AlmondNet Inc v. Applovin Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: AlmondNet, Inc. (Delaware) and Intent IQ, LLC (Delaware)
  • Defendant: AppLovin Corporation (Delaware), Wurl, LLC (Delaware), and Adjust Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Farnan LLP
• Case Identification: 1:25-cv-01473, D. Del., 04/28/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because all Defendants are incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' digital advertising and analytics platforms infringe three patents related to profile-based ad selection, cross-device ad targeting, and cross-device ad effectiveness measurement.
• Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the digital advertising technology ("ad-tech") sector, specifically methods for identifying and targeting users across different devices (e.g., mobile phones, computers, connected TVs) to deliver more relevant advertising.
• Key Procedural History: Plaintiffs filed an Original Complaint on December 5, 2025. This First Amended Complaint follows. The complaint notes that Defendant AppLovin acquired co-defendant Adjust, Inc. in April 2021 and co-defendant Wurl, LLC in April 2022, framing the accused technologies as integrated platforms developed jointly post-acquisition.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2006-06-16	'146 Patent Priority Date
2007-04-17	'398 Patent Priority Date
2011-08-03	'962 Patent Priority Date
2014-03-18	U.S. Patent No. 8,677,398 Issues
2015-02-17	U.S. Patent No. 8,959,146 Issues
2021-04-22	AppLovin announces acquisition of Adjust, Inc.
2022-04-04	AppLovin completes acquisition of Wurl, LLC
2024-04-02	U.S. Patent No. 11,949,962 Issues
2025-12-05	Original Complaint Filed
2026-04-28	First Amended Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 8,959,146 - "media properties selection method and system based on expected profit from profile-based ad delivery"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes an inefficiency in online behavioral advertising where a company may buy ad space on a second website to target a visitor from a first website, but the cost of that ad space may exceed the revenue generated, resulting in a loss '146 Patent, col. 5:1-10 The process of finding and pricing appropriate ad space across different media properties is described as inefficient '146 Patent, col. 5:46-49
• The Patented Solution: The invention is an automated system that calculates the "anticipated profit" before deciding where to place an ad. It selects only those media properties (e.g., other websites or ad networks) where the expected revenue from a profile-based ad is greater than the cost of the ad space, thereby ensuring a positive profit '146 Patent, abstract '146 Patent, col. 6:8-23 If a profitable placement is identified, the system arranges for the user to be "tagged" (e.g., with a cookie) so the targeted ad can be delivered on that profitable second property '146 Patent, col. 6:15-23
• Technical Importance: This method provides a systematic, profit-driven approach to media buying in real-time advertising, moving beyond simple audience matching to include economic viability as a core selection criterion.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent method claim 1 Compl. ¶21
• Essential Elements of Claim 1:
  • Directing, to a third-party server controlling ad space on a second media property, "indicia of a condition" for displaying an advertisement to a visitor from a first media property.
  • The directing is based on the visitor having a "profile attribute."
  • The advertisement is correlated with that profile attribute.
  • The "condition" for display is that the price charged by the second media property is less than a "profile-attribute-dependent price" that an advertiser is willing to pay.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 8,677,398 - "systems and methods for taking action with respect to one network-connected device based on activity on another device connected to the same network"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the difficulty of targeting advertisements across different media (e.g., online vs. television) because different devices are used to access each. It notes that linking these devices often requires using personally identifiable information (PII), which creates significant privacy concerns '398 Patent, col. 7:15-34
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes electronically associating an online access device (e.g., a computer) with a television set-top box (STB) by recognizing that both are connected to the "same network," for example by sharing a common IP address '398 Patent, abstract '398 Patent, col. 13:1-14 Once this non-PII-based association is made, an action can be taken on one device (e.g., delivering a targeted ad to the STB) based on user activity observed on the other device (e.g., web browsing history on the computer) '398 Patent, abstract
• Technical Importance: This technology provides a method for privacy-centric cross-device targeting by using network-level data (like a shared IP address) as a proxy for a shared user or household, avoiding the need to handle sensitive PII.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent method claim 13 Compl. ¶34
• Essential Elements of Claim 13:
  • Receiving an electronic identifier of a first device.
  • Automatically generating and storing indicia of an association between the first device and a second device based on recognizing that both were connected, independently, to a "common local area network."
  • The computer system performing this association is connected to the local area network through the internet but is not in the local area network.
  • Based on this association, automatically sending an electronic transmission that causes an action to be taken with respect to the second device, based on profile data from the first device.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

