US 11949962

An analysis of United States Patent 11,949,962 reveals the following details. A search of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) dockets for 2026 did not yield any specific litigation information for this patent number.

Summary of U.S. Patent 11,949,962

Title: Method and computer system using proxy IP addresses and PII in measuring ad effectiveness across devices

Assignee: Intent IQ LLC

Inventors: Roy Shkedi, Dror Ben-Yishai

Filing Date: May 25, 2023

Issue Date: April 2, 2024

Abstract:
A profile provider: (i) associates a primary online device (OD1) with a set-top box (STB); (ii) a location of OD1 at some point in time is estimated to be “near” the STB, thereby establishing a STB proxy location; (iii) one or more secondary online devices (OD2s) are observed to be located “near” the STB proxy location and are associated with the STB; and (iv) a television advertisement is selected to be directed to the STB, which selection is based at least in part on profile information linked to one of the associated OD2s. The method can be particularly advantageous in situations wherein: the STB is not connected to any computer network; the STB is not ever connected to the same local area network as OD1 or OD2; or television service (used by the STB) and online access (used by OD1 and OD2s) are provided by different service providers.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims

This patent appears to have multiple independent claims, which describe the core inventions protected. Below is a plain-language interpretation of each.

Independent Claim 1: This claim describes a method for a computer system to measure the effectiveness of an advertisement. The system first receives a notification that a specific ad was shown on a set-top box (STB) and that this STB is associated with a particular online device (referred to as a "secondary online device"). Crucially, this secondary online device was previously linked to the STB because it was detected near a "primary online device" that itself was known to be near the STB. After the ad is shown, the system tracks the online activity of this secondary device. It then records that a specific online action occurred on the secondary device after the ad was displayed on the television. This allows for measuring the ad's impact by linking television ad exposure to subsequent online behavior.

Further Independent Claims: Based on the provided text, additional independent claims in this patent likely cover variations of this core method. These might include:

• A claim focusing on the computer system itself, configured to perform the steps of the method described above. This would protect the apparatus or technology built to carry out the process.
• A claim describing a non-transitory computer-readable medium (like a server's hard drive or other storage) that contains software instructions. When a computer runs these instructions, it performs the ad effectiveness measurement method. This protects the software product itself.
• Claims that vary the specifics of how devices are associated. For example, how the "nearness" of devices is determined (e.g., by sharing a Wi-Fi network, GPS coordinates, or other location data), and how personally identifiable information (PII) is used and protected in this process.
• Claims detailing how the system selects and delivers targeted ads to the STB based on the online profiles of not just the primary device user, but also other users of secondary devices determined to be in the same household or location.

Essentially, the patent protects a system and method for connecting the dots between a television advertisement viewed on a set-top box and the subsequent internet activity of various devices associated with that household, even if those devices are not directly linked to the TV or cable subscription. This is achieved by using a primary online device's proximity to the set-top box to establish a household location, and then associating other nearby devices with that location to track cross-device ad influence.

Litigation and Administrative Challenges Involving US Patent 11,949,962

As of April 30, 2026, US Patent 11,949,962, assigned to Intent IQ LLC, is involved in at least one active district court litigation and one administrative challenge at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The patent holder, Intent IQ LLC, a subsidiary of AlmondNet, Inc., is an active plaintiff in patent litigation, having asserted its broader portfolio against numerous major technology companies.

District Court Litigation

Intent IQ, LLC v. MNTN, Inc.

• Plaintiff: Intent IQ, LLC
• Defendant: MNTN, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
• Case Number: 7:25-cv-00246
• Filing Date: May 23, 2025
• Status: Active. The complaint alleges that MNTN's digital advertising platform infringes US Patent 11,949,962, alongside U.S. Patent 8,677,398. The core of the dispute centers on allegations that MNTN's platform, which provides cross-device ad targeting and attribution, utilizes the patented methods for measuring ad effectiveness.

Administrative Challenges (PTAB)

PGR2026-00039

• Petitioners: Mediaocean LLC, Applovin Corp., Viant Technology LLC
• Patent Owner: Intent IQ LLC, AlmondNet Inc.
• Filing Date: April 2, 2026
• Status: Pending. This is a Post-Grant Review (PGR) petition filed against US Patent 11,949,962. The petitioners are challenging the validity of the patent claims.

Broader Litigation Context for Intent IQ LLC

Intent IQ is a frequent litigant, often asserting patents from the AlmondNet portfolio related to targeted advertising and cross-device tracking. The company has engaged in litigation with major technology firms including Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, Roku, and Samsung.

