US 8959146

US Patent 8959146: Media Properties Selection Method and System Based on Expected Profit from Profile-Based Ad Delivery

Patent Number: US8959146B2

Title: Media properties selection method and system based on expected profit from profile-based ad delivery

Assignee: Almondnet Inc.

Inventor: Roy Shkedi

Filing Date: March 7, 2014 (for application US14/201,494)

Issue Date: February 17, 2015

Abstract: The patent describes an automatic system designed to help select which media properties (like websites or TV channels) should display an advertisement. This selection is made based on a profile of an electronic visitor, which is gathered from their activity on a first media property. A behavioral-targeting (BT) company calculates the anticipated profit from showing an ad that is relevant to the visitor's profile. If this calculated profit is positive, the BT company then arranges for the visitor to be electronically "tagged" with a unique identifier that the selected media property can read. The profit is determined by subtracting at least the cost of the advertising space from the expected revenue generated by the ad based on the collected profile.

---

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

This patent includes three independent claims (Claims 1, 17, and 21), which cover a method, a computer-server device, and a system, respectively.

1. Claim 1 (Method Claim): This claim describes a computer-implemented method for directing online advertisements. For each of many different internet users visiting a first online location, a computer system automatically sends information (called "indicia of a condition") to a separate company's server that manages advertising space on a second online location. This condition specifically relates to the user and dictates whether an ad will be shown to them when they later visit the second online location. The decision to send this information is based on specific characteristics or interests (profile attributes) gathered from the user's visit to the first online location, and the advertisement displayed is matched to these attributes.

2. Claim 17 (Device Claim): This claim protects a physical computer-server device, equipped with a processor and memory, which is programmed to carry out the method outlined in Claim 1. This device automatically sends the "indicia of a condition" (information about a user's characteristics) to a third-party server controlling advertising space on a second online location. This process is intended to enable the display of an advertisement to the user on the second media property at a later time, provided the specified condition is met. The device's actions are based on the user's profile attributes, which were collected from their visit to the first media property, and the advertisement is correlated with these attributes.

3. Claim 21 (System Claim): This claim covers a system, comprising one or more computers, which is programmed to implement the method described in Claim 1. Similar to the device and method, this system automatically directs "indicia of a condition" (user-specific information) to a third-party server that manages advertising space on a second online location. The purpose is to display a targeted advertisement to the user when they visit the second media property after having visited the first, contingent on the condition being met. The system's action is based on profile attributes gathered from the user's visit to the first media property, and the ad is correlated with these attributes.

---

Legal Status and Litigation:

US Patent 8959146B2 is currently Active, with an anticipated expiration date of June 14, 2027.

The patent family associated with US8959146 has been involved in extensive litigation. The Google Patents entry indicates multiple US district court cases filed in the Texas Western District Court, Delaware District Court, California Northern District Court, and New York Eastern District Court, with some filings as recent as 2025 and 2026. Additionally, several PTAB (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) cases, including IPRs (Inter Partes Reviews) and CBMs (Covered Business Method Reviews), were filed in 2017, 2022, and 2025.

Regarding CAFC 2026 dockets, search results indicate ongoing litigation involving Almondnet Inc., the current assignee of US8959146. For example, "ALMONDNET, INC. v. RAMOT AT TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY LTD." (Docket Number 24-1726) was noted on April 13, 2026, and "ALMONDNET, INC. v. AMAZON.COM, INC." (Docket 25-1967) had a nonprecedential order published on April 6, 2026, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. While these cases confirm active Federal Circuit involvement for Almondnet Inc. in 2026, the provided search snippets do not explicitly state that US8959146 is the specific patent at issue in these particular CAFC dockets. However, the extensive related litigation across various courts suggests that this patent family is actively asserted and challenged.

As a patent attorney, I have identified the following known litigation involving US Patent 8959146 based on available search results as of April 26, 2026.

Known Litigation Involving US Patent 8959146:

1. AlmondNet, Inc., Intent IQ, LLC, and Datonics LLC v. LiveIntent, Inc.

• Plaintiff(s): AlmondNet, Inc., Intent IQ, LLC, and Datonics LLC
• Defendant(s): LiveIntent, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: United States District Court for the District of Delaware
• Case Number: 1:24-cv-00831-MN
• Filing Date: (First Amended Complaint filed) November 12, 2024
• Outcome or Current Status: Active patent infringement lawsuit involving US Patent 8959146.

2. AlmondNet, Inc. et al v. StackAdapt, Inc. et al

• Plaintiff(s): Intent IQ, LLC, AlmondNet, Inc.
• Defendant(s): StackAdapt, Inc. and StackAdapt U.S., Inc.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
• Case Number: 1:2025cv00991
• Filing Date: August 7, 2025
• Outcome or Current Status: Active patent infringement lawsuit involving US Patent 8959146 B2. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim.

3. ROKU, INC. v. ALMONDNET, INC. and INTENT IQ, LLC

• Plaintiff(s): Roku, Inc.
• Defendant(s): AlmondNet, Inc. and Intent IQ, LLC
• Jurisdiction: United States District Court for the District of Delaware
• Case Number: Not explicitly provided in the search results.
• Filing Date: The case was active by at least July 7, 2023, when a Markman hearing was held, with supplemental briefing on claim terms in July 2023 and a related court document dated May 29, 2024.
• Outcome or Current Status: Active, concerning the disputed claim terms of US Patent 8959146, among other patents. A Markman hearing has been conducted.

4. AlmondNet, Inc. and Intent IQ, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.; Amazon.com Services LLC; and Amazon Web Services, Inc.

• Plaintiff(s): AlmondNet, Inc. and Intent IQ, LLC
• Defendant(s): Amazon.com, Inc.; Amazon.com Services LLC; and Amazon Web Services, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division
• Case Number: 6:21-cv-00898-ADA
• Filing Date: August 27, 2021
• Outcome or Current Status: The initial complaint asserted US Patent 8959146 among other patents. While a jury rendered a $121.95 million verdict in this case on June 15, 2024, for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,671,139 and U.S. Patent No. 7,822,639, US Patent 8959146 was not explicitly named in the verdict, suggesting it may have been narrowed from the original complaint. Amazon is expected to appeal the verdict.

5. PTAB Case IPR2025-01163

• Plaintiff(s): Petitioner (not specified)
• Defendant(s): Almondnet Inc. (patent owner)
• Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
• Case Number: IPR2025-01163
• Filing Date: Implied 2025 from case number.
• Outcome or Current Status: Not Instituted - Procedural.

6. PTAB Case IPR2022-01480

• Plaintiff(s): Petitioner (not specified)
• Defendant(s): Almondnet Inc. (patent owner)
• Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
• Case Number: IPR2022-01480
• Filing Date: Implied 2022 from case number.
• Outcome or Current Status: Not Instituted - Merits.

7. PTAB Case CBM2017-00056

• Plaintiff(s): Petitioner (not specified)
• Defendant(s): Almondnet Inc. (patent owner)
• Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
• Case Number: CBM2017-00056
• Filing Date: Implied 2017 from case number.
• Outcome or Current Status: Not Instituted - Merits.

