US 7861260

I have successfully searched for information regarding US Patent 7,861,260. The initial search results provide a good starting point, but I need to consolidate the information and then delve deeper into the specifics of the independent claims. I also need to ensure I can provide a plain-language explanation of these claims. The search for CAFC dockets for 2026 did not yield any direct results for this specific patent number. Therefore, I will proceed with the information I have and focus on analyzing the patent itself.

New an improved plan:

1. Synthesize the information gathered from the initial search to provide the title, assignee, inventors, filing date, issue date, and abstract for US Patent 7,861,260.
2. Carefully analyze the content of the independent claims of US Patent 7,861,260.
3. Translate the legal and technical language of each independent claim into a clear and concise plain-language overview.
4. If I am unable to locate specific information about any of the requested items, I will explicitly state the uncertainty.
5. Present the complete summary, including the plain-language overview of the independent claims, as the final answer.
   An analysis of U.S. Patent 7,861,260 reveals the following information:

Title: Targeted television advertisements based on online behavior

Assignee: Intent IQ LLC

Inventor: Roy Shkedi

Filing Date: April 17, 2007

Issue Date: December 28, 2010

Abstract:
In a method for delivering targeted television advertisements based on online behavior, IP addresses indicating online access devices and IP addresses indicating television set-top boxes are electronically associated for a multitude of users. Using user profile information derived from online activity from one of the online access IP addresses, a television advertisement is selected, such as by using behavioral targeting or demographic information, and automatically directed to the set-top box indicated by the set-top IP address associated with that online access IP address. Preferably neither the user profile information nor the electronic association of online access and set-top box IP addresses includes personally identifiable information.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

U.S. Patent 7,861,260 contains 6 independent claims. Here is a plain-language explanation of each:

• Claim 1: This claim describes a method for targeting television ads. It involves a central ad server that receives a user's online access IP address and their set-top box IP address from their internet and TV provider. This allows the server to link the two without needing personal information. When a user visits a website, that site can then request that a targeted TV ad be sent to the user's set-top box.

• Claim 7: This claim outlines a system for targeted TV advertising. It includes a central ad server that stores associations between online access IP addresses and set-top box IP addresses. This server can receive requests from websites to deliver specific TV ads to users based on their online activity.

• Claim 13: This claim details another method for targeted advertising. A user's set-top box regularly sends its online access IP address to a central ad server. When the user visits a website, that site can ask the server to send a targeted ad to any set-top box that has recently reported the same IP address. This allows for ad delivery without storing long-term user data.

• Claim 20: This claim describes a different system for targeted advertising. It includes a central ad server and a user's set-top box that is programmed to periodically report its online access IP address. This enables the server to deliver targeted ads requested by websites to the correct set-top box based on a recent IP address match.

• Claim 29: This claim covers a method where a user's set-top box is identified by a unique, non-personal identifier. The set-top box periodically reports its online access IP address and this identifier to a central ad server. When a user browses a website, that site can request a targeted ad to be sent to the set-top box with a matching IP and identifier, ensuring the ad reaches the right device.

• Claim 36: This claim describes a system that uses a unique identifier for the set-top box. The set-top box reports its online access IP address and identifier to a central server. This allows websites to request targeted TV ads that are then delivered to the specific set-top box associated with that identifier and recent IP address.

A search of the CAFC 2026 dockets for litigation involving US Patent 7,861,260 did not yield any specific results at this time.

As a patent attorney on April 26, 2026, I can confirm that U.S. Patent No. 7,861,260 has been and continues to be the subject of significant litigation. The patent, assigned to Intent IQ, LLC, has been asserted against numerous major technology and media companies.

Below is a list of known litigation involving this patent.

District Court Litigation:

Case: Intent IQ, LLC v. tvScientific, Inc.

• Plaintiff: Intent IQ, LLC
• Defendant: tvScientific, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
• Case Number: 1:26-cv-00089
• Filing Date: January 26, 2026
• Status: Active. This case is notable as it targets the core business of tvScientific, a company in the process of being acquired by Pinterest.

Case: Intent IQ, LLC v. Adform, Inc.

• Plaintiff: Intent IQ, LLC
• Defendant: Adform, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
• Case Number: 1:2025cv00822
• Filing Date: July 2, 2025
• Status: Active. Adform, Inc. has filed a counterclaim against Intent IQ, LLC.

Case: 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: 7:2025cv00246
• Filing Date: May 23, 2025
• Status: Active.

Case: Intent IQ, LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., et al.

• Plaintiff: Intent IQ, LLC
• Defendant: T-Mobile USA, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
• Case Number: 1:23-cv-00174
• Status: There is a record of this case, but the current specific status is not detailed in the provided search results.

Case: Intent IQ, LLC v. [Verizon Communications Inc.](/litigations/by-defendant/Verizon%20Communications%20Inc.) et al.

• Plaintiff: Intent IQ, LLC
• Defendant: Verizon Communications, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
• Case Number: 1:23-cv-00220
• Status: There is a record of this case, but the current specific status is not detailed in the provided search results.

Case: AlmondNet, Inc. & Intent IQ, LLC v. Roku, Inc.

• Plaintiffs: AlmondNet, Inc. and Intent IQ, LLC
• Defendant: Roku, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
• Case Number: 6:22-cv-01204
• Status: This case is part of a broader litigation campaign by Intent IQ. Many of the large defendants like Roku have chosen to settle and take licenses.

Case: AlmondNet, Inc. & Intent IQ, LLC v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.

• Plaintiffs: AlmondNet, Inc. and Intent IQ, LLC
• Defendant: LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
• Case Number: 6:22-cv-01205
• Status: Part of the ongoing litigation campaign by Intent IQ.

Case: AlmondNet, Inc. & Intent IQ, LLC v. VIZIO, Inc.

• Plaintiffs: AlmondNet, Inc. and Intent IQ, LLC
• Defendant: VIZIO, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
• Case Number: 6:22-cv-01206
• Status: Part of the ongoing litigation campaign by Intent IQ.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Proceedings:

U.S. Patent 7,861,260 has also been the subject of multiple inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). These proceedings challenge the validity of the patent's claims.

• Case Number: IPR2024-00421

  • Petitioner: Unified Patents, LLC
  • Patent Owner: Intent IQ, LLC
  • Status: A Final Written Decision has been issued.

• Case Number: IPR2024-00422

  • Petitioners: Viant Technology LLC, FreeWheel Media Inc.
  • Patent Owner: Intent IQ, LLC (listed as Almondnet Inc. in some records)
  • Status: A Final Written Decision was reached, with key dates in 2024 and 2025.

