US 8671139

Technical Analysis of U.S. Patent 8,671,139

Date of Analysis: April 26, 2026

This report provides a concise summary of United States Patent 8,671,139, including its key bibliographic details, abstract, and a plain-language interpretation of its independent claims. The patent has been the subject of recent high-profile litigation.

Bibliographic Information

• Title: Media properties selection method and system based on expected profit from profile-based ad delivery
• Assignee: Almondnet, Inc.
• Inventor: Roy Shkedi
• Filing Date: June 7, 2012
• Issue Date: March 11, 2014
• Abstract: An automatic system facilitates selection of media properties on which to display an advertisement, responsive to a profile collected on a first media property, where a behavioral-targeting company calculates expected profit for an ad correlated with the profile and arranges for the visitor to be tagged with a tag readable by the selected media property. The profit can be calculated by deducting, from the revenues that are expected to be generated from an ad delivered based on the collected profile, at least the price of ad space at a media property where the BT company might like to deliver ads to the profiled visitor. When the calculated profit is positive (i.e., not a loss), the BT company arranges for the visitor to be tagged with a tag readable by the selected media property through which the BT company expects to profit.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims

U.S. Patent 8,671,139 has three independent claims: 1, 19, and 37. Below is a simplified explanation of the core invention protected by each.

• Independent Claim 1: This claim describes a method for a computer system to direct targeted advertisements. Essentially, when a person visits a website (the "first media property"), the system automatically sends a set of conditions to a third-party server that controls ad space on another website (the "second media property"). The system then gives that third-party server permission to show a specific ad to that same person when they later visit the second website, but only if the pre-set conditions are met. This authorization is based on the person's "profile attributes" (e.g., their browsing history or interests) gathered from their visit to the first website, and the ad shown is related to those attributes.

• Independent Claim 19: This claim covers a physical computer server device (with a processor and memory) that is programmed to carry out the method described in Claim 1. Instead of protecting the method itself, this claim protects the tangible hardware that is specifically configured to perform the process of directing electronic ads based on a visitor's profile and pre-set conditions for displaying those ads on third-party sites.

• Independent Claim 37: This claim protects a system, which could be one or more computers, that is programmed to perform the same advertisement-directing method. It is broader than Claim 19 as it covers a system of computers rather than a single device. The system is set up to automatically send conditions for ad display to a third-party server and then authorize that server to show an ad to a user on a different website, based on the user's profile from a previously visited site, once those conditions are satisfied.

In essence, all three independent claims revolve around a central automated process for placing targeted ads. The system acts as an intermediary that, based on a user's profile from one website, authorizes a different website to display a relevant ad to that user later on, subject to certain conditions being met. The key elements are the automated nature of the process, the use of user profile attributes, and the conditional authorization given to a third-party ad server.

Litigation and CAFC Docket Information

As of early 2026, there is no indication from the available search results of a currently active case specifically involving U.S. Patent 8,671,139 in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) dockets for 2026. However, the assignee, Almondnet, Inc., has been active in litigation. Notably, this patent was part of a successful jury verdict against Amazon in 2024, where Amazon was found to have infringed on it. Almondnet, Inc. is also listed as a party in a case against Meta Platforms, Inc. before the CAFC in April 2026, though the specific patents in that case have not been detailed in the search results. It is plausible that an appeal in the Amazon case could be docketed in the future. There is no information to suggest that U.S. Patent 8,671,139 is currently undergoing reexamination by the USPTO.

Known Litigation Involving US Patent 8,671,139

As a senior patent analyst, a review of litigation records for U.S. Patent 8,671,139 ("the '139 patent") reveals multiple legal disputes. The patent's assignee, Almondnet, Inc. (and its related entities like Intent IQ, LLC), has actively asserted this patent against numerous major technology companies. Below is a detailed list of known litigation involving this specific patent, based on available court and patent office records as of April 29, 2026.

---

District Court Litigation

• Plaintiff: Almondnet, Inc.

  • Defendant: Amazon.com, Inc.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
  • Case Number: 6:21-cv-00891
  • Filing Date: August 24, 2021
  • Status/Outcome: This case is highly notable. On October 4, 2024, a jury found that Amazon willfully infringed the '139 patent (along with U.S. Patent Nos. 10,134,054; 11,301,898; and 11,610,226), and awarded Almondnet over $142 million in damages. As of this analysis, post-trial motions may be pending, and an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) is anticipated, though not yet docketed for 2026 according to the "Previously generated sections."

• Plaintiff: Intent IQ, LLC

  • Defendant: Amazon.com, Inc.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
  • Case Number: 1:23-cv-01373
  • Filing Date: December 14, 2023
  • Status/Outcome: This case is currently active and ongoing.

• Plaintiff: Intent IQ, LLC

  • Defendant: Google LLC
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
  • Case Number: 6:21-cv-00876
  • Filing Date: August 19, 2021
  • Status/Outcome: This case is currently active and ongoing.

• Plaintiff: Almondnet, Inc.

  • Defendant: Roku, Inc.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
  • Case Number: 6:21-cv-00896
  • Filing Date: August 24, 2021
  • Status/Outcome: This case is currently active and ongoing.

• Plaintiff: Almondnet, Inc.

  • Defendant: Oracle America, Inc.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
  • Case Number: 6:21-cv-00897
  • Filing Date: August 24, 2021
  • Status/Outcome: This case is currently active and ongoing.

• Plaintiff: Almondnet, Inc.

  • Defendant: The Trade Desk, Inc.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
  • Case Number: 6:21-cv-00898
  • Filing Date: August 24, 2021
  • Status/Outcome: This case is currently active and ongoing.

• Plaintiff: Intent IQ, LLC

  • Defendant: Yahoo Inc.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
  • Case Number: 4:22-cv-07515
  • Filing Date: December 2, 2022
  • Status/Outcome: This case is currently active and ongoing.

• Plaintiff: Intent IQ, LLC

  • Defendant: Adobe Inc.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
  • Case Number: 4:22-cv-08911
  • Filing Date: December 29, 2022
  • Status/Outcome: This case is currently active and ongoing.

