US 12125070

An analysis of U.S. Patent 12,125,070 reveals the following information.

Title: Content delivery systems and methods

Assignee: As of the latest assignment on May 27, 2025, the assignee for this patent is Innovation Technologies Partners LP.

Inventors: David P. Maher, Prasad Khambete, Prasad Sanagavarapu, Sanjeev Tenneti, and Laurent Grandhomme are the listed inventors.

Filing Date: The application for this patent was filed on March 6, 2023.

Issue Date: The patent was granted on October 22, 2024.

Abstract: The provided text does not contain a formal abstract for US Patent 12,125,070. However, the technology described is a platform for monetizing content by dynamically matching advertisements to users at the time of content consumption. A key feature is the separation of content and ad delivery; they can be received by a user's device independently. An auction is conducted locally on the user's device to select the most suitable ad from a local cache. This selection process is governed by rules defined by both the content provider and the advertiser and can use local user data (demographics, preferences, location) without compromising privacy. The system also includes a clearinghouse to manage revenue sharing and collect anonymized data to improve ad targeting.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims: The provided text for US Patent 12,125,070 does not include the specific claims. A detailed, plain-language overview of the independent claims cannot be provided without access to the full patent document.

Litigation: A search of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) dockets for 2026 shows no cases specifically referencing US Patent 12,125,070.

As of May 7, 2026, there is no publicly available information regarding litigation involving US patent 12,125,070. Searches of patent litigation databases and federal court dockets do not show any cases specifically naming this patent.

It is worth noting that the current assignee, Innovation Technologies Partners LP, and the original assignee, Intertrust Technologies Corp., have been involved in other patent litigation.

• Innovation Technologies Partners LP filed a lawsuit against Hulu in November 2025, alleging infringement of eight patents related to targeted advertising, digital rights management, and streaming media.
• Intertrust Technologies Corp. has a history of patent litigation, including a notable lawsuit against Microsoft filed in 2001, which resulted in a $440 million settlement in favor of Intertrust in 2004. Intertrust also sued Apple in 2013 for infringing on 15 patents related to security and distributed trusted computing. This case was settled out of court in April 2014 for undisclosed terms.

While these past and ongoing cases involve the assignees of US patent 12,125,070 and relate to similar technological fields, US patent 12,125,070 itself has not been identified in any litigation to date.

Proceedings overview

There are no AIA trial proceedings (Inter Partes Review, Post-Grant Review, or Covered Business Method) on file for US Patent 12,125,070 as of May 29, 2026. This means the patent's claims have not been challenged before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and remain untested in this forum.

Strategic summary

As of the current date, no claims of US Patent 12,125,070 have been subjected to an AIA trial proceeding. Consequently, all claims of the patent are considered UNTESTED by the PTAB. There is no estoppel landscape to consider under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) because no proceedings have been instituted.

The absence of PTAB activity is a notable signal. Patents that are actively asserted or are considered high-value targets often attract IPRs, especially if they are deemed vulnerable to prior art challenges. The current assignee, Innovation Technologies Partners LP, is a known patent asserter, and while they have initiated litigation involving other patents, this specific patent has not yet faced a PTAB challenge.

Recommended next steps

Since no PTAB activity exists for US Patent 12,125,070, a potential defendant facing assertion of this patent has a full range of prior-art grounds available for a possible IPR, PGR, or CBM petition (if applicable). The patent was granted on October 22, 2024.

• PGR Window: A Post-Grant Review (PGR) petition for this patent could have been filed within nine months of its issuance (by July 22, 2025). Since that window has closed, a PGR is no longer an option unless the patent is a Covered Business Method patent.
• IPR Window: An Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition can be filed after the PGR window has passed, or any time after nine months from the patent grant, up until the patent's expiration. Therefore, an IPR remains a viable option.
• CBM Eligibility: Given the patent's subject matter relates to content delivery and advertising systems, it may be worth assessing if it could qualify as a Covered Business Method (CBM) patent. CBM review allows for broader grounds of challenge, including 35 U.S.C. § 101 and § 112, and can be filed at any time, but it applies specifically to patents claiming a method or apparatus for performing data processing or other operations used in the management of a financial product or service, provided it's not a "technological invention". The CBM program, however, sunsetted in September 2020, meaning new CBM petitions are no longer being accepted for patents other than those already within an ongoing proceeding.

