US 11354709

I'll ground this on the authoritative patent text provided, then check for any litigation/docket activity.

No Federal Circuit activity surfaced in the first pass. Let me check specifically for litigation involving this patent and any 2026 appellate activity.

Let me verify whether the '709 patent itself was asserted/counterclaimed in the Delaware case and check the CAFC 2026-1702 appeal.

US Patent 11,354,709 — Analyst Summary

Search scope note: I searched for the literal identifier 11354709 / 11,354,709. I did not find any Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docket (2026 or otherwise) captioned on this patent. I also could not query PACER/PTAB directly — the litigation findings below come from secondary docket aggregators and court filings surfaced by search, so treat them as leads, not authoritative docket-of-record. (Also flagging a metadata conflict: your prompt states April 26, 2026, my operating date is September 28, 2026. The findings below are what the record shows as of the latest retrievable material.)

Bibliographic data (from the authoritative patent text)

Assignment chain: Vindico LLC (assignment recorded 2015-07-14) → TI Newco LLC (2017-04-06, eff. 2017-02-16) → Viant Technology LLC (change of name, eff. 2016-03-02, recorded 2017-04-06). A patent security agreement in favor of PNC Bank, National Association (recorded 2019-11-10, eff. 2019-10-31) covers Viant Technology LLC, Adelphic LLC, and MySpace LLC.

Abstract (as issued)

A method, system, and computer program product provide the ability to connect online and offline activity. Advertisement delivery information is acquired, including an advertisement identification and a user identification identifying a user to which the advertisement was delivered. Beacon information is acquired, including a beacon identification and location. The beacon identification and the device identification are received from an application executing on a first device associated with the user; the application receives the low energy signal from the beacon identified by the beacon identification. Based on the advertisement delivery information, beacon identification, and device identification, conversion of the advertisement is directly attributed. Conversion information based on the conversion is then provided.

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

There are exactly two independent claims: claim 1 (method) and claim 9 (system). They are substantively parallel — claim 9 recites "a server computer having a memory" and "a conversion application executing on the server computer… configured to" perform the same steps.

Claim 1 — computer-implemented method for connecting online and offline activity:

• (a) The server obtains advertisement delivery information: an ad ID and a user ID for a user to whom the ad was delivered via the user's online activity.
• (b) The server obtains beacon information: a beacon ID for a beacon emitting a low-energy signal, plus a beacon location defined relative to the subject of the advertisement.
• (c) The server receives the beacon ID and a device ID from an application running on the user's first device. The application received the low-energy signal from that beacon, and did so after the ad was delivered to the user.
• (d) The server determines, from the beacon information, that the beacon is associated with the subject of the advertisement.
• (e) The server directly attributes an offline conversion to the online ad delivery, where the attribution:
  1. rests on the server having access to beacon information, device ID, and ad delivery information;
  2. is based on the step-(d) determination, the ad delivery information, the beacon ID/device ID, and a viability window;
  3. determines proximity of the beacon to the user's physical presence based on beacon signal strength;
  4. determines a length of time the user is within that proximity;
  5. categorizes the user's behavior based on a combination of the length of time with the signal strength, into: (i) browse (walked by at a particular pace; in proximity for a first defined period); (ii) gaze (stopped for a second defined period, where "stopped" is determined from consistency of signal strength); (iii) engage (looked at a variety of products in proximity and stayed a third defined period, based on consistent signal strength for that period); (iv) purchase (beacon and first device used to complete a purchase); and (v) abandon (device within range of the beacon for less than a fourth defined period);
  6. directly attributes the conversion to the user's physical presence within proximity of the beacon associated with the ad subject, based on that categorization;
  7. requires the viability window to be satisfied — the window is the time period from ad delivery to when the beacon information is received.
• (f) The server provides conversion information and the category based on the conversion.

The upshot: attribution is direct and device-driven (beacon + app-reported device ID) rather than statistical matching of disparate audience/purchase panels, and the output is not merely "converted/not converted" but a behavioral classification of the in-store visit.

Claim 9 mirrors claim 1 step-for-step in system form, with the same proximity/time/behavior-categorization/viability-window requirements and the same output of "conversion information and the category."

Dependent claims (all depend from claim 1 or claim 9)

• 2 / 10 — the application is a software development kit (SDK) installed in a device application with access to the first device's low-energy signal receiver.
• 3 / 11 — the first device is a mobile device.
• 4 / 12 — the advertisement is delivered to the user via the first device.
• 5 / 13 — the advertisement is delivered as part of an advertising campaign via a second, different device (this is the cross-device/CTV-to-mobile case).
• 6 / 14 — conversion information includes feedback regarding channels used for conducting advertising.
• 7 / 15 — conversion information is used to define an advertising campaign targeting the user or other users.
• 8 / 16 — determining success of the advertising campaign based on the conversion information, and using that success to modify the campaign.

Prosecution and cited prior art (context)

Prosecution included a final rejection (2018-11-21), a non-final action (2019-09-27), another final rejection (2021-05-03), and a notice of allowance (2022-02-04) — consistent with the behavior-categorization and viability-window limitations being added during prosecution to secure allowance. Eleven U.S. references were cited, notably US 9,204,257 B1 (Mendelson), US 2015/0018011 A1 (Mendelson), US 2010/0325659 A1 (AlmondNet), US 2011/0191714 A1 and US 2011/0231246 A1 (Yahoo), US 9,911,136 B2 (Google), US 10,163,148 B1 (Square), US 2015/0278829 A1 (Branding Brand), US 2015/0312839 A1 (Smoothweb), US 2015/0339694 A1 (Apple), and US 2015/0358760 A1 (Ericsson). Non-patent citations: the iBeacon Wikipedia article (2014), PassKit's "iBeacons 101" material, and H. Clancy, Fortune (Mar. 1, 2014).

Litigation / PTAB check

No CAFC 2026 appellate docket on the '709 patent was found. The Federal Circuit activity I could see in the 2026 term involving Viant is unrelated to this patent:

• IPR2025-00129 (Viant Technology LLC et al. v. Intent IQ, LLC) — Final Written Decision Oct. 14, 2025, appealed as Federal Circuit No. 2026-1702. This is Viant as petitioner challenging an AlmondNet/Intent IQ patent, i.e., Viant is the challenger, not the patent owner of the '709.
• IPR2026-00330 (filed April 2, 2026) — Petitioners AppLovin Corporation, Viant Technology LLC, and Mediaocean, LLC challenging US 11,949,962 (Shkedi). Also unrelated to the '709.
• IPR2025-00126 — Viant v. AlmondNet on US 8,775,249 B2; terminated Feb. 11, 2025 on settlement prior to institution.

District court lead (treat with caution): A Docket Alarm index for AlmondNet, Inc. et al v. Viant Technology Inc. et al, 1:23-cv-00174 (D. Del., filed Feb. 16, 2023, Judge Maryellen Noreika), tags US 11,354,709 among the patents in the case. However, the AO 120 report of record for that case lists only AlmondNet/Intent IQ patents — US 8,775,249; 7,861,260; 7,979,307; 11,564,015, with US 8,959,146 added by amendment on 7/31/2024, and note that '249, '307 and '015 were dropped by stipulation dated 1/14/2025. Viant's counterclaim patents in that case were US 11,710,141 and US 8,996,727 — not the '709. I could not confirm from a primary filing that US 11,354,709 was ever actually asserted or counterclaimed anywhere; the Docket Alarm tag may be an indexing artifact. I do not have high-confidence information that this patent has been litigated. There is also a later, separate Delaware suit, AlmondNet, Inc. et al v. Viant Technology, Inc. et al, 1:25-cv-00566 (filed May 7, 2025), asserting US 10,321,198; 8,595,069; 8,677,398; 11,949,962; 8,200,822; and 10,839,423 — again, not the '709.

Commercial context

Viant’s public filings describe the patented technology family as underpinning its Household ID (HHID) identity/cookieless framework and its foot-traffic/conversion-lift attribution reporting — consistent with the '709's beacon-based offline attribution subject matter. (Viant reported 57 issued patents and 21 pending applications as of Dec. 31, 2024.)