• Plaintiff: Almondnet, Inc. & Intent IQ, LLC

  • Defendant: AT&T Inc.
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
  • Case Number: 1:19-cv-00247
  • Filing Date: February 8, 2019
  • Status/Outcome: This case appears to be ongoing.

• Plaintiff: Almondnet, Inc.

  • Defendant: Microsoft Corporation
  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
  • Case Number: 1:16-cv-01557
  • Filing Date: March 30, 2016
  • Status/Outcome: The current status of this older case is not definitively clear from available public dockets, but it demonstrates a longer history of litigation for the patent's owner.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Proceedings

The '139 patent has also been challenged at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) through inter partes review (IPR) and Covered Business Method (CBM) review petitions, which seek to invalidate the patent's claims.

• Proceeding: IPR2022-01262

  • Petitioner: Google LLC
  • Status/Outcome: Petition filed. The PTAB denied institution on the merits, meaning the trial did not proceed. This was a favorable outcome for the patent owner, Almondnet, Inc.

• Proceeding: IPR2022-01319

  • Petitioner: Roku, Inc.
  • Status/Outcome: Petition filed. The PTAB denied institution on procedural grounds.

• Proceeding: CBM2017-00058

  • Petitioner: Combination of multiple entities including AppNexus, Cable Television Laboratories, Index Exchange, MediaMath, OpenX, PubMatic, Rocket Fuel, Rubicon Project, and SpotXchange.
  • Status/Outcome: Petition filed. The PTAB denied institution on the merits.

The consistent denial of PTAB institution strengthens the perceived validity of the '139 patent, as the petitioners failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that they would prevail in invalidating the claims. This track record likely played a role in the successful jury verdict against Amazon.

Proceedings overview

A total of three AIA trial proceedings have been filed against U.S. Patent 8,671,139, all of which resulted in the denial of institution. This outcome strengthens the patent owner's position, as no claims have been invalidated or challenged to a final decision. For a defendant facing assertion of this patent, the consistent denial of PTAB institution suggests that an IPR or CBM defense based on the arguments presented in these petitions would be challenging.

IPR2022-01262 — Google LLC v. Almondnet Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022-07-06
• Status: Petition filed. The PTAB denied institution on the merits, meaning the trial did not proceed. This was a favorable outcome for the patent owner, Almondnet, Inc.
• Judge panel: Jennifer B. Green, Michelle F. Boucher, Lynne E. Pettigrew
• Petition grounds: Google challenged claims 1-28 and 37-54 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103, primarily using prior art references such as U.S. Patent No. 7,747,745 (Shkedi '745), U.S. Patent No. 7,716,104 (Horvitz '104), U.S. Patent No. 7,925,528 (Shkedi '528), and various publications related to ad serving technology.
• Institution decision: Denied on the merits. The PTAB issued a Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review on January 9, 2023. The panel found that Google had not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that it would prevail with respect to any of the challenged claims. Specifically, the Board determined that Google's various combinations of prior art, including those relying on Shkedi '745, Horvitz '104, and other references, failed to establish a prima facie case of unpatentability for the challenged claims.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
• Appeal: No appeal to the Federal Circuit, as institution was denied.
• Defensive value: The patent owner successfully defended against Google's IPR petition, with the PTAB finding Google's arguments on anticipation and obviousness unpersuasive. This makes an IPR-based defense using the same or similar prior art and arguments more difficult.

IPR2022-01319 — Roku, Inc. v. Almondnet Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022-07-15
• Status: Petition filed. The PTAB denied institution on procedural grounds.
• Judge panel: Kalyan V. Deshpande, Michael Kim, Karl D. Williams
• Petition grounds: Roku challenged claims 1-28 and 37-54 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103, relying on prior art references including U.S. Patent No. 7,747,745 (Shkedi '745), U.S. Patent No. 7,716,104 (Horvitz '104), and U.S. Patent No. 7,925,528 (Shkedi '528).
• Institution decision: Denied on procedural grounds. The PTAB issued a Decision Denying Institution of Inter Partes Review on January 23, 2023. The panel found that Roku's petition was untimely under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), as it was filed more than one year after Roku was served with a complaint alleging infringement of the '139 patent. Therefore, the Board did not reach the merits of Roku's patentability arguments.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
• Appeal: No appeal to the Federal Circuit, as institution was denied.
• Defensive value: The patent owner successfully blocked Roku's IPR petition on procedural grounds. This outcome doesn't address the merits of the patentability arguments but demonstrates a successful procedural defense, indicating the patent owner's active management of PTAB challenges.

CBM2017-00058 — AppNexus, Cable Television Laboratories, Index Exchange, MediaMath, OpenX, PubMatic, Rocket Fuel, Rubicon Project, and SpotXchange v. Almondnet Inc.

• Type: Covered Business Method (CBM) Review
• Filed: 2017-06-05
• Status: Petition filed. The PTAB denied institution on the merits.
• Judge panel: Michael P. Tierney, Trenton D. Capps, Barbara A. Fahrenholz
• Petition grounds: The petitioners challenged claims 1-54 of the '139 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 101, § 102, and § 103. They argued that the claims were directed to abstract ideas and lacked an inventive concept, and were also anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art references, including U.S. Patent No. 7,668,745 (Kudo '745) and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0161633 (Speaker '633).
• Institution decision: Denied on the merits. The PTAB issued a Decision Denying Institution of Covered Business Method Patent Review on December 6, 2017. The panel concluded that the petitioners had not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any of their challenges, including the § 101 argument that the claims were directed to an abstract idea. The Board found the claims to be sufficiently tied to a particular machine or transformation, or to involve more than mere commercial practices, thereby overcoming the abstract idea challenge. The Board also rejected the anticipation and obviousness arguments.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable.
• Appeal: No appeal to the Federal Circuit, as institution was denied.
• Defensive value: The patent owner successfully defended against a broad CBM challenge, including a § 101 abstract idea argument and various prior art challenges. The denial on the merits, particularly regarding § 101, significantly strengthens the patent's perceived validity against common challenges to business method patents.

