US 11564015

I'll search for authoritative information on US 11,564,015 and any 2026 CAFC docket activity.

Let me pull the actual granted claim text and check for any 2026 Federal Circuit docket activity.

Let me try to retrieve the exact independent claim language.

US 11,564,015 B2 — Analyst Summary

Source note: I relied primarily on the full patent text you supplied (authoritative), cross-checked against Google Patents and PTAB/PTAB-related filings retrieved in searches. Where sources conflicted, I flag it.

Bibliographic data

Prosecution history (from PTAB petition Ex. 1004 excerpts): filed Apr. 6, 2022; Notice to File Missing Parts Apr. 12, 2022; response July 29, 2022 cancelled all 51 original claims and added 26 new claims (52–77, independent claims 52 and 65) characterized by applicant as "variants of claims of U.S. Patents 11,303,973 (parent), 10,715,878 (grandparent), and 8,677,398 (ancestor)"; Examiner telephone interview Dec. 1, 2022 requesting terminal disclaimer; Notice of Allowance Dec. 15, 2022 allowing all 26 claims.

Abstract (verbatim)

"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 the independent claims

Important framing: Although the title and abstract are television-advertising focused, the granted independent claims of the '015 patent are broader and more generic — they claim "cross-device action" using associations among Internet-accessing devices, with the TV set-top box appearing only in a dependent claim (claim 8). This tracks the continuation practice noted in the PTAB petition: "The claims of this continuation patent concern the 'common IP address' embodiments, and the type of device (e.g., STB) is introduced only in dependent claims."

Claim 1 — computer system (the core independent claim).
A computer system with at least one hardware server, programmed and connected to perform a method of using common IP addresses to identify associations among multiple electronic devices and using an identified association to cause a cross-device action. The method has two parts:

• (a) Build an association database. Create an electronic database of many associations between device identifiers of Internet-accessing devices. Each association is determined from stored data comprising (A) a device identifier, (B) the IP address through which the device accessed the Internet, and (C) a timestamp.
  • (ii) At least some associations are made by determining that two devices accessed the Internet via a common IP address at times satisfying a predetermined time-relation criterion.
  • (iii) At least some associations are made without using personally identifiable information.
  • (iv) A notable negative limitation: the computer system determining the associations accesses the Internet without using any of the common IP addresses of the (a)(ii) associations.
• (b) Trigger the action. When the computer system and a first device named in a first association are in communication, the system uses that first device's identifier plus user profile information associated with a second device's identifier in the same association to cause an automatic action with respect to the first device. Two conditions: the first association must be one of the (a)(ii) common-IP associations, and it must have been stored before the system and the first device communicated.

In plain terms: group devices that shared an IP address at plausibly the same time; keep that grouping in a database for later; then, when one device shows up, apply the profile/behavioral data from the other device to act on it — all without PII.

Claim 14 — article of manufacture. An article comprising a tangible data storage medium that is not a transitory propagating signal, encoding computer-readable instructions that, when applied to a computer system with at least one hardware server computer, instruct the system to perform essentially the same method as claim 1 (parts (a) and (b), with the same (i)–(iv) substructure).

Representative dependent claims (for context):

• Claim 5: the second device is a mobile device that accessed the Internet both via the common IP address and via a different IP address, and the user profile information was collected while it was not on the common IP address (i.e., roaming activity folds back into the household association).
• Claim 7: the time-relation criterion is that one device accessed the Internet between two times when another device accessed it.
• Claim 8 (narrowing): (A) first device is a television set-top box; (B) second device is an online user interface device; (C) profile info collected after the association; (D) association is one of those in (a)(iii).
• Claim 10: the automatic action is selecting an advertisement from among multiple based at least in part on the second device's profile info, and causing it to be directed to the second device.
• Claim 12: at least one device identifier is stored in a cookie readable by the computer system.
• Claim 13: the device identifiers include no PII.
• Claim 4 (quoted literally in the petition): "the first association of part (b) is one of the associations identified in part (a)(iii)." ⚠️ Note this appears to cross-reference (a)(iii) while claim 1(b)(i) cross-references (a)(ii); I am reporting the text as it appears in the petition's claim listing and flag it as a point to verify against the printed claim set.

Litigation and PTAB status (as of the search date)

District court:

• AlmondNet, Inc. and Intent IQ, LLC v. FreeWheel Media, Inc. and Beeswax.io Corp., No. 1:23-cv-00220-MN (D. Del., filed Mar. 1, 2023), Judge Maryellen Noreika. Asserted patents include 11,564,015, 7,861,260, 7,979,307, 8,775,249, and 8,959,146. Docket shows a "STAYED" flag alongside 2026 pretrial/trial dates (pretrial conference scheduled Mar. 9, 2026; 5-day jury trial referenced Mar. 2026) — I flag this as internally inconsistent and cannot confirm the current posture. (docket excerpt)
• AlmondNet, Inc. v. Viant Technology Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00174 (D. Del., filed Feb. 16, 2023).

PTAB:

• IPR2024-00419 (filed Mar. 1, 2024, re US 11,564,015, app. 17/714,965): institution decision Sept. 4, 2024; terminated — settled, July 10, 2025. Petitioners identified as FreeWheel Media, Inc./Beeswax.io Corp./Comcast entities; records inconsistently name the respondent as Intent IQ, LLC vs. AlmondNet, Inc. (case detail)
• IPR2024-00420 (same patent family): listed by Google Patents as "Not Instituted – Procedural."
• Parallel FreeWheel IPRs against US 7,861,260: IPR2024-00422 (instituted), -00423, -00424.

Federal Circuit — 2026: I found no CAFC docket specifically involving US 11,564,015. Because IPR2024-00419 terminated by settlement in July 2025 (before any final written decision), no appeal from an '015 FWD would be expected. A Law360 headline dated April 13, 2026 reports the Federal Circuit affirmed a PTAB decision invalidating all claims Meta challenged of "an AlmondNet patent" — the snippet does not identify the patent number, and based on the related Meta IPRs in the record (e.g., IPR2022-00773) it appears to concern a different family member. I cannot confirm any 2026 CAFC activity involving the '015 patent. Treat that headline as unverified with respect to this patent.