• Case Number: IPR2024-00423

  • Petitioner: Unified Patents, LLC
  • Patent Owner: Intent IQ, LLC
  • Status: Not Instituted - Procedural.

• Case Number: IPR2024-00424

  • Petitioner: Unified Patents, LLC
  • Patent Owner: Intent IQ, LLC
  • Status: Not Instituted - Procedural.

• Case Number: IPR2025-00128

  • Petitioner: To be determined from docket details.
  • Patent Owner: Intent IQ, LLC
  • Status: A Final Written Decision has been issued.

• Case Number: IPR2025-00129

  • Petitioner: To be determined from docket details.
  • Patent Owner: Intent IQ, LLC
  • Status: A Final Written Decision has been issued.

It is important to note that Intent IQ has been described as a "patent-holding ad tech company" that earns significant revenue from patent litigation. They have had notable success, including a $122 million jury verdict against Amazon and licensing agreements with major companies like Meta, Microsoft, and Samsung. There is also an active legal challenge led by Meta and joined by Roku, arguing that the patents should be invalidated because they cover obvious processes.

Proceedings overview

U.S. Patent 7,861,260 has been challenged in six inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Four of these (IPR2024-00421, IPR2024-00422, IPR2025-00128, IPR2025-00129) were terminated by withdrawal or settlement before a Final Written Decision on the merits. The remaining two (IPR2024-00423, IPR2024-00424) were denied institution procedurally. This defensive posture indicates that the patent has not undergone a full merits review at the PTAB, and its claims have not been invalidated by a PTAB Final Written Decision.

IPR2025-00128 — Viant Technology LLC v. Intent IQ, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: November 1, 2024
• Status: Terminated (W - Withdrawn/Settled). While the initial prompt indicated a "Final Written Decision" was issued, more specific information from Unified Patents shows a status of "Challenger (W)", indicating that the petition was withdrawn or settled before a Final Written Decision on the merits of patentability was reached.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available from search results.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available from search results.
• Institution decision: Institution was not reached due to termination.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued on the merits due to termination.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated due to withdrawal or settlement. Terms are likely confidential.
• Appeal: No appeal to the Federal Circuit as no Final Written Decision on the merits was issued.
• Defensive value: This proceeding did not result in any claims being invalidated. For a defendant, this means the patent claims remain unchallenged by a PTAB merits decision.

IPR2025-00129 — Viant Technology LLC v. Intent IQ, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: November 1, 2024
• Status: Terminated (W - Withdrawn/Settled). Similar to IPR2025-00128, the "Challenger (W)" status indicates withdrawal or settlement, not a merits-based Final Written Decision.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available from search results.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available from search results.
• Institution decision: Institution was not reached due to termination.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued on the merits due to termination.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated due to withdrawal or settlement. Terms are likely confidential.
• Appeal: No appeal to the Federal Circuit as no Final Written Decision on the merits was issued.
• Defensive value: This proceeding did not result in any claims being invalidated. The patent claims remain unchallenged by a PTAB merits decision.

IPR2024-00421 — FreeWheel Media Inc. v. Intent IQ, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: March 1, 2024
• Status: Terminated (W - Withdrawn/Settled).
• Judge panel: Not publicly available from search results.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available from search results.
• Institution decision: Institution was not reached due to termination.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued on the merits due to termination.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated due to withdrawal or settlement. Terms are likely confidential.
• Appeal: No appeal to the Federal Circuit as no Final Written Decision on the merits was issued.
• Defensive value: This proceeding did not result in any claims being invalidated, leaving the patent claims undisturbed.

IPR2024-00422 — FreeWheel Media Inc. v. Intent IQ, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: March 1, 2024
• Status: Terminated (W - Withdrawn/Settled).
• Judge panel: Not publicly available from search results.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available from search results.
• Institution decision: Institution was not reached due to termination.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued on the merits due to termination.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was terminated due to withdrawal or settlement. Terms are likely confidential.
• Appeal: No appeal to the Federal Circuit as no Final Written Decision on the merits was issued.
• Defensive value: This proceeding did not result in any claims being invalidated. The patent claims remain unaffected by this IPR.

IPR2024-00423 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Intent IQ, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: Likely March 1, 2024 (based on related filings by Unified Patents)
• Status: Not Instituted - Procedural.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available from search results.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available from search results.
• Institution decision: Denied institution procedurally. The specific reasoning for the procedural denial is not detailed in public search results, but such denials often involve factors like parallel litigation (Fintiv factors) or the Director's discretion (e.g., "settled expectations").
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated due to denial of institution.
• Appeal: No appeal to the Federal Circuit as institution decisions are generally non-appealable.
• Defensive value: This IPR did not challenge the validity of the patent claims on the merits, indicating the claims are still considered presumptively valid by the PTAB due to the procedural denial.

IPR2024-00424 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Intent IQ, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: March 1, 2024
• Status: Not Instituted - Procedural.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available from search results.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available from search results.
• Institution decision: Denied institution procedurally. The specific reasoning for the procedural denial is not detailed in public search results, but denials can be influenced by factors such as parallel litigation or other discretionary grounds.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated due to denial of institution.
• Appeal: No appeal to the Federal Circuit as institution decisions are generally non-appealable.
• Defensive value: This IPR did not proceed to a merits review, meaning the claims were not challenged for patentability and remain presumptively valid.

Strategic summary

Currently, no claims of U.S. Patent 7,861,260 have been canceled or found unpatentable by the PTAB. All six IPRs filed against the patent either terminated via withdrawal/settlement before a Final Written Decision on the merits (IPR2024-00421, IPR2024-00422, IPR2025-00128, IPR2025-00129) or were denied institution procedurally (IPR2024-00423, IPR2024-00424). This means that all claims of US7861260 that were challenged in these IPRs remain SUSTAINED in the sense that no PTAB decision has found them unpatentable. There are no claims that have been formally CANCELED, and no claims are definitively UNTESTED by a PTAB merits review either, as all proceedings concluded without a merits decision.

The estoppel landscape under § 315(e)(2) for these proceedings is limited. Since no Final Written Decisions on the merits were issued for any of the IPRs, the statutory estoppel that bars petitioners (and their privies) from raising any ground they raised or reasonably could have raised in an IPR does not apply. This means that a defendant currently facing assertion of this patent might still be able to raise prior-art grounds that were present in the IPR petitions, should they decide to pursue their own validity challenge in a different forum.

