Datonics LLC v. Oracle Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Datonics LLC (Jurisdiction not specified)
  • Defendant: Oracle Corporation (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Russ August & Kabat
• Case Identification: 7:25-cv-00059, W.D. Tex., 02/07/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant resides in the district, maintains a regular and established place of business there, and has committed the alleged acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's Oracle Advertising and Oracle Marketing Cloud products and services infringe patents related to systems and methods for targeted, network-based advertising.
• Technical Context: The technology at issue involves systems for collecting online user profiles, matching those profiles to advertiser interests, and delivering targeted advertisements to users on various media properties.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that U.S. Patent No. 10,984,445 is a continuation of the family that includes U.S. Patent No. 8,589,210. The complaint also alleges that at least one unnamed advertising platform has taken a license to each of the asserted patents. This history may be relevant to questions of claim scope and damages.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2006-06-19	Earliest Priority Date for '210 and '445 Patents
2013-11-19	'210 Patent Issued
2021-04-20	'445 Patent Issued
2025-02-07	Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,589,210

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,589,210, titled providing collected profiles to media properties having specified interests, issued on November 19, 2013 ("'210 Patent").
• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the difficulty in monetizing "low-value" ad space, such as on general news websites, where the audience is broad and user intent is not obvious from the immediate content '210 Patent, col. 3:59-68 Advertisers generally prefer placing ads on niche sites where user interest is clear, leaving publishers of general content with less valuable ad inventory '210 Patent, col. 5:1-4
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a centralized system operated by a "profile owner company" that acts as a data broker '210 Patent, abstract The system receives requests for specific types of user profiles from "media properties" (e.g., publishers, ad networks) '210 Patent, col. 7:1-9 When a user (visitor) whose profile matches a request is identified, the system arranges for that user to be "tagged." The media property can later recognize this tag and deliver a targeted advertisement, thereby increasing the ad's relevance and value. The system then receives a report of this usage and calculates payments between the media property and the original "profile suppliers" '210 Patent, FIG. 1
  • Technical Importance: This technology facilitates a marketplace for user behavioral data, enabling publishers with heterogeneous audiences to increase ad revenue while allowing advertisers to reach targeted consumers across a wider range of internet properties.
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint asserts an independent method claim, identified in an exhibit as Claim 1 Compl. ¶12 Compl. Ex. 2
  • The essential elements of asserted independent Claim 1 include:
    • (a) Automatically selecting an "electronic-advertising-space-controlling entity" based on a comparison of received visitor profile information with the entity's previously stored request for such profiles.
    • (b) Automatically arranging for the storage of a "tag" associated with the visitor, where the tag is readable by the selected entity.
    • (c) Electronically receiving a report from the entity about its usage of the profile data.
    • (d) Recording an amount owed by the entity for the data usage.
    • (e) Calculating fees owed to the profile suppliers who contributed the data.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for the '210 Patent.

U.S. Patent No. 10,984,445

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,984,445, titled providing collected profiles to media properties having specified interests, issued on April 20, 2021 ("'445 Patent").
• The Invention Explained:
  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses inefficiencies in prior art data-sharing systems, such as a media property receiving user profiles it cannot monetize or the difficulty in accurately tracking and compensating for the use of profile data sourced from multiple suppliers '445 Patent, col. 5:6-67
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a method where a central computer system stores profile information received from a separate "profile owner computer" '445 Patent, abstract A key aspect is the specific programming of this "profile owner computer" to automatically select which "media property entity" should receive profile data and to arrange for the storage of a profile link (a tag) when it is the entity controlling the central system '445 Patent, cl. 1 Later, the central computer system uses this tag and the stored profile to cause the delivery of a targeted advertisement to the user's device '445 Patent, abstract
  • Technical Importance: The invention refines the data-brokering model by defining a more specific, distributed system architecture and clarifying the automated roles and programmed logic of the different computers involved in the advertising transaction.
• Key Claims at a Glance:
  • The complaint asserts an independent method claim, identified in an exhibit as Claim 1 Compl. ¶22 Compl. Ex. 4
  • The essential elements of asserted independent Claim 1 include:
    • (a) A computer system automatically storing profile information received from a "profile owner computer," where a tag serves as a link to the profile.
    • (b) The "profile owner computer" is programmed to: (i) automatically select a media property entity based on a comparison of profile data with stored requests, and (ii) arrange for storage of a requested profile linked to the tag.
    • (c) The computer system later uses the tag and the linked profile information to automatically cause the delivery of a targeted electronic advertisement.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for the '445 Patent.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are "Oracle Advertising and Oracle Marketing Cloud," which include various components such as "Infinity IQ," "Infinity Streams," "Infinity Analytics," "Recommendations," "Responsys," "CX Tag," "Data Cloud," "BlueKai Data Management Platform," "ID Graph," "Eloqua," and "CrowdTwist" Compl. ¶10 Compl. ¶20
• Functionality and Market Context:
  • The complaint alleges these products constitute a comprehensive platform for digital marketing and advertising Compl. Ex. 2, p. 2 Compl. Ex. 4, p. 2 The platform is alleged to collect user behavioral data from various sources ("profile suppliers"), including partners like Adobe, through tools such as "Infinity IQ" and "Responsys" Compl. Ex. 2, p. 2 Compl. Ex. 4, p. 2 This data is allegedly used to build user profiles and segments, which are then made available to advertisers and marketers ("media property entities") for targeting campaigns Compl. Ex. 2, p. 2 The Oracle ID Graph is alleged to link different user identifiers (e.g., cookie IDs, email) to a unified customer profile Compl. Ex. 4, p. 13 The complaint includes a diagram titled "Using the Oracle ID Graph" that illustrates how the system connects disparate identities to a single customer profile for cross-channel targeting Compl. Ex. 4, p. 13
  • The complaint alleges that Plaintiff's data services directly compete with components of the Oracle Marketing Cloud, suggesting the products occupy a similar market position Compl. ¶16

