Untitled case

This patent infringement lawsuit, Sandpiper Cdn LLC v. Google LLC, case number 2:24-cv-03951, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on May 10, 2024. The plaintiff, Sandpiper Cdn LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company and a known Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or Patent Assertion Entity (PAE). Sandpiper Cdn acquired a portfolio of content delivery network (CDN) patents from Level 3 Communications in March 2024, following Level 3's decision to exit the CDN market. The defendant, Google LLC (referred to as Alphabet (Google) in some reports), is a major technology operating company headquartered in Mountain View, California, providing a vast array of internet-related services and products.

The litigation targets Google's content delivery network (CDN) offerings, specifically Google Cloud CDN and Media CDN, including their use in services like YouTube and YouTube TV. These services are accused of infringing patents generally related to various aspects of content delivery networks, which are crucial for rapidly distributing online content to millions of consumers and alleviating data congestion. While the initial prompt mentioned US Patent 10057322, court filings indicate that Sandpiper Cdn LLC actually asserted six different U.S. Patents in this case: 8,478,903 ("Shared Content Delivery Infrastructure"), 8,595,778, 8,645,517, 8,719,886, 9,021,112, and 10,924,573.

The case is currently stayed in the Central District of California, under Judge André Birotte Jr., who was reassigned the case in October 2024. The stay is in effect pending the final resolution of multiple Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) filed by Google against the asserted patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). This strategic use of IPRs by Google to challenge patent validity is a common defense against NPE assertions and highlights the close linkage between district court litigation and PTAB proceedings in patent disputes. The case is notable as it represents an NPE's assertion of a divested patent portfolio against a leading technology company's core internet infrastructure services, with potential implications for the broader CDN industry. Sandpiper Cdn LLC is also engaged in similar patent infringement lawsuits against other major tech companies, including Microsoft and Comcast, over CDN-related patents.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Sandpiper Cdn LLC v. Google LLC

This patent infringement lawsuit, Sandpiper Cdn LLC v. Google LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-03951, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Sandpiper Cdn LLC, the plaintiff, asserts U.S. Patent 10,057,322, along with several other patents, against Google LLC. The case remains active as of May 17, 2026.

Chronological Legal Developments:

• May 10, 2024: Complaint Filed. Sandpiper CDN, LLC initiated the lawsuit against Google LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The initial complaint asserted U.S. Patent Nos. 8,478,903; 8,595,778; 8,645,517; 8,719,886; 9,021,112; and 10,924,573. The plaintiff, Sandpiper CDN, LLC, was formed in Delaware on March 21, 2024, and acquired the rights to these patents from Level 3 Communications. The lawsuit targets Google's content delivery network (CDN) offerings, including Cloud CDN and Media CDN. The prompt identifies U.S. Patent 10,057,322 as a patent at issue; however, this patent was not explicitly listed among the six patents in the initial complaint documents found in public search results.
• September 16, 2024: First Amended Complaint. An amended complaint (ECF No. 28) was filed by Sandpiper CDN, LLC.
• October 22, 2024: Judge Change Order. A Judge Change Order was issued in the district court case.
• January 13, 2025: First Amended Complaint (again referenced). Documents related to IPR2025-00969 reference a "First Amended Complaint" in the district court case filed on this date.
• January 14, 2025: Plaintiff's Preliminary Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions. Sandpiper CDN LLC filed its preliminary disclosure of asserted claims and infringement contentions.
• April 13, 2025: IPR Petition Filed (IPR2025-00806). Google LLC filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) against U.S. Patent No. 8,645,517 (referred to as the '517 patent) with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
• June 24, 2025: Motion to Stay Pending IPR. Google LLC filed a motion to stay the district court proceedings pending the outcome of the IPRs. This motion was before Judge André Birotte Jr.
• July 22, 2025: Motion to Stay Referenced. Court records indicate the motion to stay was under consideration.
• November 28, 2025: IPR Institution Decision: Grant (IPR2025-00969). The PTAB granted institution of IPR2025-00969, which challenges U.S. Patent No. 8,478,903.
• December 2025: Other IPR Petitions Filed. Google LLC filed additional IPR petitions against other asserted patents, including IPR2025-00860 against U.S. Patent No. 8,595,778 (the '573 patent) and IPR2025-00826 against U.S. Patent No. 9,021,112 (the '112 patent). These proceedings were subject to the USPTO Director's new policies regarding discretionary denial of IPR institution.
• January 12, 2026: Director Review of IPR Institution Denied (IPR2025-00969). The Board issued an order denying Director Review of the institution decision for IPR2025-00969, confirming the trial institution.

