How Wi-Fi Advertising and Network Advertising works with Ultramercial

 Try Ultramercial NOW – Click Image – Pay for content OR watch an ad


Watch a custom Ultramercial:  

Screenshot 2014-03-17 15.48.50


Guest Survey

Screenshot 2014-03-17 15.42.10

Ultramercial for Phone Systems

 Press 1) To make free sponsored calls – ad, survey, promotion

Press 2) To make calls at regular rates

Guest making free ad sponsored calls

What is an Ultramercial? Explained, click start:

Screenshot 2014-03-17 16.12.46


Ford Sync
Rimmel Cosmetics by Coty
JetBlue Card from American Express
Honda Ridgeline Trucks
Blue from American Express
Interesting note: 7% of the viewers popped every bubble in this spot (make sure your sound is up)

Convention Center Example

This has the first proposition screen — and a randomizer between the two ads:
Convention Center Examples
Patent: Read more click below
Screenshot 2014-03-17 16.18.28
Notice of appeal:
Appeal update 2014:
Revenue Calculator:
Contact sales and we will email you a revenue calculator.
Licensing contact:

Ultramercial is the bridge between FREE and FEE that solves the viewer retention problems associated with putting up a paywall. If you are considering a paywall, you will want to evaluate our model before you make the move.With over 12 years of experience in monetizing premium content, we bring a proven model that has been embraced by dozens of Tier One web properties who have run Ultramercial ad units for over 175 top US brands. Join our growing networkWe are actively seeking web partners who are looking to monetize their compelling content, regardless of whether it is currently part of a paid program.Our proprietary code and business model are available through fully integrated partnerships or licensing.

Hotel applications of an Ultramercial:

• Ad skipping: Offering guests pay to skip ads as an option on their guest room tv

• Offering Free Internet access in exchange for joining the guest rewards program

• TV – Offer TV service or Premium TV service advertising supported or paid

• Movies –  advertising supported or paid

• Mobile – advertising supported or paid

• WiFi –  advertising supported or paid

• Newspapers – advertising supported or paid

• Surveys – advertising supported or paid

• Phone calls – advertising supported or paid

• Apps: Display your apps to your users instead of paid access

• Custom Ultramercial developed about your individual location


Click to enlarge patent Diagrams:




About Ultramercial:

The Company Ultramercial LLC is a technology company offering patented financial engines for monetizing online content along with integrated end-to-end solutions.The Ad ModelUltramercial LLC developed it’s own ad model with the same name. We refer to it as the Ultramercial format or the Ultramercial ad units.The patented format consists of two-way interactive, full-page ads that are always served in exchange for premium content or services. In other words, users watch our ad to get free content that would otherwise cost money. This is a micro-payment system based on engagement that protects the value of content. Everybody wins.See how it works ››Ultramercial’s format is built around natural human behavior. The model has been socially-engineered to reposition advertisers as direct providers of free premium content and services.

Recent press release


Quick update on our supreme court case:
I’ve pulled the most pertinent parts of the article:

In view of the parallels between Justice Thomas’s opinion and Judge Lourie’s concurrence, we believe that Judge Lourie’s framework presently provides the best set of guidelines for patent eligible subject matter, regardless of whether a claim is designated as a “business method,” “software invention” or the statutory class of invention (process or system). In this aspect, we are reminded that Judge Lourie participated in the Ultramercial case (a three-judge panel, Judge Rader wrote the main opinion, Judge Lourie wrote a separate concurrence), in which the claims at bar were held to be patent-eligible, despite the district court holding that the claims were directed to an abstract idea.

In Ultramercial, the Federal Circuit held that the “claim, as a whole, includes meaningful limitations restricting it to an application, rather than merely an abstract idea.” Claim 1 of the patent-in-suit included a recitation of eleven explicit “step[s]” which the Court characterized as “requir[ing] intricate and complex computer programming.” In the concurrence, Judge Lourie stated that “[t]he additional claim limitations reciting how that [otherwise abstract] idea is implemented ‘narrow, confine, or otherwise tie down the claim so that, in practical terms, it does not cover the full abstract idea itself’” and that “the added limitations in these claims represent significantly more than the underlying abstract idea of using advertising as an exchange or currency.”

After the Supreme Court’s decision in CLS Bank, practitioners and applicants should look to Judge Lourie’s analysis in Ultramercial as indicating that by providing “additional claim limitations [that] represent significantly more than the underlying abstract idea,” one can be reasonably sure that the claim will be deemed patent-eligible. In this aspect, as usual, the particular details of each claim are the key to the analysis, and a patent practitioner should therefore endeavor to recite claim limitations which he/she can “hang your hat on” with respect to what represents “significantly more” – and the reasons why they represent “significantly more” – than the underlying abstract idea.

Scotus Blog
Date Proceedings and Orders
Aug 23 2013 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 23, 2013)
Sep 4 2013 Consent to the filing of any amicus curiae briefs, in support of certiorari within the time allowed by this Court’s Rules, received from counsel for petitioner.
Sep 13 2013 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including November 6, 2013.
Sep 23 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Sigram Schindler Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH filed.
Sep 23 2013 Brief amici curiae of Google, Inc., et al. filed.
Sep 23 2013 Brief amici curiae of Altera Corporation, et al. filed.
Sep 23 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Electronic Frontier Foundation filed.
Sep 23 2013 Brief amici curiae of Check Point Software Technologies Ltd., et al. filed.
Sep 23 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Computer & Communications Industry Association filed.
Sep 23 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Application Developers Alliance filed.
Sep 23 2013 Brief amicus curiae of Public Knowledge filed.
Nov 6 2013 Waiver of right of respondents Ultramercial, LLC, et al. to respond filed.
Nov 19 2013 Supplemental brief of petitioner WildTangent, Inc. filed.
Nov 20 2013 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 6, 2013.
Dec 6 2013 Response Requested . (Due January 6, 2014)
Jan 6 2014 Brief of respondents Ultramercial, LLC, et al. in opposition filed.
Jan 8 2014 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 24, 2014.
Jan 9 2014 Reply of petitioner WildTangent, Inc. filed. (Distributed)
Jun 20 2014 Supplemental brief of petitioner WildTangent, Inc. filed. (Distributed)
Jun 23 2014 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 26, 2014.
Jun 24 2014 Supplemental brief of respondents Ultramercial, LLC, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Jun 30 2014 Petition GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U. S. ___ (2014).

May 28 2015                      Ultramercial Petition for cert

Federal Circuit Response to Amici Briefs

For more information please contact our sales team at:


1 888 490 3773