Third Time’s the Charm: Judge Hellerstein Denies Summary Judgment on Previously Dismissed Patent Claims Against Google

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP
Contact

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

On August 22, 2024, Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein (S.D.N.Y.) denied Google LLC’s motion for summary judgment that (1) it has not infringed two asserted patents; and (2) the two patents are invalid for lack of written description. See Weisner v. Google LLC, Case No. 20-Civ-2862 9AKH) (August 22, 2024).

Weisner holds four patents relating to technology that businesses can use to track potential consumers’ locations. He initially sued Google in the Southern District of New York in April 2020 alleging that Google infringed on all four of his patents. Judge Hellerstein dismissed Weisner’s claims, finding both that Weisner had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and that his patents were ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101. Weisner filed an amended complaint, which Hellerstein again dismissed in 2021 for failure to state a claim and for ineligibility. See Weisner v. Google LLC, 551 F. Supp. 3d 334 (S.D.N.Y. 2021). Weisner appealed to the Federal Circuit, which reversed the District Court’s dismissal on eligibility grounds as to two of Weisner’s patents: 10,394,905 (the ’905 Patent) and 10,642,911 (the ’911 Patent). The case was then remanded back to the District Court for further proceedings. After discovery, Google filed its summary judgement of non-infringement and invalidity.

Judge Hellerstein denied Google’s motion for summary judgment. Regarding infringement, Google argued that the accused systems do not transmit “key data” based on “physical encounters,” as previously construed by the Court because the accused systems only “collected raw data signals about a user’s location…” Judge Hellerstein saw issues of fact and could not conclude as a matter of law that a jury could not find infringement. Op. 2.

Google also argued that the patents were invalid for lack of written description because the descriptions for the two patents do not describe how an individual user’s information would be shared on a database or centralized system. Op. 2. However, Judge Hellerstein found that the invention, which is broader than Google’s characterization, covers systems where information is "sent to a program-run database,” which is described in the specification. Op. 4.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations. Attorney Advertising.

© Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP

Written by:

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP
Contact
more
less

PUBLISH YOUR CONTENT ON JD SUPRA NOW

  • Increased visibility
  • Actionable analytics
  • Ongoing guidance

Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide