Case 6:21-cv-00896-ADA Document 40 Filed 05/26/22 Page 1 of 48
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`ALMONDNET, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`ROKU, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`ALMONDNET, INC. and
`INTENT IQ, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.;
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.; and ADGEAR
`TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`ALMONDNET, INC. and
`INTENT IQ, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-00876-ADA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-00891-ADA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-00896-ADA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AlmondNet, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001
`IPR2022-01064
`Page 1 of 48
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00896-ADA Document 40 Filed 05/26/22 Page 2 of 48
`
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-00897-ADA
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-00898-ADA
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`ALMONDNET, INC. and
`INTENT IQ, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`MICROSOFT CORP.,
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`ALMONDNET, INC. and
`INTENT IQ, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.; AMAZON.COM
`SERVICES LLC; and AMAZON WEB
`SERVICES, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AlmondNet, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001
`IPR2022-01064
`Page 2 of 48
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00896-ADA Document 40 Filed 05/26/22 Page 3 of 48
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 1 
`A.
`Technology and Accused Products ........................................................................ 1 
`B.
`Asserted Patents ..................................................................................................... 3 
`C.
`Procedural History ................................................................................................. 4 
`DISPUTED TERMS .......................................................................................................... 5 
`A.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,822,639 and Certain Other Patents ........................................... 5 
`1.
`“tag” ........................................................................................................... 5 
`2.
`“delivery to visitor computers visiting a second, different Internet
`site of advertisements sold, for a first price, for placement on
`visitor computers that have visited the first Internet site” ........................ 6 
`“direction of at least one off-site advertisement to visitor
`computers visiting a second Internet site . . . which off-site
`advertisement concerns at least one offering of a third-party
`advertiser that has paid to display said advertisement on visitor
`computers that have visited the first Internet site” .................................... 6 
`“second Internet site”/ “second, different Internet site” ......................... 10 
`3.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,200,822.................................................................................... 12 
`1.
`“third-party second media property” ....................................................... 12 
`2.
`“profile-attribute-dependent price” .......................................................... 13 
`3.
`“wherein the condition is a specified time period after receiving
`profile-attribute information about the visitor” ........................................ 14 
`U.S. Patent No. 8,244,582 and Certain Other Patents ......................................... 16 
`1.
`“unaffiliated third parties” / “unaffiliated third party” ........................... 16 
`2.
`“partial profile” ....................................................................................... 18 
`3.
`“available” ............................................................................................... 20 
`4.
`“automatically with the computer system” / “automatically” /
`“automatic” .............................................................................................. 21 
`“URL redirection” ................................................................................... 22 
`5.
`“indicia of instructions” / “indicia of a condition” / “indicia” ................ 25 
`6.
`U.S. Patent Nos. 8,566,164 and 10,321,198 ........................................................ 26 
`1.
`“set top box” / “set top box identifier” .................................................... 26 
`U.S. Patent Nos. 8,671,139 and 8,959,146 .......................................................... 28 
`1.
`“third-party server computer” ................................................................. 28 
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`AlmondNet, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001
`IPR2022-01064
`Page 3 of 48
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00896-ADA Document 40 Filed 05/26/22 Page 4 of 48
`
`
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`“possibly applicable” / “possible” .......................................................... 30 
`2.
`U.S. Patent No. 8,677,398 ................................................................................... 32 
`1.
`“wherein the computer system is connected to the local area
`network through the Internet” .................................................................. 32 
`U.S. Patent No. 9,830,615.................................................................................... 33 
`1.