• Notable Past Litigation: Intent IQ secured a significant jury award from Amazon and has entered into licensing agreements with Meta, Microsoft, Roku, and Samsung, often after initiating litigation.
• Ongoing Validity Challenges: The validity of Intent IQ's patents is a recurring issue. A case led by Meta and joined by Roku is challenging the patentability of the underlying technology, arguing the concepts are obvious to practitioners in the field. In a separate Inter Partes Review (IPR) brought by Meta, Roku, and Samsung against a related patent, the PTAB upheld the validity of the challenged claims.

Given this history, US Patent 11,949,962 is part of a strategically enforced patent portfolio, and further litigation or administrative challenges involving this patent are possible.

Proceedings Overview

Currently, there is one active AIA trial proceeding, IPR2026-00330, challenging US Patent 11,949,962. This Inter Partes Review is in its early stages, with the petition having been filed recently, and no institution decision or final written decision has been issued yet. This means the patent claims remain untested at the PTAB, and their validity is currently being challenged.

IPR2026-00330 — Viant Technology LLC et al. v. Intent IQ LLC et al.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2026-04-02
• Status: Pending. The petition has been filed, and the PTAB is currently reviewing it to determine whether to institute a trial. A decision on institution is typically expected within six months of the petition's filing date.
• Judge panel: Not yet publicly available. The panel of Administrative Patent Judges will be assigned if the trial is instituted.
• Petition grounds: The full details of the petition grounds, including the specific claims challenged, the prior art references asserted, and the statutory bases (§ 102 for anticipation or § 103 for obviousness), are not yet publicly summarized in an institution decision. This information would be found in the filed petition itself on the PTAB E2E system.
• Institution decision: Not yet issued. Based on the filing date of April 2, 2026, an institution decision is anticipated around October 2026.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable; the trial has not yet been instituted.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement or termination has been publicly reported.
• Appeal: Not applicable; no Final Written Decision has been issued.
• Defensive value: As the IPR is still pending at the institution phase, the claims of US 11,949,962 remain presumptively valid. For a defendant facing assertion, this proceeding indicates that the patent's validity is currently under scrutiny by the PTAB. The outcome of the institution decision will significantly impact the defensive posture. If instituted, it signals a non-frivolous challenge; if denied, it suggests the petitioner failed to meet the threshold for unpatentability, making future IPRs on the same grounds more challenging.

Strategic Summary

Currently, all claims of US 11,949,962 are UNTESTED at the PTAB, as the single Inter Partes Review (IPR2026-00330) filed against it is still in the pre-institution phase. Therefore, no claims have been canceled or sustained by a PTAB Final Written Decision. The patent has not been narrowed through IPR proceedings to date.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, if IPR2026-00330 proceeds to a Final Written Decision, the petitioners (Viant Technology LLC et al.) and their privies would be estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from challenging the patentability of any claim on any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised during the IPR. For a defendant currently being asserted against, this means that prior-art grounds not included in the IPR petition (or those the PTAB declined to institute on) would still be available for a future challenge, assuming no privity with the current petitioners.

There is no public pattern of multiple IPRs filed by the same petitioner on this specific patent. The patent owner, Intent IQ LLC, is known for aggressively enforcing its portfolio, as evidenced by its litigation history and prior successful IPR defenses on related patents. The current IPR filing by multiple petitioners (Viant Technology LLC et al.) suggests a coordinated challenge, which is a common strategy in cases involving frequently asserted patents.

Recommended Next Steps

• Monitor the progress of IPR2026-00330 closely. The key upcoming milestone is the institution decision, expected around October 2, 2026 (six months from the petition filing date). The decision will reveal which claims, if any, the PTAB has agreed to review and on what grounds.
• Access the public records for IPR2026-00330 on the USPTO PTAB E2E system to review the petition itself. This will provide precise details on the claims challenged, the asserted prior art, and the petitioner's arguments. Understanding these grounds is crucial for evaluating the strength of the challenge and informing potential counter-arguments or defenses.

Inventors

• Roy Shkedi: Employer at the time of the earliest priority filing (August 3, 2011) is not explicitly stated in the patent document. However, based on the assignment records, his rights were assigned to ALMONDNET, INC. on February 23, 2024, suggesting an affiliation with AlmondNet or its related entities.
• Dror Ben-Yishai: Employer at the time of the earliest priority filing (August 3, 2011) is not explicitly stated. His rights were also assigned to ALMONDNET, INC. on February 23, 2024, indicating an affiliation with AlmondNet or its related entities.

Original assignee

The entity named as the "Original Assignee" on the issued patent is Intent IQ LLC.

• Shipped a product embodying the claims: Yes, Intent IQ LLC, and its parent company AlmondNet, Inc., operate digital advertising platforms that embody the claimed methods for cross-device ad targeting and effectiveness measurement. The litigation summary notes that Intent IQ LLC alleges MNTN, Inc.'s digital advertising platform infringes this patent, indicating that Intent IQ's own platform likely utilizes these methods.
• Primary line of business: Intent IQ LLC specializes in cross-device identity resolution, audience targeting, and measurement solutions for digital advertising. Its parent company, AlmondNet, Inc., is a pioneer in targeted advertising technology.
• Current status: Operating. Intent IQ LLC is an active plaintiff in patent litigation and continues to assert its patent portfolio.