A comprehensive prior art search and invalidity analysis would be crucial to identify strong grounds for an IPR challenge. The absence of previous PTAB challenges means a defendant would be the first to test the patent's validity in this administrative forum.

Inventors

The named inventors are David P. Maher, Prasad Khambete, Prasad Sanagavarapu, Sanjeev Tenneti, and Laurent Grandhomme. The initial assignment of interest was from the inventors to Intertrust Technologies Corporation, executed on March 7, 2023. This is a standard arrangement where employees assign invention rights to their employer, suggesting the inventors were employed by Intertrust at the time the application was filed. There are no unusual patterns, such as mass departures, indicated in the record.

Original assignee

The original assignee of record is Intertrust Technologies Corp. Intertrust is a well-established technology company specializing in Digital Rights Management (DRM) and secure computing technologies. The company has developed and commercialized products and services in this field, and the subject matter of the patent aligns directly with its primary line of business. Intertrust is an operating company with a long history of both technology development and patent licensing and litigation.

Assignment timeline

• 2023-03-07 (executed) / recorded 2023-03-07 — Reel 061214/0833

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: David P. Maher, Prasad Khambete, Prasad Sanagavarapu, Sanjeev Tenneti, Laurent Grandhomme
  • Assignee: Intertrust Technologies Corporation
  • Correspondent: William F. Heinze, K&L Gates LLP, State Street Financial Center, One Lincoln Street, Boston, MA, 02111
  • Context: This is the initial assignment from the inventors to their employer, perfecting the employer's ownership rights.

• 2025-05-27 (executed) / recorded 2025-05-28 — Reel 068735/0500

  • Conveyance: Patent Assignment
  • Assignor: Intertrust Technologies Corporation
  • Assignee: Innovation Technologies Partners LP
  • Correspondent: Russ, August & Kabat, 12424 Wilshire Blvd 12th Fl, Los Angeles, CA, 90025
  • Context: Transfer from the original operating company to an entity that appears to be a special-purpose vehicle for patent assertion.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 12125070
    2009 : Earliest priority application filed
    2023 : Inventors assign to Intertrust Tech
    2024 : Patent Issued
    2025 : Intertrust assigns to Innovation Tech LP

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Present. Per Reel 068735/0500, the patent was transferred on May 27, 2025, from an operating company (Intertrust Technologies Corporation) to Innovation Technologies Partners LP. The name suffix "LP" (Limited Partnership) and the generic "Innovation Technologies" name are characteristic of a non-operating, patent-holding entity. Furthermore, the correspondent of record is a well-known patent litigation law firm (Russ, August & Kabat), not an in-house counsel, which is typical for such entities.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Present. The current assignee, Innovation Technologies Partners LP, is a known patent asserter. As noted in the litigation summary, this entity filed a lawsuit against Hulu in November 2025 alleging infringement of patents related to similar technologies. This confirms the assignee is actively engaged in litigation as a plaintiff.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Not present. The two recorded assignments use different correspondents, which is expected as the first was an internal transfer and the second was a sale to an external entity.

4. Cascading transfers — Not present. The record shows only a single transfer from the original operating company to the current assignee.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Unclear. The assignment to Innovation Technologies Partners LP was executed on May 27, 2025. While this specific patent has not yet been named in a suit, the assignee initiated litigation involving other patents approximately six months later in November 2025. This timing is highly suggestive that the transfer was made in preparation for a broader assertion campaign.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. The assignor, Intertrust, remains an active operating company.

7. Privateering — Unclear. The transfer from an operating company (Intertrust) to an assertion entity (Innovation Technologies Partners LP) could be a privateering arrangement where Intertrust retains a financial interest in the outcome of litigation. However, there is no direct public evidence of such a relationship in the assignment record itself.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain of title does not involve any known defensive aggregators.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

The verdict is based on two strong, unambiguous signals. First, the patent was transferred from its original creator, an operating company, to an entity with the characteristics of a non-operating patent-holding company (Reel 068735/0500). Second, this assignee, Innovation Technologies Partners LP, is a known and active patent asserter, having filed infringement lawsuits against other companies in the technology sector. This chain of title represents a classic pattern of an operating company's patents being acquired by an entity for the primary purpose of monetization through litigation.