`“BT company” ........................................................................................ 33 
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`AlmondNet, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001
`IPR2022-01064
`Page 4 of 48
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00896-ADA Document 40 Filed 05/26/22 Page 5 of 48
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Ajinomoto v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`932 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2019)................................................................................................11
`
`Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Google LLC,
`882 F.3d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................10
`
`Bell Atl. Network Servs. v. Covad Commc’ns Grp.,
`262 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................24
`
`Bicon v. Straumann Co.,
`441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..................................................................................................19
`
`Biosig Instruments v. Nautilus,
`783 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................20
`
`Catalina Mktg. Int’l v. Coolsavings.com,
`289 F.3d 801 (Fed. Cir. 2002)..................................................................................................33
`
`E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Unifrax I,
`921 F.3d 1060 (Fed. Cir. 2019)................................................................................................24
`
`Eon Corp. IP Holdings v. Silver Spring Networks,
`815 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 640 (2017) ......................................29
`
`Free Stream Media v. Alphonso,
`996 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2021)..................................................................................................2
`
`Genuine Enabling Tech. v. Nintendo,
`29 F.4th 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ................................................................................................24
`
`Gillespie v. Dywidag Sys. Int’l,
`501 F.3d 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................11
`
`Golden Bridge Tech. v. Apple,
`758 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................22
`
`IBSA Institut Biochimique, S.A. v. Teva Pharms. USA,
`966 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................................................................................................32
`
`Interval Licensing v. AOL,
`766 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014)........................................................................................ passim
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`AlmondNet, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001
`IPR2022-01064
`Page 5 of 48
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00896-ADA Document 40 Filed 05/26/22 Page 6 of 48
`
`
`Iridescent Networks v. AT&T Mobility,
`933 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2019)....................................................................................11, 22, 24
`
`Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA,
`395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..........................................................................................17, 29
`
`Microsoft v. Multi-Tech Sys.,
`357 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2004)....................................................................................11, 13, 22
`
`Multilayer Stretch Cling Film Holdings v. Berry Plastics,
`831 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................15
`
`Music Choice v. Stingray Digit. Grp.,
`C.A. No. 2:16-cv-586-JRG-RSP, 2017 WL 2896025 (E.D. Tex. July 6, 2017) ......................27
`
`Nautilus v. Biosig Instruments,
`572 U.S. 898 (2014) ...............................................................................................16, 17, 25, 31
`
`Northpeak Wireless v. 3COM,
`674 F. App’x 982 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..........................................................................................24
`
`Pfizer v. Ranbaxy Lab’ys,
`457 F.3d 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................15
`
`Phillips v. AWH,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) ...................................................................13, 15, 20
`
`Pisony v. Commando Constr.,
`No. 17-00055-ADA, 2019 WL 928406 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2019) ........................................22
`
`Power Mosfet Techs. v. Siemens AG,
`378 F.3d 1396 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................29
`
`Saffran v. Johnson & Johnson,
`712 F.3d 549 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..................................................................................................10
`
`Starhome GmbH v. AT&T Mobility,
`743 F.3d 849 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...................................................................................................6
`
`Unique Concepts v. Brown,
`939 F.2d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1991)................................................................................................17
`
`United Carbon v. Binney & Smith,
`317 U.S. 228 (1942) ...........................................................................................................16, 19