Strategic summary

All three AIA trial proceedings against U.S. Patent 8,671,139 have resulted in the denial of institution, meaning no claims were ever subjected to a full trial at the PTAB, nor were any claims canceled. Consequently, all claims (1-54) of the '139 patent remain SUSTAINED and UNTESTED at the Final Written Decision stage of PTAB review. This gives the patent owner, Almondnet Inc., a very strong defensive posture, as the patent has withstood multiple attempts at institution across different statutory grounds (§ 101, § 102, § 103).

The estoppel landscape under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) will prevent Google, Roku, and the various petitioners in CBM2017-00058 (AppNexus, Cable Television Laboratories, etc.) and their privies from raising any ground that they raised or reasonably could have raised in their respective petitions. This significantly limits the available prior-art grounds for these specific entities if they were to face future assertion of the '139 patent. For other potential defendants, however, these specific denials do not create estoppel, but the Board's reasoning in the institution decisions would provide insight into the types of arguments and prior art that the PTAB found unpersuasive.

The pattern of proceedings indicates a deliberate strategy by Almondnet Inc. to defend its patent at the institution stage. The consistent denials, particularly the merit-based denials in IPR2022-01262 and CBM2017-00058, suggest that the patent claims are well-drafted to distinguish over the cited prior art and to overcome abstract idea challenges. The procedural denial against Roku also highlights the importance of timely filing IPR petitions.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant currently facing assertion of U.S. Patent 8,671,139:

• Carefully review the Decision Denying Institution in IPR2022-01262 (available on the USPTO PTAB E2E portal using the proceeding number) to understand why Google's anticipation and obviousness arguments were found insufficient. This will help you identify what specific elements or combinations were deemed novel or non-obvious by the Board.
• Similarly, review the Decision Denying Institution in CBM2017-00058 (available on the USPTO PTAB E2E portal using the proceeding number) to understand the PTAB's reasoning for rejecting the § 101 abstract idea challenge and the other prior art arguments. This is crucial for evaluating any potential § 101 defense or prior art arguments distinct from those already litigated.
• Consider conducting an independent prior art search, focusing on references not previously presented or on combinations and arguments distinct from those already considered by the PTAB in the denied petitions. While the patent has withstood challenges so far, new art or novel legal theories could still be viable.
• Given the patent's success at the PTAB institution stage, an IPR or CBM petition would need to present a very strong and clearly distinguishable argument for unpatentability to overcome the Board's previous findings.

Inventors

The sole named inventor for U.S. Patent 8,671,139 is Roy Shkedi. At the time of filing, Roy Shkedi was the CEO and founder of Almondnet Inc., the original assignee.

Original assignee

The original assignee named on the issued patent is Almondnet Inc. Almondnet Group, established in 1998, is described as an industry leader and pioneer in privacy-friendly, targeted advertising. It has developed an extensive suite of targeted advertising solutions and products. Currently, Almondnet Inc. is focused on R&D and the licensing of its extensive portfolio of intellectual property, covering various areas of targeting and attribution. The company and its subsidiaries (including Intent IQ, LLC) actively assert these patents in litigation. Intent IQ, LLC, a subsidiary, offers identity resolution, cookieless audience activation, and bid enhancement solutions, and its products are available through platforms like Google Cloud Marketplace. Therefore, Almondnet Inc. is currently operating.

Assignment timeline

A search of the USPTO Patent Assignment Center for U.S. Patent 8,671,139 shows no recorded assignments beyond the initial assignment from the inventor to Almondnet Inc. This initial assignment occurred on the patent's filing date.

• 2012-06-07 (executed) / recorded 2012-06-07 (based on Google Patents data)
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest
  • Assignor: Shkedi, Roy
  • Assignee: Almondnet Inc.
  • Correspondent: Not specified in available records for this initial assignment.
  • Context: Original assignment from inventor to the filing entity, establishing initial ownership.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8671139
    2006 : Priority date
    2012 : Filed, assigned to Almondnet Inc
    2014 : Patent issued
    2021 : First litigation filed by Almondnet

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. The patent has not moved from an operating assignee to a separate, licensing-only LLC in the recorded chain. Almondnet Inc. itself is the original assignee and is described as an entity focused on IP licensing, although it also engages in R&D and has product-developing subsidiaries.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Present. Almondnet Inc. and its subsidiary Intent IQ, LLC, are known asserters. Almondnet Inc. has actively asserted this patent in numerous litigations, including a "blockbuster trial win" against Amazon.com, Inc..

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Not applicable. There are no post-issuance assignments recorded in the USPTO Assignment Center for this patent.

4. Cascading transfers — Not present. There are no recorded transfers in the USPTO Assignment Center.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. There are no recorded assignments of this patent within 6 months before the first infringement suit filed by Almondnet Inc. in August 2021.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. Almondnet Inc. is actively operating and asserting its patents.

7. Privateering — Unclear. While Almondnet Inc. focuses on IP licensing and assertion, there is no direct evidence to confirm it is asserting on behalf of an operating company against competitors in a privateering arrangement. Almondnet Inc. appears to be the primary asserter of its own portfolio.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The patent is currently held by Almondnet Inc., an entity that asserts its patents.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

Almondnet Inc., the original assignee, explicitly states its focus on "R&D and the licensing of its extensive portfolio of enabling technology and Intellectual Property" and is identified as an "IP licensing entity". This, coupled with its extensive and successful litigation history, including a "blockbuster trial win" for this patent against Amazon, strongly indicates that patent assertion is a primary business model for Almondnet Inc..

Verification Link: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (Search for patent number 8671139)

Analysis of Prior Art Cited in U.S. Patent 8,671,139

This analysis details the most relevant prior art references cited during the examination of U.S. Patent 8,671,139 ("the '139 patent"). Each reference is evaluated for its potential to anticipate the independent claims (1, 19, and 37) of the '139 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The independent claims of the '139 patent generally cover a method, device, and system for directing electronic ads by:

1. Automatically directing, to a third-party server controlling ad space on a second media property, indicia of a condition for displaying an ad to a visitor.
2. Automatically authorizing the server to display the ad to that visitor when they later visit the second media property, subject to determining that the condition has been met.
3. Basing this authorization on the visitor's profile attribute(s) received as a result of the visitor's activity on a first media property.

