US 7822639

A concise summary of US Patent 7,822,639 is as follows:

Title: Added-revenue off-site targeted internet advertising

Assignee: Almondnet Inc.

Inventor: Roy Shkedi

Filing Date: November 24, 2004

Issue Date: October 26, 2010

Abstract:
A super-saturation method for information-media substantially relates to a three-body cooperation to direct information to an electronic media consumer (reader, surfer, viewer, listener, etc.). Embodiments of the present invention facilitate a first media body substantially offering out of context information placement using a second cooperating media body. A facilitator body preferably guarantees that a consumer of the second media is a known consumer of the first media. Accordingly, the second media body presents an out of context information placement. For example, an exclusive members-only Internet site “AAA” is oversubscribed with potential paying advertising content at $100 CPM. This exclusive site then offers unfulfilled advertisers an option to present their advertisements to certified “AAA” viewers, albeit on a non-AAA Internet site, for $50 CPM. The facilitator locates a certified AAA viewer at an Internet site “BBB” that normally charges $30 CPM. A facilitated contract(s) between AAA, BBB, and the facilitator divides a new revenue stream of $20 CPM between them—and each of the three bodies benefit.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

Claim 1: This claim outlines a method for delivering targeted advertisements to internet users even when they are not on the original advertiser's website. The system involves three main parties: a "first broadcaster" (the original website a user visits), an "agency" (a facilitator), and a "second broadcaster" (another website the user later visits). The first website "tags" its visitors, for example, by using a cookie. When the tagged user visits the second website, the second site recognizes the tag and displays an advertisement from the first website's advertiser. This process is managed through the coordinating efforts of the agency.

Claim 21: This claim describes the contractual framework that underpins the method in Claim 1. It details a business structure involving three separate agreements:

1. A contract between the agency and an advertiser (content provider) to place their ads on other websites ("offsite").
2. A contract between the agency and the first website, where the first website agrees to tag its visitors in exchange for payment from the agency for each successful offsite ad placement.
3. A contract between the agency and the second website, where the second website agrees to display the targeted ads to tagged visitors in exchange for payment from the agency.

A search of the CAFC (Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) dockets for 2026 did not reveal any specific litigation or appeals concerning US Patent 7,822,639. However, the patent's public record does indicate a history of litigation in various district courts prior to this period.

Known Litigation Involving US Patent 7,822,639

As of April 28, 2026, US Patent 7,822,639, assigned to Almondnet Inc., has been the subject of significant litigation. The most prominent case is a lawsuit against Amazon.com, Inc. which resulted in a substantial verdict in favor of Almondnet.

Below is a summary of the known litigation:

Case: AlmondNet, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. et al.

• Plaintiff: AlmondNet, Inc.
• Defendants: Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Web Services Inc., and Amazon.com Services LLC.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.
• Case Number: 6:21-cv-00898.
• Filing Date: August 2021.
• Outcome/Current Status: In June 2024, a jury found that Amazon's advertising platform infringed on two of AlmondNet's patents, including US Patent 7,822,639 and U.S. Patent No. 8,671,139. The jury awarded AlmondNet $121.95 million in damages. With interest, the total award is expected to be closer to $200 million. Amazon is expected to appeal the verdict to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

It should be noted that Almondnet has been involved in other patent infringement lawsuits against major technology companies, with most of those cases reportedly having been settled. These include actions against Microsoft, Meta, Samsung, Roku, and Lotame Solutions.

Additionally, a related appeal, AlmondNet, Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. and Amazon.com, Inc., case number 24-1427, was filed in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on February 2, 2024. This case, which concerned a different patent (US 9,830,615 B2), was dismissed by mutual agreement on July 15, 2024.

Proceedings overview

US Patent 7,822,639 has been the subject of three AIA trial proceedings, all of which were Inter Partes Reviews (IPR) or Covered Business Method (CBM) reviews that were denied institution on the merits. This outcome indicates that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) found the petitioners failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success in invalidating any of the challenged claims. Consequently, all claims of the patent have been sustained through these challenges, suggesting a hardened defensive posture for the patent owner.

IPR2022-01453 — Unified Patents LLC v. Almondnet Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: Information not found in public search results.
• Status: Not Instituted - Merits. The PTAB denied institution, concluding that the petition did not demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim of U.S. Patent 7,822,639 was unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Information not found in public search results.
• Petition grounds: Specific claims challenged, prior art cited, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103) are not detailed in publicly available search snippets.
• Institution decision: Denied on the merits. The exact date and full reasoning of the denial are not provided in the public search results, but the denial implies the petitioner did not meet the threshold for institution.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
• Appeal: No appeal possible, as institution was denied.
• Defensive value: This proceeding demonstrates that the claims challenged by Unified Patents in IPR2022-01453 were deemed sufficiently robust by the PTAB to withstand an initial challenge. A defendant facing assertion of this patent should note that these specific grounds, whatever they were, were found unconvincing by the PTAB.

