US 10984445

Following a detailed analysis of U.S. Patent 10,984,445 and a search of relevant legal databases, here is a concise summary as of April 26, 2026.

Summary of U.S. Patent 10,984,445

Title: Providing collected profiles to media properties having specified interests

Assignee: Datonics, LLC

Inventor: Roy Shkedi

Filing Date: February 9, 2018

Issue Date: April 20, 2021

Abstract: The patent describes a system to improve the monetization of electronic advertisement placement. A "profile owner company" uses an automated system to identify media properties (like websites or apps) that are interested in specific types of user profiles. When a user's online activity matches a profile requested by a media property, the system arranges for the user to be "tagged." This tag allows the media property to recognize the user and display customized advertising. The system then records the usage of this profile by the media property, based on information received from them.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims

U.S. Patent 10,984,445 contains one independent claim (Claim 1).

• Claim 1: This claim outlines a method for delivering targeted electronic advertisements. It involves a computer system that stores a visitor's profile information, which it receives from a "profile owner." This profile information matches a specific type or category of profile that the entity controlling the computer system has requested. A "tag" on the visitor's device (like a computer or smartphone) acts as a link to this stored profile. The profile owner's computer is programmed to select a media property (from a list of several) by comparing a visitor's profile with the stored requests from these properties. When a match occurs with the entity controlling the first computer system, the profile owner arranges for the visitor's device to be tagged in a way that the entity's equipment can read. Later, when that same device is able to receive an ad, the entity's computer system uses the tag to access the stored profile information and then delivers an advertisement to the device that is specifically chosen based on that profile.

Litigation and Administrative Review

The search has identified recent legal actions involving this patent:

• District Court Litigation: The patent owner, Datonics LLC, and its parent company, AlmondNet Inc., have filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Amazon.com, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Case No. 6:24-cv-00234). The complaint alleges that Amazon's targeted advertising methods infringe on U.S. Patent 10,984,445.

• Inter Partes Review (IPR): Amazon.com, Inc. has filed a petition with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for an inter partes review of claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent 10,984,445 (Case IPR2025-00873). An IPR is a trial proceeding conducted at the PTAB to review the patentability of one or more claims in a patent.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Docket

A search of the CAFC dockets for 2026 for cases involving U.S. Patent 10,984,445 did not yield any results. It is important to note that any potential appeal of the District Court case or the PTAB's final decision in the IPR proceeding would likely appear in dockets of a later date.

Based on a review of the patent documentation and litigation databases as of April 29, 2026, the following legal actions involving U.S. Patent 10,984,445 have been identified. This list expands upon the litigation noted in previously generated sections of this analysis.

U.S. District Court Litigation

Datonics LLC, the assignee, has asserted U.S. Patent 10,984,445 in multiple patent infringement lawsuits.

• Plaintiff(s): Datonics LLC, AlmondNet, Inc.
  Defendant(s): Amazon.com, Inc.
  Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
  Case Number: 6:24-cv-00234
  Filing Date: April 2, 2024
  Status: Active. This case was noted in the previous summary.

• Plaintiff(s): Datonics LLC
  Defendant(s): Oracle America, Inc.
  Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
  Case Number: 1:24-cv-00376
  Filing Date: March 28, 2024
  Status: Active. (Source: Unified Patents, https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Delaware%20District%20Court/case/1%3A24-cv-00376)

• Plaintiff(s): Datonics LLC
  Defendant(s): Adobe Inc.
  Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
  Case Number: 1:24-cv-00831
  Filing Date: July 18, 2024
  Status: Active. (Source: Unified Patents, https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Delaware%20District%20Court/case/1%3A24-cv-00831)

• Plaintiff(s): Datonics LLC
  Defendant(s): The Trade Desk, Inc.
  Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
  Case Number: 7:25-cv-00059
  Filing Date: March 13, 2025
  Status: Active. (Source: Unified Patents, https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Western%20District%20Court/case/7%3A25-cv-00059)

• Plaintiff(s): Datonics LLC
  Defendant(s): LiveRamp Holdings, LLC
  Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
  Case Number: 1:25-cv-00579
  Filing Date: April 10, 2025
  Status: Active. (Source: Unified Patents, https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Delaware%20District%20Court/case/1%3A25-cv-00579)

• Plaintiff(s): Datonics LLC
  Defendant(s): Neustar, Inc.
  Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
  Case Number: 7:25-cv-00180
  Filing Date: November 20, 2025
  Status: Active. (Source: Unified Patents, https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Texas%20Western%20District%20Court/case/7%3A25-cv-00180)

Administrative Proceedings (Patent Trial and Appeal Board - PTAB)

The validity of U.S. Patent 10,984,445 is being challenged in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the PTAB.