Explicit uncertainties

• I found no Federal Circuit 2026 docket naming US 11,354,709. If one exists, it is not retrievable through the sources available to me, and I cannot confirm its absence from PACER with certainty.
• I found no IPR/PGR naming US 11,354,709 as the challenged patent. Because the '709 is Viant-owned, any such challenge would list Viant Technology LLC as patent owner; nothing in the results matches that pattern.
• The Docket Alarm association of the '709 patent with 1:23-cv-00174 is uncorroborated by the AO 120 filings in that case and should not be relied on without a PACER check.
• All claim text, dates, inventor names, and assignment events above are taken directly from the authoritative patent document supplied and are reliable; the litigation/PTAB items are from secondary sources.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 11,354,709. Let me run several searches.

The initial results point to a Delaware case. Let me dig deeper to confirm the '709 patent's role and check for any other cases.

Litigation Report — U.S. Patent No. 11,354,709

Patent: U.S. 11,354,709 B2, "Attributing offline conversions to online activity"
Current owner (per patent): Viant Technology LLC (originally Vindico LLC → TI Newco LLC → Viant Technology LLC)
Grant date: June 7, 2022 | Filing date: July 14, 2015 | Priority: July 15, 2014

Bottom line

I found one federal district court case in which U.S. 11,354,709 appears on the docket. Importantly, because the '709 patent is Viant's own patent, it appears in that case on the defense/counterclaim side, not as an AlmondNet-asserted patent. I did not find any CAFC appeal, PTAB proceeding (IPR/PGR), or ITC investigation specifically involving the '709 patent.

Important caveat: Docket-tracking services tag any patent mentioned anywhere in a docket (including complaints that merely cite a patent as prior art). I confirmed the '709 patent is at minimum cited in the pleadings in this case — the operative question of whether it was formally asserted in a counterclaim could not be conclusively verified from the free sources retrieved. Please treat the "asserted vs. cited" distinction as requiring PACER verification.

Case identified

AlmondNet, Inc. et al. v. Viant Technology Inc. et al.

Context on the '709 patent's appearance:

• AlmondNet/Intent IQ's operative complaint asserts AlmondNet-family patents (the December 15, 2023 infringement-contentions disclosure identifies asserted patents as U.S. 8,775,249; 7,861,260; 7,979,307; and 11,564,015, with '582 and '398 also tagged on the docket).
• The '709 patent is Viant's own patent. The complaint expressly references it, alleging that "Viant's U.S. Patent No. 11,354,709 cites AlmondNet's U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0325659, which is a continuation of the '260 patent" — i.e., AlmondNet used the '709 patent as notice/evidence of Viant's knowledge of the '260 patent family to support willful-infringement allegations.
• Viant separately moved to amend to bring infringement counterclaims against the AlmondNet Group (AlmondNet, Intent IQ, and Datonics, LLC), but the counterclaim patents identified in that motion (D.I. 59, April 2024) were U.S. 11,710,141 and U.S. 8,996,727 — not the '709 patent. This is why the asserted/cited role of the '709 patent needs confirmation on PACER.

Recent docket activity (relevant to the '709 patent's status):

• D.I. 115 — Joint Stipulation and Order Regarding Disposition of Certain Patents (Jan. 14, 2025) — title is truncated in the public source; this order may have disposed of certain patents and could bear on the '709 patent's continued involvement. Verify.
• D.I. 126 — Stipulation Regarding Plaintiffs' Infringement Contentions (Feb. 5, 2025)
• D.I. 29 — Scheduling Order (Dec. 18, 2023); joinder deadline 9/6/2024
• D.I. 47 — Stipulated Protective Order (Feb. 22, 2024)

Related case to check (not confirmed as involving '709)

AlmondNet, Inc. et al. v. Lockr, Inc., Viant Technology LLC, Viant Technology, Inc.

• Court: D. Del. | Case No. 1:25-cv-00566 | Filed 2025
• First amended complaint filed May 8, 2025; Viant filed an answer with counterclaims on Sept. 24, 2025.
• The public docket excerpt I retrieved does not confirm whether U.S. 11,354,709 is among Viant's counterclaim patents. Worth checking, since Viant is again the counterclaim-plaintiff here.

What I did NOT find

• No CAFC appeal involving U.S. 11,354,709.
• No PTAB proceeding (IPR, PGR, or ex parte reexam) challenging the '709 patent.
• No ITC Section 337 investigation naming the '709 patent.
• No other district court case asserting or challenging the '709 patent. AlmondNet's other suits (e.g., v. Lotame Solutions, 1:24-cv-00376; v. LiveIntent, 1:24-cv-00831; v. LinkedIn, 1:23-cv-01373) assert AlmondNet patents and do not involve the '709 patent.

Recommended verification steps

Because the free search layer gave a "patent tag" without the underlying counterclaim text, I recommend confirming via PACER / Docket Alarm for 1:23-cv-00174-MN:

1. Pull the Amended Answer and Counterclaims (and any earlier Answer) to confirm whether U.S. 11,354,709 is affirmatively asserted by Viant.
2. Pull D.I. 115 (Jan. 14, 2025) to see which patents were subject to "disposition."
3. Confirm the current stay posture and whether the March 2026 trial dates held.
4. Check 1:25-cv-00566 counterclaims (filed 9/24/2025) for the '709 patent.

Note on sourcing: This report is based on public aggregator pages (Docket Alarm, Unified Patents litigation portal, ded.uscourts.gov, and PTAB records). Per your operating instruction, all patent numbers were read literally; I did not convert or normalize any of them. Where the record was ambiguous, I have flagged it rather than filled the gap.

I'll start by verifying the structured data against public sources.

Initial results point to related Viant/Intent IQ litigation but no IPR against the '709 patent itself. Let me drill down specifically.

No IPR hits yet. Let me run a few narrower checks, including PTAB dockets and Unified Patents.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 11,354,709: zero. The structured USPTO ODP block is authoritative and returns no AIA trials, and my independent searches surfaced no IPR, PGR, or CBM petition, institution decision, or final written decision naming US 11,354,709 (or its pre-grant publication US 2016/0019603 A1) as the challenged patent. The breakdown is therefore all zeros: 0 active, 0 claims invalidated, 0 claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution denials.

Bottom line for a defendant: there is no PTAB record to lean on, and no PTAB estoppel to exploit. Every one of the 16 claims is untested at the Board and presumptively valid. Nothing here hardens the patent, but nothing here weakens it either — an IPR-based defense must be built from scratch, and you will not get to piggyback on anyone else's petition, expert declarations, or claim-construction ruling.

No proceedings to itemize

There is no {PROCEEDING_NUMBER} — {Petitioner} v. {Patent Owner} entry to write for US 11,354,709. I am not going to manufacture one. For completeness, the closest things that show up in searches are adjacent proceedings that do not involve this patent, and they are easy to confuse with challenges to it because they share the same corporate parties:

• IPR2024-00421 and IPR2024-00422 — Viant Technology LLC v. Intent IQ, LLC, on U.S. Patent No. 7,861,260 B2, not the '709 patent. Final Written Decision issued 2025-10-14 (Paper 41), determining all challenged claims unpatentable and sua sponte striking Section II of Petitioner's Reply Claim Construction Brief; panel of APJs Nabeel U. Khan, Scott B. Howard, and David Cotta. A joint hearing was held 2025-08-28. Public copy of the FWD: docket mirror PDF.
• IPR2025-00128 and IPR2025-00129 — Viant Technology LLC v. Intent IQ, LLC, which the FWD footnotes describe as joinder vehicles ("Viant Technology LLC was joined as a party to this proceeding via a Motion for Joinder in IPR2025-00128" / "-00129"). Reported status: Final Written Decision - Appealed, appeal docket 2026-1702 (Patexia case record).
• IPR2025-01317 — LiveIntent, Inc. v. Intent IQ, LLC, unrelated petitioner and unrelated patent.

The posture is inverted from what a defendant usually wants. In these proceedings Viant — the owner of the '709 patent — is the petitioner, attacking AlmondNet/Intent IQ patents. Viant is an experienced, repeat PTAB litigant, not a passive NPE. That matters for how you plan a challenge against its patent.

One litigation data point worth confirming, flagged as unverified: Docket Alarm's index for AlmondNet, Inc. et al. v. Viant Technology Inc., C.A. No. 1:23-cv-00174 (D. Del.) lists 11354709 among the patents in the case alongside AlmondNet's '260, '307, '398, '582, '249, and '015 patents (index). Since '709 is Viant's own patent, it can only be there by Viant counterclaim — not as an AlmondNet assertion. I could not verify that from the pleadings themselves, and the docket shows a 2025-01-14 stipulation and order "Regarding Disposition of Certain Patents (U.S. …)" (D.I. 114/115) that may have narrowed the case. Verify this against the live docket before relying on it. The case is flagged STAYED, with two 5-day jury trials set for 2026-03-16 and 2026-03-23.