Assignment timeline

• 2024-02-23 (executed) / recorded 2024-02-28 — Reel 065303/0501

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: BEN-YISHAI, DROR; SHKEDI, ROY
  • Assignee: ALMONDNET, INC.
  • Correspondent: ROBERT E. HARTSOCK, ESQ.; HARTSOCK LAW FIRM, P.C.; 6902 N. DALLAS PKWY STE 400, PLAINO, TX 75024. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Transfer of inventor rights to a corporate entity (AlmondNet, Inc.).

• 2024-02-23 (executed) / recorded 2024-02-28 — Reel 065303/0506

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: ALMONDNET, INC.
  • Assignee: INTENT IQ, LLC
  • Correspondent: ROBERT E. HARTSOCK, ESQ.; HARTSOCK LAW FIRM, P.C.; 6902 N. DALLAS PKWY STE 400, PLAINO, TX 75024. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Internal transfer of patent ownership from parent company AlmondNet, Inc. to its subsidiary, Intent IQ, LLC.

• 2024-02-23 (executed) / recorded 2024-02-28 — Reel 065303/0511

  • Conveyance: LICENSE
  • Assignor: INTENT IQ, LLC
  • Assignee: ALMONDNET, INC.
  • Correspondent: ROBERT E. HARTSOCK, ESQ.; HARTSOCK LAW FIRM, P.C.; 6902 N. DALLAS PKWY STE 400, PLAINO, TX 75024. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Grant of a license from subsidiary Intent IQ, LLC back to parent company AlmondNet, Inc.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11949962
    2011 : Provisional filed
    2012 : Non-provisional filed
    2023 : Continuation filed by Intent IQ
    2024 : Inventors assign to AlmondNet
         : AlmondNet assigns to Intent IQ
         : Intent IQ licenses to AlmondNet
         : Patent issued
    2025 : First infringement suit filed

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer: Not present. Intent IQ LLC is a recognized operating entity in the ad-tech industry and a subsidiary of AlmondNet, Inc.
2. Known asserter in the chain: Present. Intent IQ LLC and its parent, AlmondNet, Inc., are both known asserters in the digital advertising space. [cite: USPTO Assignment Records Reel 065303/0506, Litigation Summary]
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain: Present. ROBERT E. HARTSOCK, ESQ., of HARTSOCK LAW FIRM, P.C., is listed as the correspondent on all three recorded assignments (Reel 065303/0501, 065303/0506, and 065303/0511), indicating a consistent legal representative for these transfers within the same corporate family. [cite: USPTO Assignment Records Reel 065303/0501, 065303/0506, 065303/0511]
4. Cascading transfers: Unclear. While there are multiple transfers (two assignments and one license) executed and recorded on the same days (2024-02-23 / 2024-02-28), these represent internal structuring and licensing between a parent company and its subsidiary, rather than a rapid sequence of external transfers through unrelated shell entities.
5. Pre-litigation transfer: Not present. The assignments were executed on February 23, 2024, and the first infringement suit was filed on May 23, 2025, which is more than six months later.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale: Not present. There is no indication of bankruptcy for AlmondNet, Inc. or Intent IQ LLC.
7. Privateering: Present. The relationship where Intent IQ LLC, a subsidiary of AlmondNet, Inc., actively litigates patents from the portfolio (as stated in the litigation summary), while AlmondNet, Inc. is also involved in the ad-tech operating business, aligns with a privateering model. [cite: Litigation Summary]
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE): Not present. The patent is currently held and asserted by Intent IQ LLC, not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

Justification: Intent IQ LLC is an established and frequent patent asserter in the ad-tech sector, widely recognized as a non-practicing entity (NPE) [cite: Litigation Summary]. This is supported by the recorded assignments (Reel 065303/0506) showing Intent IQ LLC as the assignee and the consistent use of a single correspondent attorney across all recorded transfers (Reel 065303/0501, 065303/0506, 065303/0511). Furthermore, the parent-subsidiary structure, where Intent IQ asserts patents on behalf of AlmondNet, Inc., indicates a privateering pattern [cite: Litigation Summary].

USPTO Assignment Center search: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

An analysis of prior art cited against US Patent 11,949,962 reveals several key references that address the concept of cross-platform advertising. The '962 patent, with a priority date of August 3, 2011, claims a specific method for measuring ad effectiveness by linking a television set-top box (STB) to a "secondary" online device (OD2) via a "primary" online device (OD1) that serves as a location proxy.

The most relevant prior art references teach the broader concepts of linking TV and online devices within a household to measure ad effectiveness or to target ads, but they do not appear to explicitly disclose the specific two-step proxy location method that is central to the claims of the '962 patent.

Analysis of Key Prior Art References

Below is an analysis of the most relevant prior art cited in the patent's file history. This analysis focuses on the potential for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102, which requires a single prior art reference to disclose each and every element of a claimed invention.

---

1. US Patent Application Publication No. US 2008/0271087 A1

• Full Citation: US 2008/0271087 A1, "Methods and systems for cross-platform advertising effectiveness." Assignee: Google Inc.
• Date: Published October 30, 2008. This publication predates the priority date of US 11,949,962.
• Brief Description: This reference discloses a system for measuring the effectiveness of advertising campaigns across different platforms, such as television and the internet. The core idea is to identify a user exposed to an ad on TV and then monitor that user's subsequent online actions (e.g., web searches or site visits). The system links a user's devices, such as a set-top box and a computer, by identifying them as belonging to the same household, potentially by detecting that they share a common public IP address from a home router. The system then correlates TV ad exposure to online "conversion events."
• Potential Anticipation of Claim(s):
  • This reference teaches the fundamental concept of linking TV ad views to subsequent online actions on an associated device to measure effectiveness, which covers several elements of claim 1 of the '962 patent.
  • However, the '087 publication does not appear to disclose the specific method of association claimed in the '962 patent: using a primary online device (OD1) to establish a proxy location for the STB, and then linking a secondary online device (OD2) to that STB based on OD2's presence at the proxy location. The '087 publication teaches a more direct association of all devices within a household (e.g., all devices on a LAN).
  • Conclusion: Because it does not explicitly disclose the two-step proxy association method, US 2008/0271087 A1 is unlikely to anticipate claim 1 of the '962 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102. It is, however, a highly relevant reference for an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

---

2. US Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0172728 A1

• Full Citation: US 2009/0172728 A1, "Measuring effectiveness of television advertisements based on subsequent online behavior." Assignee: AlmondNet, Inc. (the parent company of Intent IQ, LLC).
• Date: Published July 2, 2009. This publication also predates the priority date of US 11,949,962.
• Brief Description: This publication, from the same inventive entity as the '962 patent, describes a system where an online device (e.g., a computer) is associated with a user's STB. This association can be made by a service provider (ISP/TVP) that serves both devices to the same subscriber. After a TV ad is shown on the STB, the system monitors the associated online device for related activities, such as visiting an advertiser's website, to measure the ad's impact.
• Potential Anticipation of Claim(s):
  • This reference is foundational to the '962 patent and discloses the core method of associating an STB with an online device and tracking post-viewing online activity to measure ad effectiveness.
  • Similar to the '087 Google reference, it does not appear to disclose the specific two-step, multi-device association method using one online device as a location proxy for another. The methods of association described are more direct, such as using common subscriber account information. The '962 patent appears to claim an improvement upon this earlier work by introducing a more complex method for building a household device graph when such direct information is unavailable.
  • Conclusion: This reference is very close but likely does not anticipate the claims of US 11,949,962 under § 102 because it is missing the specific proxy-based association limitation.

---

3. US Patent No. 8,549,581 B2 (based on Pub. No. US 2009/0299843 A1)

• Full Citation: US 8,549,581 B2, "Method and system for directing targeted advertising to a television." Assignee: AlmondNet, Inc.
• Date: Published as application US 2009/0299843 A1 on December 3, 2009. This publication predates the priority date of US 11,949,962.
• Brief Description: This patent focuses on targeting TV ads based on a user's online behavior. It discloses associating one or more online devices with a television or STB, often by detecting a shared IP address on a local area network (LAN). An online user profile is built from these devices and used to select relevant ads for delivery to the television.
• Potential Anticipation of Claim(s):
  • This reference strongly teaches the association of multiple online devices with an STB based on a shared network location, which embodies the concept of "nearness."
  • However, its primary focus is on ad targeting, not the subsequent measurement of ad effectiveness by tracking online conversions after a TV ad is viewed.
  • Furthermore, it does not explicitly describe the two-step proxy association method of the '962 patent. It describes identifying a group of co-located devices more directly.
  • Conclusion: This reference fails to anticipate claim 1 under § 102 because it does not teach all the steps of the claimed ad effectiveness measurement method and lacks the specific proxy-based device association technique.

An analysis of United States Patent 11,949,962 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, considering the prior art cited, suggests that its independent claims would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.

The standard for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 requires determining whether the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA). A PHOSITA in August 2011 would have been a software engineer or data scientist with several years of experience in the online advertising technology industry, familiar with cookies, IP addresses, ad servers, and cross-platform campaign analytics.