Uncertainties / conflicts to note

1. Grant date, filing date, priority date: Google Patents shows issue 2023-01-24, filed 2022-04-06, priority 2007-04-17; the Unified Patents portal shows grant 2023-01-23, application 2022-04-05, priority 2007-04-16. The patent's own "CROSS-REFERENCE" section supports Apr. 6, 2022 filing and Apr. 17, 2007 priority.
2. Current assignee: Google Patents lists "Intent IQ LLC" as current assignee, while the Dec. 16, 2022 assignment records and the D. Del. complaint indicate AlmondNet, Inc. holds title. The two entities litigate together.
3. Claim 4's cross-reference to (a)(iii) vs. (a)(ii) noted above — verify against the printed claim set.
4. The '015 patent is term-limited by terminal disclaimer to ~2027, which materially affects any damages analysis despite the 2023 issue date.
5. I did not retrieve a clean full-text claim set from a primary source; the claim language above is drawn from PTAB petition excerpts quoting Ex. 1001 and from the D. Del. infringement chart.

I'll research litigation involving US 11,564,015 (the "Targeted television advertisements based on online behavior" patent, assigned to Intent IQ LLC). Let me search multiple sources.

Good initial results. Let me dig deeper into the specific PTAB proceedings and check for additional district court cases asserting this patent.

Let me check whether the '015 patent has been asserted in other lawsuits (Roku, Amazon, Meta, etc.) and look for any 2025–2026 developments.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 11,564,015

Patent identification (as it appears in the records I retrieved): US 11,564,015 B2, "Targeted Television Advertisements Based on Online Behavior," application 17/714,965, filed 2026-04-06 (per Google Patents listing), granted 2023-01-24, named inventor Roy Shkedi, current assignee Intent IQ LLC. I note the records conflict slightly on the application date (Google Patents lists 2022‑04‑06 and 2022‑04‑05 in different places; Unified Patents lists priority date 2007‑04‑16 / 2007‑04‑17). I am not auto‑correcting these.

Summary

I found two U.S. district court cases in which the '015 patent was included among the patents‑in‑suit, and two PTAB inter partes reviews directed specifically at the '015 patent. I found no CAFC appeal of the '015 patent.

Details and sources

Case 1 — AlmondNet, Inc. et al. v. FreeWheel Media, Inc. et al., 1:23‑cv‑00220‑MN (D. Del.)

• Complaint filed March 1, 2023; accused instrumentality was "FreeWheel's advertising platform," including technology acquired from Beeswax.io Corp. (2021). Source: PATSNAP litigation summary and docket record — https://www.patsnap.com/fr/resources/blog/litigation/almondnet-v-freewheel-media-ad-targeting-patent-dispute-patsnap-2/
• The docket confirms '015 is among the asserted patents: "Patent | 11564015; 7861260; 7979307; 8677398; 8775249." Source: Docket Alarm — https://www.docketalarm.com/search/?f=party_obj.firm.attorney_exact-Ryan+Hayward&f=party_obj.firm.name_exact-Young+Conaway+Stargatt+%26+Taylor&f=party_obj.name_exact_remove-amazon.com+Services&f=court_exact-Delaware+District+Court&q=patent%3A%288677398%29
• FreeWheel moved to stay pending IPR (July 2024); AlmondNet opposed (D.I. 71, July 24, 2024). The stay was granted on Feb. 26, 2025 (minute entry: "the Motions to Stay Pending IPR (D.I. 100 in C.A. No. 23‑174‑MN, D.I. 61 in C.A. No. 23‑220‑MN) are GRANTED").
• Outcome: the case was resolved by a stipulated dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) — plaintiffs' claims dismissed with prejudice, defendants' claims without prejudice, each side bearing its own fees/costs. Verbatim order quoted in the PATSNAP PACER summary (case 1:23‑cv‑00220). No merits/validity adjudication was made.
• Google Patents lists this case as litigation for the '015 patent: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Delaware%20District%20Court/case/1%3A23-cv-00220

Case 2 — AlmondNet, Inc. et al. v. Viant Technology Inc., 1:23‑cv‑00174‑MN (D. Del.)

• Filed Feb. 16, 2023 (AO‑120 report dated 2/16/2023, Docket No. 23‑cv‑174‑MN).
• Caveat / conflicting records: The initial AO‑120 "Report on the Filing of an Action Regarding a Patent" for this case lists US 8,775,249 B2 (holder AlmondNet, Inc.) — https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Delaware_District_Court/1--23-cv-00174/AlmondNet_Inc._et_al_v._Viant_Technology_Inc._et_al/docs/116.pdf — while Docket Alarm's patent search for this case lists "11354709; 11564015; 7861260; 7979307; 8244582" among the patents in the case — https://www.docketalarm.com/search/?f=party_obj.name_exact-Almondnet&f=party_obj.name_exact_remove-Linkedin&f=party_obj.firm.attorney_exact_remove-Daniel+Kolko&q=patent%3A%288677398%29 — and Google Patents separately lists the Viant case as litigation associated with US 11,564,015: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Delaware%20District%20Court/case/1%3A23-cv-00174. Accordingly, I state with moderate (not high) confidence that '015 was asserted against Viant. A Jan. 14, 2025 stipulated order in that case regarding "Disposition of Certain Patents" may have narrowed the asserted set, so I cannot confirm '015 remained asserted to the end.
• Status: stayed pending IPR (Feb. 26, 2025); a second 5‑day jury trial was calendared for Mar. 23, 2026. I could not confirm a later disposition.

Case 3 — FreeWheel Media, Inc. v. Intent IQ, LLC / AlmondNet, Inc., IPR2024‑00419 (PTAB)

• Filed March 1, 2024, challenging claims 1–26 of '015. Real parties‑in‑interest: FreeWheel Media, Inc., Beeswax.io Corp., Comcast Corporation, Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC. Earliest service of the corresponding district court complaint on any RPI: March 2, 2023.
• Grounds included obviousness combinations over Baig (US 2008/0113674) with Banga507 (US 2006/0265507), Banga690 (US 2006/0271690), McFarland (US 9,123,071), and others (Satapati, Zwicky, Damick, Costa, Ashbaugh).
• Status: Terminated – Settled, termination date July 10, 2025; institution decision date listed as Sept. 4, 2024. Sources: https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2024-00419 and Google Patents PTAB link https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2024-00419. Petition text: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1555166](/patent/1555166)/download-documents
• Note: Sources conflict on whether institution was granted before settlement (see Case 4's institution date). I flag this rather than resolve it.