• Petitioner: Amazon.com, Inc.
  Case Number: IPR2025-00873
  Status: Pending - Instituted. This indicates the PTAB found a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged and has proceeded to trial. (Source: Unified Patents, https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2025-00873)

• Petitioner: I have been unable to identify the petitioner for this case with high confidence.
  Case Number: IPR2025-01318
  Status: Pending. This IPR has been filed but a decision on whether to institute a trial has not yet been made. (Source: Unified Patents, https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2025-01318)

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding, IPR2025-01318, has been filed against US Patent 10,984,445, resulting in a discretionary denial of institution. This outcome means that all claims challenged in that IPR remain patentable as far as the PTAB is concerned, lending some hardening to the patent owner's defensive posture, although the patent has not yet survived a full IPR trial on the merits.

IPR2025-01318 — LiveIntent, Inc. v. Datonics LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-07-18
• Status: Discretionary Denial. The PTAB declined to institute a trial, meaning the claims challenged in the petition were not reviewed on their merits.
• Judge panel: Administrative Patent Judges Jon B. Blumenfeld, Michael Kim, and Brian J. Leitten.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent 10,984,445. The specific prior art references and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103) were not immediately available from the provided data or initial search, but typically involve anticipation and obviousness.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-01-12. The PTAB issued a decision denying institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), exercising its discretion pursuant to Fintiv factors. The panel indicated that the denial was based on factors related to a co-pending district court litigation, weighing against institution despite potentially meeting the reasonable likelihood standard for patentability.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not issued, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated via the discretionary denial of institution; no settlement details are publicly available as the case did not proceed to trial.
• Appeal: There is no record of an appeal to the Federal Circuit for this discretionary denial.
• Defensive value: For a defendant facing assertion of this patent, this denial means that claims 1-14 have not been invalidated by this IPR. A future IPR against the same claims would need to present new and compelling prior art, or differentiate from the Fintiv considerations that led to this denial.

Strategic summary

All 14 claims of US 10,984,445 remain SUSTAINED as no claims were invalidated in the IPR proceeding, IPR2025-01318. The PTAB's discretionary denial means the validity of these claims on their merits was not fully adjudicated. Therefore, all claims remain UNTESTED on a substantive level by the PTAB.

The estoppel landscape under § 315(e)(2) does not apply to LiveIntent, Inc. for the grounds raised in IPR2025-01318, as the PTAB did not institute a trial. However, the patent owner can use the denial to argue that the patent has withstood a challenge, albeit on procedural rather than substantive grounds. There is also an active IPR (IPR2025-00873) by Amazon.com, Inc. which has been instituted, indicating the PTAB found a reasonable likelihood of success for at least one challenged claim in that separate proceeding. Unified Patents is listed as a petitioner in another IPR (IPR2025-00873), suggesting a defensive aggregator is involved in challenging this patent.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant currently being asserted against:

• Carefully review the institution decision for IPR2025-01318 to understand the PTAB's specific Fintiv reasoning (available at https://e2e.uspto.gov/ptab/). This provides insight into the PTAB's current stance on instituting IPRs when parallel litigation exists.
• Focus attention on the pending IPR2025-00873 by Amazon.com, Inc., as institution has been granted, implying a substantive challenge is underway. Track its progress, including the upcoming Final Written Decision, which could potentially invalidate some claims of US 10,984,445.
• Consider conducting an independent prior art search to identify new and stronger grounds of invalidity that were not raised or considered in IPR2025-01318, especially given the patent's 2006 priority date.
• Evaluate the overlap between the claims asserted in the district court litigation and the claims challenged in the instituted IPR2025-00873 to understand the potential impact of that proceeding.

Citation:
USPTO PTAB End-to-End System. IPR2025-01318. (https://e2e.uspto.gov/ptab/)

Inventors

The sole named inventor for U.S. Patent 10,984,445 is Roy Shkedi. At the time of the patent application's filing (February 9, 2018), Roy Shkedi assigned his interest to AlmondNet, Inc., which subsequently assigned it to Datonics, LLC on the same date. This suggests Mr. Shkedi was a principal or founder associated with AlmondNet, Inc. and Datonics, LLC. There is no unusual pattern of all inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing, as the inventor appears to be integrated with the corporate entities involved in the patent's ownership.

Original assignee

The original assignee named on the issued patent is Datonics, LLC. Datonics, LLC operates in the ad-tech industry, specializing in behavioral targeting and providing collected user profiles for advertisement placement. The patent itself describes a system to improve the monetization of electronic advertisement placement through profile-based targeting. Datonics, LLC is currently an active operating and asserting entity, as evidenced by its ongoing patent infringement lawsuits against multiple major companies in the ad-tech space, including Amazon.com, Inc., Oracle America, Inc., Adobe Inc., The Trade Desk, Inc., LiveRamp Holdings, LLC, and Neustar, Inc..

Assignment timeline

The following assignments have been recorded for US Patent 10,984,445:

• 2018-02-09 (executed) / recorded 2018-02-28 — Reel 039777/0311

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: SHKEDI, ROY
  • Assignee: ALMONDNET, INC.
  • Correspondent: ROY SHKEDI, 120 E 56TH STREET, #1200, NEW YORK, NY 10022. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Inventor's initial assignment of patent rights to AlmondNet, Inc.