A clear pattern signal is the involvement of defensive aggregator Unified Patents, LLC as a petitioner in two denied IPRs, and their association with FreeWheel Media, Inc., another petitioner. Viant Technology LLC also filed two IPRs that were terminated. The prevalence of settlements/withdrawals suggests that Intent IQ, LLC (the patent owner) is actively engaging with petitioners, possibly through licensing agreements, rather than consistently seeing IPRs through to a full merits decision. The procedural denials for IPR2024-00423 and IPR2024-00424 highlight the PTAB's recent emphasis on discretionary factors (e.g., Fintiv, settled expectations) that can prevent institution even if the merits appear strong.

Recommended next steps

• Given that no claims of US Patent 7,861,260 have been invalidated by a PTAB Final Written Decision, a defendant facing assertion of this patent would need to prepare for an aggressive defense, as the patent claims have not been weakened by IPRs.
• If considering filing an IPR, a potential petitioner should carefully analyze the reasons for the procedural denials in IPR2024-00423 and IPR2024-00424. Understanding the discretionary factors applied by the Director and the PTAB is crucial for a successful petition, especially considering the increased scrutiny on institution decisions as of late 2025.
• The settlements and withdrawals in four of the six IPRs suggest that Intent IQ, LLC may be open to licensing or settlement discussions. This could be a viable alternative to costly and uncertain IPR proceedings or district court litigation.

Inventors

• Roy Shkedi: Founder and CEO of Almondnet Inc. at the time of filing.

Original assignee

The entity named on the issued patent is Almondnet Inc.

Almondnet Inc. was known for its work in behavioral targeting and online advertising, which aligns with the patent's focus on "Targeted television advertisements based on online behavior." Almondnet Inc. initially shipped products embodying claims related to online advertising technology. While Almondnet Inc. was the original assignee, its intellectual property, including this patent, was subsequently transferred to Intent IQ, LLC, which is described as having acquired intellectual property from AlmondNet, Inc. This suggests that Almondnet Inc. has either ceased operations, significantly restructured, or its core ad tech business was spun off, with Intent IQ LLC being the successor for its patent portfolio.

Assignment timeline

• 2007-04-17 (executed) / recorded 2007-05-18 — Reel 019253/0001

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: ROY SHKEDI
  • Assignee: ALMONDNET, INC.
  • Correspondent: MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP, 1000 WISCONSIN AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, DC 20007-3608.
  • Context: Original assignment of patent rights from the inventor to the initial corporate assignee.

• 2011-09-21 (executed) / recorded 2011-09-22 — Reel 027376/0995

  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT
  • Assignor: ALMONDNET, INC.
  • Assignee: INTENT IQ, LLC
  • Correspondent: WAHAB AND TEDDER, P.A., 2616 ENTERPRISE ROAD, SUITE 150, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33759. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: Transfer of patent ownership from the original operating company to a patent-holding entity.

• 2011-09-21 (executed) / recorded 2011-09-22 — Reel 027376/0996

  • Conveyance: LICENSE
  • Assignor: INTENT IQ, LLC
  • Assignee: ALMONDNET, INC.
  • Correspondent: WAHAB AND TEDDER, P.A., 2616 ENTERPRISE ROAD, SUITE 150, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33759. This correspondent recurs in this chain.
  • Context: License-back agreement granting specific rights to the original operating company from the new patent owner.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7861260
    2007 : Filed & assigned to Almondnet Inc
    2010 : Patent issued
    2011 : Assigned to Intent IQ LLC
         : License back to Almondnet Inc
    2022 : First litigation filed

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — present. The patent was transferred from Almondnet Inc., an operating ad tech company, to Intent IQ, LLC, which is explicitly described as a "patent-holding ad tech company" and does not appear to ship products embodying the claims itself, but rather derives significant revenue from patent litigation. This transfer is evidenced by Reel 027376/0995, executed on 2011-09-21.

2. Known asserter in the chain — present. Intent IQ, LLC, the current assignee (Reel 027376/0995), is identified as a "patent-holding ad tech company" that earns significant revenue from patent litigation, with numerous district court and PTAB proceedings cited in the provided context.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present. The correspondent WAHAB AND TEDDER, P.A. appears on two consecutive recordings (Reel 027376/0995 and Reel 027376/0996), both executed on 2011-09-21 and recorded on 2011-09-22, indicating a consistent legal firm handling the transfers for the acquiring entity.

4. Cascading transfers — present. Two consecutive transactions (an assignment and a license-back) between Almondnet Inc. and Intent IQ, LLC are documented as executed on the same date (2011-09-21) and recorded on the same date (2011-09-22) under Reel 027376/0995 and Reel 027376/0996.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. The transfer to Intent IQ, LLC occurred in September 2011 (Reel 027376/0995), while the earliest identified litigation for this patent family in the provided context dates to 2022, which is more than 6 months after the transfer.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. There is no indication in the provided information that Almondnet Inc. filed for bankruptcy, leading to the patent's sale.

7. Privateering — present. The transfer of the patent from Almondnet Inc. (an operating company) to Intent IQ, LLC, immediately followed by a license-back to Almondnet Inc. (Reel 027376/0995 and 027376/0996, respectively), is a strong signal of a privateering arrangement. This structure allows the former operating company to potentially continue using the patented technology while the patent-holding entity handles assertion against competitors.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The current assignee, Intent IQ, LLC, is an active patent asserter, not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

This verdict is justified by the presence of multiple strong signals, including the transfer from an operating company (Almondnet Inc.) to a known patent-holding asserter (Intent IQ, LLC) (Reel 027376/0995), the clear indication of a privateering structure with a license-back to the original assignee (Reel 027376/0996), and the recurrence of the same correspondent firm (WAHAB AND TEDDER, P.A.) for these key transactions. The subsequent extensive litigation by Intent IQ, LLC, as detailed in previous sections, further confirms its role as an NPE.

For verification, see the USPTO Assignment Center search results for US7861260: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

An analysis of the prior art cited by U.S. Patent 7,861,260 reveals several key references that disclose methods and systems for targeting advertisements based on user behavior across different platforms. For a claim to be anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102, every element of that claim must be present in a single prior art reference. The following references are the most relevant to the independent claims of the '260 patent.

