DCT

1:25-cv-00737

Yieldmo Inc v. Teads Inc

Log In
Key Events
Amended Complaint
complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-00737, S.D.N.Y., 04/11/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Southern District of New York because Defendant Teads, Inc. maintains a regular and established place of business in the district and has allegedly committed acts of infringement there. For the foreign defendants, venue is asserted as proper in any U.S. district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's interactive digital advertising formats, including its Cinemagraph, Flow, inRead Video, and Scrolling 3D Cube products, infringe four U.S. patents related to methods for serving interactive content that responds to user scrolling on a webpage or mobile application.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue addresses limitations in traditional online advertising by enabling ad content embedded within a webpage to interact dynamically with user actions, primarily by changing the displayed ad frames in response to the speed and direction of scrolling.
  • Key Procedural History: The four patents-in-suit all claim priority to a provisional application filed in October 2014. The complaint alleges that the Defendants were notified of the infringement by letter in mid-October 2024, approximately six months before the suit was filed.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2014-10-24 Priority Date for all Patents-in-Suit (via U.S. Provisional App. 62/068,646)
2020-11-10 U.S. Patent No. 10,832,729 Issued
2020-11-10 U.S. Patent No. 10,832,730 Issued
2023-03-14 U.S. Patent No. 11,604,918 Issued
2024-10-15 Approximate date Teads allegedly received letter notice of infringement
2025-02-03 Outbrain Inc. allegedly acquired Defendant Teads SARL
2025-04-08 U.S. Patent No. 12,271,683 Issued
2025-04-11 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,832,729 - Methods for Serving Interactive Content to a User

  • Issued: November 10, 2020.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the technical shortcomings of conventional digital advertising where content embedded in a "nested visual element" (such as an iframe) could not easily respond to a user's activity on the surrounding webpage, resulting in a static and less engaging user experience Compl. ¶32
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides methods for an "image player" embedded in an electronic document to respond to user scroll events. As a user scrolls, the system detects the movement and, upon crossing a "threshold distance," animates a transition between different frames of the advertisement Compl. ¶¶54-57 This allows a user to "play," "seek forward," and "seek backward" through an ad's content simply by scrolling up and down the page '729 Patent, col. 4:7-12
  • Technical Importance: This technology was designed to make mobile advertisements more "visually and physically engaging" by directly linking the ad's playback to the user's natural scrolling behavior Compl. ¶34

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 and dependent Claims 6 and 9 Compl. ¶61
  • The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
    • Inserting an "image player" containing a set of advertising frames into an electronic document on a mobile device.
    • In response to a first scroll event, moving the image player to a first vertical position and rendering a first frame.
    • In response to a second scroll event that moves the player a "distance greater than the threshold distance," animating a transition from the first frame to a second frame.
    • In response to a third scroll event (e.g., a scroll up), animating a transition from the second frame back to the first frame.
    • Calculating an "engagement metric" based on the characteristics of the user's scroll events.

U.S. Patent No. 10,832,730 - Methods for Serving Interactive Content to a User

  • Issued: November 10, 2020.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Similar to the '729 patent, this invention aims to overcome the lack of interactivity in conventional embedded digital advertisements Compl. ¶32
  • The Patented Solution: This patent describes a method where different ad frames are associated with specific "ranges of vertical positions" within the device's window '730 Patent, col. 11:30-34 When the ad player is scrolled into a first range, a first frame is displayed and maintained ("paused") as long as it stays within that range Compl. ¶¶70-71 When the user scrolls further and the ad player enters a second range, a second frame is inserted, allowing for a "seek forward" effect Compl. ¶72
  • Technical Importance: This "range-based" approach provides an alternative method for controlling interactive ad playback, enabling features like "play" and "pause" that are tied to the ad's position on the screen rather than just the distance of a scroll event.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 10 and dependent Claims 12, 14, and 15 Compl. ¶76
  • The essential elements of independent Claim 10 include:
    • Accessing interactive advertising content for an "image player" inserted into an electronic document, where the player is smaller than the window.
    • In response to a scroll event moving the player into a "first range of vertical positions," inserting a first frame.
    • Maintaining the first frame while the player remains within that first range.
    • Upon relocation of the player to a "second range of vertical positions," inserting a second frame to replace the first.
    • Calculating an "engagement score" based on the user's scroll events.