`
`Vitronics v. Conceptronic,
`90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)..................................................................................................27
`
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`AlmondNet, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001
`IPR2022-01064
`Page 6 of 48
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00896-ADA Document 40 Filed 05/26/22 Page 7 of 48
`
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 .......................................................................................................................25
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 4 .......................................................................................................................15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`AlmondNet, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001
`IPR2022-01064
`Page 7 of 48
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00896-ADA Document 40 Filed 05/26/22 Page 8 of 48
`
`
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`
`Case & Docket No. or
`Bates Numbers
`No. 6:21-cv-00896, Dkt. 1-15
`No. 6:21-cv-00891, Dkt. 1-3
`No. 6:21-cv-00896, Dkt. 1-3
`No. 6:21-cv-00896, Dkt. 1-1
`
`No. 6:21-cv-00891, Dkt. 1-7
`No. 6:21-cv-00896, Dkt. 1-13
`No. 6:21-cv-00896, Dkt. 1-5
`No. 6:21-cv-00876, Dkt. 1-3
`No. 6:21-cv-00896, Dkt. 1-19
`No. 6:21-cv-00891, Dkt. 1-13
`META_ALMOND_000019778-19785 at
`META_ALMOND_000019783, 19784
`META_ALMOND_000019792-19798 at
`META_ALMOND_000019795, 19798
`ALMONDNET-PATENTS-00002948-2962
`
`ALMONDNET-PATENTS-00003026-3049
`
`ALMONDNET-PATENTS-00002989-2994
`
`ALMONDNET-PATENTS-00002936-2945
`
`ALMONDNET-PATENTS-00002079-2094
`
`ALMONDNET-PATENTS-00003364-3378
`
`SAM_ALM_00005276-5281
`
`SAM_ALM_00007388-7404
`
`META_ALMOND_000020089-20095 at
`META_ALMOND_000020091
`META_ALMOND_000020079-20088 at
`META_ALMOND_000020087
`META_ALMOND_000019815-19821 at
`META_ALMOND_000019818
`ALMONDNET-PATENTS-00003106-3126
`
`ALMONDNET-PATENTS-00000886-895
`
`Exhibit/
`Description
`Reference
`’639 Patent U.S. Patent No. 7,822,639
`’822 Patent U.S. Patent No. 8,200,822
`’582 Patent U.S. Patent No. 8,244,582
`’586 Patent U.S. Patent No. 8,244,586
`’164 Patent U.S. Patent No. 8,566,164
`’139 Patent U.S. Patent No. 8,671,139
`’398 Patent U.S. Patent No. 8,677,398
`’146 Patent U.S. Patent No. 8,959,146
`’615 Patent U.S. Patent No. 9,830,615
`’198 Patent U.S. Patent No. 10,321,198
`Ex. 1
`Concise Oxford Dictionary
`(10th ed. 1999)
`Ex. 2
`Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate
`Dictionary (Deluxe ed. 1998)
`Ex. 3
`’639 patent file history,
`7/8/2010 Response to
`Final Office Action
`’639 patent file history,
`6/25/2009 Claims
`’639 patent file history,
`12/2/2009 Response to Final
`Office Action
`’639 patent file history,
`9/3/2010 Notice of Allowance
`’586 file history, 6/8/2012
`Notice of Allowance
`’639 patent file history,
`10/19/2006 Applicant’s
`Remarks
`’745 patent file history,
`4/7/2010 Applicant Interview
`Summary
`’783 patent file history,
`8/16/2011 Amendment A
`Random House Webster’s
`College Dictionary (1996)
`Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate
`Dictionary (10th ed. 2000)
`Webster’s II New College
`Dictionary (1999)
`’639 patent file history,
`11/13/2008 Response to
`Final Office Action
`’307 patent file history,
`4/27/2011 Supplemental
`Amendment and
`Interview Report
`
`Ex. 4
`Ex. 5
`
`Ex. 6
`Ex. 7
`Ex. 8
`
`Ex. 9
`
`Ex. 10
`Ex. 11
`Ex. 12
`Ex. 13
`Ex. 14
`
`Ex. 15
`
`
`
`
`
`-vi-
`
`
`
`AlmondNet, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001
`IPR2022-01064
`Page 8 of 48
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00896-ADA Document 40 Filed 05/26/22 Page 9 of 48
`
`Exhibit/
`Reference
`Ex. 16
`Ex. 17
`Ex. 18
`Ex. 19
`
`Description
`’139 patent file history,
`9/25/2013 Interview Summary
`Random House Webster’s
`College Dictionary (1996)
`Merriam-Webster Dictionary
`(New ed. 2005)
`The Computer Glossary
`(9th ed. 2001)
`
`Case & Docket No. or
`Bates Numbers
`ALMONDNET-PATENTS-00000154-157
`
`META_ALMOND_000019809-19814 at
`META_ALMOND_000019814
`META_ALMOND_000020117-20127 at
`META_ALMOND_000020126
`SAM_ALM_00004398-4400 at
`SAM_ALM_00004400
`
`-vii-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AlmondNet, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001
`IPR2022-01064
`Page 9 of 48
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00896-ADA Document 40 Filed 05/26/22 Page 10 of 48
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiffs AlmondNet, Inc. and Intent IQ, LLC (“AlmondNet”) assert 11 patents and
`
`differing claim sets, from five patent families, against Defendants Roku, Samsung, Meta,
`
`Microsoft, and Amazon, all generally related to “targeted advertising.” Stated simply,
`
`AlmondNet’s patents relate to directing advertising to specific Internet users based on information
`
`known about those people.
`
`AlmondNet casts a similarly wide net when accusing Defendants of infringing its patents,
`
`relying on vague infringement contentions that span disparate products and services and fail to
`
`provide adequate notice of AlmondNet’s actual infringement theories. Such broad allegations,
`
`however, tell us very little about AlmondNet’s theories of infringement. As a result, Defendants
`
`have identified 18 disputed claim terms. In response, AlmondNet continues to cast a wide net by
`
`arguing that at least 13 of those terms should be given their “plain and ordinary” meaning.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`A.
