Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 269 Filed 06/14/24 Page 1 of 27
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`ALMONDNET, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-00898-ADA-DTG
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON.COM
`SERVICES LLC, and AMAZON WEB
`SERVICES, INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’
`MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
`PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 50(a)
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 269 Filed 06/14/24 Page 2 of 27
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`
`I.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PROVE INFRINGEMENT .......................................................1
`A.
`Plaintiff failed to prove that Defendants infringed claim 24 of the ’639
`patent. .......................................................................................................................2
`1.
`“computer-causing creation of electronic records of visitor
`computers that visit a first Internet site, using a tag on each of said
`visitor computers” ........................................................................................2
`“computer-facilitating 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
`“computer-causing the proprietor of the second Internet site to
`receive revenue from direction of the advertisements to the visitor
`computers visiting the second Internet site as a consequence of
`computer-determining, using the tags and said electronic records,
`that such visitor computers have visited the first Internet site” ...................4
`“revenue received by the second Internet site is in an amount less
`than the first price for the advertisements” ..................................................5
`“the proprietor of the first Internet site retains at least part of the
`difference between the first price and the revenue received by the
`proprietor of the second Internet site” .........................................................6
`Plaintiff argued that Defendants infringe the ’639 patent through
`the testimony of an unqualified expert. ........................................................6
`Plaintiff failed to prove that Defendants infringed claim 37 of the ’139
`patent. .......................................................................................................................7
`1.
`“for each of a multitude of different electronic visitors to a first
`media property: (a) automatically directing, to a third-party server
`computer controlling advertising space on a second media
`property, indicia of a condition for display of an advertisement” ...............7
`“automatically electronically authorizing the server computer to
`automatically cause display of an advertisement, to the electronic
`visitor when the electronic visitor visits the second media property
`at a time after the electronic visitor visits the first media property,
`subject to determining that the condition has been met” .............................9
`“the act of authorizing in part (b) is based on information
`indicating at least one of a plurality of profile attributes possibly
`applicable to the electronic visitor, which indicated profile attribute
`or attributes was received by the system comprising one
`
`B.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 269 Filed 06/14/24 Page 3 of 27
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(CONTINUED)
`
`or more computers as a result of the electronic visitor visiting the first
`media property” .........................................................................................10
`
`PLAINTIFF PRESENTED NO EVIDENCE OF INFRINGEMENT UNDER
`THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS (“DOE”). ...........................................................11
`
`Page
`
`B.
`
`THE ASSERTED CLAIMS ARE INVALID. ...................................................................12
`A.
`Claim 37 of the ’139 patent fails to claim patentable subject matter under
`35 U.S.C. § 101 as they recite no inventive concept at Alice step 2. ....................12
`The asserted claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. .......................................14
`1.
`DoubleClick in combination with Zeff renders obvious the ’639
`patent. .........................................................................................................15
`Engage renders obvious the ’139 patent. ...................................................16
`The record lacks evidence of secondary considerations sufficient to
`overcome the strong prima facie case of obviousness. ..............................18
`
`2.
`3.
`
`THE EVIDENCE AT TRIAL CANNOT SUPPORT A DAMAGES VERDICT. ...........19
`A.
`Plaintiff’s damages expert failed to apportion damages to the accused
`technology. .............................................................................................................19
`Mr. Bergman identified no reliable evidence supporting his arbitrary
`bargaining split.......................................................................................................20
`
`B.