Analysis of Key Prior Art References

1. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0194141 A1

• Full Citation: US 2004/0194141 A1
• Title: System and method for correlating television viewing with network-based activity
• Inventor(s): Ellis, Michael D., et al.
• Filing Date: March 28, 2003
• Publication Date: September 30, 2004
• Brief Description: This application describes a system that monitors a household's television viewing and internet activity, associating the two data streams using a "household ID." It discloses a "home network gateway" that can identify and monitor traffic from various devices, including computers and set-top boxes (STBs), which are often on the same local network and share a common external IP address. This correlated data is used to build a profile for selecting and delivering targeted advertisements to the television.
• Potential Anticipation of '260 Claims: This reference is highly relevant as it discloses the core concept of linking online behavior with television viewing for ad targeting.
  • Claims 1 and 7: Ellis describes a system that associates an STB with a computer on a home network. A central system can collect online activity and TV viewing data to deliver a targeted ad to the STB. This structure strongly anticipates the method and system where a provider has access to both online and TV data streams and can associate them to deliver ads.
  • Claims 13 and 20: The disclosure of a home gateway monitoring all network traffic, including communications from an STB, implies that the STB's presence on the network (and thus its IP address) is known to the system. This information is correlated with web activity from the same public IP address to target ads. This functional process of knowing the STB's network address and linking it to online activity anticipates the "STB reporting its IP address" element.
  • Claims 29 and 36: The use of a "household ID" to link data from different devices serves the same purpose as the "unique, non-personal identifier" in these claims. It allows the system to associate online activity with a specific STB to ensure the correct delivery of a targeted ad without relying on personally identifiable information (PII).

2. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0242663 A1

• Full Citation: US 2006/0242663 A1
• Title: System and method for tracking user behavior over a network
• Inventor(s): I-Heng, Meng, et al.
• Filing Date: April 26, 2005
• Publication Date: October 26, 2006
• Brief Description: This application details a system for tracking a user's behavior across multiple devices, such as a PC and a television STB, that share a common internet access point and therefore a common external IP address. The system collects data on web browsing and TV content consumption, associates this data with a single user or household, and uses the combined profile to deliver targeted ads and content to the television.
• Potential Anticipation of '260 Claims:
  • Claims 13 and 20: This reference strongly anticipates the method and system of using a common IP address to link online activity with an STB. It explicitly describes a central server identifying that a PC and an STB share an IP address, receiving web browsing information from the PC, and then delivering a targeted ad to the STB based on that browsing information. This directly maps to the claim elements.
  • Claims 1 and 7: The system can be readily implemented by a common ISP/TV provider, which would have direct access to the user's online access IP and the STB's IP address. The reference's disclosure of associating these for ad targeting aligns with the limitations of these claims.
  • Claims 29 and 36: The application discusses the creation of user profiles to track behavior. The use of a persistent profile ID linked to the household's devices would function as the "identifier for the set-top box" to enable consistent targeting over time.

3. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0198024 A1

• Full Citation: US 2005/0198024 A1
• Title: Method and system for internet protocol television (IPTV) advertising
• Inventor(s): Srinivasan, Seshadri, et al.
• Filing Date: March 4, 2004
• Publication Date: September 8, 2005
• Brief Description: This application focuses on delivering targeted advertising within an IPTV system. It discloses creating user profiles based on various data sources, explicitly including "web-browsing habits." An ad server uses these profiles to select and insert relevant ads into the television program stream sent to the user's IPTV set-top box. The association between the web browsing data and the STB is managed via a subscriber account or ID.
• Potential Anticipation of '260 Claims:
  • Claims 1 and 7: The IPTV provider inherently acts as a common provider of both internet and television services. This reference describes such a provider using its ad server to link a subscriber's web browsing habits to their STB to deliver targeted TV ads, thereby anticipating the core elements of these claims.
  • Claims 29 and 36: The use of a "subscriber ID" to link the user's profile (containing web history) to their specific STB is a direct parallel to the claimed "identifier for the set-top box." This ID is the mechanism that allows the system to direct the selected ad to the correct device.

4. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0087565 A1

• Full Citation: US 2002/0087565 A1
• Title: Method and system for collecting user data and delivering targeted advertising
• Inventor(s): Paila, T., et al.
• Filing Date: December 28, 2000
• Publication Date: July 4, 2002
• Brief Description: This reference discloses a broad system for collecting user data from internet browsing and other sources to build user profiles. These profiles are then used by an ad server to deliver targeted ads. Crucially, the application specifies that the target device for these ads can be a "set top box" and the medium can be a "television." It discusses using cookies and other identifiers to track users without PII.
• Potential Anticipation of '260 Claims:
  • General Inventive Concept: This document lays out the foundational concept of collecting online behavioral data to target ads on a television via an STB, which underlies all the independent claims of the '260 patent.
  • Claims 29 and 36: The system's use of a user ID or cookie to anonymously track a user and associate their web browsing with their profile and devices directly anticipates the use of a "unique, non-personal identifier for the set-top box" to achieve the same goal. The reference explicitly includes the STB as a potential target device.

5. U.S. Patent No. 7,130,807 B1

• Full Citation: US 7,130,807 B1
• Title: Method and system for using online and offline data for targeted advertising
• Inventor(s): D'Souza, et al.
• Filing Date: June 30, 2000
• Issue Date: October 31, 2006
• Brief Description: This patent describes a method for creating comprehensive user profiles by merging online behavioral data (e.g., browsing history) with offline data. A key feature is the use of an anonymous user ID to link these datasets while protecting user privacy. The resulting profiles are used to deliver targeted ads across various media.
• Potential Anticipation of '260 Claims:
  • Claims 29 and 36: The patent's core teaching is the use of an "anonymous user ID" to connect a user's online activities with a profile for ad targeting. When applied to the delivery of an ad to a television STB (a contemplated use), this anonymous ID is functionally identical to the "identifier for the set-top box" recited in these claims. It's the non-PII link between the observed online behavior and the target device.

Obviousness Analysis of U.S. Patent No. 7,861,260 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Date of Analysis: May 3, 2026

Patent at Issue: U.S. Patent No. 7,861,260 ("the '260 patent")

Introduction

This analysis assesses whether the independent claims of the '260 patent would have been obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA) at the time of the invention, in light of the cited prior art. An invention is considered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the invention as a whole would have been obvious to a PHOSITA. The analysis considers not just the teachings of individual references but also what would have been apparent from combining them. Following the Supreme Court's decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., the analysis uses a flexible approach, considering whether a PHOSITA would have seen a reason to combine prior art elements and would have had a reasonable expectation of success. A PHOSITA is considered to be a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton, who is aware of all pertinent prior art.

A person of ordinary skill in the art relevant to the '260 patent would be an individual with a bachelor's degree in computer science or a related field, with several years of experience in network engineering, online advertising systems, and television content delivery systems (such as cable or IPTV). This person would be familiar with IP networking, server-client architecture, ad-serving platforms, and the general architecture of set-top boxes (STBs).

The core concept of the '260 patent is to link a user's online behavior (tracked via an online access IP address) to their television (identified by an STB IP address or other identifier) to deliver targeted ads to the television, without using personally identifiable information (PII). The prior art references, particularly Ellis (US 2004/0194141), Meng (US 2006/0242663), and Srinivasan (US 2005/0198024), disclose many of these elements.

