| Advertising and Marketing Patents |
Index of Select Advertising and Marketing Patents
An information provider and a searcher provide messages appropriate to a particular user of a terminal regardless of the sites of the World Wide Web the user accesses. The information provider establishes a physical communication line to the terminal. A first logical link is established on the physical communication line for forwarding a first image from the World Wide Web to the terminal. User identification is received from the terminal, and forwarded to a searcher storing user information and the transmittal conditions of a second message, through a second communication line. An second image appropriate for the particular user is searched for by a searcher from a message database based on the user information and the transmittal conditions, and transmitted to the terminal through a second logicallink also established on the first communication line.
NetZero calls its implementation of the patent "ZeroPort" -- essentially a small, pop-up window that features advertisements. A December 27, 2000 NetZero press release describes the patented process:
"The patent applies to a process that enables an Internet service provider to display
advertisements or messages through a window that is separate from the browser."
Litigation Involving the "ZeroPort" Patent
NetZero has been involved in several lawsuits over alleged infringement the '946 patent.
On December 26, 2000, NetZero sued rival free-ISP Juno Online Services for alleged infringement of the '946 patent in the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. NetZero claimed that Juno's "Juno Guide" -- a floating, "pop-up" window similar to NetZero's ZeroPort -- infringed upon the '946 patent. In the aforementioned press release, Netzero's chairman and CEO Mark R. Goldston stated:
NetZero won a Temporary Restraining Order against Juno, which temporarily forbids Juno from featuring third-party advertisements in its "Juno Guide" window.
According to a January 12, 2001 Bloomberg News article (referenced below), NetZero sued AT&T's WorldNet service and Predictive Networks in the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles for "infringing its patented on-screen window that constantly displays links, buttons or advertisements..."
On April 12, 2001, US District Court Judge Steven Wilson lifted the temporary restraining order, permitting Juno to return to its previous practice of displaying third-party advertisements.
Additionally, NetZero has been sued by Juno Online Services in a separate patent infringement suit. See the "Juno's Offline-Advertising" section of this page for more information.
"We believe this patent applies to the ad-delivery process used by many of our competitors for both targeted and untargeted advertisements and will provide NetZero with a significant competitive edge in this environment ... We intend to judiciously protect our rights granted by this patent."
Also see:
Juno's Offline-Advertising Patent
A system for providing scheduled messages to a remote user in a batch oriented system. In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, a user creates and/or reads electronic mail locally. While the user creates the electronic mail, a message is displayed to the user on a portion of the local monitor, the message preferably changing in accordance with a local display schedule and stored on a local storage device. The message is preferably targeted to the particular user. When the user is ready to transmit the e-mail created and/or receive e-mail addressed to him, the user's local client establishes a connection via a modem with a remote e-mail server system. The remote e-mail server system not only receives the e-mail transmitted by the user and/or transmits e-mail addressed to the user, but also updates the user's local messages in accordance with a distribution schedule. After the e-mail and message updates are transmitted, the user's local client computer is disconnected from the remote e-mail server system.
Litigation Involving Juno's '242 Patent
Juno Online Services filed suit against NetZero and Qualcomm in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in June 2000 for alleged infringement of the '242 patent. A Juno press release dated June 1, 2000 described the patent infringement suit.
"In its suit, Juno asserts that NetZero and Qualcomm are infringing its patent by producing, distributing, and encouraging the use of software that unlawfully implements Juno's patented offline architecture. The latest version of Qualcomm's Eudora e-mail software -- version 4.3.x, released earlier this year -- includes a setting called 'sponsor mode' that enables advertising to be displayed while the user reads and writes e-mail. The software also enables users to read and write e-mail offline, and continues to show advertisements when users do so. NetZero has begun distributing the new version of Eudora and encouraging its subscribers to use it. Juno is seeking monetary damages as well as a permanent injunction prohibiting future infringement of the patent."
Also see:
24/7 Media's Targeted Advertisement Patent
Prioritized queues of advertising and content data are generated by a queue builder and sent to an on-line queue manager. A computer mediated communications network provides content and subscriber data to the queue builder and receives content segment play lists from the on-line queue manager. An exposure accounting module calculates and stores information about the number of exposures of targeted material received by subscribers and generates billing information. An information warehouse manager is employed to receive data from advertisers' data bases and third party sources as well as from the computer mediated communications network.