`Technology and Accused Products
`
`All advertising is targeted to a specific audience. For decades, companies have targeted
`
`advertisements to specific audiences—e.g., toy ads during Saturday morning cartoons, car ads
`
`during auto races, and beer and chips ads during the Super Bowl. This targeting reflects the
`
`advertisers’ desire to focus their advertising resources, i.e., dollars, on the customers most likely
`
`to buy their products. Looking back centuries, advertisers chose to spend their money on specific
`
`newspapers in order to target specific audiences. That is, advertisers have always desired to focus
`
`their advertising dollars on the customers most likely to buy their products. And since the dawn
`
`of the Internet, advertisers have been electronically gathering information about users who visit
`
`particular websites in order to make sure their ads reach audiences with certain desired traits.
`
`
`
`1
`
`AlmondNet, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001
`IPR2022-01064
`Page 10 of 48
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00896-ADA Document 40 Filed 05/26/22 Page 11 of 48
`
`
`
`Desirable user traits can be demographic such as age, gender, level of income or education;
`
`psychographic such as personality, opinion, interests, or lifestyle; or behavioral such as purchasing
`
`history or browser history.
`
`The priority dates of the asserted patents range from late-1999 to 2007, well after targeted
`
`advertising on the Internet had become commonplace. In 1994, AT&T paid HotWired $30,000
`
`for the first banner ad. By 1995, the ad agency WebConnect began helping clients identify
`
`websites visited by their ideal customers. DoubleClick, founded in 1996, provided advertisers
`
`with the ability to run targeted campaigns across multiple websites. By the end of the 1990s and
`
`early 2000s, targeted Internet advertising was ubiquitous. Indeed, the Federal Circuit in multiple
`
`decisions has recognized that targeted advertising is not a new idea. E.g., Free Stream Media v.
`
`Alphonso, 996 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
`
`Nevertheless, AlmondNet’s claims in this case all rest on the idea of targeted advertising.
`
`In its Complaint AlmondNet asserts that all of its patents related to “internet/network based
`
`advertising systems and methods.” (Dkt. 1, ¶ 1.) AlmondNet further describes itself as a company
`
`focused on “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.” (Id., ¶ 2.) AlmondNet’s infringement contentions offer little
`
`additional detail, simply accusing Defendants of selling “software, hardware, digital advertising
`
`services and the software and hardware through which those services are provided.” (E.g.,
`
`Microsoft PICS at 2.) For example, AlmondNet asserts that Microsoft infringes the patents-in-suit
`
`by offering various digital advertising services, including but not limited to Microsoft Advertising,
`
`
`
`2
`
`AlmondNet, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001
`IPR2022-01064
`Page 11 of 48
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00896-ADA Document 40 Filed 05/26/22 Page 12 of 48
`
`
`
`Bing Advertising, Bing Ads, and Microsoft Audience Network. 1 For Amazon, AlmondNet
`
`accuses at least 12 advertising products and services that allegedly infringe the patents. For Meta,
`
`AlmondNet accuses four products. AlmondNet accuses Samsung’s Samsung Ads platform of
`
`infringement. AlmondNet also accuses Roku’s OneView and Roku Advertising.
`
`B.
`
`Asserted Patents
`
`AlmondNet’s patents asserted against Defendants can be divided into five patent
`
`families—all related to targeted advertising:
`
`Patent
`
`Roku Claims
`
`8,244,582
`
`
`7,822,639
`
`8,244,586
`
`8,671,139
`
`
`8,200,822
`8,959,146
`9,830,615
`8,677,398
`
`10,715,878
`
`1, 3-6, 9, 10, 11,
`13-16, 19, 20
`
`
`
`
`1, 3, 4, 9, 12-13,
`37-38,
`40-43, 45-51,
`53-54
`
`1-11, 21-24
`
`
`
`
`Amazon, Meta,
`Microsoft Claims
`11, 13-16, 19, 20
`
`
`Samsung
`Claims
`1, 9, 11, 13-16,
`19, 20
`
`24, 29, 31-33, 40, 44
`1, 3-5, 7-9, 11-14,
`16-17, 19-20
`37-38, 40-43, 45-51,
`53-54
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9-12
`36, 37
`
`
`35-51
`
`
`1, 2
`13-18, 20
`
`
`
`Profile
`Matching
`(Group A)
`Advertising
`Saturation
`(Group B)
`
` Targeted
`Advertising
`(Group C)
`
`Viewer
`Targeting
`(Group D)
`Set-Top-Box-
`Based
`Targeted
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1, 3, 4, 16, 22
`1, 16, 18-25
`
`8,566,164
`10,321,198
`
`1 Microsoft does not offer for sale or operate “LinkedIn Ads.” As Microsoft informed AlmondNet
`in a letter dated May 3, 2022, LinkedIn is a separate and distinct entity, and Microsoft does not
`control and is not responsible for LinkedIn’s products.
