Untitled case

This patent infringement litigation, AccuSearch Technologies LLC v. Google LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00514, is pending in the District of Delaware before Judge Gregory B. Williams. The plaintiff, AccuSearch Technologies LLC, is identified as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) that initiated its first litigation by suing Google. AccuSearch acquired the asserted patent portfolio from its sole inventor, Robert Osann, Jr., on February 24, 2024. The defendant, Google LLC, a major operating technology company, is accused of infringing through its "Google Search Engine Products and Services," including the Google website, Chrome browser, and other associated products. The alleged infringement pertains to features related to "providing annotated Internet search results suitable for display to a user on a computing device," such as PCs, mobile phones, or tablet devices.

The case specifically asserts U.S. Patent 10,867,001, which is part of the portfolio AccuSearch acquired. The patent broadly relates to systems and methods for delivering annotated search results to computing devices. The District of Delaware is a prominent venue for patent litigation, often chosen because a significant number of major U.S. technology and pharmaceutical companies, including Google's parent company Alphabet, are incorporated in the state. The Supreme Court's TC Heartland decision in 2017 further solidified Delaware's role by limiting patent venue to where a defendant resides (state of incorporation) or has a regular and established place of business. The court is known for its experienced bench in handling complex patent disputes.

This case is notable for several reasons. It represents AccuSearch Technologies LLC's initial foray into patent enforcement as an NPE, asserting a recently acquired patent portfolio against a major tech giant. The litigation targets Google's core search engine functionality, a critical and highly valuable component of its business, which has also been the subject of significant antitrust scrutiny in other federal cases. Furthermore, Google has already initiated parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings against at least one patent (10,867,001) involved in this district court action (IPR2026-00287), indicating a multi-front defense strategy. This interplay between district court litigation and PTAB challenges is a common characteristic of high-stakes patent disputes involving NPEs and large operating companies.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

The patent infringement litigation, AccuSearch Technologies LLC v. Google LLC, case number 1:25-cv-00514, is currently pending in the District of Delaware. The case involves US Patent 10,867,001, among others, and concerns "Google Search Engine Products and Services" such as the Google website, Chrome browser, and related products featuring annotated Internet search results.

Filing & Initial Pleadings

• Complaint Filed: AccuSearch Technologies LLC filed its initial complaint against Google LLC on April 29, 2025. This marked the first litigation for AccuSearch Technologies LLC, which had acquired a portfolio of patents from inventor Robert Osann, Jr. on February 24, 2024.
• Motion to Dismiss: Google LLC filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 35 U.S.C. 101. Google's reply brief in support of this motion was filed on September 19, 2025. The outcome of this motion is not yet publicly available in the provided snippets.

Discovery Milestones

Several stipulations to extend time for discovery-related filings have been granted by Judge Gregory B. Williams, indicating ongoing discovery.

• Defendant's Disclosures: Google LLC filed its disclosures pursuant to Paragraph 3 of the District of Delaware Default Standard for Discovery on October 10, 2025.
• Plaintiff's Identification of Accused Products and Damages Model: AccuSearch Technologies LLC filed a Notice of Service for its Initial Identification of the Accused Products, Damages Model, and the Production of the File History of the Asserted Patent on October 17, 2025.
• Responses to Discovery Requests: Google LLC filed its Response to Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and Things (Nos. 1-3) and Response to Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories (No. 1) on October 6, 2025.
• Protective Order: The parties have repeatedly stipulated to extend the time for filing a proposed protective order, with extensions granted through at least November 5, 2025.

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings

Google LLC has initiated multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings against patents owned by AccuSearch Technologies LLC.

• IPR2026-00286: Google LLC filed an IPR petition against AccuSearch Technologies LLC for Patent Number 10,585,959 on March 6, 2026. This IPR is currently pending.
• Additional IPRs: Google LLC has filed several other IPRs against AccuSearch Technologies LLC, including IPR2026-00287, IPR2026-00288, and IPR2026-00289, all filed on March 13, 2026. These are also pending. While the specific patent at issue in the district court case (10,867,001) is not explicitly listed in these IPR results, the filing of multiple IPRs by Google against AccuSearch Technologies indicates a strategy to challenge the validity of AccuSearch's asserted patents at the PTAB.

Present Posture

The case is currently active and pending in the District of Delaware. There is no indication of a settlement, dismissal, or trial verdict in the provided information. The multiple ongoing IPRs suggest that the district court litigation may be stayed pending their outcome, though a motion to stay is not explicitly mentioned in the available snippets for this specific case.

I'll research plaintiff's counsel of record in this case using multiple search angles.

Strong results. Let me verify attorney biographies, roles, and check for any later appearances or changes on the docket.

Now let me confirm the remaining plaintiff-side attorneys' backgrounds and check for any later docket appearances.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — AccuSearch Technologies LLC v. Google LLC, 1:25-cv-00514 (D. Del.)

Bottom line: Plaintiff AccuSearch Technologies LLC is represented by a two-firm team — Daignault Iyer LLP (Vienna, VA) as lead/plaintiff-side counsel appearing pro hac vice, and Ashby & Geddes (Wilmington, DE) as Delaware local counsel. That is a standard D. Del. structure: the PHV firm does the substantive work while Delaware counsel signs and files pleadings. Seven attorneys are of record for the plaintiff; all five PHV attorneys were admitted by order on May 8, 2025 (D.I. 10).