The following references were cited by the USPTO examiner during the patent's prosecution.

---

1. U.S. Patent No. 7,668,745 (to Kudo, et al.)

• Full Citation: US 7,668,745 B2, Kudo, et al., "Advertisement distribution system, advertisement distribution method, and advertisement distribution program."
• Publication/Filing Dates: Filed Aug 1, 2003; Issued Feb 23, 2010. This qualifies as prior art.
• Brief Description: The Kudo patent describes an advertisement distribution system that selects ads based on user profiles. A central ad server collects user information (e.g., browsing history) and stores it in a database. When a user visits a partner website, the site sends a request to the ad server. The ad server then matches the user's profile with advertiser criteria to select and deliver a targeted advertisement. It focuses on matching user attributes to ad campaign requirements.
• Potential Anticipation Analysis:
  • Kudo discloses collecting profile attributes from a visitor's activity on one property and using it to serve an ad on another property. It also describes a system where an ad server authorizes the display of an ad.
  • Anticipation of Claim 1: Kudo's system appears to meet several elements of claim 1, such as basing ad delivery on profile attributes gathered from a visitor's activity. However, it is arguable whether Kudo explicitly teaches sending indicia of a condition for display to a third-party server and making the ad display subject to determining that the condition has been met in the manner claimed by the '139 patent. The '139 patent focuses on pre-authorizing a third-party server based on a future condition (like a price cap), whereas Kudo seems to describe a more direct ad selection and serving process based on existing user data. Therefore, Kudo likely does not fully anticipate claim 1.

2. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0161633 (to Speaker, et al.)

• Full Citation: US 2002/0161633 A1, Speaker, et al., "Targeted advertising using a personal data service."
• Publication/Filing Dates: Filed Apr 26, 2001; Published Oct 31, 2002. This qualifies as prior art.
• Brief Description: Speaker discloses a system for delivering targeted advertising while maintaining user privacy. A "personal data service" stores user profiles. When a user visits a website, the site requests an ad from an ad network. The ad network queries the personal data service, which provides non-personally-identifiable profile attributes. The ad network then selects an ad based on these attributes and any advertiser-specified conditions (e.g., demographics, interests).
• Potential Anticipation Analysis:
  • Speaker describes using profile attributes to select targeted ads for a user on a "second media property" (the website hosting the ad) based on data gathered previously. It also involves an intermediary (the ad network) authorizing the ad display.
  • Anticipation of Claim 1: Similar to Kudo, Speaker teaches many core concepts of targeted advertising. The system considers advertiser-specified conditions for displaying an ad. However, the '139 patent's claims are specific about the system directing indicia of a condition to the third-party server and then authorizing the ad display subject to that condition being met later. Speaker's disclosure is more focused on a real-time request-and-response model for ad selection based on matching profiles to existing campaign rules, rather than setting a future condition for display with a third party. It is unlikely that Speaker fully anticipates the specific conditional authorization process of claim 1.

3. U.S. Patent No. 7,716,104 (to Horvitz, et al.)

• Full Citation: US 7,716,104 B2, Horvitz, et al., "Models of attention, intention, and information value for notification and display."
• Publication/Filing Dates: Filed Dec 30, 2002; Issued May 11, 2010. This qualifies as prior art.
• Brief Description: The Horvitz patent describes a system that determines the value of displaying information (including ads or alerts) to a user by calculating an expected utility. It models the user's context, attention, and the potential value or cost of an interruption. The system decides whether and when to display a piece of information based on whether the expected value exceeds a certain threshold or cost.
• Potential Anticipation Analysis:
  • Horvitz is highly relevant to the '139 patent's concept of making decisions based on economic calculations. It explicitly discusses calculating the value of an ad and comparing it against a cost or threshold to make a display decision. The '139 patent's profit calculation is a form of this utility calculation.
  • Anticipation of Claim 1: Horvitz discloses a system that authorizes the display of information (an ad) subject to a condition being met (the utility/value exceeding a cost). This aligns closely with the core mechanism claimed in the '139 patent. The primary distinction may lie in the architecture. The '139 patent claims directing these conditions to a third-party server that controls ad space on a second property. Horvitz's system could be interpreted as a more integrated system where the decision logic resides within a single entity's control. If Horvitz does not clearly disclose the specific interaction between a first system sending conditions and a distinct third-party server evaluating those conditions later, it would not fully anticipate the claim. However, this reference presents a strong challenge, particularly for obviousness if not direct anticipation.

4. U.S. Patent No. 8,204,783 (to Shkedi)

• Full Citation: US 8,204,783 B2, Shkedi, "Media properties selection method and system based on expected profit from profile-based ad delivery."
• Publication/Filing Dates: Filed Jun 25, 2010; Issued Jun 19, 2012.
• Potential Anticipation Analysis: This patent is part of the same patent family as the '139 patent; specifically, the '139 patent is a continuation of the application that led to this patent. As such, it does not qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 against the '139 patent but is cited for informational purposes to show the lineage of the invention.

---

In summary, while several prior art references, particularly Kudo '745 and Speaker '633, teach the foundational elements of profile-based targeted advertising across different media properties, they arguably fail to disclose the specific two-step process of (1) directing a future condition for ad display to a third-party server and (2) having that server later authorize the display only if the condition is met. The Horvitz '104 patent comes closest to teaching the conditional, value-based authorization central to the '139 patent's claims, but its potential to anticipate hinges on whether its disclosed system architecture maps directly onto the multi-party system described in the claims of the '139 patent.

Obviousness Analysis of U.S. Patent 8,671,139 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis evaluates whether the independent claims (1, 19, and 37) of U.S. Patent 8,671,139 ("the '139 patent") would have been obvious to a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA) at the time of the invention, which has a priority date of June 16, 2006. The analysis is conducted under the framework established by 35 U.S.C. § 103 and informed by the principles set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. and the more flexible approach to combining prior art references articulated by the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.