A complete record of these assignments can be viewed at the USPTO Patent Assignment Search page for US 12,125,070.

Prior Art Analysis for US Patent 12,125,070

Disclaimer: This analysis is based on the provided detailed description and summary of US Patent 12,125,070. As the specific claims of the patent were not available, a definitive anticipation analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 102 cannot be performed. The following assessment identifies prior art references cited during the prosecution of the '070 patent and discusses their potential relevance to the patent's core inventive concepts, such as client-side ad auctions, dynamic ad insertion based on local data, and the use of rules-based engines (like a DRM engine) for ad selection.

---

1. U.S. Patent No. 7,822,633 B2

• Citation: "Method and apparatus for targeted, synchronized advertising in a digital media system"
• Assignee: Yahoo! Inc.
• Dates: Filed: Mar. 15, 2005; Issued: Oct. 26, 2010.
• Description: This patent describes a system for providing targeted advertisements synchronized with a primary media stream. It discloses creating a user profile based on demographic data and media consumption habits. An ad server selects ads from an inventory based on this profile and delivers them to be presented in conjunction with the primary media content. The system also mentions tracking user interaction with the ads.
• Potential Relevance: The '633 patent discloses several key concepts present in the '070 patent, including user profiling and targeted ad selection. However, the ad selection process in the '633 patent is primarily server-driven. It does not appear to describe the '070 patent's core concept of a client-side auction where a local device selects the optimal ad from a pre-delivered cache based on rules evaluated locally. Therefore, while it is relevant to targeted advertising in general, it may not anticipate claims in the '070 patent specifically directed to the local, privacy-preserving auction mechanism.

---

2. U.S. Patent No. 8,180,687 B2

• Citation: "Providing advertisements to a user of a mobile communication device"
• Assignee: Microsoft Corporation
• Dates: Filed: Jun. 29, 2007; Issued: May 15, 2012.
• Description: This invention focuses on delivering ads to mobile devices. It discloses a system where an ad request is sent from the mobile device to a server. The server determines appropriate ads based on various criteria, which can include the user's location, preferences, and the time of day. The ads are then sent to the device for display. The patent also discusses a bidding process where advertisers can bid for ad placement.
• Potential Relevance: The '687 patent is highly relevant as it involves ad targeting for mobile devices using context like location and user data. It also explicitly mentions an ad auction. However, the system architecture appears to rely on a centralized server to run the auction and select the ad in response to a request from the device. This contrasts with the '070 patent's method of caching multiple ads on the device and having the device itself conduct the auction locally. This local execution is a key distinction, particularly for claims in the '070 patent that emphasize privacy (by not sending user data to the server for the auction) and offline capability.

---

3. U.S. Patent No. 10,380,630 B2

• Citation: "Method and system for dynamic ad placement"
• Assignee: Index Systems, Inc.
• Dates: Filed: Oct. 15, 2001; Issued: Aug. 13, 2019.
• Description: This patent describes a system for client-side dynamic ad placement. A key feature is the decoupling of the ad selection process from the ad content delivery process. The client device makes a determination of ad placement priority based on interpreted rules associated with each ad and can reorder the priority of ads when the system's context changes. This allows the client to respond quickly to an ad request from an application.
• Potential Relevance: This reference is particularly relevant because it discloses a client-side system for determining ad placement using a rules-based engine. This is very similar to the local ad-matching engine described in the '070 patent. It anticipates the general concept of using local context and rules to prioritize and select ads on the user's device. However, the '070 patent's detailed implementation, specifically its use of a DRM engine to enforce rules from both content providers and advertisers and its formal auction/bidding mechanism for revenue optimization, may provide patentable distinction. The novelty of the '070 patent's claims would likely depend on the specific implementation of the bidding process and the integration with a secure, rights-management framework.

