Publishers Hit with New Patent Lawsuits
Highlights
-
Rich Media Club filed multiple infringement suits against publishers like Gannett and The Guardian
-
The claims rest on lazy loading and ad-refreshing technology patents
-
Critics argue the company acts like a patent troll / non‑practicing entity
-
One patent was invalidated via inter partes review, now on appeal
-
The suits pose serious financial and operational risks to publishers
The Core Facts: What’s Going On, Who’s Involved
Over the past several months, Rich Media Club, LLC has launched a wave of patent infringement lawsuits directed at prominent news publishers, accusing them of infringing patents on methods of ad refreshing and lazy loading. Among the targeted defendants are Gannett, Guardian Media Group, News Corp’s UK publishing arm (News Group Newspapers), MediaNews Group, and others.
According to the complaints, Rich Media Club claims that these publishers continue to use (or have used) the challenged technologies after receiving infringement notice letters, without entering into licensing agreements. The company is seeking damages (either lost profits or reasonable royalties) to be determined at trial.
Rich Media Club describes itself as the rights holder to ad‑tech patents originally developed by RealVu, a now‑defunct ad operations business. RealVu’s innovations focused on viewability metrics and later expanded into mechanisms like ad refresh and content loading control.
Earlier this year, the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) invalidated one of Rich Media Club’s patents relating to ad refresh. That decision is being appealed to the Federal Circuit. Meanwhile, Rich Media Club continues to enforce other patents.
In prior litigation, DMG Media (publisher of the Daily Mail) settled a similar dispute. Rich Media also sued a fellow adtech firm, Duration Media, leading to a partial PTAB invalidation and subsequent settlement.
Guardian Media Group has responded that the asserted patents “are invalid” and the case is “wholly without merit.”
Background on Rich Media Club, RealVu & the Patent Claims
Origins & Structure
Rich Media Club began as an IP holding entity tied to RealVu, an ad‑tech operating company focused on viewability — making sure that ads are actually seen by users. Over time, the company refined approaches like lazy loading and ad refreshing.
RealVu’s operational assets were eventually sold off, while Rich Media Club retained the patents. That separation enabled the entity to enforce patents without directly operating the technology itself.
The Patents at Issue
The asserted patents cover methods for:
-
Lazy loading — content or ads load only when visible to the user
-
Ad refreshing — ad slots reload with new ads over time
-
Viewability gating — determining when ads are visible and should count
Because these techniques are fundamental to modern web publishing, infringement claims could affect a broad swath of the media landscape.
Political & Industry Context
Publishers Under Stress
This litigation comes at a time when many publishers are struggling with shrinking ad revenue, rising costs, and tech disruption. A legal fight of this scale could impose serious financial burdens.
By targeting publishers rather than ad vendors, Rich Media’s strategy may increase settlement pressure. Publishers may opt for deals rather than bear protracted litigation and risk.
Patent Assertion Entities & Troll Allegations
Critics argue Rich Media Club is behaving like a patent assertion entity (PAE), commonly referred to as a patent troll — a company that enforces patents without producing products.
Legal experts point out that:
-
The suits resemble a classic troll pattern, leveraging cost and uncertainty
-
Targeting end users (publishers) increases direct pressure
-
Restricted access to PTAB review under the current USPTO leadership may embolden PAEs
Patent assertion trends are reportedly on the rise due to fewer invalidation opportunities through inter partes review.
Comparisons & Precedents
Rich Media’s strategy recalls earlier waves of patent litigation, such as those brought by Lodsys, LLC, which targeted mobile developers over common in-app functionalities. Courts and Congress have tried to curb such practices through various reforms, but recent cases suggest renewed PAE momentum.
Legal Context: Statutes, Precedents & Risk Dynamics
Patent Infringement Claims
Rich Media’s suits allege violations under U.S. patent law for unauthorized use of protected systems. Available remedies include:
-
Damages
-
Injunctive relief
-
Enhanced damages for willful infringement
Defendants will likely respond with:
-
Invalidity arguments (prior art, obviousness)
-
Non-infringement defenses
-
Challenges under Section 101 (claiming abstract or ineligible subject matter)
-
Equitable defenses (estoppel, laches)
PTAB & Inter Partes Review
Defendants often use IPR to invalidate patents at the USPTO. But under new leadership, the agency has become more selective, denying more petitions. This reduces the likelihood of early elimination and strengthens the bargaining power of patent holders.
In a key example, one Rich Media patent was invalidated via PTAB, but the decision is now being appealed. The Federal Circuit ruling will likely shape the outcome of other ongoing cases.
Jurisdiction Strategy
Rich Media has filed cases in multiple states — a form of venue shopping aimed at jurisdictions perceived to favor plaintiffs. This adds complexity for defendants, who may seek consolidation or transfer.
Implications: Why It Matters
For Publishers & the Media Sector
If Rich Media’s suits are successful, it could create a dangerous precedent — forcing publishers to license technologies that are widely used and arguably obvious.
Litigation costs alone could cripple smaller publishers and weaken independent journalism. Even large media groups may face major resource drains.
There is also the risk of a chilling effect: publishers may avoid tech innovation or customization out of fear of triggering lawsuits.
For Patent Policy
The case highlights a tension in U.S. patent law: protecting innovation versus enabling litigation abuse. If more PAEs follow Rich Media’s example, the pressure will mount for further reform — perhaps restoring easier access to IPR or limiting damages for non-practicing entities.
For Legal Strategy
Defendants may pursue proactive measures such as:
-
Early motion practice
-
Declaratory judgment actions
-
Preemptive IPR petitions
-
Joint defense groups
Others may opt for confidential settlements to cap risk.
What’s Next: Timeline & Stakes
-
The invalidated patent’s appeal is pending at the Federal Circuit
-
New cases are in early stages, with motions to dismiss or stay expected
-
Defendants may seek consolidation or venue changes
-
Settlement talks may occur under court supervision
-
The outcome of the appeal could set the tone for other cases
If the appeal affirms invalidation, Rich Media’s legal arsenal may shrink. If reversed, publishers could face further lawsuits.
Conclusion
Rich Media Club’s lawsuits expose a vulnerable flank in digital publishing: the reliance on ubiquitous adtech methods that, while standard, may be patent-protected. While the company portrays itself as an innovator enforcing rightful claims, its tactics bear strong resemblance to classic patent trolling behavior.
The resolution of these cases will influence not just the defendants involved, but the broader media ecosystem and U.S. patent litigation policy. In an era where legal tools can be monetized like digital assets, the balance between invention and assertion has never been more delicate.