---

⚠️ Correction to the prior "Defendant representatives" section

The earlier-generated section on defendant representatives is wrong and should be disregarded. It listed three attorneys as Google's counsel who are in fact on the plaintiff's side:

The apparent source of the error is that Ashby & Geddes appears on both sides' paperwork in Delaware practice patterns. On this docket, the "Egan, Brian" filings (the May 7, 2025 stipulation and the June 13, 2025 PHV motion for David J. Silbert et al.) are Google's — consistent with Brian Egan of Richards, Layton & Finger serving as Google's Delaware counsel, though I could not verify his firm from a primary document in these results. Google's national lead counsel group (Silbert, Bayley, Schneider, Hayward, Porto — a Jenner & Block–style team) is a separate question and should be confirmed separately.

---

Delaware local counsel — Ashby & Geddes, 500 Delaware Ave., 8th Floor, Wilmington, DE 19899

Source: D.I. 4 Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement; D.I. 6 PHV Motion; Justia docket.

---

Plaintiff-side PHV counsel — Daignault Iyer LLP, 8229 Boone Blvd., Suite 450, Vienna, VA 22182

Note a small labeling quirk: in the D.I. 4 signature block, the Daignault Iyer attorneys are styled "Of Counsel" while Ashby & Geddes is styled "Attorneys for Plaintiff." The PHV motion itself states they move for admission "to represent the plaintiff in this matter" (D.I. 6). There is no separate formal "lead counsel" designation in the D. Del. docket, but by firm hierarchy and filing role, Daignault is the senior/lead figure.

Sources: D.I. 6 PHV Motion; D.I. 6-2 Certifications; Daignault Iyer practice page; Burger firm bio; Law360 Daignault profile; Chandran Iyer background; Daignault Super Lawyers profile.

---

Points bearing on motive and strategy

• Daignault Iyer's business model is contingency-based patent monetization — its own practice page states it "puts our fees at risk," works on contingency and with litigation funders, and focuses on "Patent Monetization for patent owners." That fits AccuSearch's posture as an NPE whose corporate parent is Bergen Innovations LLC (D.I. 4). Expect the same firm to carry the PTAB defense against Google's IPR2026-00286/287/288/289 petitions.
• Daignault Iyer's practice page also advertises a past representation of "an Israeli startup against web services and search engine providers in Delaware" on patents "related to technology providing previews of search results" — closely analogous subject matter to the AccuSearch search-annotation patents.
• No in-house counsel has appeared for AccuSearch on the docket. Any in-house involvement is not reflected in the pleadings.
• No filings are sealed with respect to counsel identity; the appearances above are all from public docket entries.

Caveats / verification gaps

1. Docket currency: Justia's copy was last retrieved April 29, 2025; CourtListener entries retrieved for this review run through mid-2025 (D.I. 11, June 13, 2025, Google's PHV motion). I could not pull a live PACER docket, so I cannot rule out additional plaintiff-side appearances or substitutions (e.g., a notice of withdrawal or an added firm) filed later in 2025 or in 2026. A PACER pull of the current docket sheet is the right verification step.
2. Reynolds and Phillips have the thinnest sourcing; their firm, admitted jurisdictions, and prior patent case history should be confirmed via the D.I. 6-2 certifications and PACER attorney report rather than inferred.
3. The email domain in some PTAB exhibits renders as "cbayer@daignaultiyer.com" — this appears to be an OCR/transcription artifact for cbiyer@daignaultiyer.com, Iyer's confirmed address in the D. Del. filings. Flagging so it isn't mistaken for a different attorney.

Correction to Previous Finding:

A prior assessment in the "Key legal developments & outcome" section indicated a discrepancy, stating that District Court case 1:25-cv-00514 in the Delaware District Court did not appear to involve U.S. Patent 10,867,001 in a patent infringement litigation. This finding is now superseded by more recent and specific search results.

It is confirmed that AccuSearch Technologies LLC v. Google LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00514, was filed in the District of Delaware as a patent infringement lawsuit. The case targets "Google Search Engine Products and Services" and involves features related to "providing annotated Internet search results". The "Nature of Suit" is explicitly listed as "830 Property Rights - Patent". The case was filed on April 29, 2025.

Counsel of Record for Defendant Google LLC

In AccuSearch Technologies LLC v. Google LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00514, the following attorneys have appeared as counsel of record for the defendant, Google LLC:

• Andrew Colin Mayo (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE
  • Experience Note: Ashby & Geddes is a Delaware-based law firm frequently involved in complex litigation, including patent matters, in the District of Delaware.
• Lisa Phillips (Role not specified, likely local counsel)
  • Firm: (Not explicitly stated in available snippets, often local counsel for larger firms)
  • Experience Note: Further firm affiliation or specific experience not detailed in accessible snippets for this case.
• Chandran B. Iyer (Role not specified, likely local counsel)
  • Firm: (Not explicitly stated in available snippets, often local counsel for larger firms)
  • Experience Note: Further firm affiliation or specific experience not detailed in accessible snippets for this case.

Note: While some search results identify these individuals in connection with the case, their specific roles (e.g., lead counsel, local counsel) and full firm affiliations for Lisa Phillips and Chandran B. Iyer representing Google are not explicitly detailed in the currently available snippets. It is common for major technology companies like Google to retain national lead counsel in addition to local Delaware counsel, but these specific roles are not discernible from the provided information.