---

4. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0307454 A1

• Citation: "Systems and methods for inserting ads during playback of video media"
• Assignee: The Admark Network, Inc.
• Dates: Filed: Jun. 11, 2008; Published: Dec. 11, 2008.
• Description: This application describes an ad platform that uses flexible and configurable ad insertion rules to control the frequency and format of ads delivered with video streams. It allows publishers to specify cue points for ad insertion and can use a video clip's popularity rating to target more ads. The system includes reporting tools to measure the effectiveness of the ad campaigns.
• Potential Relevance: This publication is relevant to the '070 patent's disclosure of using rules to govern ad insertion. It teaches the use of predefined rules to manage how and when ads are displayed with content. The '070 patent expands on this by having the rules associated with both the content and the individual ads participate in a dynamic, client-side auction. The '454 application appears more focused on server-side or publisher-defined rules for insertion, rather than a competitive bidding process between cached ads on the client device itself. Claims in the '070 patent directed to the competitive, local auction would likely be considered novel over this reference.

Obviousness Analysis of US Patent 12,125,070 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Disclaimer: This analysis is based on the provided summary and detailed description of US Patent 12,125,070. Since the specific claims are not available, this analysis addresses the obviousness of the core inventive concepts described, such as a client-side ad auction using local data and rules from multiple parties. A definitive legal conclusion would require an analysis of the specific language of the issued claims.

Standard for Obviousness: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, an invention is unpatentable if the differences between the invention and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art (a "PHOSITA"). An obviousness analysis requires finding a suggestion or motivation to combine the teachings of prior art references to arrive at the claimed invention.

Definition of a PHOSITA: A person having ordinary skill in the art for this invention would likely be a software engineer or computer scientist with several years of experience in digital advertising technology, client-server architectures, media delivery systems, and data privacy. They would be familiar with concepts like ad-serving, user profiling, ad auctions, and Digital Rights Management (DRM).

---

Primary Obviousness Combination: U.S. 10,380,630 B2 ('630) in view of U.S. 8,180,687 B2 ('687)

A strong argument for obviousness can be made by combining the teachings of the '630 patent (Index Systems) and the '687 patent (Microsoft).

1. Base Reference: The '630 Patent (Index Systems)
   The '630 patent teaches the foundational concept of a client-side system for dynamic ad placement. Crucially, it discloses a client device that can interpret rules associated with ads and use local context to determine the priority and placement of those ads. This decouples the ad selection from the ad delivery, allowing the client device to make its own determination. This reference establishes the core architecture of performing ad selection locally on the user's device.

2. Secondary Reference: The '687 Patent (Microsoft)
   The '687 patent teaches a system for delivering targeted ads to mobile devices that explicitly includes a bidding process or auction. Advertisers can bid for ad placements, and the selection can be based on criteria like user location, preferences, and time of day. While the '687 patent describes this auction as being server-side, it introduces the well-understood and commercially critical concept of a competitive auction into the art of targeted advertising.

Motivation to Combine:

A PHOSITA, starting with the client-side rules engine of the '630 patent, would recognize its primary benefits: speed, responsiveness, and enhanced privacy (by not having to send local context data to a server). However, they would also recognize that a simple priority system as described is not economically optimal. The online advertising industry was, at the time of invention, already heavily reliant on auction-based models to maximize revenue and establish fair market value for ad impressions.

The motivation to combine these references stems from the desire to improve the monetization and market efficiency of the client-side system taught by '630. A PHOSITA would look to well-known commercial models for ad sales, such as the auction system taught by '687, and see a clear benefit in applying that model to the client-side architecture. The combination would be a logical "next step" to create a more commercially viable product. The PHOSITA would be motivated to move the auction from the server (as in '687) to the client (as in '630) to retain the privacy and efficiency benefits of the client-side architecture. The rules engine taught by '630 provides the perfect framework for executing such an auction locally, where each ad's "rules" would include its bid parameters. There would be a reasonable expectation of success in implementing the bidding logic of '687 within the client-side rules-evaluation framework of '630.

This combination teaches the core of the '070 patent: a local, client-side system that receives multiple ads and runs an auction between them to select which one to display, using local data to inform the process.

---

Secondary Obviousness Combination: The '630 Patent and '687 Patent in further view of U.S. 2008/0307454 A1 ('454)

This combination strengthens the argument by incorporating the content provider's role.

1. Base Combination: '630 (client-side rules engine) + '687 (auction mechanism).
2. Tertiary Reference: The '454 Publication (Admark)
   The '454 publication teaches a system where content publishers can specify ad insertion rules, including defining cue points within their video content and rules about ad frequency. This addresses the need for the content owner to maintain control over the advertising experience within their media.

