AlmondNet, Inc. et al. v. Microsoft, Co. et al.
Infringement action filed 18 Nov 2022 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas and closed 10 Apr 2023, with 5 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case consolidated.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US8959146B2US7979307B2US10715878B2US7861260B2US8775249B2
- Case no.
- 6:22-cv-01206
- Verdict cause
- Infringement action
- Court
- W.D. Tex.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Texas
- Chief judge
- Alan D Albright
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 18 Nov 2022 – 10 Apr 2023
- Duration
- 143 days
- Basis of termination
- Case Consolidated
- Products & marks
- Media properties selection method and system based on expected profit from profile-based ad delivery · Method and stored program for accumulating descriptive profile data along with source information for use in targeting third-party advertisements · Method, computer system, and stored program for accumulating descriptive profile data along with source information for use in targeting third-party advertisements · Targeted television advertisements based on online behavior
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Media properties selection method and system based on expected profit from profile-based ad delivery
An automatic system facilitates selection of media properties on which to display an advertisement, responsive to a profile collected on a first media property, where a behavioral-targeting company calculates expected profit for an ad correlated with the profile and arranges for the visitor to be tagged with a tag readable by the selected media property. The profit can be calculated by deducting, from the revenues that are expected to be generated from an ad delivered based on the collected profile, at least the price of ad space at a media property where the BT company might like to deliver ads to the profiled visitor. When the calculated profit is positive (i.e., not a loss), the BT company arranges for the visitor to be tagged with a tag readable by the selected media property through which the BT company expects to profit.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 17 Feb 2015
- Earliest priority
- 16 Jun 2006
- Est. expiry
- 14 Jun 2027
- Validity challenges
- 3 on recordIPR2022-01480 · Patentability · filed by Meta Platforms, Inc.CBM2017-00056 · Other · filed by Yahoo! Inc.IPR2025-01163 · Patentability · filed by Viant Technology LLC
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- SHKEDI, ROY
- Classification
- G06F15/16G06Q30/02
- Prosecution counsel
- LOUIS J. HOFFMAN, P.C.
- Examiner
- KATSIKIS, KOSTAS
Method and stored program for accumulating descriptive profile data along with source information for use in targeting third-party advertisements
A descriptive-profile mercantile method, for use at a juncture in a data-communications topology having associated therewith a maintained databank of partial profiles, is disclosed. The method includes the steps of: from a user, receiving a transaction having therein a first partial profile; using the first partial profile, searching a databank having a plurality of second partial profiles, wherein is included in said databank at least one null profile so that said searching will always yield at least one proximate second partial profile to the first partial profile; and between the user and the databank, contracting: (I) for the databank to own or represent a right to a first mutually agreed portion of the first partial profile, and substantially thereafter said databank incorporating the agreed portion of the first profile into at least one second partial profile; or (II) for the user to own or represent a right to a second mutually agreed portion of at least one said proximate second partial profile, and substantially thereafter the databank transmitting to the user the second mutually agreed portion of the second profile. The present invention operates best on a brokerage representation model; and thereby provides a means for making viable the economic commerce in information attributes.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 12 Jul 2011
- Earliest priority
- 13 Dec 1999
- Est. expiry
- 6 Jun 2021
- Validity challenges
- 4 on recordIPR2024-00414 · Patentability · filed by FREEWHEEL MEDIA, INC.CBM2017-00049 · Other · filed by Yahoo! Inc.IPR2024-00415 · Patentability · filed by FREEWHEEL MEDIA, INC.IPR2024-00413 · Patentability · filed by FREEWHEEL MEDIA, INC.
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- SHKEDI, ROY
- Classification
- G06Q30/00G06Q10/00G07G1/14
- Prosecution counsel
- LOUIS J. HOFFMAN, P.C.
- Examiner
- OUELLETE, JONATHAN
Also asserted in this case
3 moreThe docket lists 5 asserted patents. Full bibliographic detail, drawings and prosecution history for the remaining 3 asserted patents are one query away in Eureka.
- US10715878B2Targeted television advertisements based on online behavior
- US7861260B2Targeted television advertisements based on online behavior
- US8775249B2Method, computer system, and stored program for accumulating descriptive profile data along with source information for use in targeting third-party advertisements
Parties of record
AlmondNet, Inc.
- Core tech
- G06F15/16G06Q30/02G06Q30/00G06Q10/00
- Counsel
- Adam Hoffman · Amy Hayden · Benjamin T. Wang · Daniel B. Kolko · James Milkey · James S. Tsuei · Jason M. Wietholter · Jonathan Ma · Marc A. Fenster · Reza Mirzaie
- Firm
- Russ August & Kabat LLP
- Also named
- Intent IQ, LLC
Microsoft, Co.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Arthur Gollwitzer · Blake T. Dietrich · Leisa Talbert Peschel · Victoria C. Emery · William Thomas Nilsson
- Firm
- Jackson Walker LLP
- Also named
- Xandr, Inc.