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 269 Filed 06/14/24 Page 4 of 27
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`573 U.S. 208 (2014) .................................................................................................................12
`Am. Home Assurance Co. v. United Space All.,
`378 F.3d 482 (5th Cir. 2004) .....................................................................................................1
`CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc.,
`955 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................................................................................................12
`Centricut, LLC v. Esab Grp., Inc.,
`390 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..................................................................................................1
`Chamberlain Grp., Inc. v. Techtronic Indus. Co.,
`935 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2019)..........................................................................................13, 14
`ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc.,
`920 F.3d 759 (Fed. Cir. 2019)............................................................................................12, 13
`Energy Transp. Grp., Inc. v. William Demant Holding A/S,
`697 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................1
`Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co.,
`96 F.3d 1398 (Fed. Cir. 1996)....................................................................................................1
`Exmark Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Prod. Grp.,
`LLC, 879 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ......................................................................................19
`Gemalto S.A. v. HTC Corp.,
`754 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................11
`In re TLI Commc’ns Pat. Lit.,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016)..................................................................................................14
`Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n,
`22 F.4th 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ..................................................................................................6
`Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc.,
`580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................19
`MobileMedia Ideas LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`780 F.3d 1159 (Fed. Cir. 2015)..............................................................................................1, 3
`Musacchio v. United States,
`577 U.S. 237 (2016) .................................................................................................................12
`Oiness v. Walgreen Co.,
`88 F.3d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1996)..................................................................................................19
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 269 Filed 06/14/24 Page 5 of 27
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(CONTINUED)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) .............................................................................6, 7
`Sunoco Partners Mktg. & Terminals L.P. v. Powder Springs Logistics, LLC,
`624 F. Supp. 3d 473 (D. Del. 2022) .......................................................................................1, 3
`Tex. Instruments, Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp.,
`90 F.3d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1996)..................................................................................................11
`UCB, Inc. v. Watson Labs. Inc.,
`927 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2019)................................................................................................11
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011)............................................................................................1, 19
`Univ. Secure Reg. LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`10 F.4th 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ................................................................................................14
`VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`87 F.4th 1332 (Fed. Cir.2023) .................................................................................................19
`W. Union Co. v. MoneyGram Payment Sys.,
`626 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................18
`Wavetronix LLC v. EIS Elec. Integrated Sys.,
`573 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................11
`Williams v. Manitowoc Cranes, LLC,
`898 F.3d 607 (5th Cir. 2018) .....................................................................................................1
`Wyers v. Master Lock Co.,
`616 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010)............................................................................................1, 18
`STATUTES
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ........................................................................................................................12, 14
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a) ...................................................................................................................15, 17
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) .........................................................................................................................17
`35 U.S.C.§ 102(g) ....................................................................................................................15, 17
`35 U.S.C. § 103 ..............................................................................................................................14
`35 U.S.C. § 103(a) .........................................................................................................................14
`RULES
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) ........................................................................................................................1
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 269 Filed 06/14/24 Page 6 of 27
`
`
`
`Defendants move under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a) for judgment as a matter of law.1
`
`I.
`
`PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PROVE INFRINGEMENT
`
`It was Plaintiff’s burden at trial to provide substantial evidence that the Amazon Demand
`
`Side Platform and Sponsored Display (“accused products”) practice every limitation of the
`
`asserted patents. Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292, 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
`
`(patentee “bears the burden of proof to show the presence of every element”; see also Engel Indus.,
`
`Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 96 F.3d 1398, 1405 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (literal infringement requires claim
`
`“read[ing] on the accused device exactly”). Plaintiff failed to do so.
`
`If the accused technology is “beyond the comprehension of laypersons,” the patentee must
`
`provide opinion testimony from an expert. Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1240 n.5
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Centricut, LLC v. Esab Grp., Inc., 390 F.3d 1361, 1369-70 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2004)). The testimony must explain how the evidence about the accused technology shows
`
`infringement of each limitation. See Energy Transp. Grp., Inc. v. William Demant Holding A/S,
`
`697 F.3d 1342, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The failure to offer such testimony as to any limitation
`
`warrants JMOL of noninfringement. Sunoco Partners Mktg. & Terminals L.P. v. Powder Springs
`
`Logistics, LLC, 624 F. Supp. 3d 473, 479 (D. Del. 2022) (citing MobileMedia Ideas LLC v. Apple
`
`Inc., 780 F.3d 1159, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
`
`The operation of the accused products was undisputed. They employ a process called real-
`
`time bidding (“RTB”). In RTB, a visitor to a non-Amazon site that has an available ad placement
`
`opportunity causes a bid request to be generated for that opportunity and sent to a third-party
`
`
`1 Judgment as a matter of law is proper “[i]f a party has been fully heard on an issue during a
`jury trial and the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary
`basis to find for the party on that issue.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a); Williams v. Manitowoc Cranes,
`LLC, 898 F.3d 607, 614 (5th Cir. 2018). The Court should grant Defendants’ motion unless there
`is “substantial evidence” in support of each essential element of Plaintiff’s claims. See Am. Home
`Assurance Co. v. United Space All., 378 F.3d 482, 487 (5th Cir. 2004).