Case 4 — FreeWheel Media, Inc. v. Intent IQ, LLC / AlmondNet, Inc., IPR2024‑00420 (PTAB)

• Filed March 1, 2024, the second of two FreeWheel petitions against '015 ("Petition 1 of 2" / "second of two petitions"). Challenged claims 1–26. Grounds: obviousness over Madhavan (US 8,180,674), Park (US 2008/0039386), Martinez (US 2008/0120178), Kato (US 2004/0003292), Koran, and others.
• Status: Institution Denied on Sept. 4, 2024 (Google Patents labels it "Not Instituted – Procedural"; PTAB record shows a refund of post‑institution fees requested by Petitioner on Oct. 7, 2024). Sources: https://ipverse.greyb.com/ptab-web/cases/case-details/IPR2024-00420 and https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2024-00420

Related matters that do not appear to involve the '015 patent

The '015 patent issued Jan. 24, 2023, so it postdates AlmondNet/Intent IQ's earlier ad‑targeting campaigns. For completeness, the following matters were identified in the same family but the dockets I reviewed do not list the '015 patent as asserted:

• Roku, Inc. v. AlmondNet, Inc. et al., D. Del. 1:21‑cv‑01035 — consolidated with AlmondNet v. Roku, W.D. Tex. 6:21‑cv‑00876; docket lists '260, '100, '198, '857, '878, '639, '586, '164, '069, '139, '146, '582, '398 — not '015. Case terminated by stipulation of dismissal (D.I. 252, June 20, 2025).
• AlmondNet v. Microsoft (6:21‑cv‑00897), v. Amazon (6:21‑cv‑00898; 6:22‑cv‑01204), v. Meta/Facebook (6:21‑cv‑00896; 6:22‑cv‑01205), v. Samsung (6:21‑cv‑00891; 4:22‑cv‑07515) — asserted patents across those cases (e.g., '582, '639, '586, '139, '822, '146, '615, '398, '878, '164, '198) do not include '015.
• AlmondNet/Intent IQ/Datonics v. LiveIntent, Inc., D. Del. 1:24‑cv‑00831 — asserts US 8,677,398; 8,959,146; 10,984,445; 8,494,904 — not '015.
• AlmondNet, Inc. v. FreeWheel, D. Del. 1:24‑cv‑1259‑MN — a second FreeWheel case; I could not confirm whether '015 is asserted there.

Confidence and limitations

• High confidence: the two PTAB IPRs (IPR2024‑00419, IPR2024‑00420) and the D. Del. FreeWheel case 1:23‑cv‑00220‑MN are litigation involving the '015 patent; those are cross-confirmed by Google Patents' litigation links, PACER summaries, PTAB petition captions, and docket searches.
• Moderate confidence: the '015 patent's inclusion in the Viant case 1:23‑cv‑00174‑MN (docket search and Google Patents support it; the initial AO‑120 filing listed a narrower set).
• Uncertain / unresolved: (a) whether IPR2024‑00419 was instituted before it settled; (b) the exact disposition date of 1:23‑cv‑00220 (the PATSNAP order text is undated in the excerpt; the "846 days" figure implies late June 2025); (c) whether any post‑2025 suits against new defendants assert the '015 patent — I did not find any, but I was unable to complete an exhaustive PACER/Unified Patents caselist sweep, so this should not be treated as a negative‑search opinion.

If you need a litigation‑hold‑grade confirmation, I recommend pulling the live PACER dockets for 1:23‑cv‑00220‑MN and 1:23‑cv‑00174‑MN, and the PTAB dockets for IPR2024‑00419/‑00420, plus a fresh check of https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist for filings after mid‑2025.

I'll research the PTAB proceedings the patent page flags (the ODP structured block returned none, but Google Patents surfaces two Unified Patents IPRs). Let me verify each.

Two Unified Patents proceedings are confirmed (both actually filed by FreeWheel Media). Let me dig into claim-level details, grounds, judges, and any other IPRs or appeals.

Let me verify the panel, the institution reasoning in -00419, and whether any appeal or FWD exists for this patent.

AIA Trial Proceedings — US 11,564,015 (Shkedi / Intent IQ LLC)

Data-source discrepancy — flag before anything else. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block for this patent says the USPTO ODP API returns no AIA trial proceedings. That default is wrong for this patent. Google Patents' own page for US11564015B2 carries two litigation entries, and both are independently corroborated by the petitioners' district-court filings and PTAB papers. There are two AIA petitions on this patent. Details below.

Correction on petitioner identity: the Google Patents litigation block labels both cases "Petitioner: 'Unified Patents PTAB Data'." That is a data-attribution label (Unified's open PTAB dataset, CC-BY), not a real party in interest. Unified Patents did not file against this patent. The real petitioner is FreeWheel Media, Inc. (a Comcast subsidiary), defending alongside Beeswax.io Corp. and Viant Technology LLC. Do not build a defensive-aggregator theory on that line.

Proceedings overview

Two AIA proceedings on file, both filed 2024-03-01 by FreeWheel Media against claims 1–26: one instituted and later terminated by settlement (IPR2024-00419) and one institution-denied as a redundant parallel petition (IPR2024-00420). Zero claims have been canceled; zero claims have been sustained; no Final Written Decision has ever issued on US 11,564,015. Bottom line for a defendant today: this patent is untested, not hardened. The petitioner that got in the door walked out the side door with a confidential release two months before the FWD was due. There is no PTAB merits ruling to cite, and — because settlement came pre-FWD — no § 315(e) estoppel attached to anyone, including FreeWheel. Validity is wide open, but so is the door for a fresh petitioner.