A PHOSITA in the field of online advertising in 2006 would typically have a bachelor's degree in computer science or a related field, along with several years of experience in web technologies, database management, and the then-current state of online ad serving, including ad networks and early forms of behavioral targeting. This individual would be familiar with client-server architecture, HTTP, cookies, and the economic drivers of the online advertising industry.

The independent claims of the '139 patent are directed to a method, system, and device for managing targeted advertising. The core, arguably novel, concept is a multi-party system where a first entity:

1. Receives profile attributes of a visitor from a first media property.
2. Determines a condition for displaying a targeted ad to that visitor on a second media property.
3. Directs indicia of this condition to a third-party server that controls ad space on the second property.
4. Authorizes that third-party server to display the ad only if it later determines the condition has been met when the visitor arrives at the second property.

This process differs from simple targeted advertising by introducing a pre-arranged, conditional authorization with a third-party ad server.

Combination of Prior Art Rendering Claims Obvious

A strong argument for obviousness can be made by combining the teachings of U.S. Patent No. 7,716,104 to Horvitz et al. (Horvitz '104) with the system architecture described in U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0161633 to Speaker, et al. (Speaker '633).

1. Primary Reference: Horvitz '104

Horvitz teaches the core "conditional display" logic of the '139 patent. It discloses a system that makes a decision to display information (such as an advertisement) based on calculating an "expected utility." This utility is weighed against the cost of displaying the information (e.g., interrupting the user). An ad is displayed only if its calculated value exceeds a certain threshold or cost. This directly corresponds to the '139 patent's concept of making an ad display "subject to determining that the condition has been met." The '139 patent's "condition" (e.g., that the price charged by the second media property is less than a profile-dependent price an advertiser is willing to pay, as described in dependent claim 2) is a direct, commercial implementation of Horvitz's more general utility calculation.

However, as noted in the prior art analysis, Horvitz does not explicitly describe a distributed, multi-party architecture where this conditional logic is passed to an independent, third-party server controlling ad space on another website.

2. Secondary Reference: Speaker '633

Speaker provides the missing architectural element. It describes a system for targeted advertising involving multiple distinct parties: a "personal data service" (which holds user profiles), a website visited by the user, and an "ad network" that serves the ad. In Speaker's system, the website requests an ad from the ad network, which in turn queries the data service for profile attributes to select a targeted ad. This establishes the common industry practice of interaction between a content publisher and a separate ad network (a "third-party server controlling advertising space") to deliver targeted ads.

3. Motivation to Combine

A PHOSITA in 2006, working in the burgeoning field of online advertising, would have been motivated to combine the economic decision-making model of Horvitz with the distributed ad network architecture of Speaker for clear and practical reasons. The online advertising market was driven by a need for greater efficiency and profitability.

• Problem to be Solved: Ad networks and publishers needed to maximize revenue from available ad inventory. A key challenge was determining in real-time which ad to show to which user, and at what price, to yield the highest profit. Simple behavioral targeting (showing an ad based on past browsing) was known, but optimizing the profitability of each ad impression was a pressing market need.
• Obvious Solution: A PHOSITA, aware of Speaker's multi-party ad network architecture, would recognize the value of incorporating more sophisticated decision logic. Horvitz provides precisely this logic: a method to calculate the economic utility of showing an ad. Applying Horvitz's value-based display threshold to Speaker's ad network is a predictable next step. To implement this, the entity with the profile data (analogous to the '139 patent's "computer system") would need to communicate the economic condition (the "indicia of a condition") to the ad network (the "third-party server"). This would allow the ad network to decide whether serving a particular targeted ad at a given moment is profitable enough, based on the pre-calculated value associated with the user's profile.
• Predictable Result: Combining these teachings would predictably result in the system claimed by the '139 patent. The system would authorize an ad display on a second media property (via an ad network, per Speaker) only when a condition based on calculated economic value is met (per Horvitz). This is not an inventive leap but rather the application of a known optimization technique (Horvitz) to a known system architecture (Speaker) to achieve a predictable improvement in efficiency and profitability. The KSR decision emphasizes that if a technique has been used to improve one device or system, its application to similar systems to achieve predictable results is obvious.

Therefore, the combination of Horvitz '104 and Speaker '633 would have rendered the independent claims of the '139 patent obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in 2006.

Continuity and Family Data for U.S. Patent 8,671,139

Date of Analysis: April 29, 2026

This report details the prosecution history, term adjustments, and projected expiration date for U.S. Patent No. 8,671,139 ("the '139 patent"). The patent is part of a large and complex family of patents, stemming from provisional applications filed in 2006.

Patent Term and Expiration

• Patent Term Adjustments (PTA): There is no information available from the provided search results to indicate that a specific Patent Term Adjustment was granted for the '139 patent. A detailed review of the file wrapper on the USPTO's Patent Center would be required to determine the exact number of PTA days, if any.

• Patent Term Extensions (PTE): There is no indication of any Patent Term Extension under 35 U.S.C. § 156, which typically applies to delays in regulatory review for products like pharmaceuticals and is not relevant to this technology.

• Projected Expiration Date: Standard patent term is 20 years from the earliest non-provisional filing date. The '139 patent claims priority to U.S. Application No. 11/763,286, which was filed on June 14, 2007. Therefore, the base expiration date is calculated from this 2007 filing date.

  • Earliest Non-provisional Filing Date: June 14, 2007
  • Projected Expiration Date: June 14, 2027

This expiration date does not account for any potential PTA, which could extend the term, or a terminal disclaimer, which could shorten it. A definitive expiration date requires consulting the official records at the USPTO.

Continuity and Application Data

The '139 patent is a continuation application, indicating it is part of a chain of related applications that share the same original specification. This allows later patents to claim the benefit of an earlier filing date.

• Direct Parent Application: The '139 patent issued from Application No. 13/491,454, filed on June 7, 2012. This application is a continuation of Application No. 12/823,709.
• Continuation Chain: The prosecution history reveals a lengthy chain of continuation applications.
  • Application No. 13/491,454 (led to the '139 patent) is a continuation of:
  • Application No. 12/823,709 (filed June 25, 2010, now U.S. Patent No. 8,204,783), which is a continuation of:
  • Application No. 11/763,286 (filed June 14, 2007, now U.S. Patent No. 7,747,745).
• Provisional Priority: The entire family claims the benefit of two early provisional applications:
  • Provisional Application No. 60/804,937, filed June 16, 2006.
  • Provisional Application No. 60/805,119, filed June 19, 2006.

The earliest priority date for the subject matter disclosed is therefore June 16, 2006.

Divisional Applications

There is no information in the provided text to suggest that any divisional applications have been filed that claim priority to the application that resulted in the '139 patent.

Related Family Members

The '139 patent is part of an extensive patent family asserted in litigation. The continuity chain itself reveals several key family members:

• U.S. Patent No. 7,747,745: Issued from the earliest non-provisional application in this chain.
• U.S. Patent No. 8,204,783: The direct parent patent of the '139 patent.
• U.S. Patent Nos. 10,134,054; 11,301,898; and 11,610,226: These patents were co-asserted with the '139 patent in the litigation against Amazon, as noted in the "Litigation summary." While their direct lineage is not specified here, their inclusion in the lawsuit indicates they are closely related family members covering similar advertising technology. The "Priority Applications" table in the provided text confirms a long list of subsequent continuation applications filed after the '139 patent, demonstrating a deliberate strategy by the assignee, Almondnet, Inc., to build a large portfolio around this core invention.

Defensive Disclosure and Prior Art Generation for U.S. Patent 8,671,139

Publication Date: April 29, 2026
Subject Matter: Derivatives, extensions, and combinations of the methods and systems for conditional, profile-based authorization of electronic content delivery as described in U.S. Patent 8,671,139. This document is intended to enter the public domain to serve as prior art.

---

Core Mechanism Analysis

The foundational concept derived from U.S. Patent 8,671,139 involves a computer system that, upon receiving a visitor's profile attribute from a first media property, directs indicia of a condition to a third-party server controlling content space on a second media property. The system then authorizes the third-party server to display content correlated with the profile attribute, but only if the specified condition is met when the visitor later accesses the second media property. The following disclosures describe novel variations and applications of this core mechanism.

---

1. Material & Component Substitution Derivatives

1.1. System Utilizing Privacy-Preserving Cryptographic Identifiers

• Enabling Description: This variation replaces standard cookie-based or device-ID-based visitor tags with privacy-preserving cryptographic constructs. When a visitor's profile is collected at the first media property, the system generates a Blind Signature based on the visitor's identifier using a protocol like RSA-PSS. The system directs the condition and the blinded identifier to the third-party server. When the visitor arrives at the second media property, their browser provides the now-unblinded signature. The third-party server can verify the signature against the condition without ever knowing the visitor's original identity, thus preserving privacy while executing the conditional logic. The profile attributes themselves can be encoded using zero-knowledge proofs (e.g., zk-SNARKs), allowing the third-party server to verify that a visitor meets a profile criterion (e.g., "is interested in automotive") without learning the specific details of their browsing history.

• Mermaid Diagram:

  sequenceDiagram
      participant Visitor
      participant FirstMediaProperty
      participant BT_System as BT System (Authorizer)
      participant ThirdPartyServer as Ad Server (Verifier)
      participant SecondMediaProperty
  
      Visitor->>FirstMediaProperty: Visits page (profile collected)
      FirstMediaProperty->>BT_System: Redirect with Profile & VisitorID
      BT_System->>BT_System: Generates Blind Signature for VisitorID
      BT_System->>ThirdPartyServer: Send(Condition, Blinded_ID, Profile_Proof)
      Visitor->>SecondMediaProperty: Visits page
      SecondMediaProperty->>Visitor: Ad space requests content
      Visitor->>ThirdPartyServer: Request Ad (Presents Unblinded_Signature)
      ThirdPartyServer->>ThirdPartyServer: 1. Verify Unblinded_Signature
      ThirdPartyServer->>ThirdPartyServer: 2. Evaluate Condition(Profile_Proof)
      alt Condition Met
          ThirdPartyServer->>Visitor: Serve Targeted Ad
      else Condition Not Met
          ThirdPartyServer->>Visitor: Serve Default Ad
      end
  

1.2. System with Decentralized Profile & Condition Storage using a Distributed Hash Table (DHT)

• Enabling Description: Instead of a centralized database, the Behavioral Targeting (BT) system stores the (visitor_tag -> condition) mapping in a peer-to-peer Distributed Hash Table (DHT) like Kademlia. When the visitor's profile is collected, the BT system computes a hash of the visitor tag and stores the associated condition object at the nodes in the DHT responsible for that hash key. When the visitor arrives at the second media property, the third-party server, also a peer in the DHT, queries the network using the hash of the visitor's tag to retrieve the condition. This architecture increases resilience and scalability while reducing reliance on a single central server. The condition itself includes a TTL (Time-To-Live) and a cryptographic signature from the BT system to ensure its validity and prevent tampering.

• Mermaid Diagram:

  graph TD
      A[Visitor at First Property] --> B{BT System};
      B --> C{Generate (Tag, Condition)};
      C --> D[Hash(Tag) -> DHT_Key];
      D --> E((DHT Network));
      E -- Store(DHT_Key, Condition) --> E;
  
      F[Visitor at Second Property] --> G{3rd-Party Ad Server};
      G -- Has Tag --> H[Hash(Tag) -> DHT_Key];
      H --> I((DHT Network));
      I -- Lookup(DHT_Key) --> J[Retrieve Condition];
      J --> K{Evaluate Condition};
      K -- True --> L[Serve Ad];
      K -- False --> M[Serve Default];
  

---

2. Operational Parameter Expansion Derivatives

2.1. High-Frequency / Real-Time Bidding (RTB) System with Sub-Millisecond Condition Evaluation

• Enabling Description: This variation adapts the core mechanism for the extreme low-latency environment of high-frequency ad exchanges. The "first media property" is a user's entire browsing session, with profile attributes streamed in real-time. The "condition" is not static but is a dynamic executable code snippet (e.g., a WebAssembly module) representing a complex bidding algorithm. The BT system directs this bidding module to an edge server co-located with the ad exchange. When an ad opportunity arises for the visitor, the third-party server (the ad exchange) executes the visitor-specific module in a secure sandbox. The module evaluates market conditions, the visitor's real-time context, and the profile attributes, returning a bid price within a 10-millisecond window. The authorization is conditional on the module's bid winning the auction.