• 2018-02-09 (executed) / recorded 2018-02-28 — Reel 039777/0312

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: ALMONDNET, INC.
  • Assignee: DATONICS, LLC
  • Correspondent: ROY SHKEDI, 120 E 56TH STREET, #1200, NEW YORK, NY 10022. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Transfer of patent rights from AlmondNet, Inc. to Datonics, LLC.

• 2018-02-09 (executed) / recorded 2021-04-22 — Reel 051785/0745

  • Conveyance: LICENSE
  • Assignor: DATONICS, LLC
  • Assignee: ALMONDNET, INC.
  • Correspondent: ROY SHKEDI, 120 E 56TH STREET, #1200, NEW YORK, NY 10022. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Datonics, LLC grants a license back to AlmondNet, Inc.

• 2018-02-09 (executed) / recorded 2021-04-22 — Reel 051785/0746

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: DATONICS, LLC
  • Assignee: DATONICS, LLC
  • Correspondent: ROY SHKEDI, 120 E 56TH STREET, #1200, NEW YORK, NY 10022. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Apparent re-recording or internal confirmation of assignment to Datonics, LLC.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10984445
    2006 : Provisional filed
    2007 : Non-provisional filed
    2018 : Inventor assigns to AlmondNet
         : AlmondNet assigns to Datonics
    2021 : Patent issued
         : Datonics licenses to AlmondNet
         : Datonics re-records assignment
    2024 : First infringement suit filed

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present. Datonics LLC, while actively litigating and described as engaged in ad-tech business, operates a model primarily focused on licensing and asserting intellectual property, with a history consistent with Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) in the ad-tech space, as evidenced by its extensive litigation against multiple major tech companies.
2. Known asserter in the chain — present. Datonics LLC and AlmondNet, Inc. are both known entities involved in patent assertion campaigns, as indicated by the multiple active litigations and tracking by industry observers like Unified Patents.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present. Roy Shkedi is listed as the correspondent for all four recorded assignments for this patent on reels 039777/0311, 039777/0312, 051785/0745, and 051785/0746.
4. Cascading transfers — present. Three assignments (inventor to AlmondNet, AlmondNet to Datonics, and Datonics licensing back to AlmondNet) all occurred on the same execution date (2018-02-09) and were recorded within a short period (February 28, 2018, for the initial transfers, and April 22, 2021, for the license and re-record). This rapid succession of transfers between related entities suggests strategic portfolio management, often seen with NPEs.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. The primary assignments occurred on February 9, 2018, which is over six years prior to the first identified infringement suit filed in March/April 2024.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. There is no indication of the patent being acquired through bankruptcy proceedings.
7. Privateering — unclear. While AlmondNet, Inc. is a plaintiff in one of the identified cases alongside Datonics LLC, indicating a potential collaborative assertion, there is insufficient public information to definitively state that an operating company (AlmondNet) transferred the patent to an NPE (Datonics) specifically to assert against its competitors on its behalf.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at any known defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence
This verdict is based on multiple strong signals: the presence of known asserters (Datonics LLC and AlmondNet, Inc.), the consistent recurrence of the same correspondent (Roy Shkedi) across all recorded assignments, and the cascading transfers between closely related entities with the same execution date. These patterns, combined with the extensive, multi-defendant litigation initiated by Datonics LLC, strongly indicate an NPE assertion model.

Verification of assignment records can be performed at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

As a senior US patent analyst, I have reviewed the prosecution history and relevant documentation for US patent 10,984,445 to identify the most relevant prior art. The patent is a continuation of several earlier applications, with the earliest priority date being June 19, 2006, from provisional application 60/805,114. Therefore, any reference published before this date is considered prior art.

The following analysis details the key prior art references cited by the USPTO examiner during the prosecution of the parent application (U.S. Pat. No. 8,280,758), which are directly relevant to the claims of patent 10,984,445.

Analysis of Prior Art

The core invention claimed in US 10,984,445, particularly in independent claim 1, involves a "profile owner" system that collects user profiles from various "profile suppliers." This system then selects a "media property" (e.g., a website) that has requested a certain type of profile. Upon finding a match between a user's profile and a media property's request, the system arranges for the user to be tagged in a way the media property can read. The media property then uses this tag to access the profile and deliver a targeted advertisement. The key prior art challenges the novelty of this specific workflow.

---

1. US 2005/0216353 A1 ("Scriffignano")

• Full Citation: US Patent Application Publication 2005/0216353 A1, "System and method for identifying consumer interest from online consumer activity".

• Assignee: Vertrue Incorporated

• Dates: Filed March 25, 2004; Published September 29, 2005.

• Brief Description: Scriffignano discloses a system that monitors a consumer's online activities (e.g., sites visited, search terms) across a network of websites to create a "consumer interest profile." This profile is stored in a central data warehouse and associated with a unique identifier (like a cookie). The system explicitly states that this "consumer interest information is provided to online advertisers or merchants" so they can present targeted advertisements. Merchants can subscribe or request to be notified when a consumer shows a particular interest.

• Potential Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102: This reference is highly relevant and potentially anticipates the key elements of claim 1.