The Google Patents page also indicates numerous other litigation cases involving US Patent 8959146, for which detailed plaintiff, defendant, and specific status information were not readily available in the provided search results beyond jurisdiction, case number, and implied filing year. These cases are generally listed as "Active" according to Google Patents:

Texas Western District Court Cases:

• Case Number: 6:21-cv-00897
• Case Number: 6:21-cv-00891
• Case Number: 7:25-cv-00487
• Case Number: 7:25-cv-00411
• Case Number: 6:22-cv-01206
• Case Number: 6:22-cv-01205
• Case Number: 6:22-cv-01204
• Case Number: 6:21-cv-00896
• Case Number: 6:21-cv-00876
• Case Number: 7:25-cv-00181

Delaware District Court Cases:

• Case Number: 1:25-cv-01354
• Case Number: 1:26-cv-00082
• Case Number: 1:25-cv-01266
• Case Number: 1:19-cv-00247
• Case Number: 1:23-cv-01373
• Case Number: 1:24-cv-01296
• Case Number: 1:25-cv-01425
• Case Number: 1:25-cv-01473
• Case Number: 1:26-cv-00014

California Northern District Court Cases:

• Case Number: 4:22-cv-07515

New York Eastern District Court Cases:

• Case Number: 1:16-cv-01557

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US patent 8959146. This proceeding resulted in a discretionary denial, meaning no claims were challenged on the merits. This status indicates the patent has survived one attempt at IPR, but its claims remain untested by the PTAB.

IPR2025-01163 — Viant Technology LLC et al. v. Roy Shkedi

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-06-20
• Status: Discretionary Denial (The PTAB declined to institute review of the challenged claims).
• Judge panel: Not publicly available from the quick search results. Will search for institution decision.
  The judge panel information for IPR2025-01163 is not readily available through a general search for the proceeding number and "judge panel." While some judges like James A. Tartal, Ryan H. Flax, and Matthew J. McNeill are listed with "not instituted" cases in their profiles on Unified Patents, a direct link to the panel for IPR2025-01163 specifically is not found in the initial search results. Director decisions on discretionary denial can occur before a panel is assigned to the merits.
• Petition grounds: Details regarding the specific claims challenged and prior art cited are not available in the provided "PTAB proceedings on file" or the initial general web search results. To obtain this, one would typically need to access the petition documents themselves from the USPTO PTAB E2E system.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-01-13. The status "Discretionary Denial" indicates the PTAB declined to institute trial. This type of denial often occurs due to considerations like parallel litigation (Fintiv factors), settled expectations, or other workload management policies from the USPTO Director. As of March 2025, the USPTO Director (with at least three PTAB judges) first reviews cases for discretionary denial considerations before referring a petition to a three-member panel for a merits evaluation.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued, as the petition was denied institution.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding terminated via discretionary denial, not settlement.
• Appeal: Not applicable, as no Final Written Decision was issued.
• Defensive value: This proceeding indicates that Viant Technology LLC et al. attempted to challenge the patent but were unsuccessful at the institution stage due to a discretionary denial. This means the patent owner successfully argued against institution, preserving all claims. For a defendant, this signals that IPR challenges can be met with discretionary denial arguments, particularly if the patent owner can demonstrate "settled expectations" or other factors favoring denial. However, the claims themselves have not been evaluated on their merits by the PTAB.

Strategic summary

All claims of US8959146 remain UNTESTED by the PTAB on their merits. The sole IPR filed, IPR2025-01163, was met with a discretionary denial, meaning the PTAB chose not to institute a trial. This does not validate the claims but rather reflects a procedural decision by the PTAB (potentially related to factors like parallel litigation, petitioner's conduct, or "settled expectations" as per recent Director guidance).

The estoppel landscape for IPR2025-01163 means that Petitioner Viant Technology LLC et al. (and any privies) are statutory barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from asserting in future litigation or other USPTO proceedings any ground that they raised or reasonably could have raised in their IPR petition against US8959146. However, since the petition was denied, the merits of the patentability challenge were not decided, limiting the scope of what was "raised or reasonably could have been raised" for estoppel purposes. Other parties not in privity with Viant Technology LLC et al. would not be subject to this estoppel.

The fact that the IPR was denied institution, rather than proceeding to a merits decision, suggests the patent owner successfully leveraged procedural arguments to protect the patent from PTAB review. This could indicate a proactive strategy by the patent owner or highlight the increasing prevalence of discretionary denials based on evolving USPTO policies, such as the rescission of the Fintiv memo and new guidance on "settled expectations" from the Acting Director in 2025.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing assertion of US8959146 today, it is important to understand the basis of the discretionary denial in IPR2025-01163. Obtaining and reviewing the PTAB's Institution Decision for IPR2025-01163 via the USPTO PTAB E2E system would be crucial to understand the specific reasons for denial and the prior art and claims challenged.

Since the claims remain untested on the merits, a new IPR petition could potentially be filed by a different entity (or by Viant if new grounds/art are discovered and permissible) if a strong unpatentability argument can be developed while navigating the evolving discretionary denial standards. Consider the current landscape of PTAB discretionary denials, including the Acting Director's memos from March and October 2025, which have impacted how these decisions are made. An assessment of whether the petitioner in IPR2025-01163 could have "reasonably raised" other grounds, or if the denial was specific to the presented grounds or procedural issues, would inform future strategy.

Inventors

• Roy Shkedi (Almondnet Inc)

Original assignee

Almondnet Inc. The patent describes a "Media properties selection method and system based on expected profit from profile-based ad delivery," which aligns with Almondnet's business as a behavioral targeting company. Almondnet Inc. appears to be an operating company, specializing in ad targeting based on user behavior. Its current status is active.

Assignment timeline

• 2014-03-07 (executed) / recorded 2014-03-07 — Reel 031940/0177
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: SHKEDI, ROY, MR.
  • Assignee: ALMONDNET, INC.
  • Correspondent: G. E. BETHEL, 2390 E. CAMELBACK ROAD, SUITE 300, PHOENIX, ARIZONA, 85016.
  • Context: Inventor assigned patent rights to Almondnet Inc.

There are no subsequent assignment records for US8959146B2 in the USPTO Assignment Center.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8959146
    2014 : Assigned to Almondnet Inc
    2015 : Issued

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The sole recorded assignment is from the inventor to Almondnet Inc., which appears to be an operating company.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Almondnet Inc. is not identified as a known asserter on public NPE lists, nor do the provided search results indicate this.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present. There is only one recorded assignment, handled by G. E. Bethel.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. Only one assignment is recorded.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. While the patent has been involved in litigation, there is no assignment recorded within six months prior to any of the listed litigation events. The earliest priority date is 2006-06-16, and the filing date is 2014-03-07. The earliest listed litigation appears to be 2016 (e.g., US case filed in New York Eastern District Court, 1:16-cv-01557), which is well after the 2014 assignment.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No indication of bankruptcy for Almondnet Inc.
7. Privateering — unclear. There is no publicly available information in the provided context to suggest privateering.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not end at any known defensive aggregators.

Verdict

Insufficient data. Only a single assignment from the inventor to the original assignee, Almondnet Inc., is recorded. This assignment is a typical step in the patenting process and does not exhibit any strong NPE patterns. While the patent has been involved in litigation, the assignment record itself does not provide evidence of shell entities, known asserters, or other common NPE signals.

USPTO Assignment Center search: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

The US patent 8959146, titled "Media properties selection method and system based on expected profit from profile-based ad delivery," cites a significant number of prior art documents. The core inventive concept of US8959146 revolves around calculating an expected profit from delivering ads based on a collected user profile and then selecting media properties and arranging for a tag to be placed only if this calculated profit is positive. The claims specifically highlight a "condition" for ad display, which, in preferred embodiments, is tied to this profit calculation (e.g., price charged by media property < profile-attribute-dependent price an advertiser is willing to pay).

Below are analyses of some of the most relevant prior art cited by US8959146, focusing on patents that predate its priority date of June 16, 2006, and address the field of online advertising, user profiling, and ad delivery. Due to the extensive number of citations, particularly a large block of Google Inc. applications filed around 2006, a representative selection has been made to highlight distinct contributions to the art.