IPR2024-00419 — FreeWheel Media, Inc. v. Intent IQ, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-03-01
• Status: Terminated-Settled (Google Patents gloss: "(Settlement)"). Plain English: the Board instituted trial, then terminated it on the parties' joint motion after a confidential release, before any Final Written Decision.
• Judge panel: Not verified from a primary source. A third-party aggregator indexes Justin T. Arbes, Lynne H. Browne, Stacey G. White, and Thomas L. Giannetti in connection with this case — treat that panel list as unconfirmed; I could not open Paper 9 (Institution Decision) directly. Do not cite the panel without pulling the paper.
• Petition grounds: Challenged claims 1–26 (all claims). Per a third-party analysis of an exhibit in the file (Ex. 1019-type exhibit summary — secondary source, not the Petition itself):
  • Ground 1 — claims 1–7, 9–10, 12–20, 22–23, 25–26 obvious over Baig (US 2008/0113674) in view of Banga507 (US 2006/0265507), Banga690 (US 2006/0271690), and McFarland (US 9,123,071);
  • Ground 2 — claims 1–7, 9–10, 13–20, 22–23, 26 obvious over Baig in view of Zwicky (Building Internet Firewalls, 2000), Satapati (US 2004/0076180), and Damick (US 2006/0242294).
  • Statutory basis: § 103 (obviousness) only. No § 102, no § 112 ground surfaced.
• Institution decision: Instituted 2024-09-04. This is confirmed by two independent sources: the aggregator's case record (Outcome: Instituted) and Defendants' 2024-09-10 "Notice of Related Proceedings" in D. Del. C.A. No. 1:23-cv-00220, which states verbatim: "On September 4, 2024, the PTAB instituted inter partes review with respect to the '015 patent. AIA Review No. IPR2024-00419." The Board's substantive reasoning in the institution decision is not reproduced in any source I could access.
• Final Written Decision: None. Never issued. No claim of the '015 patent has been adjudicated on the merits at the PTAB. Anyone who tells you claim 1 or any dependent claim was canceled is wrong.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated 2025-07-10, on a joint motion filed 2025-07-07 (authorized by Board email 2025-06-30). The parties stated they "have entered into a release agreement that resolves all underlying disputes between Petitioner and Patent Owner with respect to the '015 patent," filed the agreement as Exhibit 1101 under 35 U.S.C. § 317(b) / 37 C.F.R. § 42.74(c), and requested it be kept business confidential — the terms are not public. The same papers state the parallel litigation "has been dismissed with prejudice pursuant to settlement and no further litigation between the Parties is contemplated." The joint motion also affirmatively represents: "Apart from the present matter, there are no other proceedings in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office regarding US 11,564,015."
• Appeal: None. There is no FWD to appeal, and I found no Federal Circuit docket or CourtListener entry involving US 11,564,015. The case died at the Board.
• Defensive value: Low as a cancellation weapon, high as a roadmap. Nothing was canceled, so you cannot say "claim 1 is dead." But the complete FreeWheel petition set — two § 103 theories built on Baig + Banga + McFarland and Baig + Zwicky/Satapati/Damick — is public, survived the Board's § 314(a) screening once (it was the ranked-first petition), and is not barred against you (see estoppel below). That is a pre-vetted invalidity blueprint you can adopt at a fraction of the cost of the original IPR.

Sources: Unified Patents PTAB record — IPR2024-00419 · IP Verse case record · Google Patents US11564015B2

IPR2024-00420 — FreeWheel Media, Inc. v. Intent IQ, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review

• Filed: 2024-03-01

• Status: Institution Denied (Google Patents gloss: "Not Instituted - Procedural").

• Judge panel: Same caveat as above; not verified.

• Petition grounds: Challenged claims 1–26 (all claims). The Board's decision recites the asserted grounds and references: Banga507 (US 2006/0265507), Ashbaugh (US 8,930,239), Madhavan (US 8,180,674), Park (US 2006/0039386), Martinez (US 2008/0120178), Kato (US 2004/0003292), Brookes (US 5,428,778), Koran (US 8,438,170), Sitaraman (US 6,427,170), with an asserted ground mapping claims 1–10, 13–23, 26 under § 103(a) over Madhavan, Park, Martinez (and further combinations). Statutory basis: § 103.

• Institution decision: Denied 2024-09-04, same day the Board instituted the companion petition. The panel exercised its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314 on parallel-petition grounds, not on the merits. Its reasoning, quoted from the decision:

  "Patent Owner contends that institution of trial should be denied because 'Petitioner has not and cannot justify the simultaneously filed parallel petitions directed towards the '015 patent and challenging the same claims—claims 1–26.' For the reasons that follow, we agree and therefore exercise our discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314 to deny institution."

  The Board noted this was "the second of two petitions filed concurrently by Petitioner challenging claims 1–26 of the '015 patent," that Petitioner had filed a Ranking Notice (Paper 3) ranking this petition second and IPR2024-00419 first, and that the Board was entering the decisions on both petitions concurrently. Petitioner requested a refund of post-institution fees on 2024-10-07.

• Final Written Decision: N/A — never instituted.

• Settlement / termination: N/A as a termination event; the denial stands. (The later FreeWheel global settlement covered the instituted cases, not this denied one.)

• Appeal: None found. No Director Review request surfaced in the record I could access.

• Defensive value: Marginal directly — but it is a discretionary-denial precedent in your favor on procedure, not validity. It establishes that the Board polices voluminous parallel petitions against this patent. Practically, it means the Madhavan/Park/Martinez art family was never tested on the merits, so it remains fully available to a future petitioner — with the caveat that a redundant filing invites the same § 314 hammer.

Source: IP Verse case record — IPR2024-00420 · Unified Patents PTAB record — IPR2024-00420 · Institution Decision (Deny), 2024-09-04 · Joint Motion to Terminate, IPR2024-00419 (filed 2025-07-07)

Strategic summary

Claim-by-claim status of US 11,564,015.

There is no narrowing to report, because there is no merits ruling to report. Every claim of the '015 patent that exists today existed on the day it issued. Any demand letter asserting claims 1–26 is asserting claims whose validity has never been adjudicated in any forum. The corollary is equally true and less comfortable: do not tell a court or a client that this patent has been "weakened" by the PTAB. It has not been weakened; it has merely been survived. The patent is a live, fully-intact asset with a confidential FreeWheel license as its only post-issuance monetization event.

Estoppel landscape — the critical point most analyses get wrong.

• Section 315(e)(2) estoppel does NOT apply. The statute triggers estoppel only for an IPR "that results in a final written decision under section 318(a)." IPR2024-00419 terminated by settlement before any FWD, and IPR2024-00420 was never instituted. No FWD = no estoppel, for FreeWheel or anyone else. FreeWheel's hands are tied instead by the with-prejudice dismissal of AlmondNet's claims in D. Del. C.A. No. 1:23-cv-00220 and by the confidential release (Ex. 1101) — contractual and res-judicata bars, not statutory IPR estoppel.
• For a new defendant: the entire prior-art universe is open. Baig, Banga507, Banga690, McFarland, Zwicky, Satapati, Damick, Madhavan, Park, Martinez, Ashbaugh, Kato, Brookes, Koran, Sitaraman — none of it is spent against you. Prior-art systems/publications you uncover are likewise available. You are not walking into anyone's § 315(e) shadow.
• Watch § 315(b). The one-year clock from service of an infringement complaint is a hard bar, and the family is being actively asserted (the Viant case, 1:23-cv-00174, was still pending as of the July 2025 termination papers). If you have been served, count the days before you plan an IPR.
• Watch General Plastic / § 314(a) discretion. The Board already denied one redundant petition on this exact patent. Follow-on petitions face real discretionary risk, and the Board's 2025 practice (post-Fintiv guidance, Sotera-stipulation scrutiny) makes a clean discretionary posture essential.

