringement of
`
`the ’146 patent. 35 U.S.C. § 287 does not apply to this case because Plaintiffs have only asserted
`
`method claims of the ’146 patent.
`
`COUNT III
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 10,984,445
`
`29.
`
`Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if fully
`
`set forth herein.
`
`30.
`
`Plaintiffs own all rights, title, and interest in U.S. Patent No. 10,984,445, titled
`
`“providing collected profiles to media properties having specified interests,” issued on April 20,
`
`2021 (“the ’445 patent”). A true and correct copy of the ’445 patent is attached as Exhibit 5.
`
`31.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant makes, uses, offers for sale, sells, and/or
`
`imports the Accused Instrumentalities (including LiveIntent’s People-Based Marketing Platform
`
`product and services) that directly infringe, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, one
`
`or more method claims of the ’445 patent.
`
`32.
`
`The direct infringement of the ’445 patent is also attributable to Defendant.
`
`Defendant directs and controls the use of the Accused Instrumentalities to perform acts that result
`
`in the direct infringement of the ’445 patent, conditioning benefits on participation in the
`
`infringement and establishing the timing and manner of the infringement.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00831-MN Document 13 Filed 11/12/24 Page 9 of 13 PageID #: 253
`
`
`
`33.
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities perform all claim limitations of one or more method
`
`claims of the ’445 patent. A claim chart comparing independent method claim 1 of the ’445 patent
`
`to a representative Accused Instrumentalities is attached as Exhibit 6, which is hereby incorporated
`
`by reference in its entirety.
`
`34.
`
`By making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing into the United States
`
`the Accused Instrumentalities, Defendant has injured Plaintiffs and is liable for direct infringement
`
`of the ’445 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`35.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s direct infringement of the ’445 patent, Plaintiffs are
`
`entitled to monetary damages in an amount adequate to compensate for Defendant’s infringement,
`
`but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by Defendant,
`
`together with interest and costs as fixed by the Court.
`
`36.
`
`Plaintiffs are entitled to past damages for Defendant’s direct infringement of
`
`the ’445 patent. 35 U.S.C. § 287 does not apply to this case because Plaintiffs have only asserted
`
`method claims of the ’445 patent.
`
`37.
`
`Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer irreparable harm, through its loss of
`
`market share and goodwill, for which there is no adequate remedy at law. For example, Datonics
`
`has and will continue to suffer this harm by virtue of Defendant’s direct infringement of one or
`
`more method claims of the ’445 patent. In particular, Datonics’ pre-packaged and customized data
`
`segment services, which facilitate the delivery of advertisements to consumers wherever they go
`
`online, directly competes with components of LiveIntent’s People-Based Marketing Platform,
`
`such as, e.g., LiveIntent’s Audience Manager and LiveIntent DSP. For example, the LiveIntent
`
`DSP (together with LiveIntent’s Audience Manager) cause the delivery of email advertisements
`
`using a hashed email address for a particular consumer as well as profile information linked to the
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00831-MN Document 13 Filed 11/12/24 Page 10 of 13 PageID #: 254
`
`
`
`hashed email address, which LiveIntent has collected from a profile owner computer (such as, e.g.,
`
`a computer operated by Oracle). See Ex. 6. Additionally, Defendant’s actions have interfered with
`
`and will interfere with Plaintiffs’ ability to license technology. The balance of hardships favors
`
`Datonics’ ability to commercialize its own ideas and technology. The public interest in allowing
`
`Datonics to enforce its right to exclude outweighs other public interests. A permanent injunction
`
`would not result in depriving the public of the patented invention because consumer need for the
`
`patented invention can be met by at least Datonics’ product offerings as well as at least one other
`
`advertising platform who has taken a license to the ’445 Patent.
`
`COUNT IV
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 8,494,904
`
`38.
`
`Plaintiffs reallege and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if fully
`
`set forth herein.
`
`39.