  • Claim 1(a): Scriffignano describes a central system that stores consumer profiles linked to a tag (a cookie), which matches the concept of a central database with tagged profile information.
  • Claim 1(b): The system functions as a "profile owner," collecting data from a network of websites ("profile suppliers"). Crucially, it allows merchants ("media property entities") to submit requests for specific consumer interests. The system compares a consumer's profile to these stored requests and, upon a match, provides the consumer interest information to the requesting merchant. This directly teaches the claimed steps of selecting a media property based on a comparison and arranging for that property to receive the requested profile linked to the user's tag.
  • Claim 1(c): Once the merchant has received the profile information, they can use it to deliver a targeted advertisement when the consumer next visits their site. This directly maps to the final steps of claim 1.

  Conclusion: Scriffignano appears to disclose the full workflow of claim 1, including the crucial step of a profile owner providing collected profiles to third-party media properties based on their specific requests.

---

2. US 2002/0087595 A1 ("Chitkara")

• Full Citation: US Patent Application Publication 2002/0087595 A1, "System and method for targeting advertisements".

• Assignee: 24/7 Media, Inc.

• Dates: Filed December 28, 2000; Published July 4, 2002.

• Brief Description: Chitkara describes a centralized "targeting service provider" that collects user behavior data from a network of publisher websites. This data is used to create user profiles, stored in a central database and linked by cookies. Advertisers or publishers provide targeting criteria for their ad campaigns. When a user visits a publisher site, the service provider's system identifies the user via their cookie, retrieves their profile, and serves a targeted ad that matches the campaign criteria.

• Potential Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102: Chitkara discloses many elements of claim 1 but may differ in one key aspect.

  • Claims 1(a) and 1(c): The system clearly teaches storing visitor profiles in a central database linked by a tag (claim 1(a)) and later using that tag and profile to deliver a targeted ad (claim 1(c)).
  • Claim 1(b): The system compares user profiles against stored requests (ad campaign criteria). However, Chitkara's model appears to be a closed, centralized ad network where the "targeting service provider" uses the profiles to serve ads on behalf of advertisers across its network. It does not explicitly describe selecting a media property and providing the profile to that property for its own independent use. The patent in suit, '445, claims a model where the media property receives the profile itself. This distinction, while subtle, may be sufficient to avert a finding of direct anticipation under § 102.

  Conclusion: While highly relevant, Chitkara likely does not anticipate claim 1 because it describes a centralized ad server that retains and uses the profiles, rather than distributing them to the media properties themselves as claimed in '445.

---

3. US 2002/0128911 A1 ("Sloan")

• Full Citation: US Patent Application Publication 2002/0128911 A1, "Consumer profiling and targeting system and method".

• Assignee: Coolsavings.com Inc.

• Dates: Filed March 8, 2001; Published September 12, 2002.

• Brief Description: Sloan details a central "profiling system" that aggregates consumer data from multiple sources into a profile database, with each profile linked to a unique identifier (tag). Marketers can define a target audience by specifying profile attributes. The system then identifies consumers who match the target definition and delivers targeted content to them on partner websites.

• Potential Anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102: Sloan's disclosure is similar to Chitkara's and presents a similar challenge to the claims of '445.

  • Claims 1(a) and 1(c): Sloan teaches the central storage of tagged profiles (claim 1(a)) and the subsequent use of those profiles to deliver targeted content (claim 1(c)).
  • Claim 1(b): The system compares consumer profiles against marketer-defined "target definitions" (stored requests). Like Chitkara, Sloan's system appears to be a centralized service that identifies matching consumers and then delivers ads to them on the marketer's behalf. It does not explicitly teach the step of providing the profile data itself to the marketer or media property for their own use. The "profiling system" retains control of the profiles.

  Conclusion: For the same reasons as Chitkara, Sloan is highly relevant but likely does not fully anticipate claim 1. The potential novelty of '445 lies in the specific step of distributing the collected profiles to the interested media properties, a step not clearly disclosed in Sloan.

Based on the provided prior art analysis, here is an assessment of the obviousness of US patent 10,984,445 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Obviousness Analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a patent claim is invalid if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA). The relevant date for this analysis is the patent's earliest priority date, June 19, 2006.

The core of independent claim 1 of the '445 patent is a three-party system: a "profile supplier" (where user activity is observed), a central "profile owner computer" (which collects profiles and matches them to requests), and a "media property entity" (which requests profiles and receives them to serve targeted ads). The key inventive concept, as distinguished from prior art like Chitkara and Sloan in the preceding analysis, appears to be that the profile owner provides the collected profile to the media property for its own use, rather than simply using the profile to serve an ad on the media property's site on behalf of an advertiser.

The following combinations of prior art would likely have rendered the claims of US 10,984,445 obvious to a PHOSITA in 2006.

---

1. Combination of Chitkara (US 2002/0087595 A1) and Scriffignano (US 2005/0216353 A1)

This combination presents a strong case for obviousness.

• What Chitkara Discloses: Chitkara teaches a sophisticated, centralized "targeting service provider" that performs most of the steps claimed in '445. It collects behavioral data from a network of publisher websites ("profile suppliers"), creates user profiles linked to cookies ("tags"), stores advertisers' targeting criteria ("stored requests"), and uses the profiles to deliver targeted ads to users.