Strategic summary

Claim status. All 16 claims are UNTESTED at the PTAB — that is the whole story.

• CANCELED: none.
• SUSTAINED (post-IPR): none. There is no final written decision holding any claim patentable.
• UNTESTED: every claim. Independent claim 1 (computer-implemented method), independent claim 9 (computer system), and dependents 2–8 and 10–16.

What you can say about the claims is that they are narrow on their face — a product of a hard prosecution. The file history shows two final rejections (2018-11-21 and 2021-05-03), multiple responses entered (2020-02-04, 2020-04-10, 2021-02-26, and a response-after-final on 2021-07-09), and allowance only on 2022-02-04, roughly seven years after the 2015-07-14 filing. Claim 1 as issued carries a dense, conjunctive set of limitations: a viability window that "must be satisfied," signal-strength-based proximity, a length of time within proximity, and mandatory categorization into one of five behaviors — browse, gaze, engage, purchase, abandon — each defined by its own timing/consistency conditions. Those are genuine non-infringement and § 112 footholds, but they also mean the claims are unlikely to read on any implementation that doesn't track dwell time and signal-strength consistency and classify behavior. Read the prosecution history before you construe anything; seven years of rejections usually leaves useful disclaimer and estoppel material.

Estoppel landscape. There is no § 315(e)(2) estoppel against anyone on this patent, because no IPR or PGR was ever instituted. The entire prior-art universe is theoretically available to a new petitioner. Three practical gates remain:

1. § 315(b) — the one-year bar. If you (or a privy/real party in interest) were served with a complaint alleging infringement of the '709 more than one year ago, you are time-barred from filing. This is the single most likely way a challenge dies before it starts. Check your service date first.
2. § 325(d) discretion. Because the '709 was heavily prosecuted, an examiner already considered and rejected art close to your best art. Expect the Board to weigh Becton, Dickinson factors against you unless you can articulate specifically how the examiner erred.
3. 2025 discretionary-denial practice (policy note, not a finding about this patent). Current Office practice has leaned on "settled expectations" — patent age and length of time in force — as a discretionary-denial factor, and on parallel-litigation factors (Fintiv/Sotera stipulations). See the House Judiciary testimony and Unified Patents' amicus filing describing this trend (Unified amicus, 2026-05-29, House testimony, 2026-09-02). The '709 issued 2022-06-07, so it has been in force roughly 4.3 years as of today, below the ~six-year heuristic discussed in that testimony — but its 2014 priority date and a pending or stayed Delaware case cut the other way. Budget for a Sotera stipulation and a tight petition concentrated on a small number of claims.

Pattern signals. No defensive aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX, AST) appears anywhere in the chain on this patent. The chain of title is Vindico LLC → TI Newco LLC → Viant Technology LLC (change of name, effective 2016-03-02), with a PNC Bank security interest recorded 2019-11-10 over Viant, Adelphic, and Myspace. The patent owner actively litigates at the PTAB as a petitioner and appears to join existing IPRs rather than only filing its own — a sophisticated, cost-conscious posture. Expect competent defense counsel, not a company that will fold on a weak institution decision.

Available vehicles. IPR is the only one left. The PGR window closed 2022-09-07 (nine months after the 2022-06-07 grant), and CBM is unavailable — the transitional program sunset on 2020-09-16, before this patent issued. Note also that IPR is limited to § 102/§ 103 grounds on patents and printed publications, so you cannot raise § 101 or § 112 in an IPR — those arguments live only in district court or an ex parte reexam.

Recommended next steps

1. Confirm the zero-PTAB finding directly. Pull PTAB E2E for the patent and run a party-name search for Viant Technology LLC / Vindico LLC as patent owner across all AIA trial types. The ODP block and my searches agree, but a defendant should have the E2E screen in the file. PTAB E2E: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptabweb/. Nothing found means exactly that — no institution decisions, no FWDs, no settlement terminations, and no Federal Circuit appeals to read.
2. Check your § 315(b) clock before doing anything else. Find the service date of the earliest complaint alleging infringement of the '709. Any petition is due within one year of that date. If you are already past it, your validity challenge is a district-court invalidity case plus a possible ex parte reexam (which can raise § 112 and references beyond patents and printed publications).
3. Pin down whether the '709 is actually live in litigation. Retrieve D.I. 114 and 115 from AlmondNet v. Viant, No. 1:23-cv-00174 (D. Del.) and confirm whether the '709 survived the "Disposition of Certain Patents" stipulation and whether Viant's counterclaim asserting it is still pending. The case is flagged stayed with March 2026 trial settings that have now passed — get the current status from the docket, not from an aggregator.
4. Treat the absence of IPRs as a signal about assertion history, not validity. A patent issued in 2022 and (apparently) asserted only in a counterclaim has simply not been a priority target. That will change the moment it is asserted offensively. If you are evaluating a license demand on the '709, the absence of PTAB activity gives you no leverage — you would be the first challenger.
5. Mine the prosecution history and the cited art. The examiner's record and the 11 cited references — including US 2015/0018011 (Mendelson), US 9,204,257 (Mendelson), US 2015/0278829 (Branding Brand), US 2015/0312839 (Smoothweb), US 2015/0339694 (Apple), US 2015/0358760 (Ericsson), and US 2011/0191714 / US 2011/0231246 (Yahoo!) — are the obvious starting point. Also note that the '709 has been cited by Google's US 2017/0228768 "Attributing conversions relating to content items," which is a useful indicator of where the industry art sits. The claim 1 limitations (five-way behavior categorization plus viability window) give the Board a lot of surface area to distinguish references, so a § 103 petition will need a reference that teaches dwell-time-plus-signal-strength classification, not just proximity-based beacon detection.

If a proceeding does exist that I could not surface — for example, a recently filed petition not yet indexed in ODP — treat this analysis as superseded and check the ODP block again, since it is the canonical source and would update first.

I'll research this patent's ownership chain across the sources you named before writing anything.

Key early signal: the patent appears in a 2023 Delaware case. Let me pin down who's asserting whom, and dig for the recorded assignments and correspondents.

Ownership Reconstruction — US 11,354,709 B2 (“Attributing offline conversions to online activity”)

Patenting basics: Appl. 14/799,353 filed 2015-07-14; priority to provisional 62/024,645 filed 2014-07-15; granted 2022-06-07; adjusted expiration 2037-07-04; status Active. Source: Google Patents record.

Important scope caveat up front: four assignment/lien records are indexed for this patent (reel/frame below are taken from the Google Patents legal-events table). I was not able to retrieve the Assignment Center correspondent-of-record fields (attorney/firm/address) in this session — neither Google Patents' legal events nor the search results I reached expose that field. I have therefore marked correspondents as not captured rather than guessing. Confirm at USPTO Assignment Center / Assignment Search before relying on signal #3.

Inventors

• All three executed the inventor→company assignment one to two days before the nonprovisional filing date (signed 2015-07-12/13, filed 2015-07-14) — clean chain of title at filing, not a defect.
• The nonprovisional was filed on the one-year anniversary of the provisional — a standard "last-day" conversion, not an anomaly.
• Departure pattern: not determinable. I found no reliable record of when any of the three left Vindico/Viant, and I will not infer it. There is no evidence of the "all inventors exit within 12 months of filing" precursor to a fire-sale. Individual titles/roles were not verifiable in this session.

Original assignee

Two different answers exist and the distinction matters:

1. As filed (2015): Vindico LLC, California — the entity named as assignee in the first recorded assignment (Reel 036087/0105). Vindico was the video ad-platform unit of Viant/Interactive Media Holdings; it was an operating business, not a holding shell.
2. As issued (per the Google Patents "Original Assignee" field): Viant Technology LLC — this field reflects the entity in the chain by issue date, not the 2015 filer. The discrepancy is a Google Patents labeling artifact, not a competing claim of title.

Current owner: Viant Technology LLC, a Delaware LLC, principal place of business 2722 Michelson Drive, Suite 100, Irvine, CA 92612 (admitted in its answer in AlmondNet, Inc. et al. v. Viant Technology LLC, D. Del. 1:23-cv-00174).

