Advertising technology — US PTAB Patent Cases
14 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 14 total
VideoAmp Inc. v.The Nielsen Company (US), LLC
VideoAmp has filed an IPR petition challenging all 30 claims of Nielsen’s audience‑measurement patent, asserting obviousness over Kerr and related prior art. The petition argues discretionary denial is unwarranted and seeks institution of the review.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.SitNet, LLC
Meta Platforms successfully challenged SitNet’s ’932 patent, leading the PTAB to find all ten claims unpatentable as obvious over prior‑art social‑network and advertising systems.
LiveIntent, Inc. v.DATONICS, LLC
LiveIntent has filed an IPR petition challenging all 14 claims of DATONICS’s ’445 patent on the ground of obviousness. The petition relies on the Beyda and Herz publications as prior art.
Viant Technology LLC et al. v.AlmondNet, Inc.
Viant Technology and LiveIntent petition PTAB to invalidate AlmondNet's 2015 ad‑targeting patent, arguing obviousness over Burdick and a Burdick‑Grannan combination. The petition seeks institution of the IPR.
Amazon.com et al. v.NL Giken Inc.
Amazon has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of nine claims of NL Giken’s 8,677,391 patent, arguing they are obvious over prior‑art systems (Ray, Nolan, Cansler) under §103 and that discretionary denial is unwarranted.
Rocket Media, LLC d/b/a Launch Labs v.Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC et al.
Fullthrottle Technologies contests Rocket Media’s IPR petition targeting claims 1‑36 of its ’219 patent. The owner argues the cited prior art fails to teach essential claim limitations and lacks a motivation to combine, and urges denial under § 314(a) due to parallel district‑court litigation.
Rocket Media, LLC d/b/a Launch Labs v.Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC et al.
Fullthrottle Technologies argues that Rocket Media’s IPR petition for claims 1‑20 of U.S. Patent 11,556,947 fails because the cited prior art lacks key limitations and there is no motivation to combine the references. The response also seeks discretionary denial under § 314(a) due to parallel district‑court litigation.
Rocket Media, LLC d/b/a Launch Labs v.Fullthrottle Technologies, LLC et al.
Rocket Media (Launch Labs) petitions the PTAB to invalidate 20 claims of Fullthrottle’s ’947 patent on obviousness grounds, citing Doughty, Van Boucq, and Maginnis. The petition argues no secondary considerations and opposes discretionary denial.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.Security Technology, LLC
Home Depot filed a response to the patent owner’s request for Director Review, arguing that all Fintiv factors support instituting the IPR and contesting the owner’s claim‑construction positions. The petitioner also pledged not to raise §103 defenses in the parallel district‑court case.
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. et al. v.Security Technology, LLC
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. successfully convinced the PTAB that Security Technology, LLC's claims are unpatentable over prior art related to behavioral targeting and ad bidding. The Board instituted the IPR, finding a reasonable likelihood of success on multiple grounds of obviousness (103).
Duration Media v.Rich Media Club LLC
Duration Media petitions the PTAB Director to review a Board decision that upheld claims of a web‑ad tracking patent. The petitioner asserts the Board ignored prior art and admissions that render the claims obvious. It seeks reversal or remand of the decision.
Google LLC v.Proxense, LLC
Google and Proxense have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent No. 10,073,960 and filed a joint motion to terminate the IPR proceeding.
Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Sitnet, LLC
Meta Platforms challenges Sitnet's targeted advertising patent (8249932) at the PTAB, arguing that the claims are obvious over numerous prior art references. The petition cites combinations of existing technology in ad serving and network redirection to invalidate the patent.
Google LLC v.Metarail, Inc.
Google LLC has filed an IPR petition challenging Metarail's '626 patent, arguing that its claims regarding parameter mapping and deep linking automation are obvious. The petitioner relies on combinations of prior art references, including Belanger, Halevy, and Reichardt, to establish obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.