`
`
`
`3
`
`AlmondNet, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001
`IPR2022-01064
`Page 12 of 48
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00896-ADA Document 40 Filed 05/26/22 Page 13 of 48
`
`
`
`
`
`Advertising
`(Group E)
`
`Patent
`
`Roku Claims
`
`Amazon, Meta,
`Microsoft Claims
`
`Samsung
`Claims
`
`The Profile Matching (Group A) patent describes collecting profile information about a
`
`user, adding that information to an already maintained profile for the user, and then using that
`
`information to target advertising. (’582 patent, 3:62-4:38; ’582 patent, claim 11.)
`
`The Advertising Saturation (Group B) patents describe targeting advertising when a media
`
`property, such as a website, cannot accept any more advertising, by using a third party to place
`
`additional targeted advertising to the user on another media property–i.e., another website.
`
`(’639 patent, 6:34-57, ’639 patent, claim 24; ’586 patent, claim 1.)
`
`The Targeted Advertising (Group C) patents generally describe selecting media properties
`
`on which to display an advertisement in light of user profile information. (’139 patent, 6:12-18;
`
`’139 patent, claim 37; ’822 patent, 6:12-35, 16:11-27; ’615 patent, claim 9.)
`
`The Viewer Targeting (Group D) patents describe directing advertising to a user based on
`
`the existence of multiple computer devices connected to the same local area network. (’398 patent,
`
`7:66-8:11, ’398 patent, claim 36; ’878 patent, 8:13-30, 25:49-26:22.)
`
`Finally, the Set-Top-Box-Based Targeted Advertising (Group E) patents describe directing
`
`online advertisements to a user based on collected profile information related to user behavior with
`
`respect to a television advertisement delivered to a set top box. (’164 patent, 9:14-10:9, 24:43-
`
`25:8; ’198 patent, 9:33-10:30, 25:16-36.)
`
`C.
`
`Procedural History
`
`In August 2021, AlmondNet filed five cases against Roku (21-cv-876), Samsung (21-cv-
`
`891), Meta (21-cv-896), Microsoft (21-cv-897), and Amazon (21-cv-898). Complicating matters,
`
`
`
`4
`
`AlmondNet, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001
`IPR2022-01064
`Page 13 of 48
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00896-ADA Document 40 Filed 05/26/22 Page 14 of 48
`
`
`
`AlmondNet does not assert the same patents or claims against each Defendant. Rather,
`
`AlmondNet asserts a total of 11 patents and 119 claims across all five cases.
`
`In light of the number of cases, patents, asserted claims, and accused products, the parties
`
`jointly proposed, and the Court agreed, to allow the parties to submit up to 20 claim terms for
`
`construction. (E.g., C.A. No. 6:21-cv-00876-ADA, Text Order Granting (May 25, 2022).)
`
`The Court scheduled a claim construction hearing on August 18, 2022. (E.g., C.A. No. 6:21-cv-
`
`00897-ADA, Dkt. 17.)
`
`III. DISPUTED TERMS
`A.
`U.S. Patent No. 7,822,639 and Certain Other Patents
`1.
`“tag”
`
`AlmondNet
`No construction necessary; plain and ordinary
`meaning
`
`
`Defendants (Meta, Amazon, Samsung)
`Identifier
`
`Because AlmondNet refuses to offer an actual construction for the “tag” term, it is unclear
`
`to Defendants—who propose a construction consistent with the term’s plain and ordinary meaning
`
`in the relevant art—where the dispute ultimately lies. The term “tag” appears throughout the
`
`asserted claims of six asserted AlmondNet patents.2 Claim 1(a) of the ’639 patent, for example,
`
`recites the step of “with a computer, automatically creating records of a multitude of visitor
`
`computers that visit a first Internet site using a tag on each of such visitor computers.” (’639
`
`patent, claim 1(a) (emphasis added).) Thus, in the context of the alleged inventions, the term “tag”
`
`simply refers to an “identifier”—but the word may not be readily understandable to jurors without
`
`construction. Therefore, the Court should construe this term.