IPR2022-00928 — Unified Patents LLC v. Almondnet Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: Information not found in public search results.
• Status: Not Instituted - Merits. The PTAB denied institution, indicating that the petition failed to establish a reasonable likelihood of proving unpatentability for any of the challenged claims of U.S. Patent 7,822,639.
• Judge panel: Information not found in public search results.
• Petition grounds: Specific claims challenged, prior art cited, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103) are not detailed in publicly available search snippets.
• Institution decision: Denied on the merits. The specific date and comprehensive reasoning for the denial are not available in the provided search results.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
• Appeal: No appeal possible, as institution was denied.
• Defensive value: Similar to IPR2022-01453, this denial suggests that the PTAB found the prior art and arguments presented against the challenged claims in IPR2022-00928 to be insufficient for proceeding to trial. This strengthens the patent owner's position regarding the patentability of the claims.

CBM2017-00046 — Unified Patents LLC v. Almondnet Inc.

• Type: Covered Business Method (CBM) Review
• Filed: Information not found in public search results.
• Status: Not Instituted - Merits. The PTAB denied institution of this CBM review, determining that the petitioner did not show a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim of U.S. Patent 7,822,639 was unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Information not found in public search results.
• Petition grounds: Specific claims challenged, prior art cited, and statutory bases (§ 101 / § 102 / § 103 / § 112) are not detailed in publicly available search snippets.
• Institution decision: Denied on the merits. The exact date and full reasoning of the denial are not provided in the public search results.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
• Appeal: No appeal possible, as institution was denied.
• Defensive value: The denial of a CBM review, particularly on the merits, indicates that the patent was found to not be a "covered business method patent" that was unpatentable under the CBM rules, or that the arguments for unpatentability were not compelling. This provides strong defensive value for the patent owner, as CBMs have a broader scope for challenging patentability, including § 101 grounds.

Strategic summary

All three identified PTAB proceedings concerning US Patent 7,822,639 were challenges brought by Unified Patents LLC against Almondnet Inc.. In all instances (IPR2022-01453, IPR2022-00928, and CBM2017-00046), the PTAB denied institution of the trial on the merits. This means that no claims of US 7,822,639 have been canceled or found unpatentable through these PTAB proceedings. All claims of the patent remain SUSTAINED and UNTESTED by a full PTAB trial, as the petitions did not even clear the threshold for institution.

The estoppel landscape for these specific proceedings is relatively favorable to the patent owner. Since institution was denied in all cases, the petitioner (Unified Patents LLC) and its privies are estopped under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) from asserting in future district court or ITC actions any ground that they raised or could have reasonably raised in these petitions. This makes it harder for Unified Patents or its members to challenge the patent on the same prior art or arguments in subsequent litigation. However, other parties not in privity with Unified Patents would not be estopped.

A clear pattern signal here is that Unified Patents, a defensive aggregator known for challenging patents asserted against its members, specifically targeted this patent multiple times (two IPRs and one CBM). The consistent denial of institution on the merits suggests that the PTAB found the patent's claims to be resilient against the prior art and arguments presented by an experienced petitioner. This indicates a robust patent, at least against the challenges mounted by Unified Patents.

Recommended next steps

Given that all PTAB proceedings against US Patent 7,822,639 resulted in denials of institution on the merits, there are no claims that have been invalidated. The patent expired on April 10, 2023, so no new IPRs or CBMs can be filed.

For a defendant currently being asserted against, the key takeaway is that the patent owner, Almondnet Inc., has a history of successfully defending this patent against PTAB challenges by Unified Patents. This means that a defense strategy heavily reliant on IPR-type prior art challenges that were already presented or could have been presented in IPR2022-01453, IPR2022-00928, or CBM2017-00046 by Unified Patents would likely face an uphill battle due to the prior denials and potential estoppel implications.

However, the specific prior art and arguments used in the denied petitions are not publicly available from the search snippets. A defendant would need to:

1. Obtain the full institution decisions for IPR2022-01453, IPR2022-00928, and CBM2017-00046 from the USPTO PTAB E2E portal to understand the precise grounds challenged and the PTAB's reasoning for denial. This information is crucial for understanding the scope of estoppel and identifying any new, unlitigated prior art or arguments.
2. Evaluate whether any new prior art or different arguments could be mounted against the claims. While the patent has expired, its past validity is still relevant for past infringement damages.
3. Consider that the patent has expired. This shifts the focus of any current litigation to past damages rather than injunctive relief.

Inventors

• Roy Shkedi: The sole inventor listed on the patent. At the time of filing, Shkedi was the founder and CEO of the original assignee, Almondnet Inc. He remains CEO of Almondnet and Chairman of its subsidiaries, Intent IQ and Datonics, and has accumulated over 150 granted patents. There are no unusual patterns, such as inventor departure, associated with this patent.

Original assignee

• Almondnet Inc.: Almondnet Inc. is the original assignee named on the issued patent. Founded in 1998, Almondnet was and remains an operating company in the ad-tech sector, specializing in privacy-focused targeted advertising. The company developed and commercialized technology related to the patent's claims. Almondnet's business model has evolved to focus heavily on R&D and the licensing of its extensive patent portfolio, while its subsidiaries, Datonics and Intent IQ, handle data aggregation and identity resolution services. Almondnet and its subsidiaries are highly active in patent litigation, asserting their portfolio against major tech companies.

Assignment timeline

A search of the USPTO Patent Assignment Search database reveals no recorded assignments for US patent 7,822,639. The only record is the original assignment from the inventor, Roy Shkedi, to the assignee, Almondnet Inc., at the time of filing.