Multi-Patent Capsule

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,949,962, "method and computer system using proxy IP addresses and PII in measuring ad effectiveness across devices," issued April 2, 2024.
• Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a method to measure ad effectiveness across devices without a direct network link between them. It involves associating a primary online device (OD1) with a set-top box (STB) and using the location of OD1 as a "proxy STB location." Other secondary online devices (OD2s) observed near this proxy location are then also associated with the STB. This device cluster allows for measuring the effect of an ad shown on the STB by tracking subsequent user behavior on the associated online devices (OD1, OD2s) '962 Patent, abstract
• Asserted Claims: Independent method claim 1 Compl. ¶44
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendants' Axon Platform, AMP, and related components infringe by using proxy IP addresses and Personally Identifiable Information (PII) to measure ad effectiveness across devices Compl. ¶43

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities include the Axon Platform, Wurl CTV platform, Adjust, and related components such as Axon Advertising, MAX, MAX Mediation, and the Axon AI engine Compl. ¶11

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint, citing Defendants' SEC filings, describes the accused products as a suite of advertising solutions Compl. ¶12
• Axon Advertising is described as a platform for automating and optimizing user acquisition, where ad spend is optimized to achieve return-on-investment targets Compl. ¶14
• MAX is a tool used by advertisers to optimize purchases of in-app advertising inventory, manage profitability, and understand the long-term value of users. It is noted to be moving toward in-app real-time bidding Compl. ¶15
• Adjust is a measurement and analytics platform used to understand user journeys, attribution, and fraud prevention Compl. ¶16
• Wurl is a connected TV (CTV) platform used to distribute streaming video and manage advertising for content companies and streamers Compl. ¶17
• Collectively, these platforms are alleged to provide an end-to-end ecosystem for mobile and CTV advertising, from user acquisition and targeting to measurement and monetization, which Plaintiffs allege leverages the patented technologies.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference external claim chart exhibits which were not provided with the complaint. The following analysis reconstructs the core infringement allegations based on the patent claims and the narrative descriptions of the accused instrumentalities within the complaint.

'146 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
(a) automatically with the computer system directing, to a third-party server computer controlling advertising space on a second media property, indicia of a condition...for display of an advertisement...	Defendants' platforms (e.g., MAX) engage in real-time bidding, sending bid requests (the "condition") to demand-side platforms (DSPs), which are third-party servers controlling ad space.	¶15; ¶23	col. 7:51-61
(b) wherein directing the indicia is based on information indicating to the computer system that at least one of a plurality of profile attributes is possibly applicable to the electronic visitor...	Defendants' platforms facilitate the delivery of DSP IDs in bid requests, which allows DSPs to use their stored profile information (attributes) about a user for targeting purposes.	¶23	col. 8:1-17
(c) wherein the advertisement is correlated with the indicated profile attribute or attributes.	The purpose of providing the DSP ID and engaging in bidding is to enable the delivery of targeted advertisements based on the user's profile.	¶23; ¶24	col. 8:18-21
[Implicit condition] the condition for display...is that a price charged...is less than a profile-attribute-dependent price that an advertiser is willing to pay...	The MAX platform facilitates real-time bidding, where advertisers programmatically bid a price for an ad impression based on the user's profile, inherently performing the claimed price comparison.	¶15	col. 13:19-27

'398 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 13)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
(a) ...receiving...an electronic identifier of a first device;	The Adjust platform is a "mobile measurement partner" that tracks user activity and receives identifiers from mobile devices (the "first device").	¶16; ¶32	col. 25:56-58
(b) ...generating and storing electronic indicia of an association between the first...and a second device based on...recognizing that each...was connected...to a common local area network...	Plaintiffs' "Dynamic Device Map" technology, allegedly practiced by Defendants, identifies a given user across multiple device types (e.g., mobile phone and television), implying an association is made based on a common network connection.	¶4	col. 25:59-66
...wherein the computer system is connected to the local area network through the Internet but is not in the local area network;	Defendants' ad platforms (e.g., Axon, Adjust) are cloud-based server systems that are external to any user's local network.	¶11; ¶13	col. 26:1-5
(c) based on the electronic indicia..., automatically sending an electronic transmission that causes...an action to be taken with respect to the second device...	Defendants' platforms are alleged to use the cross-device association to deliver targeted ads to a second device (e.g., a TV via the Wurl CTV platform) based on profile data from the first device (e.g., a mobile device tracked by Adjust).	¶16; ¶17	col. 26:6-12

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Question ('146 Patent): A central question will be whether the "condition" in claim 1, which requires a price comparison, is met by modern real-time bidding (RTB) auctions as allegedly practiced by the MAX platform. The court may need to determine if a winning bid in an RTB auction is legally and technically equivalent to the patent's requirement that the ad space price be "less than a profile-attribute-dependent price."
  • Technical Question ('398 Patent): The infringement case for the '398 patent hinges on how Defendants' systems allegedly recognize that two devices are on a "common local area network." The complaint alleges cross-device mapping but does not specify the mechanism. A key point of contention will be what evidence demonstrates that Defendants use a method (such as identifying a shared IP address as described in the patent) that falls within the scope of this claim term.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• For the '146 Patent:

  • The Term: "a condition...that a price charged by the second media property is less than a profile-attribute-dependent price that an advertiser is willing to pay"
  • Context and Importance: This term is the core of the invention, defining the profit-based decision logic. The infringement case depends on whether the functionality of Defendants' real-time bidding platforms can be characterized as evaluating this specific economic condition. Practitioners may focus on this term because it moves the claim beyond simple ad targeting into the realm of automated media buying economics.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification frames the invention broadly as a "profit-based selection method" '146 Patent, FIG. 1 Parties may argue this supports interpreting the "condition" to cover any automated bidding process where bid price is a function of user profile.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language is an explicit mathematical comparison ("less than"). The specification details calculating "anticipated profit" by subtracting the "ad space cost" from "expected revenue" '146 Patent, col. 9:65-10:20 A defendant may argue this requires a specific, explicit profit calculation, not just participation in a highest-bid-wins auction.

• For the '398 Patent:

  • The Term: "common local area network"
  • Context and Importance: This term defines the primary mechanism for associating devices without using PII. The strength of the infringement allegation rests on whether Defendants' cross-device linking technology falls within this definition. The construction of this term will determine whether the patent covers only specific network topologies (like a home WiFi network) or also more abstract "device graphs" common in modern ad-tech.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's goal is to link devices of a single user or household. A party could argue "common local area network" should be interpreted functionally to mean any collection of devices that are co-located or share a common point of internet access, consistent with the patent's overall objective.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly uses the example of devices sharing a router and a common IP address as the basis for the association '398 Patent, col. 13:1-14 A defendant could argue the term is limited to this specific technical implementation, where devices are physically connected to the same router or modem.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that AppLovin and Wurl induce infringement of the '146 patent. The alleged inducement is based on providing demand-side platforms (DSPs) with user identifiers (DSP IDs) via bid requests, with the knowledge and intent that the DSPs will use this information to perform profile-based targeting, which allegedly constitutes direct infringement Compl. ¶¶23-24
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain a separate count for willful infringement, but alleges that Defendants have had knowledge of the '146 patent "at least" since the filing of the Original Complaint on December 5, 2025 Compl. ¶23 This allegation of post-suit knowledge may serve as a basis for seeking enhanced damages for any post-filing infringement.

VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

This case will likely center on claim construction and the technical evidence mapping modern, complex ad-tech systems to the specific methods claimed in patents from an earlier technological period. The key open questions for the court appear to be:

1. A question of definitional scope: Can the term "common local area network" from the '398 patent, which is described in the specification primarily in the context of a shared IP address from a single router, be construed to cover the more abstract, probabilistic device-graphing techniques allegedly used in Defendants' cross-device advertising platforms?

2. A question of functional mapping: Does the operation of Defendants' real-time bidding platforms, which are designed to win ad impressions at competitive prices, perform the specific profit calculation recited in claim 1 of the '146 patent? The court will need to decide if a winning bid is equivalent to satisfying the claim's condition that the "price charged...is less than a profile-attribute-dependent price."

3. An evidentiary question: What technical evidence will Plaintiffs present to demonstrate that Defendants' systems perform the specific cross-device association and ad measurement steps claimed in the '398 and '962 patents, particularly concerning the use of "proxy IP addresses" and PII as alleged for the '962 patent? The dispute will likely involve a deep dive into the inner workings of Defendants' proprietary ad-tech stack.