Most Relevant Prior Art for US8959146

1. US5948061 - Method of delivery, targeting, and measuring advertising over networks

• Full Citation: US5948061 A, Inventor(s): Kevin J. O'Connor, Dwight A. Merriman, Assignee: Doubleclick Inc.
• Publication/Filing Date: Published: September 7, 1999; Filed: March 20, 1997.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a method and system for delivering, targeting, and measuring advertisements over a network, such as the internet. It details compiling statistics on individual users and networks, tracking advertisement usage, and targeting ads to individual users. An advertising server transmits appropriate advertisements based on user and network profiling in response to requests from affiliated sites. This is highly relevant to the background discussion of DoubleClick's "Boomerang" system, which tracks visitors across sites using cookies to serve targeted ads.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent broadly discloses systems for collecting user information (profiling) and delivering targeted ads across networks, a fundamental aspect of US8959146. It likely anticipates the general concepts of:
  • Receiving profile attributes of an electronic visitor (implicitly through compiling statistics).
  • Correlating advertisements with these profile attributes.
  • Displaying advertisements to visitors on a second media property after visiting a first.
    However, US5948061 does not appear to explicitly disclose the condition-based selection of media properties tied to an expected profit calculation (e.g., "price charged by the second media property is less than a profile-attribute-dependent price that an advertiser is willing to pay") as defined in US8959146 claims 2, 18, and 22. Therefore, while it provides a foundational basis for many elements, it may not anticipate the profit-based selection criterion itself.

2. US20040210502A1 - Behaviorally targeted advertising

• Full Citation: US20040210502 A1, Inventor(s): Jonathan D. Shapiro, William M. Gruner, Assignee: Tacoda Inc.
• Publication/Filing Date: Published: October 21, 2004; Filed: April 16, 2003.
• Brief Description: This patent application describes a system and method for behaviorally targeted advertising across multiple websites. It involves collecting and storing user behavioral data, creating user segments based on this data, and then targeting advertisements to users belonging to specific segments when they visit participating websites. It focuses on using aggregated behavioral data to target ads to users identified by anonymous identifiers (e.g., cookies).
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference anticipates elements related to:
  • Collecting profile attributes (behavioral data) of electronic visitors across a first media property (implicitly, as part of collecting behavioral data from various sites).
  • Using this profile information to target advertisements.
  • Delivering ads on a second media property.
    Similar to US5948061, this patent application lays groundwork for behavioral targeting and profile-based ad delivery. However, it does not explicitly describe the "indicia of a condition" that relates to an expected profit being sent to a third-party server, nor the automatic selection of media properties based on this profit criterion, as found in independent claims 1, 17, 21, and further detailed in dependent claims 2, 18, and 22 of US8959146.

3. US7603332B2 - Methods and systems for directing profile-based electronic advertisements to visitors who later visit media properties

• Full Citation: US7603332 B2, Inventor(s): Roy Shkedi, Assignee: Almondnet Inc.
• Publication/Filing Date: Published: October 13, 2009; Filed: June 14, 2006.
• Brief Description: This patent, assigned to Almondnet Inc. (the same assignee as US8959146) and sharing an inventor, was filed just two days before the priority date of US8959146. It describes a method and system for directing profile-based electronic advertisements to visitors who later visit media properties. It involves receiving profile information about a visitor to a first media property and sending this profile information to a server associated with a second media property. This allows the second media property to deliver a correlated advertisement to the visitor. The key distinction from later patents (like US8959146) would likely be the lack of explicit profit-based selection as a central condition.
• Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Given its close filing date, shared assignee, and inventor, this patent is highly relevant. It directly anticipates:
  • Receiving profile information of an electronic visitor to a first media property.
  • Directing information (profile information) to a third-party server computer controlling advertising space on a second media property.
  • Displaying an advertisement to the electronic visitor when visiting the second media property.
  • The advertisement being correlated with the profile attributes.
    However, the abstract and claims of US7603332B2 do not explicitly mention the "indicia of a condition" being directed that relates to an expected profit calculation for the selection of the second media property. US7603332B2 focuses on sending the profile information itself for ad delivery, whereas US8959146 focuses on sending indicia of a condition (derived from a profit calculation) to guide ad placement and selection of media properties. This distinction around the condition and profit-based selection would be the key area for non-anticipation for US8959146 claims 1, 17, 21, and particularly 2, 18, 22.

In summary, earlier patents and applications (like US5948061 and US20040210502A1) establish the general field of behavioral targeting and cross-site ad delivery, but they do not appear to explicitly include the specific "expected profit" calculation as a condition for media property selection and ad delivery as claimed in US8959146. Even the closely related US7603332B2, while covering many aspects of profile-based ad delivery, does not seem to explicitly include the profit-based selection condition. The novelty of US8959146 likely lies in this explicit profit-driven decision-making process for selecting media properties and arranging ad delivery.

The obviousness of US patent 8959146 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 can be analyzed by combining the publicly available information regarding prior art, as described within the patent's own "Background of the Invention" section, with general knowledge in the field of computer automation and business optimization as of the priority date (June 16, 2006) [cite: "Prior art date 2006-06-16"]. A Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art (PHOSITA) in online advertising systems would be motivated to combine these elements to address known inefficiencies.

Prior Art Components

The patent itself describes the following as prior art or existing conditions:

1. DoubleClick's "Boomerang" System: This service places cookies on visitors' computers at an advertiser's site (a first media property) to identify and target those visitors with additional ads when they visit other sites where DoubleClick serves ads (a second media property). [cite: "DoubleClick's 'Boomerang' is a service for advertisers that places a cookie on computers of visitors to an advertiser's site for the purpose of finding those visitors on other sites where DoubleClick is the ad server ('ad' is short for advertisement). When the same visitors are found on those other sites, additional advertiser's ads are served to them by the DoubleClick ad sever or by the advertiser's ad server following a redirect from the DoubleClick ad server."]. The system uses redirection to allow DoubleClick to place and read its own cookies for cross-site recognition and ad serving. [cite: "For a site to have its ad served by an ASP-hosted ad server, such as the one operated by DoubleClick, the site needs to redirect visitors from the site to the DoubleClick ad server, to fetch the ad from the server. Following the redirect from the site, the visitor accesses the DoubleClick ad server. Because the DoubleClick server is operating under the DoubleClick domain, it can read the DoubleClick cookie or cookies and then recognize that it encountered the same visitor in the past."].
2. Behavioral Targeting (BT) Companies (e.g., AlmondNet, Tacoda, RevenueScience): These companies specialize in targeting ads based on observed visitor behavior and collected profile information (behavioral, demographic, or user-provided) from a first media property. [cite: "AlmondNet, Tacoda, RevenueScience, and other companies (herein 'BT companies'; 'BT' stands for behavioral targeting) specialize in targeting ads based on observed behavior of sites' visitors.", "a BT company may also collect other kinds of profile information, such as demographic information or user-provided information, and target ads to those visitors wherever found based on the collected profile information."]. They place cookies or tags on visitors' computers and can either directly serve ads on sites where their software is used or buy media on other sites/ad networks to deliver targeted ads. [cite: "BT companies place a cookie (or cookies) on the computers of visitors to specific sections of a publisher's website or on the computers of visitors of the publisher who conducted a specific action such as search, click content, click an ad, request information, acquire a product, etc.", "Those ads will be presented to the visitors when they are found later on the same site or on other sites."]. They also engage in "cookie matching" to enable second media properties to recognize visitors tagged by BT companies. [cite: "This process—where sites and ad networks place cookies on visitors' computers redirected to them by BT companies (or other entities interested in additional ads presented to their audience elsewhere)—is sometimes referred to as 'cookie matching.'"].
3. Known Economic Inefficiencies in Ad Placement: The patent explicitly identifies issues with prior art ad delivery, stating that "Profiles of media properties' visitors are worth different amounts to advertisers depending on the profiles." [cite: "Profiles of media properties' visitors are worth different amounts to advertisers depending on the profiles."]. It provides examples of varying advertiser willingness to pay for ads based on specific profiles (e.g., $3 for a mortgage-related click, $0.50 for socks, $25 CPM for mutual fund visitors). [cite: "For example, a person who searched for a mortgage on a search engine might be presented with a mortgage-related ad, for which the advertiser is willing to pay $3 if that person clicks on that ad. A person who searched for socks on a search engine might be presented with a socks-related ad, for which the advertiser is willing to pay $0.50 if that person clicks on that ad. A person who visited the mutual fund section of a site might be presented with a mutual-fund related ad (wherever the person is found, i.e., either on the same site or on other sites), in which case the advertiser is willing to pay $25 for every thousand ads (CPM) presented to people who visited that mutual fund section."]. Furthermore, it acknowledges that "Media properties' ad space prices vary" [cite: "Media properties' ad space prices vary."], and crucially, that "the cost of ad space at a second media property might not be covered by revenues generated for a BT company buying the space" or might not "deliver satisfactory margins to the BT company." [cite: "In summary, the cost of ad space at a second media property might not be covered by revenues generated for a BT company buying the space, i.e., from an ad delivered within the second media property ad space based on a profile collected in a first media property or properties. Alternatively, the revenues might cover the media cost but not deliver satisfactory margins to the BT company, when taking into account other costs, such as ad sales people cost, ad serving cost etc."]. This clearly articulates the problem of potential financial loss or insufficient profit in targeted ad delivery.