Pattern signals.

• One would-be petitioner, two bites, zero merits. FreeWheel filed twelve IPRs in March 2024 across four asserted AlmondNet/Intent IQ patents; against the '015 it filed two petitions on the same day (2024-03-01) against the same claims (1–26), ranked them, and won institution only on the first. This is a petitioner with a litigation budget, not a serial harasser — and it still chose to settle.
• The settlement was portfolio-wide, not patent-specific. The Board's termination order in the companion IPR2024-00421/00422 ('260 patent) records the same FreeWheel/Intent IQ release and the same representation that litigation "has been dismissed with prejudice pursuant to settlement and no further litigation between the [Settling] Parties is contemplated." FreeWheel (with Beeswax) bought its way out of the entire Delaware case rather than fight the '015 to judgment.
• Patent owner's history is a genuine mixed record, and it is not evidence about this patent. Across the family, Intent IQ has both won and lost at the § 314 stage: e.g., IPR2022-00773 (Meta, '398) — instituted, then settled; IPR2023-00227 (Amazon, '398) — denied; IPR2022-01420 (Microsoft, '398) — denied; IPR2022-01236 (Roku, '398) — denied; IPR2023-01281 ('878) — instituted. The patent owner also publicized (2026-04-07) a global settlement and license with Amazon following a trial win and "numerous IPR wins." None of that tells you anything about the validity of claims 1–26 of the '015 patent — do not import it.
• No defensive aggregator. Unified Patents appears only as a data-source attribution. There is no third-party/unified challenge to this patent. The only challenger has been a commercial adversary that settled.

Term horizon. Google Patents lists an anticipated expiration of 2027-04-17 (priority 2007-04-17). With roughly a year and a half of term left, the ROI calculus on a fresh IPR is real but shorter than it looks — which is exactly why the settlement-leverage value of an IPR here may exceed its cancellation value.

Recommended next steps

1. Do not plead "the PTAB canceled claims" or "the patent has been narrowed." It is false. The only accurate statement is: US 11,564,015 was challenged in two IPRs filed 2024-03-01; one was instituted on 2024-09-04 and terminated by settlement on 2025-07-10 without a Final Written Decision; the other was institution-denied on 2024-09-04; no claim has been canceled or sustained. If you need the FWD-equivalent for a brief, there isn't one — cite the termination order and joint motion instead (IPR2024-00419 joint motion to terminate) and the FreeWheel with-prejudice dismissal in D. Del. 1:23-cv-00220.
2. Pull the primary papers yourself before relying on any ground mapping in this memo. The institution decision and the petition grounds for IPR2024-00419 are the documents I could verify only through secondary summaries. Retrieve Paper 9 (Institution Decision, 2024-09-04) and the Petition via PTAB E2E / PTACTS (PTACTS public search) and confirm (a) the exact APJ panel, (b) the exact instituted claims and grounds. My ground lists for -00419 are flagged as secondary and should not be quoted in a filing.
3. Mine the FreeWheel petitions as your invalidity roadmap. Both the -00419 grounds (Baig + Banga507/Banga690/McFarland; Baig + Zwicky/Satapati/Damick) and the -00420 grounds (Madhavan/Park/Martinez and the Ashbaugh/Kato/Brookes/Koran/Sitaraman cluster) are unburdened by estoppel. Have your IPR counsel read the -00419 Petition and the Board's institution decision before commissioning new prior-art work.
4. If an active proceeding is pending against you, compute your § 315(b) deadline now. No IPR on the '015 is currently active — IPR2024-00419 is terminated, so there is no institution deadline, no oral hearing, and no statutory one-year FWD clock running on this patent. Any new trial would run 12 months from its own institution date under § 316(a)(11). The only live clock that matters today is § 315(b).
5. Check the parallel cases before assuming the '015 is unasserted. The July 2025 papers list AlmondNet, Inc. et al. v. Viant Technology Inc. et al., 1:23-cv-00174-MN (D. Del.) as a pending district-court litigation involving US 11,564,015. If that case is still live, its scheduler and its invalidity contentions are the best available intelligence on how the patent owner actually reads claims 1–26 — and on which claims it is willing to assert. Confirm the current docket status before relying on it.

Caveats I will not paper over: (i) I could not open the IPR2024-00419 Institution Decision as a primary document, so the panel composition and the precise instituted grounds are unverified; (ii) the grounds breakdown attributed to Ex. 1019 comes from a third-party AI-generated case summary and should be treated as a lead, not a citation; (iii) the settlement terms are confidential by Board order under § 317(b) — I have no visibility into them and neither will you.

I'll reconstruct this from the authoritative patent text I was given, then cross-check with live sources for the recorded assignment details (reel/frame, correspondent, litigation, and NPE-directory entries).

Let me pull the recorded assignment specifics (reel/frame and correspondent) and cross-check the asserter directories.

I was able to confirm the ownership picture from the patent's own front-matter/legal-events data plus court and PTAB records, but I could not retrieve the Assignment Center reel/frame fields or the assignment-recording correspondent through the tools available to me. I flag that gap explicitly rather than fill it in.

Inventors

Roy Shkedi — sole named inventor on US 11,564,015 ("Targeted television advertisements based on online behavior"). Residence of record: New York, NY (per the family's file histories, e.g. the change-of-correspondence filing reproduced in AlmondNet v. Oracle, 6:24-cv-00303, Doc. 32-14).

• Employer at filing: Shkedi is the founder, CEO and controlling principal of the AlmondNet Group (AlmondNet, Inc., founded 1998), whose subsidiaries include Intent IQ, LLC and Datonics. He has publicly described founding the group in 1998 and relocating to the US in 2000 (IAM interview republished in PTAB filings; Intent IQ).
• Unusual-pattern check — no founder-departure signal. The classic "all inventors left within 12 months of filing → portfolio fire-sale" tell is not present. Shkedi is still CEO/Chairman of AlmondNet, Intent IQ and Datonics as of the 2026 Amazon settlement announcement, and the company advertises 25-year employee tenure. The inventor is the assignee-side principal, not a departed engineer.
• Filing-date caveat: the 2007-04-17 priority application (Ser. No. 11/736,544, now US 7,861,260) named Shkedi alone; this continuation (Ser. No. 17/714,965, filed 2022-04-06) likewise names him alone. There is no co-inventor group to analyze for serial departure.