Obviousness Analysis of Independent Claims

Claims 1 and 7 (Method and System with a Common Provider):

These claims describe a method and system where a common provider of both internet and television services electronically associates a user's online access IP address with their STB IP address. This association, managed by a central ad server, is then used by a profile provider (like a website the user visits) to request and direct a targeted TV ad to the user's STB.

• Primary Reference: Srinivasan (US 2005/0198024)
  Srinivasan discloses a system for delivering targeted advertising in an IPTV context, where a single provider often supplies both internet and television service. The system creates user profiles based on data including "web-browsing habits" and uses these profiles to select and insert ads into the TV stream delivered to a subscriber's STB. The association is managed via a subscriber account or ID, which inherently links the web browsing data to the specific STB. This teaches the core concept of a unified provider using online behavior to target TV ads.

• Secondary Reference: Ellis (US 2004/0194141)
  Ellis describes a "home network gateway" that monitors both television viewing and internet activity within a household, associating them with a "household ID." This system can identify and monitor traffic from various devices, including computers and STBs, which often share a common external IP address. While Ellis doesn't require a single service provider, its teaching of correlating data streams from different devices in a home network is directly applicable.

• Motivation to Combine:
  A PHOSITA, starting with Srinivasan's IPTV advertising system, would be aware of the need to accurately link web browsing activity to a specific household or user to improve ad targeting. Ellis provides a clear method for achieving this by monitoring traffic at a home gateway and using a common identifier ("household ID") to associate activities from different devices (PC and STB). The motivation to combine these teachings would be to improve the accuracy and efficiency of the targeted advertising system described by Srinivasan. A PHOSITA would recognize that applying Ellis's method of associating devices on a home network to Srinivasan's IPTV system is a predictable way to enhance the targeting capability. The "subscriber ID" in Srinivasan and the "household ID" in Ellis are functionally equivalent for the purpose of creating a non-PII link between online activity and a specific STB. Combining these would lead directly to the system claimed, where a common provider associates the online access IP with the STB to deliver targeted ads.

Claims 13 and 20 (Method and System with STB Reporting its IP Address):

These claims describe a method and system where the STB itself periodically reports its online access IP address to a central ad server. When a website is visited, it can request the ad server to send an ad to the STB that has recently reported the visitor's IP address.

• Primary Reference: Meng (US 2006/0242663)
  Meng explicitly describes a system for tracking a user's behavior across a PC and an STB that share a common internet access point and thus a common external IP address. A central server identifies that the devices share an IP address, collects web browsing data from the PC, and then delivers a targeted ad to the STB. This reference discloses the fundamental concept of using a shared IP address as the link between online activity and the television.

• Secondary Reference: General Knowledge of Networked Devices and Client-Server Communication
  The limitation that the STB "periodically contacts" the central ad server to "report" its IP address is a standard technique in client-server architecture for maintaining state or presence in a network with dynamic IP addresses. A PHOSITA would know that devices behind a NAT router (like a home modem) are not directly addressable from the public internet. To receive targeted content, the device must initiate communication with the server. It is a well-known and common design pattern for a client application (in this case, software on the STB) to "check in" or "phone home" periodically to a central server to report its status and receive updates or commands. This is a fundamental concept in networking and distributed systems.

• Motivation to Combine:
  A PHOSITA looking to implement the system described by Meng would immediately recognize the practical problem of a server on the public internet needing to send an ad to a specific STB located on a private home network. The most common and obvious solution to this problem is to have the STB client initiate periodic connections to the ad server. This "reporting" allows the server to know the STB's current public IP address and confirms that the STB is online and ready to receive ads. Therefore, adding a "periodic reporting" function to Meng's STB is not an inventive step but a routine implementation detail that a PHOSITA would employ to make the system functional and reliable. The motivation is to solve the known problem of communicating with a device on a private network, and the solution is a standard engineering choice.

Claims 29 and 36 (Method and System with a Unique Identifier):

These claims add the use of a unique, non-personal identifier for the STB, which is reported to the central ad server along with the online access IP address. This identifier provides a more persistent and reliable way to associate the STB with online activity.

• Primary Reference Combination: Meng (US 2006/0242663) in view of Ellis (US 2004/0194141)
  As established above, Meng teaches the use of a common IP address to link a PC's web browsing to an STB for ad targeting. Ellis teaches a similar system but uses a "household ID" to associate data streams from different devices.

• Secondary Reference: Paila (US 2002/0087565)
  Paila discloses a broad system for collecting user data from internet browsing to deliver targeted ads. Crucially, Paila specifies that the target device can be a "set top box" and discusses using cookies and other user IDs to anonymously track users and their devices. This directly teaches the use of a unique, non-PII identifier to link online behavior to a specific device for ad targeting.

• Motivation to Combine:
  A PHOSITA would recognize a key limitation of relying solely on a dynamic IP address for targeting, as described in Meng: IP addresses can be reassigned, leading to misdirected ads. The problem of maintaining a persistent identity for a user or device across different sessions and IP addresses was a well-known challenge in the field of online advertising. Paila provides a direct and well-understood solution to this problem by using anonymous identifiers like cookies or user IDs. A PHOSITA tasked with improving the reliability of the system in Meng or Ellis would have been motivated to replace or supplement the transient IP address or the general "household ID" with a specific, persistent, and anonymous identifier for the STB, as taught by Paila. This would be a predictable and straightforward improvement, using a known technique (device-specific identifiers) to solve a known problem (the unreliability of dynamic IP addresses) in a known context (ad targeting). The combination of Meng's IP-based association with Paila's device identifier would result in the system claimed in claims 29 and 36.

Conclusion

Based on the analysis of the provided prior art, the independent claims of U.S. Patent 7,861,260 appear to be obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The core concepts of linking online browsing with television viewing for ad targeting, using a common IP address as the association point, and employing unique non-PII identifiers to track devices were all present in the prior art before the '260 patent's priority date. The specific implementations described in the independent claims represent combinations of these known elements that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to create a more reliable and effective cross-platform advertising system. The motivation to combine these references stems from the clear and predictable benefits of improving ad targeting accuracy and solving well-known technical challenges in network communication and device identification.

As of May 3, 2026, here is a detailed analysis of the patent term, application history, and patent family for U.S. Patent No. 7,861,260.

Patent Term and Expiration

• Filing Date: April 17, 2007
• Issue Date: December 28, 2010
• Standard Term: A patent filed on this date would typically have a term of 20 years from the earliest effective filing date, which would be April 17, 2027.

Patent Term Adjustment (PTA)

Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) is granted to compensate for certain administrative delays by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) during prosecution.

The '260 patent has received a significant term adjustment. Based on the provided patent data, the adjusted expiration date is October 23, 2028. This indicates a total PTA of 554 days (1 year, 6 months, and 6 days) has been added to the standard 20-year term.

Patent Term Extension (PTE)

There is no indication that this patent has received any Patent Term Extension (PTE). PTE is typically granted to compensate for regulatory review delays (e.g., by the FDA for pharmaceutical products) and is distinct from PTA.

Application History and Related Domestic Filings

The '260 patent is part of an extensive family of applications filed in the United States, indicating a strategy to pursue additional claims related to the original invention. This is primarily achieved through a series of continuation applications. A continuation application uses the same specification as the parent but allows the applicant to pursue different or broader claims, all while retaining the original priority date.

The application that issued as the '260 patent is U.S. Application No. 11/736,544. The provided data shows a long chain of subsequent U.S. patent applications that claim priority to this original filing. These are considered "child" applications in the same patent family and include:

• U.S. Patent No. 8,281,336 (from application 12/860,666, filed Aug 20, 2010)
• U.S. Patent No. 8,695,032 (from application 13/097,885, filed Apr 29, 2011)
• U.S. Patent No. 8,677,398 (from application 13/167,605, filed Jun 23, 2011)
• U.S. Patent No. 9,369,779 (from application 14/246,525, filed Apr 7, 2014)
• U.S. Patent No. 9,813,778 (from application 15/179,356, filed Jun 10, 2016)
• U.S. Patent No. 10,178,442 (from application 15/803,631, filed Nov 3, 2017)
• U.S. Patent No. 10,715,878 (from application 16/228,479, filed Dec 20, 2018)
• U.S. Patent No. 11,303,973 (from application 16/925,655, filed Jul 10, 2020)
• U.S. Patent No. 11,564,015 (from application 17/714,965, filed Apr 6, 2022)
• U.S. Patent No. 11,589,136 (from application 17/877,870, filed Jul 29, 2022)
• U.S. Patent No. 11,805,300 (from application 18/110,857, filed Feb 16, 2023)
• U.S. Patent No. 11,974,025 (from application 18/207,125, filed Jun 7, 2023)
• U.S. Patent No. 12,212,818 (from application 18/647,861, filed Apr 26, 2024)

No divisional applications are explicitly listed for the '260 patent. Divisionals are typically filed when a patent examiner issues a restriction requirement, indicating an application claims more than one distinct invention.

International Patent Family

The '260 patent has a large international family, stemming from PCT application PCT/US2008/055298, which was filed on February 28, 2008. This indicates an intent to seek patent protection in multiple jurisdictions worldwide. Foreign counterparts identified in the patent data include applications in:

• Australia (AU)
• Canada (CA)
• China (CN)
• Europe (EP)
• Hong Kong (HK)
• Israel (IL)
• Japan (JP)
• South Korea (KR)

Projected Expiration Date

Based on the filing date of April 17, 2007, and the granted Patent Term Adjustment (PTA), the projected and official expiration date for U.S. Patent No. 7,861,260 is October 23, 2028. This date is subject to the timely payment of all required maintenance fees to the USPTO.

Defensive Disclosure: Targeted Cross-Media Advertising

Publication Date: May 3, 2026
Reference Technology: U.S. Patent 7,861,260

This document describes methods, systems, and architectures for delivering targeted advertisements to television-like display devices based on a user's online activities. The disclosures herein are intended to enter the public domain as prior art.

---

Derivative Set 1: Common Provider Association (Ref: Claims 1 & 7)

1.1. Component Substitution: Secure Enclave-Based IP Association

• Enabling Description: To enhance privacy and security within an ISP/TVP infrastructure, the process of associating an online access IP address with a set-top box (STB) IP address is performed within a secure hardware enclave, such as one based on Intel SGX or AMD SEV technology. The provider's core network equipment (e.g., CMTS, DSLAM, or BNG) is equipped with a trusted execution environment (TEE). A certified application running inside this enclave receives subscriber session data, which includes both the public-facing IP address and internal identifiers linking to specific STBs. The enclave generates a temporary, encrypted pseudonym or token that represents the association. This token is then passed to the Central Ad Server (CAS). The CAS only ever sees the public IP and the encrypted token, while the raw PII-to-STB mapping is never exposed to the provider's general-purpose operating systems or personnel, thus providing hardware-level privacy guarantees.

• Diagram:

  sequenceDiagram
      participant UserDevice as User Device (PC/Phone)
      participant C_MTS as CMTS/BNG (ISP Edge)
      participant TEE as Secure Enclave (within CMTS)
      participant CAS as Central Ad Server
      participant Website as Profile Provider
  
      UserDevice->>C_MTS: Initiate Online Session (DHCP/PPPoE)
      C_MTS->>TEE: Pass Session Data {OnlineIP, STB_ID}
      TEE-->>TEE: Generate Encrypted_Token for {OnlineIP, STB_ID}
      TEE->>CAS: Register Association {OnlineIP, Encrypted_Token}
      UserDevice->>Website: Browse Website
      Website->>CAS: Ad Request for User at OnlineIP
      CAS-->>CAS: Match OnlineIP to Encrypted_Token
      CAS->>C_MTS: Instruct Ad Delivery to Token_Holder
      C_MTS->>TEE: Resolve Token to STB_ID
      TEE-->>C_MTS: Return STB_ID
      C_MTS->>UserDevice: Deliver Targeted Ad to STB
  

1.2. Operational Parameter Expansion: Ultra-Low Latency Live Event Targeting

• Enabling Description: The system is scaled for national-level, real-time ad replacement during live broadcasts, such as major sporting events, where latency is critical. The architecture is decentralized by deploying lightweight instances of the CAS at the ISP's edge computing nodes, located within regional data centers or central offices. These edge-CAS nodes maintain a synchronized, geo-sharded database of IP associations for users in their respective regions. When a user visits a website, the ad request is routed to the nearest edge-CAS. This edge-CAS resolves the IP association and triggers ad delivery from a co-located ad-creative cache, all within the same metropolitan area network. This architecture reduces round-trip time for the entire targeting and delivery process to under 10 milliseconds, enabling seamless replacement of national broadcast ads with locally targeted ads during the short ad-break windows of live television.

• Diagram:

  flowchart TD
      subgraph User Household
          A[User PC - Browsing]
          B[Set-Top Box]
      end
  
      subgraph ISP Edge Node (e.g., a Central Office)
          C[Edge Router/BNG]
          D[Edge CAS Node]
          E[Edge Ad Cache]
      end
  
      subgraph Central Infrastructure
          F[Master CAS Database]
          G[National Ad Servers]
      end
  
      A --> C
      B --> C
      C -- IP & STB Association --> D
      F -- Syncs Associations --> D
      G -- Pushes Ad Creatives --> E
  
      A -- Visits sports blog --> H{Internet}
      H -- Ad Request (User IP) --> D
      D -- Match IP, Select Ad --> E
      E -- Stream Ad --> C
      C --> B
  
      style F fill:#f9f,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px
      style G fill:#f9f,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px
  

1.3. Cross-Domain Application: In-Flight Entertainment (IFE)

• Enabling Description: The system is adapted for an aircraft cabin environment. The aircraft's satellite communication terminal provides a single public IP address for both the onboard Wi-Fi network and the seat-back In-Flight Entertainment (IFE) system. When a passenger connects their personal device (laptop, phone) to the in-flight Wi-Fi, the IFE system, acting as the STB, reports the shared satellite IP address and a unique seat number identifier to a CAS specialized for travel advertising. As the passenger browses the web, profile providers (websites) can request targeted ads for that satellite IP. The CAS associates the request with the specific seat number and delivers a targeted video ad to the passenger's seat-back screen, replacing a generic ad in the content stream.

• Diagram:

  graph TD
      subgraph Aircraft
          Satcom[Satellite Modem - Public IP]
          Wifi[Onboard Wi-Fi AP]
          IFE[IFE System Server]
  
          subgraph Seat_1A
              Screen1A[Seat-Back Screen]
              Device1A[Passenger Laptop]
          end
  
          subgraph Seat_1B
              Screen1B[Seat-Back Screen]
              Device1B[Passenger Phone]
          end
      end
  
      subgraph Ground
          CAS[Travel Ad Server]
          Website[Booking.com]
      end
  
      Satcom <--> Ground
      Device1A -- Connects --> Wifi --> Satcom
      IFE -- Reports {Public IP, Seat ID: 1A} --> CAS
      Device1A -- Browses Hotels --> Website
      Website -- Ad Request for Public IP --> CAS
      CAS -- Match IP -> Find Seat 1A --> IFE
      IFE -- Display Hotel Ad --> Screen1A
      Screen1B -- Displays default ad --> IFE
  

1.4. Integration with Emerging Tech: Federated Learning & Blockchain Audit Trail

• Enabling Description: To maximize user privacy, a federated learning approach is used. Instead of sending raw browsing data to a central server, a lightweight machine learning model is distributed to the ISP/TVP's edge routers. This model is trained locally on anonymized traffic patterns from the household, generating an interest vector (e.g., [0.8_auto, 0.2_travel, 0.1_finance]) without the underlying data ever leaving the edge. This interest vector, along with the associated STB identifier, is sent to the CAS. The CAS uses this vector to select an ad category. The final ad impression event—comprising the timestamp, STB anonymous ID, advertiser ID, and the price paid—is recorded as a transaction on a permissioned blockchain (e.g., Hyperledger Fabric). This creates an immutable, transparent, and auditable record for advertisers and publishers to verify ad delivery without compromising the user's browsing history.

• Diagram:

  graph LR
      subgraph User_Premises
          A[Online Activity] --> B[ISP Edge Router];
          C[TV Viewing] --> B;
      end
  
      subgraph ISP_Edge
          B -- Anonymized Data --> D[Federated ML Model];
          D -- Trains Locally --> D;
          D -- Generates Interest Vector --> E[Vector & STB_ID Payload];
      end
  
      subgraph Ad_System
          E --> F[Central Ad Server];
          F -- Ad Selection --> G[Ad Creative Storage];
          F -- Ad Delivery Instruction --> B;
          B --> C;
      end
  
      subgraph Audit_System
          F -- Log Transaction --> H[Blockchain Ledger];
          I[Advertiser] --> H;
          J[Publisher] --> H;
      end
  
      style H fill:#bbf,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px
  

---

Derivative Set 2: STB Self-Reporting Association (Ref: Claims 13 & 20)

2.1. Component Substitution: Lightweight Protocol for IoT-class STB

• Enabling Description: The system is adapted for low-power, resource-constrained STBs, such as streaming sticks or smart display hubs. Instead of using heavyweight HTTP for reporting, the STB uses the Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT) protocol, a lightweight pub/sub messaging protocol common in IoT. The STB subscribes to a unique, private topic on an MQTT broker controlled by the CAS. It publishes its current public IP address to a separate "check-in" topic periodically. When the CAS wants to deliver an ad, it publishes the ad metadata (or a VAST tag) to the STB's private topic. This reduces the STB's power consumption, memory footprint, and network bandwidth usage, making the architecture suitable for devices where a full web stack is impractical.

• Diagram:

  sequenceDiagram
      participant STB as IoT STB
      participant MQTTBroker as MQTT Broker (CAS-controlled)
      participant CAS as Central Ad Server
      participant Website as Profile Provider
  
      STB->>+MQTTBroker: SUBSCRIBE to topic 'stb/123/ads'
      loop Every 5 minutes
          STB->>MQTTBroker: PUBLISH to 'stb/check-in', payload: {id: 123, ip: 'x.x.x.x'}
      end
  
      Website->>CAS: Ad Request from user at 'x.x.x.x'
      CAS-->>CAS: Match IP 'x.x.x.x' to STB ID '123'
      CAS->>+MQTTBroker: PUBLISH to 'stb/123/ads', payload: {ad_url: '...'}
      MQTTBroker-->>-STB: Forward Ad Payload
      STB->>STB: Fetch and display ad from ad_url
  

2.2. Cross-Domain Application: Automotive Infotainment Targeting

• Enabling Description: The vehicle's Telematics Control Unit (TCU) contains a cellular modem with its own public IP address. The in-vehicle infotainment (IVI) system, acting as the "STB," periodically reports this public IP to an automotive-focused CAS. A passenger connects their phone to the vehicle's Wi-Fi hotspot, which is routed through the TCU. When the passenger searches for "sushi restaurants near me" on their phone, the search engine (acting as profile provider) sends an ad request to the CAS with the car's IP. The CAS identifies the active vehicle and pushes a notification to the IVI system's navigation map, suggesting a sponsored sushi restaurant on the current route. The ad is contextual not only to the browsing but also to the vehicle's real-time location and destination.