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 269 Filed 06/14/24 Page 7 of 27
`
`
`
`publisher ad server (e.g., Google). The third-party publisher ad server sends the request to third-
`
`party ad exchanges, which then forwards it to many Demand Side Platforms (“DSPs”), including
`
`Amazon’s accused DSP.2 The bid request is received by the Amazon Ad Exchange, which collects
`
`information to resolve the user’s identity and retrieves segment information about the user, adds
`
`the segment info to the bid request and forwards an “augmented” bid request to a bidder called
`
`Cornerstone within Amazon’s DSP. Cornerstone assesses the request and selects the best bid(s)
`
`from various advertisers according to its own algorithms. Amazon Ad Exchange forwards the
`
`selected bids back to the third-party ad exchange, which runs an auction based on those bids
`
`received by Amazon Ad Exchange and other DSPs. The third-party publisher’s ad server may run
`
`another auction based on bids received from the third-party ad exchange, before it then makes a
`
`final determination of which bid wins the ad opportunity. The advertiser that placed the winning
`
`bid gets to display its ad on the original non-Amazon site. The non-Amazon site receives the full
`
`bid amount as revenue, with Amazon retaining none of that amount.
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiff failed to prove that Defendants infringed claim 24 of the ’639 patent.
`1.
`
`“computer-causing creation of electronic records of visitor computers that
`visit a first Internet site, using a tag on each of said visitor computers”
`
`Claim 24 of the ’639 patent requires “computer-causing creation of electronic records of
`
`visitor computers that visit a first Internet site.” The accused products do not create records of
`
`“visitor computers” as claimed. It was undisputed that Amazon creates “segment information”
`
`based on a user’s identity, not based on specific visitor computers. Indeed, segment information
`
`can include a user’s data across several different devices—e.g., streaming history on a tablet via
`
`Prime Video, shopping history on Amazon’s shopping app on a mobile device, or shopping history
`
`
`2 The accused product Sponsored Display also operates in the same manner for purposes of
`the infringement analysis.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 269 Filed 06/14/24 Page 8 of 27
`
`
`
`on Amazon’s website on a computer. (Id.; id. at 545:3-17 (Knapp) (audience segments in the
`
`accused system are assigned to users based off information on the users collected across multiple
`
`Amazon services); id. at 591:23-17 (Richter) (describing inputs from multiple services and devices
`
`for assigning segments to users).) Dr. Koskinen argued that the accused RTB process satisfied
`
`this limitation because Amazon makes “an electronic record of how [] tags correlate back to who
`
`Bob is” and “relates ad user IDs to segment numbers” (Trial Tr. at 238:4-20 (Koskinen).) Yet,
`
`this does not show the limitation is met, and Dr. Koskinen conceded that the accused products
`
`collect information on users—not about visitor computers or other devices. (Trial Tr. at 204:25-
`
`220 (Koskinen) (stating that when hypothetical user “Bob” browses Amazon websites using
`
`multiple devices, Amazon uses identifiers to collect information on Bob and his interests across
`
`the multiple devices).)
`
`2.
`
`“computer-facilitating 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”
`
`Claim 24 requires “computer-facilitating delivery” of advertisements to “visitor computers
`
`visiting” a second site, and also requires that the delivered advertisements were “sold, for a first
`
`price” on visitor computers. Plaintiff failed to show that Amazon facilitates delivery of ads on
`
`visitor computers in the claimed manner, and that the ads delivered in the accused products are
`
`“sold” at a first price.
`
`First, applying this limitation to the accused product would require that an Amazon
`
`computer decide which ads to deliver to visitor computers (“computer-facilitating delivery”). The
`
`undisputed record showed that the publisher’s ad server—not Amazon’s accused products—makes
`
`the decision about which bid to accept and which ad to display. (Trial Tr. at 540:8-13 (Knapp);
`
`id. at 548:18-20.) Amazon submits multiple bids, so it submits potential candidates—not the
`
`ultimate winner of the final auction run by a publisher’s ad server. (Trial Tr. at 540:1-13 (Knapp);
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 269 Filed 06/14/24 Page 9 of 27
`
`
`
`606:12-14 (Richter) (“Q. And do you submit more than one bid back to the auctioneer? A. We do.
`
`. . by submitting multiple bids whenever we can, we give ourselves multiple chances to win in case
`
`one of them is discarded because it's not a good fit in the [publisher’s] eyes.”); D0772.)