Obviousness Analysis of Claims

Independent Claims 1, 17, and 21

Independent claims 1 (method), 17 (device), and 21 (system) generally recite:

• Directing indicia of a condition to a third-party server controlling advertising space on a second media property.
• The condition relates to an electronic visitor for ad display when visiting the second media property after the first media property, subject to the condition being met.
• Directing the indicia is based on profile attributes received from the first media property visit.
• The advertisement is correlated with the profile attributes.

These broad aspects appear obvious in light of the known practices of DoubleClick's Boomerang and BT companies as described in the patent's background. These prior art systems already involved:

• Tracking visitors and forming profiles: BT companies explicitly collected profile attributes based on visitor actions on a first media property. [cite: "BT companies place a cookie (or cookies) on the computers of visitors to specific sections of a publisher's website or on the computers of visitors of the publisher who conducted a specific action such as search, click content, click an ad, request information, acquire a product, etc."].
• Cross-site recognition and ad delivery: Both DoubleClick and BT companies aimed to find these profiled visitors on subsequent visits to second media properties and deliver ads. [cite: "DoubleClick's 'Boomerang'... for the purpose of finding those visitors on other sites where DoubleClick is the ad server", "Those ads will be presented to the visitors when they are found later on the same site or on other sites."].
• "Indicia of a condition": The act of placing a cookie/tag or redirecting a visitor (as done by DoubleClick and BT companies for "cookie matching") inherently serves as an "indicia" to the second media property that a specific visitor with a profile (or a category of profile) has been identified, and an ad can be displayed if suitable. [cite: "BT companies enable sites and ad networks... to also place their cookies on the computers of people (visitors) on whose computers the BT company has placed its own cookie."]. The correlation of ads with profiles was the very purpose of these systems.

A PHOSITA in 2006 would understand that these core functionalities were standard practice in the behavioral targeting industry.

Dependent Claims, particularly Claim 2 (and 18, 22)

Claim 2, and its device/system counterparts (claims 18 and 22), narrows the "condition" to: "a price charged by the second media property is less than a profile-attribute-dependent price that an advertiser is willing to pay for display of the advertisement."

This specific condition introduces the profit calculation and selection based on profitability, which the patent highlights as a solution to a prior art problem.

Combination and Motivation for Claim 2:

1. Prior Art 1: Existing BT company practices: This provides the established framework for identifying visitors, collecting profile information, knowing what advertisers are willing to pay for ads based on those profiles (expected revenue), and understanding the cost of ad space on various media properties. The patent itself states that BT companies would know "how much advertisers are willing to pay for delivering ads" and that it costs them a certain amount (e.g., "$3 CPM") to deliver ads on a specific media property. [cite: "Google calculates that advertisers are willing to pay $ 3 per click on a mortgage-related ad... Google will earn $9 for every thousand mortgage-related ads...", "Google further knows that it costs Google $3 CPM to deliver a thousand ads on weather.com (i.e., 'P(mp)')"].
2. Prior Art 2: General Business and Computer Automation Principles: In 2006, it was well-known in business and computer science to automate decisions based on financial calculations, such as comparing potential revenue against costs to determine profitability. Businesses routinely used computer systems for cost-benefit analysis, pricing, and inventory management to maximize profit and avoid losses. The fundamental concept of "profit = revenue - cost" and only pursuing an activity if profit is positive is a basic economic principle.

Motivation to Combine:
A PHOSITA in the online advertising industry in 2006 would have been explicitly motivated to combine these prior art elements due to the known and clearly articulated financial inefficiencies of the existing BT systems. The patent itself identifies this motivation: "the cost of ad space at a second media property might not be covered by revenues generated... the revenues might cover the media cost but not deliver satisfactory margins..." [cite: "In summary, the cost of ad space at a second media property might not be covered by revenues generated for a BT company buying the space, i.e., from an ad delivered within the second media property ad space based on a profile collected in a first media property or properties. Alternatively, the revenues might cover the media cost but not deliver satisfactory margins to the BT company, when taking into account other costs, such as ad sales people cost, ad serving cost etc."].

Given that BT companies already possessed the necessary data points (advertiser willingness to pay for specific profiles, and the cost of ad space on different media properties), it would be an obvious step for a PHOSITA to:

• Automate the calculation of expected profit (or at least a comparison of expected revenue vs. cost) for each potential ad placement to a profiled visitor on a second media property.
• Incorporate this calculation into the existing ad delivery workflow as a "condition" for proceeding with the ad placement or tagging arrangement.
• For instance, if an advertiser is willing to pay $9 CPM for a mortgage-related ad and the media property charges $3 CPM, a PHOSITA would obviously program the system to proceed, as this yields a profit ($6 CPM). [cite: "Google therefore can calculate a profit of $6 CPM... for delivering a thousand mortgage-related ads to Google visitors... when found later within the ad space of weather.com. Google will therefore arrange for weather.com to tag the person..."]. Conversely, if the cost exceeded the potential revenue, the system would obviously be programmed to not proceed, thus avoiding a loss.

This combination applies a basic, well-understood business optimization principle to a known technical domain where the need for such optimization was already recognized.