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'210 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
(a) responsive to receiving profile information about a visitor who electronically accessed equipment of a profile supplier, with the computer system automatically selecting an electronic-advertising-space-controlling entity that has identified a URL...	Oracle's system allegedly receives profile information from data provider partners and automatically selects an entity (e.g., advertiser, DSP) based on comparing the profile data to the entity's requests for filtered profile information (e.g., by "data source, geography, and beyond"). The screenshot "Import Job: Remarketing Data" shows the import of behavioral data segments such as "Browse, Abandon and Purchase" from Adobe Analytics Compl. Ex. 2, p. 9	¶12; Ex. 2, p. 2	col. 8:5-22
(b) with the computer system automatically arranging for electronic storage of a tag that is associated with the visitor and that is readable by electronic-advertising-space-controlling equipment, controlled by the selected entity...	Oracle's system allegedly arranges for the placement of a tag (e.g., an Oracle identifier) via a process like cookie synchronization, making it readable by equipment accessible via the selected entity's domain.	¶12; Ex. 2, p. 14	col. 9:22-50
(c) after parts (a) and (b), with the computer system electronically receiving a report from the selected entity containing information about usage of profile data about the visitor...	Oracle allegedly receives a report from the entity (e.g., a DSP) regarding what profile information was used to customize content, such as for a targeted advertisement, so that the entity can be charged for the data usage.	¶12; Ex. 2, p. 19	col. 8:30-38
(d) based on the report, with the computer system recording an amount owed by the selected entity for usage of the profile data; and	Based on the usage report, Oracle's system allegedly calculates and records an amount owed by the entity, allowing for appropriate billing based on audience type and usage.	¶12; Ex. 2, p. 25	col. 12:45-50
(e) with the computer system calculating fees owed to a plurality of profile suppliers based on respective contributions of said profile suppliers to the profile data identified in the report as having been used.	Oracle allegedly uses data usage reports to calculate payments owed to the various profile suppliers/data sellers based on their respective contributions to the profile data used by the advertising entities.	¶12; Ex. 2, p. 26	col. 13:1-12

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Question: A potential issue is whether Oracle's integrated but distributed cloud services can be considered a single "hardware computer system" performing all the recited method steps. The defense may argue that the steps are performed by distinct, uncoordinated systems, potentially including those of Oracle's customers or partners, thereby failing to meet the single-system requirement of the claim.
  • Technical Question: The infringement allegation for step (a) hinges on whether Oracle's audience filtering mechanism functions as the claimed "comparison of the profile information... with a previously received request." The court may need to determine if creating an audience segment based on attributes like "geography" is technically and legally equivalent to the matching process described in the patent.

'445 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
(a) with a computer system automatically storing, in a central database associated with the computer system, profile information associated with a visitor... wherein a tag associated with a visitor device serves as a link to the profile information associated with the visitor;	Oracle's system allegedly receives profile information from a "profile owner computer" (e.g., operated by Adobe or Oracle) and stores it in a central database. A tag, such as a hashed email address, is alleged to serve as the link to this stored profile information. The complaint includes a diagram showing how the Oracle ID Graph links multiple identifiers to a central profile Compl. Ex. 4, p. 13	¶22; Ex. 4, p. 2	col. 10:56-62
(b) wherein the profile owner computer is programmed: (i) to automatically select a media property entity... based on a comparison of (A) profile information... with (B) a plurality of stored requests... and (ii) when the media property entity is the entity controlling the computer system, to automatically arrange for electronic storage of a requested profile linked to the tag...	The complaint alleges that the "profile owner computer" (e.g., Adobe's or Oracle's) is programmed to automatically select which entities receive profile information based on comparing the profile to the entities' stored requests (e.g., for specific demographic attributes). It then arranges for storage of the requested profile linked to the tag, making it accessible to Oracle's system. A screenshot shows a "Data switch" that visualizes programmatic logic for a marketing campaign Compl. Ex. 4, p. 11	¶22; Ex. 4, p. 17	col. 15:3-23
(c) later, when the visitor device is available to receive an advertisement, with the computer system, (i) using the tag of part (a)... to access the profile information... and (ii) using the profile information linked to the tag of part (a) to automatically cause delivery of an electronic advertisement...	When a visitor device is available to receive an ad, Oracle's system (e.g., Responsys) allegedly uses the tag (e.g., hashed email) and the linked profile information to automatically cause the delivery of a targeted advertisement that is dependent on that profile.	¶22; Ex. 4, p. 25	col. 10:25-40