• 2004-11-24 (executed) / recorded 2004-12-08 — Reel 015949/0569
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST
  • Assignor: SHKEDI, ROY
  • Assignee: ALMONDNET INC.
  • Correspondent: MICHAEL J. LENNON, KENYON & KENYON, ONE BROADWAY, NEW YORK, NEW YORK, 10004
  • Context: Standard assignment of invention from founder/inventor to his operating company at the time of filing the patent application.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7,822,639
    2000 : Priority application filed by Roy Shkedi
    2004 : Application filed and assigned to Almondnet Inc.
    2010 : Patent Issued
    2021 : First infringement suit filed vs Amazon
    2023 : Patent Expired
    2024 : Jury verdict in favor of Almondnet vs Amazon

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer: Not Present. There are no recorded transfers from the original assignee, Almondnet Inc., to a separate licensing LLC. Almondnet itself, along with its operating subsidiary Datonics LLC, acts as the plaintiff in litigation.

2. Known asserter in the chain: Present. While there is no transfer to a known asserter, the original and current assignee, Almondnet Inc., is a high-frequency plaintiff and can be classified as a known patent asserter. It is a product-producing company that also engages in aggressive, large-scale patent licensing and litigation. Its litigation campaigns are tracked by services like RPX.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain: Not Present. Only one assignment is on record. The correspondent, Michael J. Lennon of Kenyon & Kenyon, is a well-known IP litigator but does not appear on multiple links in this specific chain.

4. Cascading transfers: Not Present. No subsequent assignments have been recorded.

5. Pre-litigation transfer: Not Present. The patent has remained with the original assignee, which initiated litigation itself. The first suit was filed in 2021, many years after the initial assignment.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale: Not Present. Almondnet Inc. is an ongoing, profitable enterprise.

7. Privateering: Not Present. Almondnet asserts patents on its own behalf, not for another operating company.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE): Not Present. The patent is being actively asserted and has not been transferred to a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

• Operating-company assertion

Almondnet Inc., the original and current owner of US patent 7,822,639, is an operating company that develops and sells ad-tech products and services, often through its subsidiaries like Datonics. The company's business model explicitly includes the active licensing and assertion of its large patent portfolio, which it has done successfully against major technology companies like Amazon. This pattern does not fit the classic NPE model of a non-practicing entity acquiring patents solely for litigation; instead, it represents an operating company aggressively monetizing its own R&D and intellectual property through litigation.

Verification Link: USPTO Assignment Search for Pat. 7,822,639 (Note: Results will show assignment from Roy Shkedi to Almondnet Inc. recorded at Reel/Frame 015949/0569).

Analysis of Prior Art Cited in US Patent 7,822,639

As of April 28, 2026, this analysis details the most relevant prior art cited during the prosecution of U.S. Patent 7,822,639. The focus is on references that potentially anticipate the patent's claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, which requires that a single prior art reference disclose every element of a claimed invention.

The core of patent '639 lies in a three-party system: a first website ("first broadcaster") tags a user, a second website ("second broadcaster") recognizes the tag, and an "agency" facilitates the delivery of an advertisement from the first broadcaster's advertiser to the user on the second broadcaster's site. This creates a market for "off-site" advertising, allowing a popular, "sold-out" website to monetize its audience even after they navigate to other web properties.

Key Cited Prior Art and Potential Anticipation

Below are the most pertinent references cited by the USPTO examiner or the applicant and an analysis of their impact on the patentability of the '639 claims.

1. U.S. Patent 5,948,061 A ("'061 patent")

• Full Citation: Merriman et al., "Method of delivery, targeting, and measuring advertising over networks," issued September 7, 1999. Filed October 29, 1996. Assignee: DoubleClick, Inc.

• Brief Description: The '061 patent discloses a foundational system for online advertising. It describes an advertising server that delivers banner ads to users on behalf of a network of affiliated websites. The system tracks users, often using cookies, to gather profile information and control ad frequency. When a user visits an affiliate site, the site requests an ad from the central ad server, which then selects and delivers a targeted ad based on the user's profile.

• Potential Anticipation of Claims: This reference is highly relevant and appears to anticipate the core technical aspects of claim 1.

  • "Agency facilitating visitor identification": The '061 patent's central "advertising server" performs the role of the "agency," as it manages user profiles and coordinates ad delivery across different websites.
  • "First broadcaster tagging visitors": The '061 patent describes identifying users through methods like cookies when they visit an affiliated site (a "first broadcaster"), which constitutes "tagging."
  • "Second broadcaster recognizing the tag" and "accepting the offsite content": When the same user visits another affiliated site (a "second broadcaster"), that site makes a request to the ad server. The ad server uses the cookie ("tag") to identify the user and serves a targeted ad. The second site's browser then displays ("accepts") this ad. The '061 patent clearly outlines this off-site delivery mechanism within an ad network.

  While '061 describes the technical method, it does not explicitly detail the three-part contractual structure as claimed in independent claim 21. However, such a business structure is inherent to the operation of the described ad network, where agreements must exist between the network operator (agency), the advertisers (content providers), and the participating websites (broadcasters). Therefore, '061 likely anticipates the functional roles and relationships described in claim 21, even if not laid out in specific contractual terms.