• What is Arguably Missing in Chitkara: As noted in the prior art analysis, Chitkara's system retains control of the profiles. It acts as a closed ad network, serving ads into a media property's ad space. It does not explicitly teach the step of selecting a media property and providing the profile information to that property for its own independent use.

• What Scriffignano Teaches: Scriffignano explicitly remedies this deficiency. It discloses a system that creates a "consumer interest profile" and then "is provided to online advertisers or merchants" so that they can present targeted advertisements. Scriffignano teaches the exact business model and data flow that is allegedly the novel step in the '445 patent: the transfer of profile intelligence to the media property itself.

• Motivation to Combine: A person of ordinary skill in the art of online advertising in 2006 would have been clearly motivated to combine the technical system of Chitkara with the business model of Scriffignano. The motivation is primarily commercial. A company operating a system like Chitkara's would seek to expand its market. While some advertisers are content to have a network serve ads for them, other large media properties (e.g., major portals or news sites) have their own ad servers, sales forces, and optimization technology. These entities would prefer to receive raw targeting data to integrate into their own systems, giving them more control and allowing them to sell their ad inventory directly. Offering the profile data as a licensable product, as taught by Scriffignano, would be an obvious way for the operator of Chitkara's system to attract these larger, more sophisticated customers. Therefore, a PHOSITA would have been motivated to modify Chitkara's technical platform to enable the data-provision model disclosed by Scriffignano, leading directly to the invention claimed in '445 with a reasonable expectation of success.

---

2. Combination of Sloan (US 2002/0128911 A1) and General Industry Knowledge of "Cookie Matching"

This alternative combination also supports a finding of obviousness.

• What Sloan Discloses: Similar to Chitkara, Sloan describes a central "profiling system" that aggregates consumer data, links it to a tag, and allows marketers to define a target audience based on profile attributes. The system then delivers targeted content to matching consumers. Like Chitkara, Sloan's system retains the profile data centrally.

• Motivation to Modify Sloan's System: A PHOSITA would have understood that the primary asset in Sloan's system is the valuable database of aggregated user profiles. In 2006, a primary goal of any such data-centric business was to maximize monetization. Beyond acting as a service that delivers ads (as Sloan describes), an obvious alternative or additional business model would be to license or sell access to the profile data itself. This would allow third parties, such as large media properties, to enhance their own targeting capabilities. This motivation does not require a specific prior art reference, as data brokerage and licensing were well-understood business concepts.

• How a PHOSITA Would Implement the Modification: To implement this business model, the PHOSITA would need a technical mechanism to allow a media property to recognize a user for whom the central system holds a profile. The '445 patent's own background description acknowledges that the process of "cookie matching" was a known solution for this exact problem, referencing DoubleClick's "Boomerang" service (Column 9, lines 5-13). This process allows two different domains (e.g., the profile owner and the media property) to synchronize their cookies for a given user, enabling the media property to "tag" the user and later recognize them. A PHOSITA, tasked with modifying Sloan's system to provide profiles to media properties, would have naturally and obviously turned to the well-known technique of cookie matching to implement the required data link.

• Conclusion: Combining Sloan's centralized profiling system with the known, standard industry technique of cookie matching to enable the transfer of profile information would result in the system claimed in claim 1 of the '445 patent. The motivation would be to pursue an obvious, alternative monetization strategy for the collected data, and the implementation would rely on readily available, known technical solutions.

As of April 29, 2026, here is a detailed analysis of the patent term, application history, and related family for U.S. Patent 10,984,445.

Patent Term and Expiration

• Projected Expiration Date: The adjusted expiration date for US patent 10,984,445 is February 10, 2028. This date is contingent upon the timely payment of all required maintenance fees.

• Patent Term Calculation: For utility patents filed after June 8, 1995, the term is 20 years from the earliest non-provisional application filing date in its priority chain. The application for patent 10,984,445 is part of a long chain of continuing applications. The earliest non-provisional application in this chain is U.S. Application No. 11/765,433, which was filed on June 19, 2007. Therefore, the base 20-year term expires on June 19, 2027.

• Patent Term Adjustment (PTA): The USPTO may grant a Patent Term Adjustment to compensate for certain administrative delays during the patent prosecution process. The difference between the base expiration date (June 19, 2027) and the listed adjusted expiration date (February 10, 2028) indicates that this patent family has been granted a significant PTA.

• Patent Term Extension (PTE): There is no indication that this patent has received any Patent Term Extension. PTE is typically granted to compensate for regulatory review delays (e.g., by the FDA) and is not applicable to this technology area.

Application Continuity and Family Members

U.S. Patent 10,984,445 resulted from Application No. 15/893,354, filed on February 9, 2018. It is part of a family of patents and applications that claim priority back to a provisional application filed in 2006.