Other Dependent Claims

• Claim 3 (specified time period for display): The patent acknowledges that "some kind of profiles such as behavioral profiles are time-sensitive (in other words, their value diminishes with time)." [cite: "Given that some kind of profiles such as behavioral profiles are time-sensitive (in other words, their value diminishes with time)..."]. It would be an obvious commercial decision for a PHOSITA to set a time limit for ad delivery based on a profile's diminishing value to ensure profitability and resource efficiency.
• Claim 4 (look-up data structure): The use of "look-up table[s]" or other "data structure[s]" for efficiently storing and retrieving pre-calculated information (like expected revenues, profits, and selected media properties) is a fundamental computer science technique. [cite: "A look-up table can be used that lists, based on the kind of profile, the media properties that should be selected."]. A PHOSITA would routinely apply such structures to optimize the speed and efficiency of any automated decision-making system.
• Claims 10, 13, 19, 23 (arranging for placement of a tag): The placement of tags (e.g., cookies) on a visitor's device, or arranging for a second media property to do so via redirection, was a core method described in the patent's background for cross-site behavioral targeting by DoubleClick and BT companies. [cite: "BT companies place a cookie (or cookies) on the computers of visitors to specific sections of a publisher's website", "The BT company 30 can redirect ( 630 ) a visitor to the selected media property 40 , 50 with a request to have the selected media property 40 , 50 tag ( 620 ) the visitor with the media property's own tag"].
• Claims 12, 14, 20, 24 (indicia in URL for redirection): Passing information via URL parameters during electronic redirects was a common and well-known method in web technology by 2006. [cite: "The BT company 30 can redirect ( 630 ) a visitor to the selected media property 40 , 50 ...", "The BT company 30 —in addition to arranging the placement of a tag readable by the second media property 40 , 50 —may also provide the second media property 40 , 50 (via the tag, for example) with a time period within which the BT company 30 will agree to deliver ads..."]. Using this mechanism to convey conditions for ad display would be an obvious application.
• Claim 15 (different medium): The patent notes the possibility of cross-media targeting (e.g., website to TV channel) and the use of personal identifiable information to achieve this. [cite: "The media properties can be of the same kind of media... or of different media (e.g., first media property can be a web site 40 on the Internet 80 , and the second media property can be a TV channel on TV or a text message system on a mobile phone, etc.)."]. While the implementation details might vary, the general concept of identifying users across different devices based on known information was a recognized goal in advertising.
• Claim 16 (temporary control of ad space): The patent's background explicitly describes that "An ad space can be... made available by a web site to an ad network... only when the web site did not sell all of the site's ad inventory." [cite: "An ad space can be a fixed position on a page, or the ad space can be made available by a web site to an ad network (for example) only when the web site did not sell all of the site's ad inventory and therefore wishes to make some of the inventory available to the ad network."]. This was a known operating model for ad networks and, as such, would be obvious to incorporate into any ad delivery system.

In conclusion, the independent claims broadly cover existing behavioral targeting techniques. The dependent claims, particularly Claim 2, describe the application of fundamental economic principles (profit calculation) to these known technical systems, utilizing data points (advertiser value, media cost) that were already known or ascertainable by prior art BT companies. The motivation to combine these elements is clearly articulated within the patent's background as a solution to recognized financial inefficiencies in online advertising.

I'll research US Patent 8959146's term adjustments, family members, and expiration. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me dig deeper into the specific term adjustment and the front-page data for this patent.

Patent Term, Continuation Lineage, and Expiration Analysis — US 8,959,146

Scope note / evidence limitation: My searches did not return the USPTO Patent Center "Patent Term Adjustment" tab for application 14/201,494, nor a scan of the printed front page of US 8,959,146 itself. What follows distinguishes (a) facts I could verify from the fetched patent text and retrieved sources, from (b) inferences drawn from those facts, and (c) items I could not verify. I have not fabricated a PTA day count.

---

1. Patent identification (interpreted literally)

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8959146/en

---

2. Continuation lineage (the "parents" of US 8,959,146)

The specification's CROSS REFERENCE section recites the chain explicitly, and it is confirmed by the bibliographic continuations data:

Accordingly, US 8,959,146 is a continuation (not a CIP, not a divisional), and it claims the benefit of the 2007-06-14 non-provisional filing date under 35 U.S.C. § 120.

Why this matters for term: under § 154(a)(2), the 20-year term of a continuation is measured from the earliest U.S. non-provisional application in the § 120 chain — here 2007-06-14 (US 11/763,286). The 2006 provisional filings do not start the 20-year clock. Therefore:

20-year statutory date = 2027-06-14 (2007-06-14 + 20 years)

This exactly matches the "2027-06-14 anticipated expiration" shown on Google Patents — i.e., no PTA appears to have been added on top of the 20-year date (see § 5).

Typo/artifact to flag

The Google Patents family block lists two "Related Parent Applications": US13/491,454 (Continuation) and US13941454 (Continuation). Per the operating rule to interpret identifiers literally, I report both as listed — but US13941454 is almost certainly a formatting/OCR artifact of 13/491,454 (the dates are identical: 2012-06-07). Flagging this as a data artifact, not a real second parent.

---

3. Continuation/child applications and related family members

The fetched record lists 15 family applications (family ID 38832126). Every member downstream of the '146 is a continuation:

Key point: the family is a long-running continuation-only chain — a single specification repeatedly re-filed with claim sets of varying scope (the later titles shift the emphasis to "condition-based" and "privacy-sensitive" limitations, and later members extend into streaming video / video stream ad space). None of the families I reviewed recite a divisional relationship.

---

4. Divisional applications

None identified. Based on the fetched family data, every relationship in this family is "Continuation." I found no evidence of a divisional application (or a CPA) anywhere in the § 120 chain. Caveat: I could not inspect the full patent-family tree in the USPTO Patent Center / Global Dossier for every member, so I state this as "not identified in the retrieved data" rather than an absolute negative.

---

5. Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) — 35 U.S.C. § 154(b)

What I could verify: I could not retrieve the PTA certificate/day count for 14/201,494. I will not guess a number.

What the evidence indicates:

• The application was filed 2014-03-07 and issued 2015-02-17 — roughly 11.5 months of pendency. There was therefore no "B delay" (issue is not later than 3 years from filing), and any "A delay" would have to be small.
• Google Patents lists no adjustment in its expiration line, showing 2027-06-14, which is exactly the 20-year date from the 2007-06-14 parent with zero days added. If a PTA certificate had extended the term, the listed expiration would be later than 2027-06-14.

Strong corroborating pattern in the same family: the printed front page of sibling continuation US 9,830,615 B2 states verbatim:

"Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this patent is extended or adjusted under 35 U.S.C. 154(b) by 0 days. This patent is subject to a terminal disclaimer."

Source: http://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/4f/41/a7/7c613977260623/US9830615.pdf

This "0 days" pattern is characteristic of this AlmondNet continuation family — the applications were prosecuted quickly as continuations, so no § 154(b) adjustment accrued.

Contrast — the parent does carry PTA. The Google Patents family table lists US 11/763,286 (US 7,747,745) as "Active 2028-05-13." 2028-05-13 is 334 days after the 2027-06-14 twenty-year date, indicating roughly 334 days of PTA on the original parent. (I report this as the source's indicated date; I could not retrieve the parent's PTA certificate to confirm the exact official figure.)

Practical consequence: the later-filed continuations — including the '146 — expire earlier than the original parent, because the parent's PTA does not flow through to the children. The '146's term is short by ~334 days relative to US 7,747,745.

Caveat: PTA is determined at issue and printed on the front page; it can also be recalculated under 37 C.F.R. § 1.705. Anyone relying on this should pull the front page of US 8,959,146 and the Patent Center PTA tab for 14/201,494.

---

6. Patent Term Extension (PTE) — 35 U.S.C. § 156

Not available; not applicable. A § 156 PTE requires that the patent claim a human drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive whose marketing was delayed by a qualifying FDA regulatory review period. US 8,959,146 claims a computer/network method of directing electronic advertisements (G06Q 30/02, etc.). It is not regulatory-review-eligible subject matter.

Conclusion: no PTE exists or can exist for this patent. (PTE is additionally capped at 5 years and cannot extend total life beyond 14 years from product approval — none of which is relevant here.)

---

7. Terminal disclaimer

I could not verify whether US 8,959,146 itself is subject to a terminal disclaimer. However, sibling continuation US 9,830,615 expressly carries one ("This patent is subject to a terminal disclaimer"), which is consistent with the examiner having raised non-statutory double patenting between patentably indistinct claims in this continuation family. Terminal disclaimers in this family would operate to tie the disclaimed patents' term to the reference patent, and (per Cellect-era practice) can affect enforceability of the disclaimed patents. This should be verified on the '146's front page / Patent Center documents before relying on term.