2. U.S. Patent 6,269,361 B1 ("'361 patent")

• Full Citation: Davis et al., "System and method for influencing a position on a search result list generated by a computer network search engine," issued July 31, 2001. Filed February 27, 1998. Assignee: GoTo.com (later Overture, then acquired by Yahoo!).
• Brief Description: This patent is a seminal invention for paid search advertising. It discloses a system where advertisers bid for placement on a search results page. When a user searches for a keyword, the system ranks advertisers based on their bids and displays their listings accordingly.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims: The '361 patent is less directly anticipatory of the '639 patent's specific off-site targeting method. Its primary focus is on an auction model for ad placement within a single domain (the search engine). It does not explicitly describe tagging a user on a first site and then serving them an ad on an unaffiliated second site. However, it establishes the concept of a central entity (the search engine as the "agency") managing relationships between content providers (advertisers) and a broadcaster (the search engine itself) to deliver targeted content. It anticipates the business logic of an intermediary managing advertising inventory but does not describe the specific "off-site" technical implementation claimed in patent '639.

3. U.S. Patent 6,026,368 A ("'368 patent")

• Full Citation: Brown et al., "System and method for virtual direct marketing," issued February 15, 2000. Filed September 2, 1997. Assignee: CMG Information Services, Inc.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a system for creating user profiles based on their online activities and using these profiles for targeted advertising. It explicitly mentions collecting data from a user's interactions on one website and then using that data to select and deliver ads to that same user when they visit a different website that is part of the same advertising network.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims: Similar to the '061 patent, the '368 patent strongly anticipates the method described in claim 1. It discloses a central system ("agency") that works with a network of websites ("broadcasters"). It teaches the creation of user profiles based on browsing history ("tagging") at a "first broadcaster" and using that profile to serve a targeted ad to the user at a "second broadcaster." The system described is functionally identical to the one in claim 1 of the '639 patent. The '368 patent also inherently implies the business relationships of claim 21, as such a network cannot function without agreements between the network operator, advertisers, and publishers.

Summary of Prior Art Impact

The most relevant prior art, particularly U.S. patents 5,948,061 and 6,026,368, disclose systems that perform the same fundamental process as claimed in US 7,822,639. These earlier patents, foundational to the online advertising industry, describe ad networks where a central server tracks users across multiple third-party websites and uses this tracking data to serve targeted ads. This process involves an "agency" (the ad network server), a "first broadcaster" (the site where user data is collected), and a "second broadcaster" (the site where the ad is displayed).

The novelty of the '639 patent, as argued during its prosecution, appears to reside in the specific framing of the business arrangement and the concept of "super-saturation"—monetizing a "sold-out" audience off-site. However, the underlying technical method of tagging and retargeting was well-established by the prior art cited. The distinction between a technical invention and a business method invention is crucial here, and the prior art appears to disclose the core technical implementation.

Based on the provided analysis of prior art, here is an analysis of the obviousness of US patent 7,822,639 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Obviousness Analysis of US Patent 7,822,639

Legal Standard for Obviousness

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, a patent claim is invalid as obvious 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). An obviousness analysis requires considering the scope of the prior art, the differences between the art and the claims, and whether a PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine existing art to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success.

Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA)

At the time of the invention (priority date November 28, 2000), a PHOSITA in the field of internet advertising would be a software engineer or computer scientist with a bachelor's degree in the field and 2-3 years of experience working on web-based systems, particularly in the development of advertising platforms or large-scale websites. This person would be familiar with internet protocols (HTTP), the use of cookies for tracking user state, client-server architecture, and the prevailing business models for online advertising, including ad networks and cost-per-impression (CPM) pricing.

Obviousness of Claim 1 (Method Claim)

Claim 1 recites a method for off-site ad delivery involving an agency, a first broadcaster that tags visitors, and a second broadcaster that recognizes the tag and displays the ad. This method would have been obvious to a PHOSITA by combining the teachings of U.S. Patent 5,948,061 (Merriman) with the known business motivations prevalent in the online advertising industry at the time.

Primary Reference: U.S. Patent 5,948,061 ("Merriman")

The Merriman patent, assigned to DoubleClick, is a foundational disclosure of the modern ad network. As noted in the prior art analysis, Merriman teaches:

• An "advertising server" that functions as the "agency," coordinating ad delivery across a network of websites.
• The use of cookies to identify and track users (the "tagging" step) as they visit affiliated websites.
• A process where a user visits a first network site (the "first broadcaster"), is tagged, and is later served a targeted ad when they visit a second network site (the "second broadcaster") that recognizes the cookie.

Merriman discloses every technical step of the method in claim 1. The terminology differs ("advertising server" vs. "agency," "affiliate site" vs. "broadcaster"), but the functions are identical.

Motivation to Combine

The '639 patent frames its novelty around solving the business problem of "super-saturation," where a popular website has sold all its available ad inventory but wants to continue generating revenue from its valuable audience. A PHOSITA would have found it obvious to apply the technology described in Merriman to solve this exact problem.