Motivation to Combine:

While the combination of '630 and '687 creates a client-side auction, a PHOSITA would understand that any viable advertising system must also accommodate the requirements of the content provider. A content provider (e.g., a movie studio or TV network) will not cede all control to advertisers. They need to be able to dictate where ads can be placed, what types of ads are permissible (e.g., no alcohol ads in children's programming), and potentially set minimum revenue thresholds.

The '454 publication directly addresses this need. A PHOSITA would be motivated to integrate the publisher-side rules taught by '454 into the client-side auction system formed by combining '630 and '687. This would create a more robust and complete ecosystem. The local rules engine from '630 would first evaluate the content provider's rules from '454 to create a set of constraints (e.g., "this ad slot cannot contain violent ads"). Then, within those constraints, it would conduct the advertiser auction taught by '687. This combination results in a system that balances the interests of advertisers and content providers in a client-side auction, which is a key feature described in the '070 patent.

The Role of the DRM Engine

The '070 patent frequently mentions using a DRM engine to execute the rules and enforce obligations. While the cited prior art does not explicitly teach using a DRM engine for an ad auction, a PHOSITA would find this to be an obvious implementation choice for ensuring security and trust. DRM systems are, by definition, secure, tamper-resistant environments designed to execute rules and report events. When building a system that involves financial transactions (ad payments), protection of private user data, and enforcement of rules from multiple competing parties, using a trusted execution environment like a DRM engine is a logical and obvious engineering decision to prevent fraud and ensure the integrity of the auction. The functionality of the DRM engine in the '070 patent is analogous to the "rules engine" of the '630 patent, simply implemented in a more secure and robust manner.

Analysis of Patent Term and Related Applications for US Patent 12,125,070

Based on an analysis of the provided patent data and public records from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) as of May 7, 2026, the following details pertain to the term and application history of US Patent 12,125,070.

Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) and Extensions (PTE)

• Patent Term Adjustment (PTA): There is no Patent Term Adjustment indicated for US Patent 12,125,070. PTA is granted to compensate for certain administrative delays by the USPTO during patent prosecution. The absence of PTA suggests the prosecution of application US 18/179,264 was completed within the statutory timeframes.
• Patent Term Extension (PTE): There is no Patent Term Extension indicated for this patent. PTE is typically associated with delays in regulatory review for products like pharmaceuticals and is not applicable to this technology.

Continuity and Related Applications

US Patent 12,125,070 is part of a large family of applications and claims priority to several earlier filings. This indicates a long history of prosecution, with the core invention being refined and pursued through a series of continuation applications.

• Application Number: The application that matured into this patent is US 18/179,264, which was filed on March 6, 2023.
• Continuation History: This application is a continuation of prior applications. The chain of priority, which is critical for determining the patent's expiration date, goes back to earlier filings:
  • It claims priority to U.S. Application No. 12/785,406, filed on May 21, 2010 (now U.S. Patent No. 10,191,972).
  • This, in turn, claims priority to U.S. Application No. 12/433,881, filed on April 30, 2009 (now U.S. Patent No. 8,660,539).
• Divisional Applications: There is no indication of any divisional applications directly from the application leading to the '070 patent.
• Subsequent Applications: The patent data indicates a subsequent application, U.S. Application No. 18/895,184, was filed on September 24, 2024, claiming priority to the '070 patent's application. This suggests the assignee is continuing to pursue protection for related inventions.

Projected Expiration Date

The term of a U.S. patent is generally 20 years from the filing date of the earliest U.S. non-provisional application to which it claims priority.

1. Earliest Priority Date: The earliest non-provisional filing date in the priority chain is April 30, 2009, from application US 12/433,881.
2. Base Expiration Calculation: Adding 20 years to this date gives a base expiration date of April 30, 2029.
3. Adjustments: As there are no recorded Patent Term Adjustments or Extensions, the base date is the final projected expiration date.

The projected expiration date for US Patent 12,125,070 is April 30, 2029. This aligns with the "Anticipated expiration" date listed in the provided patent information.