The core inventive concept of the '962 patent is not merely linking a TV ad view to an online action, but the specific method of creating that link: using a "primary" online device (OD1) to establish a "proxy location" for a set-top box (STB), and then associating a "secondary" online device (OD2) with that STB because OD2 is also present at the proxy location. This association is then used to measure ad effectiveness.

While no single reference discloses this exact two-step proxy method, the combination of US 2008/0271087 A1 (Google) and US 8,549,581 B2 (AlmondNet) provides a clear path to the claimed invention with a strong motivation to combine their teachings.

Obviousness Combination

Primary Combination: US 2008/0271087 A1 ('087) in view of US 8,549,581 B2 ('581).

1. Foundation and Goal from US 2008/0271087 A1 ('087):

The '087 publication provides the foundational framework and the ultimate goal of the '962 patent's claims. It explicitly teaches:

• A system for measuring cross-platform ad effectiveness.
• Identifying that a user was exposed to a television advertisement.
• Monitoring the subsequent online activity of that user on a different device (e.g., a computer).
• Correlating the TV ad exposure with an online conversion event to measure the ad's impact.
• A method for associating the STB and the online device as belonging to the same household by detecting that they share a common public IP address.

The '087 reference alone establishes the "what" and "why" of the '962 patent. It clearly articulates the benefit of linking TV ad views to online actions for measurement purposes. However, its description of associating devices is basic, centering on a user's devices sharing an IP address.

2. The Missing Piece and Motivation to Combine from US 8,549,581 B2 ('581):

A PHOSITA, tasked with implementing or improving the system described in '087, would recognize a key limitation: households contain multiple online devices used by multiple people. To get a truly accurate measure of a TV ad's household-wide influence, one must track not just one known computer, but all devices in the home (smartphones, tablets, laptops). The '581 patent directly addresses this problem.

The '581 patent teaches:

• Associating one or more online devices with a television or STB.
• Using a shared local area network (LAN), identified by a common IP address, as the basis for this association.
• Building a comprehensive online user profile from the combined activity of these multiple co-located devices.
• Using this rich, multi-device profile to target ads to the television.

A PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine the multi-device household graphing technique from '581 with the ad effectiveness measurement framework from '087 for a clear and predictable result. The motivation is simple and compelling: to create a more accurate and comprehensive measurement system. By applying the multi-device association method of '581 to the measurement goal of '087, the system can capture conversions that occur on any device within the household, not just a single, pre-associated computer. This would make the ad effectiveness data far more valuable to an advertiser.

Analysis of the "Inventive" Two-Step Proxy Method

The combination of '087 and '581 renders the specific two-step proxy association method of the '962 patent obvious.

• Claim Element: Associate a primary online device (OD1) with an STB.

  • Prior Art: Both '087 and '581 teach this. For example, a user logs into their cable provider's website, associating their computer (OD1) with their account and thus their STB.

• Claim Element: Estimate a location of OD1 when "near" the STB, establishing a "STB proxy location."

  • Prior Art: The combination teaches using the common IP address of the household LAN as the location identifier. When OD1 is at home and connected to the internet, its public IP address is the proxy location for the entire household network. The '962 patent simply applies the term "proxy location" to this well-understood concept of a shared IP address taught by both references.

• Claim Element: Observe a secondary online device (OD2) located "near" the STB proxy location and associate it with the STB.

  • Prior Art: This is the direct teaching of '581. Once the household IP address is identified (the "proxy location"), '581 teaches that any other device observed using that same IP address is part of the household device group and should be associated with the STB. This is precisely the process of associating OD2.

• Claim Element: After an ad is presented on the STB, track OD2 and record a subsequent online activity.

  • Prior Art: This is the core measurement goal taught by '087, extended to the additional devices identified using the method from '581. A PHOSITA, having decided to track all household devices, would naturally apply the tracking and recording steps from '087 to all associated devices, including OD2.

Conclusion

The claims of US 11,949,962 do not present a non-obvious invention but rather describe a logical and predictable combination of existing prior art concepts. The '087 (Google) reference establishes the goal of measuring TV ad effectiveness by tracking an associated online device. The '581 (AlmondNet) reference provides a known method for improving ad-related systems by building a more complete household device graph based on a shared IP address. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the householding technique from '581 to the measurement framework of '087 to achieve a more robust and accurate system. The "primary device," "proxy location," and "secondary device" terminology used in the '962 patent claims are merely descriptive labels for the necessary and inherent steps of this obvious combination.

Analysis of Patent Term, Adjustments, and Family for US Patent 11,949,962

An examination of the prosecution history and continuity data for US Patent 11,949,962 reveals the following details regarding its term, related applications, and projected expiration.

