Untitled case

This patent infringement case, Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, case number 2:25-cv-00664, was filed in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division. The plaintiff, Sandpiper CDN, LLC, is a patent assertion entity (PAE) that traces its origins to Sandpiper Networks, which developed one of the world's first commercial content delivery networks (CDN) in the 1990s. Sandpiper CDN, LLC currently manages an extensive patent portfolio covering CDN technologies, having acquired these assets through a series of mergers and acquisitions that eventually led them from Level 3 Communications (now Lumen Technologies). The defendant, Microsoft Corporation, is a major operating company providing a wide range of technology products and services.

The litigation centers on allegations that Microsoft's Azure platform and its Content Delivery Network (CDN) functionalities infringe Sandpiper CDN, LLC's patents. Specifically, the accused products and services include "Azure CDN Standard from Microsoft, Azure CDN Standard from Edgio, Azure CDN Premium from Edgio, and Azure Front Door Standard and Premium". The complaint, filed on June 26, 2025, asserts six U.S. patents: 8,478,903, 8,924,466, 9,456,053, 9,722,883, 9,762,692, and 10,701,173. U.S. Patent 10,701,173, titled "System and method for content delivery," generally relates to optimizing the delivery of content over a network.

The case is proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, presided over by District Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap and Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne. This venue is notable for its historical reputation as a "rocket docket," known for plaintiff-friendly procedural rules, accelerated trial schedules, and a tendency for juries to award significant damages in patent cases. While the Supreme Court's 2017 TC Heartland decision significantly impacted patent venue, plaintiffs continue to find ways to maintain cases in EDTX, including through strategies such as suing foreign affiliates. This case is part of a broader litigation campaign by Sandpiper CDN, LLC, targeting major technology companies, with parallel proceedings and related inter partes reviews (IPRs) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), such as IPR2025-00806 and IPR2025-00846, initiated by Google LLC against Sandpiper CDN, LLC. These IPRs highlight the ongoing challenges to the validity of Sandpiper CDN's asserted patents.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation

Case Number: 2:25-cv-00664
Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Patents at Issue: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,478,903, 8,924,466, 9,456,053, 9,722,883, 9,762,692, and 10,701,173

This patent infringement case was filed by Sandpiper CDN, LLC against Microsoft Corporation in the Eastern District of Texas. The asserted patents generally relate to content delivery networks (CDNs). The case is currently active.

Chronological Summary of Legal Developments:

• 2025-06-26 – Complaint Filed: Plaintiff Sandpiper CDN, LLC filed a complaint for patent infringement against Microsoft Corporation in the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges infringement of six U.S. Patents: 8,478,903, 8,924,466, 9,456,053, 9,722,883, 9,762,692, and 10,701,173. Infringement allegations target Microsoft's Azure platform and its content delivery infrastructure and services, including Azure CDN Standard from Microsoft, Azure CDN Standard from Edgio, Azure CDN Premium from Edgio, and Azure Front Door Standard and Premium.

• Parallel PTAB Proceedings (Pre-dating this specific case filing but relevant to Sandpiper CDN's asserted patents):

  • 2025-04-13 – IPR Filed (IPR2025-00806): Google LLC filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2025-00806, against Sandpiper CDN, LLC. This IPR is part of broader litigation efforts by Sandpiper CDN, which also sued Google in the Central District of California (2:24-cv-03951) for patent infringement involving similar content delivery network patents.
  • 2025-05-01 – IPR Filed (IPR2025-00860): Google LLC filed another IPR petition, IPR2025-00860, against Sandpiper CDN, LLC.

Further details regarding Microsoft's answer, counterclaims, substantive pre-trial motions, claim construction, discovery milestones, trial events, verdict, post-trial motions, or a final disposition in Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation (2:25-cv-00664) are not publicly available from the searches conducted as of May 29, 2026. The case remains active. The specific patents challenged in the IPRs by Google (IPR2025-00806 and IPR2025-00860) would need to be cross-referenced with the asserted patents in the Microsoft case to determine their direct effect on this litigation, but the filings against Sandpiper CDN suggest ongoing challenges to their patent portfolio.

The plaintiff, Sandpiper CDN, LLC, is represented by counsel primarily from Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, with local counsel from Miller Fair Henry PLLC.

Here are the identified counsel of record for the plaintiff:

Boies Schiller Flexner LLP

• Ryan D. Dykal

  • Role: Lead Counsel, Co-leader of Patent Litigation Practice.
  • Firm & Office Location: Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, New York, NY and Washington D.C..
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Nationally recognized trial lawyer focusing on high-stakes intellectual property disputes. Ryan Dykal has secured over $1 billion in verdicts and settlements for plaintiffs and has defeated hundreds of millions in claims for defense clients. He is experienced in telecom, computing, semiconductor, industrial, and medical technologies, and frequently handles appeals and PTAB proceedings. Notable cases include a $339 million jury award in a multi-patent dispute for a software startup in video streaming technology and a $140 million jury verdict in a VoIP technology case.