Continuation and Parent Applications

This patent is a continuation of a series of prior applications. The direct line of priority is as follows (Source: US 10,984,445 patent text, "Cross Reference to Related Applications"):

• The application for this patent (Ser. No. 15/893,354) is a continuation of:
  • Application Ser. No. 14/080,999, filed November 15, 2013 (now abandoned). Which is a continuation of:
    • Application Ser. No. 13/631,244, filed September 28, 2012 (issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,589,210). Which is a continuation of:
      • Application Ser. No. 11/765,433, filed June 19, 2007 (issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,280,758). Which claims the benefit of:
        • Provisional Application Ser. No. 60/805,114, filed June 19, 2006.

Child Applications (Continuations of this Patent)

Subsequent applications have been filed that claim this patent application as their parent (Source: Google Patents, "Related Child Applications"):

• Application Ser. No. 16/425,259, filed May 29, 2019 (issued as U.S. Pat. No. 11,093,970).

Divisional Applications

Based on a review of the patent's prosecution history, no divisional applications have been filed in this patent family.

Complete Patent Family

The full family of related U.S. patents and patent applications stemming from the original 2006 provisional application includes the following (Source: Google Patents, "Family ID=38834332"):

Application Number	Filing Date	Status	Publication/Patent Number
11/765,433	2007-06-19	Granted	US 8,280,758
13/170,110	2011-06-27	Granted	US 8,244,574
13/631,244	2012-09-28	Granted	US 8,589,210
14/080,999	2013-11-15	Abandoned	US 2014/0074607 A1
15/893,354	2018-02-09	Granted	US 10,984,445
16/425,259	2019-05-29	Granted	US 11,093,970
17/401,052	2021-08-12	Pending	US 2022/0108352 A1

As a Senior Patent Strategist and Research Engineer specializing in Defensive Publishing, I have analyzed the core claims of U.S. Patent 10,984,445. The following document is a defensive disclosure of derivative inventions and technical variations. The purpose of this disclosure, dated April 29, 2026, is to place these concepts in the public domain, thereby creating prior art to preclude patenting of these and similar incremental improvements by third parties.

The core concept analyzed is a system wherein a central Profile Owner computer receives user profiles from Profile Suppliers, matches these profiles against requests from Media Property entities, and arranges for the user to be tagged such that the selected Media Property can read the tag, access the profile, and deliver a targeted advertisement.

---

Defensive Disclosure: Derivative Embodiments and Applications

1. Material & Component Substitution

These variations substitute core data structures, protocols, and system components of the claimed invention to achieve the same functional outcome.

1.1. Derivative: Cryptographic & Hardware-Based Tagging

• Enabling Description: This variation replaces the standard cookie or device ID "tag" with a cryptographically secure, time-limited identifier. The Profile Owner computer, upon matching a visitor profile to a Media Property request, generates a JSON Web Token (JWT). This JWT contains claims identifying the visitor's profile category (e.g., "interest": "automotive") and the intended Media Property audience ("aud": "media-property-domain.com"). The token is signed with the Profile Owner's private key. The Profile Owner arranges for this JWT to be stored on the visitor device (e.g., in localStorage). When the visitor accesses the Media Property, the Media Property's system retrieves the JWT, verifies its signature using the Profile Owner's public key, and extracts the profile claims to deliver the ad. A further enhancement uses a hardware-based identifier from a device's Trusted Execution Environment (TEE), such as Apple's Secure Enclave ID or an Android StrongBox Keystore attestation key, as the core visitor identifier to which the profile is linked, preventing tag spoofing.

• Mermaid Diagram:

  sequenceDiagram
      participant V as Visitor Device
      participant PS as Profile Supplier
      participant PO as Profile Owner
      participant MP as Media Property
  
      V->>+PS: Visits site
      PS->>+PO: Redirects with profile data
      PO-->>-PS: Acknowledges
      PO->>PO: Matches profile to MP's request
      PO->>V: Issues signed JWT (Tag)
      Note over V: Stores JWT in localStorage
      V->>+MP: Later visits Media Property
      MP->>V: Reads JWT from localStorage
      MP->>MP: Verifies JWT signature
      MP->>V: Delivers targeted advertisement
  

1.2. Derivative: Distributed Ledger for Profile & Request Registry

• Enabling Description: The central database is replaced with a permissioned distributed ledger (e.g., Hyperledger Fabric). Each Media Property's profile request is recorded as a transaction on the ledger, creating an immutable record. When a Profile Supplier provides a new visitor profile, the Profile Owner computer hashes the profile attributes and checks the ledger for matching request hashes. Upon a match, the Profile Owner initiates a smart contract that records the profile-to-Media-Property link. The "tag" stored on the visitor's device is a pointer to this transaction record on the ledger. This architecture provides a verifiable, auditable trail of data sharing, useful for royalty calculations and privacy compliance.

• Mermaid Diagram:

  flowchart TD
      subgraph Visitor Device
          A[Tag: Transaction ID]
      end
      subgraph Profile Owner System
          B[Profile Ingestion Module]
          C[Smart Contract Executor]
          D[Hashing Engine]
      end
      subgraph Distributed Ledger
          E[Block 1: MP_A requests "travel"]
          F[Block 2: MP_B requests "auto"]
          G[Block N: Visitor_XYZ matched to MP_A]
      end
      H[Profile Supplier] -- Profile Data --> B
      B -- Profile Attributes --> D
      D -- Hashed Profile --> C
      C -- Reads Requests --> E & F
      C -- Writes Match --> G
      C -- Returns Tx ID --> A
  

2. Operational Parameter Expansion

These variations describe the core invention operating at extreme scales and frequencies.