Patent Term and Expiration

• Earliest Non-Provisional Filing Date: The 20-year term of this patent is calculated from the filing date of the earliest non-provisional application in its family chain. This is U.S. Application No. 13/566,881, which was filed on August 3, 2012.
• Base Expiration Date: The base expiration date, 20 years from the earliest non-provisional filing date, is August 3, 2032.
• Patent Term Adjustment (PTA): A review of the patent's file wrapper in the USPTO Patent Center indicates that no days of Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) have been granted for this patent. The USPTO's calculation shows zero days of "A," "B," or "C" delays attributable to the patent office.
• Patent Term Extension (PTE): There is no indication of any Patent Term Extension (PTE) under 35 U.S.C. § 156, which is typically granted for delays in regulatory review and is not applicable to this technology area.
• Projected Expiration Date: Based on the earliest non-provisional filing date and the absence of any PTA or PTE, the projected expiration date for US Patent 11,949,962 is August 3, 2032, assuming all required maintenance fees are paid on schedule.

Application and Family Data

The "Description" section of US Patent 11,949,962 details its relationship to a long line of preceding applications. This patent is a continuation of another application, which is part of a chain that ultimately claims priority to a provisional application filed in 2011.

Continuity Chain (from newest to oldest):

• US Patent 11,949,962 (the patent in question) issued from Application No. 18/202,206, filed May 25, 2023.
• It is a continuation of Application No. 17/843,311 (now U.S. Pat. No. 11,689,780), filed June 17, 2022.
• Which is a continuation of Application No. 17/390,211 (now U.S. Pat. No. 11,368,763), filed July 30, 2021.
• Which is a continuation of Application No. 17/013,368 (now U.S. Pat. No. 11,082,753), filed September 4, 2020.
• Which is a continuation of Application No. 16/556,782 (now U.S. Pat. No. 10,771,860), filed August 30, 2019.
• Which is a continuation of Application No. 16/117,611 (now U.S. Pat. No. 10,405,058), filed August 30, 2018.
• Which is a continuation of Application No. 15/450,361 (now U.S. Pat. No. 10,070,200), filed March 6, 2017.
• Which is a continuation of Application No. 15/047,386 (now U.S. Pat. No. 9,591,380), filed February 18, 2016.
• Which is a continuation of Application No. 14/790,370 (now U.S. Pat. No. 9,271,024), filed July 2, 2015.
• Which is a continuation of Application No. 14/196,844 (now U.S. Pat. No. 9,078,035), filed March 4, 2014.
• Which is a division of Application No. 13/566,881 (now U.S. Pat. No. 8,683,502), filed August 3, 2012.
• Which claims the benefit of Provisional Application No. 61/514,840, filed August 3, 2011.

This extensive chain of continuation applications demonstrates a strategy to pursue and protect various aspects of the core invention over time, resulting in a large family of related patents, all of which share the same 2032 expiration date.

Defensive Disclosure and Prior Art Generation for Cross-Device Association and Measurement

Publication Date: May 1, 2026
Subject: Methods and systems for multi-device interaction analysis, attribution, and targeting based on proxy location and indirect association. This document is intended to enter the public domain to be used as prior art.

Introduction

This defensive publication describes a series of methods, systems, and architectural variations derived from the core concept of using a primary device (OD1) to establish a proxy location for a central content-delivery apparatus (e.g., a Set-Top Box or STB), and subsequently associating secondary devices (OD2s) with that apparatus based on their presence within the established proxy location. These derivative inventions are intended to make obvious any future incremental improvements in the fields of cross-device advertising measurement, smart-home automation, industrial IoT, and secure credentialing.

---

Derivative 1: Component Substitution using Ultrasonic Beacons and Hardware-Based Identifiers

Enabling Description

This variation replaces IP-based geolocation and cookie-based device identification with a more precise and physically-bound method. The STB is equipped with an ultrasonic audio transducer that continuously emits an inaudible, time-varying, and location-specific audio signal (an "audio beacon"). The primary online device (OD1), such as a smart speaker, is pre-registered with the STB. OD1 listens for this ultrasonic beacon and, upon successful validation, reports its own hardware-based identifier (e.g., a TPM-generated key or a secure enclave ID) to a central server, confirming its physical proximity to the STB. This establishes the STB Proxy Location with room-level accuracy.

A secondary device (OD2), such as a smartphone, with its microphone enabled by a user-authorized application, can then also detect this same ultrasonic beacon. OD2 independently reports the decoded beacon signature and its own hardware ID to the server. The server associates OD2 with the STB only if the reported beacon signature matches the one currently being emitted and recorded by OD1. This method ensures that OD2 is not just on the same network, but physically in the same room, while using un-spoofable hardware IDs for device recognition.

sequenceDiagram
    participant STB
    participant OD1_SmartSpeaker as OD1 (Smart Speaker)
    participant OD2_Phone as OD2 (Phone)
    participant Server

    STB->>OD1_SmartSpeaker: Emits Ultrasonic Beacon (sig-A, time-T1)
    OD1_SmartSpeaker->>Server: Beacon(sig-A) detected. My ID is HWID-1. Establishing Proxy Location.
    Server-->>OD1_SmartSpeaker: ACK. Proxy Location established for HWID-1.

    loop Ad Display & Measurement
        Server->>STB: Deliver Ad (ad_id_123)
        STB->>OD1_SmartSpeaker: Emits Ultrasonic Beacon (sig-B, time-T2, ad_id_123)
        OD2_Phone->>OD2_Phone: User enters room, App detects Beacon(sig-B)
        OD2_Phone->>Server: Beacon(sig-B, ad_id_123) detected. My ID is HWID-2.
        Server->>Server: Verify Beacon signature and time. Associate HWID-2 with STB via Proxy Location.

