- within Intellectual Property topic(s)
- within International Law topic(s)
In Adnexus, Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 24-1551 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 8, 2025), the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a grant of Meta's motion to dismiss because it found that the district court construed a disputed term against the nonmovant without arguments on the construction and failed to take well-pleaded claim charts as true.
Adnexus alleged Meta's Lead Ads product infringed U.S. Patent No. 8,719,101 for claims directed to online advertising. Meta moved to dismiss, arguing Adnexus' claim charts had failed to plausibly allege infringement of a claim element for retrieving a "user profile compris[ing] at least delivery method preferences" for online ads. The district court rejected Meta's argument that its claim charts pointed to Facebook profile "contact information" for this limitation. Instead, the court held "contact information" was sufficiently distinct from "delivery method preferences," and granted Meta's motion.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit held the district court erred by implicitly construing "delivery method preferences" against the nonmovant, Adnexus, by finding the term "so distinct that [contact information] cannot indicate anything meaningful about [delivery method preferences]." While courts may construe claims at this stage, it was error to do so without giving Adnexus the opportunity it had requested to present claim construction arguments.
The Federal Circuit also found the court erred by failing to accept the factual allegations in Adnexus' claim charts as true at the motion to dismiss stage.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