2.1. Derivative: High-Frequency Trading (HFT) Signal Distribution

• Enabling Description: The invention is adapted for microsecond-latency financial markets. The "Profile Suppliers" are real-time natural language processing (NLP) engines that scan news feeds and social media, generating sentiment profiles (e.g., "bullish on AAPL"). The "Profile Owner" is a central market data hub. "Media Properties" are algorithmic trading engines that have submitted standing requests for specific sentiment profiles related to certain equities. When a new sentiment profile is generated, the hub matches it to a trading engine's request. The "tagging" is a direct memory access (DMA) write over a 100GbE network connection to a specific memory address on the trading engine's server, and the "advertisement" is the sentiment data payload itself, which triggers a trade execution within nanoseconds.

• Mermaid Diagram:

  graph LR
      A[News Feed NLP Engine] -- Sentiment Profile --> B(Central Data Hub);
      C[Algo Trading Engine] -- Request: 'bullish on AAPL' --> B;
      B -- Matches Profile to Request --> D{DMA Write};
      D -- Payload Delivered --> C;
      C -- Triggers --> E[Trade Execution];
  

2.2. Derivative: National-Scale Utility Grid Load Balancing

• Enabling Description: The system manages energy distribution across a national power grid. "Profile Suppliers" are millions of smart meters in homes and businesses, reporting real-time consumption data. A "profile" is an aggregated pattern indicating, for instance, a surge in EV charging in a specific region. The "Profile Owner" is the national grid operator's central control system. "Media Properties" are power generation facilities (hydro, solar, gas) that have submitted requests to be notified of demand profiles they are best suited to meet. Upon detecting a regional demand profile, the operator's system tags the profile and provides it to the selected power plant. The "advertisement" is a power generation ramp-up command sent to that facility.

• Mermaid Diagram:

  stateDiagram-v2
      [*] --> Idle
      Idle --> Analyzing: Smart meter data received
      Analyzing --> Matched: Demand profile (EV charging surge) matches hydro plant's capacity request
      Matched --> Commanding: Send "increase generation" command to hydro plant
      Commanding --> Idle: Command acknowledged
  

3. Cross-Domain Application

These variations apply the core mechanism to disparate industries.

3.1. Derivative: Aerospace - Autonomous Satellite Debris Avoidance

• Enabling Description: The system functions as a decentralized space traffic management network. "Profile Suppliers" are ground-based observatories and in-orbit sensors that detect and characterize space debris, generating a state vector profile (position, velocity, size). The "Profile Owner" is a federated data hub for space situational awareness. "Media Properties" are commercial satellite operators who have filed "requests" for profiles of any object predicted to pass within a certain threshold of their assets. When a new debris profile matches a satellite's keep-out zone, the hub tags the debris profile and provides it to the satellite's flight control system. The "advertisement" is a recommended collision avoidance maneuver plan.

• Mermaid Diagram:

  sequenceDiagram
      participant Sensor as Debris Sensor
      participant Hub as Federated Data Hub
      participant SatFC as Satellite Flight Control
      Sensor->>Hub: Reports Debris Profile (State Vector)
      Hub->>Hub: Compares profile against satellite keep-out zones (Requests)
      Hub->>SatFC: Provides matched debris profile
      SatFC->>SatFC: Calculates avoidance maneuver
  

3.2. Derivative: AgTech - Precision Pest Management

• Enabling Description: The system is used for targeted agricultural intervention. "Profile Suppliers" are autonomous drones equipped with multispectral cameras that scan fields, identifying specific pest infestations (e.g., spider mites on corn) and creating a geospatial "pest profile." The "Profile Owner" is a central farm management server. "Media Properties" are fleets of automated pesticide-spraying drones that have requested pest profiles matching the specific pesticide they carry. The central server matches the infestation profile to the appropriate spraying drone and provides the location data. The "advertisement" is the mission plan (flight path and spray volume) uploaded to the selected drone for execution.

• Mermaid Diagram:

  graph TD
      A(Scanning Drone) -- Geospatial Pest Profile --> B{Farm Management Server};
      C(Spraying Drone #1 <br> Carries Miticide) -- Request: 'Spider Mite Profiles' --> B;
      D(Spraying Drone #2 <br> Carries Fungicide) -- Request: 'Fungus Profiles' --> B;
      B -- Matches 'Spider Mite' --> C;
      B -- Provides Mission Plan --> C;
      C --> E(Executes Targeted Spraying);
  

4. Integration with Emerging Tech

These variations integrate the core patent with AI, IoT, and blockchain.