`
`Specifically, Amazon submits candidate bids into an auction facilitated by a third-party ad server.
`
`At the time Amazon’s system acts, that auction has not even occurred. Amazon therefore neither
`
`chooses which ads to display to visitor computers nor delivers those ads to the visitor computers.
`
`Second, this limitation requires delivering ads that are sold (past tense) at a first price for
`
`placement on visitor computers (plural) that have visited the first site. By definition the RTB
`
`employed by the accused products involves determining a winning price live at auction only after
`
`a user goes to a site. (Tr. Tr. at 536:2-540:13 (Knapp).) There is no ad already selected when the
`
`user arrives at the second site, let alone one that has sold for an established price at the first site.
`
`Only when the user arrives is an auction conducted and a sale price determined. AlmondNet
`
`adduced no contrary evidence. Dr. Koskinen did not dispute that the accused products do not
`
`involve multiple computers visiting the same second site receiving a previously-sold
`
`advertisement, as Claim 24 requires. (Trial Tr. at 256:3-257:8 (Koskinen).) Evidence at trial
`
`further showed that advertisements are individualized to the user. (Id. at 537:16-538:2 (Knapp)
`
`(explaining that relevant ads are shown depending on individual characteristics.); 581:6-19
`
`(explaining that RTB enabled “ads to be shown to different users at different prices”).
`
`3.
`
`“computer-causing the proprietor of the second Internet site to receive
`revenue from direction of the advertisements to the visitor computers
`visiting the second Internet site as a consequence of computer-determining,
`using the tags and said electronic records, that such visitor computers have
`visited the first Internet site”
`
`Claim 24 requires “computer-causing the proprietor of the second Internet site to receive
`
`revenue” from direction of the ads to the visitor computers visiting the second site “as a
`
`consequence of computer-determining, using the tags and said electronic records, that such
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 269 Filed 06/14/24 Page 10 of 27
`
`
`
`visitor computers have visited the first Internet site.” No evidence supports an infringement
`
`finding on this limitation for two reasons.
`
`First, the limitation requires that the accused products cause payment to the second site
`
`for publishing ads based on audience segments that may have been used to target the ad by the
`
`advertiser (“electronic records”). Dr. Koskinen admitted that when Amazon pays for publishing
`
`ads on a non-Amazon site, the payment process does not involve tags. (Trial Tr. at 349:10-15
`
`(Koskinen).) Ultimately the publisher receives revenue based on the price of the winning bid at
`
`the real-time auction, and not how the winning bid was selected. (Id. at 702:16-703:5 (Houh).)
`
`Second, the limitation requires that the accused products cause payment to the second site
`
`due to the visitor computers on the second site having visited the first site. It is undisputed that
`
`accused products do not require that when Amazon pays for publishing ads on a non-Amazon
`
`site, that the visitor computer that visited the Amazon site be the same computer on which the
`
`user views the ad on the non-Amazon site. (Trial Tr. at 350:20-352:1 (Koskinen); id. at 703:6-12
`
`(Houh).)
`
`4.
`
`“revenue received by the second Internet site is in an amount less than the
`first price for the advertisements”
`
`Claim 24 requires “revenue received by the second Internet site.” No evidence supports
`
`an infringement finding on this limitation for two reasons. First, Dr. Koskinen admitted that the
`
`second internet site receives the full bid amount in Amazon’s system and that Amazon does not
`
`retain any revenue. (Trial Tr. at 351:21-352:1 (Koskinen); see id. at 550:16-24 (Knapp) (stating
`
`that Amazon takes no cut from what the advertiser bid and makes money with the DSP by charging
`
`service fees for its technology).) Second, the publisher’s revenue is based on the winning bid price
`
`determined at a real-time auction, not any user’s prior visit to a first Internet site. (Trial Tr. at
`
`550:9-20 (Knapp).) Dr. Koskinen’s theory for why the accused products met this limitation was
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 269 Filed 06/14/24 Page 11 of 27
`
`
`
`that according to a SEC Form 10-K for Amazon, Amazon states that it provides advertising
`
`services to others. (Trial Tr. at 252:7-253:18 (Koskinen); PTX-148 at 3.) No reasonable jury
`
`could find infringement based on this nonsequitur. That Amazon stated in its 10-K that it provides
`
`advertising services does not indicate that the accused products cause Amazon to retain revenue
`
`in the specific context of individual real-time bidding transactions, which it does not do.