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Adam Hoffman | AlmondNet, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Amy Hayden | AlmondNet, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Benjamin T. Wang | AlmondNet, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Daniel B. Kolko | AlmondNet, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| James Milkey | AlmondNet, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| James S. Tsuei | AlmondNet, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Jason M. Wietholter | AlmondNet, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Jonathan Ma | AlmondNet, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Marc A. Fenster | AlmondNet, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Reza Mirzaie | AlmondNet, Inc. | Plaintiff |
| Arthur Gollwitzer | Microsoft, Co. | Defendant |
| Blake T. Dietrich | Microsoft, Co. | Defendant |
| Leisa Talbert Peschel | Microsoft, Co. | Defendant |
| Victoria C. Emery | Microsoft, Co. | Defendant |
| William Thomas Nilsson | Microsoft, Co. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“The Court hereby ORDERS that AlmondNet, Inc. and Intent IQ, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 6:21-cv-00897-ADA (“AlmondNet I”) is consolidated with AlmondNet, Inc. and Intent IQ, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. and Xandr, Inc., 6:22-cv-01206-ADA (“AlmondNet II”). It is therefore ORDERED that Case No. 6:22-cv-01206-ADA is consolidated into Case No. 6:21-cv-00897-ADA for all purposes, including trial. This Order shall be entered on the docket for both actions. Case No. 6:21-cv-00897-ADA shall be designated as the “Lead Case.” All counsel of record in Case No. 6:21-cv-00897-ADA shall file appropriate notices of appearance in Case No. 6:22-cv-01206- Case 6:22-cv-01206-ADA Document 27 Filed 04/10/23 Page 1 of 6 ADA if they have not already done so. All counsel of record in Case No. 6:22-cv-01206-ADA shall hereby be deemed to receive service of all future filings in Case No. 6:21-cv-00897-ADA. The parties shall make all future filings in the docket of Lead Case No. 6:21-cv-00897-ADA. The Court further ORDERS that AlmondNet has leave to amend its complaint in AlmondNet I to add allegations of infringement of Xandr., Inc. on the patents presently asserted in AlmondNet I. The Court further ORDERS that AlmondNet’s withdrawal of the patents previously asserted in AlmondNet I and AlmondNet II pursuant to the Parties’ agreement to consolidate AlmondNet I and AlmondNet II will operate as a withdrawal of those infringement allegations with prejudice to AlmondNet reasserting those patents against Microsoft or Xandr in AlmondNet I, AlmondNet II, or future litigation.”
Case 6:22-cv-01206 · W.D. Tex. · closed 10 April 2023
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 6:22-cv-01206?
6:22-cv-01206 is a patent infringement action brought by AlmondNet, Inc. against Microsoft, Co., filed on 18 Nov 2022 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case closed on 10 April 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 6:22-cv-01206?
US8959146B2 (“Media properties selection method and system based on expected profit from profile-based ad delivery”), assigned to ALMONDNET, INC., currently active; US7979307B2 (“Method and stored program for accumulating descriptive profile data along with source information for use in targeting third-party advertisements”), assigned to ALMONDNET, INC., currently inactive; US10715878B2 (“Targeted television advertisements based on online behavior”), assigned to INTENT IQ, LLC; US7861260B2 (“Targeted television advertisements based on online behavior”), assigned to INTENT IQ, LLC; US8775249B2 (“Method, computer system, and stored program for accumulating descriptive profile data along with source information for use in targeting third-party advertisements”), assigned to ALMONDNET, INC.. The record also lists Media properties selection method and system based on expected profit from profile-based ad delivery, Method and stored program for accumulating descriptive profile data along with source information for use in targeting third-party advertisements, Method, computer system, and stored program for accumulating descriptive profile data along with source information for use in targeting third-party advertisements and Targeted television advertisements based on online behavior.
How was case 6:22-cv-01206 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case consolidated. The termination text reads: “The Court hereby ORDERS that AlmondNet, Inc. and Intent IQ, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 6:21-cv-00897-ADA (“AlmondNet I”) is consolidated with AlmondNet, Inc. and Intent IQ, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. and Xandr, Inc., 6:22-cv-01206-ADA (“AlmondNet II”). It is therefore ORDERED that Case No. 6:22-cv-01206-ADA is consolidated into Case No. 6:21-cv-00897-ADA for all purposes, including trial. This Order shall be entered on the docket for both actions. Case No. 6:21-cv-00897-ADA shall be designated as the “Lead Case.” All counsel of record in Case No. 6:21-cv-00897-ADA shall file appropriate notices of a
What does dismissal with prejudice mean?
A dismissal with prejudice permanently ends the claims that were filed, so the same claims cannot be brought again against that defendant. It is the usual form when the parties have settled.
How long did case 6:22-cv-01206 take?
143 calendar days, from filing on 18 Nov 2022 to closure on 10 April 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 6:22-cv-01206?
Chief Judge Alan D Albright presided. Adam Hoffman, Amy Hayden, Benjamin T. Wang, Daniel B. Kolko, James Milkey, James S. Tsuei, Jason M. Wietholter, Jonathan Ma, Marc A. Fenster and Reza Mirzaie are recorded as counsel for plaintiff AlmondNet. Arthur Gollwitzer, Blake T. Dietrich, Leisa Talbert Peschel, Victoria C. Emery and William Thomas Nilsson appear for defendant Microsoft.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 6:22-cv-01206 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.