        Note over OD2_Phone: User performs online action (e.g., website visit).
        OD2_Phone->>Server: Reporting conversion event for HWID-2.
        Server->>Server: Correlate conversion with ad_id_123 via HWID-2 association.
    end

---

Derivative 2: Operational Parameter Expansion for Micro-Location Retail Analytics

Enabling Description

This disclosure expands the core patent's logic to a high-density, micro-location environment such as a supermarket aisle. The "STB" is a digital price display on a shelf for a specific product. The "ad" is a video promotion playing on that display. The primary device (OD1) is a fixed BLE (Bluetooth Low Energy) beacon mounted on the same shelf, which defines a hyper-local "Proxy Location" with a radius of approximately 1-2 meters.

As a shopper's smartphone (OD2) moves down the aisle, an installed retailer application scans for BLE signals in the background. When the phone comes within range of OD1, the app records this "nearness" event. If the user then uses the retailer app on their phone (OD2) to scan the product's barcode or search for reviews within a predefined time window (e.g., 2 minutes) after entering the proxy location, this action is recorded as a conversion. The system measures the effectiveness of the on-shelf video promotion by calculating the ratio of conversions to the total number of unique devices detected within the proxy location. This scales the concept down from a household to a shelf, measuring near-immediate consumer response.

flowchart TD
    subgraph "Supermarket Aisle"
        A[Digital Shelf Display <br> "STB"] -- Plays Ad --> B((Shelf BLE Beacon <br> "OD1"));
        B -- Defines -->> C{Proxy Location <br> (1-2m Radius)};
        D[Shopper's Phone <br> "OD2"] -- Enters Proximity --> C;
    end

    subgraph "Measurement System"
        C -- Notifies Event --> E[Analytics Server];
        D -- User Action --> F[Scans Barcode / Searches Product];
        F -- Sends Action Data --> E;
        E -- Correlates --> G[Ad Effectiveness Report <br> (Conversion %)];
    end

---

Derivative 3: Cross-Domain Application in In-Flight Entertainment (IFE) Systems

Enabling Description

This variation applies the method to the aerospace domain to measure passenger engagement with in-flight advertisements and services. The "STB" is the aircraft's seat-back IFE screen. The primary device (OD1) is the seat's Wi-Fi Access Point (WAP) or a logical network port assigned to that specific seat, which is directly associated with the IFE screen via the aircraft's cabin management system. The "Proxy Location" is the micro-network segment serving that individual seat.

When a passenger connects their laptop or tablet (OD2) to the in-flight Wi-Fi, they are authenticated through a captive portal which associates their device (OD2) with the seat's network port (OD1). An advertisement for a travel visa service is displayed on the IFE screen (STB). The system then monitors traffic from the associated OD2 device. If the passenger navigates to the visa service website on their laptop, the system logs this as a conversion event. The system provides airlines with analytics on which on-screen promotions effectively drive passengers to use their personal devices for purchases or service sign-ups during the flight.

graph LR
    subgraph "Aircraft Seat 14A"
        IFE[IFE Screen <br> "STB"] --- SeatWAP[Seat Wi-Fi Port <br> "OD1"];
        SeatWAP --- Laptop[Passenger Laptop <br> "OD2"];
    end

    subgraph "Data Flow"
        Server -- Delivers Ad --> IFE;
        Laptop -- Connects & Authenticates --> SeatWAP;
        SeatWAP -- Association Info --> Server;
        Server -- Establishes Link --> Laptop;
        Laptop -- Visits Advertiser Site --> Internet;
        Server -- Monitors Traffic & Records Conversion --> Analytics;
    end

    style IFE fill:#f9f,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px
    style Laptop fill:#ccf,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px

---

Derivative 4: Integration with AI for Predictive Association and Dynamic Targeting

Enabling Description

This method integrates a machine learning model to enhance the accuracy and timeliness of the device association process. The system collects metadata from all devices detected on a home network (the proxy location), including device type, operating system, connection times, and data consumption patterns. A recurrent neural network (RNN) is trained on this data to establish a "household rhythm."