---

8. Projected expiration date and maintenance fees

Projected expiration: 2027-06-14 (Google Patents "Anticipated expiration"), i.e.:

2007-06-14 (earliest non-provisional parent filing) + 20 years = 2027-06-14, plus 0 days PTA (inferred), no PTE.

Maintenance fees under 35 U.S.C. § 41(b), counted from the 2015-02-17 issue date:

Because the projected expiration (2027-06-14) falls shortly after the 11.5-year fee date, payment of the 11.5-year maintenance fee is what will carry the patent to its projected 2027-06-14 expiration. The "Active" legal status in the source data reflects the last-recorded state and does not by itself prove the 11.5-year fee has been paid.

---

9. Summary table

Cross-reference / contradiction check against earlier sections: The earlier "Patent summary" listed the anticipated expiration as June 14, 2027 — consistent with this analysis. No contradictions found, with one data-quality flag: the "Related Parent Applications" list contains both US13/491,454 and US13941454; the latter is treated as an artifact of the former rather than a genuine second parent.

Items I could not verify and would require USPTO source documents: (1) the actual PTA certificate/day count on the '146's front page; (2) whether the '146 carries a terminal disclaimer; (3) confirmation of maintenance-fee payments; (4) the complete family tree via Global Dossier.

Defensive Disclosure: US Patent 8959146 - Media Properties Selection Method and System Based on Expected Profit from Profile-Based Ad Delivery

This document describes derivative variations and combination prior art scenarios for US Patent 8959146, focusing on expanding the scope and rendering potential future improvements obvious or non-novel to a person having ordinary skill in the art. The analysis is presented from the perspective of an inventor specializing in the art, with a focus on technical enabling descriptions and architectural illustrations.

---

Derivatives of Core Claim 1 (Method for Directing Electronic Advertisements)

The core of Claim 1 involves: (a) automatically directing indicia of a condition to a third-party server controlling advertising space on a second media property for display of an advertisement to an electronic visitor; (b) this direction is based on profile attributes received from the visitor's interaction with a first media property; and (c) the advertisement is correlated with these profile attributes. The derivatives explore variations across the specified axes.

1. Material & Component Substitution

Derivative 1.1: WebAssembly (Wasm) Client-Side Condition Evaluation

• Enabling Description: Instead of a server-side decision to direct "indicia of a condition," the behavioral targeting (BT) company's computer system generates a small, secure WebAssembly (Wasm) module. This Wasm module encapsulates the decision logic for the "condition" (e.g., Rev(profile) > P(mp) + C + Mar) and anonymized, encrypted profile attributes. This module, rather than a traditional cookie, is transferred to the electronic visitor's browser when they interact with the first media property. When the visitor subsequently accesses a second media property, the Wasm module executes client-side, communicating directly with the second media property's ad rendering engine (or a local proxy) to evaluate the condition and signal whether an ad correlated with the encrypted profile should be displayed, without transmitting raw profile data back to the BT company or the second media property server. Decryption keys for specific ad campaigns are securely provisioned to authorized rendering engines or through a trusted execution environment on the client.

sequenceDiagram
    participant V as Visitor Browser
    participant FMP as First Media Property
    participant BTC as BT Company System
    participant SMP as Second Media Property

    V->>FMP: Access First Media Property
    FMP->>BTC: Profile Data Collected (via JS/Pixel)
    BTC->>V: Send Encrypted Wasm Module + Profile (Secure Channel)
    Note over V,BTC: Wasm module contains condition logic and encrypted profile.
    V->>SMP: Access Second Media Property
    V->>V: Execute Wasm Module
    V->>SMP: Wasm Module Evaluates Condition (e.g., profit positive) and Signals Ad Request
    SMP->>BTC: Request Correlated Ad (with Wasm-generated signal, no raw profile)
    BTC->>SMP: Deliver Correlated Ad
    SMP->>V: Display Ad

Derivative 1.2: Homomorphic Encryption for Profile Attributes

• Enabling Description: The profile attributes collected from the first media property are immediately homomorphically encrypted by the BT company's system. The "indicia of a condition" directed to the third-party server on the second media property consists of these encrypted profile attributes along with an encrypted representation of the profit threshold or time limit. The third-party server, without decrypting the sensitive profile data, can perform computations (e.g., comparing encrypted ad space cost with encrypted expected revenue) on the homomorphically encrypted values to determine if the condition is met. The ad selection process for correlation can also operate on the encrypted profile attributes using specialized privacy-preserving matching algorithms, ensuring that no party other than the original data collector (BT company) or an authorized, secure enclave ever sees the plaintext profile.

flowchart TD
    subgraph BT Company System
        A[Collect Profile] --> B{Encrypt Profile (Homomorphic)}
        B --> C{Encrypt Condition Logic (e.g., Profit Formula)}
    end

    subgraph Third-Party Server (Second Media Property)
        D{Receive Encrypted Profile + Condition}
        C --> D
        D --> E{Perform Encrypted Computation (on condition)}
        E -- Condition Met --> F[Request Encrypted Ad Match]
        E -- Condition Not Met --> G[Display Default Content]
    end

    subgraph Ad Server
        H[Receive Encrypted Ad Match Request]
        F --> H
        H --> I{Match Encrypted Ad with Encrypted Profile}
        I --> J[Deliver Encrypted Ad]
    end

    J --> K[Client Decrypts and Displays Ad];

2. Operational Parameter Expansion

Derivative 2.1: Ultra-High Frequency Real-Time Bidding (RTB) Integration

• Enabling Description: The method is expanded to operate within an ultra-high frequency Real-Time Bidding (RTB) exchange. The "indicia of a condition" includes a dynamic bid price and latency requirement (e.g., sub-50ms response time) associated with a highly granular, short-lived profile attribute (e.g., "user just scrolled past product X at price Y"). The BT company's computer system, employing FPGA-accelerated or GPU-accelerated micro-services, constantly re-evaluates profit based on real-time market data from the RTB exchange and instantly updates the bid and condition for millions of ad impressions per second. This necessitates extremely low-latency profile attribute processing and condition evaluation, with results pre-cached or delivered via low-latency protocols like gRPC to the third-party server (Demand-Side Platform or Supply-Side Platform).

flowchart TD
    subgraph BT Company System (Ultra-Low Latency)
        A[Real-time Profile Stream] --> B(FPGA/GPU Accelerator: Condition Engine)
        B --> C{Dynamic Bid Price + Latency Requirement}
    end

    subgraph RTB Exchange
        D[Bid Request Stream (Millions/sec)] --> E{Evaluate Bids & Conditions}
        C --> E
        E -- Condition Met & Bid Won --> F[Signal Ad Delivery]
        E -- Condition Not Met / Bid Lost --> G[No Ad Delivery]
    end

    subgraph Third-Party Server (Ad Server)
        F --> H[Prepare & Serve Ad]
        H --> I[Display Ad to Visitor]
    end

Derivative 2.2: Long-Term Predictive Profile Modeling for Campaign Planning

• Enabling Description: The BT company's computer system utilizes advanced machine learning models (e.g., recurrent neural networks or transformer models) trained on historical, anonymized visitor behavior data to predict long-term (e.g., 6-12 months) profile attribute evolution and associated expected profits. The "indicia of a condition" communicated to third-party media property servers now includes a "predicted long-term value" score and a campaign start/end date range. This allows for proactive media buying and budget allocation for future campaigns, where the condition for display of an advertisement is not immediate profitability but rather alignment with a projected future high-value profile segment. This operates at a much lower frequency (e.g., weekly or monthly updates) compared to real-time targeting.