Multi-Patent Capsule

  • U.S. Patent No. 11,604,918 - Methods for Serving Interactive Content to a User

    • Issued: March 14, 2023 Compl. ¶21
    • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes methods for making an embedded advertisement respond to scrolling by rendering sequences of frames in a "forward order" or "reverse order" at a rate that is "proportional to" the user's scroll rate Compl. ¶¶85-88 This creates an effect where the user feels as if they are directly controlling the speed of an animation by scrolling.
    • Asserted Claims: Independent Claims 1 and 2, and dependent Claim 9 Compl. ¶91
    • Accused Features: The Teads Cinemagraph, Flow, inRead Video, and Scrolling 3D Cube advertisement formats are accused of infringing Compl. ¶90

  • U.S. Patent No. 12,271,683 - Methods for Serving Interactive Content to a User

    • Issued: April 8, 2025 Compl. ¶22
    • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a client-server system where a set of servers selects an interactive ad based on information about the user device's window height. The ad content is then transmitted to the device and displayed at specific, "assigned" vertical positions in response to user scrolling, enabling "play," "seek forward," and "seek backward" functionality Compl. ¶¶99-103
    • Asserted Claims: Independent Claims 1, 4, 6, and 8 Compl. ¶106
    • Accused Features: The Teads Cinemagraph, Flow, inRead Video, and Scrolling 3D Cube advertisement formats are accused of infringing Compl. ¶105

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentalities are the "Teads Cinemagraph, Teads Flow, Teads inRead Video, and Teads Scrolling 3D Cube advertisement formats" Compl. ¶14

Functionality and Market Context

  • These are interactive ad formats delivered through the "Teads advertising platform," which serves ads to publishers' websites and mobile applications Compl. ¶36 The core of the accused system is the "Teads Format Framework Technology," which allegedly consists of a "Teads Format Tag," "Teads Format Scripts," and a "Teads iFrame" that acts as a software player for the ads Compl. ¶38 The complaint alleges these products enable interactive ad experiences by making the ad content responsive to user scrolling Compl. ¶¶34-35 Exhibit F provides a visual example of a Teads advertisement where a "down swipe" and "up swipe" by the user cause different ad frames to appear Compl. Ex. F, p. 8

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'729 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
...inserting a set position within an electronic document rendered within a window of a mobile computing device...the image file comprising a set of frames... The Teads iFrame and Image Player are inserted into a publisher's webpage (electronic document) on a mobile device and contain the ad frames. ¶61; Ex. F, p. 22 col. 5:1-13
in response to a first scroll event...that moves the image player...to a first vertical position...rendering a first frame... During a first scroll event (down-swipe), the Teads Image Player is moved to a first vertical position within the viewport and renders the first frame. ¶61; Ex. F, p. 24 col. 2:39-52
in response to a second scroll event...that moves the image player...a second distance greater than the threshold distance...animating a transition from the first frame to a second frame... A second down-swipe moves the Image Player a distance greater than a threshold value, which triggers an animated transition to the second frame. ¶61; Ex. F, p. 28 col. 2:53-61
in response to a third scroll event...that moves the image player...a second distance greater than the threshold distance...animating a transition from the second frame to the first frame... A third scroll event (up-swipe) moves the Image Player, triggering an animation that returns the display from the second frame to the first frame. ¶61; Ex. F, p. 33 col. 15:48-57
calculating an engagement metric for the user interacting with the image player based on characteristics of scroll events... Teads' metric platforms are alleged to calculate user engagement metrics, such as View-Through Rate (VTR), based on user scroll interactions with the ad. ¶61; Ex. F, p. 37 col. 16:1-26

'730 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 10) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
accessing the interactive advertising content; The Teads Image Player accesses ad content, such as the Teads Cinemagraph Ad, from Teads' Ad Servers. ¶76; Ex. G, p. 16 col. 18:25-33
at an image player inserted into an electronic document...having a first height less than a second height of the window; The Teads Image Player is an ad unit inserted into a webpage and is smaller than the full height of the device window. ¶76; Ex. G, p. 12 col. 10:34-39
in response to a scroll event that moves the image player to a first vertical position within a first range of vertical positions...inserting the first frame... When a scroll event moves the ad into a first range of positions, the Teads Image Player inserts and renders the first frame. ¶76; Ex. G, p. 27 col. 19:42-53
in response to the image player remaining within a first range of vertical positions...maintaining the first frame... As long as the ad remains within the first range of positions, the first frame is maintained on screen. ¶76; Ex. G, p. 32 col. 18:53-56
in response to relocation of the image player to a second vertical position within a second range of vertical positions...inserting a second frame... When the user scrolls the ad into a second range of positions, the player replaces the first frame with a second frame. ¶76; Ex. G, p. 33 col. 19:54-67
calculating an engagement score of the user interacting with the image player based on characteristics of scroll events... Teads' platforms allegedly calculate engagement scores based on scroll event characteristics, such as how many times an ad is viewed. ¶76; Ex. G, p. 38 col. 25:34-52