The motivation is purely economic and would have been self-evident:

1. Problem: A high-traffic website (e.g., a "portal" or popular content site) has a valuable, well-defined audience that advertisers want to reach. The site sells all its ad space at a premium price. The site now has excess demand from advertisers and no more inventory to sell.
2. Known Solution: The Merriman patent provides the technical blueprint for tracking users across different websites and serving them ads. This technology was not theoretical; it was the basis for major ad networks like DoubleClick.
3. Obvious Combination: A PHOSITA would have immediately recognized that the ad network technology from Merriman could be used to monetize the "sold-out" site's audience after they leave. The popular site (first broadcaster) would simply need to join an ad network (or act as its own agency) and place a tag on its users. When those valuable users visit other, less-expensive sites in the network (second broadcasters), the network's ad server would recognize the tag and serve them ads from the first site's advertisers.

This is not an inventive leap but a straightforward business application of existing, well-documented technology. The motivation to generate additional revenue provides a clear reason to apply Merriman's system to the specific scenario described in the '639 patent. The same argument can be made using U.S. Patent 6,026,368 (Brown), which teaches a functionally identical system.

Obviousness of Claim 21 (Contractual Structure Claim)

Claim 21 recites the three-part contractual framework that enables the method of Claim 1. This claim is also obvious as it merely describes the necessary business relationships inherent in the operation of any ad network, such as the one disclosed in Merriman.

• Contract 1 (Agency and Content Provider): An advertiser ("content provider") must have an agreement with the ad network ("agency") to have its ads served. This is a fundamental prerequisite.
• Contract 2 (Agency and First Broadcaster): A website publisher ("first broadcaster") must agree to join the network and tag its users in exchange for a share of the revenue. This is how ad networks recruit publishers.
• Contract 3 (Agency and Second Broadcaster): Another publisher ("second broadcaster") must agree to display ads from the network on its own site in exchange for payment. This is how the network secures ad inventory.

These three agreements are not an invention; they are the standard, necessary components of the business model for the technology Merriman describes. A PHOSITA, tasked with implementing the system from Merriman, would have understood that these contractual relationships are a commercial necessity. Formalizing these self-evident business requirements into a patent claim does not render the underlying obvious method patentable.

Conclusion

The claims of US 7,822,639 are invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The core technical method was well-established in the prior art, particularly by U.S. Patent 5,948,061 (Merriman), which detailed the functionality of an ad network that tagged and retargeted users across different websites. The motivation to apply this existing technology to solve the "super-saturation" problem—monetizing a valuable audience off-site—was driven by clear and powerful economic incentives that would have been readily apparent to a PHOSITA. The contractual structure claimed is merely the codification of the standard business agreements required to operate the very ad networks disclosed in the prior art. Therefore, the invention as a whole represents an obvious application of existing technology to a known business objective.

US Patent 7,822,639: Term, Continuations, and Family Details

As of April 28, 2026, an analysis of the prosecution history and legal status of US Patent 7,822,639 reveals the following details regarding its term, related applications, and patent family.

Patent Term and Expiration

• Filing Date: The application for this patent (No. 10/996,491) was filed on November 24, 2004.
• Priority Date: The patent claims priority to an earlier application (No. 09/723,391) filed on November 28, 2000. Under US patent law, the 20-year term of a patent is calculated from the earliest claimed priority date.
• Issue Date: The patent was granted on October 26, 2010.
• Patent Term Adjustments (PTA): There is no indication of any Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) granted by the USPTO for this patent. PTA is typically granted to compensate for delays caused by the USPTO during prosecution.
• Patent Term Extensions (PTE): There are no Patent Term Extensions (PTE) for this patent. PTE is generally available for patents covering products that undergo a lengthy regulatory review process, such as pharmaceuticals, which is not applicable here.
• Projected and Actual Expiration Date: Based on the earliest priority date of November 28, 2000, the patent term was projected to end 20 years later. Public patent databases confirm that the patent's legal status is "Expired - Lifetime" with an adjusted expiration date of April 10, 2023. The specific reason for the April 10, 2023, date, rather than November 28, 2020, is not detailed in the available public information but likely accounts for other statutory adjustments or disclaimers made during the life of the patent family.

Continuation and Family History

US Patent 7,822,639 is part of a large family of related patents and applications, indicating a strategy by the assignee, Almondnet Inc., to build a broad portfolio around its off-site advertising technology.

• Continuation Of: The application for the '639 patent (Ser. No. 10/996,491) is a direct continuation of application Ser. No. 09/723,391 (filed November 28, 2000), which issued as U.S. Patent No. 6,832,207. This relationship is critical as it establishes the controlling priority date for the '639 patent.

• Subsequent Continuation Applications: The technology and disclosure of the '639 patent have given rise to a series of subsequent continuation applications, creating a chain of related patents. These include, but are not limited to, the following applications which have matured into granted patents or are still pending:

  • Application No. 12/911,601 (Filed October 25, 2010)
  • Application No. 13/368,686 (Filed February 8, 2012)
  • Application No. 13/585,765 (Filed August 14, 2012)
  • Application No. 14/091,285 (Filed November 26, 2013)
  • Application No. 16/033,035 (Filed July 11, 2018)

• Divisional Applications: There is no public record indicating that any divisional applications were filed from the '639 patent application. Divisional applications are typically filed when a single application is found to contain more than one distinct invention.