Original assignee

Entity named on the face of the issued patent: Intent IQ, LLC (per Google Patents front-matter data). Note a documentary wrinkle: the inventor's assignment for the underlying family ran to AlmondNet, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("FOR VALUE RECEIVED, I, the named inventor … sell, assign, and transfer to AlmondNet, Inc., a Delaware corporation," reproduced in the AlmondNet v. Oracle file history). Intent IQ, LLC is the AlmondNet Group subsidiary that holds this TV-targeting family; AlmondNet, Inc. is the parent and co-plaintiff.

• Product embodying the claims? Partially/indirectly. Intent IQ ships commercial ad-tech products — privacy-first identity resolution, cross-device ID graph, cookieless audience activation, CTV/bid-enhancement and attribution — and Datonics operates a data marketplace. The '015 claims, however, are specifically directed to electronically associating online-access IP addresses with set-top-box IP addresses and directing a TV ad accordingly. The group monetizes this family predominantly through licensing (Google 2013; Microsoft 2024; Meta, Roku, Samsung, FreeWheel, and Amazon via an April 2026 settlement — GlobeNewswire, 2026-04-07).
• Primary line of business: targeted/programmatic advertising technology and audience data; HQ New York City, R&D Herzliya, Israel. Portfolio stated at 170+ granted patents.
• Current status: Operating, privately held, no bankruptcy. In 2013 the group came "close to financial ruin" and took a take-it-or-leave-it Google licensing deal rather than filing — an interview-sourced fact, not a recorded assignment or a Chapter 7/11 event.

Assignment timeline

Data limitation (read first): I could not retrieve reel/frame numbers or the recorded-correspondent field for the assignments below. Google Patents' legal-events feed for US 11,564,015 confirms three reassignment records, all dated 2022-12-16, but does not expose reel/frame or correspondent. I have not inferred or generated reel/frame values. Verify at the USPTO Assignment Center by searching patent 11,564,015.

There is no Assignment Center record of a sale to a third-party NPE, no security interest, and no defensive-aggregator transfer.

• 2022-12-16 (date per legal events; execution vs. recording date not distinguished in that source) / recorded 2022-12-16 — Reel/Frames not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest
  • Assignor: SHKEDI, ROY, MR.
  • Assignee: ALMONDNET, INC.
  • Correspondent: Not retrieved for this recording. The family's recurring prosecution/assignment correspondent of record is Louis J. Hoffman, P.C., Customer No. 26362, 14301 North 87th Street, Suite 312, Scottsdale, AZ 85260. Repeat-player flag: Hoffman's firm appears as the correspondent on many AlmondNet/Intent IQ family filings over more than a decade (e.g. Customer No. 26362 on applications 13/167,605, 15/360,762 and 14-EP-CON3, as reproduced in AlmondNet v. Oracle, 6:24-cv-00303, Doc. 32-14 and Yahoo! v. AlmondNet, CBM2017-00058, Ex. 2002). That recurrence is documented for prosecution correspondence; I could not confirm he filed the 2022-12-16 recordings.
  • Context: Inventor-to-company assignment (confirms Shkedi's title to the group's Delaware parent).

• 2022-12-16 — Reel/Frames not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest
  • Assignor: ALMONDNET, INC.
  • Assignee: INTENT IQ, LLC
  • Correspondent: Not retrieved. Same repeat-player caveat as above.
  • Context: Internal reorg — movement of the family from the parent into the group's operating/patent-holding subsidiary.

• 2022-12-16 — Reel/Frames not retrieved

  • Conveyance: License (not a title transfer)
  • Assignor: INTENT IQ, LLC
  • Assignee: ALMONDNET, INC.
  • Correspondent: Not retrieved.
  • Context: License/confirmatory instrument — AlmondNet takes a licence back while Intent IQ holds record title; consistent with the PTAB record naming "Intent IQ, LLC" as Patent Owner and real party in interest.

Reading of the triple recordation: all three instruments share one execution/recording date, one inventor, and two affiliated Shkedi-controlled entities. This is a single-day family-wide cleanup/consolidation, not a staggered cascade through unrelated LLCs.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership and assertion of US 11564015
    2007 : Priority application filed by Shkedi
    2011 : Division application filed
    2022 : Continuation 17 714 965 filed
         : Shkedi assigns interest to AlmondNet Inc
         : AlmondNet assigns interest to Intent IQ LLC
         : Intent IQ grants license back to AlmondNet
    2023 : Patent issues to Intent IQ LLC
         : Viant suit filed in Delaware
         : FreeWheel suit filed in Delaware
    2024 : FreeWheel IPR petitions filed
    2025 : IPR settled and terminated

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The chain runs between AlmondNet, Inc. and Intent IQ, LLC, both Shkedi-controlled, with Intent IQ being a real operating ad-tech vendor shipping identity-resolution and data products from a New York HQ with an Israeli R&D center. There is no assignment to a newly formed "IP/Licensing/Holdings/Ventures" LLC, no registered-agent-only address in the record, and no evidence of a single-member shell. (The "LLC" suffix alone is not a finding.)

2. Known asserter in the chain — present (with caveat). The patent owner does not appear on the classic lists in your prompt (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation, Spangenberg). It is independently surfaced as a high-frequency patent plaintiff by the two directories you named: Unified Patents' patent portal entry for US 11,564,015 (which lists the parent company as Intent IQ LLC and shows the PTAB challenges), and RPX Insight, which covered the campaign directly ("AlmondNet Adds Comcast Subsidiaries to Targeted Advertising Campaign," 2023-12-05, insight.rpxcorp.com). Supporting cites: IPR2024-00419/-00420 (FreeWheel v. Intent IQ, filed 2024-03-01) and the Delaware suits below.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — present, but only documented at the prosecution layer. Louis J. Hoffman, P.C. (Customer No. 26362, Scottsdale, AZ) is the correspondent of record across many AlmondNet/Intent IQ family filings spanning 2012–2020 in the file histories reproduced in litigation exhibits. That is genuine recurrence, i.e. the signal is met on its own terms. But be precise: a multi-decade prosecution relationship with the inventor's own company is normal patent practice, not the "shell LLCs change, the lawyer doesn't" pattern — and I could not verify Hoffman as the correspondent on the 2022-12-16 assignment recordings.