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Question: The claim recites specific programming for a "profile owner computer" that is distinct from the main "computer system." A central dispute may be whether Plaintiff can identify a discrete component within Oracle's (or its partners') infrastructure that meets this definition and performs the exact, two-part programmed function of claim 1(b).
  • Technical Question: The infringement theory relies on the "profile owner computer" being operated by third parties like Adobe Compl. Ex. 4, p. 2 The case may turn on evidence of the specific contractual and technical integrations between Oracle and its data partners, and whether those integrations result in a system that operates as claimed.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

'210 Patent: "electronic-advertising-space-controlling entity"

• The Term: "electronic-advertising-space-controlling entity"
• Context and Importance: This term defines the party to whom the profile data is provided and from whom a usage report is received. The breadth of this term is critical, as it determines whether Oracle's partners (e.g., DSPs, ad exchanges, advertisers) fall within the claim scope. Practitioners may focus on this term because the modern ad-tech ecosystem involves many intermediary players.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines a "media property" broadly as "any equipment that controls an ad space viewed by a visitor, including a web site, an ad network's site...," and notes that control may be temporary '210 Patent, col. 3:43-54 This may support the complaint's allegation that the term covers advertisers, DSPs, publishers, and ad exchanges Compl. Ex. 2, p. 2
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification often uses "media property" interchangeably with a publisher's website. An argument for a narrower construction could suggest the "entity" must be the ultimate publisher displaying the ad, not just an intermediary that temporarily handles the ad transaction.

'445 Patent: "profile owner computer"

• The Term: "profile owner computer"
• Context and Importance: This term is central to Claim 1 of the '445 Patent, which requires this specific computer to be programmed to perform a two-part function. Identifying this element in the accused system is a prerequisite for infringement. The complaint suggests this could be a computer operated by Oracle or a partner like Adobe Compl. Ex. 4, p. 2
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A broader reading might argue that any server or system that logically performs the function of selecting a media property and arranging for profile linking qualifies as the "profile owner computer," regardless of its physical or network location.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently distinguishes between the "PO company server" (the central system), "profile suppliers," and "media properties" '445 Patent, FIG. 2 Claim 1 itself distinguishes the "computer system" in steps (a) and (c) from the "profile owner computer" in step (b). This architectural separation in the claim language may support a narrow interpretation requiring a distinct, identifiable computer system that is separate from the central system that stores profiles and causes ad delivery.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant "directs and controls use of the Accused Instrumentalities to perform acts that result in infringement," which mirrors the standard for direct infringement by a single entity under divided infringement case law Compl. ¶11 Compl. ¶21 While not framed as a separate count, this language suggests a theory to hold Oracle liable for the actions of its entire ecosystem, including customers and partners.
• Willful Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks a finding of willful infringement Compl. Prayer ¶b However, the complaint does not allege specific facts indicating pre-suit knowledge of the patents, such as prior correspondence or citation in other litigation. The basis for willfulness appears to be the filing of the lawsuit itself.

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

• A central issue will be one of architectural mapping: Can Plaintiff prove that Oracle's complex, multi-component Marketing Cloud platform, which relies on data from partners like Adobe, embodies the specific, distributed architecture recited in the patent claims, particularly the '445 Patent's distinction between a central "computer system" and a separately programmed "profile owner computer"?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional infringement: Does the process of filtering and segmenting audiences within Oracle's platform perform the specific, step-by-step method of "selecting" an entity based on a "comparison" of a visitor profile with a "previously received request," as required by Claim 1 of the '210 Patent, or is there a fundamental mismatch in the technical operation?
• A determinative legal question will be one of claim construction: The viability of the infringement case will likely hinge on whether the court adopts a broad construction of terms like "electronic-advertising-space-controlling entity" and "profile owner computer" that can encompass the various actors (advertisers, DSPs, data partners) in Oracle's modern ad-tech ecosystem.