Defensive Disclosure and Prior Art Generation for Inventions Related to US 12,125,070

Publication Date: April 26, 2026
Author: Senior Patent Strategist and Research Engineer
Subject: This document discloses novel derivative implementations, applications, and combinations of technologies related to client-side content monetization systems. The intent is to place these concepts in the public domain to serve as prior art against future patent applications claiming these or similar incremental innovations.

---

Derivative Set 1: Variations on the Core Concept of a Client-Side Ad Auction

1.1. Material & Component Substitution: Hardware-Accelerated Auctioning on a Trusted Execution Environment (TEE)

• Enabling Description: The client-side auction mechanism is implemented not in the primary device operating system, but within a dedicated hardware-based Trusted Execution Environment (TEE) such as an Intel SGX enclave, an ARM TrustZone, or a dedicated Trusted Platform Module (TPM 2.0) co-processor. The ad cache, user profile attributes, and the auction logic itself are loaded into this secure hardware. Each ad's bidding rules (the "control") is a WebAssembly (WASM) binary signed by the advertiser. The TEE's auction runtime executes these WASM modules in a sandboxed environment, calculates the bids based on secure access to the user attributes, and determines the winner. The TEE then provides an auditable, cryptographically signed attestation of the auction result (including the winning ad's identifier and the winning bid value) directly to the media player for rendering and to the clearinghouse for settlement. This prevents tampering with the auction process by malicious software on the host OS.

• Mermaid Diagram (Flowchart):

  flowchart TD
      A[Media Player Requests Ad for Slot 7] --> B{Secure Enclave / TEE};
      C[Ad Cache] -- Encrypted Ad Packages --> B;
      D[User Profile DB] -- Encrypted Attributes --> B;
      B --> E[Instantiate WASM Runtime in Enclave];
      E --> F[For each Ad: Execute Signed Bidding WASM];
      F -- Reads User Attributes --> B;
      F -- Outputs Bid Value --> G[Auction Logic in Enclave];
      G --> H[Select Winning Bid];
      H -- Winning Ad ID --> A;
      H -- Signed Auction Attestation --> I[Clearinghouse];
  

1.2. Operational Parameter Expansion: Nanoscale Biological System Auction

• Enabling Description: This invention is applied to a network of programmable, biocompatible nanobots operating within a biological host (e.g., a human bloodstream). Multiple pharmaceutical entities can deploy competing nanobot "agents" designed to perform a specific function, such as targeted drug delivery or diagnostic sensing. When a pathological condition is detected (e.g., a cluster of cancer cells), the nanobot that first detects it initiates a local, peer-to-peer auction. Competing therapeutic agents (the "ads") bid to be released at the site. The "bid" is a multi-factor score calculated by each agent's control logic based on local biomarker concentrations (the "user profile"), the agent's efficacy for that specific pathology, its potential for side effects (a negative bid modifier), and its remaining payload. The auction ensures the most appropriate therapeutic agent is deployed in real-time at the microscopic level, with the auction result logged for medical records.

• Mermaid Diagram (Sequence Diagram):

  sequenceDiagram
      participant SensorBot as Sensor Nanobot
      participant ChemoBotA as Chemo Agent A
      participant ChemoBotB as Chemo Agent B
      participant TargetCell as Malignant Cell Cluster
  
      SensorBot->>TargetCell: Detects Pathological Biomarkers
      SensorBot->>ChemoBotA: Initiate Auction (Context: Biomarker Profile)
      SensorBot->>ChemoBotB: Initiate Auction (Context: Biomarker Profile)
      ChemoBotA-->>SensorBot: Submit Bid (Efficacy=95%, SideEffect=5%)
      ChemoBotB-->>SensorBot: Submit Bid (Efficacy=88%, SideEffect=1%)
      SensorBot->>SensorBot: Run Auction Logic (Maximize Efficacy / Minimize Side Effects)
      SensorBot->>ChemoBotB: Announce Winner
      ChemoBotB->>TargetCell: Release Therapeutic Payload
  

1.3. Cross-Domain Application: Agricultural Technology (AgTech) Resource Arbitration

• Enabling Description: An autonomous farming vehicle (e.g., a drone or tractor) is equipped with a local cache of "treatment plans" from various agricultural suppliers (e.g., Monsanto, Syngenta). Each plan is a control object containing rules for applying a product (e.g., fertilizer, herbicide, or beneficial insects). As the vehicle traverses a field, its onboard IoT sensors (e.g., hyperspectral imagers, soil nitrogen sensors) provide real-time local context. For each square-meter plot of land, the vehicle's onboard computer runs an auction. Each treatment plan's control object calculates a "bid" based on the sensor data, weather forecasts, and commodity futures prices. The bid represents the projected net economic value (yield gain minus input cost) of applying that treatment to that specific plot. The winning plan is executed instantly, enabling hyper-precise, economically optimized farming.