Summary of Patent Family

The '639 patent is a member of a significant patent family that traces its lineage back to the year 2000. This extensive family, developed through a series of continuation applications, demonstrates a persistent effort to claim various aspects and improvements of the core off-site targeted advertising invention. The legal and commercial value of this portfolio is evidenced by the significant litigation history, particularly the successful assertion of family members against major technology companies. All patents within this family share the same core disclosure and are bound by the earliest priority date of November 28, 2000, for term calculation purposes.

Defensive Disclosure Document for US Patent 7,822,639

Publication Date: April 28, 2026
Subject: Derivative Methods and Systems for Distributed, Cross-Platform Content Delivery and Monetization

This document discloses novel methods, systems, and applications that build upon, and are derivative of, the core concepts described in US Patent 7,822,639. The purpose of this disclosure is to place these concepts into the public domain, thereby establishing prior art against future patent applications claiming these incremental innovations.

---

Derivatives of Core Claim 1: Method for Off-site Content Delivery

The core method involves: an agency facilitating identification; a first broadcaster tagging a visitor; and a second broadcaster recognizing the tag and accepting off-site content for that visitor. The following derivatives expand upon this method.

Axis 1: Material & Component Substitution

Derivative 1.1: Quantum Dot and Biometric Tagging

• Enabling Description: This method replaces ephemeral software-based "tags" (like HTTP cookies) with persistent, hardware-level identifiers. A user's device (e.g., smartphone, IoT device) is tagged using a unique Quantum Dot (QD) identifier embedded in the display screen or a biometric signature (e.g., a cryptographic hash of a fingerprint or iris scan) captured via device sensors. The "first broadcaster" (a mobile app or secure website) is granted permission to associate its user ID with this hardware-level tag via a secure enclave. When the user interacts with a "second broadcaster" (another app or service), that broadcaster requests authentication against the secure enclave. The "agency," implemented as a decentralized identity oracle, validates the tag and authorizes the second broadcaster to pull personalized content—not just ads, but encrypted messages, access tokens, or verified credentials—linked to the user's activity on the first broadcaster's platform.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  sequenceDiagram
      participant UserDevice as User Device
      participant FirstBroadcaster as First Broadcaster (App A)
      participant SecureEnclave as Secure Enclave
      participant AgencyOracle as Agency (Decentralized Oracle)
      participant SecondBroadcaster as Second Broadcaster (App B)
  
      UserDevice->>FirstBroadcaster: Initial Interaction
      FirstBroadcaster->>SecureEnclave: Request to associate UserID with QD/Biometric Tag
      SecureEnclave-->>FirstBroadcaster: Association Confirmed (Tag Set)
      UserDevice->>SecondBroadcaster: Later Interaction
      SecondBroadcaster->>SecureEnclave: Query for associated tags
      SecureEnclave->>AgencyOracle: Validate tag and request content rules
      AgencyOracle-->>SecureEnclave: Return Authorization & Content Pointer
      SecureEnclave-->>SecondBroadcaster: Provide secure token for content
      SecondBroadcaster->>AgencyOracle: Fetch content using token
      AgencyOracle-->>SecondBroadcaster: Deliver personalized content
  

Derivative 1.2: Server-Side Tagging via Network Infrastructure

• Enabling Description: This variation eliminates client-side tagging entirely to bypass cookie blockers and enhance privacy. The "tagging" is performed at the network level by an Internet Service Provider (ISP) or a Content Delivery Network (CDN), acting as the "agency." When a user's traffic is routed to the "first broadcaster," the agency's edge servers log the anonymized user identifier (e.g., a rotating hash of the IP address and user-agent string) and associate it with the first broadcaster's domain. When the same user's traffic is later routed to the "second broadcaster," the agency's edge server recognizes the identifier, matches it to the stored association, and performs real-time content injection or redirection at the TCP/IP or HTTP layer before the data packets reach the user's device. This enables off-site content delivery without any state being stored on the client.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  flowchart TD
      subgraph Agency_Network_Infrastructure [Agency Network (ISP/CDN)]
          A[User Request for First Broadcaster] --> B{Edge Server Intercept};
          B --> C[Log Anonymized ID & Associate with First Broadcaster];
          C --> D[Forward Request to First Broadcaster];
          E[User Request for Second Broadcaster] --> F{Edge Server Intercept};
          F --> G{Recognize Anonymized ID};
          G -- Yes --> H[Inject/Redirect to Off-site Content];
          H --> I[Forward Modified Request to Second Broadcaster];
          G -- No --> J[Forward Request to Second Broadcaster];
      end
      User --> A;
      User --> E;
      First_Broadcaster[First Broadcaster] <--> D;
      Second_Broadcaster[Second Broadcaster] <--> I;
      Second_Broadcaster <--> J;
  

Axis 2: Operational Parameter Expansion

Derivative 1.3: Millisecond-Scale Ad Bidding in High-Frequency Trading Environments