`
`
`2 ’639 patent, claims 24, 40, 44; ’586 patent, claim 1, 2, 7, 8, 11, 19, 20; ’139 patent, claims 3, 46,
`47, 50, 51, 53; ’146 patent, claims 10, 11, 23, 24; ’615 patent, claim 9; ’198 patent, claims 22, 23;
`’822 patent, claims 37, 43, 44, 47, 49, 50, 51.
`
`
`
`5
`
`AlmondNet, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001
`IPR2022-01064
`Page 14 of 48
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00896-ADA Document 40 Filed 05/26/22 Page 15 of 48
`
`
`
`The patent specifications make clear that a “tag” is an identifier that, for example, indicates
`
`a computer has visited a particular site. (’639 patent, 5:29-32 (“A tag simply identifies that its
`
`bearer was so marked for having been at a specific location, or for having been there for a
`
`predetermined amount of time, or for having conducted some specific action there, etc.”), 5:23-
`
`32; ’586 patent, 5:20-29; ’139 patent, 3:22-26 (describing “tag” as an “identifier used to mark a
`
`person electronically visiting a media property”); ’615 patent, 3:32-36; ’822, 3:22-26; ’198 patent,
`
`10:1-12, 10:22-25 (describing “tag” as including a “profile identifier” and “act[ing] as the online
`
`access identifier”).)
`
`This is consistent with contemporary dictionaries, which confirm the ordinary meaning of
`
`“tag” as information that provides an identification. See Starhome GmbH v. AT&T Mobility, 743
`
`F.3d 849, 856 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (dictionaries can be “useful in claim construction”). (See Ex. 1,
`
`Concise Oxford Dictionary (10th ed. 1999) (“tag”: “a character or set of characters appended to
`
`an item of data in order to identify it”), and Ex. 2, Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary
`
`(Deluxe ed. 1998) (“tag”: “to provide or mark with ... to supply with an identifying marker or
`
`price”) (emphasis added in both).)
`
`Therefore, the Court should construe “tag” to mean “identifier.”
`
`2.
`
`“delivery to visitor computers visiting a second, different Internet site
`of advertisements sold, for a first price, for placement on visitor
`computers that have visited the first Internet site” 3
`“direction of at least one off-site advertisement to visitor computers
`visiting a second Internet site . . . which off-site advertisement concerns
`at least one offering of a third-party advertiser that has paid to display
`said advertisement on visitor computers that have visited the first
`Internet site” 4
`
`AlmondNet
`No construction necessary; plain
`and ordinary meaning
`
`
`3 ’586 patent, claim 11; ’639 patent, claim 24.
`4 ’586 patent, claim 1.
`
`Amazon
`’639 patent, claim 24; ’586 patent, claim 11:
`
`
`
`6
`
`AlmondNet, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001
`IPR2022-01064
`Page 15 of 48
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00896-ADA Document 40 Filed 05/26/22 Page 16 of 48
`
`
`
`AlmondNet
`
`
`Amazon
`delivery to visitor computers currently visiting a
`second, different Internet site of advertisements that
`were sold, for a first price, for placement on visitor
`computers that have visited the first Internet site
`’586 patent, claim 1
`direction of at least one off-site advertisement to visitor
`computers currently visiting a second Internet site . . .
`which off-site advertisement concerns at least one
`offering of a third-party advertiser that has previously
`paid to display said advertisement on visitor computers
`that have visited the first Internet site
`
`The independent claims of the ’639 and ’586 patents are directed to a method of securing
`
`revenue from offsite targeted Internet advertising by delivering or directing an advertisement to
`
`“visitor computers visiting a second Internet site.” The shared specification of the ’639 and ’586
`
`patents describes the claimed invention as “a super-saturation method for information-media”
`
`where media from broadcasters or websites may reach a limit for showing “special messages” or
`
`advertisements. (’639 patent, 5:36-54, 6:1-3.) An advertiser may initially pay to display an
`
`advertisement to visitors on a first site. (Id. at 12:9-14.) However, if the first site is “at a point of
`
`saturation” and has no more room for additional advertisements, the patent purportedly offers a
`
`solution where the advertiser can place the same advertisement “offsite” on a second site while
`
`reaching the same audience of the first site. (Id. at 12:14-20.) Because visitors to the first site are
`
`tagged while visiting the first site, the second site can recognize that a visitor to the second site has
`
`previously visited the first site and show the visitor the same advertisement. (Id. at 12:21-30.)