`
`5.
`
`“the proprietor of the first Internet site retains at least part of the difference
`between the first price and the revenue received by the proprietor of the
`second Internet site”
`
`Claim 24 requires that “the proprietor of the first Internet site retains at least part of the
`
`difference between the first price and the revenue received by the proprietor of the second Internet
`
`site.” Dr. Koskinen admitted that in Amazon’s RTB, publishers receive the full bid amount, which
`
`is the full price of the advertisement. (Trial Tr. at 351:21-352:1 (Koskinen); see id. at 550:16-24
`
`(Knapp).) Because the publisher’s revenue is 100% of the bid amount, there is no “amount less
`
`than the first price for the advertisements” for Amazon to retain—the publisher receives it all. (Id.)
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff argued that Defendants infringe the ’639 patent through the
`testimony of an unqualified expert.
`
` “[T]o be qualified to offer expert testimony on issues from the vantage point of an
`
`ordinarily skilled artisan in a patent case, an expert must at a minimum possess ordinary skill in
`
`the art.” Kyocera Senco Indus. Tools Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 22 F.4th 1369, 1377 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2022). This rule applies to all experts in a patent case. See id. As a preliminary matter, an
`
`infringement expert before conducting an infringement analysis must “inquir[e] into how a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art understands a claim term.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). That “ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning
`
`that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 269 Filed 06/14/24 Page 12 of 27
`
`
`
`invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application.” (Id.; Trial Tr. at 357:3-11
`
`(Koskinen).)
`
`Plaintiff’s infringement expert Dr. Koskinen did not possess ordinary skill in the art in the
`
`year 2000 when the application for the ’639 patent was filed. (Trial Tr. at 357:12-358:2 (Koskinen)
`
`(“Q. So you were not a person of ordinary skill in the art of online advertising in the year 2000,
`
`were you? A. At that time, no.”).) Instead, he was still earning his Bachelor’s degree in Computer
`
`Science at the time. (Id.) Moreover, he had no online advertising experience at that time. (Id. at
`
`358:7-6 (“Q. Okay. And in fact, the first experience you got with online advertising came years
`
`later when you got a job at Amazon, right? A. Yes.”).) Because Dr. Koskinen was not a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the ‘639 patent, a reasonable jury could not rely on Dr.
`
`Koskinen’s application of the claims to the accused products to find infringement of the ’639
`
`patent. Thus, the Court should grant a judgment as a matter of law of no infringement in favor of
`
`Amazon.
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiff failed to prove that Defendants infringed claim 37 of the ’139 patent.
`1.
`
`“for each of a multitude of different electronic visitors to a first media
`property: (a) automatically directing, to a third-party server computer
`controlling advertising space on a second media property, indicia of a
`condition for display of an advertisement”
`
`Claim 37 requires that “for each of a multitude” of visitors to a “first media property,” an
`
`“indicia of a condition for display of an advertisement” is “automatically direct[ed]” to a “third-
`
`party server computer controlling advertising space on a second media property.” Plaintiff failed
`
`to adduce evidence from which the jury could find that the accused products meet this limitation
`
`for several reasons.
`
`First, Dr. Koskinen failed to adduce evidence that in the accused products, a visit to an
`
`Amazon site (first media property) causes “automatically directing” a bid to a third-party server
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 269 Filed 06/14/24 Page 13 of 27
`
`
`
`that controls ad space so that an ad may be displayed on a different, non-Amazon site (second
`
`media property). Dr. Koskinen stated that in the accused products, a visit to a non-Amazon website
`
`automatically triggers the submission of an Amazon bid to a third-party server that controls ad
`
`space on a non-Amazon-owned website. (Trial Tr. at 183:4-25; 184:19-185:2; 264:9-13
`
`(Koskinen).) In Amazon’s products, Amazon only submits a bid after a specific user arrives at a
`
`second, independent non-Amazon website containing an ad opportunity, causing a bid request to
`
`be sent to Amazon and to display an ad on that same second site. (Id; id. at 308:18-310:7
`
`(Koskinen); id. at 715:18-716:2 (Houh).)