• Mermaid Diagram (State Diagram):

  stateDiagram-v2
      [*] --> Traversing
      Traversing --> Scanning: Enter new grid-plot
      Scanning --> Auction: Sensor data acquired (N, P, K, H2O levels)
      state Auction {
          direction LR
          [*] --> Bidding
          Bidding --> Bidding: Evaluate next treatment plan
          Bidding --> Selection: All plans evaluated
          Selection --> [*]: Winning plan chosen
      }
      Auction --> Application: Execute winning plan (e.g., apply nitrogen)
      Application --> Traversing: Move to next grid-plot
  

1.4. Integration with Emerging Tech: AI-Driven Federated Bidding Models

• Enabling Description: Instead of static, hard-coded rules, each advertisement is packaged with a compact, pre-trained neural network (a "bid-model"), such as a lightweight TensorFlow Lite or ONNX model. This model takes the local user and context vector (e.g., time of day, location, app usage history, expressed as a normalized vector) as input and outputs a bid price. The client device's auction manager is a federated learning client. After a block of auctions (e.g., every 100 ad impressions), the client computes a model update based on the local performance (e.g., user interactions, dismissals). This anonymized gradient update, not the user's raw data, is sent back to the advertiser's federated learning server. The server aggregates updates from thousands of clients to train a new global model, which is then pushed out with future ad packages. This continuously optimizes bidding strategy while preserving user privacy.

• Mermaid Diagram (Class Diagram):

  classDiagram
    class FederatedClient {
      +runAuction(adModels, contextVector)
      +computeModelUpdate(auctionResults)
      +sendUpdateToServer(gradient)
    }
    class BidModel {
      <<TensorFlow Lite>>
      +predictBid(contextVector): float
    }
    class AdPackage {
      -adCreative: video
      -bidModel: BidModel
    }
    class FederatedServer {
      +aggregateGradients(updates)
      +trainGlobalModel()
      +distributeNewModel()
    }
    FederatedClient ..> AdPackage : "uses multiple"
    AdPackage "1" -- "1" BidModel
    FederatedClient ..> FederatedServer : "sends anonymized gradients"
    FederatedServer ..> FederatedClient : "pushes updated global model"
  

1.5. Inverse/Failure Mode: Auction for "Right-to-be-Forgotten"

• Enabling Description: This system operates in reverse. Instead of ads bidding to be shown, locally cached "data agents" from various online services (e.g., social media, data brokers) bid for the right to delete a user's data from their servers. When a user initiates a "delete my profile" request, the client device triggers an auction. The user's device holds a set of verifiable credentials proving account ownership. Each data agent has rules specifying how quickly and completely it can process the deletion. The "bid" is a signed attestation of the deletion's parameters (e.g., "full physical deletion within 24 hours," "anonymization within 72 hours"). The user can configure the auction's objective function: either select the agent that promises the fastest deletion, the most thorough deletion (e.g., including backups), or a balance. The winning agent is granted a temporary, single-use token to execute the deletion command via the service's API. This creates a competitive, auditable market for data privacy services.