• Diagram:

  graph TD
      subgraph Vehicle
          A[TCU with Cellular Modem - Public IP]
          B[Infotainment System]
          C[Passenger's Phone]
          D[Vehicle Wi-Fi Hotspot]
      end
  
      subgraph Cloud
          E[Automotive CAS]
          F[Search Engine]
      end
  
      C -- Connects --> D -- Tunnels through --> A
      B -- Periodically Reports IP --> E
      C -- "sushi near me" --> F
      F -- Ad Request from Car's IP --> E
      E -- Match IP & Location, Select Ad --> B
      B -- Displays "Sponsored Sushi Place Ahead" --> B
  

2.3. Inverse/Failure Mode: Graceful Degradation with On-Device Contextual Targeting

• Enabling Description: This variation provides resilience against network failures. The STB is pre-loaded with a cache of generic, non-targeted advertisements. It is also equipped with a lightweight Electronic Program Guide (EPG) parser. The STB's primary function is to periodically contact the CAS for targeted ads. If the CAS is unreachable for a configurable period (e.g., 15 minutes), the STB enters "Graceful Degradation Mode." In this mode, it ceases attempts to contact the CAS. When an ad break occurs, the STB parses the EPG data for the currently tuned channel to extract program metadata (e.g., genre="Sports," title="Live Football"). It then selects an ad from its local cache that has been tagged with a matching category (e.g., a "Sports" ad for a beer company). This ensures the ad slot is filled and maintains some level of relevance, even during a complete network outage between the STB and the ad server.

• Diagram:

  stateDiagram-v2
      [*] --> Online
      Online: STB contacts CAS for targeted ads.
      Online --> Offline: CAS unreachable for 3 attempts
      Offline: STB uses local cache and EPG data.
      Offline --> Online: CAS connection re-established
  
      state Offline {
          direction LR
          ParseEPG: Read current program info (e.g., "Sports")
          SelectCachedAd: Find local ad with matching tag
          DisplayAd: Play selected ad
          ParseEPG --> SelectCachedAd --> DisplayAd
      }
  

---

Derivative Set 3: Unique Identifier Association (Ref: Claims 29 & 36)

3.1. Component Substitution: Physical Unclonable Function (PUF) for STB ID

• Enabling Description: To create a highly secure and non-transferable device identifier, a Physical Unclonable Function (PUF) is fabricated into the STB's primary System-on-Chip (SoC). A PUF leverages minute, random physical variations in the silicon microstructure to produce a unique, deterministic, but unpredictable response to a given challenge. When the STB boots, it generates a challenge, feeds it to the PUF, and receives a unique response string. This string, which acts as the device's identifier for the current session, is sent to the CAS along with the current public IP address. The ID is never stored on the device's persistent memory, making it immune to software-based cloning or theft. The CAS uses this hardware-rooted, ephemeral ID to uniquely identify the device for ad targeting.

• Diagram:

  classDiagram
  class STB_SoC {
      +CPU
      +Memory
      +PUF_Circuit
      +getHardwareID(challenge) string
  }
  class CAS {
      +authenticateDevice(pufResponse, ipAddress)
      +storeAssociation(pufResponse, adProfile)
      +selectAd(pufResponse) Ad
  }
  class AdDeliverySystem {
      +deliver(ad, stb)
  }
  STB_SoC "1" -- "1" AdDeliverySystem : receives
  CAS "1" -- "1" AdDeliverySystem : instructs
  STB_SoC ..> CAS : reports PUF response
  

3.2. Integration with Emerging Tech: Self-Sovereign Identity and User-Controlled Data

• Enabling Description: The system is integrated with a Self-Sovereign Identity (SSI) framework using W3C standards for Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs) and Verifiable Credentials (VCs). The STB is assigned a unique DID, controlled by the user's digital wallet. When browsing, the user's browser (also controlled by their wallet) generates an anonymized VC representing a "viewed content category" (e.g., "Automotive Enthusiast"). To receive targeted ads, the user's wallet presents this VC to a website. The website's ad request to the CAS includes the user's public IP and the VC. The STB, in its periodic check-in, presents its DID to the CAS. The CAS can now link the IP address from the website's request to the STB's DID, and use the interest stated in the VC to select an ad. The user retains full control, can revoke permissions at any time via their wallet, and there is no need for third-party cookies or cross-site tracking.

• Diagram:

  sequenceDiagram
      actor User
      participant Wallet as User's Wallet
      participant STB
      participant Browser
      participant Website
      participant CAS
  
      User->>Wallet: Authorizes STB with DID_stb
      User->>Wallet: Authorizes Browser with DID_user
  
      loop On STB
          STB->>Wallet: Request cryptographic signature
          Wallet-->>STB: Sign(DID_stb, IP_address, timestamp)
          STB->>CAS: Report(signed_payload)
      end
  
      Browser->>Website: User visits page
      Website->>Wallet: Request Verifiable Credential for 'ad-profile'
      Wallet-->>Website: Present VC {subject: DID_user, interest: 'cars'}
      Website->>CAS: Ad Request {ip: IP_address, profile_vc: VC}
  
      CAS->>CAS: Match IP_address, verify VCs and signatures
      CAS->>STB: Deliver car-related Ad
  

---

Combination with Open-Source Standards

1. DNS-based Service Discovery (DNS-SD / mDNS) & Matter Protocol: In a smart home environment operating on the open-source Matter standard, the television or STB advertises an _ad-targeting._tcp service via multicast DNS (mDNS). A browser extension or mobile app on another device within the same LAN discovers this service. Instead of relying on a public IP match at a remote server, the browser extension directly and securely transmits an anonymized interest profile (e.g., a JSON object {"interests": ["hiking", "tech"]}) to the STB's local IP address. The STB then uses this locally-received data to augment its next request to the CAS, providing a more accurate and privacy-preserving signal that never traverses the public internet.

2. Prebid.js Header Bidding Framework: The core patent concept is integrated into the open-source advertising auction framework, Prebid.js, via a new "Cross-Media Realtime Data Provider" module. When a Prebid auction is initiated in a user's browser, this module sends the user's IP address to the CAS. The CAS checks for a recently-seen STB at that IP address. If found, the CAS returns a set of targeting keys (e.g., tv_present: true, household_id: 'anon123') to the browser. These keys are appended to all outgoing bid requests to SSPs/DSPs in the Prebid auction, allowing advertisers to specifically bid on inventory that is part of a TV-addressable household, thereby increasing the value of the publisher's ad space.

3. Video Ad Serving Template (VAST) 4.2 Standard: The ad delivery mechanism is enhanced by leveraging the open VAST 4.2 standard. When the CAS selects a targeted ad for a specific STB (identified via its unique ID and IP), it does not send the ad directly. Instead, it generates a secure, single-use VAST URL and sends it to the STB. This URL contains an encrypted JSON Web Token (JWT) in a query parameter, which encodes the targeting criteria and a unique impression ID. The STB's VAST-compliant video player requests this URL. The VAST server validates the JWT, serves the appropriate ad creative, and uses the impression ID for standardized measurement and verification, allowing the system to seamlessly integrate with any ad server and measurement platform that uses the open VAST standard.