TNS Media Research, LLC, et. al. v. TRA Global, Inc., 1-11-cv-04039 (S.D. N.Y. Nov. 29, 2016)
- 7,729,940 | Entitled analyzing return on investment of advertising campaigns by matching multiple data sources
- 8,000,993 | Entitled using consumer purchase behavior for television targeting
- 8,112,301 | Entitled using consumer purchase behavior for television targeting
Vacated prior summary judgment opinion granting summary judgment of invalidity
Measuring the effectiveness of advertising in a fragmented digital environment
Following retirement of Judge Scheindlin, Judge Forrest invited briefing to reconsider Judge Scheindlin’s summary judgment opinion, citing the subsequent development of case law on Alice. Judge Scheindlin had found claim 71 of the ‘940 patent to be representative of the asserted claims of all three patents. That claim was found to be directed to the abstract idea of “digital, double-blind matching of collected purchase data and program delivery data to individual households,” which was confirmed by the finding that the process could be performed by humans instead of computers. That court also only found conventional techniques and post-solution activities in the limitations that did not add an inventive concept. In vacating Judge Scheindlin’s opinion, Judge Forrest considered the problem the claims purported to solve: determining the value proposition of an advertising campaign in today’s fragmented digital environment. Judge Forrest found the claim is instead directed to the “concrete” idea that moment-by-moment analysis of household media consumption can be compared to purchasing behavior, and concluded that the claims provided a solution to this problem through “limited, concrete steps.” Such steps are inventive as they include, for instance, notation that a subject has turned down the volume of a device as feedback on the quality of an ad.