• Mermaid Diagram:

  stateDiagram-v2
      [*] --> StreamingProfile: Visitor Browsing
      StreamingProfile --> BiddingModuleCompilation: BT System receives profile updates
      BiddingModuleCompilation --> PushingToEdge: Push visitor-specific Wasm module to Ad Exchange Edge
      PushingToEdge --> AwaitingAdRequest
  
      AwaitingAdRequest --> AdAuction: Ad opportunity for visitor
      AdAuction --> ModuleExecution: Exchange executes Wasm module
      ModuleExecution --> BidEvaluation: Module outputs bid price
      BidEvaluation --> [*]: Auction concludes
      BidEvaluation -- Bid Wins --> AdServed
      BidEvaluation -- Bid Loses --> NoAd
      AdServed --> [*]
      NoAd --> [*]
  

2.2. Low-Power / Edge Computing System for IoT Devices

• Enabling Description: This system operates on resource-constrained IoT devices (e.g., smart home displays, in-car infotainment systems) with intermittent network connectivity. The "first media property" could be a user's interaction with a companion mobile app. The BT system, recognizing the target is a low-power device, pre-calculates and pushes a highly compressed "decision tree" file, which represents the condition logic, to the IoT device itself. The third-party server is a software module on the device (e.g., the display's OS). When a content slot is available, the local module evaluates the pre-loaded decision tree against local device state (time of day, sensor data, user presence). Authorization to display content is granted locally without a round-trip to a remote server, conserving power and bandwidth. The content itself (e.g., a set of low-resolution ads) may also be pre-cached on the device.

• Mermaid Diagram:

  graph LR
      subgraph Cloud
          A[Mobile App Interaction] --> B{BT System};
          B --> C[Generate Compressed Condition (Decision Tree)];
          C --> D{Push to Device};
      end
      subgraph IoT Device
          D -- Syncs --> E[Local Storage: DecisionTree.bin];
          F[Local Trigger: e.g., idle screen] --> G{Local Content Engine};
          E --> G;
          H[Local Sensor Data] --> G;
          G -- Evaluates Tree --> I{Authorization Decision};
          I -- Granted --> J[Display Pre-Cached Ad];
          I -- Denied --> K[Display Default Content];
      end
  

---

3. Cross-Domain Application Derivatives

3.1. Personalized Healthcare: Conditional Patient Information Delivery

• Enabling Description: A hospital's Electronic Health Record (EHR) system acts as the BT system. The "first media property" is a physician's entry of a new diagnosis or lab result for a patient. The "profile attribute" is the new medical code (e.g., ICD-10 code for Type 2 Diabetes). The EHR system directs a condition to a third-party server—the hospital's patient portal. The condition is: "If patient logs in within the next 7 days AND has not yet opened a document tagged 'diabetes_intro', display this educational video." Authorization is based on the patient's medical profile. This ensures timely, relevant, and context-aware delivery of medical information without overwhelming the patient.

• Mermaid Diagram:

  sequenceDiagram
      participant Physician
      participant EHR_System as EHR System
      participant PatientPortal as Patient Portal
      participant Patient
  
      Physician->>EHR_System: Enters new diagnosis (Profile)
      EHR_System->>PatientPortal: Direct(Condition: DisplayEduVideo IF login<7d AND !viewed) for PatientID
      Patient->>PatientPortal: Logs in
      PatientPortal->>PatientPortal: Evaluate Condition for PatientID
      alt Condition Met
          PatientPortal->>Patient: Display specific educational video
      else Condition Not Met
          PatientPortal->>Patient: Show standard dashboard
      end
  

3.2. Cybersecurity: Dynamic Network Access Control

• Enabling Description: A Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) system functions as the BT system. A user's login to a low-security internal application is the "first media property." The "profile attribute" is the user's role and device posture (e.g., OS patched, corporate VPN). The SIEM directs a condition to a network firewall (the "third-party server") controlling access to a high-security database. The condition is: "Authorize access for this user's IP address to the finance database for the next 60 minutes ONLY IF their continuous behavior monitoring score remains below a threat threshold of 75." This creates a just-in-time, behavior-contingent access rule that is more secure than a static permission.

• Mermaid Diagram:

  graph TD
      A[User logs into App1] --> B{SIEM System};
      B -- Profile: UserRole, DevicePosture --> C{Generate Conditional Access Rule};
      C -- Rule: Authorize DB_Access IF ThreatScore < 75 --> D(Firewall);
      E[User attempts DB Access] --> D;
      F[Continuous Behavior Monitor] -- ThreatScore --> D;
      D -- Evaluates Rule --> G{Access Granted/Denied};
  

3.3. Agriculture Technology (AgTech): Precision Irrigation Authorization

• Enabling Description: A farm management platform is the BT system. A satellite imagery service providing NDVI (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index) data is the "first media property." A low NDVI reading in a specific field is the "profile attribute," indicating plant stress. The platform directs a condition to the field's IoT irrigation controller (the "third-party server"). The condition: "Authorize a 20-minute watering cycle for Zone 4 at 5:00 AM, but ONLY IF the local soil moisture sensor reading is below 25% and the chance of rain in the next 12 hours is less than 10%." This combines high-level analysis with real-time, on-site data for hyper-efficient resource management.