• Primary line of business: advertising technology — the Viant Advertising Cloud demand-side platform, household/people-based ID graph, Advanced TV. Media coverage of the 2016 Time Inc. deal specifically credited Viant with "the ability to attribute sales in physical retailers back to online ad impressions" (MarTech) — the commercial analogue of this patent's claims.
• Products embodying the claims: Yes, at least at the capability level — a people-based attribution platform is Viant's core commercial offering. I did not find evidence that Viant brands a beacon-specific product by this patent's number.
• Status: Operating. Majority-owned by Time Inc. from Feb 2016 (announced 2016-02-11); parent later Viant Technology Inc. (Nasdaq: DSP), which IPO'd in Feb 2021 and, per its own 10-K, consolidated Viant Technology LLC following "a corporate reorganization effected in connection with the IPO" (Viant investor filing). Not dissolved, not in bankruptcy.
• Maintenance posture: 4th-year maintenance fee paid 2025-11-14 as a large entity — objective evidence of a solvent, live commercial owner.

Assignment timeline

Four records are indexed. Reel/frame values are from the Google Patents legal-events table; correspondent-of-record is not captured for any of them (see caveat above).

• 2015-07-12/2015-07-13 (executed) / recorded 2015-07-14 — Reel 036087/0105

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Keith Reynolds, Ezra Suveyke, Nolan T. Brown (all three signed; per the recorded free-format text)
  • Assignee: Vindico LLC (California)
  • Correspondent: not captured — flag for verification; if a single filing firm appears here and on other Viant/Vindico-family patents, that is a house-counsel/prep-and-prosecution firm, not an NPE tell
  • Context: Ordinary employment/inventor assignment executed immediately pre-filing to vest title in the operating company.

• 2016-03-02 (executed/effective) / recorded 2017-04-06 — Reel 042180/0026

  • Conveyance: Change of Name (only)
  • Assignor: TI Newco LLC (New York)
  • Assignee: Viant Technology LLC (New York)
  • Correspondent: not captured
  • Context: Change of name only — the Time Inc. acquisition vehicle ("TI" = Time Inc.) renamed Viant Technology LLC; no change in beneficial ownership.

• 2017-02-16 (executed/effective) / recorded 2017-04-06 — Reel 041889/0406

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Vindico LLC
  • Assignee: TI Newco LLC (New York)
  • Correspondent: not captured — note that this record and Reel 042180/0026 were recorded the same day, strongly suggesting one filing firm handled both
  • Context: Internal restructuring / acquisition step-up — the transfer of the Vindico assets into Time Inc.'s Newco, part of the Viant asset acquisition announced 2016-02-11. The two records have inverted effective dates (name change effective 2016-03-02 precedes this transfer effective 2017-02-16) and were batch-recorded ~14 months late — an artifact of a multi-step corporate reorg, not a sign of concealed transfers.

• 2019-10-31 (effective) / recorded 2019-11-10 — Reel 050977/0542

  • Conveyance: Security Agreement (patent collateral / lien) — not a title transfer
  • Assignor (grantor): Viant Technology LLC; Adelphic LLC; Myspace LLC
  • Assignee (secured party): PNC Bank, National Association, as agent
  • Correspondent: not captured
  • Context: Securitization — collateral grant under the Revolving Credit and Security Agreement and Guaranty dated October 31, 2019 among Viant Technology LLC, Viant US LLC, Adelphic LLC, Myspace LLC (borrowers) and PNC as agent. This exact October 31, 2019 date and the exact list of grantors appear in Viant's SEC-filed credit agreement exhibits (e.g., Registration Statement 0001193125-21-023519 and the later amendments at Justia Contracts), which independently corroborates the record. Ownership remains with Viant.

Non-assignment event, included for completeness: 2025-11-14 — maintenance fee, 4th year, large entity.

No record found for: any post-2021 IPO-reorganization assignment of this patent (despite the February 2021 Viant Technology Inc. reorganization), any transfer to a licensing entity, any litigation-driven transfer, and any release of the PNC lien. Whether the PNC security interest was released is unclear from the indexes I reached.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11354709
    2014 : Provisional filed by Vindico inventors
    2015 : Nonprovisional filed
         : Inventors assign to Vindico LLC
    2016 : Time Inc acquires Viant assets
         : TI Newco renamed Viant Technology LLC
    2017 : Vindico assigned to TI Newco LLC
    2019 : Patent pledged to PNC Bank as loan collateral
    2021 : Parent Viant Technology Inc IPO
    2022 : Patent issued
    2023 : AlmondNet sues Viant on other patents
    2025 : Maintenance fee paid by large entity

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The only non-operating-looking name is "TI Newco LLC," but the evidence refutes the shell inference: the same entity was renamed Viant Technology LLC by Reel 042180/0026, holds a product line and revenue, is a co-borrower under a real PNC credit facility (Reel 050977/0542), and is the consolidated subsidiary of a Nasdaq-listed parent. No "IP / Licensing / Ventures" suffix appears anywhere in the chain; no registered-agent-service address; no transfer to a licensing-only vehicle.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Assignees/assignors are Vindico LLC → TI Newco LLC → Viant Technology LLC, all operating ad-tech entities. None of the named NPE families (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant/Mosaid, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, DGC, Spangenberg entities) appears. The asserter in the picture is adverse, not in the chain: AlmondNet, Inc. and Intent IQ, LLC (Roy Shkedi) sued Viant in D. Del. 1:23-cv-00174 (filed 2023-02-16) and again in 1:25-cv-00566 (Unified Patents portal). Viant is the defendant.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear / not captured. This is the one signal I cannot responsibly score. Google Patents' legal-events table omits the correspondent field, so I have no attorney name for Reels 036087/0105, 041889/0406, 042180/0026 or 050977/0542. Structurally, the two 2017-04-06 records were plainly filed by one firm, and the 2019 lien naming three Viant entities was almost certainly filed by outside secured-lending counsel — but that is inference, not a finding. Retrieve the correspondent fields at Assignment Center before drawing any conclusion here.

4. Cascading transfers — not present (weak, in-timeline form). Two title-affecting records touch this patent and both were recorded on 2017-04-06 as part of a single 2016–2017 corporate restructuring; the prior and next title events are ~2 years earlier and ~2.5 years later. That is a corporate reorg batch, not "multiple consecutive assignments through chained LLCs in <24 months." No shared-registered-agent or common-principal evidence of the NPE kind.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. Last title-affecting assignment: effective 2017-02-16. First suit in which this patent number appears: 2023-02-16 (AlmondNet v. Viant), a ~6-year gap. Moreover the direction of the 2017 transfer was into the operating family, not out to an asserter. Note the nuance: the docket tag list for 1:23-cv-00174 includes 11,354,709, but the court's AO 120 report records only AlmondNet's '249, '260, '307 and Intent IQ's '015 as the asserted patents (D.I. 116), and AlmondNet's complaint references Viant's '709 only as evidence — it cites the '709 patent's citation of AlmondNet's Publication 2010/0325659 in its willfulness narrative. So the '709 is a defensive exhibit in someone else's NPE campaign, not an asserted patent. Viant's own counterclaims in that case assert US 11,710,141 and US 8,996,727 — different patents.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No Chapter 7/11 proceedings involving Vindico, TI Newco or Viant Technology LLC were found. The relevant corporate events are the 2016 Time Inc. acquisition of Viant's assets and the 2021 IPO reorganization of Viant Technology Inc. — both solvent transactions. (Time Inc.'s own later acquisition by Meredith Corporation is a corporate M&A event; I did not independently verify that transaction in this session, and it did not involve a recorded transfer of this patent.)

7. Privateering — not present. Nothing suggests Viant conveyed patents to an NPE to assert on its behalf. The opposite posture holds: Viant has been the target of an NPE-style campaign (AlmondNet/Intent IQ), receiving pre-suit communications around 2016-03-28 and 2019-07-24, and has responded with its own counterclaims rather than through a proxy.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain terminates at Viant Technology LLC; there is no transfer to RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents or OIN in any indexed record. The patent has not been neutralized — it expires 2037-07-04 and the 4th-year large-entity maintenance fee was paid 2025-11-14.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion — with a defensive-posture caveat.