`
`Thus, the advertiser can pay to display an advertisement to certain visitors currently visiting a
`
`second site if they had previously visited the first site. (Id. at 12:31-36; id. at 12:45-50
`
`(“The advertiser benefits by having an advertisement, albeit at the second site, nevertheless
`
`targeted at visitors to the saturated first broadcaster site.”).)
`
`Claim 24 of the ’639 patent and claim 11 of the ’586 patent require that the advertisements
`
`
`
`7
`
`AlmondNet, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001
`IPR2022-01064
`Page 16 of 48
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00896-ADA Document 40 Filed 05/26/22 Page 17 of 48
`
`
`
`are “sold, for a first price, for placement on visitor computers that have visited the first Internet
`
`site” and claim 1 of the ’586 patent requires that the advertisement “concerns at least one offering
`
`of a third-party advertiser that has paid to display said advertisement on visitor computers that
`
`have visited the first Internet site.” Each independent claim then requires that the first Internet site
`
`receive revenue from having the advertisement that was sold for placement on the first Internet
`
`site but was instead directed or delivered to visitor computers visiting the second Internet site after
`
`visiting the first Internet site. (See ’639 patent, claim 24; ’586 patent, claim 1 (“automatically
`
`causing the first Internet site to receive revenue from the off-site advertisement”).) Accordingly,
`
`the claims describe the first Internet site receiving revenue from the advertisement being shown
`
`“offsite,” or to visitors of a different site.
`
`While the words of the claim terms appear to be straightforward, they leave some
`
`ambiguity as to the timing of two distinct events: (i) the direction/delivery of an advertisement to
`
`visitor computers visiting a second Internet site, and (ii) the transaction (e.g., “advertisements sold
`
`… for placement” or “a third-party advertiser that has paid to display”) related to the display of
`
`the advertisement on “visitor computers that have visited the first Internet site.” Amazon’s
`
`constructions clarify that the transaction must occur prior to the display of the advertisement on
`
`the second Internet site, consistent with both the specification and prosecution history.
`
`In the sole embodiment directed to offsite advertisements, the patents purport to address
`
`the “saturation” of advertisements first sold or offered for a particular first price by displaying the
`
`advertisement later on a different site to visitors that had previously visited the first site. (See ’639
`
`patent, 13:10-23 (selling advertisements for $50 CPM5 in a Personal Finance section of a site, then
`
`when sold out, selling those advertisements for $30 CPM on other sites); id. at 13:24-33 (a
`
`
`5 “CPM” refers to “cost per thousand” and is used to price a certain number of impressions, or
`downloads, for an advertisement. (See ’639 patent, 12:54-64.)
`
`
`
`8
`
`AlmondNet, Inc.
`Exhibit 2001
`IPR2022-01064
`Page 17 of 48
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00896-ADA Document 40 Filed 05/26/22 Page 18 of 48
`
`
`
`technology publisher charging advertisers $60 CPM for advertisements shown on the technology
`
`publisher’s site (the “first site”) and $45 CPM for advertisements shown on other websites (the
`
`“second site”) to users who had visited the first site and were therefore within the publisher’s
`
`regular site audience).) The patentee confirmed during prosecution that, in the claimed invention,
`
`the advertisements are first sold for displaying to visitors on a first Internet site, and then are
`
`displayed to the visitors when they arrive at a second Internet site.
`
`During prosecution of the earlier-filed ’639 patent, to overcome an Examiner’s rejection,
`
`AlmondNet amended then-pending claim 24 (as claim 121) to “clarify the language with respect
`
`to the advertisements.” (Ex. 3, ’639 patent file history, 7/8/2010 Response to Final Office Action
`
`at 12.) The patentee replaced then-recited “selling placements of advertisements on a multitude
`
`of computers that visit the first site” to “refer[] ... to ‘advertisements sold’ for placement on
`
`computers visiting ‘the first site.’” (Id. at 5, 12; see also Ex. 4, ’639 patent file history, 6/25/2009
`
`Claims at 9-10; Ex. 5, ’63