graph TD
    A[Historical Profile Data] --> B(ML Model Training - Predictive Analytics)
    B --> C{Predictive Profile Attributes & Long-Term Profit}
    C --> D[Generate Long-Term Condition Indicia (e.g., LTV Score, Campaign Dates)]
    D --> E[Third-Party Server (Media Planner/Ad Server)]
    E --> F[Allocate Ad Inventory for Future Campaigns]
    F --> G[Display Ads to Matched Future Profiles]

3. Cross-Domain Application

Derivative 3.1: Personalized Medical Intervention Reminders in Digital Health

• Enabling Description: In a digital health context, the "first media property" is a patient portal or telehealth platform where a visitor's health profile (e.g., medication adherence, recent lab results, chronic condition status) is collected. The BT company's system (here, a healthcare analytics platform) generates "indicia of a condition" (e.g., "patient requires medication reminder," "patient due for follow-up") based on this profile and medical guidelines. This indicia is directed to a third-party server controlling "advertising space" on a "second media property" such as a smart medication dispenser app, a smart display in a clinic waiting room, or a smart wearable device. The "advertisement" is a personalized, context-sensitive health intervention reminder or educational content, displayed only if the condition (e.g., critical adherence gap, next appointment within 24 hours, insurance coverage for specific wellness program) is met.

flowchart TD
    A[Patient Portal / Telehealth (First Media Property)] --> B(Health Analytics Platform - BT Company System)
    B -- Collects Health Profile (Medication, Labs) --> B
    B -- Generates Condition Indicia (e.g., Reminder_Needed, FollowUp_Due) --> C[Third-Party Server (Smart Health Device Mgmt)]
    C --> D[Smart Medication Dispenser App (Second Media Property)]
    C --> E[Clinic Smart Display (Second Media Property)]
    C --> F[Smart Wearable (Second Media Property)]
    D & E & F -- Condition Met --> G[Display Personalized Health Reminder/Content]

Derivative 3.2: Dynamic Public Service Announcements (PSAs) in Smart Cities

• Enabling Description: In a smart city environment, the "first media property" is an aggregated, anonymized data stream from urban IoT sensors (e.g., traffic flow, air quality monitors, public transport usage, event attendance). The BT company's system (a city management platform) collects this anonymized "profile information" about the city's status and citizen movements. It then directs "indicia of a condition" (e.g., "congestion alert needed for sector A," "air quality advisory for vulnerable groups," "event capacity nearing limit") to third-party servers controlling "advertising space" on "second media properties" like smart public billboards, digital signage on public transport, or in-app notifications from municipal apps. The "advertisement" is a dynamic PSA or targeted commercial message, displayed only if the derived city condition and target audience profile (e.g., commuters in sector A, residents with respiratory issues) are met.

graph LR
    A[Urban IoT Sensors (Traffic, Air Quality) - First Media Property] --> B(City Management Platform - BT Company System)
    B -- Aggregates Anonymized City Profile --> B
    B -- Generates Condition Indicia (e.g., Congestion_Alert, AQ_Advisory) --> C[Third-Party Server (Digital Signage Network)]
    C --> D[Smart Public Billboards (Second Media Property)]
    C --> E[Public Transport Screens (Second Media Property)]
    C --> F[Municipal Mobile App (Second Media Property)]
    D & E & F -- Condition Met --> G[Display Dynamic PSA/Targeted Message]

Derivative 3.3: Predictive Maintenance Alerts in Industrial IoT

• Enabling Description: In an Industrial IoT setting, the "first media property" is a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system or a Manufacturing Execution System (MES) collecting real-time operational data (e.g., vibration levels, temperature, throughput) from industrial machinery. The BT company's system (a predictive maintenance platform) collects this equipment "profile information." It then directs "indicia of a condition" (e.g., "Machine X failure probability > 80% in 24h," "Operator Y requires training on new protocol") to a third-party server controlling "advertising space" on "second media properties" such as operator HMI panels, augmented reality (AR) headsets worn by technicians, or industrial smart displays. The "advertisement" is a critical maintenance alert, a specific troubleshooting guide, or an urgent training module, displayed only if the condition (e.g., predictive failure threshold exceeded, safety protocol update) is met, correlated with the specific machine's profile or operator's skill profile.

flowchart TD
    A[SCADA/MES (Machine Data) - First Media Property] --> B(Predictive Maintenance Platform - BT Company System)
    B -- Collects Equipment Profile (Vibration, Temp) --> B
    B -- Generates Condition Indicia (e.g., High_Failure_Risk, Training_Required) --> C[Third-Party Server (Industrial Display Mgmt)]
    C --> D[Operator HMI Panel (Second Media Property)]
    C --> E[AR Headset Display (Second Media Property)]
    C --> F[Industrial Smart Display (Second Media Property)]
    D & E & F -- Condition Met --> G[Display Maintenance Alert/Training Module]

4. Integration with Emerging Tech

Derivative 4.1: AI-Driven Reinforcement Learning for Profit Optimization

• Enabling Description: The BT company's computer system incorporates a reinforcement learning (RL) agent that continuously learns and adapts the "indicia of a condition," specifically the dynamic pricing models (P(mp)) and profit margins (Mar), for each unique profile attribute and media property combination. The RL agent receives real-time feedback on ad performance (e.g., click-through rates, conversion rates, actual revenue generated) as its "reward signal." It dynamically adjusts the parameters of the condition (e.g., optimal bid price, impression frequency caps, time-to-live for profiles) to maximize long-term expected profit across the entire ad inventory, even for rare or transient profile attributes. The "indicia of a condition" directed to the third-party server then becomes a sophisticated policy derived from the RL agent's current model.

graph TD
    A[Visitor to First Media Property] --> B(Profile Data Collection)
    B --> C{Reinforcement Learning Agent (BT Company System)}
    C -- Real-time Ad Performance Feedback --> C
    C -- Policy Update (Optimal Bid, Frequency, TTL) --> D[Generate Condition Indicia]
    D --> E[Third-Party Server (Second Media Property)]
    E -- Condition Met --> F[Display Correlated Ad]
    F --> G[Ad Performance (Reward Signal)]
    G --> C

Derivative 4.2: IoT Sensor-Triggered Edge Ad Delivery

• Enabling Description: The "first media property" is an IoT sensor network (e.g., smart retail store beacons, smart home hubs) that collects granular, real-time contextual and behavioral "profile attributes" (e.g., visitor proximity to a product, gaze duration, spoken keywords detected locally via privacy-preserving acoustic analysis). An edge computing device (e.g., a mini-PC in the store, a smart TV with local processing capabilities) acts as the "BT company system." It processes these real-time attributes, calculates expected profit, and directly transmits "indicia of a condition" (e.g., "display discount for item X for visitor ID 123 for next 30 seconds") to local "second media properties" such as in-store digital signage, smart mirror displays, or the visitor's connected mobile device. All processing and condition evaluation happen at the edge, minimizing latency and enhancing privacy by avoiding centralized data transfer.

flowchart LR
    A[IoT Sensors (Beacons, Cameras, Mics) - First Media Property] --> B(Edge Computing Device - BT Company System)
    B -- Real-time Contextual Profile --> B
    B -- Calculates Profit & Generates Indicia --> C[Local Digital Signage (Second Media Property)]
    B --> D[Smart Mirror Display (Second Media Property)]
    B --> E[Visitor Mobile App (Second Media Property)]
    C & D & E -- Condition Met --> F[Display Hyper-Targeted Ad]

Derivative 4.3: Blockchain-Verified Consent and Condition Enforcement

• Enabling Description: The consent for collecting profile attributes and for subsequent ad delivery is managed via a decentralized identity (DID) system and recorded on a blockchain. When an electronic visitor interacts with the "first media property," their profile attributes are pseudonymized and cryptographically linked to their DID. The "indicia of a condition" (e.g., profit threshold, time limit, data usage policy) is encoded as a smart contract on a permissioned blockchain. The BT company's system, when directing this indicia to the third-party server, includes a transaction hash referencing the active smart contract. The third-party server verifies the condition by querying the blockchain and executing the smart contract, which ensures that ad delivery adheres to the visitor's expressed consent and the predefined terms, providing auditable transparency for all parties.

