Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, Case No. 5:24-cv-04898, was filed in the California Northern District Court on August 8, 2024. The plaintiff is ART Research and Technology LLC, and the defendant is Google, LLC. While the specific business types of ART Research and Technology LLC and the accused product or service are not immediately clear from the initial search, Google, LLC is a well-known multinational technology company.

The sole patent asserted in this case is US Patent 10,681,103. A concise technical sketch of this patent will require a direct search for its abstract and claims. The procedural posture is early-stage litigation in the Northern District of California, a prominent venue for patent disputes, particularly those involving technology companies. The assigned judge is not yet known. The notability of this case is currently undefined, lacking information on industry impact, whether ART Research and Technology LLC is a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE), or any related Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs).

To fully develop the case overview, further investigation is required to identify the nature of ART Research and Technology LLC, the accused Google product or service, the technical details of patent 10,681,103, the assigned judge, and any factors contributing to the case's significance.ART Research and Technology LLC, an Arizona-based Limited Liability Company that has previously raised capital, has initiated patent infringement litigation against Google, LLC in the Northern District of California (Case No. 5:24-cv-04898). This case, filed on August 8, 2024, asserts infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,681,103. While the exact business operations of ART Research and Technology LLC outside of patent assertion are not explicitly detailed, its history of patent litigation against major technology companies like Google and Meta Platforms Inc. suggests it operates as a patent assertion entity (PAE). The patent at issue, US 10,681,103, broadly relates to systems and methods for delivering content to a client device, particularly focusing on efficiently providing media content in a streaming environment.

The accused products in this litigation are Google's popular YouTube "Clips" and "Shorts" features. "Clips" are short segments (five to sixty seconds) extracted from longer YouTube videos, while "Shorts" are user-created short-form videos. ART Research and Technology LLC alleges that Google's implementation of these features infringes its asserted patents, and that Google had prior knowledge of ART's patent portfolio. The case is being heard by Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin.

This litigation is notable as it follows a previous attempt by ART Research and Technology LLC to assert similar "media clipping" and "stitching" technology patents against Google and YouTube, LLC in the same court (24-cv-04898-AMO), where Google's motion to dismiss for patent ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 was granted with leave to amend on September 29, 2025. This indicates an ongoing challenge to the patentability of ART's asserted claims. Furthermore, Google LLC has filed an inter partes review (IPR2025-01405) challenging one of ART Research and Technology LLC's patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), indicating a multi-front defense strategy. Another IPR (IPR2025-01404) by Google against ART Research and Technology, LLC, for patent 9,451,001, has already been terminated. The Northern District of California is a common venue for patent cases against large technology companies, making it a strategically important court for such disputes.

The patent infringement litigation concerning US Patent 10,681,103, case number 5:24-cv-04898, was filed in the California Northern District Court by ART Research and Technology LLC against Google LLC and YouTube, LLC. The case was ultimately concluded through a stipulated judgment, and related inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the PTAB were terminated as a result of the district court resolution.

Here are the key legal developments and outcome:

• Filing & Initial Pleadings:

  • Complaint Filed: ART Research and Technology LLC filed the patent infringement complaint against Google LLC and YouTube, LLC on August 8, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The nature of the suit was identified as patent infringement. The case was assigned to Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin.

• Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

  • IPR Petition Filed: On August 11, 2025, Google LLC, along with YouTube LLC, filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2025-01405, challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 10,681,103 at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). ART Research & Technology LLC was the Patent Owner in this proceeding. This IPR was part of a series of related IPR petitions filed by Google/YouTube against ART Research & Technology LLC involving other patents as well.

• Final Disposition / Present Posture:

  • District Court Dismissal (Stipulated Judgment): The district court litigation, 5:24-cv-04898, concluded on November 26, 2025, with an Order by Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin granting a stipulated judgment (Doc 37, 38). This indicates a settlement between the parties leading to the dismissal of the case.
  • PTAB IPR Termination: Concurrently, the IPR proceeding, IPR2025-01405, was "Procedurally Terminated" on December 21, 2025. The termination was explicitly due to the resolution of "all pending disputes between the parties concerning the '103 Patent in the district court litigation," which had been dismissed.

Given the early settlement and stipulated judgment in the district court, and the subsequent procedural termination of the IPR, the case did not proceed to significant pre-trial motions, claim construction (Markman), extensive discovery milestones, or trial events. No verdict or post-trial motions occurred, and no appeal was noted.

I am unable to identify the counsel of record for the plaintiff(s) in case 5:24-cv-04898 in the California Northern District Court involving US patent 10681103 based on available public web search results.

Despite extensive searches using the case number, court, and patent number, I could not find a definitive case caption or docket entry that lists the parties and their legal representation. The search results provided general information about the California Northern District Court and patent litigation trends, as well as unrelated cases with similar numbering from different jurisdictions or years. Without direct access to PACER or a specific legal news article detailing this particular filing, identifying the plaintiff(s) and their attorneys is not possible at this time.

Google LLC, as a major technology company, typically retains top-tier intellectual property litigation firms to defend against patent infringement claims. While specific counsel appointments for Case No. 5:24-cv-04898 are not yet publicly detailed in immediately accessible docket entries, general patterns from similar cases and information about Google's typical legal representation can provide insight.

Based on past patent litigation, Google frequently engages prominent firms with strong patent litigation practices. Some of the firms known to represent Google in patent disputes include:

• Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP: This firm is recognized as a preeminent law firm for patent litigation globally and has represented Google as a defendant in significant patent cases, securing defense verdicts. They have offices in major legal hubs, including San Francisco.
• Williams & Connolly LLP: This firm also frequently handles major intellectual property matters, particularly patent litigation and related licensing disputes for large corporations, including Google. They have represented Google and YouTube in past patent infringement actions.
• Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP: This San Francisco-based firm has represented Google LLC in federal circuit cases, such as a petition for a writ of mandamus related to a patent infringement suit.

Google also maintains a robust in-house legal team that works closely with outside counsel on intellectual property disputes.

To identify the precise counsel of record for 5:24-cv-04898, a direct review of the case docket via PACER would be necessary. However, given the early stage of the litigation (filed August 8, 2024), specific attorney appearances may still be pending or not yet publicly updated in generalized search results. While a May 19, 2026, entry in the Northern District of California mentions an "ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE" in a case involving Google LLC, the specific case number does not match 5:24-cv-04898.

Therefore, while the specific individuals are not yet confirmed for this particular case, it is highly probable that Google LLC will be represented by attorneys from one or more of these leading patent litigation firms, working in conjunction with their in-house legal team.