The chain of title terminates at Viant Technology LLC (Reels 041889/0406 and 042180/0026, effective 2016-03-02 and 2017-02-16), a product-shipping ad-tech operating company whose platform commercializes offline-to-online attribution, and whose owner paid the 4th-year large-entity maintenance fee on 2025-11-14 while the patent runs to 2037. There is no shell-entity hop, no NPE in the chain, and no assignment within six months of any suit; the only NPE presence in the record is adverse — AlmondNet/Intent IQ suing the patent owner. The caveat: this specific patent has not been affirmatively asserted by Viant in any proceeding I found; Viant's counterclaim patents in 1:23-cv-00174 are US 11,710,141 and US 8,996,727.

Two items to close out at Assignment Center (both are gaps in my retrieval, not findings): (a) the correspondent-of-record for all four records, needed to properly score signal #3; and (b) whether a release of the PNC security interest (Reel 050977/0542) was ever recorded.

Verify at: USPTO Assignment Center · Assignment Search · Google Patents legal events · D. Del. 1:23-cv-00174 docket

I'll research US patent 11354709 and its cited prior art references.

I have the authoritative patent text with its citation list. Let me research the specific cited references to characterize them accurately.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 11,354,709 B2

Patent under review: US 11,354,709 B2, "Attributing offline conversions to online activity" (Viant Technology LLC; inventors Keith Reynolds, Ezra Suveyke, Nolan Thomas Brown). Application 14/799,353, filed 2015‑07‑14; earliest priority/provisional 62/024,645 filed 2014‑07‑15; granted 2022‑06‑07.

Note on identifiers: All references below are reproduced literally from the "Patent Citations (11)" and "Non‑Patent Citations (3)" listings in the granted patent. I did not substitute similar numbers. Because the application was filed after March 16, 2013, the AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 102 governs. With an effective filing date of 2014‑07‑15, a reference is § 102(a)(1) art if it was patented/published/described before that date, and § 102(a)(2) art if it is a U.S. patent, U.S. application publication, or PCT publication that names another inventor and was "effectively filed" (earliest entitled priority filing) before that date.

Important framing: Anticipation under § 102 is a strict, single‑reference test — one reference must disclose every element of a claim as arranged. Independent claims 1 and 9 require a specific combination: a beacon whose location is tied to the subject of the advertisement, direct attribution gated by a viability window, proximity derived from signal strength, dwell length of time, and a five‑way behavior categorization (browse/gaze/engage/purchase/abandon). No single cited reference discloses that full combination. Accordingly, the references below are, with one or two partial exceptions, more accurately characterized as § 103 obviousness references (background/subsystem disclosures) than as true § 102 anticipatory references. I flag the anticipatory exposure candidly rather than overstating it.

Patent Citations

1. US 2010/0325659 A1 — Almondnet, Inc.

• Full citation: US 2010/0325659 A1, "Targeted television advertisements based on online behavior," Almondnet, Inc. Published 2010‑12‑23; priority 2007‑04‑17.
• Description: Addressable‑TV ad targeting using online behavior — a first entity (profile provider) profiles online behavior and sends resulting profile data to a second entity that uses it to target television ads to the same user/household.
• § 102 exposure: Low for claims 1/9. It is § 102(a)(1) art (published pre‑2014‑07‑15) and discloses correlating online behavior with offline (TV) ad delivery and a user identifier, which touches the "online activity" and "user identification" concepts of claim 1(a). But it lacks the beacon/Bluetooth‑LE signal, the beacon‑to‑subject‑of‑the‑advertisement association, proximity by signal strength, dwell time, and the behavior categorization — so it cannot anticipate claim 1 or 9. It is a background reference more relevant to claim 5 (ad delivered via a second device/campaign) and general § 103 motivation.

2. US 2011/0191714 A1 — Yahoo! Inc.

• Full citation: US 2011/0191714 A1, "System and method for backend advertisement conversion," Yahoo! Inc. Published 2011‑08‑04; priority 2010‑02‑03.
• Description: Tracks and reports backend (offline/after‑click) conversions of online advertisements, linking an ad impression to a later conversion event through a backend conversion system.
• § 102 exposure: Low. Qualifies as § 102(a)(1) art. Discloses the general "attribute a later conversion to an online ad" framework of claim 1(e), but discloses no beacon, no low‑energy signal, no device application, and no behavior taxonomy. Not anticipatory of any claim; useful only as a general‑concept § 103 reference.

3. US 2011/0231246 A1 — Yahoo! Inc.

• Full citation: US 2011/0231246 A1, "Online and offline advertising campaign optimization," Yahoo! Inc. Published 2011‑09‑22; priority 2010‑03‑18.
• Description: Optimization of advertising campaigns using both online and offline data — cross‑channel measurement/optimization of an ad campaign.
• § 102 exposure: Low. § 102(a)(1) art. Bears on claims 6–8/14–16 (feedback regarding channels; using conversion information to define/target/modify a campaign), because it describes using online+offline campaign data to optimize advertising. It does not disclose beacon‑based attribution and cannot anticipate claims 1 or 9.

4. US 2015/0018011 A1 — Ehud Mendelson

• Full citation: US 2015/0018011 A1, "System and method for providing infrastructure to enable indoor navigation and special local base services applications … utilize RF beacons, wifi or bluetooth," Ehud Mendelson. Published 2015‑01‑15; priority 2005‑05‑09.
• Description: Infrastructure of Bluetooth/Wi‑Fi beacons at known locations to provide indoor navigation and location‑based services; a user's mobile device/app scans for beacons, uses the beacon ID and signal strength to determine proximity/location, supports navigation to sales/specials/coupons, and can aggregately log device IDs for marketing.
• § 102 exposure: Moderate for subsystem elements; still not full anticipation. Because its effective filing date (2005‑05‑09) precedes 2014‑07‑15, it is available as § 102(a)(2) art. It discloses: a beacon emitting a signal (claim 1(b)), a beacon identification, an application on the user's device receiving the signal, proximity based on signal strength, and aggregation of device IDs. These map to claim 1(b), 1(c), and elements 1(e)(3). However, it does not disclose tying the beacon to the subject of a delivered advertisement, the online ad‑delivery information, the viability window, dwell‑time determination, or the browse/gaze/engage/purchase/abandon categorization. Thus it can potentially anticipate only narrow dependent subject matter (e.g., the "mobile device" aspect of claim 3/11 and signal‑strength proximity), not claims 1 or 9.

5. US 2015/0278829 A1 — Branding Brand, Inc.

• Full citation: US 2015/0278829 A1, "System and method for in‑store tracking," Branding Brand, Inc. Published 2015‑10‑01; priority/filed 2014‑03‑28.
• Description: In‑store shopper tracking using beacons (UUID), Wi‑Fi/triangulation, and a mobile‑device application; bridges online and in‑store interactions, tracks customer location/foot traffic and behavior (e.g., stalling, browse time), uses POS data, and explicitly seeks to attribute sales volume to specific advertising and to "track products customers interact with subsequent to advertisements for that product."
• § 102 exposure: Highest of the cited group — but still not full anticipation of claims 1/9. Its 2014‑03‑28 effective filing date precedes 2014‑07‑15, so it is § 102(a)(2) art. It discloses a beacon emitting a signal with a unique identifier (UUID), a mobile‑device application receiving beacon signals, device/user identification, location and dwell/browse‑time tracking, and the express goal of attributing advertising to in‑store activity. These elements map onto claim 1(b), 1(c), 1(d), 1(e)(4), and arguably parts of 1(e)(7). It does not expressly disclose the advertisement‑subject‑linked beacon location, the viability window that must be satisfied, the signal‑strength‑based proximity determination, or the specific five‑category browse/gaze/engage/purchase/abandon taxonomy. Best positioned for a § 103 combination against claim 1 (with, e.g., Apple/Square for beacon‑triggered purchase), and it plausibly anticipates dependent claims 3/11 (mobile device) and 5/13 (online/in‑store campaign linkage).

6. US 2015/0312839 A1 — Smoothweb Technologies Limited

• Full citation: US 2015/0312839 A1, "Systems and Methods for Wireless Communication in Retail Media," Smoothweb Technologies Limited. Published 2015‑10‑29; filed/priority 2014‑04‑24.
• Description: A "Wireless Activation Module" that detects, monitors, and tracks BLE beacons and translates beacon activity into activation of targeted multi‑dimensional content on digital signage/activation‑target devices; capturing signals from multiple beacons via antenna.
• § 102 exposure: Low. § 102(a)(2) art. Discloses BLE beacon detection/tracking and beacon‑triggered content (touches claim 1(b) and the "low energy signal" limitation), but is directed to digital signage activation rather than attribution of an online ad conversion, and includes no ad‑delivery information, viability window, or behavior taxonomy. Not anticipatory of claims 1/9.

7. US 2015/0339694 A1 — Apple Inc.

• Full citation: US 2015/0339694 A1, "Beacon‑Triggered Code Redemption for Mobile Devices," Apple Inc. Published 2015‑11‑26; priority 2014‑05‑21.
• Description: A mobile device detects a beacon and, in response, presents/performs a code redemption (e.g., coupon/product) tied to the beacon's location — a beacon‑triggered transaction/offer workflow.
• § 102 exposure: Moderate for the "purchase behavior" sub‑element. § 102(a)(2) art (effective filing 2014‑05‑21). Its relevance is to claim 1(e)(6)(iv) (purchase behavior "when the beacon and the first device were used to complete a purchase") and the beacon+device interaction concept. It lacks online ad‑delivery attribution, viability window, dwell‑time categorization, and the gaze/engage/abandon categories, so it cannot anticipate claims 1/9; it is a strong § 103 partner for the "purchase" branch.

8. US 9,204,257 B1 — Ehud Mendelson

• Full citation: US 9,204,257 B1, "Indoor and outdoor mapping and navigation utilizing RF bluetooth beacons," Ehud Mendelson. Granted 2015‑12‑01; priority 2005‑04‑12.
• Description: Deployment of RF beacons in a localized area for mapping/navigation/marketing; the device/app uses an embedded beacon identifier to determine location, obtain navigation, and obtain marketing information for merchants associated with the beacon; signal strength used for location refinement; beacon receipt can trigger a request for information from a remote provider.
• § 102 exposure: Moderate for subsystem elements. Grandparent‑family counterpart to reference 4; effective filing 2005‑04‑12 → § 102(a)(2) art. Discloses beacon ID, signal‑strength‑based proximity, and device/app reception — mapping to claim 1(b), 1(c), 1(e)(3). It does not disclose ad‑delivery attribution, viability windows, or behavior categorization, so it cannot anticipate claims 1/9. Useful for § 103 on the beacon/proximity elements.

9. US 2015/0358760 A1 — Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson (Publ)

• Full citation: US 2015/0358760 A1, "Automatically connecting a user equipment device with a partner device," Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson (Publ). Published 2015‑12‑10; priority 2014‑06‑09.
• Description: Automatically pairing/connecting a user equipment (UE) with a nearby partner device (e.g., over short‑range/BLE), based on proximity.
• § 102 exposure: Low / tangential. § 102(a)(2) art (effective filing 2014‑06‑09). It is cited for the general automatic detection/connection of a device to a nearby beacon/partner device, but discloses no advertising, conversion, dwell‑time, or behavior‑categorization subject matter. It cannot anticipate any of claims 1–16 and serves at most as a minor secondary § 103 reference (device pairing).

10. US 9,911,136 B2 — Google LLC

• Full citation: US 9,911,136 B2, "Method and system for providing sign data and sign history," Google LLC. Granted 2018‑03‑06; priority 2013‑06‑03.
• Description: Receiving/providing sign data and sign history — recording information about signs and the history of sign interactions/associated data.
• § 102 exposure: Low. § 102(a)(2) art (priority 2013‑06‑03). It is directed to sign data/history and does not disclose the beacon‑based offline‑conversion attribution of claims 1/9. It cannot anticipate any claim; at most a background § 103 reference. (Its inclusion is likely for its proximity/location delivery context.)

11. US 10,163,148 B1 — Square, Inc.

• Full citation: US 10,163,148 B1, "Wireless beacon shopping experience," Square, Inc. Granted 2018‑12‑25; priority 2013‑11‑13.
• Description: A wireless‑beacon‑enabled shopping experience — a mobile device detects a beacon and the system presents a shopping/payment interaction (e.g., offer, checkout, location‑relevant experience) tied to the beacon.
• § 102 exposure: Moderate for beacon‑linked purchase/payment. § 102(a)(2) art (priority 2013‑11‑13). Relevant to claim 1(e)(6)(iv) (purchase behavior) and the beacon+mobile‑device transaction concept. It does not disclose online ad‑delivery attribution, a viability window, dwell time, or the five‑category taxonomy, so it cannot anticipate claims 1/9.
• Confidence note: I was unable to independently re‑verify the internal disclosure details of this reference in this session (search budget reached); the description above rests on its title/abstract as listed in the patent and general knowledge. Treat the specific‑element mapping with appropriate caution.

Non‑Patent Citations (3)

12. "iBeacon," Wikipedia

• Full citation: "iBeacon," Wikipedia, last modified May 8, 2014 (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/iBeacon). Available as § 102(a)(1) art (published before 2014‑07‑15).
• Description: General description of iBeacon technology — Bluetooth 4.0 Low Energy beacons transmitting a UUID for proximity detection.
• § 102 exposure: Discloses only the underlying beacon / low‑energy‑signal technology of claim 1(b) and claim 1(c)'s "low energy signal." Cannot anticipate claims 1/9; § 103 background only.

13. "iBeacons 101: proximity marketing with mobile wallet technology," Passkit

• Full citation: Passkit, "iBeacons 101 proximity marketing with mobile wallet technology," downloaded May 9, 2014 (passkit.com). § 102(a)(1) art.
• Description: Overview of using iBeacons for proximity marketing and mobile‑wallet interactions/payments.
• § 102 exposure: Bears on beacon‑based proximity marketing and beacon‑triggered mobile‑wallet purchase (claim 1(e)(6)(iv)). Not anticipatory of claims 1/9.

14. H. Clancy, "Apple's iBeacon signals turning point for mobile engagement," Fortune (Mar. 1, 2014)

• Full citation: H. Clancy, "Apple's iBeacon signals turning point for mobile engagement," Fortune, Mar. 1, 2014. § 102(a)(1) art.
• Description: Trade‑press piece on iBeacon enabling location‑based mobile engagement in retail.
• § 102 exposure: Background on beacons for retail engagement/proximity marketing; relevant only to claim 1(b) concepts. Not anticipatory.

Summary of Anticipation Exposure

Bottom line: No one of the eleven patent citations (or the three non‑patent citations) discloses every limitation of independent claim 1 or claim 9 arranged as claimed. The features most likely to defeat a § 102 anticipation challenge — and which the cited art does not teach — are (i) the beacon location tied to the subject of the delivered advertisement (claim 1(b)(2)/1(d)), (ii) the viability window that must be satisfied before attribution (claim 1(e)(2), (8), (9)), and (iii) the five‑way behavior categorization (browse/gaze/engage/purchase/abandon) driven by the combination of dwell time and signal strength (claim 1(e)(5)–(6)). The Branding Brand reference (US 2015/0278829 A1) is the closest and most dangerous cite, but even it is best deployed as part of a § 103 obviousness combination, not as a standalone § 102 reference. I cannot state with high confidence that any cited reference anticipates claims 1 or 9, and I would flag that conclusion as supported by the claim charts above rather than as a legal determination.

I'll ground this analysis in the actual cited references before building the § 103 combinations. Let me pull details on the key prior-art documents.

Now let me pull the remaining key references — the Yahoo offline/online campaign optimization, the Square beacon reference, and the Almondnet reference — plus check for prior art on beacon dwell-time behavior categorization.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 11,354,709 ("Attributing Offline Conversions to Online Activity")

Prepared: April 26, 2026 · Analysis type: Hypothetical 35 U.S.C. § 103 evaluation (not a legal opinion or validity determination)

1. Scope, Assumptions, and Evidentiary Posture

The patent. US 11,354,709 B2, application 14/799,353, filed 2015‑07‑14, claiming priority to provisional 62/024,645 filed 2014‑07‑15. Inventors Keith Reynolds, Ezra Suveyke, Nolan T. Brown; assignee Viant Technology LLC. 16 claims (1–16); claims 1 and 9 are the independent method and system claims, and they are substantively parallel.
(https://patents.google.com/patent/[US11354709B2](/patent/US11354709B2)/en)

Governing law. Because the effective filing date is after March 16, 2013, the AIA version of § 103 governs. The critical date is July 15, 2014 (the provisional priority date). A reference qualifies as § 102(a)(2) art if its effectively filed date precedes July 15, 2014, even if it published later.