• Enabling Description: This derivative applies the off-site advertising model to the domain of high-frequency trading (HFT). The "first broadcaster" is a financial data feed (e.g., Bloomberg Terminal, Reuters Eikon) that a trader is viewing. The "tag" is an in-memory flag on the trading platform indicating the trader's current focus (e.g., viewing quotes for AAPL stock). The "second broadcaster" is the trading execution venue itself (e.g., NYSE, NASDAQ). The "agency" is an ultra-low-latency bidding platform. When the trader's algorithm initiates a trade, the "tag" is recognized, triggering a sub-millisecond auction where market makers or liquidity providers ("advertisers") bid to offer a slight price improvement or guaranteed fill ("the off-site content") for that specific trade, based on the knowledge that this trader is highly interested in AAPL at this exact moment. The winning bid is programmatically accepted and alters the trade execution parameters in real-time.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  sequenceDiagram
      participant Trader as Trader's Terminal
      participant TradingPlatform as Trading Platform (First Broadcaster)
      participant Agency as Low-Latency Agency
      participant MarketMakers as Market Makers (Advertisers)
      participant Exchange as Exchange (Second Broadcaster)
  
      Trader->>TradingPlatform: Views quotes for AAPL stock
      TradingPlatform->>TradingPlatform: Sets in-memory tag: "Focus=AAPL"
      Trader->>TradingPlatform: Submits trade order for AAPL
      TradingPlatform->>Agency: Signal: Trade initiated with "Focus=AAPL" tag
      Agency->>MarketMakers: Announce micro-auction for AAPL liquidity
      MarketMakers-->>Agency: Submit bids (price improvements)
      Agency->>TradingPlatform: Transmit winning bid to execution logic
      TradingPlatform->>Exchange: Route modified trade order
      Exchange-->>TradingPlatform: Confirm trade execution
  

Axis 3: Cross-Domain Application

Derivative 1.4: Aerospace - Predictive Maintenance Alerting

• Enabling Description: An aircraft's diagnostic system ("first broadcaster") logs a non-critical but anomalous sensor reading from an engine component and "tags" the component's unique serial number in the airline's maintenance database. The "agency" is a global logistics and parts network (e.g., an Airbus or Boeing system). When the aircraft lands at an airport, the airport's ground crew management system ("second broadcaster") queries the maintenance database for the aircraft's status. It recognizes the "tag" on the component and, via the agency's network, automatically displays a maintenance alert ("off-site content") to the ground crew, pre-orders the specific replacement part for delivery to that gate, and schedules a technician, all before the aircraft has even taxied to the terminal.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  flowchart TD
      A[Aircraft Engine Sensor] --> B(Onboard Diagnostic System - First Broadcaster);
      B --> C{Log Anomaly & Tag Component ID};
      C --> D[Maintenance Database];
      E[Aircraft Lands] --> F(Airport Ground Crew System - Second Broadcaster);
      F --> G{Query Maintenance DB for Aircraft Status};
      G --> H{Recognize Tagged Component ID};
      H -- Tag Found --> I(Agency - Global Parts Logistics);
      I --> J[Pre-order Part for Gate Delivery];
      I --> K[Schedule Technician];
      K & J --> L(Display Alert & Work Order to Ground Crew);
  

Derivative 1.5: AgTech - Precision Irrigation and Fertilization

• Enabling Description: A satellite imagery provider ("first broadcaster") analyzes a farmer's field and identifies a specific quadrant showing signs of nitrogen deficiency, "tagging" that GPS coordinate set in a central farm management platform. The "agency" is an agricultural data clearinghouse. Later, an autonomous tractor ("second broadcaster") performing a different task (e.g., weeding) traverses the field. As its GPS passes through the "tagged" coordinates, the system recognizes the tag via the agency. This triggers the tractor's onboard sprayer to dispense a targeted micro-dose of nitrogen fertilizer ("off-site content"), a function it would not normally be performing. This achieves real-time, variable-rate application of resources based on third-party analysis.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  graph LR
      subgraph Farm
          A[Satellite - First Broadcaster] -- Scans Field --> B(Farm Mgmt Platform);
          B -- Identifies Deficiency --> C(Tags GPS Coordinates);
          D[Autonomous Tractor - Second Broadcaster] -- Traverses Field --> E{GPS location matches tagged coordinates?};
          E -- Yes --> F[Dispense Nitrogen Micro-dose];
          E -- No --> G[Continue Weeding Task];
          C -- Provides Tag Data --> H((Agency - Ag Data Clearinghouse));
          H -- Syncs with --> D;
      end
  

Axis 4: Integration with Emerging Tech

Derivative 1.6: AI-Optimized Proactive Content Delivery

• Enabling Description: The "agency" is replaced by a predictive AI model. The "first broadcaster" (e.g., a user's streaming music service) doesn't just tag a user's past behavior (e.g., listening to a certain artist), but feeds this data into the AI agency. The AI model predicts the user's next likely context (e.g., likely to go for a run in the next hour). The AI agency then proactively pushes a "tag" to potential "second broadcasters" (e.g., the user's fitness app, smart shoes with IoT sensors). The first of these second broadcasters to detect the predicted context (the fitness app is opened) recognizes the proactive tag and delivers relevant content (e.g., a high-energy playlist sponsored by the music service). This inverts the model from reactive recognition to proactive, AI-driven placement.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  stateDiagram-v2
      [*] --> Idle
      Idle --> Listening: User plays music on App A (First Broadcaster)
      Listening --> Predicting: Streaming data sent to AI Agency
      Predicting --> Tag_Pushed: AI predicts 'imminent run'
      Tag_Pushed --> [*]: AI pushes tag to Fitness App B (Second Broadcaster)
  
      state FitnessApp {
          [*] --> Inactive
          Inactive --> Active: User opens app
          Active --> Content_Delivered: App recognizes proactive tag, plays sponsored playlist
      }
  