Litigation Involving 24/7 Media's '368 Patent
On May 4, 2000, 24/7 Media sued DoubleClick in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York for alleged infringement of the '368 patent by DoubleClick's "DART" advertisement system. According to a May 4, 2000 24/7 press release (referenced below), 24/7 sought "monetary damages and has requested injunctive relief barring DoubleClick from further infringement of the patent."
For more information about this and related patent infringement suits between 24/7 and Doubleclick, see the DoubleClick DART Patent section of this page.
Also see:
Methods and apparatuses for targeting the delivery of advertisements over a network such as the Internet are disclosed. Statistics are compiled on individual users and networks and the use of the advertisements is tracked to permit targeting of the advertisements of individual users. In response to requests from affiliated sites, an advertising server transmits to people accessing the page of a site an appropriate one of the advertisement based upon profiling of users and networks.
Litigation Involving Doubleclick's "DART" Patent
On November 12, 1999, DoubleClick sued advertising firm L90 Inc. for patent infringement. According to a November 18, 1999 InternetNews article (referenced below), DoubleClick alleged "L90's adMonitor advertisement serving and tracking technology is too close to its own Dart system."
On December 3, 1999 Doubleclick sued Australian firm Sabela Media (later acquired by 24/7 Media) for alleged patent infringement of its DART patent.
L90 and Sabela Media/ 24/7 retaliated by filing counter suits against DoubleClick, in U.S. federal District Court for the Southern District of New York challenging the validity of DoubleClick's patent. Additionally, the Sabela/ 24/7 countersuit accused DoubleClick of "using patent infringement suits to cripple its rivals," according to a May 22, 2000 I.T. News article (referenced below). Mark Moran, 24/7's senior Vice President and general counsel described the firm's countersuit in a May 18, 2000 Silicon Alley Daily article (referenced below):
"What we are alleging is that DoubleClick withheld information from the patent office. Had the patent office been aware of that information, they would not have issued the patent. DoubleClick knew the patent was not legitimate and used it anyway... DoubleClick failed to tell the patent office about prior art that they were clearly aware of."
The same article also described L90's countersuit against DoubleClick.
"L90 has called DoubleClick's patent 'invalid and unenforceable,' DoubleClick's procurement of the patent 'fraudulent,' and DoubleClick's business practices 'unlawful.' Its solution: L90 wants the patent to go away entirely, and it is seeking punitive and monetary damages.'As set forth in our lawsuit, we believe that DoubleClick has intentionally and willfully engaged in unfair business practices, and as a result we will be seeking damages well into nine figures,' said John Bohan, president and CEO of L90, in a prepared statement. 'There were a number of companies serving ads before DoubleClick filed their patent application.'"
DoubleClick, 24/7 Media and L90 settled the original patent infringement suits and countersuits in the Fall of 2000. According to a L90 press release dated November 6, 2000 (referenced below),
"DoubleClick Inc. (Nasdaq: DCLK) and 24/7 Media (Nasdaq: TFSM), and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Sabela Media, today announced that the companies have settled the patent litigations captioned DoubleClick Inc. v. Sabela Media, Inc. and 24/7 Media, Inc. v. DoubleClick Inc. pending in federal district court in Manhattan. Separately, DoubleClick and L90 (Nasdaq: LNTY) also announced today that the two parties have settled their patent litigation and L90's related counterclaims.Both the DoubleClick Inc. v. Sabela Media, Inc. and 24/7 Media, Inc. v. DoubleClick Inc. lawsuits will be dismissed with prejudice. As part of the settlement, 24/7 Media and DoubleClick have granted each other certain rights in certain of their respective patents. Under the settlement agreement, no other terms of the settlement were disclosed.
Separately, L90 and DoubleClick have entered into an agreement pursuant to which the parties will enter into definitive documents to settle the patent litigation captioned DoubleClick Inc. v. L90, Inc., including L90's related counterclaims, pending in federal district court in Manhattan. Under the definitive documents, the parties will dismiss the pending lawsuit with prejudice, and grant each other certain rights in certain of their respective patents."