Important date check on the references cited on the face of the patent. Several of the most relevant references were published in late 2015 — after the patent's filing — but were filed before the July 15, 2014 critical date, and therefore remain available as prior art under § 102(a)(2):

All eleven patent citations and all three non‑patent citations are examiner‑cited ("Cited by examiner"), i.e., these are the references the Office already had of record. That matters: the § 103 combinations below rest on art the examiner considered, so the analysis turns on the combinations and rationales, not on newly discovered art.

Presumption of validity / caveat. The patent issued June 7, 2022 with the benefit of the presumption of validity (35 U.S.C. § 282). The prosecution events show a Final Rejection on 2021‑05‑03, a response after final on 2021‑07‑09, and a Notice of Allowance on 2022‑02‑04 — which strongly suggests the claims were narrowed by amendment during that window. The elaborate five‑category behavior taxonomy in claim 1(e)(6) bears the hallmarks of claim language added to overcome art. This is an inference from the public prosecution-event log, not a verified reading of the file wrapper. Any real invalidity contention should begin with the prosecution history to see what was actually argued and surrendered.

2. Anatomy of Claim 1 — What Must Be Taught

Claim 1 breaks into these inventive concepts:

• (a) Server acquires ad‑delivery info: ad ID + user ID, delivered via online activity.
• (b) Beacon info: beacon ID (emits low‑energy signal) + beacon location relative to the ad's subject.
• (c) Server receives beacon ID + device ID from an app on the user's device, where the app detected the beacon after the ad was delivered.
• (d) Server determines the beacon is associated with the ad's subject.
• (e) Direct attribution of an offline conversion to the online ad delivery, where the attribution depends on:
  • the determination, the ad‑delivery info, the beacon/device IDs, and a viability window;
  • proximity derived from signal strength;
  • dwell time within that proximity;
  • behavior categorization into browse / gaze / engage / purchase / abandon, based on the combination of dwell time + signal strength;
  • conversion attributed to physical presence based on the categorization;
  • the viability window (ad‑delivery → beacon receipt) must be satisfied.
• (f) Output conversion information and the category.

The claim is therefore a combination of two independently known technology stacks: (i) online ad serving + conversion attribution with a look‑back window, and (ii) BLE beacon presence detection with dwell/proximity analytics — plus a behavioral labeling layer.

3. Element‑by‑Element Mapping to the Cited Art

Key observation: The only limitation lacking an express, clean disclosure in the cited art is the specific enumerations in (e)(6) — the five named categories and the precise dwell/consistency/signal‑strength predicates attached to each. Everything else in claim 1 is squarely disclosed or at minimum suggested by the combination of Yahoo '714 + Branding Brand '829 + Apple '694 + the iBeacon NPL.

4. § 103 Combinations and Motivations to Combine

Ground 1 (primary): Yahoo '714 + Branding Brand '829 + Apple '694 (+ iBeacon NPL)

What each contributes. Yahoo '714 supplies the entire attribution architecture: attributable‑event records keyed to ad ID and user ID, conversion records, an attribution server that matches them, and — critically — the look‑back window that limits how far back a conversion can be matched. That is claim elements (a), (e)(1)–(2), (e)(7)–(9) in substance, and (f).
(https://patents.google.com/patent/US20110191714A1; granted as US 8,689,136 B2.)

Branding Brand '829 supplies elements (b), (c), (d), (e)(4), and much of (e)(5)–(6): BLE beacons in a retail environment with UUIDs tied to specific products, an installed mobile app that detects the beacon and uploads beacon ID + device data to a cloud database, server‑side resolution of the beacon to its associated product, dwell/"stall" detection, and — notably — conversion attribution to advertising ("Sales volume may also be better attributed to specific advertising based on collected customer interactions"; "better track the effectiveness of advertising, particularly digital advertising, for driving foot traffic").
(https://uspto.report/patent/app/20150278829; https://www.patentsencyclopedia.com/app/20150278829.)

Apple '694 supplies the app/server beacon‑message protocol (app listens for beacon messages, sends beacon ID to a server, receives a response) and the time‑period redemption criterion concept.
(https://patents.google.com/patent/US20150339694A1/en.)

The iBeacon NPL supplies the signal‑strength→proximity mapping (immediate/near/far) that claim 1(e)(3) recites, and is cited on the face of the patent.

Motivation to combine.

1. Same field, same problem. All three address tracking consumer exposure to advertising and measuring its effect on real‑world behavior. Yahoo '714's own background frames the problem as attribution of non‑click conversions; Branding Brand's background frames the identical unmet need — offline/in‑store data not being linkable to online data ("information collected about each customer's online interactions may not be linked back to that customer's in‑store interactions"). Yahoo '246 expresses the same gap expressly: existing techniques "fail to optimally utilize offline and online information in an integrated, unified or holistic fashion" ([0001]–[0002]).
2. The combination is a substitution of one presence signal for another. Yahoo '714 detects the "conversion" via a pixel fired when the user acts online. Branding Brand '829 teaches that the physical presence of a device in front of a beacon is an observable, attributable event. A POSITA seeking to capture offline conversions — the express motivation stated in both Yahoo '246 and Branding Brand — would predictably substitute beacon‑detected in‑store presence for the pixel‑detected online action. Nothing in Yahoo '714 teaches away; its architecture is agnostic as to how the conversion event is captured (it explicitly contemplates that the advertiser's page "pixel… may notify the system that the conversion event has occurred").
3. The look‑back window maps onto the viability window. Yahoo '714's look‑back limitation (block 414) is the same concept as claim 1(e)(2)/(8)–(9): a bounded time period within which a later event can be attributed back to an earlier ad impression. Adopting the offline variant requires no new mechanism, only a different event source.
4. Beacon sources would be within easy reach. Both Yahoo '246 (claim 13: "beaconing and collection of a set of offline behavior"; [0093], [0095], [0097], [0103], [0104]: "offline outcome beacons," store visits, store purchases, POS "beaconing from point‑of‑sale systems") and Apple '694 disclose the beacon layer. A POSITA reading Yahoo '246's own enumeration of offline beacon sources has an express blueprint for combining it with the disclosed beacon infrastructure.
5. KSR rationales apply. Combination of familiar elements with predictable results: ad‑attribution engines + BLE presence detection. Known technique available in the field: RSSI→proximity, timestamps→dwell. Design incentive / market pressure: the commercial premium on proving offline lift from digital spend (which the patent itself concedes at the end of the specification).

Result. Ground 1 reads on every limitation of claim 1 except, at most, the specific five‑category taxonomy in (e)(6), which is addressed in § 4.3 below.

Ground 2 (alternative, addresses the "online/offline" split directly): Almondnet '659 + Yahoo '246 + Branding Brand '829

Almondnet '659 supplies the online‑behavior→profile→offline‑advertisement targeting link (element (a) and the identity/profile concept). Yahoo '246 supplies the express online advertising ↔ offline behavior metric and offline beaconing (elements (e)(1), (e)(7)–(f)). Branding Brand '829 supplies the beacon detection and store‑visit machinery (elements (b)–(d), (e)(4)).

Motivation: Yahoo '246 is, in effect, a blueprint for what the patent claims — it expressly identifies store visits and store purchases as observable "offline events," expressly proposes beaconing them, expressly proposes matching users per‑user via identifiers, and expressly proposes using the resulting metrics to optimize or tune the online campaign ([0093], [0109]–[0116]). Combine with Almondnet's online‑behavior‑based targeting and Branding Brand's beacon implementation, and the claimed method is assembled. A POSITA would be motivated because Yahoo '246's stated purpose is precisely to close the offline measurement gap that Almondnet's online‑only system leaves open.

Ground 3 (for the proximity/dwell layer): + Smoothweb '839 and/or Square '148 and Mendelson

Smoothweb '839 ("Wireless Activation Module… detects, monitors and tracks beacons and translates that activity into signals") adds an express proximity module with a gain threshold and the ability to "analyze and tell when one or more Beacons are moving towards or away from" a device — i.e., signal‑strength‑derived direction/pace over time, which is the raw material for the browse/gaze/engage distinctions.
(https://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2015/0312839.html.)

Square '148 and Mendelson (US 9,204,257 B1; US 2015/0018011 A1) supply the well‑known BLE beacon retail infrastructure (indoor positioning via RF beacons, wireless beacon shopping experience), reinforcing that the beacon layer was conventional by the critical date.