4. Cascading transfers — not present (as defined). The three recorded instruments are same-day and share the same two affiliated parties; there is no chain of successive, unrelated LLCs over <24 months. This is a reorganization, not a daisy chain.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — present. The 2022-12-16 recordations consolidate title/licence position roughly 62 days before the first suit naming this patent, AlmondNet, Inc. et al. v. Viant Technology Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00174 (D. Del., filed 2023-02-16), and ~75 days before AlmondNet, Inc. v. FreeWheel Media, Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00220 (D. Del., filed 2023-03-01). Both suits name the '015 patent (see the Rule 7.1 disclosure and Report to the Commissioner of Patents in 1:23-cv-00174, Dkt. 3–4). The '015 patent itself issued only 2023-01-24 — three weeks before the Viant complaint — so the ownership paperwork was tidied before issuance and before assertion.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No Chapter 7/11, no § 363 sale, no assignment from a trustee. The 2013 near-insolvency described in the IAM interview was resolved by a licence from Google, not a patent sale, and it predates this continuation by nine years.

7. Privateering — not present. Privateering requires transfer to a separate NPE asserting on an operating company's behalf. Here the operating company (AlmondNet Group / Intent IQ) both holds and asserts the patents in its own name, suing industry participants directly (Viant, FreeWheel/BeeswaxIO, and per its own statement Meta, Microsoft/LinkedIn/Xandr, Roku, Samsung, Amazon, Lotame, LiveIntent). Related Amazon damages: $122M jury verdict (W.D. Tex.), per IAM/PTAB filing and AdExchanger.

8. Defensive aggregator — not present. The chain terminates at Intent IQ, LLC, an asserting entity. There is no RPX, AST, LOT, Unified or OIN assignment in the record.

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence.

Justification. The recorded chain itself is benign and shallow — three same-day instruments on 2022-12-16 among Roy Shkedi, AlmondNet, Inc. and Intent IQ, LLC, i.e. an internal reorganization of the original inventor's own affiliated companies, with no shell cascade and no security interest. What drives the moderate call is the assertion posture built on top of that chain: the record title consolidated into Intent IQ LLC approximately 62 days before the first suit naming the '015 patent (Viant, 1:23-cv-00174, 2023-02-16; FreeWheel, 1:23-cv-00220, 2023-03-01), the '015 patent issued 2023-01-24 and was asserted three weeks later, and the owner is independently tracked as a high-frequency plaintiff by both Unified Patents and RPX Insight, with its own litigation counsel acknowledging to AdExchanger that whether Intent IQ earns more as an ad-tech vendor or a patent litigant "depends on the year." Against that: Intent IQ does ship commercial products and is not a purchased-portfolio shell, so a good-faith analyst could equally enter Operating-company assertion — the honest characterisation is a hybrid "operating company with a licensing-led enforcement model," and the two strong signals (repeat correspondent at the prosecution layer, pre-suit title consolidation) come with the caveats noted above rather than clean shell-LLC evidence.

Two verification gaps to close before this call is finalised: (i) the reel/frame numbers and (ii) the assignment-recording correspondent for the three 2022-12-16 instruments — both are exposed in the Assignment Center but were not retrievable here. Search USPTO Assignment Center (or assignment.uspto.gov) by patent 11,564,015; the Google Patents legal-events record is at patents.google.com/patent/US11564015B2/en#legalEvents.

I'll search for the USPTO record and the cited prior art for US 11,564,015.

Let me pull the full "References Cited" list from the patent front page and other sources.

Let me retrieve more of the cited-references list and the IPR prior-art details.

I hit the tool-call limit mid-retrieval, so this answer is built on what I actually retrieved. I flag clearly where the record is partial.

Prior art analysis — US 11,564,015 B2

Scope / method note. I searched for the USPTO record of US 11,564,015 (application 17/714,965) and for its face ("References Cited") citations. The authoritative full text you supplied does not include the front-page reference list (Google Patents' HTML fetch truncated before it), so I had to reconstruct it from the front-page PDF and family-member documents. I retrieved a substantial but partial slice of the cited-reference list and was cut off before completing it. I say so explicitly below rather than inventing entries.

Date discrepancy to flag up front. The system header for this run says today is 2026-09-28; the task text says April 26, 2026. I cannot resolve that; treat all "as of" statements below as "as of the search date."

1. How the '015 prior art actually decomposes

The '015 patent is a continuation in the Shkedi/AlmondNet TV-targeting family (priority Apr. 17, 2007, via Ser. No. 11/736,544 → US 7,861,260). Consequently its face citations fall into five buckets, and only one of them is genuinely §102-relevant:

None of Buckets A–E, read singly, discloses the full combination recited in independent claim 1 or claim 14 (see §4). The face-cited art is overwhelmingly §103 fodder and background, not §102 anticipation art.

2. Face citations retrieved from the '015 front page (partial — OCR of the printed patent)

Source: US11564015 front-page PDF (List continues from "page 2" onto "page 3" of the printed patent; the search snippet exposed pages 2–3).

From the parent US 7,861,260 (same list head; PDF): 5,809,242 Shaw; 5,848,396 Gerace; 5,855,096 Goldhaber; 5,933,811 Angles; 5,948,061 Merriman; 5,978,013 Jones; 6,026,368 Brown; 6,055,573 Gardenswartz; 6,073,241 Rosenberg; 6,157,946 Itakura; 6,160,989 Hendricks; 6,189,008 Easy; 6,216,129 Eldering; 6,366,298 Hatsuka; plus "Other Publications": Engage Technologies S-1A (Jul. 19, 1999), and JP 2003-331183; JP 2006-004411; JP 2007-274246.

⚠️ Honesty flag: I retrieved roughly two-thirds of the '015 face list. I cannot give you a verified description of every one of these ~100 items, and I will not invent descriptions. For the items I recognize with confidence I give a description below; for the rest I mark "description not verified."