• Mermaid Diagram (Flowchart):

  flowchart TD
      subgraph User Device
          A[User Clicks "Delete My Data"] --> B{Initiate Deletion Auction};
          C[Data Agent Cache] -- Agents from Google, Meta, etc. --> B;
          D[User Preferences] -- "Prioritize Speed vs. Thoroughness" --> B;
      end
      B --> E[Agents bid with Deletion Promises];
      subgraph Auction Bids
          F["Agent F: Full Deletion in 24h"]
          G["Agent G: Anonymize in 1h"]
          H["Agent H: Partial Deletion Immediately"]
      end
      E --> I{Auction selects best promise based on User Prefs};
      I -- Grant Deletion Token to Winner --> J[Winning Data Agent];
      J -- Execute API Deletion Call --> K((Service Backend));
      K -- Signed Deletion Receipt --> J;
      J -- Forward Receipt --> A;
  

---

Derivative Set 2: Variations on the Core Concept of a DRM-Managed Trusted Execution

2.1. Cross-Domain Application: Industrial IoT (IIoT) Command & Control

• Enabling Description: In a smart factory setting, a piece of critical machinery (e.g., a robotic arm) runs a DRM engine. Various subsystems (e.g., the vision system, the motor controller, the safety interlock) need to send it commands. To prevent conflicting or unsafe instructions, commands are not sent directly. Instead, they are packaged as "command-objects" with an associated DRM control. When a subsystem wants to issue a command (e.g., "move arm to position X"), its command-object bids for execution time on the robotic arm's controller. The DRM engine on the arm runs a continuous real-time auction. The "bid" is based on the command's priority, its safety implications, and its dependency on other operations. A command from the safety system will have an infinitely high bid. A routine quality-check command will have a low bid. The DRM engine ensures only the winning, authenticated command is executed, creating a secure, auditable, and deterministic control flow for industrial automation.

• Mermaid Diagram (Sequence Diagram):

  sequenceDiagram
      participant Vision as Vision System
      participant Safety as Safety System
      participant Planner as Production Planner
      participant RobotDRM as Robotic Arm DRM Engine
  
      Safety->>RobotDRM: Submit Bid (Command: E-STOP, Priority: MAX_INT)
      Vision->>RobotDRM: Submit Bid (Command: Inspect Part, Priority: 50)
      Planner->>RobotDRM: Submit Bid (Command: Move to Assembly, Priority: 100)
      RobotDRM->>RobotDRM: Run Priority Auction
      RobotDRM->>Planner: Grant Execution (Planner Won)
      Note over RobotDRM: If E-STOP bid, it would always win.
      Planner->>RobotDRM: Execute "Move to Assembly" Command
  

---

Combination Prior Art Scenarios

1. Combination with IETF's SUIT (Software Updates for IoT) Standard: The delivery and installation of firmware updates to a fleet of IoT devices are managed using the client-side auction mechanism. Multiple update packages (e.g., a stable version, a beta version with new features, a critical security patch) are pushed to the devices' local caches. Each update is packaged as a SUIT manifest, but also includes a DRM control with bidding rules. The device's local DRM engine runs an auction to decide which update to install. The "bid" is determined by factors defined in the control, such as the update's criticality, the device's current stability, its battery level, and network conditions. A critical security patch would generate the highest bid, ensuring its immediate installation, while a feature-rich beta update might only win the auction on a device with a full battery and a stable Wi-Fi connection. This creates a decentralized, policy-driven update system.

2. Combination with OpenID Connect (OIDC) Standard: The user attributes used for ad auctioning are not stored on the device but are fetched in a just-in-time manner using the OpenID Connect protocol. When an auction begins, the client-side DRM engine acts as an OIDC Relying Party. It requests specific claims (e.g., birthdate, address:country) from a user-chosen Identity Provider (e.g., "Sign in with Google" or a self-sovereign identity wallet). The Identity Provider authenticates the user and returns a signed ID Token containing the requested claims. The DRM engine verifies the token's signature and uses the claims as input for the ad-bidding controls. The ID Token is held only in memory for the duration of the auction and then discarded, ensuring that sensitive user data is never permanently stored on the device for advertising purposes.

3. Combination with the ISO/IEC 14443 (NFC) Standard: A client-side auction is triggered by a physical interaction via Near Field Communication (NFC). For example, a user taps their smartphone on a smart poster at a bus stop. The NFC tag on the poster does not contain an ad, but instead contains a signed "auction request" payload, specifying a content context (e.g., "concert_promo_slot_1"). The user's phone receives this request, and the DRM engine initiates a local auction among cached ads that are relevant to live events or music. The winning ad (e.g., a link to buy tickets for a local band) is immediately displayed to the user. The bid logic within the ad controls can heavily weight the physical location and context provided by the NFC tag, enabling hyper-contextual, physically-triggered advertising auctions.