sequenceDiagram
    participant V as Visitor
    participant FMP as First Media Property
    participant BTC as BT Company System
    participant TPS as Third-Party Server (Second Media Property)
    participant BC as Blockchain

    V->>FMP: Access FMP
    FMP->>BTC: Collect Profile (Pseudonymized)
    V->>BC: Record Consent (DID + Profile Access Policy)
    BTC->>BC: Deploy/Update Smart Contract (Condition Logic)
    BTC->>TPS: Direct Indicia of Condition (Smart Contract Ref, Encrypted Profile)
    TPS->>BC: Verify Condition (Execute Smart Contract, Check Consent)
    alt Condition Met
        TPS->>BTC: Request Correlated Ad
        BTC->>TPS: Deliver Correlated Ad
        TPS->>V: Display Ad
    else Condition Not Met
        TPS->>V: Display Default Content
    end

5. The "Inverse" or Failure Mode

Derivative 5.1: Privacy-by-Default/Low-Power Anonymized Ad Delivery

• Enabling Description: The system is designed with a "privacy-by-default" mode. If explicit, opt-in consent for profile-based targeting is not received from the electronic visitor, or if the visitor's device signals a low-power state (e.g., battery < 10%), the BT company's system automatically switches to a limited-functionality mode. In this mode, the "indicia of a condition" directed to the third-party server will specifically instruct to only display anonymized, contextual advertisements (e.g., based on the current page content rather than user profile) or public service announcements. The profit calculation in this mode defaults to a minimum threshold (potentially zero or negative, if displaying PSAs has a cost for the BT company), preventing expensive profile-based ad delivery when privacy preferences or resource constraints dictate a different approach. The tag placed on the visitor (if any) would be a generic "context-only" identifier.

stateDiagram
    [*] --> InitialState
    InitialState --> ProfileCollected: Profile Collected
    ProfileCollected --> EvaluateConsent:
    EvaluateConsent --> ConsentOptedIn: User Opts In
    EvaluateConsent --> ConsentNotOptedIn: User Opts Out / No Consent

    ConsentOptedIn --> DevicePowerCheck:
    DevicePowerCheck --> DeviceHighPower: Device > 10% Battery
    DevicePowerCheck --> DeviceLowPower: Device <= 10% Battery

    DeviceHighPower --> ProfitOptimizedAd: Condition = Maximize Profit
    DeviceLowPower --> AnonymizedAd: Condition = Anonymized/Contextual (Low Power)
    ConsentNotOptedIn --> AnonymizedAd: Condition = Anonymized/Contextual (Privacy Default)

    ProfitOptimizedAd --> AdDisplayed: Profile-Based Ad
    AnonymizedAd --> AdDisplayed: Contextual/PSA Ad

    AdDisplayed --> [*]

Derivative 5.2: Data Integrity Failure Mode (Default to No Ad)

• Enabling Description: The BT company's computer system implements continuous data integrity checks (e.g., checksums, cryptographic hashes, anomaly detection on profile data streams). If a data integrity anomaly is detected in the collected profile attributes (e.g., corrupted data, suspicious manipulation, or an attempt to inject malicious profile data), or if the profit calculation module encounters an error (e.g., division by zero, database connection failure, unexpected negative revenue prediction), the system enters a "safe-failure" mode. In this mode, the "indicia of a condition" directed to the third-party server will explicitly convey a "no ad delivery" instruction or a fallback to a default, non-commercial message (e.g., an "error" placeholder or a generic site banner), ensuring that no ad correlated with potentially compromised or erroneous profile information is ever displayed. This prioritizes system stability and user experience over revenue generation in failure scenarios.

flowchart TD
    A[Collect Profile Data] --> B{Data Integrity Check};
    B -- OK --> C{Calculate Expected Profit};
    B -- Integrity Fail --> F[Safe-Failure: No Ad Indicia];

    C -- Profit OK --> D[Generate Condition Indicia (Profit-Based)];
    C -- Calculation Error --> F;

    D --> E[Direct Indicia to Third-Party Server];
    F --> E;

    E --> G{Third-Party Server: Evaluate Indicia};
    G -- Ad Indicia --> H[Display Correlated Ad];
    G -- No Ad Indicia --> I[Display Default Content / Blank Space];

---

Combination Prior Art Scenarios with Open-Source Standards

These scenarios illustrate how the core concepts of US8959146 can be combined with existing open-source standards to create prior art.

1. Integration with OpenRTB (Open Real-Time Bidding) Protocol

• Scenario Description: The method of US8959146, particularly the calculation of expected profit for media property selection, is implemented within a programmatic advertising ecosystem leveraging the OpenRTB (Open Real-Time Bidding) protocol (e.g., version 2.5). The BT company's system acts as a Demand-Side Platform (DSP) or integrates with one. When a Supply-Side Platform (SSP) sends an OpenRTB Bid Request (containing details about the ad impression, user, and context) to the DSP, the DSP (BT company's system) uses its profile information (collected from the first media property) and the profit calculation method to determine a bid price (bidfloor) and a set of bcat (blocked categories) or badv (blocked advertisers) for that specific impression. This bid response, containing the "indicia of a condition" (i.e., the specific bid price, allowed categories, and expiration time), is then directed to the SSP (third-party server) within the OpenRTB framework for display on the second media property. The ext (extensions) field in OpenRTB can carry proprietary "condition" parameters like a calculated profit margin or a profile confidence score.

2. Integration with IAB Transparency and Consent Framework (TCF)

• Scenario Description: The mechanisms for collecting profile attributes from a first media property and arranging for tagging (as described in US8959146) are explicitly designed to be compliant with the IAB Transparency and Consent Framework (TCF) (e.g., TCF 2.2). When a visitor lands on the first media property, the Consent Management Platform (CMP) presents a TCF-compliant consent dialog. The BT company's system receives the visitor's TC String (Transparency and Consent String) along with their profile attributes. The "indicia of a condition" sent to the third-party server (which might also be a vendor registered with TCF) includes the visitor's TC String. This TC String serves as a critical part of the "condition" for ad display; the third-party server must verify that the visitor's consent preferences within the TC String permit the specific type of profile-based ad delivery intended by the BT company before displaying the correlated advertisement. This ensures that profit-driven ad selection respects user privacy choices as communicated through a standardized consent mechanism.

3. Integration with W3C Privacy Sandbox APIs (e.g., Protected Audience API)

• Scenario Description: The method of US8959146 is adapted to operate within a browser environment implementing the W3C Privacy Sandbox, specifically the Protected Audience API (formerly FLEDGE). When an electronic visitor accesses a first media property, the BT company's system (as an "Ad Buyer" or "Interest Group Owner") uses the browser's Protected Audience API to add the visitor to an "interest group" based on their profile attributes (e.g., "searched for mortgage"). The "indicia of a condition" for displaying an advertisement on a second media property is encapsulated within the bid and bid-logic functions of the interest group, which are executed locally within the browser's trusted execution environment during an on-device auction. The "profit calculation" (e.g., Rev(profile) - P(mp) - C - Mar) is now part of the generateBid() logic, where P(mp) is the publisher's expected revenue and Rev(profile) is the ad buyer's expected revenue for that user, both evaluated client-side. The browser (acting as the "third-party server" in this context) performs the auction and displays the ad correlated with the interest group if the bid wins and the profit-based condition is met, without exposing the raw profile or bidding logic to external servers.