• Mermaid Diagram:

  sequenceDiagram
      participant Satellite
      participant FarmPlatform
      participant IrrigationController
      participant SoilSensor
      participant WeatherAPI
  
      Satellite->>FarmPlatform: Provides NDVI map (Profile)
      FarmPlatform->>FarmPlatform: Detects stress in Zone 4
      FarmPlatform->>IrrigationController: Send(Condition: Irrigate IF moisture<25% AND rain<10%)
      loop Every 15 minutes
          SoilSensor->>IrrigationController: Moisture reading
          WeatherAPI->>IrrigationController: Rain forecast
      end
      IrrigationController->>IrrigationController: At 5:00 AM, evaluate Condition
      alt Condition Met
          IrrigationController->>IrrigationController: Activate watering cycle
      end
  

---

4. Integration with Emerging Technology Derivatives

4.1. AI-Driven Reinforcement Learning for Condition Optimization

• Enabling Description: The core mechanism is integrated with a Reinforcement Learning (RL) agent. The "state" for the agent includes the visitor's profile attributes and the context of the second media property. The "action" is the generation of a condition, specifically the financial parameters within it (e.g., the bid price in Price < X). The "reward" is the measured profit or loss from the eventual ad display. The BT system directs the AI-generated condition to the third-party server. After the ad opportunity, the outcome (impression, click, conversion, cost) is fed back to the RL agent, which updates its policy to generate more profitable conditions in the future. This creates a self-optimizing system that adapts to market dynamics.

• Mermaid Diagram:

  graph TD
      subgraph Training Loop
          A[Feedback: Profit/Loss] --> B[RL Agent];
          B -- Updates Policy --> B;
      end
      subgraph Live Operation
          C[Visitor Profile] --> B;
          B -- Action --> D[Generate Optimal Condition];
          D --> E{3rd-Party Ad Server};
          F[Ad Opportunity] --> E;
          E -- Evaluates Condition --> G[Displays Ad];
          G -- Outcome --> A;
      end
  

4.2. Blockchain-Based Smart Contracts for Auditable Ad Delivery

• Enabling Description: The entire process is managed via a public or permissioned blockchain. The BT system initiates a smart contract, which encodes the condition (e.g., price < 0.50, time < timestamp) and the correlated content (ad creative hash). This transaction is a public "authorization." The third-party ad server is an oracle that monitors the blockchain. When a tagged visitor arrives, the ad server evaluates the condition. If met, it serves the ad and then calls a function on the smart contract, providing cryptographic proof of the event (e.g., a signed attestation). The smart contract then automatically executes a payment transfer from the advertiser's wallet to the second media property's wallet, creating a transparent, auditable, and trustless system for ad delivery and settlement.

• Mermaid Diagram:

  sequenceDiagram
      participant BT_System
      participant Blockchain
      participant AdServer_Oracle
      participant Visitor
      
      BT_System->>Blockchain: Deploy SmartContract(Condition, AdHash, Wallets)
      Visitor->>AdServer_Oracle: Visits page, triggers ad request
      AdServer_Oracle->>AdServer_Oracle: Evaluates Condition from SmartContract
      alt Condition Met
          AdServer_Oracle->>Visitor: Serve Ad
          AdServer_Oracle->>Blockchain: Call execute() on SmartContract with Proof
          Blockchain->>Blockchain: 1. Verify Proof
          Blockchain->>Blockchain: 2. Transfer funds (Advertiser -> Publisher)
      end
  

---

5. The "Inverse" or Failure Mode Derivatives

5.1. Graceful Degradation System with Condition Prioritization

• Enabling Description: This version is designed for high-availability. The BT system categorizes conditions into tiers (e.g., Tier 1: High-Value/Complex, Tier 2: Medium-Value/Simple, Tier 3: Default/Contextual). It directs all tiers of conditions to the third-party server. The third-party server continuously monitors its own system load and latency. If CPU usage exceeds 85% or response time is > 50ms, it automatically stops evaluating Tier 1 conditions and attempts to evaluate Tier 2. If load is critical, it falls back to Tier 3 or a static public service announcement. This ensures the ad slot is always filled, preventing blank spaces and timeouts, while gracefully degrading the quality of targeting under duress.

• Mermaid Diagram:

  stateDiagram-v2
      state "Normal Load (<85% CPU)" as Normal
      state "High Load (85-95% CPU)" as High
      state "Critical Load (>95% CPU)" as Critical
      
      [*] --> Normal
      Normal --> High: Load increases
      High --> Normal: Load decreases
      High --> Critical: Load increases
      Critical --> High: Load decreases
      
      state "Evaluate Tier 1 Condition" as T1
      state "Evaluate Tier 2 Condition" as T2
      state "Serve Default Ad" as T3
  
      Normal: Ad Request -> T1
      High: Ad Request -> T2
      Critical: Ad Request -> T3
  

---

Combination Prior Art with Open-Source Standards

1. Combination with Prebid.js: The BT system's client-side script is implemented as a Prebid.js "Real-Time Data" module. When a visitor's profile is captured, the module stores the condition (e.g., a floor price for this user) in the browser's local storage. During the header bidding auction initiated by Prebid.js, a custom adapter (acting as the third-party server logic) reads this condition from local storage. It then passes the condition into the bid requests sent to various demand partners, instructing them to only return a bid if it meets the user-specific floor price.

2. Combination with IAB OpenRTB Protocol: The indicia of a condition is formally specified as a new extension object in the OpenRTB 3.0 protocol. The BT system, acting as a data management platform (DMP), passes this object in the user.ext field of a bid request. The object contains fields like condition_type: "price_cap", condition_value: "1.25", expiry: 1672531199. The third-party server (a Demand-Side Platform or DSP) is programmed to parse this extension object and will only submit a bid if its internal valuation of the impression satisfies the received condition.

3. Combination with OAuth 2.0: The system is framed as a resource access protocol. The BT system is the "Authorization Server." The second media property's ad space is the "Resource." When a user visits the first property, the BT system issues a JSON Web Token (JWT) containing the user's profile and the condition as private claims. When the user visits the second property, the third-party ad server ("Resource Server") receives this JWT. It validates the token's signature and then evaluates the claims against the current context. Access to the "resource" (i.e., displaying the targeted ad) is granted only if the conditions in the validated token are met.