4.3 The Five‑Category Behavior Taxonomy (the crux)

Claims 1(e)(5)–(6) and (e)(7) require categorization into browse / gaze / engage / purchase / abandon with category‑specific predicates. This is the limitation most likely to have driven allowance. A § 103 case here would proceed on these lines:

(i) The inputs are all disclosed. Signal strength (iBeacon NPL; Smoothweb gain threshold) and dwell time (Branding Brand "stalls"; length‑of‑time tracking; heat‑mapping) are both known. Claim 1(e)(5) itself characterizes the categorization as "based on a combination of the length of time with the signal strength" — i.e., it claims the composition of two known data streams, not a new sensing modality.

(ii) Discrete behavioral categories from dwell/path data were known in retail analytics. Branding Brand '829 performs the substantive distinctions the taxonomy encodes: walk‑by vs. dwell ("stalls in an area of the store"), dwell‑depth (heat‑mapping, "where customers spend the most time," "the length of time customers remain in the store"), and interest without purchase ("identify products… customers were interested in but didn't purchase"). That is substantially the browse/gaze/engage and purchase/abandon distinctions, lacking only the specific labels.

(iii) "Purchase" is disclosed. Branding Brand '829 covers POS interaction and beacon‑assisted product interaction within the store; Apple '694 covers purchase‑adjacent transactions at the beacon (redemption flow, US 10,296,950 B2 describing completion of a transaction at the establishment).

(iv) The rationale would be KSR "obvious design choice" / "articulating a labeling scheme for known data." Naming the observed states is a matter of descriptive convenience. Under In re Venner / KSR, designing a finite set of outcome buckets for existing signal‑strength and dwell measurements, to feed a reporting dashboard, is the kind of ordinary engineering choice that does not rise to patentability. Notably, the patent itself offers no empirical support that these particular categories correspond to anything measurable — the specification defines each qualitatively (e.g., "gaze… has stopped for a period of time… but not enough time to purchase"; "engage… looked at a variety of products… stayed for some period of time"). The claim then imports those qualitative thresholds as "first/second/third/fourth defined period[s]," which are placeholders.

(v) Where this ground is weak. No single cited reference expressly discloses all five categories with the claimed predicates; the rejection would depend on combining Branding Brand's stall/heat‑map analytics with the iBeacon proximity taxonomy and then asserting the labeling step is obvious. A patentee could reasonably respond with (a) no express disclosure of the category set, and (b) evidence of unexpected results or industry praise. Also, claim 1(e)(7) makes the conversion attribution itself contingent on the categorization, which is a narrower linkage than any cited reference expressly makes.

5. Dependent Claims 2–16

These add little independent weight and are largely conventional:

• Claims 2, 10 (SDK in a device application with access to a low‑energy receiver): routine implementation choice; Branding Brand '829 and Apple '694 both contemplate an app/software layer on the mobile device interacting with the BLE radio. Apple '694 claim 9 ("launching an application… forwarding at least a portion of the beacon message to the application") and claim 10 (selectively downloading the application) are directly on point.
• Claims 3, 11 (mobile device): Branding Brand '829 ("mobile device" 104 = "customer's mobile phone, smart phone, mobile tablet"); Apple '694.
• Claims 4, 12 (ad delivered via the first device): Yahoo '714 (ad served to user device 110; "computer, PDA, mobile phone"); Almondnet '659.
• Claims 5, 13 (ad delivered via a different second device — e.g., TV): Almondnet '659 is squarely directed to television ads driven by online behavior; Yahoo '714/Yahoo '246 contemplate cross‑device attribution; the specification's own FIG. 4 discusses television/ACR. This limitation was a stated intended use of Almondnet.
• Claims 6, 14 (feedback on channels): Yahoo '246 ([0098]–[0103] "Reports can be generated that package and distribute insights to advertisers"); Branding Brand '829 dashboard.
• Claims 7, 15 (use conversion info to define a targeted campaign): Yahoo '246 claims 1, 4–9 (classify into state → target), [0084]–[0088] (tag cookies to top‑customer segments for targeted serving).
• Claims 8, 16 (determine campaign success, then modify the campaign): Yahoo '246 [0106] ("feedback can be used in auto‑optimization of advertising campaigns"), [0109]–[0116] (offline results used to tune spend/bidding/targeting); Yahoo '714 (attribution reporting). This is the closest 1:1 mapping in the dependent set — Yahoo '246 is effectively this claim.

6. Rebuttal Considerations and Honest Weaknesses

1. The examiner already had all of this art. Every reference in § 3 was cited by the examiner, and the application was still allowed after a final rejection. That is meaningful evidence that the office did not view the combination as rendering claim 1 obvious — most plausibly because of the behavior‑categorization layer added during prosecution (cf. the 2021‑05‑03 final rejection and 2022‑02‑04 allowance). A challenger must therefore either (a) prove the specific taxonomy was inherently or obviously disclosed, or (b) find art outside the record that expressly teaches the category set.
2. No reference expressly discloses the five named categories. Grounds 1–3 require a "labels for known data are an obvious design choice" argument, which is available under KSR but is the softest part of the case.
3. "Directly attributing" is a claim term with arguable weight. The specification distinguishes "direct attribution of a conversion via a mobile device to the campaigns served on other devices" from the prior art's "match[ing of] disparate audience and purchase data." A patentee will argue Yahoo '714 is exactly the matching paradigm the patent disparages, and that beacon‑verified presence is qualitatively different. The counter is that Yahoo '246 expressly proposes the beacon‑based offline path, so the "matching vs. direct" distinction collapses.
4. Secondary considerations are unevaluated. I have no evidence of commercial success, industry praise, copying, or unexpected results, and no evidence of nexus. Absent such evidence, the § 103 case is not rebutted. Conversely, if such evidence exists (e.g., Viant marketing materials crediting this capability), it would need to be weighed.
5. Claim construction risk. "Viability window," "proximity," "a consistency of the signal strength," and "defined period[s]" are all functional/relative terms with no numeric bounds. Under Nautilus, if any is held indefinite, the obviousness question may be moot for that claim.
6. Prosecution estoppel. Any amendment adding the behavior taxonomy (inferred, not confirmed) may give rise to argument‑based estoppel that could narrow the doctrine‑of‑equivalents scope but does not defeat a § 103 challenge based on the art.

7. Conclusion

• Claim 1 is arguably obvious over Yahoo '714 in view of Branding Brand '829 and Apple '694 (optionally with the iBeacon NPL), with the strongest motivations being (i) the shared, expressly stated problem of linking online advertising to offline behavior; (ii) Yahoo '714's disclosure of an attribution‑engine-plus‑look‑back‑window architecture that is agnostic to how the conversion event is captured; and (iii) Branding Brand '829's disclosure of the beacon→app→server pipeline with dwell detection and explicit advertisement‑attribution purpose. However, the rejection depends on establishing that the five‑category behavior taxonomy of claim 1(e)(6) is an obvious labeling of known signal‑strength and dwell‑time data, which no single cited reference expressly teaches and which appears to be the limitation that carried the case to allowance.
• Alternative grounds: Almondnet '659 + Yahoo '246 + Branding Brand '829 (better captures the online‑to‑offline direction of the claim and the campaign‑modification dependents); Smoothweb '839 and Square '148/Mendelson added for the proximity/signal‑strength layer.
• Dependent claims 2–16 add only conventional implementations or features expressly disclosed in Yahoo '246, Yahoo '714, Apple '694, and Branding Brand '829, and would rise or fall with claim 1.

Caveats. This is an analytical assessment, not a legal conclusion. I did not have access to the file wrapper (office actions, amendments, or applicant arguments), and the specific page/paragraph citations above are drawn from public text of the references rather than from a paginated copy of each document. You should verify the exact paragraph support for each mapping and read the 2021–2022 prosecution history before relying on any ground.

Sources used: https://patents.google.com/patent/US11354709B2/en · https://patents.google.com/patent/US20110191714A1 (granted US 8,689,136 B2) · https://patents.google.com/patent/US20110231246 · https://uspto.report/patent/app/20150278829 · https://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2015/0312839.html · https://patents.google.com/patent/US20150339694A1/en · https://www.patents-review.com/a/20150312839-systems-methods-wireless-communication-retail-media.html · iBeacon, Wikipedia (last modified May 8, 2014) · Passkit, "iBeacons 101: proximity marketing with mobile wallet technology" · H. Clancy, "Apple's iBeacon signals turning point for mobile engagement," Fortune, Mar. 1, 2014.