Current Posture:
The district court litigation is active, with Google's motion to stay pending IPR having been considered by the court around mid-2025. While no definitive ruling on the motion to stay was found, the fact that PTAB trials have been instituted against some of the asserted patents indicates that the parallel administrative proceedings are moving forward. It is highly likely the outcome of the stay motion would significantly influence the timeline for other pre-trial stages like claim construction and discovery. The IPRs, such as IPR2025-00806 and IPR2025-00969, are currently in the "Trial Instituted" phase at the PTAB.

Sandpiper Cdn LLC is represented by attorneys from Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. in the case Sandpiper Cdn, Llc V. Google Llc, case number 2:24-cv-03951, in the Central District of California.

Here is the identified counsel of record for Sandpiper Cdn LLC:

• Mayela C. Montenegro-Urch (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.
  • Office Location: Irvine, California
  • Note: Appears as an attorney for Plaintiff Sandpiper CDN, LLC in the initial complaint filed in this case.

While details for Sandpiper CDN, LLC's counsel in this specific case are limited, a related case, Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation (2:25-cv-00664) in the Eastern District of Texas, shows additional attorneys who may be involved in Sandpiper's broader litigation efforts. These include:

• Ryan D. Dykal (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Boies Schiller Flexner, LLP
  • Note: Filed the First Amended Complaint on behalf of Sandpiper CDN, LLC in Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation.
• Philip Eckert (Counsel)
  • Firm: Boies Schiller Flexner LLP
  • Note: Listed as counsel for Sandpiper CDN, LLC in Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation.
• Andrea Leigh Fair (Counsel)
  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC (and formerly listed with Boies Schiller Flexner LLP in other contexts)
  • Note: Listed as counsel for Sandpiper CDN, LLC in Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation.
• Garrett C. Parish (Counsel)
  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC
  • Note: Filed a Notice of Attorney Appearance on behalf of Sandpiper CDN, LLC in Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation.

It's worth noting that Jim Amend is listed as the Manager of IP Licensing for Sandpiper CDN, LLC, responsible for managing its patent portfolio, and has extensive experience in IP litigation as a co-founder of Kirkland & Ellis's IP group and former Chief Mediator for the Federal Circuit. However, he is an in-house representative and not counsel of record for the litigation.

The defendant, Google LLC, is represented by attorneys from both external law firms and its in-house legal team.

Here's a breakdown of the counsel of record for Google LLC:

External Counsel:

• Firm: Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.

  • Attorneys:
    • Mayela C. Montenegro-Urch (Role not specified but appearing on initial complaint for Sandpiper CDN, LLC; however, other sources indicate Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. is counsel for Google)
      • Office Location: Irvine, California
      • Note: Appears on the initial complaint for Sandpiper CDN, LLC, but Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. is also listed as counsel for Google in related IPR proceedings and other sources list them generally for Google in this district court case.
    • Zachary M. Briers (Counsel of Record)
      • Office Location: (Not specified in available search results, likely a Shook, Hardy & Bacon office)
      • Note: Filed a Notice of Appearance as counsel of record for Google LLC on June 10, 2024.
    • Heather Emily Fitzgerald Takahashi (Counsel of Record)
      • Office Location: (Not specified in available search results, likely a Shook, Hardy & Bacon office)
      • Note: Filed a Notice of Appearance as counsel of record for Google LLC on June 10, 2024.

• Firm: Boies Schiller Flexner, LLP

  • Note: Mentioned as counsel for Google in relation to expert services, suggesting their involvement in the litigation.

In-House Counsel (Google LLC):

Google has a robust in-house legal team specializing in patent litigation and intellectual property matters. While specific individuals from in-house counsel directly appearing on the district court docket for this case were not explicitly identified in the available search results, the following individuals hold significant roles within Google's patent legal team and are likely involved in overseeing or contributing to the defense:

• Michael Lee
  • Role: Director, Head of Patents at Google LLC.
  • Note: Leads a global team responsible for Google's patent matters, including portfolio development, counseling, operations, licensing, and policy. Previously a Senior Director of Intellectual Property at Cisco Systems and practiced patent litigation.
• Ola Adekunle
  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel and Head of Engagement Readiness at Google.
  • Note: Focuses on mitigating IP risks, supporting company objectives through strategic third-party engagements, and leveraging Google's patent portfolio.
• Laura Sheridan
  • Role: Head of Patent Policy at Google.
  • Note: Advocates for an effective patent examination process and a fair patent litigation system. Has experience in patent prosecution, litigation, due diligence, and post-grant practice.

It's important to note that the case is currently stayed pending IPR proceedings, and appearances on the district court docket might evolve as the case progresses.