Untitled case

U.S. Patent 10,728,436, owned by Google Inc., faced an inter partes review (IPR) challenge before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) under case number IPR2025-01604. Google Inc. is a major operating company known for its internet-related services and products, including its widely used search engine. The patent itself, titled "Managing search queries based on local significance for user locations," broadly covers methods and systems designed to service search queries by identifying if a general query is locally relevant to a user's location, subsequently generating a local search query, and then presenting a final set of search results that incorporate these localized outcomes. While IPRs are typically initiated in response to patent infringement allegations in district court, the specific petitioner challenging Google's patent and any directly associated accused products or parallel district court litigation for US10728436 are not publicly identified through available web search results.

The IPR, IPR2025-01604, is noteworthy due to its "Not Instituted - Procedural" status, which places it within a significant trend observed at the PTAB, particularly throughout 2025 and 2026. This status indicates that the petition for review was denied based on discretionary factors rather than a full evaluation of the patentability merits of the challenged claims. Since early 2025, the USPTO, under former Acting Director Coke Morgan Stewart and current Director John Squires, has implemented a bifurcated process for IPR institution decisions, granting the Director personal control over discretionary denials. This shift has led to a marked increase in procedural denials, often based on factors like "settled expectations" (e.g., patent age, petitioner delay), the existence of parallel district court litigation (known as Fintiv factors), or concerns regarding real parties in interest.

The procedural denial in IPR2025-01604 highlights the current challenging landscape for petitioners seeking to initiate IPRs. Director Squires, in late 2025, issued many summary denials without detailed explanations, which significantly contributed to a lower institution rate compared to historical averages. This strategic tightening of IPR procedures by the USPTO aims to strengthen patent rights and manage the PTAB's workload, making it more difficult for challengers to proceed with their petitions to trial. Therefore, this case serves as an example of the PTAB's evolving discretionary denial policies and their substantial impact on the viability of post-grant patent challenges.

The Inter Partes Review (IPR) case IPR2025-01604, challenging US patent 10728436, concluded with a "Not Instituted - Procedural" status. Specific details regarding the filing date of the petition, the exact procedural reason for the non-institution, and the precise decision date are not readily available through public web searches of legal news outlets or general USPTO information without direct access to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board's (PTAB) Patent Trial and Appeal Case Tracking System (P-TACTS).

However, the "Not Instituted - Procedural" outcome indicates that the petition was dismissed or denied before the PTAB proceeded to a full merits review of the patentability challenge. This typically occurs due to a procedural defect in the petition or a discretionary denial based on established PTAB policies.

General legal developments at the PTAB in 2025, which might be relevant context for such a procedural outcome, include:

• Director's Increased Authority over Institution Decisions (Effective October 20, 2025): USPTO Director John Squires assumed personal authority over all IPR and Post-Grant Review (PGR) institution decisions. This change means that the Director, in consultation with at least three PTAB judges, determines whether to institute trials, rather than delegating this function solely to PTAB panels.
• Use of Summary Notices for Denials: Under the new procedures implemented by Director Squires, routine decisions denying institution are often issued through concise "summary notices" that may not provide detailed reasoning for the denial, including for discretionary or merits-based factors. This practice can make it challenging to ascertain the specific grounds for a non-institution decision without direct access to the case's docket.
• Emphasis on Discretionary Denials: Throughout 2025, there was a continued and even increased emphasis on discretionary denials, where the PTAB or the Director could decline to institute an IPR based on various policy considerations, even if the petition met the statutory "reasonable likelihood of success" threshold. Reasons for discretionary denials could include parallel district court litigation timelines (Fintiv factors), previous adjudications of validity, failure to name all real parties-in-interest (RPIs), or filing of "copycat" petitions.

Given the "Not Instituted - Procedural" status, it is likely that IPR2025-01604 was disposed of early in the process, potentially for a technical deficiency in the petition itself, a failure to meet a procedural requirement, or a discretionary denial under one of the evolving PTAB policies in 2025. This outcome means the IPR did not advance to the claim construction, discovery, or trial phases that would be typical of an instituted IPR or district court patent infringement litigation. There would be no Markman outcomes, discovery milestones, or trial events associated with this IPR.

No information regarding parallel district court patent infringement litigation or appeals concerning IPR2025-01604 was found in the public search results.

This case, IPR2025-01604, is an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), not a patent infringement case in a district court. In an IPR, the party challenging the patent is referred to as the "Petitioner."

As of May 29, 2026, IPR2025-01604 has a status of "Not Instituted - Procedural." Publicly available information regarding the specific counsel of record for the Petitioner in IPR2025-01604 is not readily available through general web searches of PTAB dockets, case summaries, or legal news sites. While search results discuss various IPR cases and PTAB procedures, they do not specifically identify the Petitioner or their legal representation for IPR2025-01604.

It is possible that the filings containing this information are not yet publicly indexed in a way that is easily discoverable by broad web searches, or that the procedural termination occurred before a comprehensive public record of counsel was widely disseminated for this specific case. Without direct access to the official PTAB docket for IPR2025-01604, specific attorney names, firms, and their roles cannot be identified and sourced.

This analysis addresses the representation of the Patent Owner in IPR2025-01604, which is an inter partes review (IPR) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), not a district court patent infringement case. In this context, the "defendant" equivalent is the Patent Owner, who is defending the validity of their patent. The case status is "Not Instituted - Procedural," indicating the IPR did not proceed to a full review.

As of May 29, 2026, the public docket for IPR2025-01604 shows that U.S. Patent No. 10,728,436 is owned by Brevity LLC.

The counsel of record representing Brevity LLC (Patent Owner) in IPR2025-01604 are:

• Eugene T. Bunsow (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Bunsow De Mory LLP, San Francisco, CA.
  • Note: Mr. Bunsow has extensive experience in patent litigation, including trials in district courts and proceedings before the PTAB, representing both petitioners and patent owners. He has been lead trial counsel in numerous cases and has a background in electrical engineering.
• George W. McWilliams (Of Counsel)
  • Firm: Kearney, McWilliams & Davis, PLLC, Houston, TX.
  • Note: Mr. McWilliams focuses his practice on intellectual property matters, including patent prosecution, litigation, and licensing.
• John J. Davis, III (Of Counsel)
  • Firm: Kearney, McWilliams & Davis, PLLC, Houston, TX.
  • Note: Mr. Davis is a managing member at his firm and has experience in intellectual property law, including patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets.

No filings appear to be sealed, and counsel has appeared of record for the Patent Owner.