Potential Prior Art
Also see:
Here is the Abstract:
A method of tracking a web browser across distinct domains of a network of computers includes the step of identifying, at a first server computer with a first domain name, a first request from the web browser. The web browser is then assigned a unique identification code. The unique identification code is then conveyed to a second server with a second domain name that is distinct from the first domain name. A request by the web browser to the second server computer is associated with the web browser via the unique identification code. In this way, the web browser is tracked across distinct domains of the World Wide Web. As a result, the web browser can be passively tracked to identify content preferences and interests associated with the individual using the web browser.Also see:
Cybergold's "Attention Brokerage" Patent
The present invention provides an approach for distributing advertising and other information over a computer network. Attention brokerage is the business of buying and selling (brokering) the "attention" of consumers. It can be used to provide direct, immediate payment to a consumer for paying attention to an advertisement or other information. This compensation may be used directly or indirectly to compensate the owners of content or may be used for other purposes. The link between the ad and the appropriate viewers provided by reference to a data base of digitally stored demographic profiles of potential users. Such ads may be viewed as "negatively priced" information because consumers are paid for their attention to the information. Private profiles may be maintained for different consumers and consumer information may be released only based on consumer permission. Consumers may be compensated for allowing their information to be released. Information can be routed based on demographics. A special icon or other symbol displayed on a computer screen may represent compensation and allow users to choose whether they will view an ad or other information and receive associated compensation.Cybergold also has patent number 5,794,210, which has the same name, and appears to be nearly the same "invention." The '210 patent was filed on December 11, 1995, and awarded on August 11, 1998.
CyberGold's CEO, Nat Goldhaber, described the sweeping scope of the firm's invention in an August 25, 1998 Marketing Computers article (referenced below):
"'It is broad enough to cover any instance in which someone is paid any reward for paying attention--going to a web site, reading an ad, filling out a survey, etc... We believe we invented this system substantially before anybody else did. That's what patents are for, to protect and defend innovation for the public good."
The idea of negative payments for viewing ads hardly seems novel. Here is a reference to this idea from a December 1996 debate in HotWired about tagging unsolicited junk email:
...tagging would make it easier to shift costs. With digital cash, people could "name their price" for receiving email advertisements, for example. [post 3]...a richer form of tagging for commercial email as a less intrusive solution to commercial spamming, and as a foundation for new commercial advertising products that make us better off. If we ever get low-transaction-cost digital cash, it may be possible to "reverse the charges" on tagged messages, making them pay for themselves, and even provide incentives to be read. [post 7]
Also see:
Be Free's Behavioral Profile Patents
Computer network method and apparatus provides targeting of appropriate audience based on psychographic or behavioral profiles of end users. The psychographic profile is formed by recording computer activity and viewing habits of the end user. Content of categories of interest and display format in each category are revealed by the psychographic profile, based on user viewing of agate information. Using the profile (with or without additional user demographics), advertisements are displayed to appropriately selected users. Based on regression analysis of recorded responses of a first set of users viewing the advertisements, the target user profile is refined. Viewing by and regression analysis of recorded responses of subsequent sets of users continually auto-targets and customizes ads for the optimal end user audience.
Be Free obtained a second U.S. patent on November 23, 1999 (5,991,735) entitled "Computer program apparatus for determining behavioral profile of a computer user." Here is the abstract of Be Free's '735 patent:
Computer network method and apparatus provides targeting of appropriate audience based on psychographic or behavioral profiles of end users. The psychographic profile is formed by recording computer activity and viewing habits of the end user. Content of categories of interest and display format in each category are revealed by the psychographic profile, based on user viewing of agate information. Using the profile (with or without additional user demographics), advertisements are displayed to appropriately selected users. Based on regression analysis of recorded responses of a first set of users viewing the advertisements, the target user profile is refined. Viewing by and regression analysis of recorded responses of subsequent sets of users continually auto-targets and customizes ads for the optimal end user audience.
According to a December 6, 1999 Be Free press release (referenced below), the latter patent
"...extends the coverage of the company's existing patent, U.S. Patent No. 5,848,396, by including the anonymous profiling of consumer purchasing preferences. It also bolsters the original claims with respect to creating anonymous profiles, targeting content delivery and automatically refining profiles."
Also see:
The "Energizer Bunny" Patent