`
`Second, Plaintiff failed to show that the bid amount in the bid response satisfies the “indicia
`
`of a condition” limitation. A bid itself is simply an offer—the amount an advertiser is willing to
`
`pay to place an advertisement. (Trial Tr. at 720:21-721:2 (Houh)). It is a benefit to the publisher
`
`and there is no condition imposed—the publisher can choose to display the winning ad and get
`
`paid. (Trial Tr. at 723:22-24 (Houh); id. at 702:25-703:12.) Dr. Koskinen stated that a bid amount
`
`is simply “the amount that the publisher is willing to accept as the price that the advertiser will
`
`pay.” (Trial Tr. at 265:1-3 (Koskinen)). Dr. Koskinen did not dispute that there is no criteria
`
`against which the bid amount may be compared to determine if the “condition” for display is met—
`
`the publisher can choose to display the ad associated with the winning bid and get paid. (Trial Tr.
`
`at 245:25-246:12 (Koskinen); id. at 702:25-703:12 (Houh).)
`
`Third, Dr. Koskinen did not present any theory where a bid response corresponded to a
`
`multitude of different electronic visitors to a first-media property directed to the same third-party
`
`ad server. Instead, Dr. Koskinen denied that the claim even requires that “automatically directing”
`
`occurs a multitude of different electronic visitors to a first media property. Failing to apply the
`
`words of the claim, he asserted that the limitation is satisfied by the mere fact that Amazon owned-
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 269 Filed 06/14/24 Page 14 of 27
`
`
`
`and-operated properties have a multitude of visitors (Trial Tr. at 304:10-16; 271:20-272:11
`
`(Koskinen). There is no dispute that Amazon sends bids in response to a single bid request for an
`
`individual user and not for a group of users. Thus, the bids submitted by Amazon are not “for each
`
`of a multitude of different electronic visitors” that arrive at the same publisher website. (Trial Tr.
`
`at 715:12-716:2 (Houh); Trial Tr. at 46:11-47:2; id. at 196:12-199:2 (Koskinen).).
`
`Finally, Dr. Koskinen stated that Amazon’s submission of a bid response constitutes
`
`“automatically directing” what ads to display but there is no supporting evidence that shows that
`
`Amazon can decide which ad ultimately displays on a publisher website. (Trial Tr. at 264:9-13
`
`(Koskinen).) Both parties do not dispute that for the accused products, the publisher’s ad server—
`
`not Amazon—decides what ads to display. (Trial Tr. at 309:2-9 (Koskinen); id. at 721:3-7
`
`(Houh).)
`
`2.
`
`to
`the server computer
`“automatically electronically authorizing
`automatically cause display of an advertisement, to the electronic visitor
`when the electronic visitor visits the second media property at a time after
`the electronic visitor visits the first media property, subject to determining
`that the condition has been met”
`
`Claim 37 requires “caus[ing] display of an advertisement . . . to the electronic visitor when
`
`the electronic visitor visits the second media property at a time after the electronic visitor visits the
`
`first media property.”
`
`Under the plain language of the claim, a condition must be defined before there can be an
`
`authorization based on that condition. Evidence at trial showed that the accused products operate
`
`in real time, Amazon does not submit bids for any future visit by the electronic visitor and does
`
`not pre-determine which ad will be displayed to a particular electronic visitor. (Trial Tr. at 548:25-
`
`549:3 (Knapp); 580:18-581:19 (Richter).). Dr. Koskinen argued that a bid in the accused products
`
`performs both steps simultaneously. (Trial Tr. at 267:24-268:12 (Koskinen).) But no reasonable
`
`jury could find that this testimony satisfies the claim language. The claim requires authorizing the
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00898-ADA Document 269 Filed 06/14/24 Page 15 of 27
`
`
`
`showing of an ad before the user visits the publisher’s website where they will view the ad. (e.g.,
`
`Trial Tr. at 119:22-120:7 (Shkedi) (“before the user goes to Website 2, you have to know how
`
`much the advertiser will pay”); 321:23-322:15 (Koskinen); 717:4-18 (Houh).) In addition, Dr.
`
`Koskinen did not “testify or show any source code” about how the third party “ad publisher . . .
`
`selects the winner.” (Trial Tr. at 779:20-781:6.)
`
`3.
`
`“the act of authorizing in part (b) is based on information indicating at least
`one of a plurality of profile attributes possibly applicable to the electronic
`visitor, which indicated profile attribute or attributes was received by the
`sys