Descriptions I can state with reasonable confidence (third-party, Bucket C):

• US 6,907,566 B2 (McElfresh et al., 12/2005) — ad placement/auction for online ads (Overture-lineage art). Relevance: online ad selection mechanics only.
• US 6,837,436 B2 (Swartz et al., 12/2005) — online information/transaction systems; relevance to ad delivery infrastructure.
• US 5,948,061 (Merriman et al., 9/1999) — the seminal online ad-serving/matching patent (ad selection based on user/context) → §102(b) art for the "select an advertisement using profile information" concept, but not for common-IP device association.
• US 6,216,129 B1 (Eldering, 4/2001) — targeted advertising to subscribers (TV/STB-adjacent targeting).
• US 6,189,008 / 6,490,587 (Easty et al.) — online profiling/demographic targeting.
• Engage Technologies S-1A (1999) — SEC registration statement of Engage Technologies (profile-based Internet ad targeting); §102(b) printed publication, useful against the profile-targeting aspects only.
• Bucket A "Shkedi" items (6,832,207; 6,925,440; 6,973,416; 7,072,853; 7,428,493; 7,454,364; 7,747,745) — the inventor's own AlmondNet-lineage patents on profile/ad-selection and profile matching. They are §102(a)/(b) prior art as of their issue dates as to the ad-targeting/selection concepts, but they do not disclose associating two different devices via a common IP address for cross-device action.

Description not verified for: 5,105,184 (Pirani), 5,220,655 (Tsutsui), 6,843,396 (Kanojia), 6,847,992 (Haitsuka), 6,868,392 (Ogasawara), 6,915,271 (Meyer), 6,985,882 (Del Sesto), 7,013,290 (Ananian), 7,038,637 (Eller), 7,039,699 (Narin), 7,051,351 (Goldman), 7,092,393 (Cerrado), 7,100,183 (Kunkel), 7,139,723 / 7,146,329 / 7,302,449 (Conkwright), 7,152,237 (Flickinger), 7,158,943 (Van Der Riet), 7,188,088 (Pelletier), 7,251,628 (Eidlund), 7,260,823 (Schanck), 7,272,853 (Goodman), 7,299,195 (Tavakol), 7,307,359 (Klemba), 7,356,045 (Saragati), 7,580,858 (Fernandes), 7,640,214 (Black), 7,756,744 (Schiff), 7,805,332 (Wilson), 7,806,329 (Dmitriev).

3. The art that actually matters: IPR2024-00419

The probative prior-art attack on the '015 patent is FreeWheel Media Inc. v. Intent IQ LLC, IPR2024-00419 (filed Mar. 1, 2024), challenging claims 1–26. Petitioner's grounds (petition analysis; case detail) are materially more relevant than the face citations:

Ground 1 — §103 over Baig + Banga507 + Banga690 + McFarland (claims 1–7, 9–10, 12–20, 22–23, 25–26)

Motivation to combine (petition): a POSITA would merge the Banga refs into Baig to track historical network access and build more robust profiles; McFarland supplies cross-member profile leverage. §102 caveat: this is expressly a §103 combination — Petitioner did not assert any single one of these as an anticipatory §102 reference.

Ground 2 — §103 over Baig + Zwicky + Satapati + Damick (claims 1–7, 9–10, 13–20, 22–23, 26)

4. Which claims could be anticipated under §102 — candid assessment

Bottom line: I found no reference — cited on the '015 face or asserted in IPR2024-00419 — that appears to disclose all elements of independent claim 1 or claim 14 in a single reference. Anticipation under §102 requires every limitation in one reference; the record here is a §103 record.

Per-reference §102 assessment:

Statutory framework note. Because the '015 claims trace to Apr. 17, 2007, pre-AIA §102 governs (the AIA's first-inventor-to-file provisions post-date the priority chain). That matters for two of the IPR references: Baig (US 2008/0113674 A1) and McFarland (US 9,123,071, issued 2015) can only be prior art to a 2007 application via pre-AIA §102(e) (i.e., their effective filing dates must precede Apr. 17, 2007). I did not verify those filing dates and flag this as the single most important thing to confirm in any validity analysis.

5. Discrepancies with the previously generated analysis

1. Consistent: The prior section's statements that IPR2024-00419 challenged the '015 patent, that it terminated by settlement, and that no CAFC 2026 docket specifically involves the '015 patent, all match what I retrieved. The petitioner/patent-owner naming inconsistency (FreeWheel/Comcast petitioner; Intent IQ LLC vs. AlmondNet, Inc. as owner) also recurs.
2. Extension, not contradiction: The prior section described claim 1 as a generic "computer system" claim and claim 14 as an "article of manufacture" claim, with the STB appearing only in dependent claim 8. That is consistent with the IPR grounds, which conspicuously omit claim 8 (Ground 1 covers 1–7, 9–10, 12–20, 22–23, 25–26; Ground 2 covers 1–7, 9–10, 13–20, 22–23, 26 — so claims 8, 11, 21 and 24 are not mapped in either summarized ground). The narrowest, most TV-specific claim appears to be the one Petitioner did not squarely hit — an analytically significant gap.
3. Re-flagging the open item: The prior section flagged that claim 4 appears to cross-reference part (a)(iii) whereas claim 1(b)(i) cross-references (a)(ii). This matters directly to §102/§103 mapping, because (a)(ii) is the "common IP address + time-relation" branch and (a)(iii) is the "no PII" branch. Verify against the printed claim set before relying on it.
4. New datum: the "Other Publications" entry Engage Technologies, Inc. Form S-1A (July 19, 1999) is a §102(b) printed publication on the face of the '015 patent and is the most useful face citation against the profile-targeting claim elements — it does not, however, reach the common-IP association.

6. What I could not verify (stated plainly)

• The complete face "References Cited" list of the '015 patent — I obtained roughly two-thirds (≈55 of ~100 entries) plus the foreign documents and one NPL entry. Some entries above are from the parent 7,861,260 list and may differ in the '015 list.
• Issue/publication/filing dates for Baig, McFarland and all face citations I did not personally confirm. Dates reproduced from the printed face or from the IPR petition are marked as such.
• Whether Banga507/Banga690 might in fact be closer to a §102 reference than the petition's §103 framing suggests — a full-text read of both is required.
• Descriptions of the ~30 face citations marked "not verified." I deliberately did not guess at these.

If you want a complete, per-reference table with verified B1/B2 dates and §102(a)/(b)/(e) categorization for all ~100 face citations, the reliable sources to run next are: the USPTO PatentCenter/Patent Public Search "References Cited" tab for application 17/714,965, and the free full-text of the granted claims + front page at patents.google.com/patent/US11564015B2/en (Citations tab).

I'll gather the prior-art record for US 11,564,015 (its cited references and the art actually asserted in the IPRs) since the pasted page text does not include the "Prior Art" / "References Cited" section.

Good — I now have the actual IPR grounds. Let me pull more detail on the instituted grounds (IPR2024-00419) and the primary references.

Let me get the remaining grounds and the institution decision details.