`
`Plaintiffs own all rights, title, and interest in U.S. Patent No. 8,494,904, titled
`
`“method and stored program for accumulating descriptive profile data along with source
`
`information for use in targeting third-party advertisements,” issued on July 23, 2013 (“the ’904
`
`patent”). A true and correct copy of the ’904 patent is attached as Exhibit 7.
`
`40.
`
`On information and belief, Defendant makes, uses, offers for sale, sells, and/or
`
`imports the Accused Instrumentalities (including LiveIntent’s People-Based Marketing Platform
`
`product and services) that directly infringe, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, one
`
`or more method claims of the ’904 patent.
`
`41.
`
`The direct infringement of the ’904 patent is also attributable to Defendant.
`
`Defendant directs and controls the use of the Accused Instrumentalities to perform acts that result
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00831-MN Document 13 Filed 11/12/24 Page 11 of 13 PageID #: 255
`
`
`
`in the direct infringement of the ’904 patent, conditioning benefits on participation in the
`
`infringement and establishing the timing and manner of the infringement.
`
`42.
`
`The Accused Instrumentalities perform all claim limitations of one or more method
`
`claims of the ’904 patent. A claim chart comparing independent method claim 1 of the ’904 patent
`
`to a representative Accused Instrumentalities is attached as Exhibit 8, which is hereby incorporated
`
`by reference in its entirety.
`
`43.
`
`By making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing into the United States
`
`the Accused Instrumentalities, Defendant has injured AlmondNet and is liable for direct
`
`infringement of the ’904 patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`44.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s direct infringement of the ’904 patent, AlmondNet is
`
`entitled to monetary damages in an amount adequate to compensate for Defendant’s infringement,
`
`but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by Defendant,
`
`together with interest and costs as fixed by the Court.
`
`45.
`
`Plaintiffs are entitled to past damages for Defendant’s direct infringement of
`
`the ’904 patent. 35 U.S.C. § 287 does not apply to this case because Plaintiffs have only asserted
`
`method claims of the ’904 patent.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter:
`
`a.
`
`A judgment in favor of Plaintiffs that Defendant has directly infringed, either
`
`literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, each of the Asserted Patents, and
`
`has induced and/or contributed to the infringement of the ’398 patent;
`
`b.
`
`A permanent injunction prohibiting Defendant from further acts of infringement of
`
`the ’398 patent and ’445 patent;
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00831-MN Document 13 Filed 11/12/24 Page 12 of 13 PageID #: 256
`
`
`
`c.
`
`A judgment and order requiring Defendant to pay Plaintiffs their damages, costs,
`
`expenses, and pre-judgment and post-judgment
`
`interest for Defendant’s
`
`infringement of the Asserted Patents;
`
`d.
`
`A judgment and order requiring Defendant to provide an accounting and to pay
`
`supplemental damages to Plaintiffs, including without limitation, pre-judgment and
`
`post-judgment interest;
`
`e.
`
`A judgment and order finding that this is an exceptional case within the meaning
`
`of 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarding to Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys’ fees
`
`against Defendant; and
`
`f.
`
`Any and all other relief as the Court may deem appropriate and just under the
`
`circumstances.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiffs, under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, request a trial by jury of
`
`any issues so triable by right.
`
`Dated: November 12, 2024
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`Reza Mirzaie
`James Milkey
`Amy Hayden
`James Tsuei
`Jonathan Ma
`Daniel Kolko
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`12424 Wilshire Boulevard 12th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90025
`Tel: 310-826-7474
`Fax: 310-826-6991
`rmirzaie@raklaw.com
`jmilkey@raklaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`FARNAN LLP
`
`/s/ Michael J. Farnan
`Brian E. Farnan (Bar No. 4089)
`Michael J. Farnan (Bar No. 5165)
`919 North Market Street, 12th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 777-0300
`bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`mfarnan@farnanlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-00831-MN Document 13 Filed 11/12/24 Page 13 of 13 PageID #: 257
`
`ahayden@raklaw.com
`jtsuei@raklaw.com
`jma@raklaw.com
`dkolko@raklaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`