• Mark D. Schafer

  • Role: Counsel, Partner.
  • Firm & Office Location: Boies Schiller Flexner LLP (office location not specified in provided snippets, but joined Washington D.C. office with Dykal and Bergsten in May 2024, implying a DC presence for the team).
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Joined Boies Schiller Flexner as part of a patent litigation trio including Ryan Dykal and Jordan Bergsten in May 2024, bringing significant patent litigation experience.

• Blair M. Jacobs

  • Role: Lead Counsel, Co-leader of Patent Litigation Practice.
  • Firm & Office Location: Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Washington, D.C..
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Joined Boies Schiller Flexner in June 2025 with Christina Ondrick and John Holley, further deepening the firm's IP bench. He has decades of patent litigation experience, serving as lead counsel on significant U.S. patent disputes and successfully litigating and trying complex disputes in all major patent jurisdictions, including the U.S. International Trade Commission and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

• Christina A. Ondrick

  • Role: Counsel, Partner.
  • Firm & Office Location: Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Washington, D.C..
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Joined Boies Schiller Flexner with Blair Jacobs and John Holley in June 2025, bringing significant patent litigation experience.

• John S. Holley

  • Role: Counsel, Partner.
  • Firm & Office Location: Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, Washington, D.C..
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Joined Boies Schiller Flexner with Blair Jacobs and Christina Ondrick in June 2025, bringing significant patent litigation experience.

• Connor Coupe

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Boies Schiller Flexner LLP (office location not specified in provided snippets).
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Listed as counsel for Sandpiper CDN, LLC in the docket for this case.

• Carolyn E. Drell

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Boies Schiller Flexner LLP (office location not specified in provided snippets).
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Listed as counsel for Sandpiper CDN, LLC in the docket for this case.

• Philip Eckert

  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Boies Schiller Flexner LLP (office location not specified in provided snippets).
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Listed as counsel for Sandpiper CDN, LLC in the docket for this case.

Miller Fair Henry PLLC

• Garrett C. Parish

  • Role: Local Counsel (in Eastern District of Texas).
  • Firm & Office Location: Miller Fair Henry PLLC (presumably based in the Eastern District of Texas for local practice).
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Listed as counsel for Sandpiper CDN, LLC in the docket for this case.

• Andrea Leigh Fair

  • Role: Local Counsel (in Eastern District of Texas).
  • Firm & Office Location: Miller Fair Henry PLLC (presumably based in the Eastern District of Texas for local practice).
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Listed as counsel for Sandpiper CDN, LLC in the docket for this case.

The defendant, Microsoft Corporation, in Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation, case number 2:25-cv-00664 in the Eastern District of Texas, is represented by attorneys from several law firms.

Here is a list of identified counsel for Microsoft:

• Betty Hong Chen
  • Firm: Desmarais LLP
  • Role: Likely lead counsel or a significant member of the defense team.
  • Note on experience: Desmarais LLP is a well-known patent litigation firm.
• Caitrianne Feddeler
  • Firm: Desmarais LLP
  • Role: Member of the defense team.
  • Note on experience: Associated with Desmarais LLP, a firm specializing in patent litigation.
• Jeffrey S. Seddon II
  • Firm: Desmarais LLP
  • Role: Member of the defense team.
  • Note on experience: Associated with Desmarais LLP, a firm specializing in patent litigation.
• Lee Joseph Matalon
  • Firm: Desmarais LLP
  • Role: Member of the defense team.
  • Note on experience: Associated with Desmarais LLP, a firm specializing in patent litigation.
• Michael A. Wueste
  • Firm: Desmarais LLP
  • Role: Member of the defense team.
  • Note on experience: Associated with Desmarais LLP, a firm specializing in patent litigation.
• Peter C. Magic
  • Firm: Desmarais LLP
  • Role: Member of the defense team.
  • Note on experience: Associated with Desmarais LLP, a firm specializing in patent litigation.
• Kristin L. Cleveland
  • Firm: Klarquist Sparkman, LLP (listed as Klarquist Sparkman in the source)
  • Role: Member of the defense team, potentially with a focus on local counsel or specific technical expertise.
  • Note on experience: Klarquist Sparkman is an intellectual property law firm with significant patent litigation experience.
• Melissa Richards Smith
  • Firm: Gillam & Smith
  • Role: Member of the defense team, often serving as local counsel in Eastern District of Texas cases due to the firm's location and experience in the district.
  • Note on experience: Gillam & Smith is a well-regarded firm for patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas.

It is important to note that a search of the PACER docket sheet would provide the most comprehensive and up-to-date list of all attorneys who have formally entered an appearance for Microsoft in this specific case, including their exact roles and office locations. The provided search results identified these attorneys in connection with a ParTec AG v. Microsoft case in the Eastern District of Texas, which was also assigned to Judge Schroeder, who took over the Sandpiper case from Judge Gilstrap. While this suggests they are actively representing Microsoft in the Eastern District of Texas, the extent of their involvement in the Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Microsoft Corporation case specifically would be best confirmed through the detailed docket.