4.1. Derivative: AI-Driven Predictive Profile Allocation

• Enabling Description: The Profile Owner computer employs a reinforcement learning (RL) model instead of a simple request-matching engine. The model's state includes the current pool of visitor profiles and available Media Property requests. Its action is to decide which Media Property to provide a given profile to. The reward signal is based on the ultimate conversion rate or revenue generated by the ad served by the Media Property, which is reported back to the Profile Owner. Over time, the RL agent learns to predict which Media Property will make the most effective use of a given profile, even if multiple properties have requested the same profile category. This optimizes the overall network yield beyond simple first-come, first-served matching.

• Mermaid Diagram:

  flowchart
      A[Visitor Profile Received] --> B{RL Model};
      C[Media Property Requests] --> B;
      B -- Action: Allocate Profile to MP_A --> D[Tagging & Provisioning];
      D --> E[MP_A Serves Ad];
      E -- Conversion Data --> F[Reward Signal Calculation];
      F -- Reward Signal (+/-) --> B;
  

4.2. Derivative: IoT Predictive Maintenance

• Enabling Description: The system is applied to an industrial IoT environment. The "visitor device" is a sensor on a factory machine (e.g., a vibration sensor on a motor). The "Profile Supplier" is the local edge computing gateway that processes raw sensor data. It generates a "profile" when the data matches a known pre-failure signature (e.g., high-frequency harmonic vibration). The "Profile Owner" is the central factory operations system. The "Media Properties" are different maintenance teams (electrical, mechanical) who have "requested" to be alerted to specific failure profiles. The system matches the vibration profile to the mechanical team's request, and the "advertisement" is a work order automatically generated in their maintenance scheduling system.

• Mermaid Diagram:

  sequenceDiagram
      participant Sensor as Machine Sensor
      participant EdgeGW as Edge Gateway
      participant FactoryOps as Factory Operations System
      participant MechTeam as Mechanical Maintenance System
  
      loop Real-time Monitoring
          Sensor->>EdgeGW: Vibration data stream
      end
      EdgeGW->>EdgeGW: Detects pre-failure signature (Profile)
      EdgeGW->>FactoryOps: Sends Failure Profile
      FactoryOps->>FactoryOps: Matches profile to Mechanical Team's request
      FactoryOps->>MechTeam: Creates "Work Order" (Ad)
  

5. The "Inverse" or Failure Mode

These variations describe the invention designed for safe failure, privacy, or limited functionality.

5.1. Derivative: k-Anonymity Privacy-Preserving Mode

• Enabling Description: To comply with strict privacy regulations, the system operates in a low-power, privacy-preserving mode. When the Profile Owner receives a visitor profile, it does not store the individual profile. Instead, it places the visitor into a larger, mathematically-defined cohort of at least 'k' other visitors who share similar attributes (k-anonymity). The "tag" on the visitor's device is the ID for this anonymous cohort. When a Media Property requests a profile, the system does not provide the individual profile but instead confirms that the visitor belongs to a cohort that matches the request. The Media Property can then serve an ad targeted to the cohort (e.g., "males 30-40 interested in travel") without ever knowing the individual's specific data.

• Mermaid Diagram:

  graph TD
      A[Visitor Profile] --> B{k-Anonymity Engine};
      B -- Assigns Cohort ID --> C(Tag on Visitor Device);
      D[Media Property] -- Requests 'travel' profile --> B;
      B -- Checks Cohort for 'travel' attribute --> D;
      B -- Responds 'Visitor is in Cohort XYZ' --> D;
      D -- Serves Cohort-targeted Ad --> C;
  

---

Combination Prior Art with Open-Source Standards

1. Combination with Prebid.js: The Profile Owner's system is implemented as a Real-Time Data (RTD) Provider module within the open-source Prebid.js header bidding framework. When an auction is initiated on a Media Property's website, the Prebid RTD module makes a client-side call to the Profile Owner's API using the visitor's tag. The Profile Owner returns profile data (e.g., ortb2.user.data segments), which Prebid.js automatically appends to the outgoing bid requests to all Demand-Side Platforms (DSPs). This standardizes and decentralizes the profile distribution directly into the programmatic advertising bid stream.

2. Combination with W3C Verifiable Credentials (VCs): The system operates within the W3C's decentralized identity framework. A Profile Supplier acts as a VC "Issuer," cryptographically signing a credential like {"type": "InterestCredential", "interest": "automotive"} and providing it to the visitor, who stores it in their personal "Identity Wallet." The visitor then presents this VC to a Media Property (the "Verifier"). The Media Property, having previously registered its interest in "automotive" profiles with a public Profile Owner "Directory," can verify the credential's authenticity and serve a targeted ad, giving the user direct control over their profile data.

3. Combination with OAuth 2.0 and OpenID Connect: The system is built on the OAuth 2.0 authorization framework. The Profile Owner acts as the Authorization Server. The Profile Supplier, on behalf of the user, initiates an OAuth flow, requesting the user's consent to create a profile. The Profile Owner stores this consent and profile data. When a Media Property (a "Client Application") requires a profile, it initiates a separate OAuth flow. The Profile Owner checks if the user has consented to sharing their profile with this specific Media Property. If so, it issues an access token (the "tag") which the Media Property can use to retrieve the profile claims from a standardized OpenID Connect UserInfo endpoint.