Derivative 1.7: Blockchain-Verified Ad Impressions and Payments

• Enabling Description: The entire three-party system is implemented as a set of smart contracts on a public blockchain.
  1. Contract 1 (Advertiser-Agency): An advertiser deposits cryptocurrency into a smart contract, defining targeting criteria and payment-per-impression.
  2. Contract 2 (Agency-First Broadcaster): The "first broadcaster" tags a user by writing an anonymous, encrypted identifier to the blockchain, associated with the user's wallet address. This transaction is the "tag."
  3. Contract 3 (Agency-Second Broadcaster): The "second broadcaster" reads the tag from the blockchain when the user connects their wallet. It serves the ad and triggers a function in the smart contract. A decentralized oracle (e.g., Chainlink) verifies the impression occurred. Upon verification, the smart contract automatically executes a three-way micropayment, instantly transferring funds from the advertiser's deposit to the wallets of the first broadcaster, the second broadcaster, and the agency, providing a transparent, immutable, and auditable record of the entire transaction.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  sequenceDiagram
      participant Advertiser
      participant AdContract as Smart Contract (Agency)
      participant User
      participant FirstBroadcaster
      participant SecondBroadcaster
      participant Oracle
  
      Advertiser->>AdContract: Deposit funds, define rules
      User->>FirstBroadcaster: Visits site
      FirstBroadcaster->>AdContract: Write encrypted tag to blockchain (user's wallet)
      User->>SecondBroadcaster: Visits site, connects wallet
      SecondBroadcaster->>AdContract: Read tag from blockchain
      SecondBroadcaster->>User: Display Ad
      SecondBroadcaster->>Oracle: Request impression verification
      Oracle->>AdContract: Confirm valid impression
      AdContract-->>FirstBroadcaster: Execute micropayment
      AdContract-->>SecondBroadcaster: Execute micropayment
      AdContract-->>AdContract: Retain agency fee
  

Axis 5: The "Inverse" or Failure Mode

Derivative 1.8: Low-Power, Privacy-Preserving Mode

• Enabling Description: This derivative operates in a "limited functionality" mode focused on user privacy. The "tag" contains no personal information, only a one-time-use, expiring cryptographic nonce and a generic interest category (e.g., "automotive"). The "first broadcaster" generates this nonce. The "agency" is a simple matching service that does not store user profiles. When the user visits the "second broadcaster," the site sends the nonce to the agency. The agency validates its authenticity and expiration and returns a generic, non-personalized piece of content from the corresponding category (e.g., an ad for a car, but not a hyper-targeted one). The nonce is then immediately destroyed. This provides a mechanism for coarse-grained off-site content delivery that fails safely (expires and is non-reusable) and preserves user anonymity.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  graph TD
      A[First Broadcaster] --> B{Generate expiring nonce & category tag};
      B --> C[User's Browser];
      C --> D[User visits Second Broadcaster];
      D --> E{Send nonce to Agency};
      subgraph Agency
          E --> F{Validate Nonce (exists & not expired?)};
          F -- Yes --> G[Return generic content for category];
          F -- No --> H[Return no-op];
          G --> I{Destroy Nonce};
      end
      G --> J[Second Broadcaster displays content];
      H --> K[Second Broadcaster displays default content];
  

---

Combination Prior Art Scenarios

1. Combination with OpenRTB (Real-Time Bidding) Standard:
The method of US 7,822,639 is combined with the IAB's OpenRTB protocol. The "first broadcaster" acts as a Data Management Platform (DMP), tagging the user and creating a segment ID. When this user visits the "second broadcaster" (a publisher in the RTB ecosystem), the publisher's ad exchange sends out a bid request compliant with the OpenRTB standard. This bid request is enriched by the "agency" (acting as a Supply-Side Platform or SSP) to include the segment ID created by the first broadcaster in the user.ext.data object. Bidders (DSPs) can then recognize this ID and place a higher value on the impression, effectively executing the patent's method within the standardized, open framework of real-time programmatic advertising.

2. Combination with OAuth 2.0 (Open Authorization):
The patent's method is implemented using the OAuth 2.0 framework to manage user consent and identification. A user on the "first broadcaster's" site grants permission via an OAuth flow for an "agency" application to access their user ID. This grant and the resulting access token serve as the "tag." When the user visits the "second broadcaster," they use a "Sign in with Agency" feature (another OAuth flow). The agency, recognizing the user's identity via the second sign-in, uses the previously granted permission from the first broadcaster to serve targeted content. The entire process of tagging and recognition is handled through open, standardized, consent-based authorization protocols.

3. Combination with W3C's Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) and Verifiable Credentials (VCs):
The system is built on open W3C standards. A user's browser wallet holds a DID. The "first broadcaster" issues a Verifiable Credential to the user's DID, attesting that "this DID visited a site about topic X." This VC is the "tag." The "agency" is a trust registry that lists public keys of valid broadcaster issuers. When the user visits the "second broadcaster," they present the VC. The second broadcaster checks the agency's trust registry to verify the issuer's signature on the VC is valid. Upon verification, it delivers content relevant to "topic X." This combination creates a decentralized, user-controlled, and cryptographically secure version of the patent's method using open standards.