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The patents claim methods tied to specific triggering mechanisms. A central question will be whether Teads' technology, which is accused of infringing all four patents, actually uses a "threshold distance" ('729 Patent), "ranges of vertical positions" ('730 Patent), and a "proportional" scroll rate '918 Patent The defense may argue that its system employs a single, different method that does not align with the specific limitations of each patent.
  • Technical Questions: The complaint's allegations rely heavily on marketing materials and high-level diagrams. A key technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that the accused Teads ad formats perform the specific functions as claimed. For instance, for the '918 patent, the plaintiff will need to show not just that the ad animates during a scroll, but that the rate of frame rendering is "proportional" to the scroll speed, which is a specific technical requirement.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "image player"

    • Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the independent claims of the asserted patents. The complaint alleges Teads' "iFrame" and "Teads Image Player" constitute this element Compl. ¶38 Compl. Ex. F, p. 4 The definition of "image player" will be critical in determining whether Teads' software components fall within the scope of the claims.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification refers to the invention as a "visual element" that can be an "ad platform," "ad player," or an "instance of the visual element," which can be inserted into a document like a webpage or mobile application '729 Patent, col. 5:1-13 This language may support a broad construction that covers various types of web components capable of displaying ad content.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures consistently depict the "image player" as a distinct container (e.g., S140 in FIG. 1) that holds the ad frames '729 Patent, FIG. 1 '729 Patent, FIG. 3 The defense could argue this implies a specific software component with defined player-like functionalities, not just a generic HTML element like an iframe.

  • The Term: "calculating an engagement metric" / "engagement score"

    • Context and Importance: This limitation appears in both the '729 and '730 patents and requires calculating a metric based on scroll event characteristics. The dispute will likely focus on whether Teads' analytics (e.g., VTR) are "based on characteristics of scroll events" in the manner claimed Compl. ¶58
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the metric can be based on a "number of scroll-down and scroll-up event pairs," "duration and/or number of frames of the interactive video ad viewed," or "a number of complete forward replays" '729 Patent, col. 16:6-12 This could be read to cover a wide range of user interaction data.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The defense may argue that the term requires a specific type of calculation directly tied to the mechanics of the scroll events themselves (e.g., number of scrolls, distance, speed), as opposed to simply whether an ad was viewed, which is a more general metric. The patent states the visual element can "quantify or qualify a user's engagement" by monitoring scroll events '729 Patent, col. 15:65-16:2

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for all four patents, asserting that Teads provides its "Teads Format Framework Technology" to third-party publishers and directs or controls them to integrate and employ the technology in an infringing manner Compl. ¶¶109-119 The basis for inducement is Teads' alleged provision of technical specifications, SDKs, contractual obligations, and support documentation that instruct publishers on how to perform the claimed steps Compl. ¶¶41-46 Compl. ¶117
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for all four patents based on Teads having actual knowledge since "at least mid-October, 2024," when it allegedly received a notification letter from Yieldmo Compl. ¶66 Compl. ¶81 Compl. ¶96 Compl. ¶108 The complaint asserts that infringement continuing after this date has been "willful and deliberate" Compl. ¶66

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "image player," described in the patents as a container for interactive frames, be construed to read on the "Teads iFrame" and associated scripts that comprise the accused advertising framework? The outcome of this construction will significantly impact the infringement analysis for all asserted patents.
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional differentiation: the patents claim distinct technical methods for triggering ad interactivity (e.g., "threshold distance" vs. "range of vertical positions" vs. "proportional" speed). The case may turn on whether the Plaintiff can prove that the single accused Teads platform simultaneously or selectively practices each of these specific, and potentially mutually exclusive, claimed functionalities.
  • The viability of the indirect infringement claims will depend on agency and control: can Yieldmo establish that Teads' contractual terms and technical documentation go beyond mere product support and rise to the level of actively directing or controlling its publishers to perform the patented methods, as required to prove inducement?
Loading Amended Complaint