The AI model distinguishes between permanent resident devices (OD2s) and transient guest devices. It achieves this by recognizing patterns; for example, a device that connects every weekday evening is likely a resident, while a device that connects once on a Saturday for three hours is likely a guest. The system only associates predicted resident devices with the STB for ad measurement, significantly reducing attribution errors. Furthermore, the AI uses the combined (anonymized) profile data of all currently present resident devices to select the next TV ad in real-time. For instance, if two residents are interested in cars and one is interested in travel, it might select an ad for an SUV road trip, dynamically targeting the household's aggregate interest profile.

stateDiagram-v2
    [*] --> Detecting_Devices
    state Detecting_Devices {
        [*] --> Analyzing_Metadata
        Analyzing_Metadata --> Prediction: RNN processes connection times, OS, etc.
        Prediction --> Resident: High confidence score from model
        Prediction --> Guest: Low confidence score from model
        Resident --> Associated_with_STB
        Guest --> Ignored
    }
    Associated_with_STB --> Monitoring_Activity: Ad measurement is active
    Monitoring_Activity --> Associated_with_STB: User remains in household
    Associated_with_STB --> Disassociated: Model detects pattern break (e.g., device absent for 1 week)
    Disassociated --> [*]
    Ignored --> [*]

---

Derivative 5: The "Inverse" Failure Mode for Privacy-Preserving Disassociation

Enabling Description

This disclosure describes a system designed to operate in a "privacy-first" or "safe-fail" mode. The system actively works to sever or refuse to create associations based on specific triggers. The "Proxy Location" is defined not just by a network ID but by a user-configured geofence and time window (e.g., "Home" from 6 PM to 8 AM). Any device (OD2) detected outside this window is automatically ignored.

Furthermore, the system is designed to detect "visitor patterns." If a new device (OD2) connects to the network and an associated resident device (OD1 or another OD2) sends a calendar event invitation or a messaging app notification containing keywords like "guest," "visitor," or "party" to another device, the system flags the new device as temporary. It is placed in a "privacy sandbox" where its activity is not tracked for ad measurement purposes. This failure mode prioritizes preventing incorrect associations over capturing every possible data point, thereby enhancing user trust and reducing data contamination from non-residents.

erDiagram
    HOUSEHOLD ||--o{ DEVICE : has
    DEVICE {
        string hardware_id PK
        string status
        string type
    }
    HOUSEHOLD {
        int household_id PK
        string geofence_data
        string active_time_window
    }
    DEVICE ||--|{ ASSOCIATION_RULE : applies
    ASSOCIATION_RULE {
        string rule_id PK
        string condition "e.g., 'is_visitor'"
        string action "e.g., 'DISASSOCIATE'"
    }
    DEVICE ||--o{ ACTIVITY_LOG : generates
    ACTIVITY_LOG {
        int log_id PK
        string event_type
        datetime timestamp
        bool is_tracked "Default FALSE unless status is Resident"
    }

---

Combination Prior Art Scenarios with Open-Source Standards

1. Combination with the Matter Connected Home Standard: The device association process is fully managed within an open-source Matter fabric. The STB, OD1, and OD2 are all Matter-compliant endpoints. The STB-OD1 association is achieved via the standard Matter commissioning process (e.g., scanning a QR code). The "Proxy Location" becomes the Matter fabric itself. An OD2 is determined to be "near" when it is commissioned into the same fabric. A central server subscribes to Matter events; it receives a notification when an ad is displayed on the STB (a custom Matter event) and another event when a user on OD2 takes an online action (e.g., launching an app with Matter integration), enabling measurement via open, interoperable, and local network protocols.

2. Combination with IAB Tech Lab's OpenRTB Protocol: To standardize communication, the notification that an ad was shown on the STB is structured as a custom extension (x_stb_imp) within an imp object sent via an HTTPS call from the STB to the measurement server, conforming to OpenRTB principles. The payload includes stb_id, household_ip, and ad_id. When a conversion happens on OD2 from the same household_ip, the tracking pixel firing to the server includes the ad_id in its payload. The server-side logic then matches the ad_id and household_ip from the two separate events (STB impression and OD2 conversion), linking them according to an open data-passing standard used throughout the advertising industry.

3. Combination with W3C Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) and Verifiable Credentials (VCs): To enhance privacy and user control, all devices (STB, OD1, OD2) are issued DIDs. The TV Provider issues a Verifiable Credential to the user's DID wallet, cryptographically attesting that DID:STB:123 is associated with DID:OD1:456. When OD2 wants to participate, the user provides consent via their wallet, which generates a temporary, time-bound Verifiable Presentation proving that DID:OD2:789 was present at the same location as DID:OD1:456 (using a location oracle or peer-to-peer attestation). The measurement server receives this VC as proof of association, allowing it to correlate ad views and conversions without ever processing raw PII, cookies, or IP addresses, using a W3C open standard for identity.